pretences of such a Judge If we cannot know what is Canonical Scripture without a Judge how shall we know whether there be a Judge For there is no way to know this but by the Scriptures if there be no such Judge appointed in Scripture we have no reason to own him and if we cannot tell what Scripture is without a Judge how shall we find the Judge by the Scriptures And though the Objection be made only against some particular Books of Scripture yet in truth it equally lies against the whole Canon For if we can know any one particular Book of Scripture without a Judge why not the rest No! some of them have been doubted of Right by some Churches who did not know them till they were satisfied by those Churches which kept those Sacred Records that they were true and genuine But the Question is Whether a Book which has been doubted of when that Doubt is removed have not as certain Authority as the rest If it could not then and cannot to this day be proved to be genuine why is it received What Obligation are we under to own it If any Books which we call Canonical were still doubtful it is more natural and reasonable to reject them than to set up a Judge without any Authority to give Authority to them For whether any Book of Scripture be Canonical is matter of Fact and the Doctors of the Church of Rome themselves do not extend Infallibility to matters of Fact and then by their own confession there can be no infallible Judge of the Canon of Scripture but we must content our selves with such Moral Certainty as may be had And if Catholick Tradition be so uncertain that we cannot learn the Canon of Scripture from it what becomes of the Authority of all their unwritten Traditions which they so much boast of Thus some men if they can but make a shew of saying any thing never attend to Consequences nor consider whether their Objections do not make as much against themselves and common Christianity as against Protestants Thirdly The last Argument is That the Author of the Paper can't make those Articles of the Nicene Creed One Holy Catholick Apostolick Church the Communion of Saints agree with the Protestant Religion Here is a little blunder in calling this the Nicene Creed though easily pardonable for it is a jumble of the Apostles and Nicene Creed together The Holy Catholick Church the Communion of Saints is in the Apostles Creed One Catholick Apostolick Church the Nicene Creed And why does not this agree with the Protestant Religion For we profess to believe both these Creeds as sincerely as the Church of Rome No! How can they be One who disagree by adding in Faith or diminishing from it who do not communicate together in Prayer or Sacraments when they are not agreed in the Essential things how are they One Right Churches which differ in Essentials are not One but I hope there are few Churches do that I am sure they can never prove that we deny any Essential and Fundamental Article of Faith If this proves any thing it proves That all the separate Communions of Christendom are not One Church and what then How is the Church of England more concerned in this than the Church of Rome Can't we believe One Church in the Creed as well as the Church of Rome notwithstanding all the Divisions of Christendom Do the meer Divisions of Christendom prove the Church of Rome to be that One Church or that the Church of England is no Member of this One Church in the Creed The Church is but One from the first planting of it by the Apostles to the End of the World and the Church of Rome as well as We must own that it is but One Church notwithstanding the several Divisions that have been in it in the first Ages of the Church as well as now and therefore the Unity and Communion of the Church must not be estimated by any one Age of the Church but the Apostolick Age must be the Standard of Catholick Unity and Communion as it is of the Catholick Faith Suppose all the Churches of the World at this day were in Communion with the Church of Rome excepting the Church of England Why then you 'l say it would be plain the Church of England were separated from the whole Church of Christ and from Catholick Communion Right from the Church of this Age but the whole Church of this Age is but a very little part of the Catholick Church where it is sound and Orthodox for I hope they will allow the Apostolick Churches and the Churches of the three first Ages to be the best and purest parts of the One Catholick Church and that we must still maintain Communion with them if then the Church of England were separated from all the Churches of this Age yet if she be in Communion with the Apostolick and Primitive Churches she is in Catholick Commun on still if the Apostles themselves were in Catholick Communion To know then whether the Church of England be a true Catholick Church and in Catholick Communion we are not so much concerned to enquire what Churches she communicates with now as whether she be in the Apostolick Communion which is the Fountain and Original of Catholick Communion Now if the Constitution of the Church of England be such as to Doctrine Worship and Government that the Apostles themselves would have owned our Communion had we been in their days how do we come to be Schismaticks now and out of Catholick Communion For if Catholick Communion be the Communion of the whole Catholick Church from the Times of Christ and his Apostles to the end of the world which is but one Church and the Apostolick Churches are the true Measure and Standard of true Catholick Communion then those Churches which to this day are in Communion with the Apostles are in true Catholick Communion And this Test we will stand by though I would not advise the Church of Rome to do so Let us consider whether the Apostles would have rejected our Communion for those Reasons for which the Church of Rome now rejects us Would St. Paul have rejected our Communion because we will not worship God in an Unknown Tongue which he himself forbids 1 Cor. 14. because we will not worship Saints and Angels and Images which the Romanists confess was neither commanded nor practised in those days and which we say was forbid then and understood to be so by all Christians For not owning the Supremacy of Peter when St. Paul himself withstood him as much as we do the Pope of Rome and upon a much less occasion Gal. 2. 11. c. And the African Churches long after in the days of St. Cyprian and by his Authority forbad all Appeals to the Bishop or Church of Rome In a word would the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass Indulgences Purgatory Communion in one kind private and solitary Masses
had set up a distinct and separate Communion but that they unchurched the Catholick Church and therefore re-baptized those who had been baptized in the Catholick Communion as if they had been Infidels before So that if there be any true Church in the world besides the Church of Rome the Church of Rome must necessarily be Schismatical because she unchurches all other Churches but her self and therefore can have no degree of Communion with them as with Christian Churches whereas we own the Church of Rome her self to be a true though a very corrupt Church and therefore maintain some degree of Communion with her Fifthly For it is evident that if any particular Church do teach any erroneous Doctrines we must not maintain Communion with her in her Errors for no man is bound to believe that which is false But then we must distinguish between Errors for a Church may be guilty of some speculative Errors which may do no great hurt to common Christianity and then we may very safely communicate with that Church if they do not impose on us the belief of those Errors which few Churches do but upon their own immediate Members excepting the Church of Rome As for instance The Lutheran Doctrine of Consubstantiation is as false and groundless though not altogether as absurd as the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation but yet I would make no scruple of communicating with a Lutheran Church where I may do it without professing my belief of Consubstantiation and upon these Principles the Lutheran and Calvinist Churches may communicate together keeping their private Opinions to themselves without imposing them upon each other But if any Church which professes some speculative Errors will not admit us to Communion without professing the same Errors we must own them for true Churches still and profess our readiness to communicate with them in all acts of worship if we may be allowed to do it without owning their Errors and this makes us in Communion with that Church and that we do not actually communicate is none of our fault but the fault of those who deny it If the Errors be such as are not meerly speculative but corrupt their worship then indeed we must not only disclaim their Errors but we must not joyn in those acts of worship which are corrupted by them as the Popish Mass is by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation If their worship be partly pure and partly corrupt then notwithstanding their Corruptions we must be ready to joyn with them in