presumed to understand their own Religion the first Reformers who were all educated in Popery might be as well presumed to understand what Popery then was and therefore there can be no reason to suspect that they Mis-represented Popery out of Ignorance Nor is it more probable that they should Mis-represent Popery out of Interest and Design for if they were conscious to themselves that Popery was not so bad as they represent it to be why should they themselves have set up for Reformers and what hope could they have that at that time when Popery was so well known they should perswade the World to believe their Mis-representations Was it so desirable a thing for men to bring all the Powers of the Church and Court of Rome upon themselves meerly to gratifie a Mis-representing humour Do these men remember what our Reformers suffered for opposing Popery the loss of their Estates their Liberties their Lives all the Vengeance of a blind and enraged Zeal And did they undergo all this with such constancy and Christian patience only for the sake of telling Lyes and raising scandalous Reports of the Church of Rome We think it a very good Argument that the Apostles and first Preachers of Christianity were very honest men and had no design to cheat the World because they served no worldly Interest by it but chearfully exposed themselves to all manner of Sufferings in Preaching the Gospel and why does not the same Argument prove our first Reformers to be honest men and then they could not be wilful Mis-representers Nay if we will but allow them to have been cunning men and it is evident they did not want wit they would never have undertaken so hopeless a design as to run down Popery meerly by Mis-representing it when had their Exceptions against Popery been onely Mis-representations of their own all the World could have confuted them had the first Reformers been onely Mis-representers can we think that they could have imposed upon such vast numbers of Men Learned and Unlearned who knew and saw what Popery was They were no Fools themselves and therefore could not hope to impose such a Cheat upon the World. 2. Ask them again How old this Complaint is of Protestant Mis-representations of Popery how long it has been discovered that Popery has been thus Abused and Mis-represented were the first Reformers charged with these Mis-representations by their Adversaries in those days did they deny that they gave Religious Worship to Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary to Images and Reliques did they cry out of Mis-representations when they were charged with such Doctrines and Practices as these or did they defend them and endeavour to answer those Arguments which the Reformers brought against them And yet methinks if Popery had been so grosly Mis-represented by the Reformers this would as soon have been discovered by the Learned Papists of those days as by our late Representer but it is most likely they did not then think Popery so much Mis-represented for if they had they would certainly have complained of it So that the high improbability of the thing is a sufficient Reason to Unlearned Protestants to reject this Charge of Protestant Mis-representations of Popery as nothing else but a Popish Calumny against Protestants and to conclude that if Popery be Mis-represented now it is onely by themselves and that is the very truth of the Case Secondly Let us consider this Charge of Mis-representations in the Consequences of it It would a little puzzle a man to guess what service they intend to do the Church of Rome by it For 1. By complaining of such Mis-representations of Popery they plainly confess that those Doctrines and Practices which we charge the Church of Rome with are very bad and fit to be rejected and abhorred of all Christians This the Representer himself confesses and is very Copious and Rhetorical upon it Now this is of mighty dangerous consequence for if it appears that we have not Mis-represented them that the Doctrines and Practices we charge them with are truly the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome then by their own confession Popery is a very bad Religion and to be rejected by Christians Then there was a very just reason for our Separation from the Church of Rome and we are no longer either Schismaticks or Hereticks and if the Cause be put upon this Issue we need desire no better Vindication of the Church of England for if they cannot prove us Hereticks or Schismaticks till they can prove us Mis-representers I believe we are pretty secure for this Age. 2. These men who complain so much of Mis-representing endeavour to make the Doctrines of the Church of Rome look as like Protestant Doctrines as possibly they can as if there were little or no difference between them Now methinks this is no great reason for a Protestant to turn Papist that the Popish Faith is so much the better the nearer it comes to the Protestant Faith. The truth is the chief Mystery in this late Trade of Representing and Mis-representing is no more but this to joyn a Protestant Faith with Popish Practices to believe as Protestants do and to do as Papists do As to give some few instances of this in the Papist Mis-represented and Represented The Papist Represented believes it damnable to Worship Stocks and Stones for Gods to Pray to Pictures or Images of Christ the Virgin Mary or any other Saints This is good Protestant Doctrine but then this Papist says his Prayers before an Image Kneels and Bows before it and pays all external Acts of Adoration to Christ and the Saints as represented by their Images though it is not properly the Image he honours but Christ and his Saints by the Images Which is down-right Popery in Practice Thus he believes it is a most