where his infallible Interpretation is to be found for if there be such an Interpreter who never Interprets I know not how either they or we shall understand Scripture the better for him Now have either Popes or General Councils given us an authentick and infallible Exposition of Scripture I know of none such all the Expositions of Scripture in the Church of Rome are writ by private Doctors who were far enough from being infallible and the business of General Councils was not to expound Scripture but to define Articles of Faith and therefore we find the sence of very few Texts of Scripture Synodically defined by any General Council I think not above four or five by the Council of Trent So that after all their talk of an infallible Interpreter when they undertake to expound particular Texts and to dispute with us about the sence of them they have no more Infallibility in this than we have for if they have an infallible Interpreter they are never the better for him for he has not given them an infallible Interpretation and therefore they are forced to do as Protestants do interpret Scripture according to their own skill and understanding which I suppose they will not say is infallible But you 'll say though the Church has not given us an infallible Interpretation of Scripture yet she has given us an infallible Exposition of the Faith and that is an infallible Rule for expounding Scripture I answer there is a vast difference between these two for our dispute is not about the sence of their Church but about the sence of the Scripture we know what Doctrines their Church has defined but we desire to see them proved from Scripture And is it not a very modest and pleasant proposal when the dispute is how their Faith agrees with Scripture to make their Faith the Rule of expounding Scripture Though I confess that is the only way I know of to make their Faith and the Scriptures agree but this brings the Scriptures to their Faith does not prove their Faith from Scripture II. As for Expounding Scripture by the unanimous consent of Primitve Fathers This is indeed the Rule which the Council of Trent gives and which their Doctors swear to observe how well they keep this Oath they ought to consider Now as to this you may tell them that you would readily pay a great deference to the unanimous consent of Fathers could you tell how to know it and therefore in the first place you desire to know the agreement of how many Fathers makes an unanimous Consent for you have been told that there have been as great variety in interpreting Scripture among the ancient Fathers as among our modern Interpreters that there are very few if any controverted Texts of Scripture which are interpreted by an unanimous consent of all the Fathers If this unanimous Consent then signifie all the Fathers we shall be troubled to find such a Consent in expounding Scripture must it then be the unanimous Consent of the greatest number of Fathers This will be a very hard thing especially for unlearned men to tell Noses we can know the Opinion onely of those Fathers who were the Writers in every Age and whose Writings have been preserved down to us and who can tell whether the major number of those Fathers who did not write or whose Writings are lost were of the same mind with those whose Writings we have and why must the major part be always the wisest and best men and if they were not the consent of a few wise men is to be preferred before great numbers of other Expositors Again ask them whether these Fathers were Infallible or Traditionary Expositors of Scripture or whether they expounded Scripture according to their own private Reason and Judgment if they were Infallible Expositors and delivered the Traditionary sence and interpretation of Scripture it is a little strange how they should differ in their Expositions of Scripture and as strange how private Doctors and Bishops should in that Age come to be Infallible and how they should lose it in this for now Infallibility is confined to the Bishop of Rome and a General Council If they were not Infallible Expositors how comes their Interpretation of Scripture to be so sacred that it must not be opposed Nay how comes an Infallible Church to prescribe such a fallible Rule of interpreting Scriptures If they expounded Scripture according to their own Reason and Judgment as it is plain they did then their Authority is no more sacred than their Reason is and those are the best Expositors whether Ancient or Modern whose Expositions are backed with the best Reasons We think it a great confirmation of our Faith that the Fathers of the Church in the first and best Ages did believe the same Doctrines and expound Scripture in great and concerning points much to the same sence that we do and therefore we refuse not to appeal to them but yet we do not wholly build our Faith upon the Authority of the Fathers we forsake them where they forsake the Scriptures or put perverse sences on them and so does the Church of Rome too after all their boast of the Fathers when they contradict the present Roman-Catholick as they do very often though I believe without any malicious design because they knew nothing of it However ask them once more whether that sence which they give of those Texts of Scripture which are controverted between us and the Church of Rome be confirmed by the unanimous consent of all the ancient Fathers whether for instance all the ancient Fathers did expound those Texts Thou art Peter and on this Rock will I build my Church and feed my Sheep c. of the personal Supremacy and Infallibility of Peter and his Successors the Bishops of Rome Whether they all expounded those words This is my Body of the Transubstantiation of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the natural Flesh and Bloud of Christ and those words Drink ye all of this to signifie Let none drink of the Cup but the Priest who consecrates and so in other Scriptures If they have the confidence to say that all the Fathers expounded these and such-like Scriptures as the Doctors of the Church of Rome now do tell them you have heard and seen other Expositions of such Scriptures cited from the ancient Fathers by our Divines and that you will refer that cause to them and have it tried whenever they please III. There is no other way then left of understanding Scripture but to expound it as we do other Writings by considering the signification and propriety of words and phrases the scope and context of the place the reasons of things the Analogie between the Old and New Testament and the like When they dispute with Protestants they can reasonably pretend to no other way of expounding Scripture because we admit of no other and yet if they allow of this they open a wide Gap for all Heresies
