Object of Holy Worship We must give the Eucharist in both kinds according to Christ's express Institution We must understand our Prayers when St. Paul's words are so clear about it So far at least we have plain and positive Words of Scripture on our side And for Implications and far fetch'd Interpretations commend me to the Pope's Bulls especially when they have a mind to prove their Authority from Scripture which they can do from In the beginning to the end of the Apocalypse But that which seems to be aimed at here is This is my Body wherein the words seem to be plain and positive on their side and our sense to be from Implications or far-fetched Interpretations To which I Answer That there are Expressions in Scripture as plain and positive as this which none think themselves bound to understand in their literal sense For then we must all believe that God hath Eyes and Ears a Face Hands and Feet as firmly as that the Bread was then turned into Christ's Body when he spake those words And I would know whether the Christian Church rejecting the Doctrine of Those who made God to be like to Man was not chargeable with the same resisting the Truth and denying plain and positive Words of Scripture as we are And yet I hope the Christian Church did then believe it self Suppose any should assert That the Rock in the Wilderness was really changed into Christ's Body would not he have the very same Things to say against those who denied it For are not the Words as plain and as positive That Rock was Christ But Sacramental Expressions by the consent of the Christian Church and the very Neture of the Things are of a different sense from Logical Propositions And if this had been intended in the plain and literal sense St. Paul would never have as plainly and positively called it Bread after Consecration nor the Cup be said to be the New Testament in his Blood The Conclusion is Is there any other Foundation of the Protestant Church but that if the Civil Magistrate pleases he may call such of the Clergy as he thinks fit for his turn at that time and turn the Church either to Presbytery or Independency or indeed what he pleases This was the way of our pretended Reformation here in England And by the same Rule and Authority it may be altered into as many Shapes and Forms as there are Fancies in Mens Heads This looks like a very unkind Requital to the Church of England for her Zeal in asserting the Magistrate's Power against a Foreign Jurisdiction to infer from thence that the Magistrate may change the Religion here which way he pleases But although we attribute the Supream Iurisdiction to the King yet we do not question but there are inviolable Rights of the Church which ought to be preserved against the Fancies of some and the Usurpations of others We do by no means make our Religion mutable according to the Magistrate's pleasure For the Rule of our Religion is unalterable being the Holy Scripture but the Exercise of it is under the regulation of the Laws of the Land And as we have cause to be thankful to God when Kings are Nursing Fathers to our Church so we shall never cease to pray for their continuing so and that in all things we may behave our selves towards them as becomes good Christians and Loyal Subjects AN ANSWER TO THE Third Paper THE Third Paper is said to be written by a Great Lady for the satisfaction of her Friends as to the Reasons of Her leaving the Communion of the Church of England and making her self a Member of the Roman Catholick Church If she had written nothing concerning it none could have been a competent Judg of those Reasons or Motives she had for it but her self but since she was pleased to write this Paper to satisfy her Friends and it is thought fit to be published for general Satisfaction all Readers have a right to judg of the strength of them and those of the Church of England an Obligation to vindicate the Honour of it so far as it may be thought to suffer by them I am sensible how nice and tender a thing it is to meddle in a Matter wherein the Memory of so Great a Lady is so nearly concern'd and wherein such Circumstances are mentioned which cannot fully be cleared the Parties themselves having been many Years dead But I shall endeavour to keep within due bounds and consider this Paper with respect to the main Design of it and take notice of other Particulars so far as they are subservient to it The way of her Satisfaction must needs appear very extraordinary for towards the Conclusion she confesses She was not able nor would she enter into Disputes with any Body Now where the Difference between the two Churches lies wholly in Matters of Dispute how any one could be truly satisfied as to the Grounds of leaving one Church and going to the other without entring into matter of Dispute with any body is hard to understand If Persons be resolved before-hand what to do and therefore will hear nothing said against it there is no such way as to declare they will enter into no Dispute about it But what Satisfaction is to be had in this manner of proceeding How could one bred up in the Church of England and so well instructed in the Doctrines of it ever satisfy her self in forsaking the Communion of it without enquiring into and comparing the Doctrines and Practices of both Churches It is possible for Persons of Learning who will take the pains of examining things themselves to do that without entring into Disputes with any Body but this was not to be presumed of a Person of her Condition For many things must fall in her way which she could neither have the leisure to examine nor the Capacity to judg of without the Assistance of such who have