An answer to some papers lately printed concerning the authority of the Catholick Church in matters of faith, and the reformation of the Church of England

AN ANSWER TO THE First Paper.

IF all men could believe as they pleased, I should not have fail'd of satisfacti∣on in this First Paper; the Design of it being to put an end to Particular Di∣sputes; to which I am so little a Friend, that I could have been glad to have found, as much reason in it to convince, as I saw there was a fair appearance to deceive. But there is a Law in our Minds distinct from that of our Inclinations; and out of a just and due regard to That, we must ex∣amine

the most plausible Writings, though back'd with the greatest Authority, before we yield our Assent unto them.

If particular Controversies about Matters of Faith could be ended by a Principle, as visible as that the Scripture is in Print, all men of sence would soon give over Disputing; for none who dare believe what they see, can call that in Question. But what if the Church, whose Authority, it is said, they must submit to, will not allow them to believe what they see? How then can this be a sufficient reason to perswade them to be∣lieve the Church, because it is as visible as that the Scripture is in Print? unless we must only use our senses to find out the Church, and renounce them assoon as we have done it. Which is a very bad requi∣tal of them, and no great Honour to the Church which requires it.

But with all due submission, it is no more visible that the Roman Church is the Catholick Church, than it is, that a part is

the whole, and the most corrupt part, that one Church, which Christ hath here upon Earth.

It is agreed among all Christians, That Christ can have but one Church upon Earth, as there is but one Lord, one Faith, one Ba∣ptism. And this is that Church we profess to believe in the two Creeds. But if those, who made those Creeds for our direction, had intend∣ed the Roman Catholick Church, why was it not so expressed? How came it to pass that such a limitation of the sense of Christs Catholick Church to the Roman, should never be put to Persons to be Baptized in any Age of the Church? For I do not find in the Office of Baptism, even in the Roman Church, that it is required that they believe the Roman Catholick Church, or that they deny the validity of Baptism out of the Communion of the Roman Church. From whence it is to me as visible as that the Scri∣pture is in Print, that the Church of Rome it self doth not believe that it is, the one Ca∣tholick Church mentioned in the two Creeds. For then it must void all Baptism out

of its Communion, which it hath never yet done. And as long as Baptism doth enter Persons into the Catholick Church, it is impossible, that all who have the true form of Baptism, though out of the Com∣munion of the Roman Church, should be Members of the Catholick Church, and yet the Communion of the Roman and Catho∣lick be all one; as it must be if the Ro∣man Church, be the Catholick and Apostolick Church professed in the Creeds.

If we had been so happy to have lived in those Blessed Times, when the multitude of them that believed were of one heart, and of one soul, it had been no difficulty to have shewed that one visible Church, which Christ had here upon Earth. But they must be great strangers to the History of the Church, who have not heard of the early and great Divisions in the Communion of it. And there was a remarkable difference in the Na∣ture of those Schisms, which happened in the Church; which being not considered hath been the occasion of great misaplication of

the sayings of the Antients about the One Catho∣lick Church. Some did so break off Communi∣on with other parts of the Catholick Church, as to challenge that Title wholly to themselves; as was evident in the case of the Novatians and Donatists; for they rebaptiz'd all that em∣braced their Communion. Others were cast out of Communion upon particular differen∣ces; which were not supposed to be of such a nature, as to make them no members of the Catholick Church. So the Bishops of Rome excommunicated the Bishops of Asia for not keeping Easter when They did; and the Bi∣shops both of Asia and Africa, for not allow∣ing the Baptism of Hereticks. But is it rea∣sonable to suppose, that upon these Differen∣ces they shut out all those Holy Bishops and Martyrs from the possibility of Salvation, by excluding them from their Communion? If not, then there may be different Communi∣ons among Christians, which may still con∣tinue Parts of the Catholick Church; and con∣sequently no one Member of such a Di∣vision ought to assume to it self the Title and Authority of the One Catholick Church.

But if any One Part doth so, though never so great and conspicuos, it is guilty of the same Presumption with the Novatians and Donatists, and is as much cause of the Schisms, which happen thereupon in the Church, as they were.