Image be this is not to worship a corporeal God since we know him to be incorporeal and therefore it is not Idolatry But he has one Salvo still to excuse those from Idolatry who worship even corporeal Gods for he speaks not a word of worshipping the Images of any Gods that they are not Idolaters unless they worship such corporeal Gods supposing them to be the Supream Deity whereby he explains what he means by giving the Worship of the Supream God to any created corporeal or visible Deity viz. to think such a God to be the Supream God is to worship it as Supream And thus those who worshipped the Sun not thinking him to be the Supream God but the chief Minister of Providence under the Supream God with reference to this Lower World as most of the Sun-Idolaters seemed to do were not Idolaters Nay very few of the Philosophers though they worshipped their Country Gods were Idolaters because they either did not believe them to be any Gods or at least not to be the Supream as it is certain Socrates and Plato and Tully and many others did not But it is plain that to worship the Supream God is not meerly to suppose him to be Supream for St. Paul tells us that there were some who knew God but did not worship him as God and therefore there is an external and visible Worship which is due to the Supream God as well as the belief that he is Supream And if this Worship which is due to the Supream God be given to any Being which we our selves do not believe to be Supream we are Idolaters and then though we do not believe the Gods we worship to be Supream any kind or degree of Religious Worship or which is used as an Act of Religion not as common and civil Respects is Idolatry This Commandment brings it as low as meerly bowing to an Image and then I doubt no other Act of Religious Worship can escape the Charge of Idolatry But though it is not my business to persue this Author I cannot pass over the very next Paragraph where he observes Though there may seem to be two sorts of it this Idolatry in worshipping corporeal Beings first either to worship a material and created Being as the Supream Deity Or secondly to ascribe any corporeal form or shape to the Divine Nature yet in result both are but one for to ascribe unto the Supreme God any corporeal form is the same thing as to worship a created Being for so is every corporeal Substance Which is a very wonderful Paragraph for thus some of the Ancient Christians who believed God to be Corporeal as Tertullian himself did but yet did not believe that he was created but that he created all things were as very Idolaters as those who Worshipped the Sun or Earth And I would gladly know who those men are who ascribe unto the Supreme God a Corporeal form and yet think that he was Created I am apt to think they differ a little in their Philosophy from our Author and did believe that a Corporeal Supreme Deity might be uncreated and then I suppose there may be some difference also between their worshipping a Corporeal Created and a Corporeal Uncreated God at least if mens Belief and Opinions of things makes a difference as this Author must allow for if I understand him to Worship a corporeal Being without believing it to be Supreme does not make them Idolaters but if they believe it Supreme it does and by the same reason thô to Worship a Supreme Corporeal Created Deity if that be not a contradiction be Idolatry yet to Worship a Corporeal which they believe to be an uncreated Deity is no Idolatry For though I believe with our Author that all corporeal Beings are Created yet I suppose those who believed God to be Corporeal did not believe that every thing that is Corporeal was Created So that the first and second Commandments are very plain and express Laws the one forbidding the Religious Worship of all inferiour Beings corporeal or incorporeal with or without the Supreme God or forbidding the Worship of all other Beings but the Supreme God the other forbidding the External and Visible Worship of any material Images and Pictures And though I am certain there can be no good Arguments to justifie such Practices as are forbid by these Laws yet no Christian need trouble himself to answer them for be they what they will it is a sufficient answer to them to say That they are against an express Law. 2. Another Rule is in matters of Faith or in such things as can be known onely by Revelation Not to build our Faith upon any Reasons without the Authority of Scripture That this may be the better understood I shall briefly shew what these things are which can be known onely by Revelation and therefore which every Protestant should demand a plain Scripture Proof for before he believes them whatever Reasons are pretended for them As 1. Whatever depends solely upon the will and appointment of God which God might do or might not do as he pleased In such cases our onely inquiry is What God has done And this can be known onely by Revelation for Reason cannot discover it because it depends not upon any necessary Reason but on the free and arbitrary appointment of God as St. Paul tells us That as no man knows the things of a man but the spirit of man that is in him so no man knoweth the things of God but the spirit of God That is as no man can tell the secret thoughts and purposes of a man nor how he will determine himself in matters of his own free choice and election so what depends purely upon the will of God is known onely to the Spirit of God and therefore can be made known to us onely by Revelation Many such things there are in dispute between us and the Church of Rome which depend so intirely upon the Will of God that they may be or may not be as God pleases As for instance No man nor company of men can be Infallible unless God bestow Infallibility on them for Infallibility is not a natural Endowment but a supernatural Gift and therefore no Reason can prove the Bishop of Rome or a General Council to be Infallible God may make them Infallible if he pleases and if he pleases he may not do it and therefore our onely inquiry here is What God has done And this can be known onely by Revelation Thus that the Church of Rome onely and those Churches that are in Communion with her should be the Catholick Church and the Bishop of Rome the Oecumenical Pastor and the Center of Catholick Unity must depend wholly upon Institution for nothing but the Will and Appointment of God can give this Preheminence and Prerogative to the Church and Bishop of Rome above all other Churches and Bishops No Reason then can prove this without plain and express Scripture to
other World but signifies the removal of the visible and sensible punishments of sin in restoring the sick person to health again That though such sickness was inflicted on him for his sins and possibly were the effects of Church-censures which in those days were confirmed and ratified by bodily punishments yet upon his reconciliation to the Church and the Prayers of the Elders and the ceremony of Anointing he should be restored to health again which was an external and visible remission of his sins and should be a plenary pardon if he brought forth the true and genuine fruits of repentance This is very natural and very agreeable to the scope and design of the Text and differs as much from the Popish Extream Unction as their greatest Adversaries could wish Such kind of Proofs as these are meerly the work of fancy and imagination and can impose upon no man who will but attend to the different use and signification of words 2. Another grand fault our Roman Adversaries are guilty of is that their Scripture-Proofs are always very lame and imperfect that is that they never prove their whole Doctrine from Scripture but only some little part of it They draw very fine and artificial Schemes and if they can find some little appearance in Scripture to countenance any one part of it they take that for a Proof of the whole As for instance Thus they tell us that Christ made Peter the Prince of the Apostles and the Head of the Universal Church his own Vicar upon Earth and that the Bishops of Rome who are St. Peter's Successors succeed not only to his Chair but to all the Rights and Prerogatives of St. Peter and therefore the Bishop of Rome also is the Head of the Church the Oecumenical Pastor who neither wants St. Peter's Keys nor Sword. This is a very notable point if it were well proved but as I observed before this being a matter of pure institution which depends wholly upon the Will of God it can be proved only by Scripture How much then of this do they pretend to prove from Scripture Why they will prove by Scripture that St. Peter was the