Councils convened about the Arian Controversie after the decision of the Nicene Fathers if that had put an end to all farther Disputes and Appeals which is a good Argument that the Christians did not then think that the Authority of a Council was so sacred that no man must question it when succeeding Councils examined and many times reversed the Decrees of former Councils nay that Councils which were not general should make bold with the Decrees of General Councils which is but a degree removed from every man's private Reason But the Council anathematized all those that did not receive their Decrees and does this prove that they denied all Christians a liberty of examining after them Might they not declare such Doctrines to be damnable Heresies and reject such men out of their Communion without believing their Decrees to be so infallible and sacred that no man must examin them Do not the Protestant Churches do this without pretending to such an absolute Authority over mens Faith A fallible man who is certainly assured that any Doctrine is a damnable Heresie may declare it to be so and if he have any such Authority in the Church he may cast such men out of Communion and this is all that an Anathema signifies and all this may be done and yet men dispute on and judge for themselves and therefore to denounce an Anathema does not prove that he that does it has such an infallible and uncontroulable Authority as must silence all Disputes and captivate mens Reasons and Understandings to his Dictates As for that Passage That the Guides of the Church did not then think a man safe though he to the best of his understanding did expound Scripture if he did not follow the Sense of the Church it has something of truth but a great deal of sophistry in it It is so far true that a man who embraces damnable Errors is not safe how firmly soever he be perswaded of the truth of them and that it is very hazardous to contradict the Sense not of any Council which may be a pack't Conventicle of Hereticks nor of any particular Age of the Church which may be very ignorant or very corrupt but of the Universal Church in all Places and Ages but in this Sense it is nothing to the present purpose And if the meaning be as it seems to be that it is dangerous for a man to use his own Reason and Judgment in opposition to the Decrees of Councils it may sometimes be so and sometimes not as the Council is and whatever the event be every man must judge of that it may prove dangerous to a man to use his Reason if he do not use it right but yet there is no help for it but every man must use his Reason or act like a Fool. But possibly it will be asked What Authority then do we allow to Councils and I shall very freely speak my mind of it 1. In Cases that are doubtful the Judgment of so many wise and learned and pious men from all parts of the Christian Church is a very probable Argument of the truth of their Decrees and no modest man will openly oppose what they determine unless it appears that there was something of Faction and Interest at the bottom or that the Reasons whereby they were over-ruled were so weak or ludicrous as to render their Judgments contemptible For if the Opinion of one learned man be so considerable much more is the deliberate Judgment of so many great and good men Secondly The Authority of ancient Councils is very considerable as they were credible Witnesses of the Apostles Doctrine and Practice and the constant Faith of the Church in the preceding Ages which is a mighty satisfaction to find by these venerable Records that what we now believe was the Faith of the Church in the best and purest Ages before it was divided by Schisms and Factions or corrupted with ease or liberty or wanton disputes Thirdly General or National Councils have authority to determine what Doctrines shall be publickly professed and taught in their Churches and be made the Articles of Church Communion as it must necessarily be if there be any authority in the Church For it is fit that the Faith of the Church should be one and those who have the government of the Church must have the care of the Faith But then this Authority does not oblige any man to believe as the Church believes and to receive all such Decrees without Examination but only if we will live in Communion with such a Church we must own the Faith of that Church for she will allow none to communicate with her who do not Now if the Faith and Worship of such a Church be pure and orthodox the Church is in the right in requiring obedience and conformity to her Decrees and Constitutions and those who refuse it must answer it both to God and Men if her Faith be corrupt she abuses her Power in imposing it on Christians and no man is bound to believe what is false because the Church defines it to be true If you ask whose Judgment ought to take place the Judgment of the Church or of every private Christian I answer The Judgment of the Church of necessity must take place as to External Government to determine what shall be professed and practised in her Communion and no private Christian has any thing to do in these Matters but when the Question is What is right or wrong true or false in what we may obey and in what not here every private Christian who will not believe without understanding nor follow his Guides blindfold must judge for himself and it is as much as his Soul is worth to judge right For if he reject the Faith and the Communion of the Church without a just and necessary cause he is a Heretick and a Schismatick liable to the Censures of the Church in this World and to the vengeance of God in the next If he reject an erroneous and corrupt Communion he incurs the Censures of the Church which in most Christian Kingdoms are attended with some temporal Inconveniences and if he imbrace it he is in danger of a future Judgment For if the blind lead the blind they shall both fall into the Dith These are the proper limits of all Human Authority both in Church and State below this there is no Authority and above it it is not Human Authority for a blind Obedience can be due to none but God and he himself seldom exacts it If we will grant Governours and Subjects to be men who have the use of their own Reason and Judgment it is impossible to state the Case of Authority and Subjection otherwise than thus That the Faith and Judgment of Governours influences and directs their Government and gives Laws of Faith and Manners to Subjects and the private Judgments of Subjects direct them how far they are to believe and obey their Governors and God himself
