Scripture that a man who rejects the Authority of the Church may be forced to acknowledge that they are in Scripture and then he must reject the necessity of Church-Authority for the understanding of Scripture which is to yield up a very concerning point to Protestants or else he must confess that he does very foolishly or knavishly in urging Scripture-Proofs to a man who rejects the Authority of their Church without which he knows there are no Scripture-Proofs of any Authority But this which was the true state of the Controversie the Jesuite takes no notice of all that he says is this That the sense of Scripture takes its Authority from God that is is ultimately resolved into God's Authority who intended such a sense in it but as to Catholicks for such he must mean their certainty of the sense of Scripture is resolved immediately into the Authority of the Church which is guided in expounding Scripture by an infallible Spirit Now is not this the very same that I saiâ— that all Scripture-Proofs must be resolved into the Authority of the Church and are not good without it as it is impossible they should be if we cannot certainly know what the true sense of Scripture is but from the Exposition of the Church And yet if the Church of Rome be no more infallible in delivering the sense of Scripture than in delivering the letter of it there is no great encouragement to rely on her infallibility as is evident from the many Corruptions of their Vulgar Latine which one Pope corrected after another and yet it is not corrected still that it was a little over-sight in this Jesuite though possibly he knew nothing of the matter to make the Church equally infallible in delivering the letter and the sense of Scripture But to do him right he seems to offer at something of sense in his dispute between Iohn and William which is the right way to a place For says he is John disabled from convincing William of his mistake by reasons because he hath with him a Guide who certainly knows the way and that he himself would certainly pass by those reasons if his Guide assured him that he applied them ill and wrongly to that way This has something of argument in it and therefore shall be considered and I am glad to meet with any thing that deserves to be considered The sum of his Argument which I shall represent fairly for him because he has not shewn it to the best advantage is this That Roman-Catholicks have two ways of finding out the sense of Scripture either by the use of Reason or by the Expositions of an infallible Guide but that Reason must be subordinate to the Guide and if Reason dictates one sense of Scripture and the Church teaches another Reason must submit and a true Catholick must embrace the sense of the Church though it be against his Reason but yet if Reason and his Guide be both of a side and he can prove by Reason that to be the true sense of Scripture which the Church gives of it he may then wave the Authority of the Church when he disputes with those who reject such Authority and argue from the reasons of things and the natural interpretation of Scripture it self As Iohn may convince William who rejects the infallibility of Iohn's Guide which is the true way by plain reason while his reason is not contradicted by his Guide and if our Jesuite can make more of this Argument himself let him I am sure he has spoiled it by repeating it in his Preserv Consider p. 11. John is not disabled of convincing William of his mistake because he receives the reasons he uses from an infallible Guide Where he has set it upon another bottom and a very silly one for his purpose for if the force of his Reasons be resolved into the Authority of an infallible Guide it is all lost to him who disowns the infallibility of the Guide or if he means that Iohn is taught such Reasons by an infallible Guide as are able by their own evidence to convince William without any regard to the infallibility of the Guide we desire no more than to see such Reasons and to be left to judge for our selves but this ends in a Protestant Resolution of Faith for every man to judge for himself according to the evidence of Reason which in it self is neither more nor less evident for being proposed or learnt from a fallible or infallible Guide And yet by what follows he can mean no more but that the Authority of an infallible Judge must over-rule every Man's private Reason for he appeals to the learned Gentlemen of the Temple hoping they will joyn with him maintaining against their Master that all the Iudges of the Land may very reasonably convince by Law an impertinent Party though he should oppose that they may not do it because their interpretation of the Law is to deliver the true sense of it Which is glorious Nonsence that all the Judges of the Land can convince a man who is not convinced but declares still that they have not given the true sense of the Law. In all Civil Causes there must be a final judgment and every private man must submit to the decision of Authority whether his own reason be satisfied or not but it is not so in matters of Religion in which no man at the peril of his Soul must be over-ruled by any Authority till he be first convinced So that the Jesuite had said a good thing by chance but for want of understanding it had lost it again and any man may see that I could as easily have lost it as he had I a mind to it but I will not part with it without an Answer because it is the most plausible thing that can be said and possibly other men may understand it who can't answer it though he don't His Argument then as first proposed is this That they allow of Reason in expounding Scripture so long as they do not contradict the Sense and Exposition of the Church and therefore they may dispute with Hereticks from Scripture without concerning the Authority of the Church in the dispute Now in answer to this there are some material Questions to be asked As 1. Whether they can dispute with Protestants by Scripture-Arguments without allowing them to judge of the sense of Scripture by their own private Reason and whether this be agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that every man may judge of the sense of Scripture by his own private Reason 2. Whether the Scripture be so plain and perspicuous especially in the Doctrines in dispute between us and the Church of Rome that every honest impartial Inquirer may find the true sense of them without an infallible Interpreter if they be I think they never ought to talk of the obscurity of Scripture nor the necessity of an infallible Judge more if they be not and if they know that they are
by the Church representative so that it is evident after the explanation that it is the same Faith still I say every Protestant will acknowledge that this Faith is infallibly true for we believe the Faith delivered by the Apostles to be infallibly true and if it appears that the same Faith is still taught by the Church whether in or out of Council it matters not it must be infallibly true still But yet there is a little difference between us and the Jesuit He believes and would have us believe that the present Faith of the Church of Rome viz. the Doctrine of the Council of Trent is that Faith which was received from the Apostles preserved in all the Members of the Catholick Church and only explained upon occasion by the Council of Trent which was the Church representative this we deny this we know this we can and often have proved to be false And I beseech you what greater infallibility can any Church pretend to than to have the World receive all her Decrees as infallibly true But they do not pretend that either thâ— whole Church or any person or persons in it are held to possess any intrinsick Infallibility which they own to be proper to God alone Thank 'em for nothing they do not believe that the Church or Pope or Council are by nature infallible for all the World would laugh at them if they did We do not say as he adds that they cannot of themselves deceive us but that God according to his Promise directing them by his infallible Spirit it cannot possibly happen that they should deceive us The Modesty of a Jesuit who claims no more Infallibility for the Pope and General Council than the Apostles had and wonders any man should grudge them this since they do not pretend to an intrinsick Infallibility not to be infallible by Nature but only by Grace Thus he adds that they do not preâ—end to new Revelations and Lights nor admit any new Article of Faith though where a doubt arises the Church-hath infallibly power to declare what hath been revealed by Christ to the Apostles and preached by them which perhaps some part of the Church might have had a less clear understanding thereof but this is done not by making any new Article of Faith but more clearly delivering what was ever believed by the Apostles and all Catholicks from their time to this That is to say what ever the Church determines though the Christian Church in former ages knew nothing of it yet it must not be called a new Article of Faith but a declaring what had been revealed by Christ to his Apostles and preached by them though the world had long since forgot it whatever the Church determines to day we must believe to have been the Faith of the Apostolick Age though there are no other evidences nor symptomes of it but because the Church which is infallible says so And this is all the Infallibility the Church pretends too a very small matter to be denied her by Christians it is only to believe whatever she says without disputing or examining her Faith nay to believe that to be the old Faith which the most authentick Records of the Church prove to be new I have thus stept out of my way to see what fine thing he had to say of the Churches Infallibility which he promised a very favourable representation of but it is all the old cant still a little disguised by some ignorant blunders or artificial Non-sense as for his proofs of this Infallibility I am not concerned with them at present and after so many discourses on that Argument they need no answer Another Argument whereby I proved that no man can be disputed into Popery which denies us the use of our own Reason and Judgment in matters of Religion was this Because it is impossible by Reason to prove that men must not use their own Reason and Iudgment in matters of Religion For to dispute is to appeal to Reason and to dispute against the use of Reason in Religion is to appeal to Reason against the use of Reason in Answer to this he tells us That men must use their Reason to come to this knowledge that God hath revealed what they believe Now I would desire no more but this to prove that we must use our Reason in matters of Religion for no man at this day can know what is revealed without it I do assert and let him disprove me when he can that since God has given us reason to judge of the truth or falshood of such things as are knowable by the light of Nature and a standing Rule of Faith and Manners in the writings of the Old and New Testament for matters of Revelation we must believe no Mans or Churches pretences to Infallibility who either teaches any Doctrine which plainly contradicts the light of