Prince of the Apostles because Christ said unto him Thou art Peter and on this Rock will I build my Church and I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and seed my Sheep which indeed are lamentable Proofs for the same Power was given to all the Apostles 20 John 21 22 23. Then said Jesus unto them Peace be unto you as my Father sent me even so send I you all of you and therefore not one in subjection to another but all with equal Power and when he had said this he breathed on them and saith unto them Receive ye the Holy Ghost whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained Accordingly on the day of Pentecost the Holy Ghost fell on them all they were all endowed with the Gift of Tongues and Miracles and Prophesie they all had the same Infallible Spirit and therefore needed no superiour Head over them They were to be separated into all parts of the World where they could have no Communication with each other and therefore could have no Universal Head. The History of the Acts of the Apostles gives not the least intimation of any such Superiority which either St. Peter challenged or the other Apostles paid him which are strong Presumptions against such a Supremacy of St. Peter and I suppose they themselves will grant that all the rest of the Apostles were as Infallible as he But suppose we should grant them that St. Peter was the chief of the Apostles and had a kind of Primacy not of Government but Order how do they prove from Scripture that the Bishop of Rome succeeds in all the Rights and Prerogatives of St. Peter for unless this be proved whatever Prerogative St. Peter had it signifies nothing to them and yet this cannot be proved but by institution for though Christ had bestowed a Primacy on S. Peter yet unless he expresly grant it to his Successors too nay to his Successors in the See of Rome his Pramacy as being a Personal Prerogative must die with his Person As a Prince may grant a Priority to Persons in the same Office and Power may make a first Colonel or a first Captain but if these men to whom the Precedency is given die or are removed those who succeed in their Office and power to the same Regiment or Company do not therefore succeed to their Priority too for this did not belong to their Office but to their Persons and the King may give the Priority again to whom he pleases or appoint them to succeed in course according to their admission into such Offices And by the same reason the Primacy of the Roman Bishops who are St. Peter's Successors does not follow from the Primacy of St. Peter unless they can shew that Christ has given them the Primacy also as well as St. Peter and this must be proved from Scripture because it is matter of Institution and no Arguments in the World can prove any thing which depends solely upon an Institution without proving the Institution But this the Roman Doctors never pretend to for they know that there is not one word in Scripture about it and nothing but the Authority of Scripture can prove a Divine Institution So that could they prove the Primacy of St. Peter from Scripture they prove but half their point and that the most inconsiderable half too for it does them no good And therefore when they make a great noise about St. Peter's Primacy and Prerogatives never trouble your selves to dispute that point with them which is nothing to the purpose but require them to prove from Scripture that the Bishop of Rome as St. Peter's Successor is appointed by Christ to be the Supreme Oecumenical Bishop and the Prince of all Bishops And if you stick here as in reason you ought there is an end of that Controversie Thus there is nothing the Church of Rome makes a greater noise about than Infallibility though they are not agreed where to place this Infallibility whether in the Pope or a General Council But let it be where it will this being a matter of Institution must be proved by Scripture how then in the first place do they prove the Pope to be Infallible That they think is very plain because Christ says Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it But how does this prove that the Bishop of Rome is Infallible For here is not one word of the Bishop of Rome Yes this proves St. Peter to be infallible who was afterwards Bishop of Rome and therefore all his Successors are infallible too Now that St. Peter was infallible as all the other Apostles were we readily grant though I think this Text does not prove it But
even some necessary Doctrines of Faith from unwritten Traditions which no body has the keeping of but the Church of Rome This I say contradicts the great design of the Gospel which is to improve and perfect knowledge for an imperfect Rule of Faith is I think as bad as no Rule at all because we can never trust it If you say that though the Scripture in it self be an imperfect Rule yet we have a perfect Rule because the defects of the Scripture are supplied by unwritten Traditions and therefore we have the whole Gospel and all the Christian knowledge delivered down to us either in the written or unwritten Rule I answer 1. If the Scriptures be an imperfect Rule then all Christians have not a perfect Rule because they have not the keeping of unwritten Traditions and know not what they are and never can know what they are till the Church is pleased to tell them and it seems it was a very great while before the Church thought fit to do it For suppose that all the new Articles of the Council of Trent which are not contained in Scripture were unwritten Traditions fifteen hundred years was somewhat of the longest to have so considerable a part of the Rule of Faith concealed from the World and who knows how much of it is concealed still for the Church has not told us that she has published all her unwritten Traditions there may be a Nest-egg left still which in time may add twelve new Articles to the Trent-Creed as that has done to the Apostles Creed So that if the Scripture be an imperfect Rule of Faith the Church never had a perfect Rule till the Council of Trent for a Rule which is not known is none at all and no body can tell whether our Rule be perfect yet whether some more unwritten Traditions may not start up in the next Age to make our Faith more perfect than the Council of Trent it self has made it Now if the design of the Gospel was to instruct men in all divine knowledge can we think that our Saviour has given us such an imperfect Rule as needs to be supplied by unwritten Traditions in every Age especially when we consider that some of the greatest Mysteries and most useful Doctrines of the Christian Religion if the Church of Rome be in the right were not written or so obscurely that no body could find them in the Scriptures till they were discovered by the help of unwritten Traditions such as the Supremacy of the Pope the Infallibility of Popes and General Councils the Worship of Images the Invocation of Saints and the great Glory and Prerogatives of the Virgin Mary the Doctrine of Purgatory Indulgences the Sacrament of Penance c. as necessary Doctrines as any that are recorded in Scripture and the denial of which makes us all Hereticks and Schismaticks as the Church of Rome says Though thanks be to God as far as appears we are no greater Hereticks and Schismaticks than the Apostles were unless they are excused for not knowing these necessary Articles of Faith and we are Hereticks for denying them since the Church of Rome in the Council of Trent has decreed and published them 2. These unwritten Traditions cannot supply the defects of a written Rule because they are of uncertain Authority and therefore not the Objects much less the Rule of a certain Faith and Knowledge What is not written but