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
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
Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus A Preservative against Popery c. Febr. 2 1687. Guil. Needham R. R. in Christo P. ac D.D. Wilhelmo Archiepisc. Cant. Ã Sacr. Domest A Preservative AGAINST POPERY Being some Plain DIRECTIONS TO Vnlearned PROTESTANTS How to Dispute with Romish Priests THE FIRST PART By WILL. 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 A PRESERVATIVE AGAINST POPERY The Introduction WHile so many Learned Pens are employed to such excellent purpose in answering the Writings and confuting the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome I cannot but think it a very useful Work to give some plain Directions to those who are Vnlearned who have neither Time to Read nor Money to Buy nor Abilities to Vnderstand more Learned Controversies Our Divines indeed have taken great care to write short Tracts with great Plainness and Perspicuity and with as little unnecessary shew of Learning as may be to fit them the better for Vnlearned Readers and they have had by the blessing of God wonderful Success Popery was never so generally understood as it is at this day the meanest Tradesmen can now dispute against Popery with sufficient Skill and Judgment and need not be beholding to the prejudices of Education to secure them and therefore my business shall not be at present downright to state any one Controversie between us and the Church of Rome but to direct our people how to secure themselves against the Attaques of our Roman Adversaries to check their conferring and disputing humour or to baffle them I shall reduce all into as plain a Method and as short a compass as I can and show First How to stop them at the beginning of their Dispute Secondly Give some Rules about the Topicks from which they dispute such as Reason Scripture and the Authority of the Ancient Fathers and Writers of the Church Thirdly How to answer some of their most popular pretences such as the Vncertainty of the Protestant Religion the Misrepresentations of Popery c. Fourthly To give some short Directions as to particular Controversies CHAP. I. How Protestants may prevent Disputing with Papists NOw I do not by this mean that they should always avoid their company and run away from them where-ever they meet them which is very ill Manners though it is not adviseable neither to court such acquaintance or to make them our Intimates when neither the obligations of Nature nor other Civil or Political Reasons make it necessary for Conversation many times prevails more than Arguments can do and will as soon corrupt Mens Faith as Manners Nor do I mean that Protestants should obstinately refuse to discourse with Papists when they meet them to hear what they have to say for themselves and to give a Reason for their own Faith this is not agreeable to Protestant Principles to prove all things and to hold fast that which is good and yet this ought to be done with great prudence and caution too for there are a sort of perverse Disputers who are to be avoided according to the Apostolick Precept if any man teach otherwise and consent not to wholsome words even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ and to the Doctrine which is according to godliness he is proud knowing nothing but doting about questions and strife of words whereof cometh envy strife railings evil surmizing perverse disputing of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth supposing that gain is godliness from such withdraw thy self 1 Tim. 6. 3 4 5. Men of weak judgments and who are not skilled in the Laws of Disputation may easily be imposed on by cunning Sophisters and such as lie in wait to deceive The Church of Rome is very sensible of this and therefore will not suffer her people to dispute their Religion or to read Heretical Books nay not so much as to look into the Bible itself but though we allow all this to our people as that which God not only allows but requires and which all considering men will allow themselves whoever forbids it yet we do not allow them to be perpetual Seekers to be always doubtful of their Religion to be like children tossed too and fro with every wind of Doctrine And therefore the liberty of Judging and Inquiring which we allow is only that they may understand the true Reasons of their Faith and be well grounded in it which Men may be who are not able to answer every cavilling objection but it is an abuse of this liberty when men have itching ears and hearken after all Novelties of Opinions and grow wanton and Seeptical Disputers and therefore it is very consistent with that liberty which Protestants allow to advise Christians to be very careful how they hearken to such as Preach any new Doctrine which they have not been taught that the weak in Faith and knowledge should not venture upon doubtful Disputations that they should not be hasty to question what they have believed nor to give heed to new Doctrines that they should not rely on their own understanding in these matters but when they meet with any difficulties should consult their Spiritual Guides not to be finally determined by their Authority as the Church of Rome requires but to hear their Reasons and what Answers they can give to such difficulties as they themselves cannot answer with such cautions as these we dare venture our people to hear and read and enquire as much as they please and have not found yet that our Roman Adversaries have been able to make any great impression upon such honest and prudent Inquirers But that which I intend at present is of another nature to teach our people a way to make these men sick of Disputing themselves to make them leave off those Impertinent and noisy squabbles with which they disturb all company they come into and this is no such mighty secret neither as may be expected but is very plain and obvious at the first proposal For when you are assaulted by such troublesome Disputers only ask them whether they will allow you to judge for yourselves in matters of Religion if they will not why do they trouble you with Disputing for the end of Disputing is to convince and you cannot be convinced unless you may judge too would they Dispute with a stone that can neither hear nor understand or would they make a Speech to convince a Horse that he is out of his way and must take another Road if he would return home and do they not talk to as little purpose and spend their breath as vain upon a man who can hear indeed and understand somewhat but must not follow his own understanding if they say that you must judge for your selves ask them whether this be the Doctrine of their Church that private men may judge for themselves whether this do not resolve our Faith into a private Spirit which they
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
