cannot communicate with them for there is nothing sinful in our Communion and whatever they pretend they can never prove that there is any thing wanting in it necessary to Salvation and when we deny Communion to no Church that will communicate with us and require no sinful terms of Communion which can justifie a Separation from us let them tell me wherein our Schism consists The Paper I can't think those glorious Promises sufficiently fulfilled of the Holy Spirits leading them into all Truth and abiding with them and that for ever Answer Pray why not That Promise of Leading them into all Truth was made to the Apostles and was fulfilled in them and extended to no others in that degree of Infallibility as is evident from the manner how the Spirit was to lead them into all Truth viz. by bringing to their remembrance all things which Christ had said to them which can belong only to those Persons who heard the Sermons and Discourses of Christ himself For though a man may be taught what he never knew before yet he cannot be said to remember what he never heard before But when it is added that this Spirit of Truth shall abide with them for ever that for ever must be appropriated to the Apostles as it relates to an infallible Direction and their for ever signifies no longer than they lived for if it must be extended to all the Successors of the Apostles then there must be as many infallible Judges as there are Successors to all the Apostles in the several Churches founded by them which will not serve the Designs of the Church of Rome As for what follows about the Gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church I have already given an account of that for the Gates of Hell never prevail while there is a Church which professes the Faith which St. Peter then professed That Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God which the Church of Rome her self has done in her greatest Corruptions excepting Pope Liberius his Subscription to the Arian Confession And whereas the Paper concludes with a desire to know how the Church of England is Catholick and Apostolick the Answer is very plain Because her Doctrine Worship and Discipline is Catholick and Apostolick THE CONCLUSION An Address to wavering Protestants shewing what little Reason they have to think of any Change of their Religion WHat I have now discoursed in Answer to these Papers seems to me so very clear and plain that I should not much question its good effect even upon honest Papists would they impartially read and consider it much more upon wavering Protestants if it be only some Scruples not Interest which sways them But the better to fix such People and that in the Modern fashionable way without disputing all the Points in controversie I shall desire them to consider How much more Certainty and Safety they have in Communion with the Church of England than they can have by going over to the Church of Rome And I think this is home to the purpose it being the same Argument wherewith the Roman Priests endeavour to pervert our People and which is the principal design of these Papers 1. First then I observe That all the positive Articles of the Protestant Faith are owned and believed in the Church of Rome we do not believe all that they believe but yet they believe all that we do for our Faith is contained in the ancient Creeds the Apostles the Nicene and the Athanasian Creeds which the Church of Rome owns as well as we And though we do not build our Certainty on the Authority of the Church of Rome but on the express Revelations of Scripture which contain all the Articles of our Faith and is as much Certainty as we desire yet methinks even a modest Romanist should blush to charge our Faith with Uncertainty when our Faith as far as it reaches is the same with theirs Surely they must grant that in these matters which we all consent in our Faith is true and orthodox they must grant that the last Resolution of our Faith into the Authority of Christ and his Apostles is sound and orthodox also for thus they resolve their own Faith They must grant that the Universal Consent of the Church in all Ages not excluding the Church of Rome it self as a part of the Catholick Church is the best External Testimony of the Christian Faith Now when we believe the same things which the Church of Rome does upon the Authority of Christ and his Apostles whose Doctrine is contained in the Writings of the New Testament and expounded by the General Faith of the Christian Church in all Ages what appearance of Uncertainty can be charged on such a Faith We reject indeed the infallible Authority of the present Church of Rome but what then Will not a true orthodox Faith save us unless we believe in Christ upon the Authority of a particular Church which had no being when Christianity was first planted in the world But I think I need not insist on this for I cannot believe that any Member of the Church of England goes over to the Church of Rome because he cannot believe his Creed in the Church of England But then I would desire them to consider what that Uncertainty is which they complain of in the Church of England for if the positive Faith of the Church of England is certain as it must be if the Faith of the Church of Rome as to these Matters be certain why do they leave us for want of Certainty which is now the Popular Argument to seduce men from our Communion If they think we do not believe enough let them say so and make that the cause of their departure from us but if as far as our Faith goes we have certain and evident Reasons of our Faith how does our Faith come to be uncertain As for those particular Doctrines which are in dispute between us and the Church of Rome we grant we have no certainty