For a long time before the Reformation, there had been great and considerable breach∣es, between the Eastern and Western Church∣es; insomuch that they did renounce each other Communion. And in these Differences four Patriarchal Churches joined together against the fifth, viz. that of the Bishop of Rome. But the Eastern Patriarchs sinking in their Power, by the horrible Invasion of the Enemies of the Christian Faith; and the Bishops of Rome advancing them∣selves to so much Authority, by the ad∣vantages they took from the kindness of some Princes, and the Weakness of others, They would hear of no other terms of accommodation with the Eastern Church∣es, but by an intire submission to the Pope as Head of the Catholick Church. Which all the

Churches of the East refused, however diffe∣rent among themselves; and to this day look on the Pope's Supremacy as an Innovation in the Church, and Usurpation on the Rights of the other Patriarchs and Bishops. In all those Churches the Two Creeds are profes∣sed, true Baptism administred, and an un∣doubted Succession of Bishops from the A∣postles; How then come They to be ex∣cluded from being Parts of the One Catho∣lick and Apostolick Church? And if they be not excluded, how can the Roman Church assume to it self that glorious Title? So that it seems to me as visible as that the Scripture is in Print, that the Roman Church neither is, nor can be that One Church, which Christ left upon Earth.

And this Principle being removed (which ought to be taken for granted, since it can never be proved) we must unavoid∣ably enter into the Ocean of Particular Di∣sputes. And I know no reason any can have to be so afraid of it, since we have so sure a Compass, as the Holy Scripture

to direct our passage. But the reason of a∣voiding particular Disputes is, because the evi∣dence is too clear in them, that the Church of Rome hath notoriously deviated from this infallible Rule. And it is as impossible for a Church, which hath erred, to be Infalli∣ble, as for a Church really Infallible, to err. But if a Church pretend to prove her Infal∣libility by Texts, which are not so clear, as those which prove her to have actually er∣red; then we have greater reason to recede from her Errors, than to be deceived with such a fallible pretence to Infallibility.

Well! But it is not left to every phantastical mans head to believe as he pleases, but to the Church.

And is it indeed left to the Church to be∣lieve as it pleases? But the meaning I suppose is, that those, who reject the the Authority of the Roman Catholick Church, do leave eve∣ry man to believe according to his own fancy. Certainly those of the Church of England, can∣not

be liable to any imputaion of this Na∣ture. For our Church receives the three Creeds, and embraces the four General Councils, and professes to hold nothing contrary to any U∣niversal Tradition of the Church from the Apostles times. And we have often offered to put the Controversies between Us and the Church of Rome upon that issue. And do not those rather believe as they please, who believe the Roman Church to be the Catholick Church, without any colour from Scriptures, Anti∣quity or Reason? Do not those believe as they please, who can believe against the most convincing evidence of their own senses? Do not those believe as they please, who can recon∣cile the lawfulness of the Worship of Images, with Gods forbidding it, the Communion in one kind with Christ's Institution, and the praying in an unknown Tongue with the 14 Ch. of the first Epistle to the Corinthians?

But all these and many other Absurdities may go down by vertue of the Churches Authority, to whom, it is said, Christ left the Power upon Earth to govern us in matters of Faith. We do not deny that the Church hath Au∣thority

of declaring matters of Faith, or else it never could have condemn'd the Antient Heresies. But then we must consider the difference between the Universal Church in a General and free Council, declaring the sense of Scripture in Articles of Faith, generally received in the Christian Church from the Apostles Times, as was done when the Ni∣cene Creed was made; and a Faction in the Church assuming to it self the Title of Ca∣tholick, and proceeding by other rules, than the first Councils did, and imposing new Opinions and Practices, as things necessary to the Communion of the Catholick Church. And this is the true Point in difference be∣tween us, and those of the Roman Church about the Churches Authority in matters of Faith, since the Council of Trent. For we think we have very great reason to com∣plain, when a Party in the Church, the most corrupt and obnoxious, takes upon it self to define many new Doctrines, as ne∣cessary Points of Faith, which have nei∣ther Scripture, nor Universal Tradition for them.

It were a very irrational thing, we are told, to make Laws for a Coun∣try, and leave it to the Inhabitants to be Interpreters and Iudges of those Laws; for then every Man will be his own Iudge, and by consequence no such thing, as either Right or Wrong.

But is it not as irrational to allow an Usur∣per to interpret the Laws to his own advan∣tage, against the just Title of the Prince, and the true Interest of the People? And if it be not Reasonable for any private Person to be his own Iudge, why should a publick Invader be so? But we hope it will be al∣lowed to the Loyal Inhabitants of a Coun∣try, so far to interpret the Laws, as to be able to understand the Duty they owe to their King, and to justifie his Right against all the Pretences of Usurpers. And this is as much as we plead for in this case.

