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
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
with Reason Reason commonly has as little to do with them but owes them a Shame whenever they pretend to her and therefore they had as good let her alone 2. Protestants may dispute against Popish Doctrines and to vindicate their own Faith but they cannot reasonably be disputed into Popery When Papists alledge Scripture Reason or humane Authority for any Doctrines of their Religion Protestants who allow of the use of Reason in Religion may examine and confute them when Papists dispute against Protestant Doctrines Protestants are concerned to vindicate their own Faith or to renounce it but if a Protestant understands himself and his own Principles all the Disputes in the World can never make him a Papist For to be a Papist does not signifie meerly to believe Transubstantiation or the Worship of Saints and Images and such-like Popish Doctrines but to resolve our Faith into the Infallible Authority of the Church and to believe whatever the Church believes and for no other reason but because the Church teaches it This is the peculiar and distinguishing Character of the Church of Rome which divides it from all other Churches and Sects of Christians and therefore our late Popish Writers are certainly in the right to endeavour to bring the whole Controversie to this issue not to dispute about particular Doctrines which follow on course when once you believe the Church to be Infallible but to perswade men that the Church is Infallible and that the Church of Rome is that Infallible Church Now I say no understanding Protestant can be disputed into this kind of Popery and that for two plain Reasons 1. Because no Arguments or Disputations can give me an infallible certainty of the Infallibility of the Church 2. Because it is impossible by Reason to prove that men must not use their own Reason and Judgment in matters of Religion 1. No Arguments can give me an infallible certainty of the Infallibility of the Church The great Motive to any man to forsake the other Communions of Christians and to go over to the Church of Rome is to attain an Infallibility in Faith which is a wonderful good thing if it were to be had but though the Church of Rome were Infallible and I should be convinced that there were some reason to think so yet unless I can be infallibly assured of it my Faith is still as fallible as the Protestant Faith is and I am no nearer to Infallibility in the Church of Rome than in the Church of England For as I observed before unless I can have an infallible certainty of the Infallibility of the Church I can have no Infallibility at all Though the Church were infallible in all her Decrees I can never be infallibly certain of the truth of her Decrees unless I be infallibly certain that she is Infallible It is a known Rule in Logic that the Conclusion must follow the weaker part and therefore it is impossible to infer an infallible Faith from the fallible Belief of the Churches Infallibility And yet the best Reasons in the World which is all that disputing can do to offer Reasons for our Faith cannot give us an infallible certainty because Reason it self is not an infallible Principle at least the Church of Rome dares not own that any mans private Reason and Judgment is infallible for then Protestants may set up for Infallibility as well as Papists No man by Reason and Argument can arrive at a greater Certainty than Protestants may have and yet no man can arrive at greater certainty in the way of disputing than Reason and Argument can give him and then a Popish Convert who is reasoned into the belief of Infallibility though he has changed his Opinion yet has no more Infallibility now than he had when he was a Protestant Protestants without an Infallible Church may have all the Certainty that Reason and Argument can give them and a Convert has no greater Certainty if he have no more than what Disputing could give him for his Infallible Church And how is it possible then that a reasonable man can be disputed out of the Church of England into the Church of Rome upon such vain hopes of a more infallible certainty for let him go where he will if he be lead to Rome it self by his own fallible Reason and Judgment which is the only Guide he has in disputing he will be the same fallible Creature that ever he was But to represent this the more familiarly let us hear a short Conference between a sturdy Protestant and a new Convert Prot. O my old Friend I am glad to meet you for I have longed to know what change you find in your self since you are become an Infallible Believer Conv. I find Sir what I expected very great ease and satisfaction of mind since I am delivered from all doubtful Disputes in such an important concernment as the salvation of my Soul and have a firm and sure Rock to trust to such an Infallible Church as cannot err it self nor mis-guide me Prot. This I confess is a very great advantage and therefore as we have been formerly of the same Church and Communion I would be glad to keep you company also in so advantageous a change Pray therefore tell me how you came to be so infallibly perswaded of the Infallibility of your Church Conv. With all my heart and I shall be very glad of such company and indeed there are such powerful Reasons for it as I am sure must convince so free and ingenuous a mind as you always carry about with you For Christ has promised to build his Church upon St. Peter and that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Prot. Hold good Sir Reason Are you got no farther than Reason yet Will Reason ever make a man infallible I have considered all the Reasons that are used to this purpose and know what to say to them if that were our business and the truth is I have a great deal of unanswerable Reason to stay where I am and am a little surprized to think that you or any man should leave the Church of England for want of Reason or go to the Church of Rome for it and therefore pray tell me the Secret for there must be something else to make Converts besides Reason Conv. Then I perceive you take me for a Knave who have changed my Religion for base secular Ends without Reason Prot. You know that best but that was not my meaning but the reason of my Question was because you changed for an infallible Faith. Now if you rely still upon Reason I don't see how your Faith is more infallible than mine for I am as confident as you can be that I have as good Reasons for my Faith and in my opinion much better than you have for yours Conv. I beg your pardon for that I rely upon the Authority of an Infallible Church you trust to your private Reason Prot. And I beg your pardon
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
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
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
to come into the Church they give up the Authority of the Church and make every man his own Pope and expose themselves to all the senseless Rallery of their admired Pax Vobis By this they confess that the Scripture may be understood by Reason that they can back their Interpretations with such powerful Arguments as are able to convince Hereticks who reject the Authority of an Infallible Interpreter and then they must unsay all their hard Sayings against the Scriptures That they are dark and obscure dead Letters unsenced Characters meer figured Ink and Paper they must recant all their Rallery against expounding Scripture by a private Spirit and allowing every man to judge of the sence of it and to chuse what he pleases for thus they do themselves when they dispute with Hereticks about the sence of Scripture and I am pretty confident they would never speak against Scripture nor a private Spirit more if this private Spirit would but make us Converts but the mischief is a private Spirit if it have any tincture of Sence and Reason seldom expounds Scripture to a Roman-Catholick sence So that in truth it is a vain nay a dangerous thing for Papists to dispute with Protestants about the sence of Scripture for it betrays the Cause of the Church and vindicates the Scriptures and every mans natural Right of judging from the Usurpations and Encroachments of a pretended Infallibility but yet dispute they do and attempt to prove their Doctrines from Scripture And because it is too large a task for this present Undertaking to examine all their Scripture-Proofs I shall only observe some general faults tâ—y are guilty of which whoever is aware of is in no danger of being imposed on by their Pretences to Scripture and I shall not industriously multiply Particulars for there are some few palpable mistakes which run through most of their Scripture-Proofs 1. As first many of their Scripture-Proofs are founded upon the likeness of a word or phrase without any regard to the sense and signification of that word in Scripture or to the matter to which it is applied As for instance There is not a more useful Doctrine to the Church of Rome than that of unwritten Traditions which are of equal Authority with the Scriptures for were this owned they might put what novel Doctrines they pleased upon us under the venerable name of ancient and unwritten Traditions Well we deny that there are any such unwritten Traditions which are of equal Authority with the Scripture since the Canon of Scripture was written and perfected and desire them to prove that there are any such unwritten Traditions Now they think it sufficient to do this if they can but find the word Tradition in Scripture and that we confess they do in several places for Tradition signifies only the delivery of the Doctrine of the Gospel which we grant was not done perfectly in writing when those Epistles were written which speak of Traditions by word as well as by Epistle But because the whole Doctrine of the Gospel was not written at first but delivered by word of mouth does it hence follow that after the Gospel is written there are still unwritten Traditions of equal Authority with the Scripture This is what they should prove and the meer naming of Traditions in Scripture before the Canon was perfected does not prove this for all men know that the Gospel was delivered by word of mouth or by unwritten Tradition before it was written but this does by no means prove that there are unwritten Traditions after the Gospel was written To prove this they should shew us where it is said that there are some Traditions which shall never be written that the Rule of Faith shall always consist partly of written partly of unwritten Traditions Thus we know how zealous the Church of Rome is for their Purgatory-fire wherein all men who are in a state of grace or delivered from the guilt of their sins must yet undergo that punishment of them which has not been satisfied for by other means As profitable a Doctrine as any the Church of Rome has because it gives great Authority to Sacerdotal Absolutions and sets a good price upon Masses for the Dead and Indulgences and yet the best proof they have for this is that Fire mentioned 1 Cor. 3. 