while they adhere to their own Judgment or they should renounce them both together nay they must not onely renounce their own Judgments as soon as they are Converted but they must renounce the Authority and Validity of those very Arguments whereby they are Converted whether from Scripture Reason or Fathers they must confess that these Arguments are not a sufficient Foundation for a Divine Faith without the Authority of the Church for it is a dangerous thing to allow any Authority to Scripture or Fathers without the Church for that may make men Hereticks and yet I suppose when Hereticks are converted by these Arguments it must be the force of the Arguments and not the Authority of the Church which converts them unless they believed the Authority of the Church before they were converted and that was a little to early for it Now methinks when Protestants turn Papists as they pretend from the conviction of their own Reason and Judgment and as soon as they are converted are taught that there is no relying upon their own Judgment and that the Reasons whereby they were converted are not good in themselves without Church Authority if it were possible for them ever to use their Reason more after such a change it would certainly make them disown their Conversion which it seems was the effect of a very fallible Judgment and very uncertain and inauthentick Reasons 2. There is another pretence for these Disputes which may seem to answer this difficulty that the intention of these Disputes is onely to lead you to the Infallible Church and set you upon a Rock and then it is very natural to renounce your own Judgment when you have an Infallible Guide Our own Judgment then must bring us to the Infallible Guide and when we have found him we have no farther use for our own Judgment I answer 1. Should we grant this it puts an end to all the particular Disputes of Religion between us and the Church of Rome We may Dispute on about an Infallible Judge but they cannot with any sence Dispute with us about the particular Articles of Faith such as Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass the Worship of Images and the like for these are to be learnt onely from the Church and cannot be proved by Scripture or Fathers without the Authority of the Church And if they would confess this they would save us and themselves a great deal of trouble For why should they be at the trouble of writing such Arguments or we to answer them when they themselves confess that the Arguments are not good unless they be confirmed by the Churches Authority I confess I have often wondered to see such Volumes of Controversies written by the Roman Divines for I could never imagine to what end they are writ Is not their Faith wholly resolved into the Authority of the Church what need Reasons and Arguments then which cannot work Faith in us Either these Arguments are sufficient to confirm the Articles of their Faith without the Authority of the Church or they are not If they are then there is no need of Infallibility since all the Articles of Faith are confirmed by such Reasons as are a sufficient Foundation for Faith without it And thus they give up all their Arguments for an Infallible Judge from the necessity of such a Judge If they be not of what use are they does the Decision of the Church need to be confirmed by such Arguments If they are not good Arguments without the Authority of the Church they can no more give Authority to the Church than an Infallible Church can want any Authority but it s own Are they to convince Hereticks but how if Hereticks should confute them If they be not in themselves good Arguments they may be confuted and they know by sad experience that there are Hereticks as they call them who have Wit and Learning enough to confute what is to be confuted and if they fall into such hands which has been their hard fate of late they are sure to be confuted And I doubt then they had better have let them alone for the Catholick Cause may suffer much in the Opinion of the World when all their Arguments are confuted All then that they can design by such Arguments is to impose upon the Weak and Ignorant when Learned Men are out of the way which is no very commendable design and that design will be spoiled too if Unlearned Men do but learn to ask them the Question Whether they build their Faith upon such Arguments For then they must either quit the Authority of their Church or the strength of their Arguments The first reduces them to Protestant Uncertainty for then they have no other Foundation for their Faith than Protestants have which resolves it self into the Reasons and Arguments of Faith The second puts an end to Disputing about these matters for no man needs answer any Arguments which the Disputant himself acknowledges not to be good 2. There is nothing left then for Disâ—utation and the Exercise of our private Reason and Judgment but the inquiry after an Infallible Judge And here also before you dispute it will be necessary to ask them Whether the belief of an Infallible Judge must be resolved into every mans private Judgment whether it be not necessary to believe this with a Divine-Faith and whether there can be any Divine Faith without an Infallible Judge Certainly if ever it be necessary to have an Infallible Faith it is so to be infallibly assured of an Infallible Judge because this is the Foundation of all the rest for though the Judge be Infallible if I be not infallibly assured of this I can never arrive to Infallibility in any thing for I cannot be more certain that his Determinations are Infallible than I am that he himself is Infallible and if I have but a Moral assurance of this I can be but morally assured of the rest for the Building cannot be more firm than the Foundation is and thus there is an end to all the Roman Pretences to Infallibility Now if we must believe the Infallibility of the Church or Pope of Rome with an Infallible Faith there is an end of Disputing for no Reasons or Arguments not the Authority of the Scripture it self without an Infallible Judge can beget an Infallible Faith according to the Roman Doctors For this reason they charge the Protestant Faith with Uncertainty and will not allow it to be a Divine but Humane Faith though it is built upon the firmest Reasons the best Authority and the most express Scripture that can be had for any thing but because we do not pretend to rely on the Authority of a Living Infallible Judge therefore forsooth our Faith is Uncertain Humane and Fallible and this they say makes an Infallible Judge necessary because without him we have no Infallible Certainty of any thing Now if nothiâ—â— but an Infallible Judge can be the Foundation of an Infallible Faith
Sir for I rely on the Authority of Scripture which is as infallible as your Church Conv. But you rely on your own Reason for the Authority of Scripture and those particular Doctrines you draw from it Prot. And you rely on your own Reason and Judgment for the Infallibility of your Church and consequently of all the Doctrines of it and therefore your infallible Faith is as much resolved into your own fallible Judgment as the Protestant Faith is so that the difference between us is not that your Faith is infallible and ours fallible for they are both alike call it what you will fallible or infallible but the Dispute is whether your Reason and Judgment or ours be best and therefore if you think your Reason better than ours you did well to change but if you changed your Church hoping to grow more infallible by it you were miserably mistaken and may return to us again for we have more rational Certainty than you have and you have no more infallible Certainty than we You think you are reasonably assured that your Church is infallible and then you take up your Religion upon trust from your Church without and many times against Sence and Reason according as it happens so that you have onely a general assurance of the Infallibility of your Church and that no greater than Protestants pretend to in other cases viz. the certainty of Reason and Argument but have not so much as a rational assurance of the truth of your particular Doctrines that if you be mistaken about the Infallibility of your Church you must be miserably