Flesh and Bloud of Christ is in the Sacrament nor that the substance of Bread and Wine does not remain after Consecration nor that the Accidents of Bread and Wine such as colour smell tast quantity weight subsist without any substance or subject to subsist in These are such Paradoxes to Sense and Reason that they ought to be very well supported with Scripture before they are received for Articles of Faith or else our Faith will be as very an Accident without any substance as the sacramental species themselves are But though they have no Text which proves the least Tittle of all this yet they have a Text whereon they graft this Doctrine of Transubstantiation viz. This is my Body which they say signifies every thing which they teach concerning Transubstantiation but then I hope they will prove that it does so not expect that we should take it for granted because they say it Now not to insist upon those Arguments whereby our Divines have so demonstratively proved that Transubstantiation as explained by the Church of Rome cannot be the sence of This is my Body my advice to Protestants is to put them upon the proof that this is the sence of it which in reason they ought to prove because there is not one word of it in the Text and I shall only tell them what Proofs they ought to demand for it Now I suppose all men will think it reasonable that the Evidence for it should at least be equal to the Evidence against it though we ought indeed to have more reason to believe it than to dis-believe it or else we must hang in suspence when the Balance is equal and turns neither way Now I will not oppose the Evidence of Sense and Reason against the Authority of Scripture for I will never suppose that they can contradict each other and if there should appear some contradiction between them I will be contented at present without disputing that point to give it on the side of Scripture but I will oppose the Evidence of Sense and Reason against any private man's or any Churches Exposition of Scripture and if that Exposition they give of any Text of Scripture as suppose This is my Body contradict the Evidence of Sense and Reason I may modestly require as plain proof that this is the meaning of the Text as I have that such a meaning is contrary to all Sense and Reason for though Sense and Reason be not the Rule and Measure of Faith yet we must use our Sense and Reason in expounding Scripture or we may quickly make a very absurd and senseless Religion Now this shews us what kind of Proof we must require that Transubstantiation is the Doctrine of the Gospel viz. as certain Proof as we have that Transubstantiation is contrary to Sense and Reason And therefore 1. We must demand a self-evident Proof of this because it is self-evident that Transubstantiation contradicts Sense and Reason Every man who knows what the word means which I believe men may do without being great Philosophers and will consult his own Senses and Reason will need no Arguments to prove that Transubstantiation contradicts both Now such a Scripture-Proof I would see for Transubstantiation so plain and express and self-evident that no man who understands the words can doubt whether this be the meaning of them I mean a reasonable not an obstinate wilful and sceptical doubting Now I believe that our Adversaries themselves will not say that This is my Body is such a self-evident Proof of Transubstantiation I am sure some of the wisest men among them have not thought it so and the fierce Disputes for so many Ages about the interpretation of those words proves that it is not so for men do not use to dispute what is self-evident and proves it self without any other Arguments Now it is very unreasonable to require any man to believe Transubstantiation against a self-evident Proof that it is contrary to Sense and Reason without giving him a self-evident Proof that it is the Doctrine of Scripture which is to require a man to believe against the best Reason and Evidence 2. We must demand such a scripture-Scripture-Proof of Transubstantiation as cannot possibly signifie any thing else or else it will not answer that Evidence which we have against Transubstantiation for Sense and Reason pronounce Transubstantiation to be naturally impossible and therefore unless it be as impossible to put any other sense upon Scripture than what signifies Transubstantiation as it is to reconcile Transubstantiation to Sense and Reason there is not such good Evidence for Transubstantiation as against it Were the scripture-Scripture-Proofs for Transubstantiation so plain and evident that it were impossible to put any other sense on the words then I would grant that it is as impossible for those who believe the Scriptures to disbelieve Transubstantiation as it is for those who trust to their own Sense and Reason to believe it Here the difficulty would be equal on both sides and then I should prefer a Divine Revelation if it were possible to prove such a Revelation to be Divine before natural Sense and Reason but I presume no man will say that it is impossible to put another and that a very reasonable interpretation upon those words This is my Body without expounding them to the sense of Transubstantiation Our Roman Adversaries do not deny but that these words are capable of a figurative as well as of a literal sense as when the Church is called the Body of Christ Flesh of his Flesh and Bone