they be contâ—ite and absolved again they are restored to a state of Grace again and so toties quoties Now such Penitents as are sorry for their sins but do not reform them are condemned to Hell 〈◊〉 the Protestant Church and only to Purgatory in the Church of Rome and therefore the First is no Calumny The Second is That Indulgencies may be bought for Money this is no Calumny as I have already shewn or avail a Soul undisposed to receive the benefit of them through want of contrition the guilt of sin not being before remitted This I never said and therefore is no Calumny of mine The third That Masses said for any Soul in Purgatory avail such as during life have not deserved and merited that mercy This I take to be nonsense according to the Doctrines of their own Church For certainly those Souls who have merited to get into Purgatory have merit enough to receive the benefit of Masses Another Gospel-Motive to Holiness are the Examples of Good Men but in the Church of Rome the extraordinary Vertues of great and meritorious Saints are not so much for imitation as for a stock of Merits The more Saints they have the less need is there for other men to be Saints unless they have a mind to it because there is a greater treasure of Merits to relieve those who have none of their own and if one man can merit for twenty there is no need there should be above one in twenty good Here he quibbles upon the different acceptation of Merit as it relates to a reward or as it expiates the punishment of sin In the first sense he says Merit is personal not communicative but if it be communicative in the second sense that one man may be delivered from punishments by the Merits of another and if it be not there is an end of the gainful trade of Indulgencies that is sufficient to my Argument and will satisfie most sinners who are not concerned about degrees of glory if they can escape punishment Lastly I shewed that the Gospel-Means and Instruments of Holiness do not escape much better in the Church of Rome among others I instanced in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper which besides those supernatural conveyances of Grace which are annexed to it by our Saviour's Institution is a great Moral Instrument of Holiness but in the Church of Rome this admirable Sacrament is turned into a dumb shew which no body can be edified with or into a sacrifice for the living and the dead which expiates sin and serves instead of a holy life Here he says there are three crying Calumnies 1. That the Sacrament among them is nothing but a shew or a sacrifice whereas they very often receive it and did I say the Sacrament was never received in the Church of Rome 2. That they require the practice of no Vertue to the receiving the Sacrament whereas they require the Sacrament of Penance to prepare for the Eucharist But I spoke of those Vertues which were to be exercised in receiving which there are not such advantages for in the Church of Rome where the Office is not understood and the mind diverted with a thousand insignificant Ceremonies 3. That our exposing the blessed Sacrament is a dumb shew and so we assist at holy Mass. And whether it be or no let those judge who have seen the Ceremony How much the Sacrifice of the Mass encourages Vertue we have already seen I doubt not but our Jesuite can give as good an Answer to this Vindication as he did to the Preservative and I as little doubt but he will unless Mr. Needham's Name to the License may be my security for he has threatned it shall be to him a sufficient Note and Character of a Book not worth the Reading much less the Censuring where-ever he sees that Reverend Person has opened it the Press and I commend him for it for he has had very ill success with such Books of late but though I never grudge my pains in answering an Adversary who gives occasion for any useful and material Discourse for I desire whatever I say should be sifted to the very bottom and am as ready to own any Error I am convinced of as to vindicate the Truth yet it is very irksom to be forced to write a great Book meerly to rescue my words from the injuries of a perverse Comment which has been my present Task Thus any Book may be answered by a man who has wit or ignorance enough to pervert it and such Answers may be easily answered again by men who have nothing else to do but if this trade grow too common they must be very idle people indeed who will find time to read them And therefore to prevent such an impertinent trouble for the future before I take leave of my Adversary I will venture to give him a little good Advice which may stand him in stead against the next time 1. That he would be more modest and sparing in his Title-page not to paint it so formidable as to make it ridiculous it is a little too much to talk of Principles which destroy all right use of Reason Scripture Fathers Councils undermine Divine Faith and abuse Moral Honesty Or Forty malicious Culumnies and forged untruths besides several Fanatical Principles which destroy all Church Discipline and oppose Christ's Divine Authority If such things be proved against any Book I assure you it is very terrible though there be nothing of it in the Title but the World has been so long deceived with Titles that commonly the