Reason or a standing revelation and therefore we must judge of mens pretences to the Spirit by the Doctrines they teach and therefore must particularly judge of their Doctrines too This is the fair state of the Controversie between us and here I leave it and let him take it up again when he pleases And here he returns back to the Conference between a sturdy Protestant and a new Convert which belonged to the former head the design of which is to shew the new Convert that by going over to the Church of Rome he has gained no more Infallibility than a Protestant has nay has lost some degrees of certainty which he might have had before for thus the Protestant tells him 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 Iudgment 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 We have more rational certainty than you have and you have no more infallible certainty than we You think you are reasonably assured your Church is infallible and then you take up your Religion upon trust from your Church without and many times against Sense and Reason according as it happens So that you have only a general assurance of the Infallibity 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 are 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 assured that the Faith which we profess is agreeable to Scripture or expresly contained in it and does not contradict either Sense 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 at least have double and triple the assurance that you have I have repeated this at large that the Reader might see what the dispute is and indeed the very repetition of it is a sufficient justification for it carries its own evidence along with it Now as to what I said that we are in general assured that the Scriptures are the Word of God. To this he answers The conclusion would be this Catholicks are as certain of the sense of Scripture as Protestants are that they have the letter Now I believe any Reader will be as much puzled to guess how this comes in or what relation it has to this dispute as I am I tell the new Convert that his old Protestant Friend has as much certainty of his Religion as he has for tho' he flatters himself with the conceit of an infallible Church yet his belief of the Churches Infallibility is founded only on Reason and Argument as the Protestant Faith is and therefore his Faith is no more infallible than the Protestant Faith is and so far they are equal But then I add that the Protestant has at least as good assurance that the Scriptures are the Word of God as the Papists can pretend to have that the Church is infallible and so far they may be allowed equal still that the one thinks he has an infallible Guide the other an infallible Rule of Faith Now how can the Jesuit's conclusion come in here Catholics are as certain of the Sense of Scripture as Protestants are that they have the Letter For the comparison did not lie between the Sense and the Letter of Scripture but between that Evidence Papists have of the Infallibility of their Church and Protestants have that the Scriptures are the Word of God both which is not infallible but a rational Evidence and therefore so far equal and this he has nothing to say to In the Preserv Consid. p. 29. he represents it otherwise This is the case On one side there is supposed an infallible Interpreter of the Christians great Law-Book for thus Dr. Sherlock states the case on the other are some men far the greater part unlearned and weak who allow not any Sense to this Book which seems to them to contradict their Sense or Reason or any other principle of their Knowledge And I am asked Whether I proceed more prudently in receiving the Sense of the Law from that Interpreter which is actually supposed infallible or in proceeding by the second Method Now this is as wide of the mark as t'other I never suppose an infallible Interpreter never make any dispute whether I should submit to an infallible Interpreter or follow my own Reason which were indeed a ridiculos question supposing the Interpreter were actually infallible but our only dispute was Whether a man who by the appearing evidence of Reason is perswaded to believe an infallible Judge believes more infallibly than a Protestant does who believes also upon the evidence of Reason and Argument This is the Question he cannot answer and therefore would lose if he could But then I added that Protestants had much the advantage of Papists because besides that general assurance they had that the Scriptures are the Word of God and the infallible Rule of Faith they are in particular assured that the Faith they profess is agreeable to the Scripture or expresly contained in it and does not contradict either Sense or Reason nor any other Principle of Knowledge whereas Papists have no other evidence for the particular Articles of their Faith but the infallible Authority of their Church which is the last resolution of their Faith and that many times in contradiction to Sense and Reason and Scripture as far as fallible men can judge of it So that we have as much assurance of every Article of our Faith as they have of the Infallibility of their Church The meaning of which is that we have a rational assurance of every Article of our Faith in particular as they think they have the assurance of Reason and Argument that their Church is infallible To which he answers If he means they have the same proofs for this which Catholicks have for the Infallibility of the Church it is false No Sir I do not mean the same for I hope they are better but proofs of the same kind i. e. from Reason and Argument which are the only proofs they can pretend to for the Infallibility of their Church and therefore our Assurance for that I said not Proofs is of the same kind too a moral rational Assurance not infallible for that they have not for Infallibility itself as our Answerer confest above But the Argument he hints in his Answer p. 5. is so very new and so very pretty that I cannot pass it If he means they have the same proofs for this which Catholics have for the Infallibility of the Church that is for the being of that Church which declares her self Infallible for a Church erring in such a point would cease to be the Church of Christ then 't is evidently false The Argument is this that the Infallibility of a Church which declares herself infallible is as evident as the being of that Church for if she declares her self infallible and is not infallible such an Errour as this makes her cease to be the Church of Christ. So that the Church of Rome is either an infallible Church or no Church Well for Argument's â—ake we will say she is no Church and try then how he can prove her Infallibility But he has another bold stroke in what follows That the Christians of this Age have the same evidence of Her he must mean the Church of Rome being the Church of Christ and of her teaching Truth and consequently of her Infallibility which she hath of Christ viz. Prophesie Miracles c. What will no less evidence serve his turn is it full as evident that the Church of Rome is the Church of Christ and speaks Truth and consequently is Infallible which it seems every one that speaks truth must by consequence be as that there was such a person as Christ the true Prophet and Messias I hope by Prophesies he does not mean the Revelations of St. Iohn nor by Miracles the School of the Eucharist His next exception is against that Argument If you must not use your Reason and private Iudgment then you must not by any Reason be perswaded to condemn the use of Reason for to condemn is an act of Iudgment 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 Here our Jesuit is as pleasant as his wit would serve him the sum of his Answer is That a man
And here the Jesuite finds another Misrepresentation that by the Incarnation God is visibly represented to us in our nature but the Papists not contented with this contrary to the design of God made man make and adore other Images of God. Here he has concealed what my Argument was but the thing is true that though God gave us a visible Image of himself to cure the Idolatry of Image-Worship yet this is still retained and practised in the Church of Rome In summing up this Argument I said Since it was one main design of Christ's appearance to root out Idolatry is it credible that the Worship of Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary the Worship of Images and Reliques as it is practised in the Church of Rome should be any part of the Christian Worship or allowed by the Gospel of our Saviour if Creature-Worship and Image-Worship were so offensive to God here is the Worship of Creatures and Images still and therefore all the visible Idolatry that ever was practised in the World before This is another of his Misrepresentations but very true No understanding Papist that has any modesty can deny that they worship Creatures and Images for that they should be worshipped is determined by their own Councils now if there be any salvo to deliver the Church of Rome from the guilt of Idolatry in worshipping Creatures and Images when the Heathens were Idolaters for doing it yet here is the visible Worship of Creatures and Images that is all that was visible in the Idolatry of the Heathens This was my Argument to shew how improbable it was that Christ who came to extirpate all Idolatry should still allow the external and visible Worship of Creatures which if it be not Idolatry yet is all that was visible in the Idolatry of the Heathens and it had better become him to have answered this Argument than to have called it a Misrepresentation I observed farther That the great difference the Papists can pretend between their Worship of Saints and Images and what the Heathens did whereby to excuse themselves from Idolatry notwithstanding they worship Creatures and Images as the Heathens did is that they have better Notions of the Worship of Saints and Angels and Images than the Heathens had but I said whether they had or no would be hard to prove The Pagan Philosophers made the same Apologies for their Worship of Angels and Daemons and Images which the learned Papists now make and whether unlearned Papists have not as gross Notions about the Worship of their Saints and Images as the unlearned Heathens had is very doubtful and has been very much suspected by learned Romanists themselves This he puts down for another Misrepresentation though all learned men know it to be true Had he ever read Origen against Celsus he would have known that that Philosopher had taught the Roman Doctors how to defend the Worship of Saints and Images and that the Father had confuted them long since and had he looked into Vives upon St. Aust. de Civitate Dei he would have found that learned Man make nâ— great difference between unlearned Christians and Heathens as to thâ—se mâ—tters to name no more at present I added Can we think that Christ who came to make a more perfect reformation should only change their Country-Gods into Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary and give new Names to their Statues and Images This he calls a Misrepresentation too tho' it neither represents nor misrepresents any body that I know of but