mistaken about every thing else which you have no other evidence for But now we are in general assured that the Scriptures are the Word of God and in particular are assured that the Faith which we profess is agreeable to Scripture or expresly contained in it and does not contradict either Sence or Reason nor any other Principle of Knowledge So that we have as much assurance of every Article of our Faith as you have of the Infallibility of your Church and therefore have at least double and trible the assurance that you have But if you know the Reasons of your Conversion I desire to know of you What made you think that you wanted Certainty in the Church of England Conv. Because with you every man is left to his own private Reason and Judgment the effects of which are very visible in that infinite variety of Sects among you which shews what an uncertain thing your Reason is that so few judge alike of the power and validity of the same Reasons Prot. And were you not sensible at the same time that you were left to your own Reason and Judgment when you turned Papist Are you not sensible that men do as little agree about your Reasons for Infallibility as they do about any Protestant Reasons Do not I know the Reasons alledged by you for the Infallibility of your Church as well as you do And do we not still differ about them And is not this as much an Argument of the uncertainty of those Reasons which make you a Papist that they cannot make me a Papist as the dissent of Protestants in other matters is of the uncertainty of their Reasons Could you indeed be infallibly assured of the Infallibility of your Church I grant you would have the advantage of us but while you found your belief of Infallibility upon such an uncertain Principle as you think Reason is if certainty had been your onely aim you might as well have continued in the Church of England as have gone over to Rome This abundantly shews what a ridiculous thing it is for a Protestant to be disputed out of his Church and Religion upon a pretence of more infallible certainty in the Church of Rome Were they indeed inspired with an infallible assurance that the Church of Rome is Infallible there might be some pretence for this but an Infallibility which has no better foundation than mens private Reason and private Judgment is no Infallibility but has all the same uncertainties which they charge on the Protestant Faith and a great deal more because it is not founded upon such great and certain Reasons The plain truth is men may be taught from their Infancy to believe the Church Infallible and when they are grown up may take it without examination for a first and self-evident Principle and think this an infallible Faith but men who understand the difference between the evidence of Reason and Infallibility can never found an infallible Faith on Reason nor think that a man who is reasoned into the belief of the Infallibility of the Church is more infallible in his Faith than a Protestant is And such a man will see no reason to quit the Church of England for the sake of an infallible Faith for though they had an infallible Guide yet Reason cannot give them an infallible assurance of it but can rise no higher at most than a Protestant certainty 2. It is impossible also by Reason to prove that men must not use their own Reason and Judgment in matters of Religion If any man should attempt to perswade you of this ask him Why then he goes about to dispute with you about Religion whether men can dispute without using their own Reason and Judgment whether they can be convinced without it whether his offering to dispute with you against the use of your Reason does not prove him ridiculous and absurd For if you must not use your Reason why does he appeal to your Reason And whether you should not be as ridiculous and absurd as he if by his Reasons and Arguments you should be perswaded to condemn the use of Reason in Religion Which would be in the same act to do what you condemn to use your Reason when you condemn it If you must not use your Reason and private Judgment then you must not by any Reasons be perswaded to condemn the use of Reason for to condemn is an act of Judgment which you must not use in matters of Religion So that this is a point which no man can dispute against and which no man can be convinced of by disputing without the reproach of self-contradiction This is an honourable way of silencing these troublesome and clamorous Disputants to let them see that their Principles will not allow of Disputing and that some of their Fundamental Doctrines which they impose upon the World are a direct contradiction to all Disputes for the very admitting of a Dispute confutes them and the meanest man may quickly say more in this Cause than their greatest Disputants can answer CHAP. II. Concerning the several Topicks of Dispute SECT I. Concerning Arguments from Reason 2. THe next Direction relates to the Topicks from which they Dispute which are either Reason Scripture or the Authority of the ancient Fathers and Writers of the Christian Church for the infallible Authority of Popes or General Councils is the thing
by this Law to forbid the Worship of any Images under what notion or respects soever I would desire to know what more significant and comprehensive words could have been used to have declared his mind unless he had expresly rejected those false Interpretations which the Patrons of Image-Worship have since invented but were never thought on at that time The same Author whom I have so often mentioned having expounded the first Commandment only to a positive sence not to forbid the Worship of other Gods but only to command the Worship of the Lord Jehovah expresly contrary to the very letter and plain sense of the Law agreeably to this he makes the second Commandment only to forbid the Worship of Idols or false Gods and not that neither unless they take them for the Supreme Deity His words are these In the next place he forbids them the Worship of all Idols i.e. as himself describes them the likeness or similitude of any thing that is in Heaven above or in the Earth beneath or in the Water under the Earth A plain and indeed a logical definition this that Idolatry is giving the Worship of the Supream God to any created corporeal or visible Deity or any thing that can be represented by an Image which nothing but corporeal Beings can and to suppose such a Being the Supream Deity is the only true and proper Idolatry Now let any man judge whether this be not such a gloss as utterly destroys the Text. As for his Worship of Idols there is no such word in the Law but Images Likenesses Similitudes but yet I will not dispute about this for an Idol does not only signifie a false God but the Images either of false Gods or false and corporeal Images of the true God. For the Idols of the Heathens as the Psalmist tells us are silver and gold the work of mens hands which can relate to nothing but Images and Pictures for corporeal Deities which were made by God are not the work of mens hands Now Idolatry he says is giving the Worship of the Supream God to any created corporeal or visible Deity or any thing which can be represented by an Image which nothing but corporeal Beings can Now how plain and logical soever this definition of Idolatry be there is not a word of it in the Text. That forbids not the Worship of any created corporeal or visible Deity which is forbid in the first Commandment but only the Worship of Images the likeness of any thing in Heaven or Earth or in the Water under the Earth Now an