all those acts of worship which are not corrupted If their worship be generally corrupt as it is in the Church of Rome by their Latin Service and Mass and Ave-Maries and frequent Addresses to Saints and Angels in those very Litanies wherein they pray to God and Christ we must wholly abstain but admonish and pray for them as Brethren and exercise all other acts of Christian Communion if they will admit of any By this we see that there are several degrees of Communion between distinct particular Churches and therefore it does not presently follow that because Churches divide Communion in acts of Worship they do not belong to the same Body The true Catholick Faith whatever Errors and Corruptions they are guilty of makes them so far Catholick Churches and while we own them Members of the same Body to which we our selves belong though we do not communicate in their Errors and Corruptions we are still in Communion with them and upon these Principles notwithstanding all the Divisions of Christians there is but one Church still to which all Churches belong who profess the true Faith of Christ unless any exclude themselves from this Catholick Unity by wholly excluding others Secondly The next Inquiry in the Paper is How the Church can be called Holy if for so many hundred years as our Church teaches in the Homily against Idolatry the whole Church of Rome has been guilty of Idolatry This being the whole of the Argument I shall not transcribe the words Now suppose the Church of Rome were the whole Church and had for some Centuries been guilty of Idolatry in the Worship of Saints and Images and the Virgin Mary yet they belong to the Holy Church just as they belong to the Church by retaining the true Faith of Christ they are a true Church though the many Errors they have added make them a very corrupt Church And thus by professing the holy Faith and owning the great Principles and Doctrines of Holiness they are a Holy Church though their Holiness may be far from being perfect intire and uncorrupt as well as their Faith When Holiness is attributed to the visible Church it cannot signifie Internal Holiness and Sanctification for good and bad men are intermixt in the Church and if the Church must be holy in this sense all the Members of it must be impeccable as well as infallible But Holiness signifies either their State or their Profession That they are in Covenant with God and so his holy and peculiar People as the Jews were under the Mosaical Covenant who are therefore upon this account often called A holy Nation even when they were guilty of Idolatry in worshipping the Golden Calf and had few visible Marks of Holiness in their Lives and for the same Reason the Christian Church which now succeeds into the Priviledges of the Jewish Synagogue are called Saints the Elect and Chosen People of God to signifie that now God owns none for his People but those who are admitted into the Christian Covenant And in this sense no Church can cease to be a holy Church without ceasing to be a Church But then the Christian Church is holy by Profession too and that in a more eminent manner than the Jewish Church because she professes a more perfect Holiness and whatever Church teaches the holy Commands of our Saviour and requires and professes Obedience to them is so far a holy Church by Profession though she may teach other things which she may think holy but indeed are not so If Holiness signifie an External and Visible Relation to God and the Profession of a holy Religion then that Society which professes the true Faith of Christ and Holiness of Life so as to continue a Covenant Relation to Christ is in this sense a holy Church whatever Corruptions she is guilty of either in Faith or Practice which do not Un-church her Thirdly As for what remains in the Paper it has been answered already upon other Occasions Schism we confess is a damning Sin and thank God that we are not guilty of it We cast off the Roman Yoke which Christ never laid upon us and to deliver our selves from the unjust Usurpations of Foreign Churches is no Schism no more than it is Rebellion to oppose the Invasions of a Foreign Prince We Reformed our own Communion and that is no Schism for we had full Authority to do it and our Reformation is such that they may communicate with us though we
cannot communicate with them for there is nothing sinful in our Communion and whatever they pretend they can never prove that there is any thing wanting in it necessary to Salvation and when we deny Communion to no Church that will communicate with us and require no sinful terms of Communion which can justifie a Separation from us let them tell me wherein our Schism consists The Paper I can't think those glorious Promises sufficiently fulfilled of the Holy Spirits leading them into all Truth and abiding with them and that for ever Answer Pray why not That Promise of Leading them into all Truth was made to the Apostles and was fulfilled in them and extended to no others in that degree of Infallibility as is evident from the manner how the Spirit was to lead them into all Truth viz. by bringing to their remembrance all things which Christ had said to them which can belong only to those Persons who heard the Sermons and Discourses of Christ himself For though a man may be taught what he never knew before yet he cannot be said to remember what he never heard before But when it is added that this Spirit of Truth shall abide with them for ever that for ever must be appropriated to the Apostles as it relates to an infallible Direction and their for ever signifies no longer than they lived for if it must be extended to all the Successors of the Apostles then there must be as many infallible Judges as there are Successors to all the Apostles in the several Churches founded by them which will not serve the Designs of the Church of Rome As for what follows about the Gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church I have already given an account of that for the Gates of Hell never prevail while there is a Church which professes the Faith which St. Peter then professed That Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God which the Church of Rome her self has done in her greatest Corruptions excepting Pope Liberius his Subscription to the Arian Confession And whereas the Paper concludes with a desire to know how the Church of England is Catholick and Apostolick the Answer is very plain Because her Doctrine Worship and Discipline is Catholick and Apostolick THE CONCLUSION An Address to wavering Protestants shewing what little Reason they have to think of any Change of their Religion WHat I have now discoursed in Answer to these Papers seems to me so very clear and plain that I should not much question its good effect even upon honest Papists would they impartially read and consider it much more upon wavering Protestants if it be only some Scruples not Interest which sways them But the better to fix such People and that in the Modern fashionable way without disputing all the Points in controversie I shall desire them to consider How much more Certainty and Safety they have in Communion with the Church of England than they can have by going over to the Church of Rome And I think this is home to the purpose it being the same Argument wherewith the Roman Priests endeavour to pervert our People and which is the principal design of these Papers 1. First then I observe That all the positive Articles of the Protestant Faith are owned and believed in the Church of Rome we do not believe all that they believe but yet they believe all that we do for our Faith is contained in the ancient Creeds the Apostles the Nicene and the Athanasian Creeds which the Church of Rome owns as well as we And though we do not build our Certainty on the Authority of the Church of Rome but on the express Revelations of Scripture which contain all the Articles of our Faith and is as much Certainty as we desire yet methinks even a modest Romanist should blush to charge our Faith with Uncertainty when our Faith as far as it reaches is the same with theirs Surely they must grant that in these matters which we all consent in our Faith is true and orthodox they must grant that the last Resolution of our Faith into the Authority of Christ and his Apostles is sound and orthodox also for thus they resolve their own Faith They must grant that the Universal Consent of the Church in all Ages not excluding the Church of Rome it self as a part of the Catholick Church is the best External Testimony of the Christian Faith Now when we believe the same things which the Church of Rome does upon the Authority of Christ and his Apostles whose Doctrine is contained in the Writings of the New Testament and expounded by the General Faith of the Christian Church in all Ages what appearance of Uncertainty can be charged on such a Faith We reject indeed the infallible Authority of the present Church of Rome but what then Will not a true orthodox Faith save us unless we believe in Christ upon the Authority of a particular Church which had no being when Christianity was first planted in