this infallible Church is the Church of Rome If they be as they themselves own they are then there are some Articles it seems that must be believed without the Church's Authority upon the single Authority of Scripture and if some why not all why should not the Scripture be as sufficient to authorize us to believe the Rest as these since its Authority is as great in one Text as in another Especially considering 2. That these things which we must believe from Scripture before we can rely upon the Authority of the Church of Rome are at least as obscurely revealed in Scripture as any other Article of our Christian Faith The great Reason urged by the Romanists against our Relyance upon the Scripture for our Faith is the Obscurity of it and if this be a good Reason it proves a great deal more then they would have it viz. that we ought not to rely upon Scripture even for those Articles without believing of which we can have no sufficient Ground to rely upon the Authority of their Church For I would fain know is it clear and plain from Scripture that the present Catholick Church of every Age hath Authority to define the Articles of Faith and that in all its Definitions it is infallbile and that the present Church of Rome is this Catholick Church If so how come those Texts upon which those Articles are founded to be understood in a quite different Sense not only by us but by the greatest part of the Primitive Fathers as hath been abundantly proved by Protestant Writers Supposing that we should be so blinded by our Partiality to our own Tenets as to misapprehend plain and clear Expressions of Scripture it is very strange methinks that the Fathers who were never engaged in the Controversy and so could not be biass'd either one way or t'other should yet misapprehend them too What is this but to say that let Men be never so indifferent yet they may be easily mistaken in the Sense of very plain and clear Expressions and if so what signifies either Speaking or Writing But to proceed to some Instances will any modest Man in the World affirm that the Church of Rome's infallibility in defining Articles of Faith to all succeeding Generations is more plainly exprest in those Words of our Saviour Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church than the Divinity of our Saviour is in the Beginning of the first Chapter of St. John's Gospel where it is expresly affirmed that he is God whereas in the other there is not the least mention either of the Church of Rome or of Infallibility or defining Articles of Faith Why may we not then as well depend upon the one Text for the Article of our Saviour's Divinity as upon the other for that of the Church of Rome's Infallibility Again are there not innumerable Texts of Scripture wherein the Articles of Remission of Sin the Resurrection of the Dead the last Judgment and the World to come are at least as plainly exprest as the present Church fo Rome's Infallibility is in any of those Texts that are urged in the Defence of it and therefore if we believe the later upon the Authority of Scripture notwithstanding the pretended Obscurity of it why may we not as well upon the same Authority believe all the former since the former are at least as plainly exprest as the later Either therefore the Scripture is plain enough to be relyed upon as to this Article of the Church of Rome's Infallibility or it is not if it be not we have no Ground for our Dependance upon the Authority of her Definitions and Proposals if it be it 's plain enough to be relyed upon in all other necessary Articles of Faith since these are all as plainly at least express'd in Scripture as that For if we may not rely upon Scripture because it is not plain then where it is equally plain it is equally to be relyed on 3. That when we come to rely upon this Church's Authority we are exposed to far greater Uncertainties than while we relied upon the Authority of Scripture For in the first place we are of all sides agreed that the Scripture is Infallible and that such and such Writing are Parts of Scripture and therefore are absolutely secure that if we follow the true Sense of it it cannot mislead us But the much greater Part of Christians deny that the Church of Rome is Infallible even the Church of Rome it self owns the Authority we rely on to be infallible but all Christians all the World over besides those of her own Communion disallow hers to be so and to forsake our Dependence upon an Infallibility which all own to rely upon an Infallibility which but few in Comparison admit is certainly a very dangerous Venture And then Secondly As for the Infallibility of Scripture we are certain where to find it viz in every Text and in every Proposition therein contained which being all the World of God must be all infallbile But as for the Infallibility of the Roman Church as they have handled the Matter it is almost as difficult to find as to prove it some cry lo it is here and some lo it is there some place it in the Pope only others in the Pope and his College of Cardinals some in the Pope presiding in a General Council others in a General Council whether the Pope preside in it or no. So that in this Church it seems there is Infallibility somewhere but what are we the better for it if we know not where to find it If we go to the Pope for it there have been two or three Popes at once that have decreed against one another and therefore one or t'other of them to be sure were mistaken How then shall we know which is the true infallible one And when I have found the true Pope others tell me I am not yet arrived at the Seat of Infallibility until I have found him in his College of Cardinals and when I have found him here I am still to seek seeing I find the same Pope Eugenius the Fourth for Instance decreeing one Thing in his College of Cardinals and the quite contrary in a general Council and therefore I am sure he could not be infallible in both Therefore otehrs send me to the Pope in a General Council but when I come thither I find my self at a Loss again because I meet with several Instances of one Pope's defining one Thing in one General Council and another Pope the quite contrary in another and therefore in one or t'other Council I am sure the one or t'other Pope was mistaken And as for General Councils themselves there are sundry of them which are owned by some and rejected by others of the principal Doctors of the Roman Communion And even when Councils are legally assembled there are so many nice Disputes among them what it is that makes them General and when it is that they
act Conciliariter as they call it that is so as to render their Decrees perpetually and universally obliging that though we were resolved to build our Faith upon the Authority of this Church yet if we will use that Caution in believing that we ought to do in a Matter of so great Moment we should find our selves involved in greater Uncertainties concerning these Things than we are concerning the Sense even of the most difficult Places of Scripture But then Thirdly When we are pass'd over all these Difficulties we are still at as great a Loss to understand what is the Sense of the Church to be believe by us as what is the Sense of Scripture For the Church hath no other way to deliver her Sense to us but either by Oral Tradition that is by Word of Mouth or by Writing If She deliver her Sense to me by Oral Tradition how can I know what that is who never heard Her speak either in its diffused Body or in a General Council or in any other Representative unless it be that of my own Parish-Priest perhaps who for all I know may be Ignorant or Heretical and so either not understand himself the Church's Oral Tradition or whilfully pervert it to a contrary Meaning And if the Church deliver here Sense to me by Writing as She hath done in the written Decreesof her General Councils must I read over all her Decrees How should I do that who understand not so much as the Languages in which they are written Or suppose they were Translated how shall I know that they are faithfully render'd any more than I do that the Scripture is so But suppose I were certain of this and should thereupon proceed to read them alass I find in them a great many difficult