only argues what Christ was likely to do For had Christ only forbad the Worship of Pagan Gods and set up the Worship of Saints it had not been to extirpate Creature-Worship but only to change those particular Creatures who were to be Objects of Worship and instead of the Images of Iupiter and Bacchus to set up Images to Saints Thus I have considered the Misrepresentations charged upon the first Section of the Preservative as for his own representation of the Faith and Practice of the Catholicks as to their Worship I am not concerned with it There are a great many late Treatises wherein those Matters are fully debated Such as The Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly represented The Object of Religious Worship The Answer to Papists protesting against Protestant Popery The late Answers to M. de Meaux and his Vindicator and a Book which this Jesuite has some reason to know The Primitive Fathers no Papists And to these I refer my Reader who needs any farther satisfaction SECT II. Concerning the great Love of God to Mankind c. HE has found but six Misrepresentations and Calumnies in this Section which is pretty moderate and some few Arguments against Purgatory and our recourse to Saints for their Prayers which he says he has collected not one omitted but when I read them over I could not find any one of them I confess it is a very dull and troublesom task to answer him for he transcribes several Passages out of my Book without representing their connexion with what goes before or what follows or without telling what their fault is or offering one word to confute them that whoever will but take the pains to put every Sentence into its proper place will need no other answer And this I shall do as briefly as I can Having shewn what great assurance the Gospel of our Saviour gives us of the love of God to sinners I came to shew how irreconcilable the Doctrine of Purgatory and the Invocation of Saints and Angels as our Mediators with God is with the Gospel-Notion of God's Love and that Security it gives us of Pardon through the Merits and Intercession of Christ. 1. The Doctrine of Purgatory where the Punishments are as severe as in Hell itself only of a less continuance and yet they may last some thousand Years unless their Friends or the Priests be more merciful to them This I said was a barbarous Doctrine and so inconsistent with the Gospel-Account of God's Love that it is not reconcilable with any Notion of Love and Goodness you may call it Iustice you may call it Vengeance if you please but Love it is not These words he cites as an Argument against Purgatory without representing on what it is founded viz. that glorious discovery of God's love to sinners in the Gospel of Christ now if to damn men whose sins are pardoned for a thousand or two thousand Years for so long sure a man may lie in Purgatory or else the Pope is a great Cheat for selling Pardons for ten and twenty thousand Years if no man be in danger of lying one thousand Years in Purgatory I say if this be not reconcilable with the Gospel-Notion of God's Love then Purgatory can be no Gospel-Doctrine This Argument he never mentions and never pretends to answer in his Catholick Doctrine of Purgatory He says the Doctrine of Purgatory is God's Iustice tempered with Infinite Mercy but I
single sheet was only swelled up with words but void of Sense and Reason A strange Tympany this poor Preservative was sick of that when the wordy swelling was taken down that and the Answer too could be reduced to a single sheet But the Prefacer he says should have pointed at some pretended proofs which he slighted to expose or have praised him for not wearying his Readers with a dull prolixity But the Prefacer pointed him to the Book and that was enough unless he would have had him transcribe the Book again and concluded every entire Argument with this is not Answered by the Iesuite For I know not any one paragraph that he has pretended to answer though some single sayings he has nibled at and little pieces of Argument as appears from this Vindication and that so dully too that there was no need of more prolixity to tire his Readers Our Author little thinks how he exposes his Reputation among our people by such vain brags as these They can find a great many Arguments which he has not medled with and therefore conclude the Jesuite to be very blind or very impudent in pretending to have answered all he could find or which it may be is the truth of the case that he was not trusted to read the Preservative but had some sayings picked out for him to answer and he mistook them for the whole 4 ly That when he talks big of Calumnies and Misrepresentation he woulâ— not only say but prove them to be so that is that I attribute any Doctrines to them which are not taught by their own Councils and Doctors or impute such Practices to them as they are not guilty of for this Cry of Misrepresenting is grown so familiar now and that Charge has been so often bafled of late that our People will not take his Word for it nor allow every Argument he cannot Answer to pass for a Misrepresentation 5 ly I would advise him to have a care that he do not Confute his own Church while he is zealous to Confute his Adversary this often happens and has done so to him in this very Dispute especially in his Talk of Moral Infallibility which has effectually given up the Roman pretences to Infallibility as I have shewn above 6 ly If he resolves to Write again I desire him to take but any one Chapter or Section in the Preservative and try his skill on it not to pick out a single Saying or two but to Answer the whole Series of Argumentâ— as they lie there and if he can make any work of it I promise him a very grave and modest Reply But if he skips about from one Page to another and only hunts for Calumnies and Misrepresentations as he calls them which he first artificially makes by changing Words and Periods and joyning Sentences which have no relation to each other and then triumphs over his own Creatures I shall leave him to be answered and chastized by any Footman who pleases to undertake him and I wish the next may not be so much his Over-match as the first was I have taken no Notice of his Postscript in Answer to the Preface to the Protestant Footman's Defence of the Preservative That Author is able to Answer for himself if he thinks fit but I presume he looks upon that Dispute as at an end if Disputes must ever have an end for when all is said that a Cause 〈◊〉 bear and the same Arguments and the same Answers come to be repeated over again it is time then for a modest man to have done and to leave the World to judge unless Disputing be only an Art of Scolding where the last Word is thought the Victory THE END Books Printed for and are to be Sold by W. Rogers Bp Wilkins his Fifteen Sermons Octavo Dr. Wallis of the Necessity of Regeneration In Two Sermons to the University of Oxford Quarto His Defence of the Royal Society and the Philosophical Transactions particularly those of Iuly 1670. In Answer to the Cavils of Dr. William Holder Quarto The Necessity Dignity and Duty of Gospel-Ministers discoursed of before the University of Cambridge By Tho. Hodges B.D. Quarto The Peaceable Christian. A Sermon Quarto Price 3 d. A Treatise of Marriage with a Defence of the 32 d Article of the Church of England viz. Bishops Priests and Deacons are not commanded by God's Law either to Vow the State of Single Life or to Abstain from Marriage c. By Tho Hodges B. D. Octavo History of the Affairs of Europe in this present Age but more particularly of the Republick of Venice By Battista Nani Cavalier of St. Mark. Fol. Sterry's Freedom of the Will. Folio Light in the Waâ— to Paradise with other Occasionals By Dudley the 2 d late Lord North. Octavo Molins of the Muscles with Sir Charles Scarborough's Syllabus Musculorum Octavo A Collection of Letters of Gallantry Twelves Leonard's Reports in Four Parts The Second Edition Folio Bulstrode's Reports in Three Parts the Second Edition Corrected with the Addition of Thousands of References 1688. Fol. The Compleat Clark containing the best Forms of all sorts of Presidents for Conveyances and Assurances and other Instruments now in Use and Practice Quarto Sir Simon Degges Parsons Counsellor with the Law of Tithes and Tithing In Two Books The Fourth Edition Octavo An Answer to the Bishop of Condom now of Meaux his Exposition of the Catholick Faith c. wherein the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is Detected and that of the Church of England Expressed from the Publick Acts of both Churches To which are added Reflections on his Pastoral Letter THE Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome â—ruly Represenâ—ed in Answer to a Book intituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented c. Quarto Third Edition 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 Second Edition An Answer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Differences between the Representer and the Answerer Quarto A View of the 〈◊〉 â—ontroversie between the Representer and the Answerer with an 〈◊〉 to the Representer's last Reply in which are â—id open some of the Methods by which Protestants are Misreprensented by Papists Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scriptâ—â—â—â—eason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the 〈◊〉 Part Wherein an Answer is given to the late Proofs of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation in the Books called Consensus Veterum and Nubes Testiuâ— c. Quarto The Doctrine â—f 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
