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.

THE CONCLUSION.

An Address to wavering Protestants, shewing what little Reason they have to think of any Change of their Reli∣gion.

WHat I have now discoursed in Answer to these Pa∣pers, seems to me so very clear and plain, that I should not much question its good effect, even up∣on 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, with∣out 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 Peo∣ple; 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 be∣lieve 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, up∣on the Authority of Christ and his Apostles, whose Doctrine is contained in the Writings of the New Testament, and ex∣pounded 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 up∣on the Authority of a particular Church, which had no be∣ing, 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 be∣tween us and the Church of Rome, we grant we have no cer∣tainty 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 Au∣thority, (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 Transubstan∣tiation, and the Adoration of the Host, for Prayers in an un∣known 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 Commu∣nion, because we have no certainty of things, which we be∣lieve to be false. We do not only confess, that we can find no certainty for these things, but we assert that we have posi∣tive and certain Evidence against them; and those who have a mind to believe such Doctrines as these, must go over to the Church of Rome to enlarge and improve their Faith, for we shall never believe them. But if they can be contented with the Faith which the Scriptures teach, and which the Primi∣tive Church professed, we have as much Evidence and Cer∣tainty for that, as the Church of Rome her self has; and how they can better themselves by going over to the Church of Rome, as to these Points, I cannot tell, since we believe as or∣thodoxly as they.

Secondly, As for those Doctrines and Practices which we reject, because we have no Evidence for them, but only the Authority of the Church of Rome, which is no Evidence to us, because it is not evident it self, we think our selves much safer in rejecting, than we could be in owning them; and that for this plain Reason, that though we should be mistaken in reject∣ing such Doctrines (as we are very certain we are not) yet they are such Mistakes, as do no injury to common Christi∣anity, no dishonour to our common Saviour, and therefore cannot be dangerous to our Souls; whereas if the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome be, as we say they are, Innovations and Corruptions of Christianity, they are very dangerous and fatal Corruptions. As to shew this in some few Instances.

What injury is it to Christianity, not to believe the Infal∣libility of the Pope or Council, while we believe Christ and his Apostles to be infallible, which is Infallibility enough to direct the Christian Church? For while we adhere to what they taught, we can neither believe too little nor too much;

but if we believe the Infallibility of the Pope, we are bound to stand to his Authority, and to receive all his Dictates with∣out examination, and how dangerous is this, if he should prove not to be infallible, for then he may lead us into damnable Errors, and we have no way to get out of them.

While we own the Supremacy of our Saviour, who is the Head of his Church, and of all Principalities and Powers, and the Authority of Bishops and Pastors to govern the Church under Christ; what does the Church suffer by denying the Supremacy of the Pope, when Soveraign Princes and Bishops may govern their several Churches, as well or better without him? This indeed destroys the Papal Monarchy; but Christ is King still, and the Church is never the worse Church, be∣cause it is not an universal Monarchy, which Christ never intended it should be. But if we give the Supremacy to the Pope, and he has no right to it by Christ's Institution, this is an invasion upon the Right of all the Christian Bishops in the world, makes it impossible for them to govern or reform their own Churches, whatever occasion there be, without leave from the Pope, which very thing has hindred the Reformation of the Church of Rome it self these last Ages, when it has been so earnestly pressed both by Christian Princes and Bishops of that Communion; witness the managemént of Affairs in the Council of Trent. Nay, this is an invasion on the Rights of Soveraign Princes, to set a Superior over them in their own Dominions, who can command their Subjects with a more Sacred Authority; and how fatal this may prove to Princes, and what a Snare and Temptation to Subjects, some Exam∣ples of former Ages may satisfie us.

Suppose we should be mistaken about the lawfulness of Praying to Saints, the Church of Rome her self does not pre∣tend, that it is necessary to do it, and therefore we want no∣thing necessary to Salvation by not doing it; and certainly our Saviour cannot think it any injury to his Mediation, that we so wholly rely upon his Intercession, that we desire no other Advocates, and that we are so jealous of his Glory, that we will not admit the most glorious Saints to the least Partnership with him; and this will make him our Ad∣vocate in deed, when he sees we will have no other: But if he be our only Mediator and Advocate by God's appointment,

and his own purchase, let those who unnecessarily apply themselves to so many other Mediators, consider how our only Mediator will like it.

Suppose it were lawful to worship God or Christ by Ima∣ges, which we think expresly forbid by the second Com∣mandment; yet will they say, That it is an affront or injury to God and our Saviour, to worship him without Images? If that lovely Idea we have of God in our minds; if the remem∣brance of what Christ has done and suffered for us, make us truly and sincerely, and passionately devout, what need have we of an Image, which is pretended only to be a help to Devotion, and therefore of no use to those, who can be de∣vout without it? But he who considers what God's Jealousie means, must needs think it dangerous to worship the Images of God and Christ, and the Saints, for fear they should be for∣bid by the second Commandment, which all the wit of man can never prove that they are not.

Though Latin Prayers were lawful in English Congregati∣ons, who do not understand them, yet is it unlawful to pray in English? Is it any dishonour to God, any injury to Reli∣gion, that men pray with their Understandings? If true worship begins in the Mind, and our Understandings must govern our Affections, I should fear, that to pray without understanding what I prayed, would not be accepted by that God, who is the Father of Spirits, and must be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth.

If we believe, That Christs once offering himself upon the Cross, was a Sufficient Sacrifice, Propitiation and Satisfacti∣on for the sins of the whole world, what injury do we to the Sacrifice of Christ, though we do not believe, that he is offer∣ed again every day in ten Thousand Masses? If we believe, that in the Supper of our Lord we eat the Sacramental Body, and drink the Sacramental Blood of Christ, which by his own Institution do as really and effectually convey to us all the be∣nefits of his Death and Passion, as if we could eat his Natural Flesh, and drink his Blood, what injury does the Church suffer by denying Transubstantiation? And if when we approach his holy Table, we worship Christ in Heaven, sitting on the right Hand of God, Is not this as true an Honour to our Saviour, as to worship him under the Species of Bread? But if Transub∣stantiation

be false, what a hazard does that man run, who worships a piece of Bread, which the most Learned Romanists themselves grant to be Idolatry.

If we believe, That Christ alone has a Judicial Power to forgive Sins, and that the Church has a Ministerial Autho∣rity, to take in or shut out of the Church, which is the only state of Pardon and Salvation, and therefore is a Ministe∣rial remitting or retaining of Sins, and sufficient to all the ends of Ecclesiastical Authority, is not this as much Pardon and Forgiveness as any Christian has need of, though we de∣ny, that the Priest has a Judicial 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 ac∣quitted 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 Sin∣ners, 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 Anathe∣ma'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 in∣fallible 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 some∣thing

necessary to Salvation. There are two things especial∣ly, wherein the Romanists think they have the advantage of us, and for the sake of which some Protestants are perswa∣ded 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 for∣give 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 Na∣tural 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 In∣tention of our Saviour to give us his Natural Flesh to eat, we do eat it as much as they; for we eat the consecrated Ele∣ments, which are, whatever Christ intended to make them by the words of Consecration. For our not believing Tran∣substantiation 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 Ab∣solution; 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 Transub∣stantiate.

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 Suc∣cession from those Bishops, who received Orders in the Com∣munion 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 O∣pinion 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 com∣pound 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 ne∣cessary 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 sus∣picious Practices at best.