said to be delivered down from Age to Age by oral Tradition and kept so privately that the Church of God never heard of it for several hundred years can never be proved but by Miracles and they must be more credible Miracles too than the School of the Eucharist and the Legends of the Saints furnish us with and yet I know of no better the Church of Rome has It is impossible to prove that a private Tradition cannot be corrupted it is unreasonable to think that any thing which concerns the necessary Articles of Faith or Rules of Worship should be a private and secret Tradition for several Ages Miracles themselves cannot prove any Tradition which is contrary to the written Rule and the Catholick Faith of Christians for several Ages as several of the Trent-Doctrines are nay no Miracles can prove any new Article of Faith which was never known before without proving that Christ and his Apostles did not teach all things necessary to salvation which will go a great way to overthrow the truth and certainty of the Christian Faith for Miracles themselves can never prove that Christ and his Apostles taught that which the Christian Church never heard of before which is either to prove that the whole World had forgot what they had been once taught which I doubt is not much for the credit of Tradition or that the Church for several Ages did not teach all that Christ taught which is no great reason to rely on the teachings of the Church or to prove against matter of fact that Christ and his Apostles taught that which no body ever heard of and I do not think a Miracle sufficient to prove that true which every body knows to be false or at least do not know it to be true though they must have known it if it had been true And does not every body now see how improper unwritten Traditions are to supply the Defects and Imperfections of the written Rule for they can never make one Rule because they are not of equal Authority A Writing may be proved Authentick an obscure unwritten Tradition cannot and can any man think that Christ would have one half of his Gospel written the other half unwritten if he intended to perfect the knowledge of Christians for they cannot have so perfect a knowledge because they cannot have so great certainty of the unwritten as they have of the written Gospel Writing is the most certain Way to perpetuate Knowledge and if Christ intended that his Church in all Ages should have a perfect Rule of Faith we must acknowledge the perfection of the written Rule The truth is I cannot but admire the great artifice of the Church of Rome in preaching up the Obscurity and Imperfection of the Scriptures for she has hereby put it into her own power to make Christian Religion what she pleases for if the Scriptures be obscure and she alone can infallibly interpret them if the Scriptures be imperfect and she alone can supply their defects by unwritten Traditions it is plain that Christian Religion must be what she says it is and it shall be what her interest requires it to be But whether this be consistent with our Saviour's design in publishing the Gospel or whether it be the best way of improving the knowledge of Mankind let any impartial man judge 5 ly An Implicit Faith or believing as the Church believes without knowing what it is we believe can be no Gospel-Doctrine because this to be sure cannot be for the improvement of knowledge Some of the Roman Doctors think
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 us instead of a Holy Life as I observed above External Mortifications and Severities to the Body Fastings Watchings hard Lodging c. are very useful Instruments of Vertue when they are intended to subdue the Flesh to the Spirit and to wean our Minds from Sensual Enjoyments but when they are intended to satisfie for our Sins not to kill them to punish our selves for our sins that we may commit them more securely again this is not a means to break vicious Habits and to conquer the love of Sin but only to conquer the fear of committing it This is enough to shew how far Popery is from promoting the great design of the Gospel to improve and perfect Humane Nature and Holiness and were there no other Argument against it this were sufficient to me to prove That it cannot be the Religion of the Gospel of Christ. FINIS ERRATA PAge 27. line 10. for great read greater p. 37.l.5.f when r. where l. 23.f contract r. contact p. 40.l.27.f should it r. it should p. 79.l.22.f undermined r. undetermined p. 80.l.3.f corrupt r. corrupts l. 22.f up r. upon p. 91.l.22.r in knowledge and holiness Books lately Printed for W. Rogers THE Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented in Answer to a Book intituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented c. Quarto An Answer to a Discourse intituled Papists protesting against Protestant Popery Quarto An Answer to the Amicable Accommodation Quarto A View of the whole Controversie between the Representer and the Answerer Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition 1 st and 2 d Part. In two Dialogues between a Protestant and a Papist Quarto An Answer to the Eighth Chapter of the Representer's Second Part. Of the Authority of Councils and the Rule of Faith. By a Person of Quality With an Answer to the Eight Theses laid down for the Tryal of the English Reformation Sermons and Discourses The Third Volume By Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury 8o. A Manual for a Christian Souldier Written by Erasmus A new and easie Method to learn to Sing by Book A Book of Cyphers or Letters Reverst Price bound 5 s. A Perswasive to frequent Communion in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper By Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury In Octavo Price 3 d. A Discourse against Transubstantiation In Octavo Price 3 d. The State of the Church of Rome when the Reformation began A Letter to a Friend Reflecting on some Passages in a Letter to the D. of P. in Answer to the Arguing Part of his first Letter to Mr. G. The Reflecter's Defence of his Letter to a Friend In Four Dialogues A Discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry in which the Bishop of Oxford's true and only Notion of Idolatry is Considered and Confuted The Protestant Resolv'd or a Discourse shewing the Vnreasonableness of his Turning Roman Catholick for Salvation Second Edition The Absolute Impossibility of Transubstantiation Demonstrated A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Benj. Calamy D.D. A Vindication of some Protestant Principles of Church-Unity and Catholick-Communion from the Charge of Agreement with the Church of Rome In Answer to a late Pamphlet Intituled An Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome evinced from the Concertation of some of her Sons with their Brethren the Dissenters A Preservative against Popery being some Plain Directions to Unlearned Protestants how to Dispute with Romish Priests The First Part. The Fourth Edition These three last by William Sherlock D.D. Master of the Temple Reasons for Abrogating the Test p. 133. Matth. 4. 10. Ibid. p. 80. Ibid. p. 30. 135 Psal. 15. 1 Cor. 2. 11. 1 Thess. 2. 15. 5 Jam. 14 15. 1 John 3. 8. 1. Joh. 18. Mat. 10. 1 Cor. 8. 5 6. Dr. Stillin Defence of the Discourse concerning Idolatry 25 Exod. 22. Reasons for abrogating the Test p. 124 c. Ibid. p. 127. 9 Heb. 21 â—2 P. 130. Page 127. Page 130. 99 Psalm 2 9. 1 John 2.1 2. 3 Rom. 23. 15 Matth. 11 17 18 19 20. 4 John 21 23. 23 Matth. 16 17 18 19. 5 Matth. 20. 1 Tim. 4. 3 4 5. 2 Col. 16 ' 20 21 22. 40 Isa. 18. c. 4 John 22. 4 John 23. 99 Psal. 1 2. 14 John 2. 4 Heb. 16. 8 Rom. 15. 4 Gal. 6. 3 John 5 6 8 Rom. 1. 4 Eph. 24. 3 Colos 10. 3 Col. 16. 1 John 2.2 12 Heb. 1.
