matters of faith; and would likewise have plainly marked out him or them, for men to have had recourse to on all occasions; because our belief depending on this infallible judge, or on these men who had authority, we could not be safe from mistake in particular points, without so plain and clear a revelation of this infallible judge, or of these men who had authority, that there could be no mistake about him or them; nor could there be an end of any other controversies in religion, unless this matter of an infallible judge, or of men who had authority, were out of our controversy.

It is not pretended by any advocates of infallibility or authority, that God has delivered the matter expressly and plainly in the scriptures. They proceed, and build only on inferences and deductions from thence. And the papists are divided among themselves as to the seat and extent of infallibility; as the protestant papists are, in respect to the seat and extent of authority. And both infallibility and authority are manifestly absurd pretences in point of reason; though infallibility seems less absurd than authority. The pretence of infallibility is plainly absurd; because the infallible church gives constant and daily proofs of its fallibility: And the pretence of authority is absurd; because, that may lead men into any mistakes whatsoever. But, as I observed, infallibility is less absurd; because that is of a piece, and consistent with, and necessarily follows from authority: Whereas authority without infallibility, supposes a power given men by God to lead the world into any mistakes, and to subvert Christianity itself. But however this be, they are both suficiently ridiculous; and it is ridiculous to send men, in order to their salvation, to believe either in the pope, or Dr. Swift, or Dr. Burgess, on whose authority, if men depend, they can only be papists, or Swiftities, or Burgesites, and not Christians.

If then God has not provided an infallible judge, nor any men with authority in matters of religion; there is some other way, whereby men may be secured against all dangerous errours and mistakes in religion, and whereby they may discern all such truths as are necessary to their salvation. Now that way our Saviour has declared to us in these words, If any man desire to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself: that is, if a man has an honest and sincere mind, and a hearty desire to do the will of God, he has the best preservative against dangerous mistakes in matters of religion; and God, or his understanding, will enable him to distinguish sufficiently, whether doctrines be of God or of men, and will conduct him into all necessary truths.

This is a true and plain answer to the question proposed; and also true and plain religion, or Christianity, if men will be governed by Christ, the author and finisher thereof. This is easy to be known, and requires little time to learn. This frees men from all concern about the intricate and endless squabbles of divines, disputing which of them are to have authority, and wherein their own authority consists; and ought to set them at ease; for, as Christians, or followers of Christ, they have nothing to do to enquire, what priests are to have an antiChristia: authority over one another and the laity..

But notwithstanding the plainness of the case, it is no wonder, that weak people now-a-days should believe in priests, and not in Christ:

should be priestlings, and not Christians; when, in our blessed Sav iour's own time, the Jews were ready to believe in any impostors, and averse to believing in him, as he himself tells us. Lam come, says he, in my Father's name, and ye receive me not; if another shall come in kis own name, him ye will receive: how can you believe, which receive honour one of another? That is, (to make a sort of application to our present times)" you have the bible among you, wherein I teach you in my Father's name, wherein I bid you search, examine, and try all things for yourselves, and to call no man master in religion upon earth: That biule you reject, in not understanding it for yourselves; but if any man set up for an authoritative interpreter of it, him you will receive for your master, and call yourselves after his name. How can you be believers in, and followers of me, who believe upon the authority of men, and reject the authority of God?"