and dubious Expressions yea and at least seeming Contradictions to each other how then can I be more certain of the true Sense of these Writings than of the Sense of the Writings of Scripture But you will say the Church hath digested her Sense of all her Articles of Faith into a plain Creed and Catechism viz. that of the Council of Trent whereby the plainest Reader may without any laborious Enquiries be ready instructed what he ought to believe This I confess is something but as for those Articles of Faith wherein We and the Church of Rome are agreed we find them as plainly express'd in Scripture as in that Creed and Catechism and therefore we have Reason to believe that if those Articles wherein we disagree had ever been intended for Articles of Faith they would have been as plainly express'd there as these but 't is no wonder we should not find them plainly express'd there when we cannot find them express'd there at all But do we not find that the Scriptures even in the plainest Expressions of Articles of Faith have yet been perverted by Hereticks into a contrary Meaning And what then Are not the Words of Councils as liable to be perverted into a contray Meaning as the Words of Scripture For do not the Roman Doctors differ as much about the Sense of their Councils as we do about the Sense of our Scriptures Yea and have we not a notorious Instance of it at this very Day For what can be more contrary than Belarmine's Exposition of the Trent Faith and the Bishop of Condom's And yet both allowed by the Pope who by the Authority of that Council is made sole Arbitrator of the Sense of it But then Fourthly and lastly As to the Sense of Scripture our Reliance on the Authority of that Church leaves us at as great an Uncertainty as it found us For where the Scripture designs to speak plainly as it doth in all Things necessary to Salvation the Church cannot speak plainer and therefore there we may understand the Scripture as well without the Church as with it but where it doth not speak plainly the Church of Rome hath left us not infallible Commentary whereby to understand it so that where the Scripture is plain She hath not made it plainer and where it is obscure She hath left it as obscure as ever So that after all the Noise that is made of Infallibility her Doctors are fain to apply themselves to the same Methods of Understanding Scripture that is to consult the Sense of Antiquity and compare Text with Text and the like that we fallible Protestants do and when they have done all are as lyable to be mistaken as we Nay they themselves confess that even General Councils themselves may be mistaken in their Applications of Scripture that is that they may misapply them to wrong Purposes which they cannot do without mistaking the Sense of them of which there are a great many notorious Instances in the second Council of Nice which to prove it the Duty of Christians to worship Images urges God's taking Clay and making Man after his own Image and likewise that of Esay There shall be a Sign and Testimony to the Lord in the Land of Egypt and also those Passages of David Confession and Beauty is before him Lord I have loved the Beauty of thy House O Lord my Face hath sought for thee O Lord I will seek after thy Countenance O Lord the light of thy Countenance is sealed over us And from that Passage As we have seen so have we heard they argue that there must be Images to look on and because it is said God is marvellous in his Saints they conclude that the Church must be deck'd with Pictures And from No man lighteth a Candle and putteth it under a bushel they wisely infer that Images must be set upon the Altar all which are as remote from their Sense as the first Verse of the first Chapter of Genesis What greater Certainty have they with their Infallibility than we without it We can know as well the Sense of plain Texts of Scripture as of plain Texts of Councils or Creeds or Catechisms and we can as easily pervert the Sense of the one as of the other And as for those that are not plain even Genreal Councils you see for all their Infallibility may be mistaken about them as well as we So that when all comes to all by forsaking the infallible Authority of Scripture to rely upon the infallible Authority of that Church we are so far from ariving at a greater Certainty of Faith that we are involved in greater Uncertainties than ever But then 4. And lastly in relying upon the Authority of Scripture we are left to no other Uncertainties than just what are necessary to render our Faith vertuous and rewardable whereas by relying upon the Authority of the Church of Rome supposing it were as sure a Ground of Faith as it is pretended our Faith would have little or nothing of Virtue in it It is pretended though falsly you see that that Church's Authority is so sure a Ground of Faith that while a Man depends upon it he cannot be mistaken in any necessary Article
evident to any one that reads it to be sure among these Things are contained all that is necessary for Men to know and understand 2. From the avowed Design of writing the Scripture it is also evident that in all Things necessary it is plain and clear For thus concerning the Old Testament St. Paul tells us that whatsoever things were written afore time were written for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope Rom. 15.4 And if they were written for our Learning and Instruction to be sure they were so written as to teach and instruct us that is plainly and clearly especially as to those Things wherein we have most need to be instructed And then as for the New Testament St. Luke tells his Theophilus that the Reason of his writing his Gospel was that he might know the certainty of those things that were surely believed among Christians and wherein he himself had been instructed And if it were to ascertain us of the Principles of Christianity that he wrote his Gospel certainly he would take care to write it after such a Manner as that those that read it might understand it otherwise he must run counter to his own Design Thus also St. John saith that he wrote his Gospel that Men might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God but how could his Gospel induce Men to believe This unless it be so written as that Men may understand it And so also for his Epistles he tells us that he wrote them that they that believed in Jesus might know that they have eternal Life and that they may believe or continue to believe on the name of the Son of God And if this were his End to be sure he would take care to write so as that they might understand otherwise how could they know by his Writing that they had eternal Life or be moved thereby to continue to believe on the name of Jesus For there is nothing can create in Men either Knowledge or Faith but what they understand Seeing therefore the great End of Writing the Scripture was to instruct the World in the great Things of Religion either we must say that both the Writers of the Scripture and the Holy Ghost that inspired them were defective in Skill or in Care so to write as to obtain this End or that their Writings are an effectual Means to obtain it which it is impossible for them to be unless they are plain and clear as to the great Things of Religion In short every wise Agent pursues his End by the most proper and effectual Means and I would fain know whether to write plainly or obscurely be the most proper Means to instruct Men by Writing if to write plainly then either the Apostles wrote so or they were not wise Agents since to instruct was the great End of their Writing The most natural Way of conveying to Mens Minds the Notices of Things is by Words either spoken or written and seeing whatsoever can be spoken in plain and intelligible Words may be written in the same Words there can be no doubt but those Words will be as intelligible when they are written as when they are spoken for why should the same Words be more obscure when conveyed to us by our Eyes than when conveyed to us by our Ears Seeing then the Sense of Scripture may be as plainly conveyed by Words written as by Words spoken and seeing that even those who deny the Plainness of Scripture do yet allow that the Sense of it may be plainly