as well as Bishops from the Apostles that they believed and practised neither more nor less through all the several Ages of the Church to this day than what St. Peter taught them though this would not make them the Judge of Controversies yet they would be good Witnesses of the Apostolical Faith and there would be great reason to enquire what their Faith and Worship is But their meer Succession to the Apostles does not prove that they have neither diminished nor added to the Faith of the Apostles for there is no natural necessity that those who succeed should always be of the mind of their Predecessors and we have plain Evidence that the Church of Rome has in several Ages made new and strange additions to the Christian Faith and their Succession of Bishops without a Succession of Faith and Worship is little worth And yet it is much stranger still that the Church of Romes pretence to the Authority of a Judge should be made a Reason to believe that she has this Authority What advantage has Confidence above Modesty over weak Minds The Church of England might pretend this with as much reason as the Church of Rome but she disowning Infallibility loses all claim to it and the Church of Rome pretending to Infallibility it seems gains a right to it by Possession and Usurpation But the Argument such as it is seems to be this That the Divines of the Church of England wish in this confusion of things that there were a Judge of Controversies and therefore by their own Confession a Judge is very useful and necessary and therefore there is such a Judge and no other Church pretending to that Authority but the Church of Rome therefore she alone is that Judge Which is such a Chain of Consequences as hang together by Magick for they have no natural connexion If we did think a Judge of Controversies useful does it hence follow that God has appointed such a Judge when there is no appearance of any such thing Or if God had appointed such a Judge does the Church of Romes pretending to be that Judge when she can shew no Commission for it prove that she is so But the truth is whatever Divines they be if there be any such who wish for such a Judge to unite the whole Christian Church in Faith and Worship take very wrong Measures of things And because the true understanding of this is the most effectual way to end this Controversie I shall discourse particularly of it 1. First then I observe That an infallible Judge of Controversies whom we are bound in all cases to believe is inconsistent with the constitution of human Nature Man is a Reasonable Creature and it is natural to a Reasonable Creature to understand and judge for himself and therefore to submit to any mans Judgment how infallible soever he be presumed to be without understanding and judging for our selves is an unnatural imposition upon Mankind this destroys human Nature and transforms a Man who is a knowing and intelligent Creature into a sensless though infallible Machin which moves by external direction not from an inward Principle of Knowledge and Life To know and to follow a Guide without any Knowledge or Judgment of our own are two very different things the first is the Understanding of a man the other a sort of Knowledge without Understanding For though I had an entire System of true Propositions which I must exercise no act of Reason and Judgment about but only receive them as the Dictates of an infallible Judge this is not human Knowledge this is no perfection of human Understanding no man is a jot the wiser or more knowing for all this no more than he would be who could repeat all the Propositions in Euclid and believe them to be all true upon the Authority of his Master but knows not how to demonstrate any one of them which is to understand nothing about them Now I can never believe that God will destroy human Nature by suspending all the acts of Reason and Judgment to make men infallible which is a certain way indeed to prevent Error to let men know and judge of nothing that they may not mistake but for my part I value knowledge so much that I had rather venture some Mistakes than forfeit my Understanding If my Faith must be resolved wholly into the Authority of an infallible Judge though I may think I understand some things yet I must not believe for that Reason for then I must believe nothing but what I do understand and see a Reason for which makes every man his own Judge but I must believe my Judge with or without Understanding without the exercise of my own Reason and Judgment which may make us good Catholicks but does also unman us But you 'l say Are we not bound to believe infallible Teachers whom we know to be infallible And has not God in several Ages given such Teachers to the World Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles And must we not resign up our Understandings to them and does this unman us Why then may we not resign up our Understandings to an infallible Judge now as we ought to have done had we lived in the days of Christ and his Apostles and any other infallible Teachers Now for Answer to this consider Secondly That no infallible Teacher can wholly supersede the exercise of our own Reason and Judgment For though the immediate Authority of God must and ought in all cases to over-rule us and is the best and most rational account of our Faith for nothing is more reasonable than to believe God who is Eternal Truth yet when any man pretends to teach by Gods Authority we must in the first place judge of his Authority and not believe every one who pretends to come from God which resolves the very Reason of our Faith into our own private Judgment and therefore by this Rule we must at least use our own Judgment in the choice of our Judge which in our present case will infer the use of our own Reason and Judgment as to all the material Disputes in Religion and make such a Judge needless when we have found him Of which more presently Nay Secondly VVe must judge of the Doctrine of such a Teacher by Sense and Reason which are the natural Principles of Knowledge for let a man pretend never so much to a Divine Authority if he preach any thing contrary to the Sense and Reason of Mankind we are not to believe him no not though he should work Miracles For we must believe nothing comes from God which is contrary to Sense and Reason which are the natural Notices God has given us of things and as God cannot contradict himself so we can never be surer that any man speaks from God than we are of what Sense and Reason teaches and if the Church of Rome would but suffer us to judge thus far we should have an infallible demonstration
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
obstinately refuse to consult that living Oracle and infallible Judge whom God hath placed in his Church to decide all Controversies in Faith and Worship Protest Sir I thank you for your Charity and though I do not find my self so uncertain as I perceive you think I am yet I should be glad of such an infallible Guide as you talk of if I knew where to find him Pap. He is to be found in the Church of Rome for that is the Church which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth there is St. Peter's Chair whom Christ made the Supream Governour of his Church whom he commanded to feed his Lambs and his Sheep that Rock on whom Christ promised to build his Church and that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against it and therefore in Communion with this Church and in obedience to the Supream Pastor of it you cannot err Prot. But pray how shall I be sure of this Pap. Do you ask that now when I have referred you to such plain Texts of Scripture for the proof of it Prot. Will you allow me then to interpret these Texts according to my own private Judgment and why then may I not use my judgment in other matters for I think all the Articles of my Creed are as plain in Scripture as that the Pope or Church of Rome is the Supream infallible Judge and indeed if I must stand to my own judgment in this matter I can find no such thing in these Texts you have alledged Pap. Your own judgment no by no means this causes all the Heresies in the World that men will presume to judge for themselves Prot. What course must I take then Pap. You must stand to the judgment of the Church which cannot err and whatever Hereticks say she will tell you that these Texts prove the Churches Infallibility Prot. Hold Sir what is it we are to prove Pap. That the Church is Infallible Prot. And this I must prove from Scripture Pap. Yes Prot. And must not rely on my own judgment neither for the sense of Scripture but on the interpretation of the Church Pap. Right This is the true Catholick Way Prot. That is I must take the Churches