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 Protestant Religion which is nothing else but the Christian Religion purged from the Corruptions and Innovations of Popery Now it would be very pleasant to hear a Popish Priest in a dispute with Turks or Pagans about Christianity urge the Authority of a visible Judge of Controversies and if there be no way to instruct an Infidel who cannot be presumed to own the Authority of any Judge what Christian Religion is and to convince him of the truth of it but by Reason and Scripture either this is a good way or there is no certain foundation for Christianity and let any Man shew me a Reason why Christians may not understand their Religion the same way that Heathens must be taught it This was the way which Christ and his Apostles took with Jews and Heathens and they had no other way to take with them The Jews had a written Law which no Authority could contradict and therefore our Saviour did not only work Miracles but appealed to the Scriptures both for the Authority of his Person his Miracles and his Doctrine and left every man to his own liberty to judge for himself what he must believe which shews that Miracles themselves are no Authority against a written Law for then the Jews could have had no pretence for their Infidelity and there had been no reason for Christ and his Apostles to have disputed with them out of the Scriptures The Heathens had no standing Revelation and therefore the bare Authority of Miracles was sufficient to confirm that testimony the Apostles gave of the Resurrection of Christ and the Doctrine which he preached and those who would not believe meerly for the Miracles sake were convinced by Reason and Argument for thus St. Paul disputed with the Philosophers at Athens as well as with the Jews and thus the Primitive Doctors dealt with the Infidels in their days as we learn from those many excellent Apologies they wrote in defence of Christianity But then those who did believe at first upon the Authority of Miracles were particularly instructed in the Faith of Christ out of the Law and the Prophets which though they were originally given to the Jews yet are the venerable Records of the Christian Faith to which the Apostles had recourse in expounding the Christian Doctrines Thus Christianity was taught at first and if this be not a solid Foundation the Christian Faith has none neither Christ nor his Apostles though they were Infallible made their own Infallibility the only reason of mens Faith but referred them to the Law and the Prophets which they expounded to the conviction of all honest and teachable Minds and if they would not believe upon these terms they must continue Infidels And that this way of resolving Faith into the Authority of a visible Judge was not known in the Christian Church even in the Apostles days and yet methinks St. Peter's Authority if he had any such Authority should have been better known in those days than at such a distance of time is evident from those early Heresies which sprang up in the Church For let any reasonable man tell me how it is possible there ever should have been any Heresie in the Church if all Christians had received the Authority of an infallible Judge together with their Christianity Men might have renounced Christianity and the visible Judge together but had they then acknowledged a visible Judge it had been a contradiction to pretend to the name of Christians and to oppose the Doctrine of the Infallible Chair Had there been a visible Judge of Controversies in the Apostles days known to all Christians it had been impossible there should ever have been any Heresies in the Church as those men must grant who think it necessary there should be such a visible Judge to make all men of a mind and to prevent the rise and growth of Heresies which must suppose that the Authority of a visible Judge would do this or else this Argument cannot prove the necessity of a visible Judge If then the Appointment of a visible Judge would certainly prevent all Heresies and yet from the beginnings of Christianity there have been Heresies in the Church this is a demonstration there was no visible Judge in those days Well but if there be no visible Judge of Controversies how shall we arrive at any certainty in our Religion for the Scriptures are to a demonstration not plain even in what we dare not disown to be Fundamentals as the Doctrine of the Trinity Now 1. Suppose there are some difficult passages in Scripture which are not obvious to every common understanding Can we not therefore understand what is plain because somethings are difficult Can any thing be plainer than the first and second Commandments not to give divine Worship to any Being but the Supreme God and not to worship God by Images and Pictures Can any thing be plainer than the Institution of the Lords Supper in both kinds than St. Pauls discourse against Prayers in an unknown Tongue Can any thing be plainer than what is evident to our very Senses that Bread and Wine is not transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ Men who will believe contrary to the plain words of Scripture contrary to the evidence of Sense and Reason which certainly ought to be consulted in expounding Scripture who would prove that to be in Scripture which is not in it or that not to be in Scripture which is there have some reason to complain of the obscurity of Scripture for the Scriptures were never written to prove what they would have proved but yet they may be very plain to men who only enquire what the Scripture teaches without forcing such Senses upon it as it does not teach Those who will prove that from Scripture which is not in it to be sure must prove it very obscurely and then to excuse the obscurity of their Expositions charge the Scriptures with obscurity Though all things are not equally plain in Scripture yet all men may understand what is plain and it is a strange perversness to say nothing is plain in Scripture because some things are not plain or that we cannot be certain of the sense of plain Texts because there are some obscure Texts Secondly I do affirm that every thing that is necessary to be believed is plain in Scripture for else how should we know that we must believe it or that it is necessary to salvation But then by plain I do not mean that it is plain to every man and at the first sight but it is plain to men who apply themselves to the study of the Scripture and have skill and ability to do it and may be made plain to every man who has the common understanding of a man without any biass and interest who will attend to the Instructions of the Learned And this is reason enough to call it plain if learned men by study and industry can understand it and if the unlearned may