good As suppose a man pray to the Virgin Mary in the hour of Death or in a great Storm at Sea the man may be dead and Ship wrackt before the Virgin knows of his Prayers and may carry the first news of it into the other World himself Such kind of May-bes and Conjectures as these are a very sorry Foundation for an Infallible Church to build her Faith on 4. You must reject also all such Reasons in Divine and Spiritual things as are drawn from Earthly Patterns A considering man would a little wonder how a Papist should so punctually determine what is done in the other World without speaking with any one who has seen it and without having any Revelation about it as I have already observed but whoever considers many of their Arguments will soon find that they make this World the Pattern of the next and reason from Sensible to Spiritual things Thus the true Foundation of Saint-worship is that men judge of the Court of Heaven by the Courts of earthly Princes The most effectual way to obtain any Request of our Prince is to address our selves to some powerful Favourite and they take it for granted that all Saints and Angels in Heaven are such Favourites and can obtain whatever they ask and therefore they pray very devoutly to them and beg their Intercession with God and their Saviour Especially in earthly Courts the Queen Mother is supposed to have a powerful influence upon the young Prince her Son and therefore they do not doubt but the Virgin Mary the Mother of Christ can do what she pleases with her Son And since it is generally observed that Women are more soft and tender and compassionate than men they hope to gain that by her Intercession which He who died for them would not grant without it and therefore they beg her to shew her self to be a Mother that is to take the Authority of a Mother upon her and command her Son. Thus Princes and Great Men love to have their Pictures set up in publick places and to have all civil Respects paid to them which redounds to the honour of those whose Pictures they are and therefore they imagine that this is as acceptable to Christ and the Saints as it is to Men as if the other World were nothing else but a new Scene of Sense and Passion Mankind is very apt to such kind of Reasonings as these and indeed they can have no other when they will undertake to guess at unseen and unknown things But if there be any difference between the Court of Heaven and Earth if pure Spirits who are separated from Flesh and Sense have other Passions and Resentments than Men have that is if we must not judge of spiritual things by Sense of the Government of God by the Passions of men then such Reasonings as these may betray us to absurd and foolish Superstitions but are a very ill foundation for any new and uncommanded Acts of Worship 5. Never admit any Arguments meerly from the usefulness conveniency or supposed necessity of any thing to prove that it is As for instance A Supream Oecumenical Bishop and an Infallible Judge of Controversies are thought absolutely necessary to the Unity of the Church and certainty of Faith and confounding of Schisms and Heresies If there be not a Supream Pastor there can be no Unity if there be not an Infallible Judge there can be no certainty in Religion every man must be left to his own private Judgment and then there will be as many different Religions as there are Faces Now if I thought all this were true as I believe not a word of it is I should only conclude that it is great pity that there is not an Universal Pastor and Infallible Judge instituted by Christ but if you would have me conclude from these Premises Ergo there is an Universal Bishop and Head of the Church and an Infallible Judge of Controversies I must beg your pardon for that for such Arguments as these do not prove that there is such a Judge but only that there ought to be one and therefore I must conclude no more from them Indeed this is a very fallacious way of Reasoning because what we may call useful convenient necessary may not be so in it self 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 Judge when no such thing appears only because we think it so useful and necessary that he ought to do it These Directions are sufficient to Preserve all considering Protestants from being imposed on by the fallacious Reasonings of Papists SECT II. Concerning Scripture-Proofs 2. LEt us now consider their Scripture-Proofs though it is not choice but necessity which puts them upon this Tryal When they have good Catholicks to deal with a little Scripture will serve the turn but Hereticks will be satisfied with nothing else and therefore in disputing with them they are forced to make some little shew and appearance of proving their Doctrines by Scripture but they come very unwillingly to it and make as much of a little as may be The truth is there is Evidence enough that they have no great confidence in the Scripture themselves and therefore do not deal honestly and fairly with poor Hereticks when they make their boasts of Scripture For did they believe that their Doctrines which they endeavour to prove from Scripture were plainly and evidently contained in them why should they deny the People the liberty of reading the Scriptures If the Scriptures be for them why should they be against the Scriptures The common Pretence is that those who are unlearned put very wild sences upon Scripture and expound it by their own fancies which in many cases indeed is too true but why should the Church of Rome be more afraid of this than other Protestant Churches If they think the Scripture is as much for them as we think it is for us why dare not they venture this as well as we We are not afraid men should read the Scripture though we see what wild Interpretations some put on them because we are certain we can prove our Faith by Scripture and are able to satisfie all honest men who will impartially study the Scriptures that we give the true sence of them and if they believed they could do so too Why do they avoid this tryal when ever they can For though they admit People to dispute from the Scripture in England where they cannot help it yet they will not allow them so much as to see the Scriptures in Italy or Spain where they have power to hinder it Nay they themselves do in effect confess that the peculiar Doctrines and Practices of their Religion wherein they differ from all other Christian Churches cannot be proved by Scripture And therefore to help them out
does this prove the Bishop of Rome's Infallibility Just as St. Peter's Primacy proves the Pope to be the Oecumenical Primate They themselves must grant that an infallible Apostle may have a fallible Bishop for his Successor or else they must either deny that the rest of the Apostles as well as St. Peter were infallible or they must grant that all the Apostles Successors that is all the Bishops who succeeded any of the Apostles in their Sees must be as infallible as the Bishops of Rome who succeeded St. Peter and then there will be so much Infallibility that it will be worth nothing If then there be not a natural and necessary entail of Infallibility upon the Successors of infallible Apostles they must shew us an express Institution which makes the Successors of Peter at Rome infallible And let our Protestant demand this before he owns the Infallibility of the Pope of Rome and then I believe they will not think him worth Converting Thus as for those who place Infallibility in a General Council demand a Scripture-proof of it that they would produce the General Council's Charter for Infallibility This they can't do but they say the Church is infallible and the General Council is the Church Representative and therefore a General Council must be infallible too So that here are several things for them to prove and to prove by Scripture too for there is no other way of proving them before they can prove the Infallibility of General Councils As 1. That the Church is infallible 2. That a General Council is the Church Representative 3. That the Church Representative is that Church to which the promise of Infallibility is made And then they might conclude that a General Council as being the Church Representative is infallible Now instead of proving every particular