conveyed by Words spoken or which is the same thing Oral Tradition if the Scripture be not plain it can be resolved into no other Reason but this that God would not have it so for there is no Doubt but he could have spoken as plainly as Men and have written as plainly as he spoke and therefore if he hath not done so it was because he would not but to say that he would not write those Things plainly which he thought necessary for all Men to know and which he wrote on purpose that all Men might know is to say that he would and would not at the same time or that he wrote them on purpose that Men might know them and yet that he wrote so as that they might not know them 3. From the frequent Commands God lays upon us to read the Scripture it is also evident that in all necessary Things it is plain and clear That God doth not only allow but will and rquire us to read the Scripture I shall shew at large hereafter when I come to treat of searching the Scripture Supposing therefore at present the Thing to be true I would fain know to what purpose should God require us to read the Scripture if in those things which are necessary for Men to know and believe it be not plain and intelligible Doth God require us to read it for the sake of reading it or for the sake of understanding it If the former reading any other Book might as well have answered God's End as reading the Scripture because reading is reading whatsoever it be that we read if the later then either the Scripture is plain and intelligible as to all those Things which he requires us to understand or he requires us to read it in vain For to what Purpose should we read that we may understand if that which we are to read be not plain enough to be understood by us As for Instance the Bereans Acts 17.11 are highly commended for searching the Scriptures daily now I would fain know was this a Virtue in them or was it not If not why are they commended for it if it were it was certainly their Duty What was the Intendment of it was it only that they might be expert Readers Why are they so commended for reading the Scriptures above any other Book seeing that reading any other Book would have done as well for that Purpose as reading the Scriptures But the Text it self tells us that the Intendment of their reading the Scripture was that they might know whether those things were so or no which St. Paul had preached to them but how should they know this by reading the Scripture if the Scripture which they read were not plain enough to be understood by them Again St. Paul gives this as a great Commendation of his Son Timothy that from a Child he had known the Holy Scriptures whence by the Way we may learn that it is not so great a Reproach to our Church as the Romanists intend it for that we permit Women and Children Tinkers and Coblers to read the Scripture But I pray what was the Meaning of Timothy's knowing the Holy Scripture from a Child Was it that he knew the Words of it only or the Sense of it also If the former a Parrot may be taught as much as Timothy had learned and consequently deserve as high a Commendation as he if the later then
end should we read the Scripture seeing the only End of Reading is to learn the Sense of what we read which according to this Principle is not to be learnt from Scripture So that though there be no other wise End of reading the Scripture but only to learn from it what it means yet it seems for Men to read it for this End is a perfect Labour in Vain seeing it is not from the Scripture but from the Church that they are to learn the Meaning of Scripture For as for the Scripture if these Men are to be believed it is nothing but a heap of unsensed Characters so they expresly term it But what do they mean by it Is it that the Scripture consists of a company of Letters and Syllables and Words that carry with them no determinate Sense that God Almighty hath written and published a Book to the World that means nothing If so then when the Church by its infallible Authority pretends to expound the Scripture Her meaning is not to expound the Sense of it but to impose a Sense on it which was never in it for how can She expound the Sense of a Book which hath no Sense in it If the Church is to expound the Sense of Scripture the Scripture must have a certain determinate Sense in it before She expounds it for to expound the Sense of That which hath no Sense is Nonsense And if the Scripture hath a certain Sense in it antcedently to the Church's Exposition of it why do they call it a parcel of Vnsensed Characters If their Meaning be only this that the Sense of Scripture as it is delivered in Scripture is so obscure and ambiguous that without the infallible Exposition of the Church we can never be certain what it is besides that this is notoriously false the Scripture in all necessary Points both of Faith and Manners being so very plain and clear that any Man that reads it with an unprejudiced Mind may be as certain of the Sense of it as he can be of the Sense of any Writing and consequently of the Sense of any written Exposition of the Church besides this I say it is evident that whatever these Men pretend it is not meerly because of the obscurity of Scripture that they oblige Men to ground their Faith upon the Church and not upon the Scripture For they own as well as we that in many Things the Scripture is very plain and clear and yet they will by no Means allow Men to ground their Belief of these things upon the Authority of Seripture but all must be resolved into the Authority of the Church By which it is evident That if all the Scripture were as plain as the plainest Scriptures they would still contend for the Necessity of Mens relying upon the Church and not upon the Scripture and consequently that the true Reason why they contend for it is not because the Scripture is obscure but because they are resolved to advance their Church's Authority We own as well as they that where the Scripture is obscure Men ought to be guided by the Authoty of the Church which we freely allow to be the best Expositor of Scripture But the true State of the Difference between them and us is this That whereas we require plain Men to judge of plain Things with their own Understandings and all Men so far forth as they are capable to judge for themselves in Matters of Religion and not content themselves to see with the Church's Eyes where they are able to see with their own nothing will satisfie these Men but to have all Men as well Wise as Simple surrender up their Faith and Judgment to the Church and wink hard and believe what-ever the Church believes purely because the Church believes it Whatever they pretend therefore the Truth of the Case is this They will by no means allow us to believe upon the Authority of Scripture not because the Scripture is obscure though this they pretend for were it never so plain the Case would be the same but because they are sensible that this will inevitably subvert their usurped Dominion over the Faith and Consciences of Men. But we must believe upon the Authority of the Church and who is this Church I beseech you Why they themselves are this Church So that whereas God hath published a Book called the Bible on purpose to declare his Mind and Will to the World here are started up a Sort of Men that call themselves the Church who very gravely tell us Sirs You must not so much as look into this Book or if you do must not believe any one Word in it upon its own Credit and Authority For though we do confess it is the Word of God yet we are the sole Judges of the Sense of it and therefore whatsoever we decalre is its Sense how unlikely soever it may seem to you you are bound in Conscience to receive and believe it for this very Reason because wedeclare it In short you must resign up your Eyes your Faith your Reason and Vnderstandings to us and see only with our Eyes and believe only with our Faith and judge only with our Judgment and whithersoever we shall think fit to lead you you must tamely follow us without presuming to examine whether we lead you right or wrong But yet after all to induce us thus to inslave our Understandings to them they themselves are fain to appeal to Scripture and allow us in some Things to judge