the world But I think I need not insist on this for I cannot believe that any Member of the Church of England goes over to the Church of Rome because he cannot believe his Creed in the Church of England But then I would desire them to consider what that Uncertainty is which they complain of in the Church of England for if the positive Faith of the Church of England is certain as it must be if the Faith of the Church of Rome as to these Matters be certain why do they leave us for want of Certainty which is now the Popular Argument to seduce men from our Communion If they think we do not believe enough let them say so and make that the cause of their departure from us but if as far as our Faith goes we have certain and evident Reasons of our Faith how does our Faith come to be uncertain As for those particular Doctrines which are in dispute between us and the Church of Rome we grant we have no certainty of them nay more than that we say no man can be certain of them how confident soever he is for they are founded neither on Reason nor Scripture nor any good Authority for we do not take the Authority of the present Church of Rome to be good Authority and if this be all they mean by our uncertainty that we have no certainty for the worship of Saints and Images and Relicks for Transubstantiation and the Adoration of the Host for Prayers in an unknown Tongue for Masses for the Living and the Dead for a Judicial Absolution and those new Sacraments they have introduced into the Church we readily grant it but think this a very strange Reason for Protestants to desert our Communion because we have no certainty of things which we believe to be false We do not only confess that we can find no certainty for these things but we assert that we have positive and certain Evidence against them and those who have
professed in the Church of England and there is but one material Objection against the certainty of this way That our Dissenters pretend to Scripture as well as we and so most Hereticks have always done and as for Antiquity the Church of Rome makes a greater noise with it than we do and how then can a plain and unlearned man chuse safely in such variety of Judgments and Opinions Now the force of this Argument consists in this That because some men mistake no man can be in the right or because some men may confidently believe they are in the right when they are in the wrong therefore no man can be sure that he is in the right which pretence would be laughed at in all other cases excepting Religion and here I am sure it deserves to be so There is a vast difference between confidence of Perswasion and certainty of Knowledge the prejudices of Education the Authority of Guides the byass of Interest and such like fallacious Principles may make men very confident when they know little or nothing about the matter or men may reason falsly and think themselves very confident as a man in a Dream does but can no man be certain he is awake because some men very confidently think themselves awake when they are in a Dream The greatest part of the World pronounce a hasty Judgment before they are well awake before they have considered the matter throughly and weighed every circumstance of it and a man who has but half considered a thing may with very good reason think himself certain so far and yet may be grosly mistaken because there is another half which he has not considered Every man is sensible of this when he corrects a Mistake for he discovers something which he had not thought on before which makes him alter his Judgment about it and therefore though some men are confident and yet mistaken it does not hence follow that no man can be certain when he Reasons right for Truth lies so easie in a mans mind who has throughly considered things and has such a native brightness and lustre in it that he can no more doubt of it than whether the Sun be up when he sees its light But let us consider this Objection particularly with reference both to Scripture and Antiquity 1. It is objected That Hereticks pretended the Authority of Scripture as well as the Orthodox and our Dissenters as well as the Church of England But what then Is the Scripture of no use because some men use it ill Is it not possible to find out the true sense of Scripture because some men put a false sense on it Can these Hereticks be confuted out of the Scripture or not If not why do we charge them with Heresie If they may how are such Heresies being fathered on the Scriptures an Argument against studying the Scriptures and relying on their Authority For we cannot confute Heresies by the Scripture unless we can understand the Scriptures and if we may find out the true sense of Scripture notwithstanding that Hereticks put a wrong sense on it then we may be as certain that we understand the Scriptures aright as we are that others do misunderstand them But besides this Though Hereticks pretend to expound Scripture yet they contradict the Faith of the Primitive Church and therefore their Case differs vastly from the Case of the Church of England whose Faith is founded both on Scripture and Apostolick Tradition as I observed before And as for our Dissenters our Dispute with them is not about Articles of Faith but the external Modes and Circumstances of Worship or the Government and Discipline of the Church and the Question between us is Whether we must use no external Circumstances of Worship but what are prescribed in Scripture or Whether the constant Practice of the Church from the days of the Apostles be not the best Comment on Scripture as to the external Government of it And this I think is so baffled a Cause that the Romanists are hard put to it when they use that Argument Secondly As for Antiquity the Church of Rome makes great boasts of it but they are very vain ones and who can help mens pretending to Antiquity when it is apparently against them No man indeed can be a competent Judge of this but those who are skilled in Antiquity and have examined their pretences but there are some considerations which lye obvious to every man and may serve to direct the unlearned what Judgment to make in this matter 1. For had true Antiquity been on their side what need had they of spurious and counterfeit Authors to make some appearance of Antiquity with This has been the great Artifice of the Church of Rome though they begin now to be ashamed of it since the learned Reformers have discovered the Cheat. Who pleases may see some account of this in an English Book entituled Roman Forgeries and this is reason enough to suspect their pretences to Antiquity for no man takes Sanctuary in Falshood who has Truth on his side 2. Another Evidence of this is their corrupting Ancient Authors and because they can find nothing in them to their purpose to insert something which is but the plainest and honestest confession of this matter is their Index Expurgatorius which corrects the Fathers and orders the leaving out of such Passages as make against them now when they are forced to leave out and put into the Fathers it is very suspicious that they are convinced the Fathers are not on their side 3. Where they make the loudest Cry of Antiquity the Scripture is either against them or says nothing for them and though we allow the Ancient practice of the Church in matters of Discipline and Government to be a good Pattern for us to follow in such particulars as are not expressed in Scripture if they comply with the general Rules and Directions of Scripture yet we do not think Antiquity it self to be a sufficient justification of any Doctrines of Faith or new acts of Worship which either the Scripture condemns or does not teach and this is a manifest difference between the Pretences of the Church of England and the Church of Rome to Antiquity The Church of England justifies her Doctrines and Practices both from Scripture and Antiquity which is as sure a foundation as we can possibly have the Church of Rome alledges Antiquity such as it is to prove such Doctrines and Practices as the Scripture either condemns or knows nothing of Now we think the Scriptures have the greatest Antiquity and are a perfect Rule of Faith and Manners and that no other Antiquity can controul the Authority of the Scriptures As for Instance Suppose the Church of Rome could prove the Worship of Images Praying to Saints and Angels Prayers in an unknown Tongue and Cummunion in One kind c. to have been anciently practised in the Church though this they are never able to prove yet what is