Christianity, or religion, thus truly understood, has too many enemies to make it lost labour to prove it true by arguments. And therefore I observe, in proof of our Saviour's doctrine, "That a hearty desire and endeavour to do the will of God, is the best preservative against dangerous mistakes." First, that therein our Saviour recommends the best and most proper disposition of mind to qualify a man to receive truths from God, and to enable him to make a right judgment as to what proceeds from God, and what from men. For a good man is most likely to have right apprehensions of God and divine things. Sex condly, such a disposition in a man supposes his impartiality in the search of truth; that he has no partiality to any particular doctrine; and that he is superiour to the temptations of any passions, (which blind the mind) and has no reason to deceive himself by receiving things without evidence; nor inclination to reject what has evidence Thirdly, God will not suffer the best disposed minds to fall into dangerous mistakes; but will, as he says himself, guide them in judgment, and shew them his way. Again, God says by Solomon, If thou in cline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thy heart to understanding; yea, if thou cryest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding, if thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasure; then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God. Indeed, the bible is so plain, as to all necessary truths, that he that runs may read; and a day-labourer cannot fail of finding truth, that searches it there; and is in no danger of failing, unless he delivers himself up absolutely to some guide to interpret the bible for him. Fourthly, and lastly, living honestly, and seeking after truth, are the best things which a man can do, and the very perfection of his nature; and by consequence all that God, who is a good and reasonable being, can require of him.

I shall conclude this paper, which I have written in behalf of Christjanity, and against Antichristianism, with another divine saying of our blessed Saviour: He that speaketh of himself, seeks his own glory; but he that seeks his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. As if he had said, "Hereby you may distinguish one that comes from God from an impostor. If any man seek his own glory and authority, you may conclude, that God has not sent Irim; but whatever he pretends, that he speaks of himself, preaches himself, and from himself: But be that seeks the honour of God, and not his own

interest, advantage and authority, by directing men to the authority of God alone; that man has no falshood, no design to deceive; you may conclude him to be no deceiver or impostor.'

C.

THE FOLLOWING QUERIES AND LETTER, WROTE BY THE AUTHOR OF THE FOREGOING Paper, and neVER BEFORE PRINTED, ARE. THOUGHT FROPER TO BE HERE INSERTED.

Queries concerning Authority in matters of Faith.

1. Is there any authority among men in matters of faith? 2. Wherein does that authority consist?

3. Who are the men, that have that authority; and particularly, who are the men that have that authority in China, Turkey, France, Scotland, England, Hanover, Holland, and Sweden ?

4. Have men in one country authority over others in another country in matters of faith; and who are those men that have that authority. 5. Are there any persons in the Roman communion, who have authority in matters of faith, over the other members of that communion; and who are they?

6. Are there any persons in the communion of the church of England, who have authority in matters of faith, over the other members of that communion; and who are they?

7. Have any person in the Roman church authority in matters of faith, over the members of the church of England?

8. If some persons of the church of England have an authority in matters of faith, over the other members of the church of England; and if no persons of the Roman church have such an authority over the other members of the Roman church: what reason can be assigned, for giving such authority to some persons of the church of England, over the other members of the church of England, that will not equally hold for giving such authority to some persons in the church of Rome, over the other members of the church of Rome?

9. If any persons in the Roman church have now authority in matters of faith, over the other members of the Roman church; were there not persons in the Roman church, who had such authority, before the reformation?

10. Have private people in the Roman church (that is, all but those who have an authority in matters of faith) any right to oppose those persons in the exercise of their authority, who have an authority in matters of faith in that church? are not private people obliged to submit to such, exercising their authority?

11. Have private people in the church of England any right to oppose those persons in the exercise of their authority, who have an authority in matters of faith in that church? Are not private people obliged to submit to such, exercising their authority?

12. Have private men in all churches a right to judge, whether the matters of faith of their church be erroneous or no?

13. Have private men a right to separate from the communion of a church, whose matters of faith they judge to be erroneous ?

14. Have private men a right to separate from the communion of all churches, if they deem them all erroneous in matters of faith?

15. Have private people, separating from the communion of all churches, as deeming them erroneous in matters of faith, a right to form a new church among themselves? Or ought they to live without publick worship, and without being members of any particular church?

16. If private men have a right to judge, whether the matters of faith received in their church be erroneous or no; If they have a right to seperate from the communion of a church, whose matters of faith they judge to be erroneous; and from all churches, if they deem them erroneous in matters of faith and if private people have a right to form a new church upon such separation from all churches: what authority in matters of faith can there be in any persons of any church?