more the Title promises the less they expect in the Book Some cry it is a Mountebank's Bill otheâ—s the Man raves and if curiosity tempts any to look any farther the disappointment they meet with provokes their scorn or indignation The bare name of an Answer to a Book which is commonly known and approved is a sufficient invitation to all men to read it but it is a very impolitick thing to prejudice the Readers by a frightful Title 2. That he would not think he has confuted a Book by picking out some sayings which he thinks very inconvenient and obnoxious but in which the main Arguâ—ent of the Book is not concerned this is the case in many passages he has objected against the Preservative for though there is never a one but what is very defensible and what I have defended yet there are many that if they could not be defended the main Argument of the Book is never the worse This is as vain as to think to kill a man by launâ—hing a Sore while all his Vitals are sound and untoucht 3. That he would not boast of confuting a Book without bearing up fairly to any one Argument in it I know in his Postscript he says that he omitted nothing in Answer to the First part of the Preservative that even pretended to the appearance of an Argument that all the rest which he did not answer in his
Answer the Question and if there be a Dispute depending which of them contradicts St. Paul's Doctrine I would desire him to tell me How we shall know which of them does it without examining them When we know these Books which contradict St Paul's Doctrine we will reject them with an Anathema and for that reason we reject the Council of Trent whose Authority we think to be inferior to an Angels and that shews that we do not think rejecting and yet reading such Books to make void common Sense for though we reject the Council of Trent yet we read it as they find to their cost His next Question or else I cannot make three of them is By what Text doth God deliver this Injunction viz of reading Heretical Books which in his Sense of Heretical Books is a very senseless Question for no man pretends that God commands us to read Books which we know to be Heretical though a man who is inquiring after Truth must read such Books as the several divided Sects of Christians may call Heretical But his killing Question is to come I asked further How standing to the first Principles of Common Sense a Church which declares all men bound to judge for themselves could countenance Laws which exact of Dissenters that they stand not to that their Iudgment but comply against it and that constrain their liberty of judging by the dread of Excommunications Sequestrations Imprisonments c. which is to make it Death not to act against a strict Duty of Conscience acknowledged by the Persecutors to be such But what is this to reading Heretical Books Is there any Law in the Church of England thus to punish men for reading Heretical Books There is we know in the Church of Rome where besides other Heretical Books to have and to read the Bible in the vulgar Tongue without License which is rarely granted and ought not to be at all brings a man in danger of the Inquisition which one word signifies more than any man can tell but he who has felt it witness the late account of the Inquisition of Goa Well but to allow a liberty of Judging and not to suffer men to stand to their Judgment is contrary to Common Sense It is so but who gives a liberty of Judging and forbids men to stand to their own Judgment I am sure the Church of England accounts any man a Knave who contradicts his own Judgment and Conscience There is no Inquisition for mens private Opinions no ransacking Consciences in the Church of England as we know where there is Yes We constrain this liberty of Iudging by the dread of Excommunications Sequestrations Imprisonments Exclusion from the chiefest Properties of free born Subjects even by Hanging and Quartering which is to make it Death not to act against a strict Duty of Conscience acknowledged by the Persecutors to be such It is a blessed time for these Jesuits who like that no body should be able to Persecute but themselves to rail at Persecution but let that pass It seems then it is contrary to Common Sense to allow a liberty of Judging and to deny a liberty of Practice for God suppose to allow men to choose their Religion and to Damn them if they choose wrong That is to say a Natural liberty of Judgment and by the same reason the Natural liberty of Will is inconsistent with all Government in Church and State If this were so it would indeed make Persecution as he calls it in a free-judging Church very absurd but it is very reconcileable to Common Sense for a Church which denies this liberty of Judging to Persecute too and this justifies the Persecutions of the Church of Rome Let Protestants here see if such Jesuits could rule the Roast what it will cost them to part with their liberty of Judging they loose their Argument against Persecution for an Infallible Church which will not suffer men to Judge may with good Reason Persecute them if they do that all men who like Liberty of Conscience are concerned to oppose Popery which it seems is the only Religion that can make it reasonable to Persecute nay which makes it unreasonable not