Can we therefore suppose, That God Almighty would leave us at those un∣certainties, as to give us a Rule to go by, and leave every Man to be his own Iudge?

And can we resonably suppose, That God Almighty should give as a Rule not capable of being understood by those to whom it was given, in order to the great End of it, viz. the saving of their Souls? For this was the main end of the Rule, to direct us in the way to Heaven, and not meerly to deter∣mine Controversies. The Staff, which a Man uses, may serve to measure things by, but the principal design is to walk with it. So it is with the Holy Scripture, if Contro∣versies arise: It is fit to examine and com∣pare them with this Infallible Rule; but when that is done, to help us in our way to Heaven is that which it was chiefly intended for. And no Man can think it of equal con∣sequence to him, not to be mistaken, and

not to be damned. In matters of Good and Evil, every mans Conscience is his immedi∣ate Judge, and why not in matters of Truth and Falshood? Unless we suppose mens in∣voluntary mistakes to be more dangerous than their wilful sins.

But after all, We do not leave every Man to be his own Iudge, any further than it con∣cerns his own Salvation, which depends up∣on his particular Care and Sincerity. For to prevent any dangerous Mistakes by the Artifice of Seducers, we do allow the As∣sistance of those Spiritual Guides, which God hath appointed in his Church, for the better insturcting and governing private Per∣sons: We embrace the Ancient Creeds, as a summary comprehension of the Articles of Faith; and think no Man ought to fol∣low his own particular Fancy against Do∣ctrines so universally received in the Chri∣stian Church, from the Apostles Times.

I do ask any Ingenuous Man, whe∣ther it be not the same thing to follow our own Fancy, or to interpret Scrip∣ture by it.

If we allowed no Creeds, no Fathers, no Councils, there might have been some colour for such a Question. But do we permit Men to interpret Scripture according to their own Fancy, who live in a Church, which owns the Doctrine of the Primitive Church more frankly and ingenuously, than any Church in the World besides, without setting up any private Spirit against it, or the present Roman Church to be the In∣terpreter of it. And now I hope I may have leave to ask some Questions of any in∣genuous Man; as, whether it be not the same thing for the Church of Rome to make the Rule, as to assume to it self the fole Power of giving the sense of it? For what can a Rule signifie without the sense? And if this were the intention of Almighty God,

had it not been as necessary to have told us, to whom he had given the Power of Inter∣preting the Rule, as to have given the Rule it self? Whether it be reasonable for the Church of Rome, to interpret those Texts, wherein this Power of Interpreting, is to be contained? For this is to make it Iudge in its own Cause, which was thought an Absur∣dity before. And whether it be not as mis∣chievous to allow a Prosperous Usurper the Power of interpreting Laws, according to his own Interest, as any private Person, ac∣cording to his own Fancy? Whether it be possible to reform Disorders in the Church, when the Person principally accused is Su∣pream Judge? Whether those can be indif∣ferent Judges in Councils, who before∣hand take an Oath, to defend that Autho∣rity which is to be Debated? Whether Tra∣dition be not as uncertain a Rule, as Fancy, when Men judge of Tradition according to their Fancy?

I would have any Man shew me, where the Power of deciding matters of Faith is given to every particular Man.

If by deciding Matters of Faith be under∣stood the determining them in such a man∣ner, as to oblige others, I do not know where it is given to every particular Man, nor how it should be. For then every par∣ticular Man would have a Power over every particular Man; and there would want a new Decision, whose should take place. But if by deciding Matters of Faith, no more be meant, but every mans being satisfied of the Reasons, why he believes one thing to be true, and not another; that belongs to every Man, as he is bound to take care of his Soul, and must give an account both to God and Man of the Reason of his Faith. And what can be meant in Scripture by Proving all things, and holding fast that which is good, 1 Thess. 5. 21. By trying the Spirits, whether

they be of God, 1 John 4. 1. By judging of themselves what is right, Luke 12. 57. unless God had given to Mankind a Faculty of dis∣cerning truth and falshood in Matters of Faith. But if every Man hath not such a Power, how comes he to be satisfied about the Churches Autority? Is not that a Matter of Faith? And where ever any Person will shew me, that every Man hath a Power to determine his Faith in that matter, I'le un∣dertake to shew him the rest.