any other way to prove the lawfulness or usefulness of them especially if besides the want of such a positive Institution we have plain Evidence against them and such as every man may understand When the Scripture tells us That Christ has by one Offering perfected for ever them that are sanctified Hebr. 9. 25 26. 10. 14 this is a direct proof against the Sacrifice of the Mass wherein he is offered ten thousand times every day When Christ is the Priest as well as the Sacrifice and can be offered by none but himself how comes he to be offered by a Mass Priest unless he as well as the Bread and Wine be transubstantiated into Christ It is certain there can be no such thing as the Popish Sacrifice of the Mass unless the Bread and Wine be transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ and we are as certain as our Senses can make us that there is no Transubstantiation As for the half-Communion it is confessed that Christ did institute his last Supper in both kinds and commanded them all to drink of the Cup And this may satisfie any man who does not believe that the Church of Rome has authority to repeal the Institutions of Christ and to forbid what he commanded And when St. Paul assures us That there is but one Mediator between God and Man the Man Christ Jesus one would think this Evidence enough against the Mediation of Saints and Angels when they cannot shew one word for it For as for their distinction between Mediators of Redemption and pure Intercession they cannot shew it in Scripture where our Redeemer is our only Advocate And when Christ himself enforces and ratifies that Command of the Law Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve this is a plain Argument against the Invocation of Saints since they have nothing for it And when there is no Authority in Scripture for praying in an unknown Tongue one would think that the absurdity of the Practice and the Authority of St. Paul who expresly condemns it were Evidence enough against it So that though men may be at the needless expence of a great deal of Learning in these Controversies yet in truth there is no Learning required to understand them the meanest man may judge for himself for the Controversie turns upon so plain a Point and there is so plain Evidence in the Case that an honest man may have abundant evidence and satisfaction though he do not understand one word of all the Learning which is lost in such Disputes The Paper In short I think there is but Evidence or Authority to move us to believe Answer This is certainly true if it be rightly understood that is if by Evidence is meant the Evidence of Sense and Reason and by Authority the Authority of Scripture which is the Authority of God who spake by Moses and the Prophets in the Old Testament and by Christ and his Apostles in the New and the Authority of the Primitive Church as credible Witnesses of the Apostolick Doctrine and Practice in this sense we grant that our Faith must be founded both upon Evidence and Authority and this is the true Protestant Resolution of Faith and then the only fault of this Proposition is That Evidence and Authority are opposed to each other whereas they must always go together in a true Rational Faith But if by Evidence be meant all the Arguments whereby we can prove the truth of any thing whether from Sense or Reason or Scripture or the Testimony of Antiquity and by Authority be meant the Authority of a visible Judge of Controversies as it is understood in this Paper then at best this is a very precarious Proposition without the least shadow of truth that either Evidence or Authority must move us to believe that is that our Faith must be resolved either into Evidence or the Authority of a visible Judge For how is this proved That when there wants Evidence for our Faith we must believe upon the Authority of a visible Judge It seems to me a more natural Consequence That where there wants Evidence we must not believe at all If it had been first proved that God had appointed a visible Judge to direct those who cannot judge for themselves there had been some pretence for saying that we must believe either upon Evidence or upon the Authority of a Judge but without proving this first I would desire any man to prove to me that I am bound to believe what I have no Evidence for or which is all one no such Evidence as I can understand and if I be not bound to believe without Evidence how can the want of Evidence prove that there must be a visible Judge into whose Authority I must resolve my Faith The Paper Evidence to the generality of People is impossible But I have already proved that this is not impossible but the meanest man with the help of a learned and faithful Guide may understand the Scriptures in all things necessary for a Christian to know But suppose at present that the generality of People cannot do this yet can learned men do it And one would think if there be any Evidence at least learned men may understand it for that which is not evident neither to the learned nor to the unlearned I fear is no Evidence at all unless there be such a kind of Evidence as is evident to no body and yet the Church of Rome has brought things to a fine pass if she must be forced to deny that we have any Evidence for our Religion Now if there be any Evidence for our Religion and learned men may understand it then at least learned men may judge for themselves and not depend upon the Authority of any other Judge and thus there is no need nay there can be no use of a visible Judge for the learned part of the world for to say that learned men have Evidence to ground their Faith on and yet must not believe according to Evidence but Authority is to say that men have eyes but must not use them to see their own way but must follow a Guide blindfold And yet if learned men be allowed to see and judge for themselves a Judge of Controversies will signifie very little for it is learned men who start Difficulties and manage Disputes and are the Authors and Patrons of Heresies and if these learned men who may and must judge for themselves differ from each other and from the Judge of Controversies what remedy is there Nay if learned men must judge for themselves according to the Evidence they have of things and not be over-ruled by Authority without Evidence there can be no visible Judge of Controversies for an Authority which may be contradicted as it may be if learned men must judge for themselves can be no Authority either with the learned or unlearned for the unlearned will have no great Reverence for that Authority which
as they did and not believe any pretence of Infallibility against my own Sense and Reason I cannot compare the Doctrine of the Law and the Gospel unless I understand them both and I can understand and judge only with my own Understanding and if I must have done thus though I had lived in our Saviours days surely I must do so now whatever infallible Teachers there may be in the World which I think is a demonstration that there neither is nor can be any such infallible Judge whom I am bound to believe purely upon his own Authority But it may be Objected That this proves too much and undermines even the Protestant Resolution of Faith into the Authority of Christ and his Apostles and the Writings of the New Testament as an infallible Rule of Christian Faith and Manners For it seems though we pretend to own their Infallibility yet we must examine their Doctrine by the Law and not believe them to be infallible till we have set in Judgment on their Doctrine and approved it as agreeable to a more infallible Rule and thus we believe their Infallibility because we like their Doctrine not believe their Doctrine because they are infallible Now there is so much Truth in this Objection that I cannot believe that Christ and his Apostles are Teachers come from God unless I be satisfied that they teach nothing contrary to any former Revelation which God has made of his Will for God cannot contradict himself and therefore whoever contradicts what God has before taught can be no true Prophet And therefore though Miracles alone were sufficient to give Authority to Moses who was the first Prophet by whom God made a publick Revelation of his Will yet Miracles alone were not sufficient to give Authority to any succeeding Prophets but their Doctrine also must be examined by its conformity to the Law for though Miracles gave them Authority to make new Revelations yet not to contradict the old So that to examine the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles by the Law so far as to see that they do not contradict it is no more than to examine whether they be true Prophets or not as all men ought to do before they believe any pretenders to Prophecy but when it appears that they do not contradict the Law then that power of working Miracles wherewith they are endowed obliges us to believe then in every thing else upon their own Authority And thus we own Christ and his Apostles to be infallible Teachers and consequently receive the Writings of the New Testament as an infallible Rule of Christian Faith because they were men endowed with supernatural Powers and did not in their Preaching contradict any former Revelation of Gods Will. And this is all that we do or need affirm to destroy the Pretences of an infallible Judge for if I must still judge for my self whether the Doctrine of the Gospel do not contradict the Law then I must judge for my self both of the Sense of the Law and the Gospel or else I cannot judge whether they agree or disagree and therefore there can be no infallible Judge to whom I must submit my own Reason and Judgment in this Inquiry for that were to own their Infallibility before I know whether they