made it their business to search into them Had she no Divines of the Church of England about her to have proposed her Scruples to None able and willing to give her their utmost Assistance in a Matter of such Importance before she took up a Resolution of forsaking our Church This cannot be imagined considering not only her great Quality but that just esteem they had for her whilst she continued so zealous and devout in the Communion of our Church But we have more than this to say One of the Bishops who had nearest Relation to her for many Years and who owns in Print That he bred her up in the Principles of the Church of England was both able and willing to have removed any Doubts and Scruples with respect to our Church if she would have been pleased to have communicated them to him And however she endeavoured to conceal her Scruples he tells her in his Letter to her which he since printed for his own vindication That he had heard much Discourse concerning her
Imprimatur Z. Isham R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. Ã Sacris 1685. AN ANSWER TO SOME PAPERS Lately Printed concerning the AUTHORITY OF THE Catholick Church In MATTERS of FAITH and the REFORMATION of the CHURCH of ENGLAND LONDON Printed for Ric. Chiswel at the Rose and Crown in S t Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVI AN Advertisement IF the Papers here answered had not been so publickly dispersed through the Nation a due Respect to the Name they bear would have kept the Author from publishing any Answer to them But because they may now fall into many hands who without some assistance may not readily resolve some difficulties started by them He thought it not unbecoming his duty to God and the King to give a clearer light to the Things contained in them And it can be no reflection on the Authority of a Prince for a private Subject to examine a piece of Coyn as to its just value though it bears His Image and Superscription upon it In matters that concern Faith and Salvation we must prove all things and hold fast that which is good AN ANSWER TO THE First Paper IF all men could believe as they pleased I should not have fail'd of satisfaction in this First Paper the Design of it being to put an end to Particular Disputes to which I am so little a Friend that I could have been glad to have found as much reason in it to convince as I saw there was a fair appearance to deceive But there is a Law in our Minds distinct from that of our Inclinations and out of a just and due regard to That we must examine the most plausible Writings though back'd with the greatest Authority before we yield our Assent unto them If particular Controversies about Matters of Faith could be ended by a Principle as visible as that the Scripture is in Print all men of sence would soon give over Disputing for none who dare believe what they see can call that in Question But what if the Church whose Authority it is said they must submit to will not allow them to believe what they see How then can this be a sufficient reason to perswade them to believe the Church because it is as visible as that the Scripture is in Print unless we must only use our senses to find out the Church and renounce them assoon as we have done it Which is a very bad requital of them and no great Honour to the Church which requires it But with all due submission it is no more visible that the Roman Church is the Catholick Church than it is that a part is the whole and the most corrupt part that one Church which Christ hath here upon Earth It is agreed among all Christians That Christ can have but one Church upon Earth as there is but one Lord one Faith one Baptism And this is that Church we profess to believe in the two Creeds But if those who made those Creeds for our direction had intended the Roman Catholick Church why was it not so expressed How came it to pass that such a limitation of the sense of Christs Catholick Church to the Roman should never be put to Persons to be Baptized in any Age of the Church For I do not find in the Office of Baptism even in the Roman Church that it is required that they believe the Roman Catholick Church or that they deny the validity of Baptism out of the Communion of the Roman Church From whence it is to me as visible as that the Scripture is in Print that the Church of Rome it self doth not believe that it is the one Catholick Church mentioned in the two Creeds For then it must void all Baptism out of its Communion which it hath never yet done And as long as Baptism doth enter Persons into the Catholick Church it is impossible that all who have the true form of Baptism though out of the Communion of the Roman Church should be Members of the Catholick Church and yet the Communion of the Roman and Catholick be all one as it must be if the Roman Church be the Catholick and Apostolick Church professed in the Creeds If we had been so happy to have lived in those Blessed Times when the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul it had been no difficulty to have shewed that one visible Church which Christ had here upon Earth But they must be great strangers to the History of the Church who have not heard of the early and great Divisions in the Communion of it And there was a remarkable difference in the Nature of those Schisms which happened in the Church which being not considered hath been the occasion of great misaplication of the sayings of the Antients about the One Catholick Church Some did so break off Communion with other parts of the Catholick Church as to challenge that Title wholly to themselves as was evident in the case of the Novatians and Donatists for they