Answer the Question and if there be a Dispute depending which of them contradicts St. Paul's Doctrine I would desire him to tell me How we shall know which of them does it without examining them When we know these Books which contradict St Paul's Doctrine we will reject them with an Anathema and for that reason we reject the Council of Trent whose Authority we think to be inferior to an Angels and that shews that we do not think rejecting and yet reading such Books to make void common Sense for though we reject the Council of Trent yet we read it as they find to their cost His next Question or else I cannot make three of them is By what Text doth God deliver this Injunction viz of reading Heretical Books which in his Sense of Heretical Books is a very senseless Question for no man pretends that God commands us to read Books which we know to be Heretical though a man who is inquiring after Truth must read such Books as the several divided Sects of Christians may call Heretical But his killing Question is to come I asked further How standing to the first Principles of Common Sense a Church which declares all men bound to judge for themselves could countenance Laws which exact of Dissenters that they stand not to that their Iudgment but comply against it and that constrain their liberty of judging by the dread of Excommunications Sequestrations Imprisonments c. which is to make it Death not to act against a strict Duty of Conscience acknowledged by the Persecutors to be such But what is this to reading Heretical Books Is there any Law in the Church of England thus to punish men for reading Heretical Books There is we know in the Church of Rome where besides other Heretical Books to have and to read the Bible in the vulgar Tongue without License which is rarely granted and ought not to be at all brings a man in danger of the Inquisition which one word signifies more than any man can tell but he who has felt it witness the late account of the Inquisition of Goa Well but to allow a liberty of Judging and not to suffer men to stand to their Judgment is contrary to Common Sense It is so but who gives a liberty of Judging and forbids men to stand to their own Judgment I am sure the Church of England accounts any man a Knave who contradicts his own Judgment and Conscience There is no Inquisition for mens private Opinions no ransacking Consciences in the Church of England as we know where there is Yes We constrain this liberty of Iudging by the dread of Excommunications Sequestrations Imprisonments Exclusion from the chiefest Properties of free born Subjects even by Hanging and Quartering which is to make it Death not to act against a strict Duty of Conscience acknowledged by the Persecutors to be such It is a blessed time for these Jesuits who like that no body should be able to Persecute but themselves to rail at Persecution but let that pass It seems then it is contrary to Common Sense to allow a liberty of Judging and to deny a liberty of Practice for God suppose to allow men to choose their Religion and to Damn them if they choose wrong That is to say a Natural liberty of Judgment and by the same reason the Natural liberty of Will is inconsistent with all Government in Church and State If this were so it would indeed make Persecution as he calls it in a free-judging Church very absurd but it is very reconcileable to Common Sense for a Church which denies this liberty of Judging to Persecute too and this justifies the Persecutions of the Church of Rome Let Protestants here see if such Jesuits could rule the Roast what it will cost them to part with their liberty of Judging they loose their Argument against Persecution for an Infallible Church which will not suffer men to Judge may with good Reason Persecute them if they do that all men who like Liberty of Conscience are concerned to oppose Popery which it seems is the only Religion that can make it reasonable to Persecute nay which makes it unreasonable not to Persecute for it is as much against Common Sense for a Church which denies a liberty of Judging to allow a liberty of Conscience as for a Church to deny Liberty of Conscience which allows a liberty of Judging Thus far the Preservative is safe and let his following Harangue against the liberty of Judging shift for it self that is not my business at present His next Quarrel is that Preser p. 4 5. I advise Protestants not to dispute with Papists till they disown Infallibility I own the charge and repeat it again that it is a ridiculous thing to dispute with Papists till they renounce Infallibility as that is opposed to a lâ—berty of Judging for so the whole Sentence runs Here then let our Protestant fix his Foot and not stir an inch till they disown Infallibility and confess that every man must Iudge for himself in Matters of Religion according to the Proofs that are offered to him This the Jesuit either designedly concealed or did not understand though it is the whole design of that Discourse For the plain state of the Case is this The Church of Rome pretends to be Infallible and upon this pretence she requires us to submit to her Authority and to receive all the Doctrines she teaches upon her bare Word without Examination for we must not Judge for our selves but learn from an Infallible Church Now I say it is a ridiculous thing for such men to pretend to Dispuâ—e with us about Religion when they will not allow that we can judge what is true or false for it is to no purpose to Dispute unless we can Judge and therefore a Protestant before he Disputes with them ought to exact this Confession from them that every man must Judge for himself and ought not to be over-ruled by the pretended Infallible Authority of the Church against his own Sense and Reason and this is to make them disown Infallibility as far as that is Matter of Controversie between us and the Church of Rome to disown Infallibility as that is opposed to a liberty of Judging If it be absurd to Dispute with a man who denies me a liberty of Judging then I must make him allow me this liberty before I Dispute and then he must disown the over-ruling Authority of an Infallible Judge which is a contradiction to such a Liberty By this time I suppose he sees to what little purpose his Objections are that to require such a disowning of Infallibility is to say 'T is impossible to convince a man that in Reason he ought to submit his Iudgment to any other though Infallible No Sir but 't is to say that I cannot make use of my Reason in any thing till I am delivered from the Usurping Authority of such an Infallible Judge who will not suffer me to use my
Reason or to Judge for my self It does not make void the use of Common Sense and Reason when it should lead us to submit to any just Authority but to submit to such an unjust Authority makes void the use of Common Sense and Reason because he will not allow us to use our Reason The Iews had no Reason as he pretends to reject St. Paul's Disputation till he had renounced Infallibility because he never urged his own Infallibility as the sole Reason of their Faith and to debar them from a liberty of Judging as the Church of Rome does if he had it had been as vain a thing for the Iews to have Disputed with St. Paul as it is for Protestants to Dispute with Papists His next Exception is against those Words Pres. p. 6. What difference is there betwxit mens using their private Iudgments to turn Papists or to turn Protestants To this he answers The same as betwixt two sick men the one whereof chooses to put himself in an able Doctors hands whom he knows to have an infallible Remedy which none but Mountebanks ever had yet whilst the other chooses his own Simples and makes his own Medicines The case is this I was giving a reason why Papists who have any modesty should not dispute with Protestants because it is an appeal to every man's private judgment if ever they make Converts they must be beholden to every man's private judgment for it for I think men cannot change their opinions without exercising a private judgment about it and I suppose when they dispute with men to make them Papists they intend to convert them by their own private judgments now what difference is there between mens using their private judgments to turn Papists or to turn Protestants one indeed may be false and the other true but private judgment is private judgment still and if it be so great a fault for men to use their private judgments it is as great a fault in a Papist as it is in a Protestant So that all that I said is that there is no difâ—erence with respect to mens using their private judgment whether they use their private judgment to turn Papists or to turn Protestants for both is but private judgment and to confute this he tells us that there is a great difference between turning Papist and turning Protestant which I granted there was but is nothing to the present Argument I say there is no difference as to the principle or cause of their change when the change of both is owing to private judgment and he learnedly proves that the change itself is different as widely different as Papist and Protestant differ But though the Footman had plainly told him this the Jesuite had not wit to understand it and therefore Preservative Consid. p. 11. adds is there no difference then betwixt one who follows his fancy in chusing his way and him who chuses a good guide and follows him because they both chuse do both equally rely on their fancy I grant there is a difference between these two as there is between a Protestant and a Papist but when the dispute is whether they shall follow their own reason and judgment or give up themselves to follow a Guide with a blind and implicite faith and every man must determine this by his own private judgment which is the case I proposed which way so ever they determine this question whether to follow their own reason or to follow a Guide in this point they both equally rely on their own private reason and judgment or as he calls it fancy In the next place he says I take the Catholicks part and tho' faintly yet speak well in so clear a cause The intention of those Disputes is only to lead you to the infallible Church and set you upon a Rock and then it is very natural to renounce your own judgment when you have an infallible Guide This I do alledge as the most plausible pretence to justifie Papists in disputing with Protestants that the end of it is to lead us to an infallible Church That our own judgment must bring us to the infallible Guide but when we have found him we have no farther use for our own judgment I offered two Answers to this neither of which he durst meddle with but nibbles at a Passage in each The 1. he thus represents they cannot with any sense dispute with us about the particular Articles of Faith because the sense given of Scripture and Fathers takes its Authority from the Church understanding it so But my Answer was this That if Disputes be only to lead us to the infallible Church then it puts an end to all the particular Disputes of Religion between us and the Church of Rome We may dispute on about an infallible Iudge but they cannot with any sense dispute with us about the particular Articles of Faith such as Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass c. for these are to be learnt only from the Church and cannot be proved by Scripture or Fathers without the Authority of the Church Which is a demonstration if Faith must be resolved into the infallible Authority of the Church for then no Arguments are a sufficient foundation for Faith without the Authority of the Church or if they be there is no necessity of resolving our Faith into Church Authority because we have a good foundation for Faith without it He answers This is false The sense of Scripture takes its authority from God who spoke that Word though we are certain that we have the true sense of that Word because we receive it from the Church which is protected and guided in delivering us both the letter and sense by the infallible Spirit of God that is to abide with her for ever according to Christ's promise John 14.16 This is a choice Paragraph The Question between us is Whether they can by Scripture convince a man who does not yet believe the infallible Authority of the Church as we Protestants do not that their Doctrines of Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass the Worship of Images c. are true Gospel-Doctrines This I say they cannot if they be true to their own Doctrine that we cannot be certain what the true sense of Scripture is without the infallible Authority of the Church of Rome For a man cannot be convinced by Scripture till he be sure what the true sense of Scripture is and if we cannot be sure of this without relying on the Authority of the Church in expounding Scripture then a Protestant who disowns such an Authority can never be sure what the true sense of Scripture is and therefore cannot be convinced by Scripture-Proofs which shews how absurd it is for a Papist who professes to believe all this to attempt to perswade a Protestant who rejects the Authority of their Church of the truth of Popish Doctrines from Scripture either he thinks these Doctrines so plainly contained in