of them nay more than that we say no man can be certain of them how confident soever he is for they are founded neither on Reason nor Scripture nor any good Authority for we do not take the Authority of the present Church of Rome to be good Authority and if this be all they mean by our uncertainty that we have no certainty for the worship of Saints and Images and Relicks for Transubstantiation and the Adoration of the Host for Prayers in an unknown Tongue for Masses for the Living and the Dead for a Judicial Absolution and those new Sacraments they have introduced into the Church we readily grant it but think this a very strange Reason for Protestants to desert our Communion because we have no certainty of things which we believe to be false We do not only confess that we can find no certainty for these things but we assert that we have positive and certain Evidence against them and those who have
others give of a true Church there is one Mark without which it is impossible we should be certain which is the true Church and that is that she professes the true Faith and Worship of Christ. For this is essential to the Church and there can be no Church without it all other Marks may deceive us for whatever other Marks there be if there be not the true Faith and Worship of Christ there cannot be the true Church and therefore when the state of the Church as it is at this day is broken and divided into different and opposite Communions whoever will find out the true Church must examine her Doctrine and Worship Bellarmine himself makes the Holiness of Doctrine one essential Mark of the true Church and yet Truth is antecedent to Holiness and equally essential Now this is such a Mark of an infallible Church as makes her Infallibility useless when we have found her For we must understand the true Religion before we can know the true Church and can be no more certain which is the true Church than we are which is the true Religion and therefore cannot resolve our Faith into the Authority of the Church because we can know the true Church only by the true Faith and therefore must have some other means of finding out the true Faith antecedent to the Churches Authority for that which is a mark to know something else by must be first known it self So that whereas the Churches Authority is thought so compendious a way to make men infallibly certain of their Religion and to deliver them from those uncertain Disputes that are in the World we cannot be certain which the true Church is on whose Authority we must rely till we have examined that diversity of Opinions which divide the Christian Church and have satisfied our selves on which side the Truth lies and when we have done this it is too late to appeal to a Judge unless we will undo all we had done before and then we shall be to seek again which is the true Church And what advantages then has the Papist above the Protestant in the point of Certainty When they cannot know which is that Church which they may safely trust without examining the truth of her Religion and judging for themselves just as we do We are concerned indeed to know which is the true Catholick Church not that we must receive our Faith upon her Authority for in order of Nature we must know the true Faith before we can know the true Church but because we are bound to live in Communion with the true Catholick Church of Christ. Fifthly And yet if they could find the Church without all this trouble and Protestant uncertainty wherever they place their Infallibility whether in the Pope or Council according to their own Principles they cannot have so much as a Moral certainty of it As for the Pope though for Arguments sake we should grant a true Pope to be infallible yet it is impossible that any man can be certain that there is a true Pope For the Church of Rome teaches That the intention of the Priest is necessary to the Sacrament that though he perform all the external part of it yet if he do not intend to apply the Sacrament to such Persons it is not applied Now according to these Principles who can tell whether this present Pope were ever Baptized or Ordained Priest or Bishop for if the Priests or Bishops that did this did not intend to do it he is so far from being a true Pope that he is no Christian. Nay if the Priests and Bishops which Baptized and Ordained him did intend to apply the Sacraments to him yet if those who Baptized and Ordained them did not intend to do it then they were no Christians nor Bishops themselves and therefore could not confer Orders on him and so upwards still which reduces the matter to the greatest uncertainty in the World for how is it possible to know any mans private Intention when neither Words nor Actions shall be allowed a sufficient declaration of it And besides this if a Pope be Simoniacally promoted or Ordained by a Simoniacal Pope here is an invalidity in his Orders and then what becomes of his Infallibility Nay what shall we say of that long Papal Schism when there were three Popes together John 23. Gregory 12. and Benedict 13. who were all Deposed by the Council of Constance and Martin 5. chose Was there never a true Pope among all the Three If there were What Authority then had the Council to Depose them all and chuse a Fourth And who knows to this day from whence the succeeding Popes have derived their Succession which may very much call the Popedom and Infallibility into question And then as for Councils which consist of Bishops there is the same incertainty about them whether they be true Bishops or not as there is about the Pope and besides this there are so many Disputes what makes a General Council when it is regularly called and when they act Conciliaritèr in such a manner