to Persecute for it is as much against Common Sense for a Church which denies a liberty of Judging to allow a liberty of Conscience as for a Church to deny Liberty of Conscience which allows a liberty of Judging Thus far the Preservative is safe and let his following Harangue against the liberty of Judging shift for it self that is not my business at present His next Quarrel is that Preser p. 4 5. I advise Protestants not to dispute with Papists till they disown Infallibility I own the charge and repeat it again that it is a ridiculous thing to dispute with Papists till they renounce Infallibility as that is opposed to a lâ—berty of Judging for so the whole Sentence runs Here then let our Protestant fix his Foot and not stir an inch till they disown Infallibility and confess that every man must Iudge for himself in Matters of Religion according to the Proofs that are offered to him This the Jesuit either designedly concealed or did not understand though it is the whole design of that Discourse For the plain state of the Case is this The Church of Rome pretends to be Infallible and upon this pretence she requires us to submit to her Authority and to receive all the Doctrines she teaches upon her bare Word without Examination for we must not Judge for our selves but learn from an Infallible Church Now I say it is a ridiculous thing for such men to pretend to Dispuâ—e with us about Religion when they will not allow that we can judge what is true or false for it is to no purpose to Dispute unless we can Judge and therefore a Protestant before he Disputes with them ought to exact this Confession from them that every man must Judge for himself and ought not to be over-ruled by the pretended Infallible Authority of the Church against his own Sense and Reason and this is to make them disown Infallibility as far as that is Matter of Controversie between us and the Church of Rome to disown Infallibility as that is opposed to a liberty of Judging If it be absurd to Dispute with a man who denies me a liberty of Judging then I must make him allow me this liberty before I Dispute and then he must disown the over-ruling Authority of an Infallible Judge which is a contradiction to such a Liberty By this time I suppose he sees to what little purpose his Objections are that to require such a disowning of Infallibility is to say 'T is impossible to convince a man that in Reason he ought to submit his Iudgment to any other though Infallible No Sir but 't is to say that I cannot make use of my Reason in any thing till I am delivered from the Usurping Authority of such an Infallible Judge who will not suffer me to use my
not then they know before hand that the evidence of Scripture alone is not sufficient to convince a Protestant who rejects an infallible Judge and then it is a sensless thing for them to attempt the proof of such Doctrines by Scripure Good Catholicks are satisfied with the Authority of the Church and Hereticks who reject such an infallible Authority cannot be confuted and convinced by meer Scripture 3. I ask again Whether the evidence of Reason in expounding Scripture be a sufficient Foundation for a Divine Faith if it be then Protestants who disown an Infallible Judge may have a true Divine Faith without the Infallibility of the Church and then we may be true Believers without being Roman-Catholicks and I should be glad to hear that out of the mouth of a Iesuite for there is good use to be made of such a confession if Scripture as expounded by Reason without an Infallible Judge is not a sufficient Foundation for a Divine Faith then to what end does their disputing with Protestants from Scripture serve if this cannot make them true Believers 4. I ask once more Whether the belief of the Scriptures themselves must not be resolved into the Authority of the Church whether any man can believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God without it if they cannot and I would be glad to hear the Iesuite say they can then I am sure the Scripture is no proof of any thing without the Churches Authority and it is an absurd thing for those who think so to dispute from Scripture against those who deny the Authority of the Church From hence I think it evidently appears that the Authority of the Scriptures and the Authority of the Church are not two distinct Arguments in the Church of Rome for then I grant they might use either way of proof and dispute from Scripture against those who deny the Authority of the Church but if the Authority of the Scripture as to us is resolved into the Authority of the Church then the Scripture alone is no Argument but the Authority of the Church is all Whereforedo you believe the Scripture Because the Church tells me it is the Word of God Wherefore do you believe this to be the sense of Scripture Because the Church so expounds it Is not this the true Resolution of the Roman Faith Is this Misrepresenting too But if it be the truth does not every man see that as to us the Scripture has no Authority no sense but from the Church and therefore can prove nothing separated from the Authority of the Church If they allow of any Proofs from Scripture separated from the Authority of the Church then whether they will or no they must allow of the Protestant