Image differs from the thing whose Image it is And it is a very strange Exposition of the second Commandment which forbids nothing else but the Worship of Images to take no notice of the Worship of Images as forbid in it According to this gloss upon the Law a man may worship ten thousand Images and Pictures so he do not worship any visible and corporeal Deity and not break this Commandment which I think is not to give the sense of the Law but to expound it away But how does the Worship of corporeal and visible Deities and nothing else appear to be forbid by this Law which mentions nothing at all but the likeness of things in Heaven and Earth and Water Why our learned Author imagines that no Images can be made but only for corporeal and visible Deities because nothing but corporeal Beings can be represented by an Image which Conceit is worth its weight in Gold for it evidently proves that there are no Pictures of God the Father nor of the Trinity in the Church of Rome because they are not corporeal Deities and therefore cannot be represented by an Image so miserably have all Travellers been mistaken who tell us of a great many such Pictures and not very decent ones neither There can indeed be no Picture or Image to represent the likeness and similitude of an incorporeal God but yet the visible parts of Heaven and Earth and the visible Creatures in them may be represented by Images and the Images of such visible things may be made the symbolical representations of invisible and incorporeal Deities and such invisible and incorporeal Deities may be worshipped in the likeness and similitude of corporeal things and then I am sure to forbid the Worship of Images may signifie something more than meerly to forbid the Worship of some visible and corporeal Deities for it may signifie the Worship of invisible and incorporeal Deities by visible Images But I perceive he imagined that when God forbad them to make and worship the likeness of any thing in Heaven in Earth or in the Waters under the Earth he only forbad the Worship of those Beings whose likeness or Images they made whereas all men know that those very Idolaters who worshipped these glorious parts of the Creation did not represent them in their proper likenesses and figures and that those who worshipped invisible and incorporeal Beings did it by material and visible figures which plainly proves that when God forbad the Worship of Images he had not respect meerly to visible and corporeal Deities but forbad Image-worship whether they were the Images of visible and corporeal or of invisible and incorporeal Deities Our Author durst not say as the Roman Advocates do that God in the second Commandment only forbids the Worship of Images as Gods which is such glorious Nonsence that he could not digest it and therefore he supposes that God does not forbid the Worship of Images at all but only of such corporeal Deities as may be represented by Images which is a more gentile way of discarding the second Commandment than to leave it out of their Books of Devotions But if he will stand to this he condemns the Popish Worship of dead Men and Women for they are corporeal Deities nay of Christ himself considered as a man who might be represented by an Image or Picture And thus I doubt he has done the Church of Rome no kindness at all for this is a Demonstration against the Worship of Saints and the Virgin Mary because they are created corporeal and visible Beings who may be represented by Images and he has thought of an Argument against Images which neither the Scripture nor the Church of Rome know any thing of The Church of Rome thinks it a good Argument for the Images of Christ and the Saints and the Virgin Mary that they are representable by Images and Pictures and therefore there can be no hurt in such Images And the Scripture perpetually urges that Argument against Images that the Deity cannot be represented by an Image but neither of these Arguments are good if our Author's Notion be good For then to worship such corporeal Beings as may be represented by Images is to worship corporeal Gods which is Idolatry And there is no danger in the Images of an incorporeal Deity which cannot represent the God for which they are made for whatever the
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
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
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
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
Flesh and Bloud of Christ is in the Sacrament nor that the substance of Bread and Wine does not remain after Consecration nor that the Accidents of Bread and Wine such as colour smell tast quantity weight subsist without any substance or subject to subsist in These are such Paradoxes to Sense and Reason that they ought to be very well supported with Scripture before they are received for Articles of Faith or else our Faith will be as very an Accident without any substance as the sacramental species themselves are But though they have no Text which proves the least Tittle of all this yet they have a Text whereon they graft this Doctrine of Transubstantiation viz. This is my Body which they say signifies every thing which they teach concerning Transubstantiation but then I hope they will prove that it does so not expect that we should take it for granted because they say it Now not to insist upon those Arguments whereby our Divines have so demonstratively proved that Transubstantiation as explained by the Church of Rome cannot be the sence of This is my Body my advice to Protestants is to put them upon the proof that this is the sence of it which in reason they ought to prove because there is not one word of it in the Text and I shall only tell them what Proofs they ought to demand for it Now I suppose all men will think it reasonable that the Evidence for it should at least be equal to the Evidence against it though we ought indeed to have more reason to believe it than to dis-believe it or else we must hang in suspence when the Balance is equal and turns neither way Now I will not oppose the Evidence of Sense and Reason against the Authority of Scripture for I will never suppose that they can contradict each other and if there should appear some contradiction between them I will be contented at present without disputing that point to give it on the side of Scripture but I will oppose the Evidence of Sense and Reason against any private man's or any Churches Exposition of Scripture and if that Exposition they give of any Text of Scripture as suppose This is my Body contradict the Evidence of Sense and Reason I may modestly require as plain proof that this is the meaning of the Text as I have that such a meaning is contrary to all Sense and Reason for though Sense and Reason be not the Rule and Measure of Faith yet we must use our Sense and Reason in expounding Scripture or we may quickly make a very absurd and senseless Religion Now this shews us what kind of Proof we must require that Transubstantiation is the Doctrine of the Gospel viz. as certain Proof as we have that Transubstantiation is contrary to Sense and Reason And therefore 1. We must demand a self-evident Proof of this because it is self-evident that Transubstantiation contradicts Sense and Reason Every man who knows what the word means which I believe men may do without being great Philosophers and will consult his own Senses and Reason will need no Arguments to prove that Transubstantiation contradicts both Now such a Scripture-Proof I would see for Transubstantiation so plain and