of this by Scripture as they must do if they will prove by Scripture that General Councils are infallible they pretend to prove no more than the first of the three that the Church is infallible and that very lamely too as may appear more hereafter and then they take all the rest for granted without any proof which is just as if a man who in order to prove his Title to an Estate is required to prove that this Estate did anciently belong to his Family that it was entailed upon the Heir Male that this entail was never cut off nor the Estate legally alienated and that he alone is the true surviving Heir should think it enough to prove onely the first of these that the Estate did anciently belong to his Family which it might have done and yet not belong to it now or if it did still belong to it he may not be the true Heir Thus if we consider what it is they teach about Purgatory we shall quickly perceive how little it is they pretend to prove of it they tell us that there is a Purgatory-fire after this life where men undergo the punishment of their Sins when the fault is pardoned that the Church has power out of her stock of Merits which consists of the supererogating Works of great and eminent Saints to grant Pardons and Indulgencies to men while they live to deliver them from several thousand Years punishment which is due to their Sins in Purgatory that the Souls in Purgatory may be released out of it by the Prayers and Alms and Masses of the living which is the very life and soul of this Doctrine of Purgatory Now of all this they pretend to prove no more from Scripture but that there is a Purgatory-fire after this Life and how they prove it you have already heard But that either Penances or Pilgrimages and other extraordinary Acts of Devotion while we live or the Pope's Pardons and Indulgencies can either remit or shorten the pains of Purgatory or that the Prayers and Alms of our living Friends or Masses said for us by mercenary Priests can deliver us out of Purgatory which we are principally concerned to know and without which Purgatory will not enrich the Priests nor the Church this they never attempt that I know of to prove by Scripture whether there be a Purgatory or not in it self considered is a meer speculative point and of no value But could they prove that the Pope has the Keys of Purgatory and that Alms and Masses will deliver out of Purgatory this were worth knowing and is as well worth proving as any Doctrine of the Church of Rome for there is nothing they get more by But if you will not believe this till they produce a Scripture-proof of it you may let them dispute on about the place of Purgatory and keep your Money in your Pocket Thus it is in most other cases if you take their whole Doctrine together and demand a Proof of every part of it and not take a Proof of some little branch of it for a Proof of the whole you will quickly find that they will not be so fond of disputing as some of them now are 3. Another way our Roman Adversaries have of proving their Doctrines from Scripture is instead of plain and positive proofs to produce some very remote and inevident consequences from Scripture and if they can but hale a Text of Scripture into the premises whatever the conclusion be they call it a Scripture-proof There are infinite instances of this but I can only name some few Thus they prove the perpetual Infallibility of the Church because Christ promises his Disciples to be with them to the end of the world 28. Matth. 20. which promise cannot be confined to their persons for they were to die long before the end of the World and therefore must extend to their Successors Suppose that and does Christ's being with them necessarily signifie that he will make them Infallible Is not Christ with every particular Church with every particular Bishop nay with every particular good Christian and must they all be Infallible then Thus Christ promises that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against his Church Ergo the Church is Infallible for if Error and Heresie prevails against the Church the Gates of Hell prevail against it And I add if Sin and Wickedness prevail against the Church the Gates of Hell prevail against it Ergo the Church is Impeccable and cannot Sin which is to the full as good a consequence as the other And therefore the Gates of Hell prevailing can neither signifie the meer prevalency of Errors or Sin in the Church but such a prevalency as destroys the Church and this shall never be because Christ has promised it shall never be and it may never be though the Church be not Infallible and therefore this does not prove Infallibility Thus they prove there is such a place as Purgatory where Sins are forgiven and expiated because our Saviour says That the sin against the Holy Ghost shall neither be forgiven in this world nor in the world to come Matt. 12. 32. and therefore there are some
Popish Worship do not very well agree Those who would not make Gods of Stocks and Stones of dead Men and Women had certainly better not Worship them which is the most certain way not to make them Gods and those who think it such damnable Idolatry to Worship a Breaden God in my Opinion are on the safer side not to Worship the visible Species of Bread in the Eucharist Let but our Protestant observe this That when they would Represent Popery most favourably they either say what Protestants do or something as like it as they can and he will see no reason either to change his Faith or his Practice The END Books lately Printed for Will. Rogers THE Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented in Answer to a Book intituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented c. Quarto An Answer to a Discourse intituled Papists protesting against Protestant Popery being a Vindication of Papists not Misrepresented by Protestants And containing a particular Examination of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condom his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the Articles of Invocation of Saints Worship of Images occasioned by that Discourse Quarto An Answer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Difference between the Representer and the Answerer Quarto A View of the whole Controversie between the Representer and the Answerer with an Answer to the Representer's last Reply in which are laid open some of the Methods by which Protestants are Misrepresented by Papists Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the first Part Wherein an Answer is given to the late Proofs of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation in the Books called Consensus Veterum and Nubes Testium c. Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the Second Part Wherein the Doctrine of the Trinity is shewed to be agreeable to Scripture and Reason and Transubstantiation repugnant to both Quarto An Answer to the Eighth Chapter of the Representer's Second Part in the first Dialogue between him and his Lay-Friend Of the Authority of Councils and the Rule of Faith. By a Person of Quality With an Answer to the Eight Theses laid down for the Tryal of the English Reformation in a Book that came lately from Oxford Sermons and Discourses some of which never before Printed The Third Volume By the Reverend Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury Octavo A Manual for a Christian Souldier Written by Erasmus and Translated into English Twelves A new and easie Method to learn to Sing by Book whereby one who hath a good Voice and Ear may without other help learn to Sing true by Notes Design'd chiefly for and applied to the promoting of Psalmody and furnished with Variety of Psalm-Tunes in Parts with Directions for that kind of Singing A Perswasive to frequent Communion in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper By John Tillotson Dean of Canterbury in Octavo Price Three Pence A Discourse against Transubstantiation In Octavo Price Three Pence The State of the Church of Rome when the Reformation began as it appears by the Advices given to Paul III. and Julius III. by Creatures of their Own. With a Preface leading to the matter of the Book Quarto A Letter to a Friend Reflecting on some Passages in a Letter to the D. of P. in Answer to the Arguing Part of his first Letter to Mr. G. The Reflecter's Defence of his Letter to a Friend against the Furious Assaults of Mr. I. S. in his second Catholic Letter In four Dialogues Quarto A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Benj. Calamy D.D. and late Minister of St. Lawrence-Jury Lond. Jan. 7th 1685 6. By W. Sherlock D. D. Master of the Temple A Vindication of some Protestant Principles of Church-Unity and Catholick-Communion from the Charge of Agreement with the Church of Rome In Answer to a late Pamphlet Intituled An Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome evinced from the Concertation of some of her Sons with their Brethren the Dissenters By William Sherlock D. D. Master of the Temple Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus The Second Part of the Preservative against Popery May 3. 