17. Will it not follow from the answers, that shall be given to the foregoing queries, either, that there can be no authority at all, among men in matters of faith; or that all authority in matters of faith rests in some person or persons in the Roman church?

18. If there be an authority in matters of faith in some person or persons of the Roman church; must not that person, or those persons, be infallible in the exercise of it; that is, is not infallibility a consequence of authority? Or at least, must not the said authority have the same effect, as infallibility, namely, produce an entire submission of mind and actions in the people subject to the said authority?

19. If there be no authority among men in matters of faith; and if every man has a right to judge for himself in matters of faith; can the civil magistrate have a right to enact by law any articles (meaning such articles as have no relation to the peace of civil society) as matters. of faith, by rewarding men to maintain them, and by punishing those who oppose them, or any way putting them upon a worse foot for their opposition than other subjects? Does he not hereby set up for an authority in matters of faith, and invade the right of private judgment?

20. If men have a right of private judgment in matters of faith; ought the civil magistrate to hinder them from being free and impartial. in the use of their private judgment?

21. Is being rewarded for maintaining certain articles as matters, of faith, and being punished, or suffering for opposing them, proper to produce a free and impartial use of our judgments, in relation to the truth or falshood of those matters of faith?

C.

A letter to a Clergyman, shewing the impossibility of assenting to what we do not understand.

REVEREND SIR,

LAST night I was surprized with yours of the 24th, relating to a conversation between us at Mr. B's, (above a year since) wherein

you say, that I maintained several paradoxes, the main whereof was, that a man cannot possibly give his assent to what he does not understand: but that you might possibly fall short in the defence of what you espoused; and besides, was not solicitous what answers you gave me; and therefore now write to me to prove the falshood of the paradox before mentioned, and (if I think you fail in it) to desire me to lay your mistakes before you.

I have read over your letter four or five times, in order to comply with you; but not understanding what it is you say with respect to the point in question, I cannot possibly do it: for while I understand not, can neither submit to the force of what you say, nor can I give you any answer to it. Understanding is with me not only a necessary part of religious belief, but ought to be an ingredient in all reasoning and common discourse; and I can no more propose to talk about what I do not understand, than I can believe what I do not understand.

However, determining to write to you, I will endeavour to put you in the best method of conviction I am able, though without any manner of design to convince you: for I desire you only to understand this letter, as a letter for a letter.

Since you proposed to convince me of the falshood of a proposition which I advanced and explained at large to you, your business was to refute it in the sense which I explained it. But, as far as I can understand your letter, you seem hot to me to enter at all into the question. For 1st, If you did, how could you make my assent to relations of matters of fact done before I was born, and relations of foreign countries which I never saw, to be proper instances to conceive me that I can assent to what I do not understand; and appeal to my experience in the case, which I must tell you is against you and I assure you, that I know not that I assent to any proposition about facts, whether they be past or present, or about things done at Rome or in England, but what I understand.

2dly, If you did enter into the question, how could you imagine it incumbent on me to shew, that whatever bears no relation to my understanding, can bear none to any other? What has that to do with the question in dispute? The question in dispute is as consistent with our ignorance of ten thousand things that exist, and with the supposition of other beings knowing more than we do, as any proposition that can be advanced, and by no means supposes our knowledge to reach the extent of things. What I affirm is," that what cannot be understood by me, cannot be expressed to me in a proposition; and what cannot be expressed to me in a proposition, cannot be assented to by me."

3dly, If you entered into the question, how could you imagine these words of St. Paul, we know in part, and we prophesy in part, to be decisive against me? Where is the connection, we know in part, and we prophesy in part: Ergo, we can assent to what we do not understand? For my part, I am so much a stranger to this way of arguing, that the connection is to me as remote, as if you had argued, I am a divine of the church of England as by law established, ergo, the laity must assent to what they cannot understand.

But to proceed to what I principally intend. The proposition which you call a parodox, is, in my opinion, self-evident to those who are capable of thinking, and understanding the terms; is the foundation of al