bishops, and what better succession can Rome shew than this?

I suppose no Roman Catholic will disown the succession of the Church of England, till the Reformation, and, I pray, how came we to lose our succession then? Did the reformation of those abuses and corruptions, which had crept into the Church, unchurch us? Just as much as a man ceases to be the same man, when he is cured of some mortal disease: did not the Church of England consist of the same persons, before the Reformation and after? A great many indeed, disowned the Reformation; but were not all those persons, who were so active and zealous in the Reformation, formerly of the Roman communion? and did they lose their succession too, when they became Reformers? When a Church consists of the same bishops, priests, and people, which she had before, though she have not all the same that she had; when she retains the same ancient Catholic and Apostolic faith, which she did before, only renounces some errors and innovations, which she owned before, how does this forfeit her succession? The Church of England is the very same Church now, since the Reformation, which she was before, and therefore, has the very same succession, though not the same errors, to this day, that ever she had; and that, I think, is as good a succession as the Church of Rome has.

There are but two things to be considered in the case of succession: either a succession of Church officers, or a succession of the faith and doctrines of the Church.

1. As for a succession of Church officers, we have the same that the Church of Rome has. Those English bishops who embraced the Reformation, received their orders in the communion of the Church of Rome, and therefore, they are as good orders as any are in the Church of Rome; and these were the persons who consecrated other bishops, and so in succession to this day. For as for the story of the Nag'sHead ordination, that is so transparent a forgery, invented many years after to reproach the Reformation, that I presume no sober Roman Catholic will insist on it.

But we are heretics and schismatics, and this forfeits our orders, and our succession together. But, 1. This charge ought first to be proved against us, that we are heretics and schismatics; we deny and abhor both the name and thing; and if we be not heretics and schismatics, as we are sure we are not, and as the Church of Rome can never prove us to

be, then, according to their own confession, our orders must be good.

2. However, be we heretics, or schismatics, or whatever they please to call us, how does this destroy our orders and succession? The catholic Church would not allow in former ages, that heresy or schism destroyed the validity of orders. St. Jerome disputes against this at large, in his book Contra Luciferianos. And St. Augustin allows the Donatists' bishops to have valid orders, though they were schismatics, and therefore that the sacraments administered by them were valid. And indeed, if heresy will destroy orders and succession, the Church of Rome will be as much to seek for their orders and succession as we are, which, by their own confession, have had several heretical Popes, and nobody knows how many bishops ordained by them.

2. As for succession of doctrine, which is as considerable to the full as succession of orders, the great articles of our faith are not only plainly contained in Scripture, but have been delivered down to us, through all ages of the Church, by an uninterrupted succession.

The Church of Rome herself, in her greatest degeneracy, did own all that we do in pure matters of faith: when we reformed the Church, we did not make a new religion, but only separated the old faith from new and corrupt additions; and therefore, the quarrel of the Church of Rome with us, is not that we believe anything which they do not believe, but that we do not believe all that they would have us.

The doctrine of the Church of England is truly primitive and catholic, taught by Christ and his Apostles, owned by the primitive Church, and (excepting the disputes between the Latin and Greek Church, about the Filioque, or the Holy Spirit's proceeding from the Father and the Son) received by all catholic Churches to this day; which is as complete and perfect succession, as any doctrine can have; therefore, when the Church of Rome asks us, Where was our religion before Luther? We tell them it was all the world over, all catholic Churches believed what we do, though we do not believe all that they do, they themselves did, and do to this day, own our Creeds and articles of faith, excepting such of them as are directly opposed to their innovations.

So that we are on a sure foundation, our faith has been received in the catholic Church in all ages. But now the Church of Rome cannot shew such a succession for her new

doctrines and articles of faith, which were unknown to the primitive Church for many ages, which were rejected by many flourishing Churches, since the first appearance of them, which never had a quiet possession in her own communion, and were never formed into articles of faith, till the packed Conventicle

of Trent.

This, I think, is a sufficient answer to this Paper, and it pities me to see so many well-meaning persons abused with such transparent sophistry.

:

BOOK II.

THE PROTESTANT RULE OF FAITH, EXPLAINED AND VINDICATED, UPON THE HEAD OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT.

THE JUDGMENT OF

PRIVATE DISCRETION IN MATTERS OF RELIGION

DEFENDED:

In a Sermon on 1 Thess. v. 21, preached at St. Paul's, Covent Garden,

Feb. 23, 1686.

TO THE READER.

NOTHING concerns us so much as the salvation of our souls, and, in order to that, the choice of our religion. Here it well becomes us to use great care, and strictly to examine things. This we do in matters of less moment; when we purchase, and when we trade; when we are concerned for our health, our estates, and properties. The holy Scriptures frequently put us upon this care; and the man who is diligent herein, will be able to give the best account of himself hereafter, and find the greatest satisfaction here: such a man will have steady principles, and have this comfort, that it is not by mere chance, but choice, that he is what he is. This is the way to be certain that we are in the right, which no man can be without understanding. We may be confident indeed, but can never be certain, without knowledge and diligent examination of things.

The Church of England does not require a blind obedience;

she is content her doctrines should be examined by the clearest light. Simplicity and truth seek not corners. The holy Scriptures are allowed to the people, and no means of instruction wanting among us. She does not indeed vaunt of what she hath not: she pretends not to any absolute infallibility. She is modest, and contains herself within due bounds, and withholds not from her children, either the liberty or means of examining her doctrines.

But so it is, that she suffers very greatly in the mean time: because she claims not infallibility, there are those who would infer that there is no certainty where the other is not. But this is a wild and extravagant conclusion; for the certainty of a thing does not depend upon the infallibility of a person, but ariseth from the evidence or clear grounds which evict its truth. It does not follow, that because I am fallible, that I can be certain of nothing; or that because I am liable to err, I can never be sure I am in the right; or that because I am ignorant of some things, therefore I know nothing at all.

And yet we find it frequently pretended, that Protestants want certainty, and that they build upon an unsure foundation; and that because they claim not that infallibility which others pretend to. The best way to shew the uncertainty of our faith, would be to prove that we build on false grounds; but those men who are most forward to traduce us, have no great inclination to consider with due application the merits of our cause. Instead of this, they would have us rest upon the authority of their Church, as if the way to be more certain than we are, were for us to see with other men's eyes, and not with our own.

A man might justly expect from these men, who thus declaim against Protestants, that when they attempt to shew the uncertainty of their faith, they should at least prove the certainty of their own. It will be worth our while to see if they have any better grounds for their faith, or safer way to salvation, than we have, who examine our doctrines by the holy Scriptures. The best way to know this, will be to compare them one with another.

They say,* that the definition of the Church is our rule, where, before we can be certain, we must be sure of two things, (1.) That there is an infallible Church. (2.) That their Church is that infallible Church. We on the other hand

* Cl. Pajon Examen du livre qui porte pour titre Préjugez Legitimes,

Part II.