Nov. 15. 1686. Imprimatur JO. BATTELY A DISCOURSE Concerning a Judge of Controversies IN MATTERS of RELIGION BEING AN ANSWER TO SOME PAPERS ASSERTING The Necessity of such a JUDGE With an Address to Wavering Protestants shewing what little Reason they have to think of any Change of their Religion Written for the private Satisfaction of some Scrupulous Persons And now Published for Common Use. With a PREFACE concerning the Nature of Certainty and Infallibility LONDON Printed for Robert Clavell at the Peacock in St. Paul's Church-yard 1686. THE PREFACE WHen I first undertook to Answer these Papers I little thought of writing a Book but when it was writ I was more easily perswaded to make it publick for such kind of Objections as these our People are daily assaulted with and our Ministers daily troubled to answer and therefore it will be very serviceable to both to print such a plain Discourse as this which whatever defects it may have I am pretty confident does sufficiently expose the weakness and sophistry of such Arguments The truth is this ought not to be made a Dispute and the fundamental Miscarriage is that our People are not taught or will not learn to reject such captious Questions as tend only to Sceptism and deserve not to be confuted which I think I may have liberty to say now I have confuted them and to shew the reason I have to say so shall be the subject of this Preface It is thought and certainly it is so the most compendious way to reduce Protestants to the Communion of the Church of Rome to perswade them that they can have no certainty of their Religion without an infallible Judge and that there is no Infallibility but in the Church of Rome Now could they prove that the Church of Rome is infallible this indeed would be an irresistible Reason to return to her Communion but this they say little of now-a-days this they would gladly have us take for granted especially if they can prove that we can have no certainty without an infallible Judge and therefore this they apply themselves to to run down Protestant certainty and first to make men Scepticks in Religion and then to settle them upon Infallibility Now the way they take to do this is not by shewing that the Reasons on which Protestants build their Faith either of Christianity in General or of those particular Doctrines which they profess are not sufficient to found a rational Certainty on for this would engage them in particular Disputes which is the thing they as industriously avoid as if they were afraid of it but instead of this they declaim in general about the nature of Certainty ask us how we know that we are Certain if we rely upon Reason other men do not reason as we do and yet think their Reason as good as ours if on Scripture we see how many different and contrary Expositions there are of Scripture and how can we be certain then that we only are in the right when other men are as confident and as fully perswaded as we Now all this is palpable Sophistry and no other direct Answer can or ought to be given to it but to let them know that after all they can say we find our selves very certain and that their attempt to prove us u certain without confuting the Reasons of our Certainty is very fallacious 1. As for the first whether I am certain or not no body can tell but my self for it is matter of Sense as Sight and Hearing is and they may as well ask me how I know that I see and hear as how I know that I am Certain I feel that I am so and that is Answer enough 2. And therefore when they ask me how I know that I am certain if this Question have any sense in it it must signifie on what Reason I found my Certainty for nothing can create Certainty in the Mind but that Reason and Evidence which we have of things as we can see with nothing but Light Now if Certainty results only from the Reason of things it is ridiculous to expect any other Answer to that Question how I am certain than my giving the Reasons of my Faith for there is no other Reason of Certainty than those particular Reasons for which I believe any thing And this of necessity brings the Controversie to Particulars There is no one Reason of my Certainty because the same Reason will not serve for all things and therefore before I can give them my Reason I must know what they require a Reason of and then I will give it them And thus we are just where we were and if they will prove that we have no Certainty they must confute all the Reasons of our Faith and dispute over all the Controversies between us a Task which they are not willing to undertake and yet there is no other way to prove the Faith of Protestants uncertain but by proving that they have no certain Reasons of their Faith Yes you 'l say it is proof enough that we cannot be certain because we every day find so many confident men mistaken who yet think themselves as certain as we do and therefore we may be mistaken notwithstanding all our assurance and confidence that we are not Now this indeed would be an unanswerable Argument did we found our Certainty upon the meer strength and confidence of Perswasion for men may be very confident because they are ignorant and we readily grant that an ignorant Confidence may betray men into the grossest Errors and therefore though every confident man thinks himself in the right we never think another man in the right meerly because we see him confident which is a plain sign that all men distinguish between Confidence and Certainty Wise men who would not be mistaken are very careful that their Confidence do not out-run their Reason for Reason is the Foundation of Certainty and no man can have greater Certainty than he has Evidence for what he believes Now since men may be equally confident with or without Reason the only way to try the Certainty of their Faith is to examine the Reasons whereon it is founded if we can confute their Reasons we destroy their Certainty if we can't it is ridiculous to charge their Faith with Uncertainty for that is a certain Faith which is built upon certain and immoveable Reasons and if the Certainty of Reason makes men certain and some mens Faith may be built upon certain Reasons though others are mistaken then the confident Mistakes of some men is no proof that the Faith of all men is uncertain I am sure all Mankind think thus who think any thing which is a good sign that it is a very natural thought No man thinks himself the less certain because he sees other men differ from him The Foundation of this very Argument against Protestant Certainty owns this The Argument is That we can never know when we are certain because of