rebaptiz'd all that embraced their Communion Others were cast out of Communion upon particular differences which were not supposed to be of such a nature as to make them no members of the Catholick Church So the Bishops of Rome excommunicated the Bishops of Asia for not keeping Easter when They did and the Bishops both of Asia and Africa for not allowing the Baptism of Hereticks But is it reasonable to suppose that upon these Differences they shut out all those Holy Bishops and Martyrs from the possibility of Salvation by excluding them from their Communion If not then there may be different Communions among Christians which may still continue Parts of the Catholick Church and consequently no one Member of such a Division ought to assume to it self the Title and Authority of the One Catholick Church But if any One Part doth so though never so great and conspicuos it is guilty of the same Presumption with the Novatians and Donatists and is as much cause of the Schisms which happen thereupon in the Church as they were For a long time before the Reformation there had been great and considerable breaches between the Eastern and Western Churches insomuch that they did renounce each other Communion And in these Differences four Patriarchal Churches joined together against the fifth viz. that of the Bishop of Rome But the Eastern Patriarchs sinking in their Power by the horrible Invasion of the Enemies of the Christian Faith and the Bishops of Rome advancing themselves to so much Authority by the advantages they took from the kindness of some Princes and the Weakness of others They would hear of no other terms of accommodation with the Eastern Churches but by an intire submission to the Pope as Head of the Catholick Church Which all the Churches of the East refused however different among themselves and to this day look on the Pope's Supremacy as an Innovation in the Church and Usurpation on the Rights of the other Patriarchs and Bishops In all
those Churches the Two Creeds are professed true Baptism administred and an undoubted Succession of Bishops from the Apostles How then come They to be excluded from being Parts of the One Catholick and Apostolick Church And if they be not excluded how can the Roman Church assume to it self that glorious Title So that it seems to me as visible as that the Scripture is in Print that the Roman Church neither is nor can be that One Church which Christ left upon Earth And this Principle being removed which ought to be taken for granted since it can never be proved we must unavoidably enter into the Ocean of Particular Disputes And I know no reason any can have to be so afraid of it since we have so sure a Compass as the Holy Scripture to direct our passage But the reason of avoiding particular Disputes is because the evidence is too clear in them that the Church of Rome hath notoriously deviated from this infallible Rule And it is as impossible for a Church which hath erred to be Infallible as for a Church really Infallible to err But if a Church pretend to prove her Infallibility by Texts which are not so clear as those which prove her to have actually erred then we have greater reason to recede from her Errors than to be deceived with such a fallible pretence to Infallibility Well! But it is not left to every phantastical mans head to believe as he pleases but to the Church And is it indeed left to the Church to believe as it pleases But the meaning I suppose is that those who reject the the Authority of the Roman Catholick Church do leave every man to believe according to his own fancy Certainly those of the Church of England cannot be liable to any imputaion of this Nature For our Church receives the three Creeds and embraces the four General Councils and professes to hold nothing contrary to any Universal Tradition of the Church from the Apostles times And we have often offered to put the Controversies between Us and the Church of Rome upon that issue And do not those rather believe as they please who believe the Roman Church to be the Catholick Church without any colour from Scriptures Antiquity or Reason Do not those believe as they please who can believe against the most convincing evidence of their own senses Do not those believe as they please who can reconcile the lawfulness of the Worship of Images with Gods forbidding it the Communion in one kind with Christ's Institution and the praying in an unknown Tongue with the 14 Ch. of the first Epistle to the Corinthians But all these and many other Absurdities may go down by vertue of the Churches Authority to whom it is said Christ left the Power upon Earth to govern us in matters of Faith We do not deny that the Church hath Authority of declaring matters of Faith or else it never could have condemn'd the Antient Heresies But then we must consider the difference between the Universal Church in a General and free Council declaring the sense of Scripture in Articles of Faith generally received in the Christian Church from the Apostles Times as was done when the Nicene Creed was made and a Faction in the Church assuming to it self the Title of Catholick and proceeding by other rules than the first Councils did and imposing new Opinions and Practices as things necessary to the Communion of the Catholick Church And this is the true Point in difference between us and those of the Roman Church about the Churches Authority in matters of Faith since the Council of Trent For we think we have very great reason to complain when a Party in the Church the most corrupt and obnoxious takes upon it self to define many new Doctrines as necessary Points of Faith which have neither Scripture