Christ left his Power to his Church▪ even to forgive Sins in Heaven, and left his Spirit with them, which they exercised after his Resurrection.

But where then was the Roman-Catholick Church? And how can it be hence inferred, That these Powers are now in the Church of Rome, exclusive to all others, unless it be made appear that it was Heir-General to all the Apostles? I suppose it will be granted, that the Apostles had some gifts of the Spi∣rit,

which the Church of Rome will not in Modesty pretend to; such as the Gift of Tongues, the Spirit of Discerning, Pro∣phesie, Miraculous Cures and Punishments. Now, here lyes the difficulty, to shew what part of the Promise of the Infallible Spirit (for the ordinary Power of the Keys relates not to this matter) was to expire with the Apostles, and what was to be con∣tinued to the Church in all Ages. A Pro∣mise of Divine Assistance is denied by none but Pelagians: But how far that extends, is the Question. In the Souls of good Men it is so as to keep them in the way to Heaven, but not to prevent any lapse into sin; and it were worth our knowing, where God hath ever promised to keep any Men more from Error, than from Sin. Doth he hate one more than the other? Is one more disagree∣ing to the Christian Doctrine than the other? How came then so much to be said for the keeping Men from Error, when at the same time, they confess they may not only com∣mit great sins, but err very dangerously in the most Solemn manner, in what relates

to the Doctrine of Manners. Would any have believed the Apostles Infallible, if they had known them to be Persons of ill Lives; or that they had notoriously erred in some Rules of great Consequence to the Welfare of Mankind? Now, all this is freely yielded, as to the Pretence of Infallibility in the Church of Rome. It is granted, that the Guides of that Church have been very bad Men; and that in Councils they have fre∣quently erred about the Deposing Power, being only a Matter of Practice, and not of Faith. Whether it be so or not, I now dis∣pute not; but it is granted, that notwith∣standing this Infallible Spirit, the Roman Church may grosly err in a matter of mighty Consequence to the Peace of Christendom; and yet it cannot err in decreeing the least Matters of Faith. As for Instance, it can by no means err about the seven Sacraments, or the Intention of the Priest about them; but it may err about Deposing Princes, and Absol∣ving Subjects from their Allegiance: Which in easier terms is, They can never err about

their own Interest, but they may about any other whatsoever.

I pass over the next Paragraph, the sense being imperfect, and what is material about the Creeds, hath been spoken to already.

That which next deserves Consideration, is,

That the Church was the Iudge even of the Scripture it self, many years after the Apostles, which Books were Canonical, and which were not.

We have a distinction among us of Iudges of the Law and Iudges of the Fact: The One declare what the Law is, the Fact being supposed; the Other gives judgment upon the Fact, as it appears before them. Now in this Case about the Canonical Books, the Church is not judge of the Law. For they are not to declare whether a Book appear∣ing to be Canonical ought by it to be recei∣ved

for Canonical; (which is taken for gran∣ted among all Christians) but all they have to do, is to give Judgment upon the Matter of Fact, i. e. whether it appear upon suffi∣cient Evidence to have been a Book written by Divine Inspiration. And the Church of Rome hath no particular Priviledge in this matter, but gives its Judgment as other parts of the Christian World do: And if it takes upon it to judge contrary to the ge∣neral sense of the Christian Church, we are not to be concluded by it; but an Ap∣peal lyes to a greater Tribunal of the Uni∣versal Church.

And if they had this Power, then I desire to know, how they came to lose it?

Who are meant by They? And what is understood by this Power? It is one thing for a Part of the Church to give Testimo∣ny to a matter of Fact, and another to as∣sume

the Power of making Books Canonical, which were not so. This latter no Church in the World hath, and therefore can never lose it. The former is only Matter of Te∣stimony, and all parts of the Church are concerned in it, and it depends as other Matters of Fact do, on the Skill and Fide∣lity of the Reporters.

And by what Autority Men sepa∣rate themselves from that Church?