13 14 15. Every mans work shall be made manifest for the day shall declare it because it shall be revealed by fire and the fire shall declare every mans work of what sort it is If any mans work shall be burnt he shall suffer loss but he himself shall be saved but so as by fire Now here is mention of fire indeed but how does it appear to be the Popish Purgatory Suppose it were meant of a material fire though that does not seem so proper to try good or bad Actions a true and Orthodox or Heretical Faith yet this fire is not kindled till the day of Judgment which is eminently in Scripture called the day and is the only day we know of in Scripture which shall be revealed by fire when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire 2 Thess. 1. 7 8. So that here is nothing but the word fire applied to another Fire than St. Paul ever thought on to prove a Popish Purgatory Thus they make Confession to a Priest ordinarily necessary to obtain the Forgiveness of our sins and have no better Scripture-Proofs for it but that we are often commanded to confess our sins sometimes to God and sometimes to another but never to a Priest. They have made a Sacrament of Extream Unction wherein the sick Person is anointed for the Forgiveness of sins and though a Sacrament ought to have the most plain and express institution both as to the matter and form and use and end of it yet the only Proofs they produce for this is the Disciples working miraculous Cures by anointing the sick with Oyl 6 Mark 13 which methinks is a little different from the Sacrament of extream Unction which is not to cure their sickness but to forgive their sins and St. James his Command Is any sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with oyl in the name of the Lord and the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him Where anointing with Oyl joyned with servent Prayer is prescribed as a means of restoring the sick person to health again and therefore is not the Popish Extream Unction which is to be administred only to those who are dying And though St. James adds And if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him yet 1. This is not said to be the effect of Anointing but of the servent Prayer and 2. This very Forgiveness of sins does not refer to a plenary Pardon of sins in the
it agrees with the rest the Fathers many times contradict themselves and each other and if men differ about the sense of Scripture they differ much more about Fathers and Councils That it is a mighty Riddle that those who think ordinary Christians not fit to read the Scriptures should think it necessary for them to understand Fathers and Councils and yet they are ridiculous indeed to dispute with every Tradesman about Fathers and Councils if they do not think they ought to read and understand them The sum is such Protestants as are not skilled in Book-learning may very reasonably tell these men who urge them with the Authority of Councils and Fathers That they do not pretend to any skill in such matters and hope it is not required of them for if it be they are in an ill case the Holy Scriptures not Fathers and Councils is the Rule of their Faith if they had read the Fathers they should believe them no farther than what they taught was agreeable to Scripture and therefore whatever Opinions any of the Fathers had it is no concern of theirs to know if they can learn what the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles was without it learned men may dispute about these things and they have heard learned Protestants affirm that the Church of Rome can find none of her peculiar Doctrines in the Writings of any of the Fathers for the first three hundred Years and its certain if this be true all the later Fathers are of no Authority to establish any new Doctrine for there was no more Authority in the Church to bring in any new Doctrines after three hundred Years than there is at this day Unlearned men may very honourably reject all dispute about Fathers and Councils though learned men cannot and indeed need not for if they are not bound to read Fathers and Councils I think they are not bound to understand them nor to dispute about them and it is very unadviseably done when they do for it is past a Jest in so serious a matter though otherwise it were comical enough for men to be converted by Fathers and Councils without understanding them CHAP. III. How to Answer some of the most popular Pretences urged by Papists against Protestants SECT I. 1. Concerning the Vncertainty of the Protestant Faith. OUr Popish Adversaries of late have not so much disputed as fenced have neither down-right opposed the Protestant Faith nor vindicated their own but have betaken themselves to some tricks and amusements to divert and perplex the Dispute and to impose upon the ignorant and unwary One of their principal Arts has been to cry out of the Uncertainty of the Protestant Faith. This every body is nearly concerned in for there is nothing wherein certainty is so necessary and so much desired as in matters of Religion whereon our eternal State depends This has been often answered by Protestants and I do not intend to enter into the merits of the Cause and shew upon what a firm and sure bottom the Protestant Faith stands this is a Cavil easily enough exposed to the scorn and contempt of all considering men without so much trouble For 1. Suppose the Protestant Faith were uncertain How is the cause of the Church of Rome ever the better is this a sufficient reason to turn Papists because Protestants are uncertain does this prove the Church of Rome to be Infallible because the Church of England is Fallible must certainty necessarily be found among them because it is not to be found with us is Thomas an honest man because John is a Knave These are two distinct questions and must be distinctly proved If they can prove our Faith uncertain and their own certain there is reason then to go over to them but if they cannot do this they may it may be perswade men to renounce the Protestant Faith but not to embrace Popery Ask them then What greater assurance they have of their Faith than we have of ours If they tell you their Church is Infallible tell them that is another question and does not belong to this dispute For the Infallibility of their Church does not follow from the Uncertainty of our Faith if they can prove their Church Infallible whether they prove our Faith uncertain or not we will at any time change Protestant Certainty for Infallibility And if they could prove our Faith uncertain unless they could prove their own more certain though we bate them Infallibility we may cease to be Protestants but shall never turn Papists 2. Ask them What they mean by the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith For this may signifie two things either 1. That the Objects of our Faith are in themselves uncertain and cannot be proved by certain Reasons Or 2dly That our Perswasion about these matters is uncertain and wavering If they mean the first then the sense is that the Christian Religion is an uncertain thing and cannot be certainly proved for this is the whole Protestant Faith We believe the Apostles Creed and whatever is contained in the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles and this is all we believe And I hope they will not say these things are uncertain for then they renounce the Christian Religion and Infallibility it self cannot help them out for Infallibility cannot make that certain which is in it self uncertain an infallible man must know things as they are or else he is mistaken and ceases to be infallible and therefore what is certain he infallibly knows to be certain and what is uncertain he infallibly knows to be uncertain for the most certain and infallible knowledge does not change its Object but sees it just as it is And therefore they must allow the Objects of our Faith or the Protestant Faith as to the matter of it to be very certain and built upon certain reason or else their infallible Church can have no certainty of the Christian Faith. If they mean the second thing that we have no certain perswasion about what we profess to believe This is a great abuse to Protestants as if we were all Knaves and Hypocrites who do not heartily and firmly believe what we profess to believe and a Protestant who knows that he does very firmly and stedfastly believe his Religion ought to reject such a Villanous Accusation as this with indignation and scorn Indeed it is both impudent and silly for any man to tell a Protestant that his Faith is uncertain as that signifies an uncertain and doubtful Perswasion when he knows and feels the contrary and no body else can know this but himself In what Notion then is the Protestant Faith uncertain what can Faith signifie but either the Objects of Faith or the internal Assent and Perswasion The Objects of our Faith are certain if Christian Religion be so that is they have very certain Evidence our Assent and Perswasion is very certain as that is opposed to all doubtfulness and wavering And what certainty then is wanting to the