may be convinced by Reason that he ought to choose a Guide and not to trust his Reason in all things I readily grant it for this is to use our Reason but the inquiry is Whether Reason can convince any man that he ought to follow this Guide in contradiction to his own Sense and Reason whether because Reason will direct a sick man to choose a Physician it will direct him also to submit to this Physician when he certainly knows that he gives him Poison The next Principle which overthrows the use of common Sense and Reason for that is his charge against me is this That we must allow of no Reason against the Authority of plain and express Scripture This he allows to be a true Catholic Principle and therefore I hope the Principle does not overthrow common Sense unless Catholic Principles may do it But he does not like an instance or two I give of it in the first and second Commandments I say such an express Law is that Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve No reason in the World can justifie the worship of any other Being good or bad Spirits besides God because there is an express Law against it and no Reason can take place against a Law. A rare consequence says the Jesuit to infer a Negative from an Affirmative antecedent But I thought Him only shalt thou serve had signified thou shalt serve none but him and that I think excludes all other Beings from any share in our Worship Now to take his own instance were there such a Law that a Subject should love his King only this would exclude Father or Wife or any other Friends or Relations from a share in our love Here he begins to distinguish between that worship they pay to Creatures and to God and alleadges St. Austin's Authority for it but if he have a mind to renew that Dispute about the sense of the Primitive Fathers as to Invocation of Saints he knows his man and had best keep to him or at least do him right before he engages any farther It had been more to the purpose to have examined that explication I gave of the first Commandment and how I proved that it is an express Law against the worship of any other Being but the Supreme God but what is most to the purpose is seldom most to his purpose The next instance I gave of this rule was the second Commandment Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image and there the Jesuite stops with an c. for he durst not trust good Catholicks who might read his paper though they will read nothing else with the whole Commandment and this I affirmed and affirm still is so express a Law against Image-Worship that no reason must be admitted for it What says he if you be told that although the Iews had perhaps a command of making no graven Image c. again why not and not to worship it we do not say they were forbid to make any graven Image but they were forbid to make them for worship and therefore his following instances of Bezaleel and Solomon who made no Images or likenesses of things in Heaven or Earth for worship are nothing to the purpose he adds yet this being a positive Law and not confirmed in the Gospel doth not oblige us will this reason be admitted He answers for me No but I answer yes if it be true and he dare stand to it but this is no reason against an express Law but an exception to the Law itself as of no force I do affirm that if the second Commandment be still in force it does so expresly condemn all Image-worship that no reasons can justifie Image-worship against such an express Law but if it be a Law no longer the case I confess is altered and I desire to know whether he will stand to this but he had best advise with some wiser men first who understand the sense of the Church and of the Fathers and of their own Divines a little better about this matter But before they abrogate this Law I would desire them to make it a Commandment by it self and call it the second Commandment as we do for fear of abrogating the first Commandment with it of which they make it a part though the truth is the Church of Rome could spare them both and thank you too His parting blow is a very terrible one I direct Protestants never to admit any Arguments meerly from the usefulness conveniency or pretended necessity of any thing to prove that it is As for instance A supreme Oecumenical Bishop and an Infallible Iudge of Controversies are thought absolutely necessary to the Vnity of the Church and certainty of Faith and confounding of Schisms and Heresies Now if I thought all this were true as I believe not a word of it is I should only conclude that it were great pity that there is not an Vniversal Pastor and Infallible Iudge Instituted by Christ but if you would have me conclude from these Premises Ergo there is an Vniversal Pastor and infallible Iudge I must beg your pardon for that for these Arguments do not prove that there is such a Iudge but that there ought to be one and therefore I must conclude no more from them This he says is not only to misuse humane Reason but to deny Wisdom and Reason in God Alphonsus the Royal Mathematician was ever looked on as guilty of a horrid Blasphemy for having said he thought he could have ordered some things better than God did at the first Creation 'T is one of as deep a dye to think God ought to have done what we belive that â—e hath not done But do I any where say that God ought to have done what I believe he has not done do I any where say that God ought by necessary and infallible means to have prevented Schisms and Heresies Dare our Author himself say this who assigns this as the reason why the Infallibility of the Church is no more than morally evident because otherwise it were impossible that any Heresie should be which at least supposes that God did not intend to make it impossible that there should be Heresies and Schisms and therefore though we should grant it absolutely necessary to prevent all Heresies and Schisms that there should be an Oecumenical Pastor and Infallible Judge is this to grant it necessary that there should be one or to say that there ought to be one unless I had said also that it were absolutely necessary that all Heresies and Schisms should be prevented Is there no difference between saying that such a thing is absolutely necessary to such an end and to say that such an end is abfolutely necessary But however where do I say that God has not done that which I believe he ought to have done is it the same thing to say such a thing is not and such a thing is not proved by such
an Argument and yet this is the utmost that I say that the supposed necessity of an infallible Judge does not prove that there is such a Judge but only that there ought to be one and I must conclude no more from it and does this overthrow the use of Reason to conclude no more from an Argument than the Argument will prove whatever any man apprehends necessary to be sure he is mightily inclined to believe but whoever will believe like a reasonable creature must have good evidence for what he believes and yet that we believe it necessary is no evidence that it is not that God will not do what is necessary to be done but because that may not be necessary which we vainly and presumptuously imagine to be so which is the very reason I assign for it in the words immediately following Indeed this is a very fallacious way of reasoning because what we may call useful convenient necessary may not be so in itself and we have reason to believe it is not so if God have not appointed what we think so useful convenient or necessary which is a truer and more modest way of reasoning than to conclude that God has appointed such a Iudge when no such thing appears only because we think it so useful and necessary that God ought to do it Which is not to excuse a bad Saying with a good one as the Jesuite pretends in answer to the Footman Preservat Consider p. 36. but to justifie a good Saying with a good Reason But if it were such blasphemy in Alphonsus to say that he thought he could have ordered some things better than God did at the first Creation let the Jesuite consider what it is to mend what God has done in the work of our Redemption upon a meer supposition that it may be mended for Popery is nothing else but a mending or more properly speaking a corrupting the Gospel of Christ with a blasphemous opinion of mending it And I think to say that God has done what there is no other proof he has done but only that we think he ought to have done it is to say that God ought to have done what it does not appear he has done and if not to be and not to appear be the same in this case then this is equivalent to saying that God ought to have done what he has not done And this I hope is sufficient for the Vindication of those Principles which are pretended to overthrow the Use of Common Sense and Reason SECT II. The Principles pretended to make void all Faith vindicated HE begins with proving the Protestant Faith not to be a Divine Faith because it is not a certain one which if it were true is like proving a man not to live because he is weak for if there be as much certainty as is absolutely necessary to the essence of Faith it may be a true Faith though weak as a weak man is alive still and Faith receives its denomination of Divine or Humane Faith not from the Certainty or Uncertainty of it but from the Authority on which it rests a Divine Authority makes a Divine Faith Humane Authority an Humane Faith and both these may be either certain or uncertain or to speak properly strong or weak so that to prove that the Protestant Faith is not Divine because it is not Certain is like disproving the Essential Properties by Changeable Accidents that a Man is not a reasonable Creature because he is not strong for there is no more necessary connexion between Faith being Divine and being Strong or Certain than between Reason and Bodily Strength a weak Man may be a reasonable Creature and a weak Faith may be Divine if it be founded on a Divine Authority But I wish the Jesuite had told us what that degree of Certainty is which makes a Faith Divine whether any thing less than the certainty of Infallibility can do it for this used to be the old Argument that our Faith is not Divine nor Certain because it is not infallible but if they will abate any thing of Infallibility we will vie all other degrees of Certainty with them and that he very fairly quitted before when he owned and proved that there could be no more than Moral Evidence for the Infallibility of their Church and then I am sure they can have no more than a Moral Evidence for the rest of their Faith which is all founded upon their Churches Infallibility Well having proved that our Faith cannot be Divine because it is not certain he next undertakes to prove that our Faith is not certain because we cannot have an