1688. Guil. Needham R. R. in Christo P. ac D.D. Wilhelmo Archiepisc. Gant. Ã Sacr. Domest The Second Part OF THE Preservative AGAINST POPERY Shewing how Contrary POPERY is to the True Ends OF THE Christian Religion Fitted for the INSTRUCTION OF Vnlearned PROTESTANTS By WILLIAM SHERLOCK D.D. Master of the Temple LONDON Printed for William Rogers at the Sun over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-street M DC LXXXVIII Part II. THE PRESERVATIVE AGAINST POPERY CHAP. IV. Some Directions relating to particular Controversies THose who would understand the particular Disputes between us and the Church of Rome must of necessity read such Books as give the true State of the Controversie between us and fairly represent the Arguments on both sides and where such Books are to be met with he may learn from a late Letter Entituled The Present State of the Controversie between the Church of England and the Church of Rome Or an Account of Books written on both sides But my present Design is of another nature to give some plain and easie Marks and Characters of true Gospel Doctrines whereby a man who has any relish of the true Spirit of Christianity may as certainly know Truth from Error in many cases as the Palate can distinguish Tasts There are some things so proper to the Gospel and so primarily intended in it that they may fitly serve for distinguishing marks of true Evangelical Doctrine I shall name some of the chief and Examine some Popish Doctrines by them SECTION 1. Concerning IDOLATRY 1. ONE principal intention of the Gospel was more perfectly to extirpate all Idolatry For this purpose the son of God was manifested to destroy the works of the devil that is not only all Sin and Wickedness but the very Kingdom of Darkness that Kingdom the Devil had erected in the world the very Foundation of which was laid in Idolatrous Worship To this purpose Christ has expresly taught us that there is but one God and has more perfectly instructed us in the nature of God For no man hath seen God at any time but the only begotten son who is in the bosom of the father he hath declared him Ignorance was the Mother of Pagan Idolatry because they did not know the true God they Worshipped any thing every thing for a God and therefore the most effectual course to cure Idolatry was to make known the true God to the world for those men are inexcusable who know the true God and Worship any thing else Tho' indeed according to some mens Divinity the knowledge of the true God cures Idolatry not by rooting
the Mercy-seat and the Cherubims covering the Mercy-seat and there God promised Moses to meet with him and to commune with him from between the two Cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony Now this was a Symbolical Representation of God's Throne in Heaven where he is surrounded with Angels as we know the Holy of Holies itself was a Figure of Heaven and therefore the Jews when they were absent from the Temple prayed towards it and in the Temple as is thought towards the Mercy-seat as the place of God's peculiar Residence as now when we pray we lift up our eyes and hands to Heaven where God dwells So that under the Law God had a peculiar place for Worship and peculiar Symbols of his Presence but no Images to represent his Person or to be the Objects of Worship I know some Roman Doctors would fain prove the Cherubims to have been the Objects of Worship and which is more wonderful a late Bishop of the Church of England has taken some pains to prove the same and thereby to justifie the Worship of Images in the Church of Rome and before I proceed I shall briefly Examine what he has said in this Cause One would a little wonder who reads the Second Commandment which so severely forbids the Worship of Images that God himself should set up Images in his own Temple as the Objects of Worship and a modest man would have been a little cautious how he had imputed such a thing to God which is so direct a contradiction to his own Laws That the Cherubims were Statues or Images whatever their particular Form was I agree with our Author and that is the only thing I agree with him in For 1. That they were Sacred Images set up by God himself in the place of his own Worship I deny For the Holy of Holies where the Ark was placed and the Mercy-seat over the Ark and the Cherubims at the two ends spreading their Wings and covering the Mercy-seat was not the place of Worship but the place of God's Presence The place of Worship is the place wherein men worship God now it is sufficiently known that none of the Jews were permitted to go into the Holy of Holies nor so much as to look into it and therefore it could not be the place of their Worship the Holy of Holies was the Figure of Heaven and therefore could be no more the place of Worship to the Jews than Heaven now is to us while we dwell on Earth The High Priest indeed entered into the Holy of Holies once a year with the Blood of the Sacrifice which was a Type of Christ's entring into Heaven with his own Blood and yet the Priest went thither not to Worship but to make an Atonement which I take to be two very different things however if you will call this Worship it has no relation to any Worship on Earth but to what is done by Christ in Heaven of whom the High Priest was a Type And this I think is a demonstration that the placing of Cherubims to cover the Mercy-seat in the Holy of Holies does not prove the lawful use of Images in Temples or Churches or in the Worship of God on Earth if it proves any thing it must prove the Worship of God by Images in Heaven of which the Holy of Holies was a Figure and if any man can be so foolish as to imagine that let them make what they please of it so they do but excuse us from worshipping God by Images on Earth 2. That these Cherubims were the most solemn and sacred part of the Jewish Religion that nothing is more remarkable in all the old Testament than the honour done to the Cherubims that an outward worship was given to these Images as Symbols of the Divine presence that the High Priest adored these Cherubims once a year as this Author asserts I utterly deny and he has not given us one word to prove it For the Cherubims were so far from being the most solemn and sacred part of the Jewish Religion that they were no part at all of it if by Religion he means Worship for there was no regard at all had to the Cherubims in the Jewish Worship and it is so far from being remarkable in the Old Testament that there is not the least footstep or intimation of any honour at all done to the Cherubims There is nothing in Scripture concerning them but the command to make them and place them at the two ends of the Mercy-Seat and that God is said to dwell between the Cherubims and to give forth his Oracles and Responses from that place but I desire to learn where the Jews are commanded to direct their Worship to or towards the Cherubims where the High Priest is commanded to adore the Cherubims once a year or what Protestant grants he did so as this Author insinuates He supposes the Cherubims to have been the Symbols of Gods presence and his representations and that the Jews directed their worship to them as such and that is to worship God by Images or to give the same Signs of Reverence to his Representations as to himself but how does it appear that the Cherubims were the Symbols of Gods presence God indeed is said to sit