of the Sense of it and to believe those Things upon its Authority For no wise and honest Man will ever believe either that They are the Church or the infallible Judges of the Sense of Scripture without some Proof and Evidence and for this this they are fain to produce several Texts of Scripture such as Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church Now supposing that to be true which is notoriously false viz. that those Texts do necessarily imply that They are the only true Catholick Church and that as such they are constituted by God infallible Judges of Scripture yet before I can believe so I must judge for my self whether this be the Sense of them or no and if I judge it is I must believe that they are the Church and infallible upon the Scripture's Authority and not theirs for their Authority is the Thing in debate and I cannot believe upon it before I believe it So then though we must believe nothing else upon Scripture Authority yet upon this very Authority we must believe that they are the Church and that they are infallible which are the fundamental Principles of their Religion that is to say we must believe as much upon Scripture Authority as will sever their turn and no more But may I be certain of the Truth of these two Fundamental Principles upon Scripture Authority or no If I may why may I not as well be infallibly certain upon the same Authority
Creatures there are none so near the Danger of sinning as those whose Wills are least restrain'd from it and therefore though we were now as innocent as the blessed Angels are yet our Condition would be unspeakably more unsafe because by how much we fall short of them in Knowledge and Understanding by so much we should exceed them in our Freedom to Evil and consequently be so much the more liable to it But this alas is the least of our Danger For 2ly We are liable to fall into a sinful State and from thence into eternal Misery from the many Temptations to Evil among which we are placed For this State of Being in which we now are being intended by God for our Tryal and Probation it was requisite in order thereunto that we should be placed among Difficulties that we might have sufficient Opportunity to exercise our Skill and Courage in Religion for unless we had some such Difficulties to encounter there could no Proof or Tryal be made of our Virtue Hence therefore hath God placed our rational Souls in mortal Bodies which do naturally abound with brutish Appetites and Desires and compassed us round with this World of sensual Goods and Evils which continually importunes and excites them that so we might have sufficient opportunity to exercise those humane Virtues which consist in the Dominion of our rational Faculties over these our bodily Appetites and Desires that we might never want occasion to give the most glorious Proofs of our Patience and Chastity Temperance and Equanimity Meekness and Sobriety all which are proper to us as Beings made up of Soul and Body whence all those brutish Appetites arise in the good or bad Government whereof consists the Nature of humane Virtue and Vice So that this present State of humane Life is intended by God for a Field of Combat between Reason and Sense between the Law in our Minds and the Law in our Members and that the Victory of Reason might through the Difficulty of it be render'd more glorious and remarkable he hath furnished its Antagonist viz. the bodily Appetite with various Weapons with the Temptations of a World of sensitive Goods and Evils to assault and oppose it to try its Metal and exercise both its active and passive Virtues and upon the success of this Combat depends the everlasting Fate o the Soul If Sense prevail and lead her finally Captive into Vice and Wickedness she is lost for ever but if Reason ger the Victory and finally reduce the Desires and Appetites of Sense under the Dominion of Virtue when this mortal Life ends She shall triumph for ever and be translated hence into a free and disintangled State where she shall be vexed and inticed no more with the Importunities of sensual Lusts and Affections but to all Eternity enjoy the Serenity and Pleasure of a pure Intellectual Being This being therefore the true State of Affairs it is too too obvious how liable the Soul is to miscarry when it is placed in a Body among so many brutish Passions and Appetites and that Body is placed in a tempting World among so many sensitive Goods and Evils that are continually importuning those Appetites to mutiny against Reason and carry us away Captive into Folly and Wickedness How much Reason have we to look about us when we are placed in the midst of so many Dangers and have such numberless Snares on every side ready to decoy and intangle us But this is not all neither For 3ly We are liable also to fall into a sinful State and from thence into eternal Misery from the more close and intimate Access which these Temptations have to us than the contrary Motives to Goodness For the great Advantage which these Temptations to Vice have over the most powerful Motives to Virtue is this that they are all of them persent and sensible for as for those grand Motives to Goodness that are drawn from the Consideration of our future State they propose to our Hopes and Fears those Master-Springs of our Motions such Goods and Evils as are a great way off and beyond the prospect of our bodily Senses which makes the Land-skip of them appear exceeding dim and faint upon the Mind their Futurity which is one sort of Distance causing them like Things afar off to look confused and indistinct by reason of which they cannot affect us so powerfully and draw such strong and lasting Draughts of themselves upon our minds For Goods like Magnets have always the strongest Attractions when they are nearest but as for those invisible Goods of the other World they are at such a Distance from us that they can hardly reach us who live upon the remotest Circumference of the Sphere of their Attraction And as Distance lessens all Objects to to the Eye and renders them much smaller in Appearance than they are in Reality so the remote Futurity of those eternal Goods which the Motives of Virtue do propose detracts from their just Magnitude and makes them tho unspeakably vast in themselves appear exceeding small and inconsiderable to our short-sighted Minds And the same is to be said of those future Evils also which they denounce against us and besides being not only remote but invisible too they cannot strike upon our Senses by which the most vigorous Impressions of Things are made upon our Minds whereas the Temptations of Vice are all present and sensible and do so circle us round as soon as we look abroad into the World that which way soever we turn our Eyes they are still before us thrusting themselves into our Minds and with their constant Importunity stirring and working our Desires So that whenever these outward Goods or Evils do assault us we lie bare and open to them and they continually press so close upon our Senses that we are not able to avoid their Impressions When any outward Good invites us to a sinful Action it hath the vast Advantage of being prescnt and sensible by Reason of which it having a more immediate Access to our Minds doth many times prevail before we can Rally up a sufficient Strength of Considerations against it and when we set our selves to resist and struggle with it the best of our Weapons is a Company of thin and faint Notions of Things afar off Things that we never saw nor felt which whilst we are recollecting the Vice we are Tempted to hath its Powers ready to seize upon the Will which having oftentimes experienced the Pleasure it invites to is the more easily seduced to a fresh Compliance And whilst our Enemies are so near us and our Helps and Succors so far off we must needs acknowledge our Danger very great and urgent 4ly We are liable to fall into a sinful State and from thence into eternal Misery from the great Correspondence of these Temptations with the corrupt Inclinations of our Natures For by Reason of the Nearness and Sensibleness of those outward worldly Goods by which we are continually tempted and