are infallible or not Though I must believe whatever an infallible Judge teaches yet I must not believe him till I know him to be infallible and I should think no pretender to Infallibility should exempt himself from such a trial as all Prophets after Moses even Christ and his Apostles themselves submitted to that is to have their Doctrine tried by a standing Revelation Now suppose the Pope or Church of Rome to set up for this infallible Judicature before I can own their Infallibility I must at least examine whether what they teach do not contradict the Law and the Prophets for thus I may and must examine the Gospel it self and if in any one thing they plainly and directly contradict the Law I have nothing more to do with their Infallibility for no man can be infallible who mistakes in any one thing The Church of Rome then teaches That we may give Religious Worship to Saints and Angels and Images Having the Law of Moses in my hand I turn to it and according to the best of my Understanding I find this Worship expresly forbid in the first and second Commandments No say they this is your mistake we are the infallible Judges and you must not trust your own understanding but take the sense of the Church in it By your favour Gentleman say I you are a little too hasty with your Infallibility when I am satisfied you are infallible I will trust you but I am now inquiring whether you are infallible or not and therefore as yet we are upon even ground and I must trust my own Judgment till I find one more infallible Now I say you contradict the first and second Commandments and therefore are not infallible and you would prove that you do not contradict these Commandments from your pretended Infallibility which is the thing yet in question Christ and his Apostles permitted men to judge for themselves whether they contradicted the Law and the Prophets and therefore suffered them to judge of the Sense of the Law too and so must you do also unless you pretend an exemption from all Trial and Examination which Christ and his Apostles never pretended to This shews that even to this day no pretence of Infallibility can exempt men from having their Doctrine tried by the Law and the Prophets for the Gospel it self may still be thus tried and therefore there can be no such infallible Judge as has any Authority to oblige us to believe any Sense they put upon the Law contrary to our own Sense and Reason for then such a Judge as this could not be tried by the Law For if he alone has Authority to interpret the Law no body can try him but himself And this plain Instance I have given of their contradicting the first and second Commandments utterly overthrows their Infallibility till they can prove not by their pretended Infallibility but by plain Reason and Argument that they do not contradict them And we desire no more than to set aside their Plea of Infallibility and we will reason the Case with them when they please And besides this by a parity of Reason this Argument reaches much farther For if the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles must be tried by the Law and the Prophets because no man can have any Authority against a standing Revelation then by the same Reason whoever should now set up for an infallible Guide his Doctrines must be examined by the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles which is now an infallible Rule to us And if the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles might be examined by the Law and the Prophets for the very same Reason the Doctrine of all succeeding Bishops must be tried by
the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles for they are as much a standing Revelation to the Christian Church as the Law and the Prophets were to the Jews Nay indeed there is more reason now to examine the Doctrine of all Teachers by the Writings of the New Testament than there was under the Jewish Dispensation to examine them by the Old because the New Testament is the last and most perfect Revelation of God's Will and we must expect and receive no more for S. Paul pronounces an Anathema against Angels themselves should they preach any other Gospel Gal. 1. 8 9. whereas the Law it self gave expectations of a more excellent Prophet than Moses and of a more perfect Revelation and therefore as they were to receive no Prophet who contradicted the Law of Moses so we must receive none who preach any thing else than what Christ and his Apostles have taught Now if the New Testament be all that and more than that to us which the Old Testament was to the Jews then we must have the same liberty of judging under the New Testament which the Jews had under the Old For there can be no more danger in our judging of the Sense of the Gospel and examining the Doctrines of all men by it than there was in allowing this liberty to the Jews we have the same natural right to it which the Jews had a Right not owing to a positive Institution but to the reason and necessity of the thing But to set aside this Dispute about the possibility of such an infallible Judge of Controversies this very Consideration proves that Christ never intended it viz. That he has given us the Gospel in Writing as a standing Rule of Faith and Manners and has appointed an Order of Men to study the Scripture themselves and to instruct others in the true Sense and Interpretation of it 1. Because he has given us the Gospel in Writing which is now to us a standing Rule of Faith and Worship as the Law and the Prophets was to the Jews Now the use of a written Law is for every body to understand it and direct their Faith and Manners by it This was the use the Jews were required to make of the Old Testament and certainly the new Testament was writ for the same end or else I know not why it was writ If then we must learn from the Scriptures what we are to believe and practise this inevitably proves that our Saviours intention was that we should judge for our selves for no man can learn any thing from a Writing unless he be allowed to understand it and judge of the sense and meaning of it Now is not this a plain Proof that Christ never intended such a Judge of Controversies whom we must believe with an implicite Faith If I must receive my Faith upon the Authority of a Judge then there is no need of a Rule which I must and can make no use of if I must follow my Rule there is no room left for a Judge for I must judge for my self To resolve my Faith into the Authority of a Rule and of a Judge are as inconsistent as judging and not judging and therefore Christ could not appoint both ways because they contradict each other one requires the exercise of my own Reason and Judgment and the other forbids it and therefore since Christ has given us a written Rule we may reasonably conclude he has appointed no Judge For though a Law and a Judge to execute that Law are very consistent in Civil Government where the Sentence of a Judge does not oblige mens Faith but only authoritatively determine a difference yet they are two very contrary and therefore inconsistent Resolutions of Faith Secondly As Christ has given us a Rule so he has appointed an Order of men to study this Rule themselves and to instruct other Christians in the meaning of it which is an Argument he intended we should understand it For why should we be taught the Scripture but that we may understand it and to what end should we understand it but to make it our Rule To teach and instruct and to determine as a Judge are two very different things the first reserves to us a liberty of judging the second determines us to believe the Dictates of our Judge Now what need of both these If Christ hath appointed a Judge whom we must in all things believe what need of Teachers to instruct men in the Knowledge of the Scriptures If the Scriptures have no sense but what the Judge gives them what an impertinent trouble is it to study the Scriptures Who can interpret them but this infallible Judge And how then can there be so many Teachers if there be but one Judge Or if the Scriptures may be understood and may be taught what use is there of a Judge unless it be to unteach what he has not a mind to and then he may make all other Teachers useless when he pleases Nay if the greatest Apostles were no more than Teachers where is the Judge and yet this is the only Commission Christ gave to all the Apostles and to Peter among the rest to teach those things which he had commanded them The Charge Christ gives to Peter is to feed his Sheep and his Lambs which is the same St. Paul lays on the Elders of Ephesus Take heed unto your selves and to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own Blood Acts 20. 28. that is to instruct and teach them which is the reason St. Paul assigns for those different Orders of Men in the Church He gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the Body of Christ till we all come in the Unity of the Faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God to a perfect Man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ Ephes. 4. 11 12 13. Here is no Judge of Controversies mentioned among all these though he had been worth them all and indeed had made all the other useless if there had been any such Office But that which I observe is That the work of an Apostle was to instruct men in the Faith to teach them Knowledge and Understanding what they are to believe and why which is very inconsistent with the Office of a Judge For he who instructs men helps them to understand and judge for themselves but a Judge only imposes upon the Faith and Understanding of men without any liberty of judging If we must not understand our Religion nor use our Understanding in judging between Truth and Error there can be no use for Teachers and therefore that Christ has appointed men to instruct his Church is a proof that he intended they should believe with their Understandings and if all the