between the Cherubims and he promised Moses to commune with him from between the Cherubims but the Cherubims were no Symbols of Gods presence much less a representation of him if any thing was the Symbolical presence of God it was the Mercy Seat which was a kind of Figurative Throne or Chair of State but the Cherubims were only Symbolical representations of those Angels who attend and encompass Gods Throne in Heaven and were no more representations of God or Symbols of his presence then some great Ministers of State are of the King as this Author himself acknowledges when he makes the four beasts in the Revelations Rev. 4.6 7. which stood round about the Throne to be an allusion to the representation of the immediate Divine Presence in the Ark by the Cherubims if he had said to the Cherubims covering the Mercy Seat which was his Figurative Throne and where he was invisibly present without any visible Figures or Symbols of his presence he had said right for the Cherubims which covered the Mercy Seat were no more Symbols of Gods Presence than the four Beasts which stood before the Throne are the presence of God or then some great Courtiers or Ministers of State who attend the King are the presence of the King They attend the King where ever he is and so may be some sign of his presence but are not a symbolical presence as a Chair of State is But it seems our Author imagined that the Cherubims were such Symbols of Gods presence and such representations of him as Images were of the Pagan Gods and therefore might be worshipped with the same signs of reverence as God himself was according to
it sufficient that a man believes as the Church believes without an explicite knowledge of any thing they believe but the general opinion is that a man must have an explicite belief of the Apostles Creed but as for every thing else it suffices if he believes as the Church believes without knowing what the faith of the Church is that is it is not necessary men should so much as know what the new Articles of the Trent Faith are if they believe the Apostles Creed and resign up their Faith implicitely to the Church Now this is a plain confession that all the Doctrines in dispute between us and the Church of Rome are of no use much less necessary to salvation for if they were they would be as necessary to be known and explicitely believed as the Apostles Creed and I cannot imagine why we Hereticks who believe the Apostles Creed and understand it as orthodoxly as they may not be saved without believing the new Trent Creed for if we need not know what it is there seems to be no need of believing it for I always thought that no man can and therefore to be sure no man need believe what he does not know So that it seems we know and believe all things the explicite knowledge and belief of which by their own confession is necessary to salvation except that one single Point of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome believe but that and ye need believe or know nothing more but the Apostles Creed and yet go to Heaven as a good Catholick which makes an implicite Faith in the Church of Rome as necessary as Faith in Christ is But if the intent of the Gospel was to improve our Knowledge then Christ never taught an implicite Faith for that does not improve Knowledge and if the Faith of the Church of Rome excepting the Apostles Creed which is the common Faith of all Christians need not be known then they are no Gospel-Doctrines much less necessary Articles of Faith for Christ taught nothing but what he would have known and though the knowledge of all things which Christ taught is not equally necessary to salvation yet it tends to the perfecting our knowledge and Christ taught nothing which a man need not know which I think is a reproach to meaner Masters and much more to the eternal and incarnate Wisdom Secondly The improvement and perfection of Humane Nature consists in true Holiness and Virtue in a likeness and conformity to God and a participation of the Divine Nature and this is the great end of the Gospel to advance us to as perfect Holiness as is attainable in this life Christ indeed has made expiation for our sins by his own Bloud but then this very Bloud of Atonement does not only expiate the guilt of sin but purges the Conscience from dead works that we may serve the living God for no Sacrifice not of the Son of God himself can reconcile an impenitent and unreformed Sinner to God that is can move God to love a Sinner who still loves and continues in his sins which an infinitely holy and pure being cannot do Indeed the expiation of sin is but one part of the work of our Redemption for a sinner cannot be saved that is cannot be advanced to immortal life in the Kingdom of Heaven without being born again without being renewed and sanctified by the holy Spirit after the Image and likeness of God. For this new Nature is the only Principle of a new immortal life in us an earthly sensual mind is no more capable of living in Heaven than an earthly mortal body In both senses flesh and bloud cannot inherit the Kingdom of God neither can corruption inherit incorruption The Church of Rome indeed has taken great care about the first of these and has found out more ways of expiating sin and making satisfaction for it than the Gospel ever taught us whether they are so effectual to this purpose let those look to it who trust in them but there is not that care taken to inculcate the necessity of internal holiness and purity of mind and one would easily guess there can be no great need of it in that Church which has so many easie ways of expiating sin The true character of Gospel-Doctrines is a Doctrine according to Godliness the principal design of which is to promote true goodness all the Articles of the Christian Faith tend to this end to lay great and irresistible obligations on us to abstain from every sin and to exercise our selves in every thing that is good as we have ability and opportunity to do it and therefore all Doctrines which secretly undermine a good life and make it unnecessary for men to be truly and sincerely vertuous can be no Gospel-Doctrines That there are such Doctrines in the Church of Rome has been abundantly proved by the late Learned and Reverend Bishop Taylor in his Disswasive from Popery which is so very useful a Book that I had rather direct my Readers to it than transcribe out of it My design leads me to another method for if I can prove that the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome naturally tend to evacuate the force of the Gospel it self to make men good and holy every one will easily see that that can be no Gospel-Faith and Worship which sets aside the Gospel it self The whole Doctrine of the Gospel either consists of the Rules of Holiness or of the Motives and Instruments of it for the Articles of the Christian Faith are all of them so many Motives to a good life let us then consider how the Faith and Worship of the Church of Rome has made void the Gospel of our Saviour as the Pharisees made void the Law of Moses by their Traditions 1. Let us begin then with the Gospel-Rules of Holiness It would be an endless thing here to take notice of the loose Determinations of their famed and approved Casuists of their Doctrine of probable Opinions of the direction of the intention by which means the very Laws and Boundaries of Vertue and Vice are in a great measure quite altered and it may be this would only make work for the Representer and furnish out a fourth part of the Papist Misrepresented if we venture to tell the World what has been the avowed Doctrines of their great Divines and Casuists But whether such Definitions be the Doctrine of their Church or not I am sure they are equally mischievous if they be the Doctrines of their Confessors who have the immediate direction of mens Conscience Those who have a mind to be satisfied in this matter may find enough of it in the Provincial Letters the Jesuits Morals and Bishop Taylor 's Disswasive It sufficiently answers my present design to take notice of some few plain things which will admit of no dispute I have already shewn what a great value the Church of Rome sets upon an external Righteousness which is much more meritorious than a