where you find John Baptist giving the same Testimony to Christ which here he gives to the Word especially v. 27. of this Chapter Which is a plain Evidence that Christ and the Word are only different Titles of the same Person But that I may more particularly explain to you the Meaning of this Phrase I will briefly deliver my Sense of it in these following Propositions 1. That this Phrase The Word as it is by way of Eminence applied to a particular Subject is derived into the New Testament from the Theology of the Jews and Gentiles 2. That the New Testament giving no distinct Explication of it it is most safe and reasonable to fetch the Sense of it from that ancient Theology whence it was derived 3. That the Theology from whence it was derived uses it to signify a vital and Divine Subsistence 4. That therefore our Saviour to whom it is applied in the New Testament is that vital and Divine Subsistence 1. That this Phrase The Word as it is by way of Eminency applied to a particular Subject is derived into the New Testament from the Theology of the Jews and Gentiles Which will plainly appear to any one that shall consider the exact Agreement between those Titles and Characters which are given to our Saviour in the New Testament and those which the Jews and Gentiles give to the Word so often mentioned in their Theology For as for this Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Word it is very anciently used in the Writings both of Jews and Gentiles For Rab. Azariel in his Treatise of Holiness quotes it out of the Book of the Creation which was written by Rab. Abraham an ancient Cabalist who the Jews say was the Patriarch Abraham himself The Spirit saith he meaning the most High God bringeth forth the Word and the Voice and these Three are one God Thus also it is frequently used in the Chaldee Paraphrase as eminently appropriated to a Divine Person So in Isa 45.17 instead of Israel shall be saved in the Lord they read it by the Word of the Lord and Jerem. 1.8 instead of I am with thee they read because my Word is with thee and Gen. 15.1 instead of I am thy shield they read my Word is thy shield and so in sundry other places And which is very observable Psal 110.1 instead of The Lord said unto my Lord they read The Lord said unto his Word which Words our Saviour applies to himself Matth. 22.44 as being himself that Eternal Word or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there mentioned And in the same Sense also it was very anciently used in the Writings of the Gentile Philosophy Thus Zeno as Tertullian tells us 1 Tertull. Apologet. c. 36 Pam. Hunc i.e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zeno determinat factitorem qui cuncta in dispositione formaverit eundemque fatum vocari Deum animum Jovis speaks of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which the World was made and which he calls Fate and God and the Soul of Jupiter And the ancient Orpheus as he is quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus 2 Stromat L. 5 p. 607. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exhorts Men to behold and contemplate the Divine Word who is the immortal King of Heaven And Plato 3 Epinomis tells us that the Motions of the Stars were disposed and ordered by the Word By which it 's plain that this Phrase was used as appropriate to a Divine Person both by Jews and Gentiles long before the Writing of the New Testament And that the New Testament derived it from their Writings is apparent for that it attributes to Christ the same Titles and Characters which they were wont to attribute to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus as the New Testament calls Christ the Messias The Word so the Chaldee Paraphrase expresly tells us that Messias is called the Word of God Oseae cap. 7. Thus as St. Paul calls him the King immortal so Orpheus in the afore-named Place calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the King immortal And whereas Christ is said to be the Image of God 2 Cor. 4.4 to be the shining forth of his Glory and the express Character of his Person Heb. 1.3 Philo calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4 Lib. 2 de Agricultutâ p. 169. Edit Genev. 1613. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 5 Leg. Allegd 2. p 60. that is the Character of God and the Shadow and Image of God And Plotin That it is a Light streaming forth from God even as Brightness doth from the Sun 1 Enn. 5. l. f. c. 6. And as St. John in the first Verse of this Chapter tells us That the Word was from the beginning with God and that it was God so Philo tells us that by Prerogative of Eldership he abideth with the Father and Zeno in the aforenamed place that he is God and Plotin 2 Ibid. tells us That being the Word of God and the Image of God he is inseparably conjoined with him And whereas Christ tells us That he is the Light of the World John 8.12 the Manna which cometh down from Heaven and the Bread of Life John 6.33 35. The same Philo stiles him the Word the Light 3 Philo de Opif. mundi p. 4 5. the Manna 4 Quod det pot in s sol p. 137. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 5 Leg. Alleg. l. 2. p. 70 71. that is the Bread and Food which God hath given to the Soul And whereas it is said that the Father is in Christ that he dwells and abides in him John 14.10 the same Author says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 6 De Migrat Abrah p. 304. that is the Word is the House of the Father in whom he dwells Whereas Christ is said to have a Name Phil. 2.9 and to be advanced above all Principalities and Powers Eph. 1.21 Philo tells us that this Divine Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 7 Leg. Alleg. p. 71. that is above all Worlds and the most ancient of all things that are Whereas Christ is said to be the High Priest over the House of God Heb. 10.21 Philo tells us that the World is the Temple of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 De Somniis p. 463. that is in which the First-born Divine Word is the High Priest Whereas Christ is said to be the Son of God and the First-born of every Creature Plato calls him the begotten Son of the Good 2 De Repub. l. 6. Plotin the Son of God 3 Enn. 5. l. 8. c. 12. and Philo the First-begotten Son and Word of God 4 De Somn. p. 463. Again whereas God is said to have created the World by Christ Heb. 1.2 and to have committed the Government of it to him Philo calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 5 De Cherub p. 88. that is the Governour
of all things and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 6 De Somn. p. 466. the Vice-roy of God and also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 7 Lib. Cherub p. 100. that is the Instrument of God by whom he made the World As in Christ the Fulness of the Godhead is said to dwell Colos 2.9 so Plotin tells us of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is filled with God 8 Ennead 5. l. 3. c. 12. As Christ is called the great Shepherd of our Souls 1 Pet. 2.25 so Philo tells us that God who is King and Pastor of the World hath appointed the Word his first-begotten Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 9 De Agricult p. 152. to undertake the Care of his sacred Flock as his own Vice-roy and Substitute and accordingly in the same place he makes The Word to be that Angel whom God had promis'd to send before the Camp of Israel to conduct them through the Wilderness In short as the Angels are said to be subject unto Christ 1 Pet. 3.22 and as Christ is said to be the Angel or Messenger of God Joh. 9.4 so Philo calls the most ancient Word the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Quaest Rerum divin haer p. 397. that is the Prince of the Angels and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 De Somn. p. 466. the Angel or Messenger of God And to name no more as Christ is called the Mediator of the new Covenant Heb. 12.24 and the Intercessor between God and Man Heb. 7.25 and the Propitiation and Atonement So saith Philo which is highly worthy of our Observation the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 3 Quaest Rerum Divin her p. 397. is the Intercessor for Mortals with the immortal God and also the Embassador of that great King to his Subjects which Office saith he he willingly undertook