express and self-evident that no man who understands the words can doubt whether this be the meaning of them I mean a reasonable not an obstinate wilful and sceptical doubting Now I believe that our Adversaries themselves will not say that This is my Body is such a self-evident Proof of Transubstantiation I am sure some of the wisest men among them have not thought it so and the fierce Disputes for so many Ages about the interpretation of those words proves that it is not so for men do not use to dispute what is self-evident and proves it self without any other Arguments Now it is very unreasonable to require any man to believe Transubstantiation against a self-evident Proof that it is contrary to Sense and Reason without giving him a self-evident Proof that it is the Doctrine of Scripture which is to require a man to believe against the best Reason and Evidence 2. We must demand such a Scripture-Proof of Transubstantiation as cannot possibly signifie any thing else or else it will not answer that Evidence which we have against Transubstantiation for Sense and Reason pronounce Transubstantiation to be naturally impossible and therefore unless it be as impossible to put any other sense upon Scripture than what signifies Transubstantiation as it is to reconcile Transubstantiation to Sense and Reason there is not such good Evidence for Transubstantiation as against it Were the Scripture-Proofs for Transubstantiation so plain and evident that it were impossible to put any other sense on the words then I would grant that it is as impossible for those who believe the Scriptures to disbelieve Transubstantiation as it is for those who trust to their own Sense and Reason to believe it Here the difficulty would be equal on both sides and then I should prefer a Divine Revelation if it were possible to prove such a Revelation to be Divine before natural Sense and Reason but I presume no man will say that it is impossible to put another and that a very reasonable interpretation upon those words This is my Body without expounding them to the sense of Transubstantiation Our Roman Adversaries do not deny but that these words are capable of a figurative as well as of a literal sense as when the Church is called the Body of Christ Flesh of his Flesh and Bone of his Bone it is not meant of his natural but his mystical Body and thus when the Bread is called the Body of Christ it may not signifie his natural but sacramental Body or his Body to all the ends and purposes of a Sacrament Now if there be any other good sense to be made of these words besides Transubstantiation there cannot be such a necessity to expound them of Transubstantiation as there is not to expound them of it for I do not reject Scripture if I deny Transubstantiation when the words of Scripture do not necessarily prove it but I renounce Sense and Reason if I believe it Now though I were bound to renounce my Sence and Reason when they contradict Scripture yet sure I am not bound to deny my Sense and Reason when they do not contradict Scripture and Sense and Reason are never contrary to Scripture nor Scripture to them when the words of Scripture are capable of such an interpretation as is reconcilable both to Sense and Reason In such a case to expound Scripture contrary to Sense and Reason is both to pervert the Scripture and to contradict Reason without any necessity An unlearned man need not enter into a large Dispute about Transubstantiation let him but require his Adversary to give him as plain Evidence that Transubstantiation is the Doctrine of the Gospel as he can give him that it is contrary to Sense and Reason and the
Dispute will quickly be at an end It had been very easie to have given more instances under every head and to have observed more false ways of expounding Scripture which the Doctors of the Church of Rome are guilty of but these are the most obvious and therefore the best fitted to my design to instruct unlearned men and I must not suffer this Discourse which was at first intended much shorter than it already is to swell too much under my hands SECT III. Concerning the Antient Fathers and Writers of the Christian Church THough Learned men may squabble about the sense of Fathers and Councils it is very unreasonable that unlearned men should be concerned in such Disputes because they are not competent Judges of it and yet there is nothing which our Roman Disputants make a greater noise with among Women and Children and the meanest sort of People than Quotations out of Fathers and Councils whom they pretend to be all on their side Now as it is a ridiculous thing for them to talk of Fathers and Councils to such People so it is very ridiculous for such People to be converted by Sayings out of the Fathers and Councils I confess it has made me often smile with a mixture of pity and indignation at the folly of it for what more contemptible easiness can any man be guilty of than to change his Religion which he has been taught out of the Scriptures and may find there if he pleases because he is told by some honest Priest a sort of men who never deceive any one that such or such a Father who lived it may be they know not where nor when and wrote they know not what has spoke in favour of Transubstantiation or Purgatory or some other Popish Doctrine And therefore let me advise our Protestant who is not skilled in these matters when he is urged with the Authority of Fathers to ask them some few Questions 1. Ask them How you shall certainly know what the Judgment of the Fathers was and this includes a great many Questions which must be resolved before you can be sure of this as how you shall know that such Books were written by that Father whose name it bears or that it has not been corrupted by the ignorance or knavery of Transcribers while they were in the hands of Monks who usurped great Authority over the Fathers and did not only pare their Nails but altered their very Habit and Dress to fit them to the modes of the times and make them fashionable How you shall know what the true meaning of those words are which they cite from them which the words themselves many times will not discover without the Context How you shall know that such Sayings are honestly quoted or honestly translated How you shall know whether this Father did not in other places contradict what he here says or did not alter his opinion after he had wrote it without writing publick Recantations as St. Austin did Whether this Father was not contradicted by other Fathers And in that case Which of the Fathers you must believe You may add That you do not ask these Questions at random but for great and necessary Reasons for in reading some late English Books both of Protestants and Papists you find large Quotations out of the Fathers on both sides that some are charged with false Translations with perverting the Fathers sense with mis-citing his words with quoting spurious Authors as it seems many of those are which make up the late Speculum or Ecclesiastical Prospective-glass to name no more Now how shall you who are an unlearned man judge of such Disputes as these What Books are spurious or genuine whether the Fathers be rightly quoted and what the true sense of them is For my part I know not what Answer such a Disputant could make but to blush and promise not to alledge the Authority of Fathers any more It is certain in such matters those who are unlearned must trust the learned and then I suppose an unlearned Protestant will rather trust a Protestant than a Popish Doctor as Papists will rather trust their