damnable Idolatry to make Gods of men either living or dead Which is the Protestant Faith but yet he prays to Saints and beggs their Intercession without believing them to be Gods or his Redeemers which is Popery in Practice He believes it damnable to think the Virgin Mary more powerful in Heaven than Christ. Which is Protestant Doctrine but yet he prays to Her ostner than either to God or Christ says ten Ave-Maries for one Pater Noster which is a Popish Devotion He believes it unlawful to commit Idolatry and most damnable to Worship any Breaden God. Which is spoke like a Protestant but yet he pays Divine Adoration to the Sacrament which is done like a Papist And thus in most of those thirty seven Particulars of the double Characters of a Papist Mis-represented his great Art is to Reconcile a Protestant Faith with Popish Practices So that this new way of Representing Popery is no reason to a Protestant to alter his Faith because it seems they believe in many things just as we do but I think it is a very great reason for a Papist to alter his Practice because a Protestant Faith and
say is the Protestant Heresie and the foundation of Protestant uncertainty if they once open this gap to Hereticks into the Church there is great danger that more will run out at it than will come in and it is well if the Church itself staies behind for what becomes of the Church of Rome if all their glorious Cant of the Infallibility of Church and Popes and General Councils be at last resolved into a private Spirit while these men go about to Dispute Hereticks into their Church they unavoidably give up the Cause of the Church and of Infallibility which is the way to Dispute a great many good Catholicks out of it who are kept there only by the power of a blind and implicite Faith. Here then let our Protestant fix his foot and not stir an inch till they disown Infallibility and confess that every man can and must judge for himself in matters of Religion according to the proofs that are offered to him For will a wise man Dispute with one who he knows banters him all the while who appeals to his private judgment as all men do who dispute with one another and at the same time cries down this private Spirit as the cause of Schisms and Heresies and Blasphemies and every thing that is evil no man of any spirit but will scorn to dispute with one who intends only to put a trick on him and to out wit him if he can and in truth it is no more to endeavour to dispute a man into Popery when the Fundamental Principle of Popery is that we must not Reason and Dispute but believe that we must take our Faith upon the Authority of the Church without asking any questions about it There are two or three things which may be answered to this 1. That though Disputing be not a proper way for Papists to take yet it is the only way that can be taken with Protestants who are all for Disputing and will believe nothing without a Reason and therefore Protestants ought not to blame Papists for Disputing unless they would be good Catholicks without it Now in answer to this I have something to say to Papists and something to Protestants 1. As for the Papists what necessity soever they be in of Disputing I desire to know with what face they can reproach Protestants with adhering to their own private judgments when they themselves are such zealous Disputants which is an Appeal to every private mans judgment if ever they make any Converts they must be beholden to mens private judgments for it for I think men cannot change their Opinions without exercising a private judgment about it and I suppose when they dispute with men to make them Papists they intend to convert them by their own private judgments Now what difference is there between mens using their private judgments to turn Papists or to turn Protestants one indeed may be false and the other true but private judgment is private judgment still and if it be so great a fault for men to use their own private judgments it is as great a fault in a Papist as it is in a Protestant So that at least as to Converts the Church of Rome has no advantage in this particular over Protestant Churches some by the exercise of their own Reason and judgment go over to the Church of Rome and some to the Church of England some are disputed into Popery and some into Protestantism and therefore for the sake of their beloved Converts and their beloved Disputations they ought to be more favourable to a private Spirit The truth is by Disputing with Hereticks they give up their Cause and confess that in all Disputes of Religion there lies an Appeal to every mans private Judgment and Conscience and should they lose this point by their Disputing all the Converts they make cannot recompence such a loss 2. As for Protestants though they have no other way to satisfie themselves or to convince others but by Reason and Discourse yet this is no reason why they should Dispute with those men who disown the judgment of Reason as a private Spirit For why should I Dispute with any man who uses such Arguments to convince me as he himself does not think a sufficient Reason of Faith Ask then one of these Disputers who alledges Scripture Reason and Antiquity to prove any Doctrines of the Romish Faith Do you Sir believe Transubstantiation the Worship of Images the Invocation of Saints Purgatory Mass for the Dead upon the bare Authority of these Scriptures and Fathers you have produced for them If these Doctrines were not Defined by the Church should you think these Arguments sufficient to prove them or could you suppose the Church had Defined the contrary should you think the Arguments good still In short can any Reason any Authority of Scripture or Fathers be any Foundation for a Divine Faith but onely