Protestant Faith When they you hear any of these men declaiming about the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith onely ask them What they mean by the Protestant Faith whether the Articles of your Faith that they are uncertain or the Act of Faith your internal Assent and Perswasion If they say they mean the Act of Faith Tell them that it is a strange presumption in them to pretend to know your Heart that you know that best your self whether you do firmly and stedfastly believe your Religion and to give them satisfaction in that point you assure them that you do As for the Objects of your Faith or what is you believe tell them you are a Member of the Church of England and embrace the Doctrine of it and there they may find your Faith both as a Christian and as a Protestant and may try their skill on it when they please to prove any part of it uncertain and you are ready to defend it This is a plain and fair Answer and I believe you will hear no more of them For as for their common Argument to prove the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith That there is a great variety of Opinions among Protestants and that they condemn one another with equal confidence and assurance Ask them How this proves your Faith to be uncertain either as to its Object or as to its Assent May not what you believe be very certainly true because some men believe the contrary Tell them you do not place the certainty of what you believe upon any man's believing or not believing it but upon the certain reasons you have to prove it and therefore if they would convince you that what you believe is not certain they must disprove your Reasons not meerly tell you that other men think it false or uncertain and believe otherwise Thus does it prove that you give an uncertain and doubtful Assent to what you profess to believe because other men are very fully perswaded of the contrary Pray tell them that you do not build your Assent upon other mens Perswasions but upon the Reasons of your Faith and while they are unshaken you shall believe as you do and with the same assurance whoever believes otherwise There are two things indeed which this Argument proves but they signifie nothing to weaken the Protestant Faith. 1. That all the Doctrines which are professed by some Protestants are not certain for some of them must be false when there are contradictory Doctrines maintained and professed by several Sects of Protestants but then no man that I know of ever said that all Protestant Doctrines were certain which I hope does not hinder but that some Protestant Doctrines may be certain and then the Doctrines of the Church of England may be certain though some other Communions of Protestants have erred 2. This Argument proves also that men who are mistaken may be very confidently perswaded of their mistakes and therefore the confidence of perswasion does not prove the certainty of their Faith and I never heard any man say that it did But I hope this does not prove that a man who is certain upon evident Reasons must be mistaken too because men who are certain without Reason may mistake And yet this very Argument from the different and contrary Opinions among Protestants to prove the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith signifies nothing as to our Disputes with the Church of Rome For ask them what they would think of the Protestant Faith were all Protestants of a mind Would their Consent and Agreement prove the Certainty of the Protestant Faith Then the Protestant Faith in opposition to Popery is very certain for they all agree in condemning the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome and thus I think they get nothing by this Argument for if the Dissentions of Protestants proves the uncertainty of their Faith as to such matters wherein they differ then by the same Rule their Agreement in opposition to Popery shews their great certainty in such matters And this I suppose is no great Inducement to a Protestant to turn Papist SECT II. Concerning Protestant Mis-representations of Popery THis has been another late Artifice of our Roman Adversaries to amuse ignorant People with a great noise of Mis-representing That Protestant Divines have painted Popery in such horrid shapes as to disturb the Imaginations of People and to beget an incurable Aversion in them against Popery without understanding what it is I shall not now dispute this matter over again There has been so much of late said of it and this Pretence so shamefully baffled in answeâ— both to the Representer and to Monsieur Meaux's Exposition that I am apt to think they themselves could be very glad that it had never been mentioned or could now be forgot and therefore referring the inquisitive Readers to those late Books wherein they will find this Controversie fairly stated I have some few things to add which are plain and obvious to every body and that both with reference to the Probability of this Charge and to the Consequences of it First As to the Probability of this Charge Now 1. Ask them Whether the first Reformers charged the Church of Rome with such Doctrines and Practices as they were not guilty of We have not that I know of increased our Charge against the Church of Rome in this Age if there has been any difference we have rather been more favourable and candid in our Censures of some of their Doctrines than the first Reformers were Now is it likely that the first Reformers should charge the Church of Rome wrongfully No man can be a Mis-representer but either out of ignorance or design which of these then can we with any Probability charge the first Reformers with As for Ignorance is it a probable thing that Luther Melancthon Oecolampadius Zuinglius Bucer Calvin or to come to our own English Reformers that Archbishop Cranmer and others who had all been Papists themselves should be ignorant what was taught and practised in the Church of Rome It is now thought in this very Cause a very considerable Proof that Protestants do Mis-represent Papists because some Papists deny such Doctrines and Practices as Protestants charge them with and say they can you think that Papists do not understand their own Religion better than Protestants do Now though this may be made a Question and I am very apt to think that compare the Learned and the Unlearned Protestants and Papists together there are more Protestants than Papists who understand Popery and not only Experience verifies this but there is a plain reason why it should be so because it is the Principle of Protestants that they must neither believe nor disbelieve any thing without understanding it but an implicite Faith in the Church governs the unlearned Papists and many of those who should be learned too But let that be as it will this Argument signifies nothing to our first Reformers for if Papists may be
presumed to understand their own Religion the first Reformers who were all educated in Popery might be as well presumed to understand what Popery then was and therefore there can be no reason to suspect that they Mis-represented Popery out of Ignorance Nor is it more probable that they should Mis-represent Popery out of Interest and Design for if they were conscious to themselves that Popery was not so bad as they represent it to be why should they themselves have set up for Reformers and what hope could they have that at that time when Popery was so well known they should perswade the World to believe their Mis-representations Was it so desirable a thing for men to bring all the Powers of the Church and Court of Rome upon themselves meerly to gratifie a Mis-representing humour Do these men remember what our Reformers suffered for opposing Popery the loss of their Estates their Liberties their Lives all the Vengeance of a blind and enraged Zeal And did they undergo all this with such constancy and Christian patience only for the sake of telling Lyes and raising scandalous Reports of the Church of Rome We think it a very good Argument that the Apostles and first Preachers of Christianity were very honest men and had no design to cheat the World because they served no worldly Interest by it but chearfully exposed themselves to all manner of Sufferings in Preaching the Gospel and why does not the same Argument prove our first Reformers to be honest men and then they could not be wilful Mis-representers Nay if we will but allow them to have been cunning men and it is evident they did not want wit they would never have undertaken so hopeless a design as to run down Popery meerly by Mis-representing it when had their Exceptions against Popery been onely Mis-representations of their own all the World could have confuted them had the first Reformers been onely Mis-representers can we think that they could have imposed upon such vast numbers of Men Learned and Unlearned who knew and saw what Popery was They were no Fools themselves and therefore could not hope to impose such a Cheat upon the World. 