Resolution of Faith that is to resolve my Faith into the Authority of the Scriptures as expounded with the best reason and judgment I have in the careful use of all such means as are necessary for the understanding that Holy Book now if they will allow this to be a good Resolution of Faith we will allow of all their Scripture-proofs and give them leave to make us Converts to the Church of Rome by Scripture if they can but if they do allow of this then we Protestants are in a very good way already as to the Resolution of our Faith and so that Controversie is at an end and if they will not allow this then they confess that Scripture-proofs of themselves are not good for if they were we might certainly resolve our Faith as Protestants do immediately into the Authority of Scripture And thus much for Iohn and William and the Infallible Guide if Iohn has any Reasons independent on the Authority of his Guide he may then try his skill upon William who rejects his Guide but if all his other Reasons are resolved into the Authority of his Guide and are no good Reasons without it then he may spare his Reasons till he has made William submit to his Guide And this is the case between the Scripture and the Church in the Church of Rome the Scripture wholly depends both for its Authority and Interpretation on the Authority of the Church and therefore can signifie nothing and prove nothing but what the Church makes it signifie and prove The Scriptures may be supposed to be the Word of God and to have some sense antecedent to the Churches Authority but no man can know this without the Church and therefore as to us both the Authority and Interpretation of the Scripture depends upon the Authority of the Church and is no Argument to prove any thing by itself But I cannot pass on without taking notice of a pleasant Answer the Iesuite gives to a very substantial Argument of the Footman To prove that at least some Doctrines of the Church of Rome by their own confession cannot be proved by Scripture without the Authority of the Church he shews that Petrus de Alliaco Scotus and Tonstal do confess that Transubstantiation is not founded upon any necessary Scripture-proofs but on the Authority of the Church for the Scripture might and that very reasonably too be expounded to another sense had not the Church determined otherwise Now what does the Iesuite say to this 1. He prevericates like a Iesuite in repeating the Argument That the Words of Scripture brought in proof of Transubstantiation might be taken in a different sense from that which the Catholick Church hath ever received and delivered and that had not the Church ever taught that sense one might believe otherwise for all the letter of Scripture for the Authors alledged by the Footman do not say as the Iesuite makes them that the Catholick Church hath ever received and delivered that sense of Transubstantiation which the Church of Rome now teaches but Tonstal expresly declares the contrary in the words there cited That it was free for all men till the Council of Lateran to follow their own conjectures as concerning the manner of the Presence Which supposes that this Doctrine was never determined by the Church till the Council of Lateran and therefore not ever received and delivered and taught by the Catholick Church 2. In a Parenthesis he adds how truly this is said of the Catholick Divines that they did affirm this it belongs not to my present purpose very truly said it is not to his purpose but very much against it but if he means that he was not concerned to know whether these passages are truly cited from these Authors it seems he is not concerned to defend his Argument for that is very much concerned in it it is a plain confession he had nothing to say and therefore would not be concerned about it and will our Learned Iesuite confess that he is so ignorant as not to know that this was said by Petrus de Alliaco Scotus and Tonstal or will he so easily give up such men as these and let the ingenious Footman run away with them and his Argument together 3.
an Argument and yet this is the utmost that I say that the supposed necessity of an infallible Judge does not prove that there is such a Judge but only that there ought to be one and I must conclude no more from it and does this overthrow the use of Reason to conclude no more from an Argument than the Argument will prove whatever any man apprehends necessary to be sure he is mightily inclined to believe but whoever will believe like a reasonable creature must have good evidence for what he believes and yet that we believe it necessary is no evidence that it is not that God will not do what is necessary to be done but because that may not be necessary which we vainly and presumptuously imagine to be so which is the very reason I assign for it in the words immediately following Indeed this is a very fallacious way of reasoning because what we may call useful convenient necessary may not be so in itself and we have reason to believe it is not so if God have not appointed what we think so useful convenient or necessary which is a truer and more modest way of reasoning than to conclude that God has appointed such a Iudge when no such thing appears only because we think it so useful and necessary that