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
pretences of such a Judge If we cannot know what is Canonical Scripture without a Judge how shall we know whether there be a Judge For there is no way to know this but by the Scriptures if there be no such Judge appointed in Scripture we have no reason to own him and if we cannot tell what Scripture is without a Judge how shall we find the Judge by the Scriptures And though the Objection be made only against some particular Books of Scripture yet in truth it equally lies against the whole Canon For if we can know any one particular Book of Scripture without a Judge why not the rest No! some of them have been doubted of Right by some Churches who did not know them till they were satisfied by those Churches which kept those Sacred Records that they were true and genuine But the Question is Whether a Book which has been doubted of when that Doubt is removed have not as certain Authority as the rest If it could not then and cannot to this day be proved to be genuine why is it received What Obligation are we under to own it If any Books which we call Canonical were still doubtful it is more natural and reasonable to reject them than to set up a Judge without any Authority to give Authority to them For whether any Book of Scripture be Canonical is matter of Fact and the Doctors of the Church of Rome themselves do not extend Infallibility to matters of Fact and then by their own confession there can be no infallible Judge of the Canon of Scripture but we must content our selves with such Moral Certainty as may be had And if Catholick Tradition be so uncertain that we cannot learn the Canon of Scripture from it what becomes of the Authority of all their unwritten Traditions which they so much boast of Thus some men if they can but make a shew of saying any thing never attend to Consequences nor consider whether their Objections do not make as much against themselves and common Christianity as against Protestants Thirdly The last Argument is That the Author of the Paper can't make those Articles of the Nicene Creed One Holy Catholick Apostolick Church the Communion of Saints agree with the Protestant Religion Here is a little blunder in calling this the Nicene Creed though easily pardonable for it is a jumble of the Apostles and Nicene Creed together The Holy Catholick Church the Communion of Saints is in the Apostles Creed One Catholick Apostolick Church the Nicene Creed And why does not this agree with the Protestant Religion For we profess to believe both these Creeds as sincerely as the Church of Rome No! How can they be One who disagree by adding in Faith or diminishing from it who do not communicate together in Prayer or Sacraments when they are not agreed in the Essential things how are they One Right Churches which differ in Essentials are not One but I hope there are few Churches do that I am sure they can never prove that we deny any Essential and Fundamental Article of Faith If this proves any thing it proves That all the separate Communions of Christendom are not One Church and what then How is the Church of England more concerned in this than the Church of Rome Can't we believe One Church in the Creed as well as the Church of Rome notwithstanding all the Divisions of Christendom Do the meer Divisions of Christendom prove the Church of Rome to be that One Church or that the Church of England is no Member of this One Church in the Creed The Church is but One from the first planting of it by the Apostles to the End of the World and the Church of Rome as well as We must own that it is but One Church notwithstanding the several Divisions that have been in it in the first Ages of the Church as well as now and therefore the Unity and Communion of the Church must not be estimated by any one Age of the Church but the Apostolick Age must be the Standard of Catholick Unity and Communion as it is of the Catholick Faith Suppose all the Churches of the World at this day were in Communion with the Church of Rome excepting the Church of England Why then you 'l say it would be plain the Church of England were separated from the whole Church of Christ and from Catholick Communion Right from the Church of this Age but the whole Church of this Age is but a very little part of the Catholick Church where it is sound and Orthodox for I hope they will allow the Apostolick Churches and the Churches of the three first Ages to be the best and purest parts of the One Catholick Church and that we must still maintain Communion with them if then the Church of England were separated from all the Churches of this Age yet if she be in Communion with the Apostolick and Primitive Churches she is in Catholick Commun on still if the Apostles themselves were in Catholick Communion To know then whether the Church of England be a true Catholick Church and in Catholick Communion we are not so much concerned to enquire what Churches she communicates with now as whether she be in the Apostolick Communion which is the Fountain and Original of Catholick Communion Now if the Constitution of the Church of England be such as to Doctrine Worship and Government that the Apostles themselves would have owned our Communion had we been in their days how do we come to be Schismaticks now and out of Catholick Communion For if Catholick Communion be the Communion of the whole Catholick Church from the Times of Christ and his Apostles to the end of the world which is but one Church and the Apostolick Churches are the true Measure and Standard of true Catholick Communion then those Churches which to this day are in Communion with the Apostles are in true Catholick Communion And this Test we will stand by though I would not advise the Church of Rome to do so Let us consider whether the Apostles would have rejected our Communion for those Reasons for which the Church of Rome now rejects us Would St. Paul have rejected our Communion because we will not worship God in an Unknown Tongue which he himself forbids 1 Cor. 14. because we will not worship Saints and Angels and Images which the Romanists confess was neither commanded nor practised in those days and which we say was forbid then and understood to be so by all Christians For not owning the Supremacy of Peter when St. Paul himself withstood him as much as we do the Pope of Rome and upon a much less occasion Gal. 2. 11. c. And the African Churches long after in the days of St. Cyprian and by his Authority forbad all Appeals to the Bishop or Church of Rome In a word would the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass Indulgences Purgatory Communion in one kind private and solitary Masses
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
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
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
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
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