2. Ask them again How old this Complaint is of Protestant Mis-representations of Popery how long it has been discovered that Popery has been thus Abused and Mis-represented were the first Reformers charged with these Mis-representations by their Adversaries in those days did they deny that they gave Religious Worship to Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary to Images and Reliques did they cry out of Mis-representations when they were charged with such Doctrines and Practices as these or did they defend them and endeavour to answer those Arguments which the Reformers brought against them And yet methinks if Popery had been so grosly Mis-represented by the Reformers this would as soon have been discovered by the Learned Papists of those days as by our late Representer but it is most likely they did not then think Popery so much Mis-represented for if they had they would certainly have complained of it So that the high improbability of the thing is a sufficient Reason to Unlearned Protestants to reject this Charge of Protestant Mis-representations of Popery as nothing else but a Popish Calumny against Protestants and to conclude that if Popery be Mis-represented now it is onely by themselves and that is the very truth of the Case Secondly Let us consider this Charge of Mis-representations in the Consequences of it It would a little puzzle a man to guess what service they intend to do the Church of Rome by it For 1. By complaining of such Mis-representations of Popery they plainly confess that those Doctrines and Practices which we charge the Church of Rome with are very bad and fit to be rejected and abhorred of all Christians This the Representer himself confesses and is very Copious and Rhetorical upon it Now this is of mighty dangerous consequence for if it appears that we have not Mis-represented them that the Doctrines and Practices we charge them with are truly the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome then by their own confession Popery is a very bad Religion and to be rejected by Christians Then there was a very just reason for our Separation from the Church of Rome and we are no longer either Schismaticks or Hereticks and if the Cause be put upon this Issue we need desire no better Vindication of the Church of England for if they cannot prove us Hereticks or Schismaticks till they can prove us Mis-representers I believe we are pretty secure for this Age. 2. These men who complain so much of Mis-representing endeavour to make the Doctrines of the Church of Rome look as like Protestant Doctrines as possibly they can as if there were little or no difference between them Now methinks this is no great reason for a Protestant to turn Papist that the Popish Faith is so much the better the nearer it comes to the Protestant Faith. The truth is the chief Mystery in this late Trade of Representing and Mis-representing is no more but this to joyn a Protestant Faith with Popish Practices to believe as Protestants do and to do as Papists do As to give some few instances of this in the Papist Mis-represented and Represented The Papist Represented believes it damnable to Worship Stocks and Stones for Gods to Pray to Pictures or Images of Christ the Virgin Mary or any other Saints This is good Protestant Doctrine but then this Papist says his Prayers before an Image Kneels and Bows before it and pays all external Acts of Adoration to Christ and the Saints as represented by their Images though it is not properly the Image he honours but Christ and his Saints by the Images Which is down-right Popery in Practice Thus he believes it is a most damnable Idolatry to make Gods of men either living or dead Which is the Protestant Faith but yet he prays to Saints and beggs their Intercession without believing them to be Gods or his Redeemers which is Popery in Practice He believes it damnable to think the Virgin Mary more powerful in Heaven than Christ. Which is Protestant Doctrine but yet he prays to Her ostner than either to God or Christ says ten Ave-Maries for one Pater Noster which is a Popish Devotion He believes it unlawful to commit Idolatry and most damnable to Worship any Breaden God. Which is spoke like a Protestant but yet he pays Divine Adoration to the Sacrament which is done like a Papist And thus in most of those thirty seven Particulars of the double Characters of a Papist Mis-represented his great Art is to Reconcile a Protestant Faith with Popish Practices So that this new way of Representing Popery is no reason to a Protestant to alter his Faith because it seems they believe in many things just as we do but I think it is a very great reason for a Papist to alter his Practice because a Protestant Faith and
Popish Worship do not very well agree Those who would not make Gods of Stocks and Stones of dead Men and Women had certainly better not Worship them which is the most certain way not to make them Gods and those who think it such damnable Idolatry to Worship a Breaden God in my Opinion are on the safer side not to Worship the visible Species of Bread in the Eucharist Let but our Protestant observe this That when they would Represent Popery most favourably they either say what Protestants do or something as like it as they can and he will see no reason either to change his Faith or his Practice The END Books lately Printed for Will. Rogers THE Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented in Answer to a Book intituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented c. Quarto An Answer to a Discourse intituled Papists protesting against Protestant Popery being a Vindication of Papists not Misrepresented by Protestants And containing a particular Examination of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condom his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the Articles of Invocation of Saints Worship of Images occasioned by that Discourse Quarto An Answer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Difference between the Representer and the Answerer Quarto A View of the whole Controversie between the Representer and the Answerer with an Answer to the Representer's last Reply in which are laid open some of the Methods by which Protestants are Misrepresented by Papists Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the first Part Wherein an Answer is given to the late Proofs of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation in the Books called Consensus Veterum and Nubes Testium c. Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the Second Part Wherein the Doctrine of the Trinity is shewed to be agreeable to Scripture and Reason and Transubstantiation repugnant to both Quarto An Answer to the Eighth Chapter of the Representer's Second Part in the first Dialogue between him and his Lay-Friend Of the Authority of Councils and the Rule of Faith. By a Person of Quality With an Answer to the Eight Theses laid down for the Tryal of the English Reformation in a Book that came lately from Oxford Sermons and Discourses some of which never before Printed The Third Volume By the Reverend Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury Octavo A Manual for a Christian Souldier Written by Erasmus and Translated into English Twelves A new and easie Method to learn to Sing by Book whereby one who hath a good Voice and Ear may without other help learn to Sing true by Notes Design'd chiefly for and applied to the promoting of Psalmody and furnished with Variety of Psalm-Tunes in Parts with Directions for that kind of Singing A Perswasive to frequent Communion in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper By John Tillotson Dean of Canterbury in Octavo Price Three Pence A Discourse against Transubstantiation In Octavo Price Three Pence The State of the Church of Rome when the Reformation began as it appears by the Advices given to Paul III. and Julius III. by Creatures of their Own. With a Preface leading to the matter of the Book Quarto A Letter to a Friend Reflecting on some Passages in a Letter to the D. of P. in Answer to the Arguing Part of his first Letter to Mr. G. The Reflecter's Defence of his Letter to a Friend against the Furious Assaults of Mr. I. S. in his second Catholic Letter In four Dialogues Quarto A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Benj. Calamy D.D. and late Minister of St. Lawrence-Jury Lond. Jan. 7th 1685 6. By W. Sherlock D. D. Master of the Temple A Vindication of some Protestant Principles of Church-Unity and Catholick-Communion from the Charge of Agreement with the Church of Rome In Answer to a late Pamphlet Intituled An Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome evinced from the Concertation of some of her Sons with their Brethren the Dissenters By William Sherlock D. D. Master of the Temple Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus The Second Part of the Preservative against Popery May 3. 1688. Guil. Needham R. R. in Christo P. ac D.D. Wilhelmo Archiepisc. Gant. Ã Sacr. Domest The Second Part OF THE Preservative AGAINST POPERY Shewing how Contrary POPERY is to the True Ends OF THE Christian Religion Fitted for the INSTRUCTION OF Vnlearned PROTESTANTS By WILLIAM SHERLOCK D.D. Master of the Temple LONDON Printed for William Rogers at the Sun over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-street M DC LXXXVIII Part II. THE PRESERVATIVE AGAINST POPERY CHAP. IV. Some Directions relating to particular Controversies THose who would understand the particular Disputes between us and the Church of Rome must of necessity read such Books as give the true State of the Controversie between us and fairly represent the Arguments on both sides and where such Books are to be met with he may learn from a late Letter Entituled The Present State of the Controversie between the Church of England and the Church of Rome Or an Account of Books written on both sides But my present Design is of another nature to give some plain and easie Marks and Characters of true Gospel Doctrines whereby a man who has any relish of the true Spirit of Christianity may as certainly know Truth from Error in many cases as the Palate can distinguish Tasts There are some things so proper to the Gospel and so primarily intended in it that they may fitly serve for distinguishing marks of true Evangelical Doctrine I shall name some of the chief and Examine some Popish Doctrines by them SECTION 1. Concerning IDOLATRY 1. ONE principal intention of the Gospel was more perfectly to extirpate all Idolatry For this purpose the son of God was manifested to destroy the works of the devil that is not only all Sin and Wickedness but the very Kingdom of Darkness that Kingdom the Devil had erected in the world the very Foundation of which was laid in Idolatrous Worship To this purpose Christ has expresly taught us that there is but one God and has more perfectly instructed us in the nature of God For no man hath seen God at any time but the only begotten son who is in the bosom of the father he hath declared him Ignorance was the Mother of Pagan Idolatry because they did not know the true God they Worshipped any thing every thing for a God and therefore the most effectual course to cure Idolatry was to make known the true God to the world for those men are inexcusable who know the true God and Worship any thing else Tho' indeed according to some mens Divinity the knowledge of the true God cures Idolatry not by rooting