the Authority of the Church He that says they can is no Papist and he that says they cannot confesses that he uses such Arguments as he himself does not build his Faith upon If you will believe them you may but though you do you are no sound Believer without resolving your Faith solely into the Authority of the Church And I think he must love Disputing well who will Dispute with such men as these and those must have a good degree of assurance who will be troublesome with their Disputes after such a discovery The end of Disputing I suppose is either toconvince or to be convinced but should you Answer and baffle all such a man's Arguments if he be modest it may be he may blush a little but is not to be moved for his Faith after all is not built upon these Arguments but upon Church-Authority and it is to no purpose for you to suffer your self to be convinced by these Arguments for it will not make you a good Catholick without resolving your Faith wholly into the Authority of the Church It is certainly a very surprizing thing for a Protestant to be disputed into Popery for as soon as he is converted he must renounce the very means of his Conversion He must use his own Judgment to turn Papist and as soon as he is turned he must renounce his own Judgment and confess it to be of no Authority Now though it may be such a private Judgment as leads a man to Popery may as well deserve to be renounced as any yet it is an odd kind of contradiction to renounce our own private Reason and Judgment and yet to own our Conversion methinks such men should renounce their Conversion too at the same time they renounce their Reason for if their Conversion be good it is a sign their Judgment was so but if their Judgment be not fit to be trusted methinks this should make them question their Conversion And therefore they should either maintain the Reputation of their Judgment and Conversion together and then they cannot be good Catholicks
then it is to no purpose to dispute about such a Judge for Disputing is nothing else but weighing Reason against Reason and Argument against Argument or Scripture against the pretence of Scripture but whoever gets the better of it this way no Reasons or Arguments or Scripture Proofs can beget an Infallible Certainty which is necessary in this case and therefore this is all lost labour and they do but put a trick upon you when they pretend to dispute you into the belief of an Infallible Judge for they themselves know and must confess if you ask them that the best and must convincing Arguments cannot give us an Infallible assurance of this matter and yet unless we are infallibly assured of an infallible Judge it is all to no purpose 3. I can think but of one thing more that can be said in this cause viz. that it is manifestly unreasonable not to grant to the Church of Rome that Liberty which all men and Churches challenge to dispute for themselves and against their Adversaries for when two men or two Churches differ in matters of Faith there is no other way to end the Controversie but by disputing it out whereas this Discourse will not allow them to dispute nor any Protestants to dispute with them In answer to this I grant that the Charge is in a great measure true and shews the absurdity of that Church and Religion but does not disprove the reasonableness of this method If men will embrace such a Religion as will not admit of disputing it is their own and their Religions fault not the fault of those men who will not dispute with them Now a Religion which leaves no room for the exercise of Reason and private Judgment leaves no place for Disputes neither for how shall men dispute who must not use their own Reason and Judgment They ought not to dispute themselves if they be true to their own Principles and no man ought to dispute with them who will not be laugh'd at by them and by all the World For to dispute without Reason is a new way of disputing though it is the only thing that can justifie the Romanists and our late Disputants have been very careful to observe it and to dispute with Reason is to use our private Reason in Religion which is Protestant Heresie Infallible men ought not to dispute for that is to quit their Infallibility and fallible men are very unwise to dispute with them because no good can come of it for Reason can never confute their infallible Adversaries nor make themselves infallible Believers But for the better understanding of this I have two things to say 1. That Papists may dispute against Protestant Heresies as they call them but cannot dispute for their own Religion 2. Protestants may dispute against Popish Doctrines and to vindicate their own Faith but cannot reasonably be disputed into Popery 1. That Papists may dispute against Protestant Heresies but cannot dispute for their own Religion And the reason of this difference is plain because Protestants allow of Reason and Discourse in matters of Religion and therefore they may be confuted if good Reasons can be produced against them And here the Romanists may try their skill but the Religion of Rome is not founded on Reason but on Infallibility and therefore is not the subject of a Dispute because the truth and certainty of those Doctrines is not resolved into the Reasons of them They ought to alledge no other ground of their Faith but the Infallibility of the Church and they ought not to dispute about this neither but those who will believe it may and those who won't may let it alone because Infallibility is not to be proved by Reason for Reason proves nothing infallibly and therefore cannot give us an infallible certainty of the Churches Infallibility But you will say if they have other Arguments for the truth of their Faith besides the Infallibility of the Church