nor Universal Tradition for them It were a very irrational thing we are told to make Laws for a Country and leave it to the Inhabitants to be Interpreters and Iudges of those Laws for then every Man will be his own Iudge and by consequence no such thing as either Right or Wrong But is it not as irrational to allow an Usurper to interpret the Laws to his own advantage against the just Title of the Prince and the true Interest of the People And if it be not Reasonable for any private Person to be his own Iudge why should a publick Invader be so But we hope it will be allowed to the Loyal Inhabitants of a Country so far to interpret the Laws as to be able to understand the Duty they owe to their King and to justifie his Right against all the Pretences of Usurpers And this is as much as we plead for in this case Can we therefore suppose That God Almighty would leave us at those uncertainties as to give us a Rule to go by and leave every Man to be his own Iudge And can we resonably suppose That God Almighty should give as a Rule not capable of being understood by those to whom it was given in order to the great End of it viz. the saving of their Souls For this was the main end of the Rule to direct us in the way to Heaven and not meerly to determine Controversies The Staff which a Man uses may serve to measure things by but the principal design is to walk with it So it is with the Holy Scripture if Controversies arise It is fit to examine and compare them with this Infallible Rule but when that is done to help us in our way to Heaven is that which it was chiefly intended for And no Man can think it of equal consequence to him not to be mistaken and not to be damned In matters of Good and Evil every mans Conscience is his immediate Judge and why not in matters of Truth and Falshood Unless we suppose mens involuntary mistakes to be more dangerous than their wilful sins But after all We do not leave every Man to be his own Iudge any further than it concerns his own Salvation which depends upon his particular Care and Sincerity For to prevent any dangerous Mistakes by the Artifice of Seducers we do allow the Assistance of those Spiritual Guides which God hath appointed in his Church for the better insturcting and governing private Persons We embrace the Ancient Creeds as a summary comprehension of the Articles of Faith and think no Man ought to follow his own particular Fancy against Doctrines so universally received in the Christian Church from the Apostles Times I do ask any Ingenuous Man whether it be not the same thing to follow our own Fancy or to interpret Scripture by it If we allowed no Creeds no Fathers no Councils there might have been some colour for such a Question But do we permit Men to interpret Scripture according to their own Fancy who live in a Church which owns the Doctrine of the Primitive Church more frankly and ingenuously than any Church in the World
Christendom groans under the sad effects of them and it is a very self-denying humour for those to be most sensible of the want of them who would really suffer the most by them Can there be any Iustice done where the Offenders are their own Iudges and equal Interpreters of the Law with those that are appointed to Admister Iustice And is there any likelihood Justice should be better done in another Country by another Authority and proceeding by such Rules which in the last resort are but the Arbitrary will of a Stranger And must such a one pretending to a Power he hath no right to be Iudge in his own Cause when he is the greatest Offender himself But how is this applied to the Protestants in England This is our Case here in England in matters Spiritual for the Protestants are not of the Church of England as 't is the true Church from whence there can be no Appeal but because the Discipline of that Church is conformable at present to their fancies which as soon as it shall contradict or vary from they are ready to embrace or joyn with the next Congregation of People whose Discipline or Worship agrees with the Opinion of that Time The sense of this Period is not so clear but that one may easily mistake about it That which is aimed at is that we of the Church of England have no tie upon us but that of our own judgments and when that changes we may join with Independents or Presbyterians as we do now with the Church of England And what security can be greater than that of our Judgments If it be said to be nothing but fancy and no true Iudgment we must beg leave to say that we dare Appeal to the World whether we have not made it appear that it is not fancy but Iudgment which hath made us firm to the Church of England Might it not as well have been said that the Protestants of the Church of England adhered to the Crown in the Times of Rebellion out of Fancy and not out of Iudgment And that if their Fancy changed they might as well have joined with the Rebels Will not this way of Reasoning hold as strongly against those of the Church of Rome For why do any adhere to that but because it is agreeable to their Judgment so to do What evidence can they give that it is Iudgment in them and only Fancy in us If Reason must be that which puts the difference we do not question but to make ours appear to be Iudgment and theirs Fancy For what is an infallible Iudge which Christ never appointed but Fancy What is their unwritten Word as a Rule of Faith to be equally received with the Scriptures but Fancy What is giving honour to God by the Worship of Images but Fancy What is making Mediators of Intercession besides the Mediator of Redemption but Fancy What is the Doctrine of Concomitancy to make amends for