we should have had no dispute about it at this day and therefore they must be out in one either Christ has appointed no such Judge or this cannot prevent Schisms in the Church 4. Fourthly There is an easie and effectual way of curing Church Divisions without a Judge of Controversies nay without making all men of a Mind in every thing which must never be expected in this World And that is not to make the necessary Terms of Communion streighter and narrower than Christ has made them nothing but what is plainly revealed in Scripture and is essential to Christian Faith and Worship For such Matters most Christians agree in and though they may have some private Opinions of their own this ought not to divide Communions while they do not impose them upon the Faith of others nor introduce any new and strange Worship into the Christian Church As for Example The Church of England believes and practices whatever was thought necessary in the Apostles days and for some Ages after and there is little or no dispute about these Matters between us and the Church of Rome so that we could to this day without a Judge of Controversies maintain Communion with the Church of Rome upon the same Terms that the Apostolick Churches maintained Communion with each other for we both agree in all things which are necessary and essential to Church Communion So that the Schism between us and the Church of Rome is not for want of a Judge of Controversies for without owning such a Judge we agree in all that is necessary in all that Christ and his Apostles required to make us Members of the Christian Church But this will not satisfie the Church of Rome which will receive no other Churches into her Communion without owning her Soveraign and Supream Authority nor without believing many Doctrines manifestly absurd in themselves and never taught in the best and purest Ages of the Church nor without joyning in such a Worship which they themselves dare not say is necessary for they do not pretend that for their Praying to Saints and worshipping Images and Prayers in an unknown Tongue and which we think is sinful If these things were removed we could gladly Communicate with them upon true Catholick Principles There is no need of a Judge but only to determine those Controversies which She her self has made in contradiction to the Primitive Faith of Christians and therefore I cannot but commend her policy that She will allow no body to be Judge of these Disputes but her self Would all men submit to the Church of Rome it would certainly restore Peace and Unity to the Church but to the great prejudice of Truth and hazard of mens Souls and we must not purchase a meer external Unity at this rate Those men over-value Unity who part with Truth for it for certainly the Unity of the Church is not more considerable than the purity of its Faith and Worship The Paper These Reasons make me think a visible Judge absolutely necessary Answer What I have already discoursed I hope may occasion some new and different thoughts of this Matter but since Certainty is the great and prevailing Argument let us turn the Tables and see what Certainty a Roman Catholick has His Faith is resolved into the Authority of a visible and infallible Judge This I confess bids very fair for he that follows an infallible Guide cannot err but whoever considers this Matter carefully will find all this talk of Infallibility dwindle into nothing For First Suppose there be an infallible Judge before we can with certainty and assurance rely on him we must certainly know who he is for it is the same thing to have no infallible Judge and not to know where to find him And this is a difficulty which those Persons little consider who please themselves so much with the fancy of Infallibility For 1. Papists themselves are not agreed about this Matter Some will have the Pope to be infallible as Peters Successor and in his right Others the Church assembled in a General Council Others neither Pope nor Council distinctly and separately considered but a Council confirmed by the Pope Others none of all this but Tradition is infallible Infallibility they all agree to but know not where this Infallibility is seated Now what shall a doubting Protestant do who has a mind to be as infallible as any of them did he know where to find this Infallibility May he not as easily choose his own Religion and what Church he will live in Communion with as which of these infallible Judges to follow Which soever of these he rejects he has a considerable party of the Church of Rome on his side the only difference is that he is so far satisfied with their Reasons against each other that he rejects them all and he has good Reason for it for if God had intended to appoint a Judge to end all Disputes certainly he would have done this so manifestly that there should have been no dispute who this Judge is For methinks a doubtful and disputable Judge is not a very proper Person to end all Disputes 2. Nay according to the Doctrine of the Roman Divines it is not possible to prove either that there is such a Judge or who this Judge is For if there be such a Judge he must be appointed by Christ and then we must look for his Commission in the Gospel and yet the Church of Rome will not allow us to know what the Gospel is or what is the Sense and Interpretation of it but from the infallible Judge And thus it is impossible to find out either the Judge or the Scriptures because we have no place to begin at If we begin with the Judge we are a little too hasty because we have not yet found him and if we begin with the Scriptures that is as bad because we cannot understand them before we have found the Judge so that we must take one of them for granted without any proof and by that find out the other and that is neither better nor worse than to take them both for granted which is an admirable Foundation for Infallibility at all adventures to choose an infallible Judge and then to believe him at all adventures So that though men who have always been brought up in the belief of an infallible Judge may in time grow very confident of it and take it for a first Principle which needs no proof yet I wonder how any Protestant who has been taught otherwise and if he acts wisely and like an honest man cannot believe it till it is proved to him can ever entertain such a thought for let his Adversary be never so subtil if he resolves to believe nothing but what he sees proved he may maintain his ground against him As to represent this briefly in a Dialogue between a Papist and a Protestant Papist I pity your Condition Sir to see you live at such uncertainties for your Religion and
sense of Scripture and though the Pope of Rome be made the Judge of the Sense of Councils yet if he will not determine it what are we the better If one Pope approves Cardinal Bellarmin's Exposition of the Council and another M. de Meaux though directly opposite to each other as we see at this day how shall we ever come to an infallible Certainty what the Council has determined Has not a Protestant who studies the Scripture and uses the best Reason and Judgment he has to understand it as much Certainty and Infallibility as this comes to And yet how few are there that have Time or Learning to Read the Councils which is a little more difficult than to Read the Scriptures in the Vulgar Tongue and all these Men must trust entirely to the honesty of their Priest who if he be honest may be very ignorant and yet the last resolution of the Peoples Infallibility is into the honesty and skill of their Priests for how infallible soever the Pope or Council be they know no more of the matter than what their Priests tell them which is such an Infallibility as the meanest Protestant has no reason to envy This I think is sufficient to shew how vain all this Talk of Infallibility is in the Church of Rome though Protestants own themselves to be fallible Creatures yet they are too wise to change their Moral Certainty for the Popish Infallibility Had the Church of Rome as good Evidence for their Faith as the Church of England it might admit of a Dispute whether they should reject both or cast Lots which to chuse but thanks be to God there is no comparison between them and while we feel our selves certain let who will boast they are infallible AN ANSWER To some other ARGUMENTS