why may they not urge those other Reasons and Arguments to convince those who will not own the Churches Infallibility I answer Because whatever other Reasons they have their Faith is not resolved into them and therefore it is not honest in them to urge those for the Reasons of their Faith which are not the Reasons why they believed For let me ask them Suppose they may have very good Reasons for some of their Doctrines do they believe them meerly because they are reasonable If they say they do then they believe just as Protestants believe and there is no need of Infallibility when men believe nothing but what is reasonable and it is pity that so good a thing as Infallibility should serve only to support an unreasonable Faith. Let me ask them again Can they have a sufficient certainty that these Reasons are good without an infallible Judge If they can then the Faith of Protestants which is grounded upon rational Evidences may be very certain too though it be not infallible if they cannot then their Reasons are none since the very certainty of them is resolved into an infallible Authority and therefore they are no certain Reasons that is not such as a man may rely on when they are separated from Infallibility and consequently they ought never to be urged apart from Infallibility because they themselves do not think them good Reasons that is not a sufficient foundation of Faith alone and then I know not why they should be urged at all for Infallibility can stand by it self without the support of any Reasons I ask them again Would they reject those Doctrines which they think they can prove by such evident Reasons did they see those Reasons as evidently confuted If they would not then it is plain they do not believe them for the sake of those Reasons for if they did they would reject them when all their Reasons were confuted They only impose upon the World with a pretence and flourish of Reason and set up a Man of Straw for Protestants to shoot at but whatever becomes comes of their Reasons they have a safe Retreat into Infallibility If they believed any Doctrine because it is reasonable if they will be true to themselves they ought to reject all Doctrines which are unreasonable or contrary to Sense and Reason He who believes for the sake of Reason can never believe against it for if Reason makes a thing credible then what is unreasonable is incredible too and we may as reasonably dis-believe what is confirmed by Reason as believe what Reason contradicts and therefore it is not very modest to hear men talk of Reason in any case who can believe such an absurd and unreasonable Doctrine as Transubstantiation Now whatever Opinion Protestants have of Reason Papists ought not to pretend to it because their Faith has nothing to do with Reason it is a Reproach to an infallible Church and infallible Faith to need the supports of Reasons And the truth is those who will have nothing to do
where the Scripture fails they fly to unwritten Traditions which they make of equal authority with the Scriptures themselves which they would never do were they not convinced that the Scriptures are not so plain on their side as to satisfie any man who has not already given himself up to the Church of Rome with an implicite Faith. And therefore before you enter into any debate about the sence of any particular Texts of Scripture and their way of proving their particular Doctrines from Scripture ask them two Questions without a plain Answer to which it is to no purpose to dispute with them out of Scripture Ask 1. Whether they will allow the Holy Scriptures to be a complete and perfect Rule of Faith that no Christian ought to receive any Doctrine for an Article of Faith which cannot be proved from Scripture This to be sure they must not allow unless they will reject the Council of Trent which gives as venerable an Authority to Tradition as to Scripture it self Since then they have two Rules Scripture and Tradition when they pretend to dispute from Scripture it is reasonable to know of them whether they will stand to Scripture and reject such a Doctrine if it cannot be plainly proved out of Scripture For if they will not stand to this they give up their Cause and there is no need to dispute with them For why should I dispute with any man from Scripture who will not stand to the determination of Scripture We Protestants indeed do own the Authority of Scripture and what we see plainly proved out of Scripture we must abide by which is reason enough for us to examine the Scripture-proofs which are produced by our Adversaries But it is sufficient to make them blush if they had any modesty to pretend to prove their Doctrines from Scripture when they themselves do not believe them meerly upon the Authority of Scripture and dare not put their Cause upon that issue which gives a just suspicion that they are conscious to themselves that their Scripture-proofs are not good and should make Protestants very careful how they are imposed on by them To dispute upon such Principles as are not owned on both sides can establish nothing tho' it may blunder and confound an Adversary it is onely a tryal of Wit where the subtilest Disputant will have the Victory and it is not worth the while for any man to dispute upon these terms This is not to reject the Authority of Scriptures because the Papists reject it which no Protestant can or will do but it is an effectual way for men who are not skilled in Disputations to deliver themselves from the troublesome Importunities of Popish Priests when learned men who can detect their Fallacies are out of the way Let them but ask them Whether all the peculiar Doctrines of the Church of Rome can be proved by plain Scripture-evidence If they say they can then they must