as a Council ought to act to procure the infallible Directions of the Spirit and to give Authority to their Decrees that if Women and Busie People cannot understand the Scriptures and the Reasons of their Faith I am sure they are much less able to understand what Councils they may safely rely on But suppose we did know who this infallible Judge is whether Pope or Council and this Judge should give us an infallible Interpretation of Scripture and an infallible Decision of all Controversies in Religion which the Church of Rome never could be perswaded to do yet and I believe never will witness those many fierce Disputes which are among men of their own Communion and I think no man is ever the more infallible for a Judge who will not exercise his Infallibility yet if this Judge should infallibly determine all the Controversies in Religion we must either hear it from his own Mouth or receive it in Writing or take it upon the report of others As for the first of these there is not one in the World at this day that was present at the Debates of any General Council or heard them pronounce their Decrees and Definitions and I believe as few ever heard the Pope determine any Question ex Cathedrâ which what it means either they do not well understand or have no mind to tell us As for Writing when we see the Decrees of a Council written we can have only a Moral assurance that these are the Decrees of the Council and when we have them it may be they are much more obscure and subject to as many different Interpretations as the Scriptures are that we can have no better assurance what the sense of the Council than what the sense of the Scripture is as Experience tells us it is in the Council of Trent which the Roman Doctors differ as much about as Protestants do about the
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
this to the purpose when the Scripture expresly condemns the VVorship of Images and giving Religious VVorship to any other Being but to God only and by their own Confession says nothing of the VVorship of Saints and that St. Paul disputes designedly against Prayers in an unknown Tongue and that our Saviour instituted his Supper in both kinds and commanded them to drink of the consecrated Cup as well as to eat the Bread Though I have a great Reverence for Antiquity yet if St. Paul in his days pronounced an Anathema against Angels themselves who should preach any other Gospel we may safely renounce the Authority of any Church that shall contradict the express Commands and Institutions of Christ. To conclude this Argument Were Antiquity our only Guide and Rule in matters of Faith and Worship I readily grant it would be a very uncertain Rule and such as neither the Learned nor the Unlearned could build their Faith on for there have been great variety of Opinions and Practices in other Ages of the Church especially since the fourth Century from which the Church of Rome principally date their Antiquity as well as in our own which shews what an uncertain Foundation the Church of Rome has for her Faith as for all those Doctrines and Practices wherein she differs from us which have no foundation in Scripture and at best a very uncertain one in very late Antiquity But this does not concern us who prefer Scripture Antiquity before all other and own no Antiquity in contradiction to the Scripture which is the Rule and Foundation of our Faith and by this we know that we neither retain too much nor too little because we teach neither more nor less than what the Scripture teaches The Paper But 't is Replied The Church of England gives leave even to Women to examine the Truth of what they teach but certainly this is a Complement they being incapable of Examination neither indeed are Statesmen Lawyers the Busie nor the stupidly Ignorant For if we will be Judges our selves of these matters what Life or Capacity is sufficient for in Justice if I examine I ought to hear all the several Pretenders to the Interpretation of Scripture who make it their Rule of Faith so to examine those Texts that make against us as well as those for us and the several Expositors For in Affairs of much less importance People are thought foolish and partial let one party tell his story to a seeming demonstration not to preserve another Ear for the other side before he determines if he must judge at all Answer The lightness of this Expression of Complementing does not savour of a serious mind in matters of such vast importance Did our Saviour then Complement his Hearers when he commanded them to search the Scriptures for he had Women and very busie People who heard his Sermons The Poor and the Ignorant and the despised People Publicans and Sinners received the Gospel which does not so much require great leisure and capacity for study as an honest teachable Mind and I confess I think it a great reproach to the Gospel of our Saviour to make it so much an Art and a Mystery that none but great Scholars can understand it Scholars indeed have made an Art and a meer disputing Art of it and Hereticks who have corrupted the Gospel have endeavoured by perverse Comments to make plain places obscure and the Church of Rome has more countenanced this Pretence than any other Church in the World to frighten People from Reading that Book which is the most dangerous Book that ever was written against Popery And after all their talk of the obscurity of Scripture their denying the People the free use of it is a plain confession that they think it too plain against themselves so plain that every ordinary Christian would be able to see it But if so very few People are able to judge of the Disputes in Religion what course shall Women and other Persons whom the Paper makes such incompetent