saying I will stand in the middle between the Lord and you as being neither unborn as God nor born as you but being a Medium between those two Extreams I will be a Pledge for both for his Creatures that they shall not utterly apostatize from him for God that he will not be wanting in his Fatherly Care towards them And in another place he tells us that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4 De Somniis p. 447. that is the Beginning and the End of God's Good-will to the World which is all one with Propitiation And these Authorities of Philo I have the rather insisted upon because he being a Jew and a Platonick Philosopher must needs understand the Theology of Jews and Gentiles and living about the Time of our Saviour he must be supposed to have written in Terms that were then in use and were very well understood both by Jews and Gentiles And if so then it must necessarily follow that this Phrase The Word so common in that Author was very commonly used both by Jews and Gentiles in our Saviour's Time and consequently that it was derived from them and so appropriated to our Saviour by the inspired Writers of the New Testament And indeed it is not to be imagined how those inspired Writers should ever have so exactly agreed with the Jews and Gentiles in the Titles and Characters of the Eternal Word had not either they themselves or the Spirit of God which dictated to them purposely derived it from them 2. That the New Testament giving no distinct Explication of this Phrase The Word it is most safe and reasonable to fetch the Sense of it from that ancient Theology whence it was derived I do not deny but it is usual with all Writers to use Terms and Phrases by way of Accommodation and to illustrate their Sense by alluding to something that is like it and therefore are not always to be understood in the Sense which those Terms and Phrases do most commonly signify but in a Sense that hath some Proportion with it as the Drift and Connection of their Discourse doth plainly intimate But when Writers use Words in a literal Sense without any Note of Allusion and without explaining themselves into any different Sense either they must mean the same Thing which those Words do commonly signify or else they must mean to deceive and impose upon their Readers And thus stands the Case before us our Saviour is here stiled The Word a Term of Art which was very common both in the Jewish and Gentile Philosophy and neither here nor any where else is there the least Intimation that he is called so only by way of Allusion nor is it in all the New Testament explained into any other Sense than that wherein it was commonly used and therefore the Intent of the Sacred Writers in using it must be either to denote the same thing which it signified before or to deceive and impose upon the World But doubtless if the Holy Spirit which inspired those Writers had meant any thing else by it than what it ordinarily fignifies he would have told us of it and not have given us such an unavoidable Occasion to mistake in so great a Doctrine by clothing its Sense in such a Phrase as generally signifies what he never meant For when he called Christ by the same Name and attributed the same Titles and Characters by which the Jews and Gentiles were wont to describe their ΛΟΓΟΣ he could not but foresee that all inquisitive Persons would be apt to conclude that he meant the same thing and therefore if he had not meant so he would doubtless either not have given him that Name and those Titles or else to prevent our being imposed upon by them he would have explained them into some other meaning which since he hath not done we may safely and rationally conclude that he hath meant the same Thing by this Name and those Titles with those from whom he did derive them and consequently that the most certain way for us to understand what is the Sense of Christ's being The Word is to consider what those Jews and Gentiles meant by it from whose Philosophy it was first borrowed and derived 3. That both the Jewish and Gentile Theology used this Phrase The Word to signify a Vital and Divine Subsistence For as for the Jews it 's plain that by The Word they meant the Messias and therefore Ps 110. which they say contains the Mysteries of the Messias the Chaldee Paraphrase instead of the Lord said unto my Lord read the Lord said unto his Word that is consequently to his Messias And Rab. Arama upon Genesis explaining that Passage in the 107 Ps 20. The Lord sent forth his Word and they were healed expresly tells us that by this Word is meant the Messias And Rab. Simeon the Son of Johni expounding those Words of Job 19.26 Yet in my Flesh shall I see God faith that the Mercy which proceeds from the highest Wisdom of God shall be crowned by The Word and take Flesh of a Woman by which
now proceed to the second Branch of my Discourse which was to shew you that this was the Glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father But before we proceed to the Proof of it it will be necessary to explain this Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Glory as of the only begotten Son Which Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as is in Scripture taken two Ways sometimes as a Note of Similitude or Comparison so Mat. 6.10 Thy Will be done in Earth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is in Heaven that is like as it is in Heaven and if we take it in this Sense then the Meaning of the Words must be this And we beheld his Glory which was like unto the Glory of the only begotten Son of the Father that is like unto that Glory in which the only begotten Son was wont to appear when he dwelt in the Tabernacle and conversed with the antient Patriarchs And in this Sense I have shewed you already how it was as the Glory of the only begotten Son by shewing you the great Agreement and Similitude there was between the Glory of Christ when he dwelt in the Tabernacle of Moses and in the Tabernacle of our Nature And when I consider how plainly this Text doth allude to the Shechinah or Divine Presence of the Word in that antient Tabernacle I am very much induced to think that we ought not to exclude this Sense of it namely that as he dwelt in the Tabernacle of our Nature like as he dwelt in the Tabernacle of Moses so that Glory of his which they beheld in the Tabernacle of our Nature was like unto that Glory in which he appeared in the ancient Tabernacle But then this Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes also taken for a Note of Confirmation So Psal 73.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Truly God is good to Israel And thus St. Chrysostome understands it here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It is not a Note of Similitude and Comparison but of Confirmation and unquestionable Distinction as if the Evangelist had said we saw his Glory such as became and was fit for the only begotten and truly natural Son of God For my Part I see no Reason why the Words may not be fairly understood in both Senses since they are no Ways opposite to nor inconsistent with one another and if so then this must be the Meaning of the Words We behold his Glory which was like unto that Glory in which the only begotten Son appeared in the old Tabernacle and which was such as was every Way becoming the only begotten Son to appear in The first of which Senses I have proved to you already that the Glory of Christ in the Tabernacle of our Natures was like unto his Glory in the Tabernacle of Moses and therefore now I shall only prove the second that it was such as became and was every Way worthy of the only begotten Son of the Father and this I doubt not will plainly appear by considering the several Particulars of it 1st That visible Splendor and Brightness in which he appeared at his Baptism and Transfiguration was such as became him and was worthy of him For in all Probability that Splendor consisted of Angelical Beings clothed in bright and luminous Bodies because as I have formerly proveed to you that Brightness in which he appeared upon the Mount and which he displayed from between the Cherubims was nothing else but those Angels of Light or ministring Spirits which he made to appear as Flames of Fire