reject the necessity of unwritten Traditions and acknowledge the Scripture to be a complete and perfect Rule of Faith. A point which I believe no understanding Priest will yeild If they say they cannot ask them With what confidence they pretend to prove that from Scripture which they confess is not in it Why they go about to impose upon you and to perswade you to believe that upon the Authority of Scripture which they themselves confess is not at least not plainly contained in Scripture 2. Ask such Disputants who alledge the Authority of Scripture to prove their Popish Doctrines How they themselves know what the sence of Scripture is and how you shall know it For it is a ridiculous undertaking to prove any thing by Scripture unless there be a certain way of finding out the sence of Scripture Now there can be but three ways of doing this either by an infallible Interpreter or by the unanimous consent of Primitive Fathers or by such Humane means as are used to find out the sence of other Books I. If they say we must learn the sence of Scripture from an infallible Interpreter Tell them this is not to dispute but to beg the Cause They are to prove from Scripture the Doctrines of the Church of Rome and to do this they would have us take the Church of Rome's Exposition of Scripture And then we had as good take her word for all without disputing But yet 1. They know that we reject the pretences of an infallible Interpreter We own no such infallible Judge of the sence of Scripture And therefore at least if they will dispute with us and prove their Doctrines by Scripture they must fetch their Proofs from the Scriptures themselves and not appeal to an infallible Interpreter whom we disown Which is like appealing to a Judge in Civil matters whom one of the contending Parties tlhinks incompetent and to whose Judgment they will not stand which is never likely to end any Controversie and yet they cannot quit an infallible Interpreter without granting that we may understand the Scriptures without such an Interpreter which is to give up the Cause of Infallibility 2. One principal Dispute between us and the Church of Rome is about this infallible Interpreter and they know that we will not own such an Interpreter unless they can prove from Scripture that there is such an one and who he is The inquiry then is How we shall learn from Scripture that there is such an infallible Interpreter that is who shall Expound those Scriptures to us which must prove that there is an infallible Interpreter if without an infallible Interpreter we cannot find out the true sence of Scripture how shall we know the true sence of Scripture before we know this infallible Interpreter For an Interpreter how infallible soever he be cannot interpret Scripture for us before we know him and if we must know this infallible Interpreter by Scripture we must at least understand these Scriptures which direct us to this infallible Interpreter without his assistance So that of necessity some Scriptures must be understood without an infallible Interpreter and therefore he is not necessary for the Interpretation of all Scripture And then I desire to know why other Scriptures may not be understood the same way by which we must find out the meaning of those Texts which direct us to an infallible Interpreter There are a hundred places of Scripture which our Adversaries must grant areas plain and easie to be understood as those And we believe it as easie a matter to find all the other Trent-Articles in Scripture as the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Bishop of Rome If ever there needed an infallible Interpreter of Scripture it is to prove such an infallible Interpreter from Scripture but upon this occasion he cannot be had and if we may make shift without him here we may as well spare him in all other cases 3. Suppose we were satisfied from Scripture that there is such an infallible Interpreter yet it were worth knowing
to come into the Church they give up the Authority of the Church and make every man his own Pope and expose themselves to all the senseless Rallery of their admired Pax Vobis By this they confess that the Scripture may be understood by Reason that they can back their Interpretations with such powerful Arguments as are able to convince Hereticks who reject the Authority of an Infallible Interpreter and then they must unsay all their hard Sayings against the Scriptures That they are dark and obscure dead Letters unsenced Characters meer figured Ink and Paper they must recant all their Rallery against expounding Scripture by a private Spirit and allowing every man to judge of the sence of it and to chuse what he pleases for thus they do themselves when they dispute with Hereticks about the sence of Scripture and I am pretty confident they would never speak against Scripture nor a private Spirit more if this private Spirit would but make us Converts but the mischief is a private Spirit if it have any tincture of Sence and Reason seldom expounds Scripture to a Roman-Catholick sence So that in truth it is a vain nay a dangerous thing for Papists to dispute with Protestants about the sence of Scripture for it betrays the Cause of the Church and vindicates the Scriptures and every mans natural Right of judging from the Usurpations and Encroachments of a pretended Infallibility but yet dispute they do and attempt to prove their Doctrines from Scripture And because it is too large a task for this present Undertaking to examine all their Scripture-Proofs I shall only observe some general faults tâ—y are guilty of which whoever is aware of is in no danger of being imposed on by their Pretences to Scripture and I shall not industriously multiply Particulars for there are some few palpable