Judges take Suppose they have been educated in the Communion of the Church of England and are now assaulted by Popish Priests to go over to the Church of Rome must they make this change with Reason or without it Must they judge for themselves or forsake one Church and chuse another without Judgment Or can Women or Busie or Ignorant People more easily find out the true Church and the infallible Judge than they can read in Scripture that they must worship none but God that they must not worship Images and Pictures that they must pray to God in a known Tongue and celebrate the Supper of our Lord by drinking of the Cup as well as by eating the Bread Whoever ventures to forsake the Communion of a Church wherein he was baptized and educated I am sure ought to be able to judge whether he be or no and those who confess they are not able to judge ought to be kept where they are for it is safer to continue in a Church without Judgment than to forsake it without Reason and Judgment In the first Case The Providence of God in our Birth and Education will make some Apology for our involuntary Mistakes but if we wantonly leave one Church and go to another without being able to judge of either the Act is wholly our own choice and if we leave a better for a worse we must take what follows and therefore this is the most improper Argument in the World to be used by one who is wavering between two Churches for if he must not use his own private Judgment I cannot guess how he should either chuse or refuse Those who challenge a liberty of judging for themselves which is the undoubted right of all Reasonable Creatures may change as they see reason and at their own peril if they chuse wrong but those who disclaim all right and capacity of judging must continue as they are and take their chance for they may as well chuse their Faith as their Guide whom they will in all things believe But still the force of the Objection is not answered That he who will judge must judge upon the whole matter and therefore must be able to know and answer whatever is said to the contrary which the greatest number of Men as well as Women are not able to do but if this be true the greatest numbers of Men as well as Women must never believe there is a God or that Christ came from God to declare his Will to the World for there are very few of them that ever heard or are able to answer the tenth part of the Arguments of Atheists and Infidels against the Being of a God and the Christian Religion and yet it is ridiculous to talk of Authority or a Judge of Controversies in these matters for we must first believe there is a God and that Christ came from God before we can believe that they have appointed a Judge of Controversies So that
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
Apostles even St. Peter himself had no other Commission but to Teach then their Authority could not extend farther than their Teaching that is they could not oblige men to believe more than they could make them understand the reason of Well but if Christ hath not appointed a Judge of Controversies what Certainty can we have of our Religion and what care has Christ taken of the Unity of the Church These are two Points which must be considered and if we can give a fair account of them without a Judge of Controversies there will be so little need of such a Judge that there will be no great Reason to contend about him First As for Certainty why cannot we be certain of our Religion as well as of other Matters without an infallible Judge Does any man want an infallible Judge to make him certain of the sense of a plain Law or any other intelligible Writing to understand the difference between true and false reasoning to know what kind of Evidence he may rely on as to Matters of Fact which were done in a remote Country or before he was born Now if we can be certain of any thing without an infallible Judge then Certainty does not depend upon Infallibility because we can be certain without it Certainty of Knowledge depends upon the Certainty of Evidence What we have certain Evidence for we may be certain of and what we have not certain Evidence for we can never be certain of To depend upon Authority though it be supposed infallible is but one sort of Evidence and one kind of Certainty viz. the certainty of Authority and therefore if there be other kinds of evidence and certainty for our Religion besides the Authority of an infallible Judge then we may be certain still though there were no infallible Judge For where there are more means of Certainty than one the taking away one does not destroy all Certainty now I would fain see that man who will venture to say That we have no possible way to be certain of the truth of Christianity or what Christ and his Apostles taught but only the Testimony of an infallible Judge for then there is no way left to make men Christians unless they will own an infallible Judge before they believe Christianity which will argue great good Nature in them Well! but suppose there were other possible ways to attain a Certainty in Religion yet there is none so easie none so certain as an infallible Judge which delivers us from tedious Inquiries and doubtful Disputes and makes all men Orthodox whether they will or no Now for this very Reason I reject an infallible Judge because it is very plain Christ never intended such a degree of Evidence as this Faith is a Christian Grace and Vertue and therefore must be an act of the Will as well as of the Understanding which supposes that the Evidence is not irresistible for it is no Vertue to believe that the Sun shines when we see it Such Evidence as forces an assent is inconsistent with the nature of Faith considered as a Vertue which is