word that she is Infallible Pap. No you must believe the Scripture which says so Prot. But I must believe the Scripture not because I understand this to be the sense of it but because the Church so expounds it Pap. Right for Hereticks expound it otherwise Prot. And what is this then but to take the Churches word for her own Infallibility What difference is there between taking the Churches word at the first or second rebound To believe it because she says it her self or to believe it because she makes the Scripture say it And therefore if this be all you have to say I must e'en keep where I am and rather content my self without an infallible Judge than please my self with a meer imagination of Infallibility without any Foundation to rely on Thirdly And therefore the most learned Advocates of the Church of Rome are forced to grant that we have no infallible Assurance of Infallibility for we cannot be infallibly certain which the true Church is The only way they pretend to find out the true Church is by Marks and Notes of a Church which they say indeed have a Moral certainty though they are not infallible For according to their Principles they must not allow of any Infallibility without the sentence and definition of an infallible Judge for then Protestants may set up for Infallibility without a Judge of Controversies and therefore since there can be no infallible Judge to determine who is the Judge of Controversies they must content themselves in this matter with Moral certainty and this brings them to an even level with poor fallible Protestants They deal very hardly with us if they will not allow that we may have at least as much certainty of the Authority of Scripture and the true Sense and Interpretation of it as they can have of the Notes of the true Church which must be owned for the infallible Judge and if they be modest and understand the weakness of their own Cause they ought to be very thankful to us if we will allow them as much and may not we then be as infallible as they For indeed it is impossible that any Moral certainty should grow up into Infallibility As for instance No man can be more certain of the Decisions of an infallible Judge than he is of his Infallibility and therefore if he have not an infallible certainty of the Infallibility of the Judge he can't have an infallible certainty that he defines infallibly And thus the whole Faith of a Papist after all their brags of Infallibility is resolved into Moral certainty just as the Faith of a Protestant is only not with so much reason Let us take any one Article of our Faith wherein Papists and Protestants agree and see how much greater assurance Papists have of it than Protestants As suppose that Jesus Christ is the Eternal Son of God A Protestant believes this because he has all the Evidence that we can have for any thing of that nature that the Scriptures of the New Testament were writ by inspired men and that the words of Scripture in their most plain and obvious acceptation signifie this and therefore that this is the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles who were infallible Teachers So that the last Resolution of our Faith is into the Infallibility of Christ and his Apostles which we have all the Evidence of which Sense and Reason can give us On the other hand a Papist believes that Christ is the Eternal Son of God because the Church which is infallible teaches so and he finds out the true Church by some Notes and Marks of a Church which he thinks morally certain and when he has found the true Church concludes her to be infallible without more ado Now if the Infallibility of Christ and his Apostles be as good a Reason of Faith as the Infallibility of the Church or Pope of Rome and if we have as good Evidence that the Gospel was writ by inspired men and that such words are contained in the Gospel as prove Christ to be the Son of God as they have of their Marks and Notes whereby they find out the true Church then we have to the full as much certainty and Infallibility as they have They have but a Moral Evidence at best of the Infallibility of their Church and therefore are but morally certain what their Church teaches right and therefore if we have as much certainty as they have and God forbid we should have no more our Faith is built upon as sure a Foundation as theirs without making a noise with Infallibility which at last dwindles into some Arbitrary Notes and Marks of a Church And yet Fourthly not to trouble our selves at present with all the Notes and Marks which Cardinal Bellarmine and
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
the learned may contradict And therefore whoever will have a Judge of Controversies must not lay the necessity of having such a Judge meerly upon the ignorance of the Multitude for this does not prove that learned men must have such a Judge nay it proves that learned men need no such Judge if Ignorance only make him necessary and if there be not a Judge for learned men there can be no Judge of Controversies for there are more Disputes among the learned than the ignorant The ignorance of the People is only made a pretence to deceive ignorant People but is no good Reason for a visible Judge for there can be no visible Judge unless he judge for the learned as well as the unlearned and if learned men must not judge for themselves it is then a ridiculous thing to talk of any other Evidence than the Authority of the Judge for what does Evidence signifie if no man must use it Nay upon these Principles it is a ridiculous thing to distinguish between learned and unlearned men in Matters of Religion To what purpose is it to read and study the Scriptures Fathers and Councils when they must not exercise their own Reason or Judgment about them What priviledge have the learned above the unlearned when they must know and believe no more than their Judge will let them The Paper And we are discouraged from the quiet way of Submission to the Clergies Authority by your telling us That no Assembly of Men have power on Earth to bind the Conscience Answer How comes Submission to the Clergies Authority in here For is every Priest the Judge into whose Authority we must resolve our Faith This indeed is the last Resolution of Faith in the Church of Rome for the Priest is the immediate Guide of every mans Faith and Conscience and after all the talk of a visible Judge the People know nothing more what he teaches than what their Priest tells them who it may be himself knows little of the matter And I cannot see what greater security this gives the People of the Roman Communion than what our People have who have generally as wise and learned and honest Guides as they to say nothing more But who ever said That no Assembly of men have power on Earth to bind the Conscience We do acknowledge that the Church has power to make Laws to bind the Conscience for whatever Laws she makes for the edification and good government of Christian People which contradict no Law of God and are agreeable to the general Rules of the Gospel do bind the Conscience Nay in Matters of Faith the Authority of the Church is so sacred that all Christians are bound in Conscience quietly to submit to her Decisions where there is not plain Evidence against them But we say indeed That no Man nor Assembly of Men have such Authority as to oblige us to believe all their Dictates and Decrees without examination much less contrary to the evidence of Sense Reason and Scripture and the Judgment and Practice of the first Ages of the Church and therefore we do not require that men should believe meerly upon the Authority of their Teachers without