mistakes which run through most of their Scripture-Proofs 1. As first many of their Scripture-Proofs are founded upon the likeness of a word or phrase without any regard to the sense and signification of that word in Scripture or to the matter to which it is applied As for instance There is not a more useful Doctrine to the Church of Rome than that of unwritten Traditions which are of equal Authority with the Scriptures for were this owned they might put what novel Doctrines they pleased upon us under the venerable name of ancient and unwritten Traditions Well we deny that there are any such unwritten Traditions which are of equal Authority with the Scripture since the Canon of Scripture was written and perfected and desire them to prove that there are any such unwritten Traditions Now they think it sufficient to do this if they can but find the word Tradition in Scripture and that we confess they do in several places for Tradition signifies only the delivery of the Doctrine of the Gospel which we grant was not done perfectly in writing when those Epistles were written which speak of Traditions by word as well as by Epistle But because the whole Doctrine of the Gospel was not written at first but delivered by word of mouth does it hence follow that after the Gospel is written there are still unwritten Traditions of equal Authority with the Scripture This is what they should prove and the meer naming of Traditions in Scripture before the Canon was perfected does not prove this for all men know that the Gospel was delivered by word of mouth or by unwritten Tradition before it was written but this does by no means prove that there are unwritten Traditions after the Gospel was written To prove this they should shew us where it is said that there are some Traditions which shall never be written that the Rule of Faith shall always consist partly of written partly of unwritten Traditions Thus we know how zealous the Church of Rome is for their Purgatory-fire wherein all men who are in a state of grace or delivered from the guilt of their sins must yet undergo that punishment of them which has not been satisfied for by other means As profitable a Doctrine as any the Church of Rome has because it gives great Authority to Sacerdotal Absolutions and sets a good price upon Masses for the Dead and Indulgences and yet the best proof they have for this is that Fire mentioned 1 Cor. 3. 13 14 15. Every mans work shall be made manifest for the day shall declare it because it shall be revealed by fire and the fire shall declare every mans work of what sort it is If any mans work shall be burnt he shall suffer loss but he himself shall be saved but so as by fire Now here is mention of fire indeed but how does it appear to be the Popish Purgatory Suppose it were meant of a material fire though that does not seem so proper to try good or bad Actions a true and Orthodox or Heretical Faith yet this fire is not kindled till the day of Judgment which is eminently in Scripture called the day and is the only day we know of in Scripture which shall be revealed by fire when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire 2 Thess. 1. 7 8. So that here is nothing but the word fire applied to another Fire than St. Paul ever thought on to prove a Popish Purgatory Thus they make Confession to a Priest ordinarily necessary to obtain the Forgiveness of our sins and have no better Scripture-Proofs for it but that we are often commanded to confess our sins sometimes to God and sometimes to another but never to a Priest. They have made a Sacrament of Extream Unction wherein the sick Person is anointed for the Forgiveness of sins and though a Sacrament ought to have the most plain and express institution both as to the matter and form and use and end of it yet the only Proofs they produce for this is the Disciples working miraculous Cures by anointing the sick with Oyl 6 Mark 13 which methinks is a little different from the Sacrament of extream Unction which is not to cure their sickness but to forgive their sins and St. James his Command Is any sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with oyl in the name of the Lord and the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him Where anointing with Oyl joyned with servent Prayer is prescribed as a means of restoring the sick person to health again and therefore is not the Popish Extream Unction which is to be administred only to those who are dying And though St. James adds And if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him yet 1. This is not said to be the effect of Anointing but of the servent Prayer and 2. This very Forgiveness of sins does not refer to a plenary Pardon of sins in the
it agrees with the rest the Fathers many times contradict themselves and each other and if men differ about the sense of Scripture they differ much more about Fathers and Councils That it is a mighty Riddle that those who think ordinary Christians not fit to read the Scriptures should think it necessary for them to understand Fathers and Councils and yet they are ridiculous indeed to dispute with every Tradesman about Fathers and Councils if they do not think they ought to read and understand them The sum is such Protestants as are not skilled in Book-learning may very reasonably tell these men who urge them with the Authority of Councils and Fathers That they do not pretend to any skill in such matters and hope it is not required of them for if it be they are in an ill case the Holy Scriptures not Fathers and Councils is the Rule of their Faith if they had read the Fathers they should believe them no farther than what they taught was agreeable to Scripture and therefore whatever Opinions any of the Fathers had it is no