half the Sacrament but Fancy What is the substantial Change of the Elements into the Body of Christ but Fancy for both Senses and Reason are against it What is the deliverance of Souls out of Purgatory by Masses for the Dead but meer Fancy But I forbear giving any more Instances So that according to this Doctrine there is no other Church nor Interpreter of Scripture but that which lies in every Man 's giddy Brain Let Mens Brains be as giddy as they are said to be for all that I can see they are the best faculties they can make use of for the understanding of Scripture or any thing else And is there any Infallible Church upon Earth which must not be beholding to Mens giddy Brains for believing it And it may be never the less giddy for doing it For God-sake why do any Men take the Church of Rome to be Infallible Is it not because their Understandings tell them they ought so to do So that by this consequence there is no Infallible Church but what lies in every Mans giddy Brain I desire to know therefore of every serious Considerer of these things whether the great Work of our Salvation ought to depend on such a Sandy Foundation as this I thank God I have seriously considered this matter and must declare that I find no Christian Church built on a more sandy Foundation than that which pretends to be setled upon a Rock I mean so far as it imposes the new Faith of Trent as a necessary Condition of Salvation Had we no other reason to embrace Christianity than such as they offer for these New Doctrines I am much afraid Christianity it self to all inquisitive Men would be thought to have but a Sandy Foundation But what is this Sandy Foundation we build upon Every Man 's private judgment in Religion No understanding Man builds upon his own Judgment but no Man of understanding can believe without it For I appeal to any ingenious Man whether he doth not as much build upon his own Judgment who chuseth the Church as he that chuseth Scripture for his Rule And he that chuseth the Church hath many more Difficulties to conquer than the other hath For the Church can never be a Rule without the Scriptures but the Scriptures may without the Church And it is no such easy matter to find the Churches Infallibility in the Scripture But suppose that be found he hath yet a harder Point to get over viz. How the Promises relating to the Church in general came to be appropriated to the Church of Rome Which a Man must have an admirable Faculty at discerning who can find it out either in Scripture or the Records of the Ancient Church The places of Scripture which are brought about Christ's being with his Church to the end of the World about the Power to forgive Sins about the Clergy being God's Labourers Husbandry Building having the Mind of Christ do as effectually prove Infallibility of the Church of England as the Church of Rome for I cannot discern the least inclination in any of them to favour one against the other And pray consider on the other side that those who resist the Truth and will not submit to his Church draw their Arguments from Implications and far-fetch'd Interpretations at the same time that they deny plain and positive Words which is so great a Disingenuity that 't is not almost to be thought that they can believe themselves This is a very heavy Charge To resist the Truth to deny plain and positive Words of Scripture to be guilty of great Disingenuity so as not to believe our selves are faults of so high a nature as must argue not only a bad Cause but a very bad Mind And God forbid that those of the Church of England should ever be found guilty of these things But to come to Particulars Is it resisting Truth or arguing from Implications and denying plain and positive Words of Scripture to say We must not worship Images We must make God alone the
besides without setting up any private Spirit against it or the present Roman Church to be the Interpreter of it And now I hope I may have leave to ask some Questions of any ingenuous Man as whether it be not the same thing for the Church of Rome to make the Rule as to assume to it self the fole Power of giving the sense of it For what can a Rule signifie without the sense And if this were the intention of Almighty God had it not been as necessary to have told us to whom he had given the Power of Interpreting the Rule as to have given the Rule it self Whether it be reasonable for the Church of Rome to interpret those Texts wherein this Power of Interpreting is to be contained For this is to make it Iudge in its own Cause which was thought an Absurdity before And whether it be not as mischievous to allow a Prosperous Usurper the Power of interpreting Laws according to his own Interest as any private Person according to his own Fancy Whether it be possible to reform Disorders in the Church when the Person principally accused is Supream Judge Whether those can be indifferent Judges in Councils who before-hand take an Oath to defend that Authority which is to be Debated Whether Tradition be not as uncertain a Rule as Fancy when Men judge of Tradition according to their Fancy I would have any Man shew me where the Power of deciding matters of Faith is given to every particular Man If by deciding Matters of Faith be understood the determining them in such a manner as to oblige others I do not know where it is given to every particular Man nor how it should be For then every particular Man would have a Power over every particular Man and there would want a new Decision whose should take place But if by deciding Matters of Faith no more be meant but every mans being satisfied of the Reasons why he believes one thing to be true and not another that belongs to every Man as he is bound to take care of his Soul and must give an account both to God and Man of the Reason of his Faith And what can be meant in Scripture by Proving all things and holding fast that which is good 1 Thess. 