What Church? The Catholick and Apo∣stolick? We own no Separation from that; but we are dis-joyned from the Commu∣nion of the Roman Church, that we may keep up the stricter Union with the truly Catholick and Apostolick Church. And this is no Separating our selves, but being cast out by an Usurping Faction in the Church; be∣cause we would not submit to the unrea∣sonable Conditions of Communion impo∣sed by it; the chief whereof is owning

all the Usurpation, which hath by de∣grees been brought into it. To make this plain by an Example: Suppose a prospe∣rous Usurper in this Kingdom had gained a considerable Interest in it, and challenged a Title to the whole, and therefore re∣quired of all the Kings Subjects, within his Power, to own him to be Rightful King: Upon this, many of them are forced to withdraw, because they will not own his Title: Is this an act of Rebellion, and not rather of true Loyalty? Schism in the Church is like Rebellion in the State. The Pope declares himself Head of the Catho∣lick Church, and hath formed himself a kind of Spiritual Kingdom in the West; although the other parts of the Christian World declare against it, as an Usurpation. However, he goes on, and makes the own∣ing his Power a necessary Condition of be∣ing of his Communion. This many of the Western Parts, as well as Eastern, dis∣own and reject, and therefore are ex∣cluded Communion with that Church,

whereof he is owned to be the Head. The Question now is, Who gives the Occasion to this Separation? whether the Pope, by requiring the owning his Usurpation, or We, by declaring against it? Now, if the Conditions, he requires, be un∣just and unreasonable; if his Autority, he challenges, over the Catholick Church, be a meer Usurpation (for which we have not only the Consent of the other Parts of the Christian World, but of Scripture and the Ancient Church) then we are not to be condemned, for such a Separation, which was unavoidable, if we would not comply with the Pope's Usurpation. And upon this Foot the Con∣troversie about Schism stands between Us and the Church of Rome.

The only Pretence I ever heard of, was, because the Church hath fail'd in wresting and interpreting the

Scripture contrary to the true sense and meaning of it; and that they have imposed Articles of Faith upon us, which are not to be warranted by Gods Word. I do desire to know who is to be Iudge of that, whether the whole Church, the Succession whereof hath continued to this day without interruption; or particular Men, who have raised Schisms for their own advantage.

The whole force of this Paragraph de∣pends upon a Supposition, which is taken for granted, but will never be yielded by Us, and we are sure can never be proved by those of the Church of Rome, viz. That in the new imposed Articles, the whole Church in a continued Succession hath been of the same judgment with them, and

only some few Particular Men in these last Ages have opposed them. Whereas the great thing we insist upon next to the Holy Scripture, is, that they can never prove the Points in diference, by an Universal Tradition from the Apostles Times, either as to the Papal Supremacy, or the other Ar∣ticles defined by the Council of Trent. VVe do not take upon our selves to contradict the Universal sense of the Christian Church from the Apostles Times in any one Point. But the true Reason of the proceeding of the Church of England was this. VVhile the Popes Authority was here received and obeyed, there was no liberty of search∣ing into abuses, or the ways of Reform∣ing them. But when Men were encoura∣ged to look into the Scripture, and Fathers, and Councils, they soon found the state of things in the Church extreamly altered from what they ought to have been, or had been in the Primitive Church: But they saw no possibility of Redress, as long as the Popes Autority was so absolute and inviolable.

This therefore in the first place they set themselves to the accurate Examination of, and the Result was, that they could find it neither in the Scriptures, nor Fathers, nor Councils, nor owned by the Eastern Churches: And therefore they concluded it ought to be laid aside, as an Usurpation. Our Church being by this means set free (even with the consent of Those, who joyned with the Church of Rome in other things) a greater liberty was then used in examining particular Doctrines and Pra∣ctices, which had crept into the Church by degrees, when Ignorance and Barba∣rism prevail'd; and having finish'd this en∣quiry, Articles of Religion were drawn up, wherein the sense of our Church was delivered, agreeable to Scripture and Antiquity, though different from the Mo∣dern Church of Rome; and these Articles are not the private sense of particular Men, but the Publick Standard whereby the World may judge, what we believe and practise; and therefore these are the sense of our Church, and not the opinions or fancies

of particular Men. And those who call the retrenching the Popes exorbitant Power by the name of Schism, must by parity of reason call the casting off an Usurper Re∣bellion. But certainly those who consider the mighty advantages and priviledges of the Clergy in the Church of Rome, can never reasonably suspect any of that Order should hope to better themselves by the Reformation. And if we judge of Mens actings by their Interest, one of the most surprising considerations at this day is, that the Clergy should be against, and Princes for the Church of Rome.