Contained in the PAPERS HAving thus largely considered the main support of the Roman Cause at this day viz. the Pretence of an infallible Judge of Controversies the remaining Arguments will be more briefly answered which I shall set down in order as I find them The Paper I don't know supposing the Roman Errors not damnable how the Reformers can justifie themselves and if they were so I can't make it agree with the Promises of the Gates of Hell never prevailing c. except there were some other Church in which Purity of Faith was preserved which if there were I wonder for Unities sake so much commanded in Scripture we did not joyn with that pure Church Answer In answer to this short Paragraph there are several things to be considered 1. Whether the Errors of the Church of Rome be damnable 2. If they be not damnable what Authority had the Church of England to reform them 3. If they be damnable how does Christ keep his Promise to his Church That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it 4. Concerning the Purity of Faith in other Churches and our Union with them 1. As for the first Whether the Church of Rome be guilty of damnable Errors If by damnable Errors be meant such Errors as put men into a state of damnation this I dare not say For this would out do the Church of Rome herself in uncharitableness to assert that all the Churches in the Roman Communion and every Member of them as such are in a state of damnation But if by damnable Errors be meant such Errors as are very dangerous to mens Souls and will greatly hazard their Salvation or such Errors as involve a Sin in them as being a direct Breach of some Divine Law and so are damnable as every sin is damnable in this Sense we do say that the Church of Rome is guilty of damnable Errors For to name no other at present we do affirm and prove too That the Worship of Saints and Angels and Images are express Violations of the first and second Commandments and therefore are great Sins against God Now if you inquire what the difference is between being guilty of damnable sins and being in a state of damnation the Answer is plain and easy For a state of damnation is such a state wherein if a man commit damning sins he has no right and title to Pardon Forgiveness and Salvation though he repent of all his known and unknown sins This is the condition of all those who are not received into the Christian Church by Faith and Baptism for the Christian Church only is a state of Salvation For there is no other Name given under Heaven whereby men can be saved but only the Name of Christ. So that those who are out of the Church and Gospel Covenant are not only guilty of damning sins but are in a state of damnation for they have no Covenant-right to Pardon and Salvation But those who believe in Christ and are in Covenant with him by Baptism though they may be guilty of damning sins yet they are not in a state of damnation because they have a right to Pardon upon their Repentance and this is the Condition of the Church of Rome they profess the true Faith of Christ and are in Covenant with him by Baptism and therefore though they may be guilty of damning Errors yet they are in a state of Salvation that is they are not excluded from the Covenant of Grace and therefore the Members of that Communion who live vertuous lives and heartily repent of all their known and unknown sins may find Mercy with God Thus St. Paul tells us of those who hold the Foundation that is Faith in Christ Jesus that if they build hay and stubble upon this Foundation that is false and erroneous Doctrines and Worship such a man shall suffer loss in that his work shall be burnt yet he himself shall be saved yet so as by fire 1 Cor. 3. 11 12 13 14 15. where Fire cannot refer to the Fire of Purgatory because it is the Fire of the Day of Judgment which is called the Day that shall be revealed by Fire vers 13. and the works which shall be burnt is the hay and stubble which is built on the Foundation that is those erroneous Doctrines or corrupt Worship which men retain together with the Faith of Christ these Works shall be burnt that is condemned in that day which is revealed by Fire which consumes those Works as Fire does hay and stubble And as for the Persons themselves the Apostle tells us that they shall suffer loss that they shall be saved but so as by fire Where to suffer loss is opposed to receiving a Reward if a man's work abide he shall receive a reward if a man's work be burnt he shall suffer loss which plainly signifies that such erroenous Christians shall not receive such a reward as is prepared for sound and orthodox Believers And that Phrase to be saved but so as by fire at least signifies that at the Day of Judgment such men shall very difficultly escape burning with their works though they shall be finally saved by their Faith in Christ. But whatever
and the like have been thought a just Reason in the Apostles days to deny Communion to all those Churches which reject them The Church of England is in Communion with all those Churches from the Apostles days till now who never owned nor imposed those Doctrines and Practices for which we now Separate from the Church of Rome as necessary Terms of Communion which upon inquiry will be found a much more Catholick Communion than that of the Church of Rome for we communicate with more Ages and with more Churches than they do The Church of Rome as now constituted in all its parts and proportions is no older than the Council of Trent which is some time since Luther that we may with more reason ask them Where their Church was before the Council of Trent then they ask us Where our Church was before Luther We find our Church in its Doctrine Worship and Government in the Apostles days but their Church was not made all at a time but one Age brought in one Corruption another another Some aspiring Popes began the Encroachments upon the Liberties of other Churches and others kept the ground their Predecessors had got and as they had opportunity made new Conquests and thus by degrees it grew up into a Papal Omnipotency Some thinking Monks started some uncouth Opinions which were tossed about for a while in Disputes and if they were such as might be of use to advance the Power of the Pope or of the Priest they began to be countenanced at Rome and that made honest men cautious of Opposing and then they grew up into received Doctrines and when it was ripe for that purpose they were dubbed Articles of Faith and at length were digested into method and order refined and polished and received their last Authority from the pack'd Conventicle of Trent And will any man call this Catholick Communion the dividing Terms of which were wholly unknown to the best and purest Ages of the Church crept in by degrees in several later Ages and never received its accomplishment and perfection till since the Reformation it self and is now already in the wane and almost expounded into Protestant Heresie at least so they would perswade us by the Bp. of Meaux and our Modern Representers However this shews how among all the Divisions of Christendom we can prove our selves to be a Catholick Church and in Catholick Communion which is all that we at present are concerned for and let the Church of Rome do as much for herself if she can Upon these Principles she now rejects us it is plain she must have denied Communion to the Apostolick Churches and I am sure they would have denied Communion to her and what is become then of her Catholick Communion which shuts out the Apostles and Apostolick Churches The Paper And how in the Communion of Saints For that which I think makes a Corporation become a Body of Men is the Obligation imposed on those who live in that Corporation to be subject to the peculiar Laws and Government there established for even of those that make Scripture their Rule of all those Churches Answer I suppose the latter part of this is either false or hastily writ If the meaning be that the whole Christian Church in such a Corporation as is under the same individual Government or one governing Head who must give Laws to the whole Church this we utterly deny and it ought to have been proved Christ at first committed the planting and governing his Church to Twelve Apostles who as St. Cyprian affirms had all equal Power and Authority though Christ named Peter only in bestowing the Apostolical Power not to give Peter any Superiority over the rest but only to signifie that unity and harmony of consent which ought to be among them in exercising the Apostolical Power that they were all to act as one Man The Apostles left their Power to the Bishops of the several Churches who had the immediate Inspection and Soveraign Power over their own Churches as the same Father frequently asserts but yet were to govern their several Churches with mutual advice and consent So that the Unity of particular Churches consists in their Obedience and Subjection to their Bishop and in the Communion of all the Members of it in all acts of Worship and Discipline and those who separate from the external and visible Communion of the Church wherein they live