Act of Faith of any One Article till our Rule of Faith proposes it i. e. till we know certainly what Scripture teaches of it not by any one Text but by comparing all the Texts that speak of that Subject Very well we cannot believe any thing upon the Authority of Scripture which is our Rule of Faith till we know that it is in Scripture wisely observed and we grant it Let us see what follows 1. Then a Protestant must certainly know that he hath all the Books of Holy Writ 2. That all those he owns for such were really written by inspired Pens The second we accept of but there is no need to submit to his first Condition That a Protestant must certainly know that he hath all the Books of Holy Writ that is he must be able to prove that there never were any other Books written by the Apostles or other inspired Men but what we receive into our Canon of Scripture which is to prove a negative which is always thought unreasonable and at this distance from the Apostolick Age is impossible but whenever the Church of Rome will prove this of their Canon of Scripture we will prove it of ours In the mean time it is sufficient that we reject no Books which have been always acknowledged by the Universal Church and that the Books we receive have been received for inspired Writings by the Universal Church and if ever there were any other Books written by the Apostles or Evangelists which are now lost we have reason to believe that the Church does not need them but has a perfect Rule of Faith and Manners without them for the Divine Providence would never permit that the Church should want any necessary part of the Rule of Faith. He proceeds 3 ly And since the Letter kills that he understands the true sense of each Text which relates to the Object of that Act of Faith. 4ly That he remember them all so as comparing them to see which is the clearer to expound the obscurer and what is the result of them all for any one he understands not or hath forgotten may possibly be that one that must expound the rest he cannot have one Act of Faith. Now not to take notice of his ridiculous not to say blasphemous misapplication of Scripture in that Parenthesis the Letter kills by
not Christ's telling them so a certain Reason If they believed without Reason I am of opinion how blind an impiety soever it be that they believed too soon I envy no Church the priviledge of believing infallibly without Reason or Evidence but it is well for the Church of Rome if she have this priviledge for unless she can be Infallible without Reason nay in contradiction to it I am sure she is not infallible But what tergiversation is here Does the Church of Rome infallibly know that the Christian Religion is certainly true Does she infallibly know that the certain Truth of Christian Religion is founded upon certain Reasons if so then the Christian Religion is certain and founded on certain Reasons and then those who believe the Christian Religion for the sake of such certain Reasons have a certain Faith whether they believe upon the Authority of the Church or not unless a Faith built upon certain Reasons may be uncertain or cannot be certain for if the Church infallibly knows that there are certain Reasons for the truth of Christianity then there are certain Reasons distinct from the Infallibility of the Church and they may be a Foundation for a certain Faith without the Churches Infallibility I observed that their great Argument to prove the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith is that there is a great variety of Opinions among Protestants and that they condemn one another with equal confidence and assurance He says I should have added thô they use the same Rule of Faith and apply it by the same means But there was no need of adding this it was supposed in all the Arguments I used which he answers only by saying 'T is an unanswerable Argument against your Rule of Faith and evidently proves it uncertain What does it prove the Scripture to be uncertain for that is our Rule or does he mean this of our Way of applying it that is by using the best Reason and Judgment we have to understand it and then his Argument is this some men misunderstand Scripture and therefore no man can rightly understand it some men reason wrong and therefore no man can reason right some men are confidently perswaded that they are in the right when they are in the wrong and therefore no man can be certain when he is in the right an Argument which in all other cases mankind would hiss at Some men believe they are awake when they are in a dream therefore no man can know when he is awake there are silly confident people who are cheated with slight appearances of things therefore no man can distinguish between appearances and realities Or to put but one case which will sensibly affect him some men nay the greatest part of Chrisâ—ians do not believe the Infallibility of the Church of Rome and therefore no man can be certain that the Church is Infallible For here are all his Conditions the same Rule applied the same way for he confess'd above that there can be no more than a Moral Evidence for the Infallibility of the Church Now in Moral Evidence every man must use his own Judgment thus we do we consider all the Arguments they alledge for the Infallibility of their Church from Scripture from Promises from Prophesies from Bellarmin's Fifteen Notes of the Church or whatever other Reasons and Arguments they use upon the whole we conclude that the Church of Rome is not Infallible they that it is now if he will stand to his Argument That variety of Opinions when men use the same Rule and apply it the same way is an unanswerable Argument that the Rule is uncertain then it is impossible that they should have so much as a Moral certainty of Infallibility since all mankind besides are against them His Answer to Dr. St.'s Arguments to prove that the Scriptures may be a very certain Rule though men differ in expounding them are so very senseless that I have no patience to answer them especially since he grants all that the Dean intended to prove that a Rule may be a certain Rule though men who do not understand it may mis-apply it But the principle he has laid down for mine I confess is very extraordinary and surprizing that if two men have the Bible read it endeavouâ— to understand it and believing they do draw from the same Scriptures two different Conclusions two opposite Articles of Faith both are bound to stand to their private judgment and to believe themselves in the right though all the World should accuse them in lieu of the true pretended Rule to have used a false One. I affirm that one man may expound the Scripture right and know that he does so though another expounds it wrong and he makes me say that when two men expound the Scripture to different and contrary senses they are both bound to believe that they are in the right this it is certain they will do and there is no remedy against it but what is worse than the disease that men should not use their own Judgments and then they dare not believe themselves when they are in the right which is as bad as to believe themselves in the right when they are in the wrong but that for this reason all the World should accuse them in lieu of the true pretended Rule to have used a false one is very senseless unless by all the World he means the World of Roman-Catholicks for no other men as I have already shewn nay not he himself if he will stand to his own word will accuse the Rule to be false because men make a false judgment of it for to call every man's private judgment of the Rule his Rule which is the substance of his following harangue is to resolve neither to think nor speak like other men for that no man thinks his own private judgment to be his Rule is evident from hence that upon better Information he alters his judgment without changing his Rule I concluded this Section concerning the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith with this observation that this very Argument from the different and contrary opinions of 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 dissensions 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 Our Jesuit had so much Wit in his Anger as to
extirpate all Idolatry To this purpose he has more perfectly instructed us in the Nature of God. To this end he confines all Religious Worship to God alone Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve It is his answer to the Devil when he tempted him to fall down and worship him but he gives such an answer as excludes all Creatures not only good but bad Spirits from any share in Religious Worship For he does not deny to worship him meerly because he was the Devil but because we must worship none but God. Which is as good a reason against the Worship of the most glorious Angels as of the Devil himself This he calls a Misrepresentation and to make it so first very sillily misrepresents my words and says that I charge the Church of Rome that she doth not pay to God alone that degree of Worship which the tempting Devil demanded of Christ. But I say not one word there about the Church of Rome tho' the application was obvious and he made it for me but then I do not blame them that they do not pay that degree of Worship to God which the Devil demanded of Christ which was but an inferior degree of Worship and therefore not proper for the Supreme Deity but that they pay any degree how inferior soever of Religious Worship to Saints and Angels or any other Being besides God for that is the import of our Saviour's Answer to the Devil and answers the pretence of the Church of Rome that she does not give latria or that Soveraign Worship which is due to the Supreme God but only dulia or an Inferior Worship to Saints and Angels whereas our Saviour's Argument proves that no degree of Worship is to be given to any but God. He says farther p. 64. That Christ by refusing himself all Worship to God's Enemy the Devil teaches us to pay none at all to God's Saints and Angels is an inference that no one but Dr. Sherlock was ever able to make Then it seems I have the honour of inventing a good Argument which this Jesuite dares not attempt to answer let him shew me if he can that to Worship none but God excludes only the Worship of the Devil not of Saints and Angels As a farther proof of this I add Our Saviour denies to Worship him though the Devil made no terms with him about the kind or degrees of Worship He does not require him to offer Sacrifice to him which is the only Act of Worship the Church of Rome appropriates to the Supreme God but only to bow down before him as an expression of Devotion This he calls a Misrepresentation that Sacrifice is the only Act of Worship which the Church of Rome appropriates to the Supreme God which is the first time this was called a Misrepresentation and yet he himself owns p. 64. that Sacrifice is indeed the only exterior Worship inseparable from latria and therefore never to be offered to any but God. And is not this what I said did I deny that the Church of Rome paid any other Worship to God but Sacrifice but I say and so says our Jesuite that there is no other external Act of Worship so peculiar to God that it