understanding why they do so But this I hope is no discouragement to any men to submit to the Instructions of their Guides and to learn from them what they are to believe and why and this will make them wiser men and more understanding Christians than to rely wholly on their Authority The Paper For Authority that of the Church of Rome is infinitely greater who it is to be feared at least has an appearance of Succession and Visibility and who pretends that God has left in that Church such means so happy and so easie to attain to the certainty of the Truth that our very Divines wish in this confusion of things God had so ordered it for certainty and union Answer This is a strange Paragraph that only a fear of an appearance of Succession and Visibility and her own pretence that God has made her the visible Judge of Controversies should render the Authority of the Church of Rome infinitely greater than of any other Church which are very little things to give so great an Authority But we will readily grant that the Church of Rome has been a visible Church in a constant Succession of Bishops and Pastors from the Apostles days till now What then how does this give her a greater Authority than other Churches which have as visible a Succession as she The Greek Church has been a visible Church and preserved her Succession from the Apostles till now the Church of England is as visible and has as good a Succession as the Church of Rome how then does Succession and Visibility give the Church of Rome a greater Authority than the Greek Church or the Church of England It is a mighty weak Foundation for the Authority of a Judge of Controversies which is the matter in question that such a Church has a visible Succession from the Apostles A Judge of Controversies who shall oblige all men to believe his determinations must be infallible unless we will say that God has obliged us without examination to believe a Judge who may err which cannot be unless we can suppose that God may oblige us to believe a lye for thus it may happen if we are always obliged to believe a Judge who may sometimes err as all fallible Creatures may Which shews what a poor shift it is which some late Writers have used and which this Paper which speaks not one word of Infallibility seems to imitate to set aside the Dispute about the Infallibility of the Church which they can make nothing of and to insist only on the Authority of the Church to determine Controversies as a visible Judge for that only obliges men either to renounce the Communion of such a Church or to submit to her Determinations not at all adventures to believe as the Church believes as I shewed before and therefore this does not concern the Dispute about the Resolution of Faith Now if the Judge of Controversies must be infallible how does a visible Succession from the Apostles prove any Church to be infallible This is no natural effect as the Romanists themselves grant for then the Successors in all the Apostolical Chairs must be infallible since all the Apostles were as infallible as St. Peter whereas they will allow this only to the Chair of St. Peter as a peculiar Prerogative granted to him by Christ so that it is not Succession or Visibility which proves the Church of Rome to be the infallible Judge of Controversies which is the thing this Paper insists on but they must return to the good old Arguments of Tu es Petrus pasce Oves which I perceive the Author of this Paper was ashamed of and therefore I shall not take a needless trouble to confute them If indeed they could prove a visible Succession of Doctrine and Worship
be the meaning of some particular Phrases in this obscure Text so much is very plain in it that men who build hay and stubble upon the Foundation i. e. who believe in Christ though with a mixture of many vain and hurtful Superstitions shall yet if their lives be holy and vertuous be saved by the Faith of Christ though with some loss and hazard which makes the case of honest men who live in very corrupt Communions not perfectly hopeless And in this sense it is that we grant That Salvation may be had in the Church of Rome though this is no reason for any man to choose the Communion of a corrupt Church because there is a possibility of Salvation in it However this shews what a great mistake this Paper is guilty of where it is said That the best Christians in the Church of Rome which believe such damnable Doctrines can be saved only by Ignorance which most Protestant Divines believe the Pagans themselves may be For though invincible Ignorance is an equal excuse for Pagans and Christians yet when this excuse is allowed Pagans have not such a right to Salvation as Christians have Ignorance may excuse but cannot save It is only Faith in Christ saves us which corrupt Christians have and Pagans have not which is an essential difference Secondly Suppose the Errors of the Church were not damnable why might not the Church of England reform such Errors as are not damnable Suppose they only obscure the Glory of Christ's Mediation and are dangerous temptations to sin or hinder the Edification of the Church or betray men to false Notions of God and of Religion though they are not in themselves damnable why may not such Errors as these be reformed If the Church of Rome were convinced that she were guilty of such Errors ought she not to reform her self And is not every Church in duty bound to preserve her Faith and Worship as pure and uncorrupt as she can And why then is not the Church of England bound to do so If indeed the Church of Rome had a Supream Power over the Church of England that nothing could be done without her Approbation and Order then we would grant that in case of tolerable Errors such a dependent Church could not reform it self without the consent of its Superiour as no private Christian can reform the Church wherein he lives without the consent of the Governours of it But we say that every National Church has the Supream Independent Power within herself and therefore may correct any abuses and corruptions which are crept into her Communion without asking leave of the Bishop of Rome or any other Church in the World and this justifies the Reformation of the Church of England if she reformed nothing but what was erroneous though the Errors were not damnable for all Errors ought to be reformed when they are known if the Reformers have just Authority to do it and such Errors as are damnable will justifie any man to reform himself and all that he can convince of such Errors for every man has Authority to save his Soul Thirdly If the Church of Rome be guilty of damnable Errors how does Christ perform his Promise to his Church That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Now the difficulty of this Objection consists only in the sound of those Phrases The Gates of Hell by which some understand That the Devil shall never be able to corrupt the Faith of the Church for if he can do that then say they he prevails against the Church But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie only Destruction for Hades is properly the state of Dead men who are laid under-ground and appear no more in this World and therefore when our Saviour promises That the Gates of Hades shall not prevail against his Church the meaning is that there shall always be a Church in the World professing that Faith which here Peter had professed and whereon Christ promised to build his Church viz. That Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God And such a Church there has been in the World ever since and the Church of Rome it self notwithstanding all the Corruptions that are in it is such a Church But that the Church may be over-run with great and damning Errors is evident from St. Paul's Prediction of the Apostacy of the later days When the Man of Sin shall be revealed the Son of Perdition who as God sitteth in the Temple of God shewing himself that he is God 2 Thess. 