a free and voluntary assent upon such Evidence as is sufficient to satisfie an honest man but not to compel an obstinate Infidel or Heretick to believe Of this nature is that Evidence we have for the truth of Christianity Miracles alone as I observed before did not prove Jesus to be the Messias or Christ for then all men who saw his Miracles must have believed him as they did Moses but besides this they were to inquire whether his Person answered the Characters the Prophets had given of the Messias and whether his Doctrine were reconcileable with their Law and here the Passions and Prejudices and Lusts and Interests of men might interpose and corrupt and byass their Judgments and whether they would believe or would not believe did very much depend upon the temper and disposition of their minds Hence our Saviour attributes the Infidelity of the Scribes and Pharisees to their Pride and Covetousness and such like evil Causes and requires an honest and teachable mind to prepare and dispose men to receive the Gospel Such he calls his Sheep Ye believe not because ye are not of my Sheep as I said unto you My Sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me John 10. 26 27. Now if this be all the Evidence he has afforded the World of his own being the Messias which is the very Foundation of the Christian Religion the Superstructure cannot be more firm and certain than the Foundation is and therefore the same kind of Evidence which Christ thought sufficient to prove himself to be the Messias must be sufficient also for all the ends of Religion Christ has no Disciples but sincere honest men and therefore has given us such a degree of Evidence and Certainty as may be a trial of our honesty It is of no concernment whether bad men be Infidels or Hereticks and then if there be sufficient Evidence and Certainty to satisfie honest men it is enough and there is abundant Evidence for this purpose without an infallible Judge and therefore there can be no need of him And besides this our Saviour has promised the assistance of his Spirit not only to work Faith in all well disposed Minds but to enlighten their Understandings and to guide them in the diligent use of those Means he has prescribed to find out Truth which though it does not make them absolutely infallible which there is no need of to carry men to Heaven yet it preserves them from all great and fatal Mistakes Now I would desire any man to tell me what need there had been of the internal Illuminations of the Spirit to direct us in our inquiries after Truth if Christ had provided such an external infallible Means as a Judge of Controversies And though honest men are not infallible yet they have this security as to their speculative Mistakes which have no ill influence upon their Lives that the Mercies of God do as well extend to the infirmities of our Understanding as of our Wills For if an involuntary Ignorance will be some Excuse even to bad men to lessen their punishment much more may we presume it will excuse good Men. To demand such a degree of Evidence and Certainty as God has not thought fit to give us does great mischief to Religion for this makes some men Atheists and others Infidels The Infidel thinks that seeing there is not Evidence enough for the Christian Religion to force an Assent therefore they are not bound to believe it the Church of Rome owns this That there is not sufficient Certainty without an infallible Judge and hence they argue That there must be an infallible Judge and that the Pope or Church of Rome is that Judge Now let the Infidel and the Romanist dispute it out which of these two is the best consequence that since we cannot be certain of our Religion whether we should
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
pretences of such a Judge If we cannot know what is Canonical Scripture without a Judge how shall we know whether there be a Judge For there is no way to know this but by the Scriptures if there be no such Judge appointed in Scripture we have no reason to own him and if we cannot tell what Scripture is without a Judge how shall we find the Judge by the Scriptures And though the Objection be made only against some particular Books of Scripture yet in truth it equally lies against the whole Canon For if we can know any one particular Book of Scripture without a Judge why not the rest No! some of them have been doubted of Right by some Churches who did not know them till they were satisfied by those Churches which kept those Sacred Records that they were true and genuine But the Question is Whether a Book which has been doubted of when that Doubt is removed have not as certain Authority as the rest If it could not then and cannot to this day be proved to be genuine why is it received What Obligation are we under to own it If any Books which we call Canonical were still doubtful it is more natural and reasonable to reject them than to set up a Judge without any Authority to give Authority to them For whether any Book of Scripture be Canonical is matter of Fact and the Doctors of the Church of Rome themselves do not extend Infallibility to matters of Fact and then by their own confession there can be no infallible Judge of the Canon of Scripture but we must content our selves with such Moral Certainty as may be had And if Catholick Tradition be so uncertain that we cannot learn the Canon of Scripture from it what becomes of the Authority of all their unwritten Traditions which they so much boast of Thus some men if they can but make a shew of saying any thing never attend to Consequences nor consider whether their Objections do not make as much against themselves and common Christianity as against Protestants Thirdly The last Argument is