concern of theirs to know if they can learn what the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles was without it learned men may dispute about these things and they have heard learned Protestants affirm that the Church of Rome can find none of her peculiar Doctrines in the Writings of any of the Fathers for the first three hundred Years and its certain if this be true all the later Fathers are of no Authority to establish any new Doctrine for there was no more Authority in the Church to bring in any new Doctrines after three hundred Years than there is at this day Unlearned men may very honourably reject all dispute about Fathers and Councils though learned men cannot and indeed need not for if they are not bound to read Fathers and Councils I think they are not bound to understand them nor to dispute about them and it is very unadviseably done when they do for it is past a Jest in so serious a matter though otherwise it were comical enough for men to be converted by Fathers and Councils without understanding them CHAP. III. How to Answer some of the most popular Pretences urged by Papists against Protestants SECT I. 1. Concerning the Vncertainty of the Protestant Faith. OUr Popish Adversaries of late have not so much disputed as fenced have neither down-right opposed the Protestant Faith nor vindicated their own but have betaken themselves to some tricks and amusements to divert and perplex the Dispute and to impose upon the ignorant and unwary One of their principal Arts has been to cry out of the Uncertainty of the Protestant Faith. This every body is nearly concerned in for there is nothing wherein certainty is so necessary and so much desired as in matters of Religion whereon our eternal State depends This has been often answered by Protestants and I do not intend to enter into the merits of the Cause and shew upon what a firm and sure bottom the Protestant Faith stands this is a Cavil easily enough exposed to the scorn and contempt of all considering men without so much trouble For 1. Suppose the Protestant Faith were uncertain How is the cause of the Church of Rome ever the better is this a sufficient reason to turn Papists because Protestants are uncertain does this prove the Church of Rome to be Infallible because the Church of England is Fallible must certainty necessarily be found among them because it is not to be found with us is Thomas an honest man because John is a Knave These are two distinct questions and must be distinctly proved If they can prove our Faith uncertain and their own certain there is reason then to go over to them but if they cannot do this they may it may be perswade men to renounce the Protestant Faith but not to embrace Popery Ask them then What greater assurance they have of their Faith than we have of ours If they tell you their Church is Infallible tell them that is another question and does not belong to this dispute For the Infallibility of their Church does not follow from the Uncertainty of our Faith if they can prove their Church Infallible whether they prove our Faith uncertain or not we will at any time change Protestant Certainty for Infallibility And if they could prove our Faith uncertain unless they could prove their own more certain though we bate them Infallibility we may cease to be Protestants but shall never turn Papists 2. Ask them What they mean by the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith For this may signifie two things either 1. That the Objects of our Faith are in themselves uncertain and cannot be proved by certain Reasons Or 2dly That our Perswasion about these matters is uncertain and wavering If they mean the first then the sense is that the Christian Religion is an uncertain thing and cannot be certainly proved for this is the whole Protestant Faith We believe the Apostles Creed and whatever is contained in the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles and this is all we believe And I hope they will not say these things are uncertain for then they renounce the Christian Religion and Infallibility it self cannot help them out for Infallibility cannot make that certain which is in it self uncertain an infallible man must know things as they are or else he is mistaken and ceases to be infallible and therefore what is certain he infallibly knows to be certain and what is uncertain he infallibly knows to be uncertain for the most certain and infallible knowledge does not change its Object but sees it just as it is And therefore they must allow the Objects of our Faith or the Protestant Faith as to the matter of it to be very certain and built upon certain reason or else their infallible Church can have no certainty of the Christian Faith. If they mean the second thing that we have no certain perswasion about what we profess to believe This is a great abuse to Protestants as if we were all Knaves and Hypocrites who do not heartily and firmly believe what we profess to believe and a Protestant who knows that he does very firmly and stedfastly believe his Religion ought to reject such a Villanous Accusation as this with indignation and scorn Indeed it is both impudent and silly for any man to tell a Protestant that his Faith is uncertain as that signifies an uncertain and doubtful Perswasion when he knows and feels the contrary and no body else can know this but himself In what Notion then is the Protestant Faith uncertain what can Faith signifie but either the Objects of Faith or the internal Assent and Perswasion The Objects of our Faith are certain if Christian Religion be so that is they have very certain Evidence our Assent and Perswasion is very certain as that is opposed to all doubtfulness and wavering And what certainty then is wanting to the