2. 3 4. For whosoever this Man of Sin is he sits in the Temple of God that is in the true Church of Christ and while the Man of Sin sits in the Church we need not doubt but he brings some damning Errors with him and yet it is the Temple of God even when the Man of Sin sits there Fourthly As for the last thing mentioned it is sufficiently known that there were a great many Christian Churches in the World at the time of the Reformation who did not own the Usurpations of the Church of Rome and though they might have Errors of their own yet not of such fatal consequence But if all the Christian World had been equally corrupted at that time it had been the same thing to us for Corruptions ought to be reformed and we had Authority to reform our selves And as for joyning in Communion with other pure Churches we do so we own all pure Churches nay are ready to communicate with Churches which have some Corruptions in their Constitution if they be tolerable and do not render their Communion sinful which is all the Obligation we have to communicate with any Church For if by Communion they mean that we should have put our selves under the Government and Authority of any other Church which is the Sense of Communion in the Church of Rome which thinks no Church in Communion with her without submitting to her Authority we beg their pardon for that we will communicate with other Churches as Friends and Equals and Brethren but not as Subjects Secondly The next Argument for a visible Judge which the Paper insists on is That without such a Judge we cannot know that every particular Book of Scripture is Canonical And here are a great many Objections started against the Authority and certainty of the Canon which much more become Scepticks and Infidels than Christians of any Communion I do not think them worth transcribing for this Argument may be answered without answering these Objections which the Church of Rome is as much concerned to answer as we For those who originally made these Objections will not be put off with the Authority of a Judge without a rational Solution of these Difficulties and those who grant that there is no other Answer can be given to them but to resolve the credit of the Canon into the Authority of a Judge without any other Reason give up the Cause of Christianity to Infidels who despise the vain
or Pretorian Authority to forgive sins which is not compatible to any Creature For what can any man desire more han to be put into a state of Pardon and Forgiveness in this World and to be finally acquitted and absolved in the next But if the Priest have no such Judicial Authority to forgive Sins what a fatal Mistake is it for men to rely on such an ineffectual Absolution What a miserable surprize will it be for those who thought themselves pardoned by the Priest to be condemned by Christ Though we deny such a place as Purgatory is not the fear of Hell as good an Argument to bring men to Repentance Or does it lessen the Mercies of God or the hope of Sinners to say That God remits all future Punishments when he remits the Sin But if the hopes of expiating their Sins in Purgatory and of being prayed out of it should embolden any man in sin what a disappointment would it be to find their Purgatory to be Hell This is sufficient to shew That we can suffer nothing by denying such Doctrines as these unless the causless Anathema's of the Church of Rome can damn us but the hazard is so vastly great on the other side the Mistake will prove so fatal if they be in a mistake that nothing less than an infallible Certainty can justifie the Prudence of such a Choice and therefore it is not fit for such fallible Creatures as we own our selves to be to venture on them We are safe as we are and we think it best to keep our selves so though we had no other Reason for it but that it is good to be safe Thirdly Safe I say we are in rejecting these Doctrines unless they can prove that by rejecting them we want something necessary to Salvation There are two things especially wherein the Romanists think they have the advantage of us and for the sake of which some Protestants are perswaded to forsake the Communion of the Church of England for that of Rome That they eat the natural Flesh of Christ in the Sacrament and receive a Judicial Pardon of all their Sins by the Absolution of the Priest which we confess we do not Now suppose it were necessary to Salvation to eat the Natural Flesh of Christ and that Christ would not forgive any man who was not before forgiven by the Priest yet if these be the Institutions of Christ we have them as well as they and no man need go out of the Church of England for them If the words of Consecration This is my Body do by the Institution of Christ transubstantiate the Bread into the Natural Flesh of Christ these words must have the same effect when pronounced by a Priest of the Church of England as of the Church of Rome And therefore if this were the Intention of our Saviour to give us his Natural Flesh to eat we do eat it as much as they for we eat the consecrated Elements which are whatever Christ intended to make them by the words of Consecration For our not believing Transubstantiation cannot hinder the virtue of Consecration if Christ have so appointed it for the Institutions of our Saviour do not change their Nature with mens Opinions about them Thus Penitents in the Church of England may confess their Sins to a Priest if they please and receive Absolution and if by the Institution of our Saviour this is a Judicial Absolution then they have it and need not go to the Church of Rome for it There are but two Objections that I know of that can be made against this either that we have no true Priests and Bishops in the Church of England and therefore we have no Consecration of the Elements or that the Intention of the Priest is necessary to Consecration and nothing more is done than what the Priest intends to do and therefore no Priest can Transubstantiate but he who intends to Transubstantiate 1. As for the first of these If there be no true Priests and Bishops in the Church of England there are none in the Church of Rome for our Bishops and Priests derive their Succession from those Bishops who received Orders in the Communion of the Church of Rome and therefore have as good Orders as they could give and as they themselves had and if we have as true Bishops and Priests as the Church of Rome we must have as perfect Sacraments as they also 2. As for the Intention of the Priest That in the Church of Rome signifies no more than to intend to do what the Church does and why is not intending to do what Christ does as good and perfect an Intention as this And thus we all intend to do what Christ did which is all the Intention that can be necessary to Consecration unless the private Opinion of the Priest can alter the nature of the Institution But the Truth is If the Church of Rome depends upon the Intention of the Priest for Consecration no Papist can ever be sure that the Bread is consecrated and then to be sure it is not transubstantiated and therefore I think they may compound this business and allow us Transubstantiation if we will allow it them We want it not indeed and care not for it but those who lay so much stress upon it need not forsake the Communion of the Church of England for that Reason at least