of his Bone it is not meant of his natural but his mystical Body and thus when the Bread is called the Body of Christ it may not signifie his natural but sacramental Body or his Body to all the ends and purposes of a Sacrament Now if there be any other good sense to be made of these words besides Transubstantiation there cannot be such a necessity to expound them of Transubstantiation as there is not to expound them of it for I do not reject Scripture if I deny Transubstantiation when the words of Scripture do not necessarily prove it but I renounce Sense and Reason if I believe it Now though I were bound to renounce my Sence and Reason when they contradict Scripture yet sure I am not bound to deny my Sense and Reason when they do not contradict Scripture and Sense and Reason are never contrary to Scripture nor Scripture to them when the words of Scripture are capable of such an interpretation as is reconcilable both to Sense and Reason In such a case to expound Scripture contrary to Sense and Reason is both to pervert the Scripture and to contradict Reason without any necessity An unlearned man need not enter into a large Dispute about Transubstantiation let him but require his Adversary to give him as plain Evidence that Transubstantiation is the Doctrine of the Gospel as he can give him that it is contrary to Sense and Reason and the
say is the Protestant Heresie and the foundation of Protestant uncertainty if they once open this gap to Hereticks into the Church there is great danger that more will run out at it than will come in and it is well if the Church itself staies behind for what becomes of the Church of Rome if all their glorious Cant of the Infallibility of Church and Popes and General Councils be at last resolved into a private Spirit while these men go about to Dispute Hereticks into their Church they unavoidably give up the Cause of the Church and of Infallibility which is the way to Dispute a great many good Catholicks out of it who are kept there only by the power of a blind and implicite Faith. Here then let our Protestant fix his foot and not stir an inch till they disown Infallibility and confess that every man can and must judge for himself in matters of Religion according to the proofs that are offered to him For will a wise man Dispute with one who he knows banters him all the while who appeals to his private judgment as all men do who dispute with one another and at the same time cries down this private Spirit as the cause of Schisms and Heresies and Blasphemies and every thing that is evil no man of any spirit but will scorn to dispute with one who intends only to put a trick on him and to out wit him if he can and in truth it is no more to endeavour to dispute a man into Popery when the Fundamental Principle of Popery is that we must not Reason and Dispute but believe that we must take our Faith upon the Authority of the Church without asking any questions about it There are two or three things which may be answered to this 1. That though Disputing be not a proper way for Papists to take yet it is the only way that can be taken with Protestants who are all for Disputing and will believe nothing without a Reason and therefore Protestants ought not to blame Papists for Disputing unless they would be good Catholicks without it Now in answer to this I have something to say to Papists and something to Protestants 1. As for the Papists what necessity soever they be in of Disputing I desire to know with what face they can reproach Protestants with adhering to their own private judgments when they themselves are such zealous Disputants which is an Appeal to every private mans judgment if ever they make any Converts they must be beholden to mens private judgments for it for I think men cannot change their Opinions without exercising a private judgment about it and I suppose when they dispute with men to make them Papists they intend to convert them by their own private judgments Now what difference is there between mens using their private judgments to turn Papists or to turn Protestants one indeed may be false and the other true but private judgment is private judgment still and if it be so great a fault for men to use their own private judgments it is as great a fault in a Papist as it is in a Protestant So that at least as to Converts the Church of Rome has no advantage in this particular over Protestant Churches some by the exercise of their own Reason and judgment go over to the Church of Rome and some to the Church of England some are disputed into Popery and some into Protestantism and therefore for the sake of their beloved Converts and their beloved Disputations they ought to be more favourable to a private Spirit The truth is by Disputing with Hereticks they give up their Cause and confess that in all Disputes of Religion there lies an Appeal to every mans private Judgment and Conscience and should they lose this point by their Disputing all the Converts they make cannot recompence such a loss 2. As for Protestants though they have no other way to satisfie themselves or to convince others but by Reason and Discourse yet this is no reason why they should Dispute with those men who disown the judgment of Reason as a private Spirit For why should I Dispute with any man who uses such Arguments to convince me as he himself does not think a sufficient Reason of Faith Ask