round about him and therefore that Train of Angels whom Esay saw filling the Temple Esay 6.1 our Saviour calls the Glory of the Lord Jo. 12.41 that is that visible Glory in which the Lord appear'd from between the Cherubims And if that visible Glory consisted in a Train of Angels appearing in glorious Forms then there is no doubt but that visible Glory of our Saviour at his Baptism and Transfiguration was the same since as I have already shewed you it is described by the same Name and in the same Manner of Appearance and if so how well did it become the only begotten Son to be surrounded with the illustrious Guards of his Father's Court and attended on with those high-born Spirits whose Office it is to minister before the Throne of the most High For never was the most glorious Potentate upon Earth attended with such a splendid Train and Retinue the meanest of which was far more illustrious than the greatest and most high-born Monarch in the World So that as the most High God did by a Voice from Heaven both at his Baptism and Transfiguration declare him to be his beloved Son so by the glorious Train of Attendants he sent in him he manifested the Truth of his Declaration for we must needs suppose him to be the Son of the most High when we see the most glorious Beings in all the Creation so willingly submit themselves to his Service and Attendance And when we see the most High adorning his Outside with the luminous Bodies of Angels we may reasonably conclude that there was a Divinity within and that the Jewel was God because the Casket was Angels But whatsoever this glorious Splendor was in which he was clothed at his Baptism and Transfiguration it was apparently such as very well became the only begotten Son not only because as the Philosopher saith that if God would ever take upon him a Body it would be certainly Light which is a Vestment most suitable to his Glory and Majesty but also because that miraculous Splendor was an infallible Token of the Presence of the Divinity in him for it never was but where God was present and therefore it is called the Glory of God it being the inseparable Concomitant of his more peculiar Residence For thus as I have shewed you upon the Mount and in the Tabernacle it was a visible Demonstration of the special Presence of the invisible God and wheresoever in all the Old Testament any Mention is made of its Appearance you shall find that there God himself did peculiarly reside And therefore it is not to be imagined that God would have communicated to our Saviour this inseparable Token of his own Presence unless the Divinity had resided in him For Jesus Christ was the only Person upon whom this visible Glory descended never did the Hand of Heaven put forth such a Robe and Diadem of Glory upon any person in the World as this which our Saviour wore at his Baptism and Transfiguration which plainly denotes that he was the only Person in whom the Divinity was substantially united and did essentially dwell So that as this visible Glory was a certain Token of God's peculiar Residence in the Tabernacle and Temple so it was also of his special Presence in Christ for the History of his Baptism tells us that it did not only make a transient Appearance but that it remained on him signifying that the
them what need they have been recorded What is there in the meer Story of Noah's Drunkenness and Incest and David's Adultery considered abstractly from the good Instructions it gives that should move God to deliver it down to all future Posterity If it serve no good Ends it is recorded to a bad purpose and therefore if for this Reason because it is apt to corrupt Mens Minds the Church be obliged to conceal it now for the very same Reason God was obliged to have concealed it for ever Either therefore we must say that God did very ill in publishing it or that the Church doth very ill in suppressing it for God could have no other End in publishing it to the World but only to instruct the World by it If therefore it be not instructive God was mistaken but if it be it is fit the World should be acquainted with it 3. That this Objection doth expresly contradict the Scripture it self For whereas it tells us that the bad Examples recorded in Scripture would be apt to deprave the Peoples Minds and Manners St. Paul tells us the quite contrary These Things were our Examples to the intent we should not lust after evil things as they i. e. the Israelites in the Wilderness lusted Neither be ye Idolaters as were some of them Neither let us commit fornication as some of them committed and sell in one day three and twenty thousand Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them also tempted and were destroyed of serpents Neither murmur ye as some of them also murmured and were destroyed of the destroyer Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples and they are written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world are come 1 Cor. 10.6 7 8.9 10 11. Whereas this Objection urges that there are sundry Passages in Scripture which should the People read would excite evil Thoughts in their Minds The same St. Paul tells us That all Scripture is profitable not only for Doctrine and Reproof but also for correction for instruction in righteousness 2 Tim. 3.16 Whereas this Objection pretends that it would be very unsafe for young People especially to be allowed the Scripture because there are several amorous Stories and Passages in it which will be apt to suggest wanton Thoughts to their gay and amorous Fancies David it is plain was of a quite contrary Mind for wherewith saith he shall a young man cleanse his way by taking heed thereto according to thy word Psal 119.9 than which two Passages what Assertions can be more contrary one to another 4. And lastly That supposing this Objection to be thus far true that there are some Passages in Scripture which may sometimes occasionally excite bad Thoughts in Mens Minds yet this is no just Reason why the Use of Scripture should be forbid to the People For every Thing which the People occasionally make bad Uses of is for that Reason to be forbid to them even Prayer and the Sacraments and the Profession of Christianity ought to be for bidden them as well as the Scripture seeing of the one as well as of the other many People do occasionally make very bad Uses So long as the Scripture is good in it self and apt in its own Nature to instruct and edifie those that read it this is sufficient not only to warrant the Peoples Use of it but to enjoyn and require it and if it sometimes occasion corrupt Thoughts in corrupt Minds this is no more a Reason why the People should be deprived of the Light of it than some bad Mens making ill Use of the Light of the Sun is why the Sun should be extinguished or why the People should be for ever shut up from the Light of it in dark and dismal Dungeons But as for those very Passages in Scripture which do sometimes occasion ill Thoughts in Mens Minds they are so far from doing it of their own Natures that as they are delivered in Scripture there is nothing more naturally apt to repress bad Thoughts and to arm and fortifie Mens Minds against them As for instance The bad Examples recorded in Scripture are generally delivered with infamous Characters severe Prohibitions and dreadful Instances of God's Vengeance attending them which render them much more apt to repress than to excite evil Thoughts in Mens Minds to quicken them to Prayer and Watchfulness against Temptations and when at any Time they have been overcome by them to encourage them to Repentance or when they have overcome them to stir them up to a grateful Acknowledgment of that preventing and assisting Grace of God by which they have been enabled to resist and repel them These are the natural Uses of those bad Examples recorded in Scripture and therefore if instead of Making these Uses of them some Men pervert them to bad Purposes that is their Faults and not the Scriptures It is sufficient that the bad Examples in Scripture as they are there recorded are in themselves of excellent Use to the People but should Men be deprived of the Use of every good Thing they abuse I would fain know what one good Thing would be left free to their Enjoyment