rule of faith and life, it is certain, that holding to this rule, we do not err either in belief or practice: while on the other side we cannot be sure that they do not err in both, who receive another rule, till it appear the other rule which they receive is as true and certain as ours is acknowledged to be. Our part of the rule, and that which indeed we take to be the whole, being granted us, all the question is about their part of it. Ours is on all hands granted to be most sure and certain, theirs alone remains disputable; and therefore I cannot yet see any reason why I should think their way safer than our own, except it can be safer to follow an uncertain than a certain rule; which I think nobody will be so hardy as to affirm.

The rule which they of the Roman communion advance against ours, is that of tradition. I am therefore next to consider, first, what they understand by it; and, secondly, what greater reason I can find to persuade me that it is safer to trust to it, whether singly or in conjunction with our own, than to our own alone, which is the holy scripture.

This tradition consists of such doctrines of faith and practice as are supposed to have been taught either by Christ himself, or being dictated by the Holy Ghost to his apostles, were delivered by them to the church, not in writing, but in word only, and so have successively been handed down from father to son, unto the present age. And these are all, according to the council of Trent, to be received with equal affection of piety and reverence as the holy scripture.

Now I confess, if it may appear as evidently to me that Christ or his apostles left such doctrines to the custody of the church, of equal necessity to the salvation of Christians with those that are written in the scripture, as it doth that they left us these which are written in the scripture; and if I may be well assured that these very doctrines which the church of Rome now holds, and pretends to an authority of imposing upon all Christendom, are indeed the very same which were at first (as abovesaid) delivered to the church; I can see no reason why I should not be bound to believe the one as firmly as the other. For seeing it is the authority of the first preachers of it, and not barely the writing of it, that binds me to believe the doctrine; if I can be equally assured that as well what is unwritten as what is written was preached by them as necessary to the

salvation of mankind, I must needs also own an equal obligation upon me to believe them all alike.

me.

But neither of these could I ever see cleared, nor can I conceive any hope that I shall hereafter. And seeing the proof of both lies wholly upon them, who affirm both, I cannot be obliged to believe them till by such proof they have convinced In the mean time, it seems enough to me that God himself was pleased to signify to the world his will in writing, which I cannot imagine why he should do, had he not intended we should learn his will from what is written, and not from any unwritten tradition. And I am the more confirmed in my opinion by this, that he did not use this way of revealing his mind unto men at the first, not till after the world had had a very long time to discern by experience the unfaithfulness of unwritten tradition. So that this, and some other considerations whereupon the papists use to ground their arguments against both the necessity and perfection of the scripture, seem to me very fully to evince both the one and the other; and so to leave no room at all for their unwritten traditions as any part of the rule of faith and life.

Yet, seeing they, who are always preaching this doctrine to us, that there is no salvation for them that are not of their communion, preach it not as a private opinion of their own, or of some few others in that communion, but as the generally received doctrine of that church, which pretends to be no less than infallible; it concerns me so much the more to use all possible diligence to find out what truth there may be in this assertion and that, not only because I shall thereby discern the necessity of changing my religion to make sure of my own future happiness, but also because the determination of this one point will at once put an end (as it seems to me) to all the disputes that are now between the papists and us. If I can find it true, that no man can be saved out of that communion, I shall be a fool to trouble myself with the study of the scriptures, and seeking out for myself in them a way to heaven; when I may be sure, by stepping over the threshold out of one church into the other, to meet with an infallible judge, whom if I do but follow, I cannot go amiss. And to dispute any longer with myself, whether I should do so or not, would but shew me fitter for Bedlam than for any church; seeing

none but the maddest man alive would dispute for damnation. On the other side, if I shall find it false that a man cannot be saved out of that communion, I must needs be convinced that the Roman church, which hath determined it for a certain truth, hath already erred both in faith and charity, and that having erred, she is not infallible; and being not infallible, by her own confession, cannot be that one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, out of which there is no salvation. So that as this assertion of that church shall be found to be true or false, even so will the popish religion appear also to be.