then one of these Disputers who alledges Scripture Reason and Antiquity to prove any Doctrines of the Romish Faith Do you Sir believe Transubstantiation the Worship of Images the Invocation of Saints Purgatory Mass for the Dead upon the bare Authority of these Scriptures and Fathers you have produced for them If these Doctrines were not Defined by the Church should you think these Arguments sufficient to prove them or could you suppose the Church had Defined the contrary should you think the Arguments good still In short can any Reason any Authority of Scripture or Fathers be any Foundation for a Divine Faith but onely the Authority of the Church He that says they can is no Papist and he that says they cannot confesses that he uses such Arguments as he himself does not build his Faith upon If you will believe them you may but though you do you are no sound Believer without resolving your Faith solely into the Authority of the Church And I think he must love Disputing well who will Dispute with such men as these and those must have a good degree of assurance who will be troublesome with their Disputes after such a discovery The end of Disputing I suppose is either toconvince or to be convinced but should you Answer and baffle all such a man's Arguments if he be modest it may be he may blush a little but is not to be moved for his Faith after all is not built upon these Arguments but upon Church-Authority and it is to no purpose for you to suffer your self to be convinced by these Arguments for it will not make you a good Catholick without resolving your Faith wholly into the Authority of the Church It is certainly a very surprizing thing for a Protestant to be disputed into Popery for as soon as he is converted he must renounce the very means of his Conversion He must use his own Judgment to turn Papist and as soon as he is turned he must renounce his own Judgment and confess it to be of no Authority Now though it may be such a private Judgment as leads a man to Popery may as well deserve to be renounced as any yet it is an odd kind of contradiction to renounce our own private Reason and Judgment and yet to own our Conversion methinks such men should renounce their Conversion too at the same time they renounce their Reason for if their Conversion be good it is a sign their Judgment was so but if their Judgment be not fit to be trusted methinks this should make them question their Conversion And therefore they should either maintain the Reputation of their Judgment and Conversion together and then they cannot be good Catholicks
then it is to no purpose to dispute about such a Judge for Disputing is nothing else but weighing Reason against Reason and Argument against Argument or Scripture against the pretence of Scripture but whoever gets the better of it this way no Reasons or Arguments or Scripture Proofs can beget an Infallible Certainty which is necessary in this case and therefore this is all lost labour and they do but put a trick upon you when they pretend to dispute you into the belief of an Infallible Judge for they themselves know and must confess if you ask them that the best and must convincing Arguments cannot give us an Infallible assurance of this matter and yet unless we are infallibly assured of an infallible Judge it is all to no purpose 3. I can think but of one thing more that can be said in this cause viz. that it is manifestly unreasonable not to grant to the Church of Rome that Liberty which all men and Churches challenge to dispute for themselves and against their Adversaries for when two men or two Churches differ in matters of Faith there is no other way to end the Controversie but by disputing it out whereas this Discourse will not allow them to dispute nor any Protestants to dispute with them In answer to this I grant that the Charge is in a great measure true and shews the absurdity of that Church and Religion but does not disprove the reasonableness of this method If men will embrace such a Religion as will not admit of disputing it is their own and their Religions fault not the fault of those men who will not dispute with them Now a Religion which leaves no room for the exercise of Reason and private Judgment leaves no place for Disputes neither for how shall men dispute who must not use their own Reason and Judgment They ought not to dispute themselves if they be true to their own Principles and no man ought to dispute with them who will not be laugh'd at by them and by all the World For to dispute without Reason is a new way of disputing though it is the only thing that can justifie the Romanists and our late Disputants have been very careful to observe it and to dispute with Reason is to use our private Reason in Religion which is Protestant Heresie Infallible men ought not to dispute for that is to quit their Infallibility and fallible men are very unwise to dispute with them because no good can come of it for Reason can never confute their infallible Adversaries nor make themselves infallible Believers But for the better understanding of this I have two things to say 1. That Papists may dispute against Protestant Heresies as they call them but cannot dispute for their own Religion 2. Protestants may dispute against Popish Doctrines and to vindicate their own Faith but cannot reasonably be disputed into Popery 1. That Papists may dispute against Protestant Heresies but