Priests that Protestant Divines and then there is not much to be got on either side this way For when a Protestant shews an inclination rather to believe a Popish than a Protestant Divine he is certainly three quarters a Papist before-hand Indeed unlearned Protestants who are inquisitive and have time to read have such advantages now to satisfie themselves even about the sense of Fathers and Councils as it may be no Age before ever afforded There being so many excellent Books written in English as plainly confirm the Protestant Faith and confute Popery by the Testimonies and Authorities of ancient Writers and such men though they do not understand Latin and Greek are in no danger of all the Learning of their Popish Adversaries and any man who pleases may have recourse to such Books and see the state of the Controversie with his own Eyes and judge for himself but those who cannot do this may very fairly decline such a trial as improper for them For 2. Let our Protestant ask such Disputers whether a plain man may not attain a sufficient knowledge and certainty of his Religion without understanding Fathers and Councils If they say he cannot ask them how many Roman-Catholicks there are that understand Fathers and Councils Ask them how those Christians understood their Religion who lived before there were any of these Fathers Councils Ask them again whether they believe that God has made it impossible to the greatest part of Mankind to understand the Christian Religion For even among Christians themselves there is not one in an hundred thousand who understands Fathers and Councils and it is morally impossible they should and therefore certainly there must be a shorter and easier way to understand Christian Religion than this or else the generallity of Mankind even of profest Christians are out of all possibility of Salvation Ask them once more whether it be not a much easier matter for a plain honest man to learn all things necessary to Salvation out of the Scriptures themselves especially with the help of a wise and learned Guide than to understand all Fathers and Councils and take his Religion from them Why then do they so quarrel at Peoples reading the Scriptures and put them upon reading Fathers and Councils I suppose they will grant the Scriptures may be read a little sooner than so many Voluminous Fathers and Labbe's Councils into the bargain and I believe most men who try will think that they are more easily understood and therefore if Protestants as they pretend can have no certainty of the true sense of Scripture I am sure there is much less certainty to be had from the Fathers A short time will give us a full view of the Scriptures to read and understand all the Fathers is work enough for a man's life the Scripture is all of a piece every part of
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
must neither believe their Senses nor trust their Reason nor read the Scripture it is easie to guess what knowing and understanding Christians they must needs be But it may be said that notwithstanding this the Church of Rome does Instruct her Children in the true Catholick Faith though she will not venture them to judge for themselves nor to read the Scriptures which is the effect of her great care of them to keep them Orthodox for when men trust to their own fallible Reasons and private Interpretations of Scripture it is a great hazard that they do not fall into one Heresie or other but when men are taught the pure Catholick Faith without any danger of Error and Heresie is not this much better then to suffer them to reason and judge for themselves when it is great odds but they will judge wrong Now this would be something indeed did the Church of Rome take care to Instruct them in all necessary Doctrines and to teach nothing but what is true and could such men who thus tamely receive the dictates of the Church be said to know and to understand their Religion How far the Church of Rome is from doing the first all Christians in the world are sensible but themselves but that is not our present dispute for though the Church of Rome did instruct her people into the true Christian Faith yet such men cannot be said to know and understand their Religion and to secure the Faith by destroying knowledge is a direct contradiction to the design of the Gospel which is to make men wise and understanding Christians For no man understands his Religion who does not in some measure know the reasons of his Faith and judge whether they be sufficient or not who knows not how to distinguish between Truth and Error who has no Rule to go by but must take all upon trust and the credit of his Teachers who believes whatever he is told and learns his Creed as School boys do their Grammar without understanding it This is not an active but a kind of passive knowledge such men receive the impression that is made on them as wax does and understand no more of the matter now will any one call this the knowledge and understanding of a man or the Discipline of a Child But suppose there were some men so dull and stupid that they could never rise higher that they are not capable of inquiring into the reasons of things but must take up their Religion upon trust yet will any man say that this is the utmost perfection of knowledge that any Christian must aim at is this the meaning of the word of God dwelling in us richly in all wisdom is this the way to give an answer to any one who asks a reason of the hope that is in us the perfection of Christian knowledge is a great and glorious attainment to understand the secrets of God's Laws those depths and mysteries of wisdom and goodness in the oeconomy of Mans Salvation to see the Analogy between the Law and the Gospel how the Legal Types and ancient Prophecies received their accomplishment in Christ how far the Gospel has advanced us above the state of Nature and the Law of Moses what an admirable design it was to redeem the world by the Incarnation and death and sufferings and intercession of the Son of God what mysteries of Wisdom and Goodness the Gospel contains the knowledge of which is not only the perfection of our understandings but raises and ennobles our minds and transforms us into the Divine Image These things were revealed that they might be known not that they should be concealed from the world or neglected and despised but this is a knowledge which cannot be attained without diligent and laborious inquiries without using all the reason and understanding we have in searching the Scriptures and all other helps which God has afforded us Now if Christian Knowledge be something more than to be able to repeat our Creed and to believe it upon the authority of our Teachers if the Gospel of our Saviour was intended to advance us to a true manly knowledge Christ and the Church of Rome seem to have two very different designs our Lord in causing the Gospel to be wrote and publisht to the world the other in concealing it as much as she can and suffering no body to read it without her leave as a dangerous Book which is apt to make men Hereticks for it is hard to conceive that the Gospel was written that it might not be read and then one would guess that he by whose authority and inspiration the Gospel was written and those by whose authority it is forbid to be read are not of a mind in this matter 1. This I think in the first place is an evident proof that to forbid Christian people to read and study and mediate on the word of God is no Gospel Doctrine unless not to read the Bible be a better way to improve in all true Christian knowledge and wisdom than to read it for that is the duty of Christians to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ this was one great end of publishing the Gospel to the world to enlighten and improve mens understandings as well as to govern their Lives and though we grant men may be taught the principles of Christian Religion as Children are without reading the Bible yet if they will but grant that studying and meditating on the holy Scriptures is the best and only way to improve in all true Christian knowledge this shows how contrary this prohibition of reading the Scriptures is to the great design of the Gospel to perfect our knowledge in the mysteries of Christ. 