That the Author of the Paper can't make those Articles of the Nicene Creed One Holy Catholick Apostolick Church the Communion of Saints agree with the Protestant Religion Here is a little blunder in calling this the Nicene Creed though easily pardonable for it is a jumble of the Apostles and Nicene Creed together The Holy Catholick Church the Communion of Saints is in the Apostles Creed One Catholick Apostolick Church the Nicene Creed And why does not this agree with the Protestant Religion For we profess to believe both these Creeds as sincerely as the Church of Rome No! How can they be One who disagree by adding in Faith or diminishing from it who do not communicate together in Prayer or Sacraments when they are not agreed in the Essential things how are they One Right Churches which differ in Essentials are not One but I hope there are few Churches do that I am sure they can never prove that we deny any Essential and Fundamental Article of Faith If this proves any thing it proves That all the separate Communions of Christendom are not One Church and what then How is the Church of England more concerned in this than the Church of Rome Can't we believe One Church in the Creed as well as the Church of Rome notwithstanding all the Divisions of Christendom Do the meer Divisions of Christendom prove the Church of Rome to be that One Church or that the Church of England is no Member of this One Church in the Creed The Church is but One from the first planting of it by the Apostles to the End of the World and the Church of Rome as well as We must own that it is but One Church notwithstanding the several Divisions that have been in it in the first Ages of the Church as well as now and therefore the Unity and Communion of the Church must not be estimated by any one Age of the Church but the Apostolick Age must be the Standard of Catholick Unity and Communion as it is of the Catholick Faith Suppose all the Churches of the World at this day were in Communion with the Church of Rome excepting the Church of England Why then you 'l say it would be plain the Church of England were separated from the whole Church of Christ and from Catholick Communion Right from the Church of this Age but the whole Church of this Age is but a very little part of the Catholick Church where it is sound and Orthodox for I hope they will allow the Apostolick Churches and the Churches of the three first Ages to be the best and purest parts of the One Catholick Church and that we must still maintain Communion with them if then the Church of England were separated from all the Churches of this Age yet if she be in Communion with the Apostolick and Primitive Churches she is in Catholick Commun on still if the Apostles themselves were in Catholick Communion To know then whether the Church of England be a true Catholick Church and in Catholick Communion we are not so much concerned to enquire what Churches she communicates with now as whether she be in the Apostolick Communion which is the Fountain and Original of Catholick Communion Now if the Constitution of the Church of England be such as to Doctrine Worship and Government that the Apostles themselves would have owned our Communion had we been in their days how do we come to be Schismaticks now and out of Catholick Communion For if Catholick Communion be the Communion of the whole Catholick Church from the Times of Christ and his Apostles to the end of the world which is but one Church and the Apostolick Churches are the true Measure and Standard of true Catholick Communion then those Churches which to this day are in Communion with the Apostles are in true Catholick Communion And this Test we will stand by though I would not advise the Church of Rome to do so Let us consider whether the Apostles would have rejected our Communion for those Reasons for which the Church of Rome now rejects us Would St. Paul have rejected our Communion because we will not worship God in an Unknown Tongue which he himself forbids 1 Cor. 14. because we will not worship Saints and Angels and Images which the Romanists confess was neither commanded nor practised in those days and which we say was forbid then and understood to be so by all Christians For not owning the Supremacy of Peter when St. Paul himself withstood him as much as we do the Pope of Rome and upon a much less occasion Gal. 2. 11. c. And the African Churches long after in the days of St. Cyprian and by his Authority forbad all Appeals to the Bishop or Church of Rome In a word would the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass Indulgences Purgatory Communion in one kind private and solitary Masses
had set up a distinct and separate Communion but that they unchurched the Catholick Church and therefore re-baptized those who had been baptized in the Catholick Communion as if they had been Infidels before So that if there be any true Church in the world besides the Church of Rome the Church of Rome must necessarily be Schismatical because she unchurches all other Churches but her self and therefore can have no degree of Communion with them as with Christian Churches whereas we own the Church of Rome her self to be a true though a very corrupt Church and therefore maintain some degree of Communion with her Fifthly For it is evident that if any particular Church do teach any erroneous Doctrines we must not maintain Communion with her in her Errors for no man is bound to believe that which is false But then we must distinguish between Errors for a Church may be guilty of some speculative Errors which may do no great hurt to common Christianity and then we may very safely communicate with that Church if they do not impose on us the belief of those Errors which few