cannot dispute for their own Religion And the reason of this difference is plain because Protestants allow of Reason and Discourse in matters of Religion and therefore they may be confuted if good Reasons can be produced against them And here the Romanists may try their skill but the Religion of Rome is not founded on Reason but on Infallibility and therefore is not the subject of a Dispute because the truth and certainty of those Doctrines is not resolved into the Reasons of them They ought to alledge no other ground of their Faith but the Infallibility of the Church and they ought not to dispute about this neither but those who will believe it may and those who won't may let it alone because Infallibility is not to be proved by Reason for Reason proves nothing infallibly and therefore cannot give us an infallible certainty of the Churches Infallibility But you will say if they have other Arguments for the truth of their Faith besides the Infallibility of the Church why may they not urge those other Reasons and Arguments to convince those who will not own the Churches Infallibility I answer Because whatever other Reasons they have their Faith is not resolved into them and therefore it is not honest in them to urge those for the Reasons of their Faith which are not the Reasons why they believed For let me ask them Suppose they may have very good Reasons for some of their Doctrines do they believe them meerly because they are reasonable If they say they do then they believe just as Protestants believe and there is no need of Infallibility when men believe nothing but what is reasonable and it is pity that so good a thing as Infallibility should serve only to support an unreasonable Faith. Let me ask them again Can they have a sufficient certainty that these Reasons are good without an infallible Judge If they can then the Faith of Protestants which is grounded upon rational Evidences may be very certain too though it be not infallible if they cannot then their Reasons are none since the very certainty of them is resolved into an infallible Authority and therefore they are no certain Reasons that is not such as a man may rely on when they are separated from Infallibility and consequently they ought never to be urged apart from Infallibility because they themselves do not think them good Reasons that is not a sufficient foundation of Faith alone and then I know not why they should be urged at all for Infallibility can stand by it self without the support of any Reasons I ask them again Would they reject those Doctrines which they think they can prove by such evident Reasons did they see those Reasons as evidently confuted If they would not then it is plain they do not believe them for the sake of those Reasons for if they did they would reject them when all their Reasons were confuted They only impose upon the World with a pretence and flourish of Reason and set up a Man of Straw for Protestants to shoot at but whatever becomes comes of their Reasons they have a safe Retreat into Infallibility If they believed any Doctrine because it is reasonable if they will be true to themselves they ought to reject all Doctrines which are unreasonable or contrary to Sense and Reason He who believes for the sake of Reason can never believe against it for if Reason makes a thing credible then what is unreasonable is incredible too and we may as reasonably dis-believe what is confirmed by Reason as believe what Reason contradicts and therefore it is not very modest to hear men talk of Reason in any case who can believe such an absurd and unreasonable Doctrine as Transubstantiation Now whatever Opinion Protestants have of Reason Papists ought not to pretend to it because their Faith has nothing to do with Reason it is a Reproach to an infallible Church and infallible Faith to need the supports of Reasons And the truth is those who will have nothing to do
with Reason Reason commonly has as little to do with them but owes them a Shame whenever they pretend to her and therefore they had as good let her alone 2. Protestants may dispute against Popish Doctrines and to vindicate their own Faith but they cannot reasonably be disputed into Popery When Papists alledge Scripture Reason or humane Authority for any Doctrines of their Religion Protestants who allow of the use of Reason in Religion may examine and confute them when Papists dispute against Protestant Doctrines Protestants are concerned to vindicate their own Faith or to renounce it but if a Protestant understands himself and his own Principles all the Disputes in the World can never make him a Papist For to be a Papist does not signifie meerly to believe Transubstantiation or the Worship of Saints and Images and such-like Popish Doctrines but to resolve our Faith into the Infallible Authority of the Church and to believe whatever the Church believes and for no other reason but because the Church teaches it This is the peculiar and distinguishing Character of the Church of Rome which divides it from all other Churches and Sects of Christians and therefore our late Popish Writers are certainly in the right to endeavour to bring the whole Controversie to this issue not to dispute about particular Doctrines which follow on course when once you believe the Church to be Infallible but to perswade men that the Church is Infallible and that the Church of Rome is that