2 ly This is a mighty presumption also against Transubstantiation that it is no Gospel Doctrine because it overthrows the very Fundamental Principles of Knowledge which is a direct contradiction to the design of the Gospel to advance Divine Knowledge to the utmost perfection it can attain in this world Whoever has his eyes in his head must confess that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is contrary to Sense for were our senses to be Judges of this matter they would pronounce the Bread and Wine after Consecration to be Bread and Wine still and therefore what ever reason there may be to believe it not to be Bread and Wine but Flesh and Blood yet it must be confessed that our Faith in this matter contradicts our sense for even Roman Catholick Eyes and Noses and Hands can see and feel and smell nothing but Bread and Wine and if to our senses it appears to be nothing but Bread and Wine those who believe it to be the Natural Body and Blood of Christ believe contrary to what they see Thus there is nothing more contrary to the natural notions we have of things than the Doctrine of Transubstantiation for if this Doctrine be true then the same individual body of Christ
Doctrine was to be examined by them and accordingly he appeals to Moses and the Prophets to bear testimony to his Person and Doctrine and exhorts them to search the Scriptures which gave testimony to him and how the Miracles he wrought gave authority to any new Revelations he made of God's Will to the World since he did not contradict the old The Law of Nature and the Laws of Moses were the Laws of God and God cannot contradict himself and therefore the Doctrine of all new Prophets even of Christ himself was to be examined and is to be examined to this day by the Law and the Prophets and therefore though he was certainly an Infallible Teacher yet men were to judge of his Doctrine before they believed him and he did not require them to lay aside their Reason and Judgment and submit to his Infallible Authority without Examination So that all this while there could be no Infallible Judge to whom all men were bound to submit their own private Reason and Judgment and to receive all their Dictates as divine Oracles without Examination because they could not know them to be such Infallible Teachers till they had examined their Doctrine by the Light of Nature and the Law of Moses and we cannot to this day know that Moses and Christ were true Prophets but in the same way Since the writing of the New Testament there is a farther Test of an Infallible Teacher if there be any such in the world that he neither contradicts the Light of Nature nor the true intent of the Law of Moses nor alter or add to the Gospel of Christ and therefore there can be no Infallible Judge because be he never so Infallible we can never know that he is so but by the agreement of his Doctrine with the Principles of Reason with the Law and the Prophets and with the Gospel of Christ and therefore must examine his Doctrine by these Rules and therefore must judge for our selves and not suffer any man to judge for us upon a pretence of his Infallibility Could I know that any man were Infallible without judging of his Doctrine then indeed there were some reason to believe all that he says without any inquiry or examination but this never was never can be and therefore though there may be an Infallible Teacher there can be no Infallible Judge to whom I must submit my own Reason and Judgment without asking any Questions Which by the way shews how ridiculous that Sophism is The Church has not erred because she is Infallible when it is impossible for me to know she is Infallible till by examining her Doctrine by an Infallible Rule I know that she has not erred And the truth is it is well there can be no Infallible Judge for if there were it would suspend and silence the Reason and Judgment of all Mankind and what a knowing Creature would Man be in matters of Religion when he must not reason and must not judge just as knowing as a man can be without exercising any Reason and Judgment And therefore not only the reason and nature of the thing proves that there can be no Infallible Judge but the design of Christ to advance humane Nature to the utmost perfection of Reason and Understanding in this World proves that he never intended there should be any for to take away the exercise of Reason and private Judgment is not the way to make men wise and knowing Christians and if Christ allows us to judge for our selves there can be no Infallible Judge whose Office it shall be to judge for us all 4 ly To pretend the Scripture to be an obscure or imperfect Rule is a direct contradiction to the design of the Gospel to improve and perfect Knowledge for if the Scripture be so obscure in the essential matters of Faith and Christian knowledge that we cannot have any certainty what the true sence and interpretation of it is without an Infallible Judge then the Scriptures cannot improve our knowledge because we cannot know what they are we cannot understand their meaning and therefore can learn nothing from them Yes you 'll say we may know their meaning when they are expounded to us by an Infallible Judge though the Scriptures are so obscure that we cannot understand them without an Infallible Judge yet we may certainly learn what the sence of Scripture is from such a Judge Now in answer to this I observe that though such an Infallible Judge should determine the sense of all obscure Texts of Scripture which neither the Pope nor Church of Rome have ever done yet this would not be to understand the Scriptures or to learn from the Scriptures but only to rely on this Infallible Judge for the sense of Scripture To understand the Scriptures is to be able to give a reason why I expound Scripture to such a sense as that the words signifie so that the circumstances of the place and the context and coherence of the words require it that the analogy of Faith and the reason and nature of things will either justifie such an interpretation or admit no other and an Expositor who can thus open our Understandings and not only tell us what the sense of Scripture is but make us see that this is the true sense and interpretation of it does indeed make us understand the Scripture Thus Christ himself did when he was risen from the dead He opened their understandings that they might understand the Scriptures 24 Luke 45. But to be told that this is the true sence of Scripture and that we must believe this is the sense though we can see no reason why it should be thus expounded nay though all the Reason we have tells us that it ought not to be thus expounded no man will say that this is to understand the Scriptures but to believe the Judge No man can learn any thing from a Book which he does not and cannot understand and if men neither do nor can understand the Scriptures it is certain they can learn nothing from them an Infallible Judge would teach as well without the Scriptures as with them and indeed somewhat better because then no man could have a pretence to contradict him and therefore if this be true the holy Scripture deserves all those contemptible Characters which the Romanists have given it for it is so far from improving and perfecting our knowledge that it self cannot be known and therefore is good for nothing So that the obscurity of the Scripture makes it wholly useless to the great ends and purposes of the Christian Religion viz. to improve and perfect the knowledge of Mankind in the necessary and essential Doctrines of Faith and therefore this can be no Gospel-Doctrine because it makes the Gospel it self considered as written of no use Thus if the Scripture be an imperfect Rule as the Romanists affirm that it does not teach us the whole mind and will of God but that we must learn