have no Reason to say That we want any thing necessary to Salvation Let us but observe the Institution of our Saviour and we need not fear but we shall receive all the Spiritual Blessings which Christ intended to convey to us in that Sacrament which those can never be sure of who do not observe the Institution but receive only a part of the Lord's Supper instead of the whole Were these things well considered I perswade my self no man would see any cause to forsake the Communion of the Church of England where he has all things necessary to Salvation without oppressing his Faith with Doctrines hard to be believed or endangering his Soul by doubtful and suspicious Practices at best THE INDEX THE Authority of a visible Judge of no use in converting Jews or Pagans 2 Faith not resolved into the Authority of a visible Judge in the time of Christ and his Apostles 3 Though some passages in Scripture are difficult others are plain 4 In what Sense the Scripture is plain 5 Whether the Doctrine of the Trinity be plainly revealed in Scripture 6 Whether General Councils have a power to determine Matters of Faith without Appeal to every mans reason 8 9 What Authority we allow to Councils 10 11 The use of Antiquity in expounding Scripture 12 The Church of Englands way of resolving of Faith 14 15 Hereticks pretences to Scripture no Argument of the uncertainty of this way 15 16 The Church of Romes pretences to Antiquity 16 17 What course People must take who are not able to judge of the Controversies in Religion 19. c. The ignorance of Common People only a pretence not a Reason for a Judge of Controversies 26 27 A visible Succession from the Apostles no mark of an infallible Church 29 Arguments against an infallible Judge 32 33 Proofs that Christ never intended to set up such a Judge 39 Certainty in Religion may be had without an infallible Judge 42 What Evidence required in Faith 43 Concerning the Unity of the Church 46 An Inquiry what Certainty a Papist can have 5â— Whether the Church of Rome be guilty of damnable Errors 60 Whether the Church of England had Authority to reform Errors which are not damnable 62 What is meant by the Gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church 63 Whether we cannot know what Books of Scripture are Canonical without a visible Judge 64 In what sense the Church is one 65 The Apostolick Churches the Standard of Catholick Unity and Communion 67 What Catholick Communion is 69 70 In what sense the Church is called Holy 72 The Church of England not Guilty of Schism 73 That there is greater safety in Communion with the Church of England than of the Church of Rome 75 to the end THE END
Proof but themselves which shews that the very highest Certainty of all is nothing else but an intuitive Knowledge or the Minds seeing and discerning that natural Evidence which is in things and those who will not allow a clear and distinct knowledge to be the Foundation of Certainty must reject all Self-evident Principles which we can have no other Proof of but themselves at least no better for we cannot reason in infinitum and therefore must come to some first Principles which are known only by their own light and evidence Next to this are those Notions and Idea's which are so easie and natural to our minds that most men believe them by a kind of natural sense and instinct without reasoning about them and those who have no mind to believe them yet cannot rid their minds of them such as the Being and Providence of God and the Essential differences between Good and Evil. These are the next degree to Self-evident Principles for they are natural Notions which indeed may be proved by Reason and must be so when we meet with men who will deny them but yet a well-disposed Mind has a natural byass and inclination to believe them sees them to be true and evident without reasoning about them This is very plain the less of Reasoning there is required in any case the more there is of Certainty First and Self-evident Principles admit of no Reasoning Natural Notions require none and as for all other matters the nearer they lie to first Principles or natural Notions the more certain and evident they are nay we have no other certainty of the deductions and conclusions of Reason but their manifest connexion to some Principles and Notions which may be known without Reasoning which shews as I said before That all natural Certainty is at last resolved into an intuitive Knowledge and the Certainty of Reason is nothing else but the connecting those things which we do not know by Nature with those which we do Sixthly Where natural Knowledge and natural Certainty ends there Revelation begins but still Certainty is not Infallibility but Evidence and natural Evidence too For there can be no communication between God and Creatures as to revealing his Will but by the mediation of our natural Faculties whether the Object be naturally or supernaturally revealed we have only our natural Faculties to know and understand with and therefore we can have no more than natural Evidence of supernatural Revelations though this Evidence is owing to supernatural Causes As for Instance An inspired Prophet though he be infallible as far as he is inspired yet it is not his Infallibility that makes him certain that he is inspired but that certain Evidence he has that this Revelation comes from God which must either be by some external and visible Signs or by some such vigorous impression upon the Mind as carries its own Evidence with it which what it is no man can know but he who has it As for those who are not inspired themselves but must learn from inspired Men their Faith must depend upon that evidence they have for the Revelation the natural Notion of Gods Veracity is the reason why they believe what they know is revealed they must use their own Faculties to understand what is revealed and they must judge of the truth and certainty of a Revelation from such Marks and Characters as are evident either to Sense or Reason So that Infallibility sounds very big but signifies very little in this Dispute for all Certainty whether in natural or revealed Knowledge must be resolved into Evidence not into Infallibility Though an inspired Prophet is an infallible Oracle in those things which he speaks by Inspiration yet it is not his Infallibility but that Evidence he has that he is divinely Inspired which makes him certain much less can any man be infallibly certain who is not infallible himself how many infallible Teachers soever there are in the World For we may as well say That a man may be wise with another mans Wisdom as infallible by another mans Infallibility Every man must know and understand for himself and Infallibility is only such a perfect degree of Knowledge as is not liable to any mistakes and if no man has any Knowledge but what be has in himself then he has no degree of Knowledge but what he has in himself and therefore can never have an infallible Knowledge unless he himself be infallible Suppose then we should grant That the Pope or Church of Rome were infallible what advantage has a Papist for Certainty above a Protestant Does the Infallibility of the Pope make them all infallible And if every Papist be not not infallible then they can have no more Certainty than fallible Creatures are capable of and so much I hope may be allowed to fallible Protestants The Authority of a Revelation in matters divinely Revealed answers to natural Evidence in things knowable by the light of Nature as we cannot doubt of things which are plain and evident to our Understandings so we cannot doubt of what we know is Revealed by God but then as we must use