compassionate he must want Power to help us and that destroys the hope of Sinners as much as want of Compassion It must be want of Will or Power in him that he does not deliver us from Purgatory as well as Hell and if he want Power to deliver us from Purgatory for my part I should more question his Power to deliver from Hell for that is the harder of the two if his Bloud could not expiate for the Temporal punishment of Sin which the Merits of some Supererogating Saints or the Pope's Indulgence or the Priests Masses can redeem us from how could it make expiation for Eternal punishment If his Interest in the Court of Heaven will not do the less how can it do the great There is no Doctrine more irreconcileable with the perfect Love and Goodness of God and the Merits and Intercession of our Saviour which are the Fundamental Doctrines of the Gospel which is a Dispensation of Love and Grace than this of Purgatory and therefore we may safely conclude that this is no Gospel-Doctrine 2. Let us now examine the Doctrine of Invocation of Saints and Angels as our Mediators with God and see whether it does not disparage the Grace of the Gospel the Love of God and of our Mediator and Advocate Jesus Christ to penitent Sinners Now a very few words will decide this matter 1. With respect to God now can that man believe that God is so very gracious to Sinners for the sake of Christ who seeks to so many Advocates and Mediators to interceed for him with God. To imagine that we want any Mediator to God but only our High-Priest who mediates in Vertue of his Sacrifice is a reproach to the Divine Goodness The Wisdom and Justice of God may require a Sacrifice and a High-Priest to make Attonement for Sin but Infinite Goodness needs not any Entreaties and meer Intercessions to move him A truly good man who knows a proper Object of his kindness needs not to be asked to do good The use of such Advocates and Mediators among men is either to recommend an unknown Person to the favour of the Prince or fairly to represent his cause to him which has been mis-represented by others or to procure favour for an undeserving person or among equal Competitors to procure some one to be preferred this is all the use of Intercession among men for a good and wise and just Prience will do what is wise and just and good not only without Intercessors but against all Intercessions to the contrary Now I suppose no man will say that God wants Mediators and Advocates upon any of these accounts for he knows every man understands perfectly his cause will never be perswaded by any Intercessions to shew kindness to unfit Objects that is to impenitent Sinners and his Goodness is so unconfined and so extensive to all that there can never be any competition for his Favour and therefore to multiply Advocates and Mediators to God must argue a great distrust of his Mercy and Goodness which a kind and good Prince would take very ill of us God indeed has commanded us to Pray for one another in this World as he has to pray for our selves but this is not by way of Interest and Merit as the Church of Rome pretends the Saints in Heaven pray for us but by humble Supplications which is very reconcileable with the goodness of God to make Prayer a necessary condition of granting Pardon and other Blessings we want but as the use of Prayer for our selves is not to move God meerly by our importunities to do good to us for we must pray in Faith that is with a humble assurance and confidence that God will hear us which includes a firm Belief of his readiness to grant what we pray for so neither are our Prayers for others to move God by our interest in him that is they are not the Intercessions of Favourites but of humble Supplicants There was great reason why God should make Prayer the condition of our receiving though he wants not our importunities to move him because there are a great many excellent Virtues exercised in Prayer such as great sorrow for Sin great humility of Mind faith in God's Promises the acts of Love and affiance and trust in God and a constant dependance on his Grace and Providence for all spiritual and temporal Blessings and there was great reason why he should command us to pray for others tho' he wants none of our Intercessions for them because it is a mutual exercise of Charity of Love to our Brethren and Forgiveness to our Enemies and is a mighty obligation to do all other acts of kindness for those who know it to be their Duty to pray for one another will think themselves bound to do good to one another also This becomes those who live and converse together in this World because it is a great instrument of Virtue and that is a reason why God should encourage the exercise of it by promising to hear our Prayers for each other But as far as meer goodness is concerned the Gospel represents God as so very good to Sinners that there is no need of any Intercessor for them For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life 3 John 16. This was an act of goodness antecedent to the Incarnation and Death of Christ and the highest act of goodness that God could manifest to the World and therefore secures us of God's love and goodness to Sinners without a Mediator and Advocate for that love which provided a Mediator for us was without one and proves that it was not for want of goodness or that he needed entreaties that he gave his Son to be our mediator And therefore hence S. Paul proves how ready God is to bestow all good things on us He that spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all how shall he not with him also freely give us all things 8 Rom. 32. And our Saviour himself represents the goodness of God by the tenderness and compassion of an earthly Parent If ye then being evil that is less good than God is know how to give good things to your children how much more shall your heavenly Father give good things to them that ask him 7 Matth. 11. especially in the Parable of the Prodigal where our Saviour describes the goodness of God to Sinners by that passion and joy wherewith the Father received his returning Prodigal nay he assures his Disciples that there was no need of his own Intercession to incline God to be good and kind to them At that day ye shall ask in my name and I say not unto you that I will pray the Father for you for the Father himself loveth you because ye have loved me and believed that I came out from God 16 John 26 27. God is so infinitely good that he
obscure unintelligible and useless more severe and intollerable then the Jewish Yoke itself which St. Peter tells the Jews neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear it is indeed almost all Outside and Pageantry as unlike the Plainness and Simplicity of the Gospel-Worship as Show and Ceremony can make it It is true external and visible Worship must consist of external Actions and must be performed with such grave and decent circumstances of time and place and posture and habit as become the Solemnity of Religious Worship this Reason and Nature teaches and this the Church of England prudently observes whose Ceremonies are not Religious Rites but decent Circumstances of Worship few in number as the necessary Circumstances of Action are but few and Grave and Solemn in their use but this is not to place Religion in any thing that is external but only to pay an external Homage and Worship to God which differ as Worshipping God in a Decent Habit differs from the Religion of Consecrated Habits and Vestments or as praying to God with an audible Voice differs from placing Religion in Words and Sounds which we do not understand or as Kneeling at receiving the Sacrament differs from a Bodily Worship of the Host in bowing the knee But though the bare number of external Ceremonies which are always the Seat of Superstition be a great corruption of the Christian Worship yet the number of them is the least fault of the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome as will appear if we consider a little their nature For 1. Most of their external Rites are professedly intended as Expiations and Satisfactions for their Sins This is the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome that notwithstanding the satisfaction made by Christ every Sinner must satisfie for his own Sins or have the satisfaction of other mens applied to him out of the Treasury of the Church by the Pope's Indulgences this is the meaning of all external Penances in Whippings Fastings Pilgrimages and other superstitious Severities their Backs or their Feet or their Bellies must pay for their Sins unless they can redeem them out of their Pockets too now it is plain that these are such external Superstitions as can have no place in the Christian Religion which allows of no other expiation or satisfaction for Sin but the Blood of Christ. 2 ly Those distinctions between Meats which the Church of Rome calls Fasting for a Canonical Fast is not to abstain from Food but only from such Meats as are forbid on Fasting Days can be no part of Christian Worship because the Gospel allows of no distinction between clean and unclean things and therefore of no distinction of Meats neither for meat commendeth us not to God 1 Cor. 8. 