But here I meet with a very great difficulty in my way, as I am going to seek out the truth or falsehood of this assertion; that however I may be able to satisfy myself, yet I shall never (for ought I can see) be able to satisfy them who are the authors of it, any other way than by a total submission of my own judgment and conscience too to their determination, and a blind obedience to their will. The dispute (as is evident) is between two churches, the one whereof challengeth to itself the big-swollen prerogative of being the lady and mother of all churches; a sovereign authority of prescribing to the faith of all Christians; the right and incommunicable privilege of being the sole and infallible judge of all controversies in religion; finally, an unquestionable power of defining and declaring to all the world the true and only terms of salvation. Now, that this Roman-mother and mistress-church, sole commandress and infallible judge, having already in the fulness of power determined it, and by her supreme authority imposed an oath upon her subjects to maintain it, that none out of her communion can be saved, should after all this, in pure condescension to men declared heretics, divest herself of her authority, lay aside her infallible definitions, come down from the tribunal and the throne of judicature and majesty, and stand at the bar submitting herself and the whole cause to an indifferent and equal trial, is a thing as little to be hoped for, as it is yet unagreed upon by what law, jury, or judge, the controversy should be decided. And truly, on the other side, it seems to me altogether as unreasonable in her to accept, that we protestants of the church of England, though we pretend to nothing of this exorbitant power over her or other churches, or of determining disputes for all the world, should yet, upon a naked summons

from her, whose authority we question, and see no reason to acknowledge, forthwith subscribe to the sentence of our own condemnation, without any fair and legal process, or indeed so much as yield to a trial, where our professed adversaries must be at once the lawmakers, accusers, witnesses; and yet this is most notoriously our case.

What course now, in this case, can be taken by us? The church of Rome tells us expressly and peremptorily, we cannot be saved out of her communion. Must we believe her without any more ado? That is indeed the way to make a short end of all our differences, for then we must yield to be hers, or else run headlong to damnation. But if we believe her not, (as for my part I know not how we can do, till we see some reason why we should do so,) the dispute, for ought I can see, is like to be endless. For no such reasons can, or ought she to give us, if she will be constant to herself, and stand to her own principles, (as will plainly appear anon,) and if she desert her own principles, she must yield herself to be fallible, and not the true church; and then in vain is all talk of reasons why they that are not of her communion should be damned.

However, suppose it be pretended (as indeed it is) that we have had sufficient reasons given us why we ought to believe her in this point; this then is the present question between us, whether she hath given us sufficient reason for this or no? She confidently affirms it; we as confidently deny it. She calls us obstinate heretics for denying it, and lays many a heavy curse upon us: we for this think her a very unreasonable and imperious mistress, usurping an authority over us which God never gave her. Who, I wonder, shall now be thought fit to decide this dispute? She will be tried and judged by no other than herself; for she is resolved to be sole and infallible judge in all controversies of religion: that is, in plain terms, she will accuse us, and she will leave us no room for our own defence; she will condemn us, and she will not permit us to question the justice of her sentence. She tells us, we are bound to believe her, and obey her, or else we must die eternally for it. We desire some reason may be brought to convince us of this duty and she tells us again, she is our supreme and infallible mistress and mother and judge; and so the conclusion is, we must believe

she hath this supreme authority and infallibility, because she is supreme and infallible; which we can yet see no reason to believe, and therefore cannot believe; and because we cannot believe it, we are declared to be heretics, and in a state of damnation.

Seeing then that the church of Rome will by no means recede from her claim to this supremacy and infallibility, it seems plain to me, that there is no possibility of satisfying her any way whatsoever, but by yielding myself up entirely to her without any further dispute. But because I cannot do this without violence to my conscience, and incurring that very damnation which she would persuade me thereby to prevent, I must of necessity leave her a while, to satisfy herself about the truth and charity of this doctrine as she can; whilst I, for my own private satisfaction, take into a very serious consideration these two things:

I. Whether I can discern any solid ground to hope that I may be saved, as I am now a protestant of the church of England.

II. What more hopeful way to salvation the church of Rome can put me into, should I enter into her communion.

If the result of this double inquiry shall be, that I really think myself in a fair way to salvation where I am already, and cannot discern any more hopeful way to it in the church of Rome, I must needs account myself bound in conscience, and under the penalty of damnation, to steer my course according to the best light I shall be able, by such a diligent and impartial inquiry, to attain unto, and content myself with that religion which seems best and safest to me, till some better and safer can be found.

SECT. I.

The first thing I am to inquire into is, what good ground of hope I can discern that I may be saved, as I am a protestant. And here the first thing I am to consider is, what I mean by the name of protestant, as it is owned by the members of the church of England, and as I can heartily answer

to it.

By a protestant, I understand no other but a Christian, adhering firmly both in faith and practice to the written word of

L