our Reason to judge of the natural Evidence of things so we must use our Reason to judge of the truth and evidence and sense of a Revelation and it is the same Mind and the same Understanding which must judge both of natural and revealed Knowledge and if our Understandings be not infallible I know not how an infallible Judge or an infallible Revelation which are external things should bestow an internal Infallibility on us And therefore after all their brags of Infallibility Papists themselves must be contented if they can be certain for if Infallibility did signifie somewhat more than Certainty yet Certainty is the most that a fallible Creature can have for it is impossible for any Creature to have Infallibility who is not infallible himself And this I hope will make them a little more favourable hereafter to Protestant Certainty for whatever can be objected against Certainty in general as distinguished from Infallibility will as effectually destroy the Popish as the Protestant Certainty for Papists are no more infallible Creatures than Protestants are A DISCOURSE CONCERNING A Judge of Controversies BEING AN ANSWER TO SOME Papers c. The Paper I Am not satisfied with the Foundation of the Protestant Religion For if God has certainly left no Visible Judge of Controversies as we assert and yet grant that there are things necessary to Salvation to be believed as well as things to be practised and that the Scriptures are to a demonstration not plain even in what we dare not disown to be Fundamentals as the Trinity c. Answer These Objections against the Protestant resolution of Faith strike not only at the foundations of the Protestant Religion but of Christianity it self For if the Dispute were about the truth of Christian Religion by such Arguments as they can prove the Christian Religion to be true we will prove
be taught to understand it Thus Mathematical Demonstrations are certainly plain for if a Demonstration be not plain nothing is but yet it is not every man can understand them without a Teacher but since those who do study Mathematicks can understand them and any man of ordinary capacity who will attend to the Instructions of a skilful Master may understand them we may call them plain though they are not obvious at the first sight For this purpose Christ appointed an order of men in his Church whose business it should be to study the Scriptures themselves and to teach others not to impose on their Faith by their meer Authority which our Saviour has expresly warned us against to call no man Master upon Earth and which St. Paul expresly disclaims being Lords of their Faith but to open their Understandings and by easie steps to lead them into the true Sense of Scriptures Thus he taught his Disciples himself as appears from all his Sermons thus the Apostles taught the Christians of their days and this is the only teaching I know of for to teach men to believe without understanding is to teach them to believe they know not what nor why But the Doctrine of the Trinity is not plain in Scripture An Assertion which strikes at the very Fundamentals of Religion and justifies all the ancient Heresies which can never be confuted but out of the Scriptures For is the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Scriptures or not If it be not there how comes it to be an Article of our Faith and if it be not plain in the Scriptures how can any man tell it is there when it is not plain that it is there The Primitive Fathers who opposed those ancient Hereticks wrote great Volumes to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity from the Scriptures and therefore I presume did think it might be proved from Scripture This being a Doctrine which can be known only by Revelation if it is not plain in Scripture it is plain no where and so not the Object of our Faith unless they can shew us another Revelation besides and above the Scriptures The only Argument the Paper urges to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity not to be plain in Scripture is That some denied the Divinity of the Son some believed the Holy Ghost not to be a separate Person but only an Attribute of God That is whatever some men deny is not plain and therefore Christianity it self is not plain because Jews and Turks and Heathens deny it Is the Form of Baptism plainly contained in Scripture to Baptize in the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and yet many of the ancient Hereticks who corrupted the Doctrine of the Trinity would not use this Form which is as good an Argument that this Form is not plain as that the Doctrine of the Trinity is not And indeed if one be plain the other must be unless we will say That we are baptized in the Name that is into the Faith and Worship of Creatures The Paper And I think the assembling those Councils we receive as General shews that their Opposers were considerable Answer How considerable For Numbers or Interest or Zeal or Authority they were inferior upon all these accounts to the general Enemies of the Christian Faith and why should not the number of Infidels be as good an Argument against Christianity as the number of Hereticks against any one Article of the Christian Faith But this is a fatal Instance to the Popish as well as the Protestant Resolution of Faith and somewhat worse for the Scriptures never complied with Hereticks but the pretended visible Judge did when the Pope of Rome subscribed the Arian Confession But what course did these Nicene Fathers take to confute the Heresie of Arius did they not alledge the Authority of the Scriptures for it Consult their Writings and see what their Reasons are and when such a venerable Council thought the Scriptures clear and plain in this Point is the dissent of Hereticks a greater Argument that they are not plain than the determination of such a Council that they are That this was the constant Doctrine of the Catholick Church from the time of the Apostles was a good confirmation that they expounded Scripture right but had it been possible that there should have been a Traditional Article of Faith which the Scripture said nothing of meer unscriptural Tradition could be no sufficient foundation of Faith and that for this Reason because we could not be sure what the Original of such a Tradition was For the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles give us the most certain Account what their Faith was and how ancient soever any other Doctrine may be we have no reason to think it came from the Apostles if there be nothing of it in the Scriptures The Paper And that those good Fathers did not think after their witnessing out of Scripture and Tradition the Belief handed down to them from Father to Son that the Christians had so much as a liberty of examining after them Since they positively Anathematized all those that did not receive their Decrees for which if they had no Authority the primitive Fathers were the greatest Tyrants in the World to refuse the blessed Means of Salvation to those that for ought appeared were as sincere as themselves and the generality of Dissenters made Scripture their Rule as well as we do This I do not alledge that I know of any truly General Council we reject but this appears to me that in the best of times there was thought a Power left in the Church without Appeal to every mans Reason and the Guides of the Church did not think a man safe though he to the best of his understanding did expound Scripture if he did not follow the sense of the Church Answer This Paragraph is designed to prove that there is a Power in General Councils to determine Controversies of Faith without appeal to every mans Reason and that the Fathers assembled in those first Councils did believe they had such a Power that when once they had determined what the true Faith was no man might examin after them Now whatever the Fathers of the Council believed of themselves it is plain other men did not believe it The Hereticks whom they condemned did not acquiesce in the Authority of the Council which yet they would certainly have done had it been the general Belief of Christians in that Age that the Decrees of General Councils were final and conclusive to be believed by all men and to be examined by none For the most obstinate Hereticks could never have out-faced such a prejudice as this After the Council of Nice the Fathers did appeal to mens private Reason if writing Books in justification of the Doctrine of the Trinity be such an Appeal as is evident from the Writings of Athanasius Hilary S. Augustine and others Nay it is strange there should be so many other