8. The Church of Rome indeed does not make such a distinction between clean and unclean Beasts as the Law of Moses did and therefore is the more absurd in forbidding the eating of Flesh or any thing that comes of Flesh as Eggs or Milk or Cheese or Butter on their Fasting Days which is to impose a new kind of Jewish Yoke upon us when the reason of it is ceased For there is no imaginable reason why it should be an Act of Religion meerly to abstain from Flesh if Flesh have no legal uncleanness and if it had we must all turn Carthusians and never eat Flesh for how should it be clean one day and unclean another is not easie to understand I am sure St. Paul makes this part of the Character of the Apostacy of the latter days that they shall Command to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth For every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer And let no man judge you in meat or drink wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world why as though living in the world are ye subject to ordinances touch not tast not handle not which all are to perish with the using after the Commandments and Doctrines of men And yet though they do not own the legal distinctions between clean and unclean things their Consecrations would perswade one that there were something more than a meer legal uncleanness in all Creatures viz. that they are all possessed by the Devil and wicked Spirits for when they Consecrate Salt and Water to make their Holy-water they first exorcise both the Salt and Water to cast the Devil out of them and if such innocent Creatures are possessed I doubt none can escape which has made me sometimes wonder that they durst eat any thing before it was first exorcised for fear the Devil should take possession of them with their meat It is certain if the Christian Religion takes away all such distinctions between Meat and Drinks the meer abstaining from Flesh can be no part of Christian Worship much less so satisfactory and meritorious as the Church of Rome pretends when such Abstinence is appointed as a satisfactory Penance 3 dly As for the Religion of Holy Places Altars Vestments Utensils the Church of Rome has infinitely out-done the Jewish Laws instead of one Temple at Jerusalem they have thousands to the full as Holy and Sacred as that as may appear from their Rites of Consecration Though herein I confess they differ that the Temple of Jerusalem was only God's House and that alone made it a Holy Place because God was there peculiarly present but the Popish Churches derive their Sanctity not so much from the presence of God for then they would be all equally Holy as from some great and eminent Saint who is peculiarly Worshipped there It is a great argument of the opinion men have of the Holiness of any place to go in Pilgrimage to it not meerly in Curiosity but Devotion as if either going so far to see the place were in itself an act of Religion or their Prayers would be better heard there than if they prayed at home Thus they travel to Jerusalem to visit the Holy Land and the Sepulchre and this may be thought in honour of our Saviour who Lived and Died and was Buried there but otherwise I know not any Church or Chappel which the most devout Pilgrims think worth visiting meerly upon the account of God or Christ The several Churches or Chappels of the Virgin especially those which are the most famed for Miracles or the Churches where the Reliques of some great and adored Saints are lodged have their frequent Visits for the sake of the Virgin or of the Saints but without some Saint Churches lose their Sacredness and Veneration which I suppose is the reason why they always take care of some Reliques to give a Sacredness to them without which no Church can be Consecrated that is its Dedication to the Worship of God cannot make it Holy unless some Saint take
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-Gospel-Doctrine because this to be sure cannot be for the improvement of knowledge Some of the Roman Doctors think
it sufficient that a man believes as the Church believes without an explicite knowledge of any thing they believe but the general opinion is that a man must have an explicite belief of the Apostles Creed but as for every thing else it suffices if he believes as the Church believes without knowing what the faith of the Church is that is it is not necessary men should so much as know what the new Articles of the Trent Faith are if they believe the Apostles Creed and resign up their Faith implicitely to the Church Now this is a plain confession that all the Doctrines in dispute between us and the Church of Rome are of no use much less necessary to salvation for if they were they would be as necessary to be known and explicitely believed as the Apostles Creed and I cannot imagine why we Hereticks who believe the Apostles Creed and understand it as orthodoxly as they may not be saved without believing the new Trent Creed for if we need not know what it is there seems to be no need of believing it for I always thought that no man can and therefore to be sure no man need believe what he does not know So that it seems we know and believe all things the explicite knowledge and belief of which by their own confession is necessary to salvation except that one single Point of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome believe but that and ye need believe or know nothing more but the Apostles Creed and yet go to Heaven as a good Catholick which makes an implicite Faith in the Church of Rome as necessary as Faith in Christ is But if the intent of the Gospel was to improve our Knowledge then Christ never taught an implicite Faith for that does not improve Knowledge and if the Faith of the Church of Rome excepting the Apostles Creed which is the common Faith of all Christians need not be known then they are no gospel-Gospel-Doctrines much less necessary Articles of Faith for Christ taught nothing but what he would have known and though the knowledge of all things which Christ taught is not equally necessary to salvation yet it tends to the perfecting our knowledge and Christ taught nothing which a man need not know which I think is a reproach to meaner Masters and much more to the eternal and incarnate Wisdom Secondly The improvement and perfection of Humane Nature consists in true Holiness and Virtue in a likeness and conformity to God and a participation of the Divine Nature and this is the great end of the Gospel to advance us to as perfect Holiness as is attainable in this life Christ indeed has made expiation for our sins by his own Bloud but then this very Bloud of Atonement does not only expiate the guilt of sin but purges the Conscience from dead works that we may serve the living God for no Sacrifice not of the Son of God himself can reconcile an impenitent and unreformed Sinner to God that is can move God to love a Sinner who still loves and continues in his sins which an infinitely holy and pure being cannot do Indeed the expiation of sin is but one part of the work of our Redemption for a sinner cannot be saved that is cannot be advanced to immortal life in the Kingdom of Heaven without being born again without being renewed and sanctified by the holy Spirit after the Image and likeness of God. For this new Nature is the only Principle of a new immortal life in us an earthly sensual mind is no more capable of living in Heaven than an earthly mortal body In both senses flesh and bloud cannot inherit the Kingdom of God neither can corruption inherit incorruption The Church of Rome indeed has taken great care about the first of these and has found out more ways of expiating sin and making satisfaction for it than the Gospel ever taught us whether they are so effectual to this purpose let those look to it who trust in them but there is not that care taken to inculcate the necessity of internal holiness and purity of mind and one would easily guess there can be no great need of it in that Church which has so many easie ways of expiating sin The true character of gospel-Gospel-Doctrines is a Doctrine according to Godliness the principal design of which is to promote true goodness all the Articles of the Christian Faith tend to this end to lay great and irresistible obligations on us to abstain from every sin and to exercise our selves in every thing that is good as we have ability and opportunity to do it and therefore all Doctrines which secretly undermine a good life and make it unnecessary for men to be truly and sincerely vertuous can be no Gospel-Doctrines That there are such Doctrines in the Church of Rome has been abundantly proved by the late Learned and Reverend Bishop Taylor in his Disswasive from Popery which is so very useful a Book that I had rather direct my Readers to it than transcribe out of it My design leads me to another method for if I can prove that the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome naturally tend to evacuate the force of the Gospel it self to make men good and holy every one will easily see that that can be no Gospel-Faith and Worship which sets aside the Gospel it self The whole Doctrine of the Gospel either consists of the Rules of Holiness or of the Motives and Instruments of it for the Articles of the Christian Faith are all of them so many Motives to a good life let us then consider how the Faith and Worship of the Church of Rome has made void the Gospel of our Saviour as the Pharisees made void the Law of Moses by their Traditions 1. Let us begin then with the Gospel-Rules of Holiness It would be an endless thing here to take notice of the loose Determinations of their famed and approved Casuists of their Doctrine of probable Opinions of the direction of the intention by which means the very Laws and Boundaries of Vertue and Vice are in a great measure quite altered and it may be this would only make work for the Representer and furnish out a fourth part of the Papist Misrepresented if we venture to tell the World what has been the avowed Doctrines of their great Divines and Casuists But whether such Definitions be the Doctrine of their Church or not I am sure they are equally mischievous if they be the Doctrines of their Confessors who have the immediate direction of mens Conscience Those who have a mind to be satisfied in this matter may find enough of it in the Provincial Letters the Jesuits Morals and Bishop Taylor 's Disswasive It sufficiently answers my present design to take notice of some few plain things which will admit of no dispute I have already shewn what a great value the Church of Rome sets upon an external Righteousness which is much more meritorious than a