without necessary and unavoidable Reasons are Schismaticks who cut themselves off from the Body of Christ. The Communion of the Catholick Church consists not in the Subjection of one Church to another but in the Profession of the same Faith and in the Agreement and Concord of their Bishops in owning each others Churches and maintaining Communion with them upon Catholick Principles and governing their Churches as far as is expedient by common Rules of Worship and Discipline This then being the Constitution of the Catholick Church let us briefly consider what it is that unites particular Churches in Catholick Communion 1. Every particular Church which professes the true Faith of Christ is part of the Catholick Church and by virtue of this Catholick Faith is so far in Communion with the whole Catholick Church and thus we own the Church of Rome her self to be part of the Catholick Church for she professes the true Faith of Christ though with a great mixture of dangerous Errors 2. The Communion of particular Churches does not consist in using the same Liturgies or external Rites of Worship if their Worship be a true Christian Worship and agreeable to the general Laws of the Gospel for every Church has Authority within her self to direct and model her own Worship and therefore if there were no fault in it yet the Church of England is not bound to receive her Liturgies and Worship from the Church of Rome but may use her own without being charged with Schism for doing so 3. Every Catholick Church is bound to receive each others Members to Communion when they come among them which makes them all but one Church one Society Body the Members of which have a mutual right and interest in each other and therefore it is a Principle of Catholick Communion not to adhere so stiffly to the Rites and Usages of our own particular Churches as not to communicate with other Churches who use different Rites from our own if they be innocent Thus far all things are plain and easie but the difficulty is how we shall maintain Communion with those Churches which teach very erroneous Doctrines or use very corrupt and suspected kinds of Worship And therefore Fourthly How corrupt soever any Church be if she still retains the true Faith of Christ we must own her for a Christian Church though a corrupt one which is one degree of Communion with her to own her of the same Body with our selves though as a sick or rotten Member This was the charge against the Novatians and Donatists not only that they
this to the purpose when the Scripture expresly condemns the VVorship of Images and giving Religious VVorship to any other Being but to God only and by their own Confession says nothing of the VVorship of Saints and that St. Paul disputes designedly against Prayers in an unknown Tongue and that our Saviour instituted his Supper in both kinds and commanded them to drink of the consecrated Cup as well as to eat the Bread Though I have a great Reverence for Antiquity yet if St. Paul in his days pronounced an Anathema against Angels themselves who should preach any other Gospel we may safely renounce the Authority of any Church that shall contradict the express Commands and Institutions of Christ. To conclude this Argument Were Antiquity our only Guide and Rule in matters of Faith and Worship I readily grant it would be a very uncertain Rule and such as neither the Learned nor the Unlearned could build their Faith on for there have been great variety of Opinions and Practices in other Ages of the Church especially since the fourth Century from which the Church of Rome principally date their Antiquity as well as in our own which shews what an uncertain Foundation the Church of Rome has for her Faith as for all those Doctrines and Practices wherein she differs from us which have no foundation in Scripture and at best a very uncertain one in very late Antiquity But this does not concern us who prefer Scripture Antiquity before all other and own no Antiquity in contradiction to the Scripture which is the Rule and Foundation of our Faith and by this we know that we neither retain too much nor too little because we teach neither more nor less than what the Scripture teaches The Paper But 't is Replied The Church of England gives leave even to Women to examine the Truth of what they teach but certainly this is a Complement they being incapable of Examination neither indeed are Statesmen Lawyers the Busie nor the stupidly Ignorant For if we will be Judges our selves of these matters what Life or Capacity is sufficient for in Justice if I examine I ought to hear all the several Pretenders to the Interpretation of Scripture who make it their Rule of Faith so to examine those Texts that make against us as well as those for us and the several Expositors For in Affairs of much less importance People are thought foolish and partial let one party tell his story to a seeming demonstration not to preserve another Ear for the other side before he determines if he must judge at all Answer The lightness of this Expression of Complementing does not savour of a serious mind in matters of such vast importance Did our Saviour then Complement his Hearers when he commanded them to search the Scriptures for he had Women and very busie People who heard his Sermons The Poor and the Ignorant and the despised People Publicans and Sinners received the Gospel which does not so much require great leisure and capacity for study as an honest teachable Mind and I confess I think it a great reproach to the Gospel of our Saviour to make it so much an Art and a Mystery that none but great Scholars can understand it Scholars indeed have made an Art and a meer disputing Art of it and Hereticks who have corrupted the Gospel have endeavoured by perverse Comments to make plain places obscure and the Church of Rome has more countenanced this Pretence than any other Church in the World to frighten People from Reading that Book which is the most dangerous Book that ever was written against Popery And after all their talk of the obscurity of Scripture their denying the People the free use of it is a plain confession that they think it too plain against themselves so plain that every ordinary Christian would be able to see it But if so very few People are able to judge of the Disputes in Religion what course shall Women and other Persons whom the Paper makes such incompetent Judges take Suppose they have been educated in the Communion of the Church of England and are now assaulted by Popish Priests to go over to the Church of Rome must they make this change with Reason or without it Must they judge for themselves or forsake one Church and chuse another without Judgment Or can Women or Busie or Ignorant People more easily find out the true Church and the infallible Judge than they can read in Scripture that they must worship none but God that they must not worship Images and Pictures that they must pray to God in a known Tongue and celebrate the Supper of our Lord by drinking of the Cup as well as by eating the Bread Whoever ventures to forsake the Communion of a Church wherein he was baptized and educated I am sure ought to be able to judge whether he be or no and those who confess they are not able to judge ought to be kept where they are for it is safer to continue in a Church without Judgment than to forsake it without Reason and Judgment In the first Case The Providence of God in our Birth and Education will make some Apology for our involuntary Mistakes but if we wantonly leave one Church and go to another without being able to judge of either the Act is wholly our own choice and if we leave a better for a worse we must take what follows and therefore this is the most improper Argument in the World to be used by one who is wavering between two Churches for if he must not use his own private Judgment I cannot guess how he should either chuse or refuse Those who challenge a liberty of judging for themselves which is the undoubted right of all Reasonable Creatures may change as they see reason and at their own peril if they chuse wrong but those who disclaim all right and capacity of judging must continue as they are and take their chance for they may as well chuse their Faith as their Guide whom they will in all things believe But still the force of the Objection is not answered That he who will judge must judge upon the whole matter and therefore must be able to know and answer whatever is said to the contrary which the greatest number of Men as well as Women are not able to do but if this be true the greatest numbers of Men as well as Women must never believe there is a God or that Christ came from God to declare his Will to the World for there are very few of them that ever heard or are able to answer the tenth part of the Arguments of Atheists and Infidels against the Being of a God and the Christian Religion and yet it is ridiculous to talk of Authority or a Judge of Controversies in these matters for we must first believe there is a God and that Christ came from God before we can believe that they have appointed a Judge of Controversies So that