against her Infallibility However this shews That the most infallible Teacher cannot destroy our natural liberty of judging for we must judge of his Doctrine by Sense and Reason and see that it contradict neither which are the only natural Principles of Knowledge we have which is therefore to exercise all the Reason and Judgment which God has given us And Thirdly Though we must receive all Divine and Supernatural Truths upon the Authority of the Revealer yet we must own our own Reason and Judgment to understand the Revelation which cannot possibly be otherwise For whoever it be that speaks to us whether God by an immediate Voice from Heaven or a Prophet inspired by God we have no way to understand what is said but by our own natural Faculties and therefore must judge of the Sense of what is said just as we do at other times when any man speaks to us And if we were not present to hear the Prophet speak but have his Revelations delivered to us in writing we must take the same course to understand such a Divine Book as we do any other human Writing if there be any difficulty in it we must seek for some body to help us to understand it but still we must understand for our selves for no body else can understand for us and if we must understand we must judge for our selves too This is all that we demand or desire a liberty to understand and judge what God would have us believe and do and this the most infallible Teacher cannot deprive us of no more than he can oblige us to see and hear with other mens Eyes and Ears when God has given us Eyes and Ears of our own And Fourthly Where there is a standing Revelation we must then judge of the Doctrine of all succeeding Prophets how infallible soever they be by its conformity to the preceding Revelation We must never suppose that God can contradict himself and therefore though he may improve a former Revelation by new and more perfect discoveries yet he can never contradict it and hence it follows That no true Prophet can contradict a true Revelation but though a power of Miracles may give Authority to a new Prophet to expound a former Revelation and to improve it yet we must be well satisfied that the Doctrine of this new Prophet be agreeable to the old Revelation which makes us Judges of the Sense both of the old and the new Revelation For it is impossible we can understand their agreement unless we can judge of the Sense of both This was the Case of Christ and his Apostles when they appeared in the World The Law of Moses and the Writings of the Prophets were the standing Revelation which God had given to the Jewish Nation whereby they were to try all Prophets To the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this Word it is because there is no light in them Isaiah 8. 20. and therefore though Christ wrought more and greater Miracles than ever Moses did this alone had not been a sufficient Reason to believe him had not his Person answered the Types and Predictions of the Law and his Doctrine been not the destruction but the improvement and perfection of the Mosaical Dispensation To this trial he submitted himself and his Doctrine appeals to Moses and the Prophets requires them to search the Scriptures for they are they which testifie of me John 5. 39. and after his Resurrection from the Dead which one would have thought had been sufficient of it self to have confirmed his Divine Authority yet he proves from Scripture that thus Christ ought to suffer and to enter into his Glory and beginning at Moses and all the Prophets he expounded unto them the two Disciples going to Emaus the things concerning himself Luke 24. 26 27. And this course the Apostles took in their Sermons St. Peter did not only testifie to the Jews as an Eye-witness that Christ was risen from the dead but proves that David himself had prophesied of this Acts 2. 22 c. Thus St. Paul disputed with the Jews at Rome to whom he expounded and testified the Kingdom of God perswading them concerning Jesus both out of the Law of Moses and out of the Prophets from morning till evening Acts 28. 23. Thus his Epistle to the Romans is one entire Dispute about the obligation of the Law and Justification by Faith in Christ from the Types and Predictions of the Law it self So that Christ and his Apostles were certainly as infallible Teachers as everwere in the VVorld yet they did not bear men down meerly by their infallible Authority but appealed to the Scriptures and to every mans own Judgment of them and God had ordered it so that it could not be otherwise for he had given them a standing Revelation whereby they were to judge of all new Prophets whatever they were but if they must have relied on the bare word of such Prophets whom they were to try by this Revelation for the Sense and Interpretation of it this had been the same thing as to take their own word without any trial Now if Christ himself never pretended to any such Authority that all men should believe him upon his own word without examining his Doctrine by the Scripture or exercising their own Reason and Judgment can we think that he should give any such Authority to St. Peter Nay when it is evident that St. Peter never had any such Authority and never could exercise it how can St. Peters Successors have that in his right which he never had nor could have himself For though he was an infallible Teacher yet every man had a liberty to examine what he taught and to judge of it by its conformity to the Law and the Prophets But you I say Could not Christ appoint an infallible Judge of Controversies in his Church to decide all Disputes and to prevent Heresies and Schisms That Christ has not done this I shall take for granted till I see some better Proofs of it than I have yet met with and I have some reason to think such a Judge could not be appointed whom we should be obliged to rely on with an implicit Faith without examination or any use of our own Reason and Judgment and that is because it was impracticable to appoint a Judge upon whose bare Authority we are bound to believe the truth of Christianity it self Christ and his Apostles did not assume to themselves to be such Judges in their days for there lay an Appeal from them to Moses and the Prophets as you have already heard and so there does to this day and if I must not take any mans word for the truth of the Christian Religion I must not take his word neither for the truth of any Doctrine in Christianity If I may to this day examine the Gospel by the Law and the Prophets as the Jews did in our Saviours days then I must judge for my self too
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
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