real and substantial Piety and Virtue Now let any man judge whether this be not apt to corrupt mens notions of what is good to perswade them that such external observances are much more pleasing to God and therefore certainly much better in themselves than true Gospel-Obedience than Moral and Evangelical Vertues for that which will merit of God the pardon of the greatest immoralities and a great reward that which supplies the want of true Vertue which compensates for sin and makes men great Saints must needs be more pleasing to God than Vertue it self is and if men can believe this all the Laws of Holiness signifie nothing but to let men know when they break them that they may make satisfaction by some meritorious Superstitions Thus the Doctrine of venial sins which are hardly any sins at all to be sure how numerous soever they are or how frequently soever repeated cannot deserve eternal punishments is apt to give men very slight thoughts of very great Evils For very great Evils may come under the notion of venial sins when they are the effects of Passion and Surprize and the like Indeed this very Doctrine of venial sins is so perplexed and undermined that the Priest and the Penitent may serve themselves of it to good purpose I am sure this distinction is apt to make men careless of what they think little faults which are generally the seeds and dispositions to much greater such as the sudden eruptions of Passion some wanton thoughts an indecorum and undecency in words and actions and what men will please to call little venial sins for there is no certain Rule to know them by so that while this distinction lasts men have an excuse at hand for a great many sins which they need take no care of they are not obliged to aim at those perfections of Vertue which the Gospel requires if they keep clear of mortal sins they are safe and that men may do without any great attainments in Vertue which does not look very like a Gospel-Doctrine which gives us such admirable Laws which requires such great circumspection in our Lives such a command over our Passions such inoffensiveness in our Words and Actions as no Institution in the World ever did before Whatever corrupt mens Notions of Good and Evil as External Superstitions and the distinction between Venial and Mortal Sins is apt to do is a contradiction to the design of the Gospel to give us the plain Rules and Precepts of a perfect Vertue Secondly Let us consider some of the principal Motives of the Gospel to a Holy Life and see whether the Church of Rome does not evacuate them also and destroy their force and power Now 1. The Fundamental Motive of all is the absolute necessity of a Holy Life that without holiness no man shall see God for no other Argument has any necessary force without this But the absolute necessity of a holy life to please God and to go to Heaven is many ways overthrown by the Church of Rome and nothing would more effectually overthrow the Church of Rome than to re-establish this Doctrine of the absolute necessity of a good life For were men once convinced of this that there is no way to get to Heaven but by being truly and sincerely good they would keep their Money in their Pockets and not fling it so lavishly away up Indulgencies or Masses they would stay at home and not tire themselves with fruitless Pilgrimages and prodigal Offerings at the Shrines of some powerful Saints all external troublesome and costly Superstitions would fall into contempt good men would feel that they need them not and if bad men were convinced that they would do them no good there were an end of them for the only use of them is to excuse men from the necessity of being good But this is most evident in their Doctrine about the Sacrament of Penance that bare Contrition with the Absolution of the Priest puts a man into a state of Salvation I do not lay it upon Attrition which is somewhat less than Contrition though the Council of Trent if I can understand plain words makes that sufficient with the Absolution of the Priest but because some men will unreasonably wrangle about this I shall insist only on what is acknowledged by themselves that Contrition which is only a sorrow for sin if we confess our sins to a Priest and receive absolution puts us into a state of Grace now contrition or sorrow for sin is not a holy life and therefore this Doctrine overthrows the necessity of a holy life because men may be saved by the Sacrament of Penance without it and then I know no necessity there is of mortifying their Lusts for if they sin again it is only repeating the same remedy confessing their sins and being sorry for them and receiving absolution and they are restored to the favour of God and to a state of salvation again Nay some of their Casuists tell us that God has not commanded men to repent but only at the time of death and then contrition with absolution will secure their salvation after a whole life spent in wickedness without any other good action but only sorrow for sin and if men are not bound by the Laws of God so much as to be contrite for their sins till they find themselves dying and uncapable of doing any good all men must grant that a holy life is not necessary to salvation 2. More particularly The love of God in giving his own Son to die for us and the love of Christ in giving himself for us are great Gospel Motives to Obedience and a Holy Life but these can only work upon ingenuous minds who have already in some measure conquered the love of sin for where the love of sin prevails it is too powerful for the love of God but the holiness and purity and inflexible justice of the Divine Nature is a very good argument because it enforces the necessity of a holy life for a holy God cannot be reconciled to wicked Men will not forgive our sins unless we repent of them and reform them which must engage all men who hope for pardon and forgiveness from God to forsake their sins and reform their lives but the force of this Argument is lost in the Church of Rome by the judicial absolution of the Priest for they see daily the Priest does absolve them without forsaking their sins and God must confirm the sentence of his Ministers and therefore they are absolved and need not fear that God will not absolve them when the Priest has which must either destroy all sence of God's essential holiness and purity and perswade them that God can be reconciled to sinners while they continue in their sins or else they must believe that God has given power to his Priests to absolve those whom he could not have absolved himself To be sure it is in vain to tell men that God will not forgive
sinners while they continue in their sins if they believe the judicial authority of the Priest to forgive sins for they every day absolve men who do not forsake their sins and if their absolution be good God must forgive them too and thus the holiness and inflexible justice of God loses its force upon good Catholicks to reform their lives and therefore were there no other arguments against it it is not likely that the judicial absolution of the Priest as it is taught and practised in the Church of Rome should be a gospel-Gospel-Doctrine 3. The Death and Sacrifice of Christ is another Gospel-Motive to Holiness of Life not only because he has now bought us with his own Blood and therefore we must no longer live unto our selves but to him who died for us but because his Blood is the Blood of the Covenant and the efficacy of his Sacrifice extends no farther than the Gospel-Covenant which teaches us to deny all ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live soberly righteously and godly in this present world That is no man can be saved by the Blood of Christ but those who obey the Gospel which obliges all men who hope to be saved by Christ to the practise of an universal righteousness This the Church of Rome seems very sensible of that none but sincere Penitents and truly good men can be saved by the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross which gives no hope to Sinners who do not repent of their sins and amend their lives and therefore she has found out a great many other ways of expiating Sin which give more comfort to Sinners The Sacrifice of the Mass has a distinct vertue and merit from the Sacrifice upon the Cross it is a propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead to expiate especially the sins of those for whom it is particularly offered and thus those sins which are not expiated by the Death of Christ upon the Cross are expiated by the Sacrifice of the Mass and that by the bear opus operatum by the offering this Sacrifice of the Mass itself without any good motion in the person for whom it is offered and thus the Sacrifice of the Mass destroys the vertue of Christ's Sacrifice upon the Cross to oblige men to holiness of life for though none but sincere and reformed Penitents are pardoned by the Sacrifice of the Cross the Sacrifice of the Mass will expiate the sins of unreformed Sinners and then there is no need to reform our lives Thus I am sure all men understand it or they would never put their confidence in the Mass-Sacrifice for if it does no more for us than Christ's Death upon the Cross it might be spared for it gives no new comforts to impenitent Sinners They are very sensible that holiness of life is necessary to intitle us to the Pardon and Forgiveness purchased by the Death of Christ but then the Sacrifice of the Mass Humane Penances and Satisfactions and Merits and Indulgences seem on purpose contrived to supply the place of Holiness of Life for no body can imagine else what they are good for Christ has by his Death upon the Cross made a perfect Atonement for the sins of all true penitent and reformed Sinners and therefore a true Penitent who according to the terms of the Gospel denies all ungodliness and worldly lusts and lives soberly righteously and godly in this present world needs no Expiation but the Death of Christ Will they deny this by no means They grant that all our sins are done away in Baptism meerly