can be given to no other being but only Sacrifice and therefore since the Devil did not demand of Christ to sacrifice to him he did not demand of him that degree of Worship which alone the Church of Rome thinks peculiar and appropriate to God and yet Christ tells us of all other Acts of Worship which the Church of Rome thinks may be separated from latria and therefore given to Creatures Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve I added that to prevent the Worship of Inferior Daemons who were worshipped as Mediators to the Supreme God God advances his own Son to be the Universal Mediator and the Supreme and Soveraign Lord of the World that all Mankind should make their Addresses and Supplications to him and offer up their Prayers only in his Name that in him they should find acceptance and in no other Name Hence he concludes that I charge the Church of Rome though I did not mention her that they offer not their Prayers only in the Name of Christ that in him they may find acceptance And this he calls a Misrepresentation and I will venture to be a Misrepresenter for once and charge them with it for if they pray to God in the Name and Merits of Saints and the blessed Virgin if they pray to them to intercede for them with God as appears in all their Offices then they do not pray only in the Name of Christ nor expect to be accepted only for his sake I summed up this Argument thus Now this being so apparently one end of Christ's coming into the World to suppress the Idolatry of Creature-Worship and to confine all Religious Worship to one Supreme Being in opposition to the many Gods of the Heathens and to teach us to make our Applications to this One God by One Mediator this he says is another Misrepresentation that they make not their Applications to One God by One Mediator which is true if by One he means only One for they have Many in opposition to the Worship of inferior Deities can any man imagine that the Worship of Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary can be any part of the Christian Religion which is not a direct Proof against the Worship of Saints and Angels but an Argument from what is likely fit and congruous and consistent with our Saviour's design to root out all remains and all appearances of Idolatry which makes it improbable and incongruous to the utmost degree that Christ should permit the Worship of Saints and the Virgin Mary as it is practised in the Church of Rome with Temples and Altars and Images with Solemn Prayers and Vows and Solemn Processions which has so much the external appearance of that Idolatrous Worship which the Heathens paid to their Gods that there is no visible distinction between them And if Christ intended to root out Idolatry it is highly improbable that he would allow so much of the external pomp and shew of it if it were no more Those who think this may be may believe the Worship of Saints and Angels to be a Gospel-Doctrine notwithstanding this Argument but such Arguments as these are thought by most men to have some weight in them as for instance That a Man who is very curious to preserve his Wives Chastity will not suffer her to receive all Amorous Addresses and Courtships from Strangers no not from his dearest Friends That a Prince who is so jealous of any Rivals and Partners as to make it Treason to usurp the meanest of the insignia Majestatis will not suffer the greatest Favourite to wear the Imperial Crown nor to sit on his Throne and receive the Addresses and Homage of his Subjects upon the
absurdity of Praying to God in an Unknown Tongue when neither our Understandings nor Affections can joyn in our Prayers For I suppose no man will say that to pray to God or praise him in words which we do not understand is to worship God in Spirit unless he thinks that a Parrot may be taught to pray in the Spirit This he calls a Calumny He would insinuate that Catholicks when they assist to present he should have said at Prayers which they do not understand are not commanded to pray in Spirit by devout Thoughts and pious Affections Now I insinuate no such thing when they are present at Prayers which they do not understand they may have other devout thoughts for ought I know but I say they cannot offer those Prayers to God with their understanding which they do not understand and in such Prayers they do not pray with the Mind and Spirit and therefore all such Prayers are absurd and contrary to the nature of Christian Worship which is to worship God in Spirit But my work is not at an end yet there are some other Misrepresentations and Calumnies which he has picked out of the fourth Section of the Preservative which must be considered The fourth Section concerns the reformation and improvement of Humane Nature which I shewed to be the great design of the Gospel and that particularly with respect to Knowledge and Holiness and I examined how far the Principles and Practices of the Church of Rome did comply with this great Gospel Design 1. As for Knowledge I supposed neither the Church of Rome nor any one for her would pretend that she is any great Friend to Knowledge which is so apt to make men Hereticks That knowing Papists are not beholden to their Church for their Knowledge which deprives them of all the means of Knowledge will not allow them to believe their senses but commands them to believe Transubstantiation which is contrary to the evidence of sense forbids men the use of Reason in matters of Religion suffers them not to judge for themselves nor examine the Reasons of their Faith and denies them the use of the Bible which is the only means to know the revealed Will of God and when men must neither believe their Senses nor use their Reason nor read the Scripture it is easie to guess what knowing and understanding Christians they must needs be Against this it may be objected that the Church of Rome does instruct her Children in the true Christian Faith though she will not allow them to read the Scriptures nor judge for themselves which is the safer way to teach them the pure Catholick Faith without danger of Error or Heresie To this I answered This were something 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 so that here were two Inquiries 1. Whether the Church of Rome instructs her Children in all necessary truth and nothing but the truth 2. Whether she so instructs them that they may be said to know and understand How far the Church of Rome is from doing the first I said all Christians in the World are sensible but themselves but that is not our present Dispute But our Jesuite it seems will make it the Dispâ—te or it shall pass for a perfect Slander for thus he repeats it they take no care to instruct mâ—n in all necâ—ssary Doctrines Which I did not positively affirm bâ—t since he will have it so I do now affirm That they do not instruct men in all necessary Doctrines and that thâ—y teach them a great many false Doctrines But then he must remember what I mean by instructing it is not meerly to teach them to repeat the Articles of their Creed but to give them the true sense and meaning of them and I do affirm and am ready to prove it and possibly may do so when leisure permits that they do not rightly instruct men in the great and necessary Doctrine of forgiveness of Sins in the Name of Christ nor in the nature of Christ's Mediation and Intercession for us nor in the nature of Justification or of Gospel and Obedience but teach such Errors as overthrow the true Gospel notion of these great and necessary Doctrines Then as for their manner of Teaching to require men to believe what they say meerly upon the Authority of the Church without suffering them to examine whether such Doctrines are taught in Scripture or to exercise their own reason and judgment about it can make no man a knowing and understanding Christian. 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 These Sayings that are marked out are more of his Misrepresentations which need no other Vindication but to be shewn in their own light and proper places And yet I did not deny but some men might be so dull and stupid as to be capable of little more than to be taught their Religion as Children but certainly this is not the utmost perfection of knowledge that any Christian must aim at which he thus represents With them this is the utmost perfection of Knowledge that any Christian must aim at This I did not say but this I say that it is the utmost perfection of Knowledge which any man can attain to who will be contented with the Methods of the Church of Rome not to examine his Religion but to take all upon the credit of the Church Well How does our Jesuite confute this heavy Charge and perfect Slander Does he shew that they teach all necessary Truths and nothing but Truth Does he prove that men may be very knowing Christians without understanding the Reasons of their Faith Not one word of this which alone was to his purpose but he says hundreds of thousands of Religious men are employed in instructing the Ignorant and teaching Children and whoever denied this that they do teach Men and Children after their fashion But does this prove that they teach them all necessary Truths and nothing but truth Or that they make them ever the wiser for their teaching As for those ignorant Protestants he has had to deal with if he made Converts of them I believe they were very ignorant otherwise if there were Ignorance between them it was as likely to lie on the Jesuite's side Having laid down
this as a Principle that one great design of the Gospel is to improve the Knowledge of Mankind I hence inferred 1. That to forbid People to read and meditate on the Word of God can be no Gospel Doctrine unless not to read the Bible be a better way to improve Knowledge than to read it 2. This is a mighty presumption also against Transubstantiation that it is no Gospel Doctrine because it overthrows the very fundamental principles of Knowledge as I shewed at large and wonder he has not one word to say for Transubstantiation 3. The Authority of an Infallible Judge whom we must believe in every thing without examining the reasons of what he affirms nay though he teaches such Doctrines as appear to us most expresly contrary to Sense and Reason and Scripture is no Gospel-Doctrine because it is not the way to make men wise anâ— understanding Christians for to suspend the exercise of Reason and Judgment is not the way to improve Mens Knowledge and here I distinguish between an infallible Teacher and an infallible Judge The first teaches infallibly but yet he that learns must use his own Reason and Judgment unless a man can learn without it But the Second usurps the Office of every Man 's private Reason and Judgment and will needs judge for all Mankind as if he were an universal Soul an universal Reason and Understanding which is to unsoul all Mankind in matters of Religion And therefore though there have been infallible Teachers as Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles yet none ever pretended to be infallible Judges but the Church of Rome Though there may be an infallible Teacher there never can be an infallible Iudge to whom I must submit my own Reason and Judgment without examination