Infallible Church Now I say no understanding Protestant can be disputed into this kind of Popery and that for two plain Reasons 1. Because no Arguments or Disputations can give me an infallible certainty of the Infallibility of the Church 2. Because it is impossible by Reason to prove that men must not use their own Reason and Judgment in matters of Religion 1. No Arguments can give me an infallible certainty of the Infallibility of the Church The great Motive to any man to forsake the other Communions of Christians and to go over to the Church of Rome is to attain an Infallibility in Faith which is a wonderful good thing if it were to be had but though the Church of Rome were Infallible and I should be convinced that there were some reason to think so yet unless I can be infallibly assured of it my Faith is still as fallible as the Protestant Faith is and I am no nearer to Infallibility in the Church of Rome than in the Church of England For as I observed before unless I can have an infallible certainty of the Infallibility of the Church I can have no Infallibility at all Though the Church were infallible in all her Decrees I can never be infallibly certain of the truth of her Decrees unless I be infallibly certain that she is Infallible It is a known Rule in Logic that the Conclusion must follow the weaker part and therefore it is impossible to infer an infallible Faith from the fallible Belief of the Churches Infallibility And yet the best Reasons in the World which is all that disputing can do to offer Reasons for our Faith cannot give us an infallible certainty because Reason it self is not an infallible Principle at least the Church of Rome dares not own that any mans private Reason and Judgment is infallible for then Protestants may set up for Infallibility as well as Papists No man by Reason and Argument can arrive at a greater Certainty than Protestants may have and yet no man can arrive at greater certainty in the way of disputing than Reason and Argument can give him and then a Popish Convert who is reasoned into the belief of Infallibility though he has changed his Opinion yet has no more Infallibility now than he had when he was a Protestant Protestants without an Infallible Church may have all the Certainty that Reason and Argument can give them and a Convert has no greater Certainty if he have no more than what Disputing could give him for his Infallible Church And how is it possible then that a reasonable man can be disputed out of the Church of England into the Church of Rome upon such vain hopes of a more infallible certainty for let him go where he will if he be lead to Rome it self by his own fallible Reason and Judgment which is the only Guide he has in disputing he will be the same fallible Creature that ever he was But to represent this the more familiarly let us hear a short Conference between a sturdy Protestant and a new Convert Prot. O my old Friend I am glad to meet you for I have longed to know what change you find in your self since you are become an Infallible Believer Conv. I find Sir what I expected very great ease and satisfaction of mind since I am delivered from all doubtful Disputes in such an important concernment as the salvation of my Soul and have a firm and sure Rock to trust to such an Infallible Church as cannot err it self nor mis-guide me Prot. This I confess is a very great advantage and therefore as we have been formerly of the same Church and Communion I would be glad to keep you company also in so advantageous a change Pray therefore tell me how you came to be so infallibly perswaded of the Infallibility of your Church Conv. With all my heart and I shall be very glad of such company and indeed there are such powerful Reasons for it as I am sure must convince so free and ingenuous a mind as you always carry about with you For Christ has promised to build his Church upon St. Peter and that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Prot. Hold good Sir Reason Are you got no farther than Reason yet Will Reason ever make a man infallible I have considered all the Reasons that are used to this purpose and know what to say to them if that were our business and the truth is I have a great deal of unanswerable Reason to stay where I am and am a little surprized to think that you or any man should leave the Church of England for want of Reason or go to the Church of Rome for it and therefore pray tell me the Secret for there must be something else to make Converts besides Reason Conv. Then I perceive you take me for a Knave who have changed my Religion for base secular Ends without Reason Prot. You know that best but that was not my meaning but the reason of my Question was because you changed for an infallible Faith. Now if you rely still upon Reason I don't see how your Faith is more infallible than mine for I am as confident as you can be that I have as good Reasons for my Faith and in my opinion much better than you have for yours Conv. I beg your pardon for that I rely upon the Authority of an Infallible Church you trust to your private Reason Prot. And I beg your pardon