by the application of Christ's Death and Passion to us and therefore the Death of Christ is a complete and perfect satisfaction for all Sin or else Baptism which derives its whole vertue from the Death of Christ could not wash away all sin What use can there be then of the new propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass of humane Satisfactions and Merits and Indulgences Truly none but this that when our sins are expiated by the Death of Christ and the pardon of all our sins applied to us in Baptism the Gospel exacts a holy life from us and therefore men forfeit the baptismal Pardon of their sins by the Bloud of Christ unless they either live very holy lives or make some other satisfaction for their not doing so And for this purpose the Sacrifice of the Mass humane Penances and Satisfactions serve It will not be unuseful nor unpleasant to draw a short Scheme of this whole matter which will explain this great Mystery and make it intelligible which now appears to be nothing but nonsence and confusion Christ then has made a perfect Atonement and Expiation for sin this is applied to us at Baptism wherein all our sins are forgiven and while we continue in this state of Grace we cannot be eternally damned though we may be punished for our sins both in this World and Purgatory But every mortal sin puts us out of the state of Grace which we were in by Baptism and till we be restored to the state of Grace again we must be eternally damned because we have no right to the Sacrifice and Expiation of Christ's Death the only way in the Church of Rome to restore us to this state of Grace is by the Sacrament of Penance and the Absolution of the Priest which restores us to the same state which Baptism at first put us into and therefore very well deserves to be thought a Sacrament And thus we recover our interest in the Merits of Christ's Death and therefore cannot be eternally damned for our sins but still it is our duty to live well for the Death of Christ does not excuse us from Holiness of Life which is the condition of the Gospel and therefore if we are in a state of Grace and thereby secured from eternal damnation yet if we live in sin we must be punished for it unless we can find some other expiation for sin than the Death of Christ upon the Cross which still leaves us under the obligations of a holy life and therefore cannot make such an Expiation for sin as shall serve instead of a holy life Now here comes in the Sacrifice of the Mas Humane Penance Satisfactions Indulgencies For the sacrifice of the Mass as I observed before does not serve the same end that the Sacrifice of the Cross does the Sacrifice of the Mass is a propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead But what sins is it a Propitiation for For such sins for which men are to satisfie themselves that is for all sins the eternal punishment of which is remitted for the Sacrifice of the Cross. This is evident from their making the Sacrifice of the Mass a propitiatory Sacrifice for the dead that is for the Souls in Purgatory who suffer there the temporal punishments of sin when the eternal punishment is forgiven the Souls in Hell are capable of no Expiation and therefore an expiatory Sacrifice for the dead can be only for
the Souls in Purgatory and that is for the temporal punishment of sin for which the Sacrifice of the Cross is no Expiation and the Mass is in no other sence made a Sacrifice for the living than for the dead and therefore is not to expiate the eternal but the temporal punishments of sin as appears from hence that the saying Masses or hearing Masses or purchasing Masses is reckoned among those Penances men must do for the Expiation of their sins and yet they can by all they do only expiate for the temporal punishment of sin and therefore Masses for the living are only for the Expiation of those temporal punishments of sin for which the Sacrifice of the Cross made no Expiation And I shall be so civil at present as not to inquire how the Sacrifice of the Cross and the Sacrifice of the Mass which are the very same Sacrifice of the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ come to serve such very different ends that when Christ was Sacrificed upon the Cross he expiated only for the eternal punishment of sin when Sacrificed in the Mass only for the temporal I need add nothing to prove that Humane Penances Satisfactions Merits Indulgencies are onely to expiate temporal punishment of sin because it is universally acknowledged Now if these temporal punishments be only in lieu of Holiness and Obedience which the Gospel requires to intitle us to the Expiation of Christ's Death upon the Cross as I have already shewn then it is evident to a demonstration that the Church of Rome has overthrown the Death and Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross consider'd as an argument of a holy life by setting up the Sacrifice of the Mass Humane Penances Satisfactions Merits Indulgencies instead of the Gospel-terms of obedience and holiness of life 4. The Intercession of Christ for us at the right hand of God is another powerful motive to Holiness of Life It gives all the encouragement to true penitent Sinners that can be desired For if any man sin we have an advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous who is also a propitiation for our sins But then Christ mediates only in vertue of his Bloud that is only upon the terms and conditions of the Covenant of Grace which was sealed by his Bloud that is he mediates and intercedes only for true penitent sinners which obliges us as we hope to be heard by God when we pray in the Name of Christ truly and heartily to repent of all our sins and to live a new life This the Church of Rome also seems very sensible of that Christ of his own accord will not intercede for impenitent and unreformed sinners that he who is the great Example and the great Preacher of Righteousness will not espouse the Cause of incorrigible sinners who are very desirous of pardon but hate to be reformed and therefore they seem to think it as hopeless a thing to go immediately to a holy Jesus as to appear before the Tribunal of a just and righteous God without a powerful Advocate For this reason they have found out a great many other Advocates and Mediators a great deal more pitiful and compassionate than Christ is who by their interest in him or their great favour with God may obtain that pardon which otherwise they could not hope for such as the Virgin Mary who is the Mother of Christ and therefore as they presume has as great interest in and authority over him as a Mother has over her Son besides those vast numbers of meritorious Saints whose Intercessions cannot but prevail for those sinners whose Cause they undertake And that this is the true reason of their Addresses to Saints and the Virgin Mary though they will not speak out is evident to any considering man For will they say that Christ who became man for us who suffered and died for us who was in all things tempted like as we are yet without sin who did and suffered all this on purpose that he might be a merciful and compassionate High Priest and might give us the highest assurance of his tenderness and compassion for us I say can they suspect that such a High Priest will not undertake to plead our Cause if we be such as according to the terms of the Gospel it is his Office to interceed for No Christian dare say this which is such a reproach to our common Saviour who hath bought us with his own Bloud and therefore no Christian who thinks himself within the reach and compass of Christ's Intercession can need or desire any other Advocate but those who are conscious to themselves of so much wickedness that they cannot hope the holy Jesus will intercede for them for their own sakes have reason to procure some other Favourites to intercede for them with their Intercessor and to countenance the matter they must recommend it to the practice of all Christians and more than so make it Heresie to deny it There is but one Argument I know of against this that any man should be so stupid as to think that the Intercession of the Virgin Mary or the most powerful Saints can prevail with our Saviour to do that which according to the Laws of his own Mediation they know he cannot and will not do and this I confess I cannot answer but yet so it is And thus the Intercession of Christ is made a very ineffectual Argument to make men good for though Christ will intercede for none but true Penitents the Church of Rome has a great many other Advocates that will or at least she perswades people that they will. 5. Another great Gospel-Motive to a holy life is the hope of Heaven and the fear of Hell. As for the hope of Heaven that is no otherwise a Motive to holiness of life but upon a supposition of the necessity of Holiness that without holiness no man shall see God but this you have already heard is overthrown by the Church of Rome and if men may go to Heaven without holiness I know no need of it for that purpose in this World. But Hell is a very terrible thing to be condemned to endless and eternal torments with the Devil and his Angels but then the Doctrine of Purgatory does mightily abate and take off this terror for though Purgatory be a terrible place too not cooler than Hell it self yet it is not eternal and men who are mightily in love with their sins will venture temporal punishments though somewhat of the longest to enjoy their present satisfactions especially considering how many easie ways there are for rich men to get out of Purgatory those who have money enough to buy Indulgences while they live and Masses for their Souls when they die need not lie long there if the Priests are not out in their reckoning and yet it is so easie a thing for a good Catholick to get into Purgatory especially if he take care frequently to confess himself and receive absolution or do
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-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-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