because I cannot know that he teaches infallibly unless I am sure that he teaches nothing that is contrary to any natural or revealed Law and that I cannot know unless I may judge of his Doctrine by the light of Nature and Revelation for he is not infallible if he contradicts any natural or revealed Laws I gave an instance of this in Moses and the Prophets and in Christ himself for when Christ appeared there was a written Law and all the Miracles he wrought could not have proved him a true Prophet had he contradicted the Scriptures of the old Testament And therefore he appeals to Moses and the Prophets to bear testimony to his Person and Doctrine and then Miracles gave Authority to any New Revelation he made of God's Will when it appeared that he had not contradicted the Old. The Law of Nature and the Law 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 and he did not require them to lay aside their Reason and Iudgement and submit to his infallible Authority without examination This our Jesuite makes a horrible outcry about which has made me transcribe the whole of this Argument He will hardly allow either the Author or the Licenser to be Christians and reserved this for the concluding Blow to end his Pamphlet with What Iesus our God blessed for evermore even when owned the Son of God even from us Christians cannot exact a submission to his infallible Authority without examining the truth of what he says by comparing it with the principles of humane reason this is the sum of all his Answer the rest is raving and senseless harangue But the fallacy of all this lies in a few words Iesus the Son of God blessed for evermore even when owned the Son of Son even by us Christians For those who own him the Son of God no doubt will submit to his infallible Authority and therefore all profest Christians must do so but that which I said is this that no man could nor to this day can own him upon wise consideration to be a true Prophet and the Son of God till he is satisfied that he neither contradicts the plain light of Nature nor the Lâ—w of Moses and therefore thus far we are to examine his Doctrine but when it is evident he contradicts no former Revelations and confirms his Authority by Miracles then we are to believe any new Revelations he makes upon his own Authority And therefore in my own Name and the Name of the Licenser I here profess that when by examining the Doctrine of Christ by the Light of Nature and the Law of Moses I find he has contradicted neither and by the great Miracles he wrought I am satisfied he is an Infallible Teacher then I own him for such an Infallible Teacher or Judge if he pleases that I must not judge of his Doctrine excepting the case of the Light of Nature and the Law of Moses but believe it and submit to him and in these cases I submit to his Infallible Authority without examination I receive all his Dictates as Divine Oracles I do not wonder the Jesuite is so much disturbed at this for if it appears that Christ himself did not pretend to be such an Infallible Judge as he would have us believe the Pope or Church of Rome to be they must for shame give up this kind of Infallibility and therefore if he has a mind to Confute this Principle thoroughly that he may understand my mind plainly I will reduce all to some few Propositions which he may try his skill upon when he pleases 1. That no Prophet is to be believed in contradiction to such plain and evident Principles of Nature as all Mankind agree in 2. That the first Prophet who appears in the World before any revealed Law and confirms his Authority by plain and evident Miracles is to be believed in every thing he says while he does not contradict the plain and evident principles of natural Knowledge And for that reason Moses was to be believed in every thing which did not contradict the light of Nature because he was the first Prophet who made a Publick Revelation of God's Will to the World. 3. That succeeding Prophets who confirm their Authority with Miracles are to be believed in all new Revelations they make which neither contradict the Light of Nature nor any former Revelations and therefore Christ is absolutely to be believed when it appears that he neither contradicted the Light of Nature nor the Law of Moses 4. When the Revelation is compleat and perfect and has no new additions to be made to it as the Gospel-Revelation is how infallible soever any Teachers may be we must believe them in nothing which either contradicts the light of Nature or the standing Revelation or is not contained in the Revelation And this shews us how far we are to submit our own Reason and Judgment
they be contâ—ite and absolved again they are restored to a state of Grace again and so toties quoties Now such Penitents as are sorry for their sins but do not reform them are condemned to Hell 〈◊〉 the Protestant Church and only to Purgatory in the Church of Rome and therefore the First is no Calumny The Second is That Indulgencies may be bought for Money this is no Calumny as I have already shewn or avail a Soul undisposed to receive the benefit of them through want of contrition the guilt of sin not being before remitted This I never said and therefore is no Calumny of mine The third That Masses said for any Soul in Purgatory avail such as during life have not deserved and merited that mercy This I take to be nonsense according to the Doctrines of their own Church For certainly those Souls who have merited to get into Purgatory have merit enough to receive the benefit of Masses Another Gospel-Motive to Holiness are the Examples of Good Men but in the Church of Rome the extraordinary Vertues of great and meritorious Saints are not so much for imitation as for a stock of Merits The more Saints they have the less need is there for other men to be Saints unless they have a mind to it because there is a greater treasure of Merits to relieve those who have none of their own and if one man can merit for twenty there is no need there should be above one in twenty good Here he quibbles upon the different acceptation of Merit as it relates to a reward or as it expiates the punishment of sin In the first sense he says Merit is personal not communicative but if it be communicative in the second sense that one man may be delivered from punishments by the Merits of another and if it be not there is an end of the gainful trade of Indulgencies that is sufficient to my Argument and will satisfie most sinners who are not concerned about degrees of glory if they can escape punishment Lastly I shewed that the Gospel-Means and Instruments of Holiness do not escape much better in the Church of Rome among others I instanced in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper which besides those supernatural conveyances of Grace which are annexed to it by our Saviour's Institution is a great Moral Instrument of Holiness but in the Church of Rome this admirable Sacrament is turned into a dumb shew which no body can be edified with or into a sacrifice for the living and the dead which expiates sin and serves instead of a holy life Here he says there are three crying Calumnies 1. That the Sacrament among them is nothing but a shew or a sacrifice whereas they very often receive it and did I say the Sacrament was never received in the Church of Rome 2. That they require the practice of no Vertue to the receiving the Sacrament whereas they require the Sacrament of Penance to prepare for the Eucharist But I spoke of those Vertues which were to be exercised in receiving which there are not such advantages for in the Church of Rome where the Office is not understood and the mind diverted with a thousand insignificant Ceremonies 3. That our exposing the blessed Sacrament is a dumb shew and so we assist at holy Mass. And whether it be or no let those judge who have seen the Ceremony How much the Sacrifice of the Mass encourages Vertue we have already seen I doubt not but our Jesuite can give as good an Answer to this Vindication as he did to the Preservative and I as little doubt but he will unless Mr. Needham's Name to the License may be my security for he has threatned it shall be to him a sufficient Note and Character of a Book not worth the Reading much less the Censuring where-ever he sees that Reverend Person has opened it the Press and I commend him for it for he has had very ill success with such Books of late but though I never grudge my pains in answering an Adversary who gives occasion for any useful and material Discourse for I desire whatever I say should be sifted to the very bottom and am as ready to own any Error I am convinced of as to vindicate the Truth yet it is very irksom to be forced to write a great Book meerly to rescue my words from the injuries of a perverse Comment which has been my present Task Thus any Book may be answered by a man who has wit or ignorance enough to pervert it and such Answers may be easily answered again by men who have nothing else to do but if this trade grow too common they must be very idle people indeed who will find time to read them And therefore to prevent such an impertinent trouble for the future before I take leave of my Adversary I will venture to give him a little good Advice which may stand him in stead against the next time 1. That he would be more modest and sparing in his Title-page not to paint it so formidable as to make it ridiculous it is a little too much to talk of Principles which destroy all right use of Reason Scripture Fathers Councils undermine Divine Faith and abuse Moral Honesty Or Forty malicious Culumnies and forged untruths besides several Fanatical Principles which destroy all Church Discipline and oppose Christ's Divine Authority If such things be proved against any Book I assure you it is very terrible though there be nothing of it in the Title but the World has been so long deceived with Titles that commonly the more the Title promises the less they expect in the Book Some cry it is a Mountebank's Bill otheâ—s the Man raves and if curiosity tempts any to look any farther the disappointment they meet with provokes their scorn or indignation The bare name of an Answer to a Book which is commonly known and approved is a sufficient invitation to all men to read it but it is a very impolitick thing to prejudice the Readers by a frightful Title 2. That he would not think he has confuted a Book by picking out some sayings which he thinks very inconvenient and obnoxious but in which the main Arguâ—ent of the Book is not concerned this is the case in many passages he has objected against the Preservative for though there is never a one but what is very defensible and what I have defended yet there are many that if they could not be defended the main Argument of the Book is never the worse This is as vain as to think to kill a man by launâ—hing a Sore while all his Vitals are sound and untoucht 3. That he would not boast of confuting a Book without bearing up fairly to any one Argument in it I know in his Postscript he says that he omitted nothing in Answer to the First part of the Preservative that even pretended to the appearance of an Argument that all the rest which he did not answer in his