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
we must either say That Common People who have not time nor abilities to understand and answer all the Objections which are made against the Existence of a God can have no good reason to believe there is a God or we must grant that men may have sufficient reason to believe some things without being able to answer all possible Objections which are made against them The plain account of this matter is this That there is such a degree of Evidence Arguments so plain and clear and convincing that the Mind may safely acquiesce in them without examining or answering all possible Objections which may be started Every man finds this in himself there are many things which he can never be made to doubt of though it may be he has but one plain Argument to prove them Though the Philosopher disputed very subtilly against the possibility of Motion he could perswade none of his Scholars that Motion was impossible because they saw themselves and every thing else move every day which was a sufficient confutation of all the Arguments that can be brought against Motion If I have any one unanswerable Argument to prove that a thing is or that it is not this is a sufficient foundation for my Faith though I cannot answer all Objections against it For there are no Objections of any force against a plain and positive Proof but such as weaken the Proof it self and they indeed must be considered but all other collateral difficulties may be rejected for if I can prove that a thing is no other difficulties about the nature notion or operations of such a Being can prove that it is not As for Instance We have a great many positive Proofs that there is a God especially from the visible effects of his Power and Wisdom in making the World now if this be a good Argument and nothing can be said against it which can move a considering man then we may firmly believe there is a God though there may be a great many difficulties objected against the Notion of a God what he is and how he made the World c. which do not prove that there is no God but that we do not perfectly comprehend him And yet this is generally the case that where there is one plain and evident Proof for or against any thing there is no plain and evident Proof on the other side for then indeed we should be in a hard case could there be plain positive Proofs for both sides of the Question It will be of use to shew this more particularly how men of very ordinary Abilities may arrive to a very great certainty in Religion without being able to dispute the Point or to answer all possible Objections and the best way to explain this to the meanest Understanding is to give some particular Instances of it It is a great Dispute between us and the Church of Rome Whether the Sacramental Bread and Wine be transubstantiated into the Natural Flesh and Blood of Christ which I think a plain man who will believe his Senses may determine without disputing for he has the best Evidence that he possibly can have for any thing that the consecrated Bread and Wine is still Bread and Wine not Flesh and Blood for all his Senses tell him so and he who will suffer himself to be reasoned out of his Senses deserves to be deceived and very absurdly complains of want of Evidence and Certainty when he rejects the most certain Evidence that God can give him In matters of Sense the restimony of our Senses is certainly the best Evidence and every man who has his Eyes in his head can see whether it be Bread and Wine or not and therefore this alone is sufficient to create Certainty in defiance of all Objections to the contrary Thus the second Commandment which forbids the worship of all Images without any restriction or qualification is a plain and express proof against Image-worship for whatever Apologies may be made for the worship of Images here is an express Law against it in such plain terms as require great Art and Sophistry to evade them but no Art to understand them now there being a positive Law against the worship of Images and no Law either in the Old or New Testament to give the least allowance to any kind of Image-worship any man who will believe according to Evidence must condemn Image-worship whatever other unscriptural Arguments or Authorities may be alledged for it And I know no need there is of any dispute in the case if men will be determined by a Divine Law Thus if there be a Supream infallible Head of the Church he must be appointed by Christ and that in such plain words that every body may know who he is and what his Authority is but Christ has done no such thing and therefore there is none and this alone is Evidence enough to satisfie the meanest man in this matter without disputing For if Christ hath appointed no Supream Infallible Judge I am sure all the Arguments in the world cannot make one This is so plain and evident that a man who will be convinc'd by Reason cannot resist it for though no pretence of usefulness or necessity can prove that there is such a Judge yet that Christ has appointed no such Judge evidently proves that there is none for he cannot be unless he is evidently appointed by Christ and yet he is not evidently appointed unless it be in such plain words as admit of no reasonable dispute So that this whole Controversie about the Supream Head of the Church and an infallible Judge issues in this one Point Whether Christ hath appointed such a Head and Judge and there is but one way to prove it viz. by shewing where and when Christ has done this and this the meanest man without disputing may judge of for if no such thing plainly appear the want of Evidence for it is all the Evidence we need to have against it And thus it is in most of the disputes between us and the Church of Rome especially where the People are most concerned they are reduced to this one plain Question Whether any such thing was instituted by Christ because without such an Institution they can have no vertue in them and whether they be instituted or not the most unlearned man who can read the Bible at least with the help of a Guide may satisfie himself As for instance Whether the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper be a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead whether the Laity are not as much bound to drink of the Sacramental Cup as to eat of the Bread whether it be lawful to pray to Saints departed and to make them our Advocates and Intercessors with God whether we must pray to God in a Language which we do or do not understand c. I say nothing can justifie these things but an Institution and when no such Institution appears it is a vain thing to attempt
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