And now having proved at large the Peoples Right and Obligation to Use and Search the Holy Scripture and answered the main Objections against it I shall conclude with these two Inferences from the whole 1. If he People are obliged to acquaint themselves with Scripture then they are obliged to receive upon the Authority of Scripture those Divine Truths which it proposes to their Belief For to what other end should we be obliged to read and consult the Word of God but only that we may learn from it what is his Mind and Will but how should we learn from Scripture what God's Mind is if we are not to believe what he therein declares upon Scripture Authority If I must not believe when I read the Scripture that this is God's Mind because the Scripture says so it is impossible I should ever learn God's Mind by reading it and consequently I am obliged to read it to no Purpose For there is nothing can teach me what God's Mind is but that which gives me sufficient Ground to believe that what it teaches is the Mind of God When therefore I read the Scripture and find such a Proposition plainly asserted in it is this a sufficient Ground or no for me to believe it to be the Mind of God If it be then the Authority of Scripture is a sufficient Ground for my Belief If it be not then the Scripture cannot teach me what God's Mind is because it cannot give me sufficient Ground to believe any one Proposition in it to be the Mind of God We are told indeed that we are not to receive the Sense of the Scripture from the Scripture but from the Church who alone hath Authority to Expound it to us and whose Expositions in all Matters of Faith are infallible But if this be so to what
it seems the Scripture is plain enough for a well-disposed Child to know the Sense of it so far forth at least as it is necessary to be known and this is as much as we desire If therefore God requires us to read the Scripture as Timothy did the End that we may know and understand it as he did then either we may understand the Sense of it by reading it or else God requires us to read it in vain 4. And lastly From the Obligation we lie under upon pain of Damnation to believe and receive those Necessaries to Salvation contained in Scripture it is also evident that as to all those Necessaries it is plain and clear That we are obliged to believe under pain of Damnation all that the Scriture proposes as necessary to our Salvation is agreed on all hands but how can Men be justly obliged to believe such Things as are obscure and doubtful and uncertain and of which they can have no certain Knowledge Either the Necessaries to Salvation must be plainly and clearly express'd in Scripture or we have not sufficient Reason to believe them and to say God will damn us for not believing those Things which he hath not given us sufficient Reason to believe is to charge him with the most outragious Oppression and Injustice But we are told that though God hath not clearly revealed to us in Scripture those Things which he hath obliged us to believe upon Pain of Damnation yet he hath left us sufficient Reason to believe them for he hath left us to the Conduct of an Infallible Church that is to say of the present Church of Rome in all Ages whom he hath authorized to explain and define to us all Things that are necessary to be believed which we are to receive upon her Authority and not upon the Scriptures so that if we firmly believe what She defines and proposes to us we are sure to believe all Things that are necessary to be believed Now in Answer to this Objection which indeed is the great Foundation that the Faith of those of the present Church of Rome relies on I desire these Things may be seriously considered 1. That before we can reasonably rely upon the Authority of the present Church of Rome in defining and proposing to us the Articles of our Faith there are sundry Things that we must believe upon the Authority of Scripture 2. That these Things which we must believe from Scripture before we can rely upon the Authority of that Church are at least as obscurely revealed in Scripture as any other Article of our Christian Faith 3. That after all these Things upon our relying on that Church's Authority we are left to the same or greater Uncertainties than upon our relying upon the Authority of Scripture 4. That in relying upon the Authority of the Scripture we are left to no other Uncertainities than just what is necessary to render our Faith virtuous and rewardable whereas by relying upon the Authority of that Church supposing it to be a certain Ground as it is pretended our Faith would have little or nothing of Virtue in it 1. That before we can reasonably rely upon the Authority of that Church in defining and proposing to us the Articles of our Faith there are sundry Things that we must believe upon the Authority of Scripture As for Instance we must in the first Place believe that there is a Church or Society of Christians separated from the World or incorporated by a peculiar Divine Charter Now whether there be such a Church or no is a Question that must be resolved by the Scripture and not by the Church because to believe that there is a Church because the Church saith there is a Church is to take that for granted which is the Thing in Question Secondly We must believe that this Church hath Authority to define and propose to us the Articles of our Faith which must also for the same Reasons be believed on the Authority of the Scripture and not of the Church For to believe that there is a Church that hath Authority to propose to us the Articles of our Faith is to believe that there is a Church which we are obliged to believe and how can I believe this upon the Church's Authority unless I can believe it before I do believe it Thirdly Before we can rely upon this Church's Authority in defining and proposing to us the Articles of our Faith we must believe that this Church is infallible for if she be not Infallible how is it consistent with the Truth of God to oblige us to believe Her seeing in so doing he must oblige us whensoever She errs to believe her Errors but that she is infallible is not to be believed upon her own Authority for then her infallible Authority must be the Reason of our Belief that She is Infallible that is we must believe her infallible because we believe her infallible Seeing then we cannot believe it on her own Authority if we believe it at all it must be upon the Authority of Scripture Fourthly Before we can rely upon the Church of Rome's Authority to define to us the Articles of our Faith we must believe the Church of Rome to be this infallible Church But seeing this is no self-evident Principle we must have some other Evidence besides her self to induce us to believe it and what else can that be but Scripture We are told indeed by some of her greatest Divines that there are certain Marks and Notes of a true Church peculiar to the Church of Rome by which we are obliged to believe Her the true Church such as Antiquity Vniversality Holiness of Doctrine c. But seeing no Doctrine can be holy that is not true we must be satisfied that that Church is true before we can know that it is holy so that before we can reasonably submit to her Authority we must be very well assured that her Doctrine is true and this we cannot be assured of by her Authority because that as yet is the Matter in Question and therefore we can be no otherwise assured of it but only by the Authority of Scripture and when we are assured beforehand by the Authority of Scripture that her Doctrines are true her Authority comes too late to assure us Seeing therefore it is evident that there are some if not all the Articles of the Roman Faith that must be known and believe by us upon the Authority of Scripture before we can safely rely upon her Authority to define them to us how can we be obliged to settle our Faith upon her Authority when as before we can reasonably admit her Authority we must believe several of the Articles of our Faith upon the Authority of Scripture For I would fain know are these Articles of Faith or no That there is a Church that this Church hath Authority to define the Articles of our Faith and that in so defining this Church is infallible and that