not die so suddenly as to be surprized in any mortal sin that Hell seems to be very little thought of or feared in the Church of Rome Now I desire no better Argument that all these are not Gospel-Doctrines than that they destroy the force of all those Arguments the Gospel uses to make men good that is they are a direct contradiction to the Gospel of Christ. 6. I shall name but one Motive more and that is the Examples of good men To be followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises that being incompassed with such a cloud of witnesses we should lay aside every weight and the sin which doth so easily beset us and run with patience the race which is set before us Now this is a powerful Argument because they were men as we are subject to the same temptations and infirmities and therefore their Examples prove that Holiness is a practicable thing that it is possible for men to conquer all the difficulties of Religion and all the temptations in this life and many times in them we see the visible rewards of Vertue in great peace of mind great assurances of the divine favour great supports under all adversities and such a triumphant death as is a blessed presage of a glorious Resurrection But now in the Church of Rome if there be any great and meritorious Saints as they call them their extraordinary Vertues are not so much for Imitation as for a stock of Merits The more Saints they have the less reason other men have to be Saints if they have no mind to it because there is a greater treasury of Merits in the Church to relieve those who have none of their own The extraordinary Devotion of their Monasteries and Nunneries for so they would perswade the World that there is nothing but Devotion there is not for Imitation and it is unreasonable it should because no body sees it and it is impossible to imitate that recluse life without turning the whole World into a Monastery but these Religious Societies furnish the Church with a stock of Merits out of which she grants Indulgencies to those who are not very religious and it is plain that if one man can merit for twenty there is no need there should be above one in twenty good Herein indeed the Members of the Church of Rome have the advantage of all other Churches especially if they enter themselves into any religious Confraternity to partake in the Merits of the Society that others can merit for them and then if we can share in the Merits of the Saints we need not imitate them a Church which has Saints to merit for them on Earth and to intercede for them in Heaven if she can but maintain and propagate a Race of such meriting Saints which is taken care of in the Institution and Encouragement of Monastick Orders and Fraternities may be very indulgent to the rest of her Members who do not like meriting themselves So that the principal Motives of the Gospel to Holy Life as appears in these Six Particulars lose their force and efficacy in the Church of Rome and certainly those cannot be Gospel-Doctrines which destroy the great end of the Gospel to make men Good. 3 ly Nor do the Gospel-means and Instruments of Holiness and Vertue escape better in the Church of Rome as will appear in a very few words Reading and Meditating on the Holy Scriptures is one excellent means of Grace not only as it informs us of our Duty but as it keeps a constant warm sense of it upon our Minds which nothing can so effectually do as a daily reading of the Scripture which strikes the mind with a more sacred authority than any Humane Discourses can do but this is denied to the People of the Church of Rome who are not allowed to read the Scriptures in the Vulgar Tongue for fear of Heresie which it seems is more plain and obvious in the Scripture than Catholick Doctrines but they should also have considered whether the danger of Heresie or Sin be the greater whether an orthodox faith or a good life be more valuable and if denying the people the use of the Bible be the way to keep them orthodox I am sure it is not the way to make them good True Piety will lose more by this than the Faith will get by it Thus constant and servent Prayer besides that supernatural grace and assistance it obtains for us is an excellent moral instrument of holiness for when men confess their sins to God with shame and sorrow when with inflamed Devotions they beg the assistances of the Divine Grace when their souls are every day possessed with such a great sence awe and reverence for God as he must have who prays devoutly to him every day I say it is impossible such men should easily return to those sins which they have so lately confessed with such shame and confusion and bitter remorse that those who so importunately beg the assistance of the Divine Grace should not use their best endeavours to resist Temptations and to improve in Grace and Vertue which is a prophane mockery of God to beg his assistance that he will work in us and with us when we will not work that those who have a constant sence and reverence of God should do such things as argue that men have no fear of God before their eyes But this is all lost in the Church of Rome where men are taught to Pray they know not what and when men do not understand their Prayers it is certain such Prayers cannot affect their minds what other good soever Latin Prayers may do them and thus one of the most powerful Instruments of Piety and Vertue is quite spoiled by Prayers in an unknown Tongue which can no more improve their Vertue than their Knowledge Sorrow for Sin is an excellent Instrument of true Repentance as that signifies the reformation of our Lives for the natural effect of Sorrow is not to do that again which we are sorry for doing but in the Church of Rome this contrition or sorrow for sin serves only to qualifie men for absolution and that puts them into a state of grace and then they may expiate their sins by Penances but are under no necessity of forsaking them The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper besides those supernatural conveyances of Grace which are annexed to it by our Saviour's Institution is a great Moral Instrument of Holiness it representing to us the Love of our crucified Lord the Merit and Desert of Sin the Vertue of his Sacrifice to expiate our Sins and to purge our Consciences from Dead Works and requiring the exercise of a great many Vertues an abhorrence and detestation of our Sins great and ardent Passions of Love and Devotion firm Resolutions of Living to him who Died for us Forgiveness of Enemies and an Universal Love and Charity to all Men especially to the Members of the same Body with us but