Churches do but upon their own immediate Members excepting the Church of Rome As for instance The Lutheran Doctrine of Consubstantiation is as false and groundless though not altogether as absurd as the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation but yet I would make no scruple of communicating with a Lutheran Church where I may do it without professing my belief of Consubstantiation and upon these Principles the Lutheran and Calvinist Churches may communicate together keeping their private Opinions to themselves without imposing them upon each other But if any Church which professes some speculative Errors will not admit us to Communion without professing the same Errors we must own them for true Churches still and profess our readiness to communicate with them in all acts of worship if we may be allowed to do it without owning their Errors and this makes us in Communion with that Church and that we do not actually communicate is none of our fault but the fault of those who deny it If the Errors be such as are not meerly speculative but corrupt their worship then indeed we must not only disclaim their Errors but we must not joyn in those acts of worship which are corrupted by them as the Popish Mass is by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation If their worship be partly pure and partly corrupt then notwithstanding their Corruptions we must be ready to joyn with them in all those acts of worship which are not corrupted If their worship be generally corrupt as it is in the Church of Rome by their Latin Service and Mass and Ave-Maries and frequent Addresses to Saints and Angels in those very Litanies wherein they pray to God and Christ we must wholly abstain but admonish and pray for them as Brethren and exercise all other acts of Christian Communion if they will admit of any By this we see that there are several degrees of Communion between distinct particular Churches and therefore it does not presently follow that because Churches divide Communion in acts of Worship they do not belong to the same Body The true Catholick Faith whatever Errors and Corruptions they are guilty of makes them so far Catholick Churches and while we own them Members of the same Body to which we our selves belong though we do not communicate in their Errors and Corruptions we are still in Communion with them and upon these Principles notwithstanding all the Divisions of Christians there is but one Church still to which all Churches belong who profess the true Faith of Christ unless any exclude themselves from this Catholick Unity by wholly excluding others Secondly The next Inquiry in the Paper is How the Church can be called Holy if for so many hundred years as our Church teaches in the Homily against Idolatry the whole Church of Rome has been guilty of Idolatry This being the whole of the Argument I shall not transcribe the words Now suppose the Church of Rome were the whole Church and had for some Centuries been guilty of Idolatry in the Worship of Saints and Images and the Virgin Mary yet they belong to the Holy Church just as they belong to the Church by retaining the true Faith of Christ they are a true Church though the many Errors they have added make them a very corrupt Church And thus by professing the holy Faith and owning the great Principles and Doctrines of Holiness they are a Holy Church though their Holiness may be far from being perfect intire and uncorrupt as well as their Faith When Holiness is attributed to the visible Church it cannot signifie Internal Holiness and Sanctification for good and bad men are intermixt in the Church and if the Church must be holy in this sense all the Members of it must be impeccable as well as infallible But Holiness signifies either their State or their Profession That they are in Covenant with God and so his holy and peculiar People as the Jews were under the Mosaical Covenant who are therefore upon this account often called A holy Nation even when they were guilty of Idolatry in worshipping the Golden Calf and had few visible Marks of Holiness in their Lives and for the same Reason the Christian Church which now succeeds into the Priviledges of the Jewish Synagogue are called Saints the Elect and Chosen People of God to signifie that now God owns none for his People but those who are admitted into the Christian Covenant And in this sense no Church can cease to be a holy Church without ceasing to be a Church But then the Christian Church is holy by Profession too and that in a more eminent manner than the Jewish Church because she professes a more perfect Holiness and whatever Church teaches the holy Commands of our Saviour and requires and professes Obedience to them is so far a holy Church by Profession though she may teach other things which she may think holy but indeed are not so If Holiness signifie an External and Visible Relation to God and the Profession of a holy Religion then that Society which professes the true Faith of Christ and Holiness of Life so as to continue a Covenant Relation to Christ is in this sense a holy Church whatever Corruptions she is guilty of either in Faith or Practice which do not Un-church her Thirdly As for what remains in the Paper it has been answered already upon other Occasions Schism we confess is a damning Sin and thank God that we are not guilty of it We cast off the Roman Yoke which Christ never laid upon us and to deliver our selves from the unjust Usurpations of Foreign Churches is no Schism no more than it is Rebellion to oppose the Invasions of a Foreign Prince We Reformed our own Communion and that is no Schism for we had full Authority to do it and our Reformation is such that they may communicate with us though we