God ought to do it Which is not to excuse a bad Saying with a good one as the Jesuite pretends in answer to the Footman Preservat Consider p. 36. but to justifie a good Saying with a good Reason But if it were such blasphemy in Alphonsus to say that he thought he could have ordered some things better than God did at the first Creation let the Jesuite consider what it is to mend what God has done in the work of our Redemption upon a meer supposition that it may be mended for Popery is nothing else but a mending or more properly speaking a corrupting the Gospel of Christ with a blasphemous opinion of mending it And I think to say that God has done what there is no other proof he has done but only that we think he ought to have done it is to say that God ought to have done what it does not appear he has done and if not to be and not to appear be the same in this case then this is equivalent to saying that God ought to have done what he has not done And this I hope is sufficient for the Vindication of those Principles which are pretended to overthrow the Use of Common Sense and Reason SECT II. The Principles pretended to make void all Faith vindicated HE begins with proving the Protestant Faith not to be a Divine Faith because it is not a certain one which if it were true is like proving a man not to live because he is weak for if there be as much certainty as is absolutely necessary to the essence of Faith it may be a true Faith though weak as a weak man is alive still and Faith receives its denomination of Divine or Humane Faith not from the Certainty or Uncertainty of it but from the Authority on which it rests a Divine Authority makes a Divine Faith Humane Authority an Humane Faith and both these may be either certain or uncertain or to speak properly strong or weak so that to prove that the Protestant Faith is not Divine because it is not Certain is like disproving the Essential Properties by Changeable Accidents that a Man is not a reasonable Creature because he is not strong for there is no more necessary connexion between Faith being Divine and being Strong or Certain than between Reason and Bodily Strength a weak Man may be a reasonable Creature and a weak Faith may be Divine if it be founded on a Divine Authority But I wish the Jesuite had told us what that degree of Certainty is which makes a Faith Divine whether any thing less than the certainty of Infallibility can do it for this used to be the old Argument that our Faith is not Divine nor Certain because it is not infallible but if they will abate any thing of Infallibility we will vie all other degrees of Certainty with them and that he very fairly quitted before when he owned and proved that there could be no more than Moral Evidence for the Infallibility of their Church and then I am sure they can have no more than a Moral Evidence for the rest of their Faith which is all founded upon their Churches Infallibility Well having proved that our Faith cannot be Divine because it is not certain he next undertakes to prove that our Faith is not certain because we cannot have an Act of Faith of any One Article till our Rule of Faith proposes it i. e. till we know certainly what Scripture teaches of it not by any one Text but by comparing all the Texts that speak of that Subject Very well we cannot believe any thing upon the Authority of Scripture which is our Rule of Faith till we know that it is in Scripture wisely observed and we grant it Let us see what follows 1. Then a Protestant must certainly know that he hath all the Books of Holy Writ 2. That all those he owns for such were really written by inspired Pens The second we accept of but there is no need to submit to his first Condition That a Protestant must certainly know that he hath all the Books of Holy Writ that is he must be able to prove that there never were any other Books written by the Apostles or other inspired Men but what we receive into our Canon of Scripture which is to prove a negative which is always thought unreasonable and at this distance from the Apostolick Age is impossible but whenever the Church of Rome will prove this of their Canon of Scripture we will prove it of ours In the mean time it is sufficient that we reject no Books which have been always acknowledged by the Universal Church and that the Books we receive have been received for inspired Writings by the Universal Church and if ever there were any other Books written by the Apostles or Evangelists which are now lost we have reason to believe that the Church does not need them but has a perfect Rule of Faith and Manners without them for the Divine Providence would never permit that the Church should want any necessary part of the Rule of Faith. He proceeds 3 ly And since the Letter kills that he understands the true sense of each Text which relates to the Object of that Act of Faith. 4ly That he remember them all so as comparing them to see which is the clearer to expound the obscurer and what is the result of them all for any one he understands not or hath forgotten may possibly be that one that must expound the rest he cannot have one Act of Faith. Now not to take notice of his ridiculous not to say blasphemous misapplication of Scripture in that Parenthesis the Letter kills by