5. 21. By trying the Spirits whether they be of God 1 John 4. 1. By judging of themselves what is right Luke 12. 57. unless God had given to Mankind a Faculty of discerning truth and falshood in Matters of Faith But if every Man hath not such a Power how comes he to be satisfied about the Churches Autority Is not that a Matter of Faith And where ever any Person will shew me that every Man hath a Power to determine his Faith in that matter I 'le undertake to shew him the rest Christ left his Power to his Church even to forgive Sins in Heaven and left his Spirit with them which they exercised after his Resurrection But where then was the Roman-Catholick Church And how can it be hence inferred That these Powers are now in the Church of Rome exclusive to all others unless it be made appear that it was Heir-General to all the Apostles I suppose it will be granted that the Apostles had some gifts of the Spirit which the Church of Rome will not in Modesty pretend to such as the Gift of Tongues the Spirit of Discerning Prophesie Miraculous Cures and Punishments Now here lyes the difficulty to shew what part of the Promise of the Infallible Spirit for the ordinary Power of the Keys relates not to this matter was to expire with the Apostles and what was to be continued to the Church in all Ages A Promise of Divine Assistance is denied by none but Pelagians But how far that extends is the Question In the Souls of good Men it is so as to keep them in the way to Heaven but not to prevent any lapse into sin and it were worth our knowing where God hath ever promised to keep any Men more from Error than from Sin Doth he hate one more than the other Is one more disagreeing to the Christian Doctrine than the other How came then so much to be said for the keeping Men from Error when at the same time they confess they may not only commit great sins but err very dangerously in the most Solemn manner in what relates to the Doctrine of Manners Would any have believed the Apostles Infallible if they had known them to be Persons of ill Lives or that they had notoriously erred in some Rules of great Consequence to the Welfare of Mankind Now all this is freely yielded as to the Pretence of Infallibility in the Church of Rome It is granted that the Guides of that Church have been very bad Men and that in Councils they have frequently erred about the Deposing Power being only a Matter of Practice and not of Faith Whether it be so or not I now dispute not but it is granted that notwithstanding this Infallible Spirit the Roman Church may grosly err in a matter of mighty Consequence to the Peace of Christendom and yet it cannot err in decreeing the least Matters of Faith As for Instance it can by no means err about the seven Sacraments or the Intention of the Priest about them but it may err about Deposing Princes and Absolving Subjects from their Allegiance Which in easier terms is They can never err about their own Interest but they may about any other whatsoever I pass over the next Paragraph the sense being imperfect and what is material about the Creeds hath been spoken to already That which next deserves Consideration is That the Church was the Iudge even of the Scripture it self many years after the Apostles which Books were Canonical and which were not We have a distinction among us of Iudges of the Law and Iudges of the Fact The One declare what the Law is the Fact being supposed the Other gives judgment upon the Fact as it appears before them Now in this Case about the Canonical Books the Church is not judge of the Law For they are not to declare whether a Book appearing to be Canonical ought by it to be received for Canonical which is taken for granted among all Christians but all they have to do is to give Judgment upon the Matter of Fact i. e. whether it appear upon sufficient Evidence to have been a Book written by Divine Inspiration And the Church of Rome hath no particular Priviledge in this matter but gives its Judgment as other parts of the Christian World do And if it takes upon it to judge contrary to the general sense of the Christian Church we are not to be concluded by it but an Appeal lyes to a greater Tribunal of the Universal Church And if they had this Power then I desire to know how they came to lose it Who are meant by They And what is understood by this Power It is one thing for a Part of the
how the Church of Rome came to have this Power of defining Heretical Doctrines or how any Doctrine comes to be Heresie by being contrary to its definitions For Heresie is an obstinate opposing some necessary Article of Faith It must therefore be proved that what the Church of Rome declares doth thereby become a necessary Article of Faith or it is very unreasonable to lay the imputation of Heresie upon us And this can never be maintained without proving that the Church of Rome hath a Power to make Doctrines not necessary before to become necessary by her Definition which is the same thing with making New Articles of Faith But these can never be proved to be such by Universal Tradition which the Church of Rome pretends for all her Articles of Faith Every Man thinks himself as competent a Iudge of Scripture as the very Apostles themselves Doth Every Man among us pretend to an infallible Spirit And yet Every Man owns that the Apostles had it But what is meant by being a Iudge of Scripture If no more be understood then that every Man must use his understanding about it I hope this is no Crime nor Heresie The Scripture must be believed in order to Salvation and therefore it must be understood for how can a Man believe what he understands not the sense or meaning of If he must understand the sense he must be Iudge of the sense so that every Man who is bound to believe the Scripture in order to his Salvation must be Judge of the sense of the Scripture so far as concerns his Salvation But if by being a Iudge of the Scripture be meant giving such a judgment as obliges others to submit to it then among us no particular Man doth pretend to be a competent Iudge of Scripture so as to bind others to rely upon his Authority in expounding Scripture We own the Authority of Guides in the Church and a due submission to them but we do not allow them to be as competent Iudges of Scripture as the very Apostles And 't is no wonder it should be so since that part of the Nation which looks most like a Church dares not bring the true Arguments against the other Sects for fear they should be turned against themselves and confuted by their own Arguments This is directly level'd against the Church of England which is hereby charged with Insincerity or Weakness in dealing with the Dissenters But we must consider the meaning of this charge It is no wonder it should be so i. e. That every Man should think himself as competent a Iudge of Scripture as the very Apostles because the Church of England dares not use the true Arguments against the Sects Whence it appears that this true Argument is the Churches infallible Authority and the Obligation of all Members of the Church to submit their judgments intirely thereto I confess that if the Church of England did pretend to this against the Sectaries they might justly turn it against her because in our Articles though the Churches Authority be asserted yet Infallibility is denyed If there can be no Authority in a Church without Infallibility or there can be no obligation to submit to Authority without it then the Church of England doth not use the best Arguments against Sectaries But if there be no ground for Infallibility if the Church which hath most pretended to it hath been most grosly deceived if the Heads of that Church have been not barely suspected of Heresie but one of them stands condemned for it in Three General Councils own'd by that Church then for all that I can see the Church of England hath wisely disowned the pretence of Infallibility and made use of the best Arguments against Sectaries from a just Authority and the sinfulness and folly of the Sectaries refusing to submit to it The Church of England as 't is called would fain have it thought That they are the Iudges in matters Spiritual yet dare not say positively there is no Appeal from them Is not the Church of England really what it is called I would fain know what it wants to make it as good a Church as any in the Christian World It wants neither Faith if the Creed contain it nor Sacraments and those entire nor Succession of Bishops as certain as Rome it self nor a Liturgy more agreeing to Primitive Worship then is any where else to be found Why then the Church of England as 't is called Well! But what is this Church now blamed for They pretend to be Iudges in matters Spiritual and yet dare not say there is no appeal from them How then Are there no true Judges but such as there lies no Appeal from There lies an Appeal from any Judges in the Kings Courts to the Court of Parliament are They not therefore true Judges in Westminster-Hall There lay an Appeal from Bishops to Metropolitans from them to Patriarchs from Patriarchs to General Councils according to the Antient Polity of the Church Were there therefore no true Judges but General Councils What follows relating to the Churches Authority and every Mans following his own judgment hath been answered already I proceed therefore to what further concerns this matter of Appeal What Country can subsist in Quiet where there is not a Supreme Iudge from whence there can be no Appeal The natural consequence from hence appears to be that every National Church ought to have the Supream Power within it self But how come Appeals to a foreign Jurisdiction to tend to the Peace and Quiet of a Church They have been always complained of in the best Ages of the Church and by the best Men such as S. Cyprian and S. Augustine and the whole African Churches The worst Men began them and the worst Church encouraged them without regard to the Peace of the Christian Church so it increased its own Grandeur by them We have had these hundred Years past the sad effects of denying to the Church that Power in matters Spiritual without an Appeal And our Ancestors for many hundred Years last past found the intolerable Inconveniencies of an Appeal to foreign Jurisdiction Whereby the Nation was exhausted Justice obstructed the Clergy oppressed and the Kings Prerogative greatly diminished But these were slight things in Comparison to what we have felt these hundred Years past for want of it Have not the Kings Courts been open for matters of Law and Justice which have been fill'd with Men of as great Abilities and Integrity since the Reformation as ever they were before Hath not the Appeal to the King in his High Court of Chancery been as much for the King and People as ever the Appeal was to the Court of Rome Have not all the Neighbour Princes been forced for the preserving their own Dignity to set Bounds and Limits to Appeals to Rome and to Orders or Bulls that come from thence How then comes the want of such an Appeal to be thought to produce such sad effects here All