Sir for I rely on the Authority of Scripture which is as infallible as your Church Conv. But you rely on your own Reason for the Authority of Scripture and those particular Doctrines you draw from it Prot. And you rely on your own Reason and Judgment for the Infallibility of your Church and consequently of all the Doctrines of it and therefore your infallible Faith is as much resolved into your own fallible Judgment as the Protestant Faith is so that the difference between us is not that your Faith is infallible and ours fallible for they are both alike call it what you will fallible or infallible but the Dispute is whether your Reason and Judgment or ours be best and therefore if you think your Reason better than ours you did well to change but if you changed your Church hoping to grow more infallible by it you were miserably mistaken and may return to us again for we have more rational Certainty than you have and you have no more infallible Certainty than we You think you are reasonably assured that your Church is infallible and then you take up your Religion upon trust from your Church without and many times against Sence and Reason according as it happens so that you have onely a general assurance of the Infallibility of your Church and that no greater than Protestants pretend to in other cases viz. the certainty of Reason and Argument but have not so much as a rational assurance of the truth of your particular Doctrines that if you be mistaken about the Infallibility of your Church you must be miserably mistaken about every thing else which you have no other evidence for But now we are in general assured that the Scriptures are the Word of God and in particular are assured that the Faith which we profess is agreeable to Scripture or expresly contained in it and does not contradict either Sence or Reason nor any other Principle of Knowledge So that we have as much assurance of every Article of our Faith as you have of the Infallibility of your Church and therefore have at least double and trible the assurance that you have But if you know the Reasons of your Conversion I desire to know of you What made you think that you wanted Certainty in the Church of England Conv. Because with you every man is left to his own private Reason and Judgment the effects of which are very visible in that infinite variety of Sects among you which shews what an uncertain thing your Reason is that so few judge alike of the power and validity of the same Reasons Prot. And were you not sensible at the same time that you were left to your own Reason and Judgment when you turned Papist Are you not sensible that men do as little agree about your Reasons for Infallibility as they do about any Protestant Reasons Do not I know the Reasons alledged by you for the Infallibility of your Church as well as you do And do we not still differ about them And is not this as much an Argument of the uncertainty of those Reasons which make you a Papist that they cannot make me a Papist as the dissent of Protestants in other matters is of the uncertainty of their Reasons Could you indeed be infallibly assured of the Infallibility of your Church I grant you would have the advantage of us but while you found your belief of Infallibility upon such an uncertain Principle as you think Reason is if certainty had been your onely aim you might as well have continued in the Church of England as have gone over to Rome This abundantly shews what a ridiculous thing it is for a Protestant to be disputed out of his Church and Religion upon a pretence of more infallible certainty in the Church of Rome Were they indeed inspired with an infallible assurance that the Church of Rome is Infallible there might be some pretence for this but an Infallibility which has no better foundation than mens private Reason and private Judgment is no Infallibility but has all the same uncertainties which they charge on the Protestant Faith and a great deal more because it is not founded upon such great and certain Reasons The plain truth is men may be taught from their Infancy to believe the Church Infallible and when they are grown up may take it without examination for a first and self-evident Principle and think this an infallible Faith but men who understand the difference between the evidence of Reason and Infallibility can never found an infallible Faith on Reason nor think that a man who is reasoned into the belief of the Infallibility of the Church is more infallible in his Faith than a Protestant is And such a man will see no reason to quit the Church of England for the sake of an infallible Faith for though they had an infallible Guide yet Reason cannot give them an infallible assurance of it but can rise no higher at most than a Protestant certainty 2. It is impossible also by Reason to prove that men must not use their own Reason and Judgment in matters of Religion If any man should attempt to perswade you of this ask him Why then he goes about to dispute with you about Religion whether men can dispute without using their own Reason and Judgment whether they can be convinced without it whether his offering to dispute with you against the use of your Reason does not prove him ridiculous and absurd For if you must not use your Reason why does he appeal to your Reason And whether you should not be as ridiculous and absurd as he if by his Reasons and Arguments you should be perswaded to condemn the use of Reason in Religion Which would be in the same act to do what you condemn to use your Reason when you condemn it If you must not use your Reason and private Judgment then you must not by any Reasons be perswaded to condemn the use of Reason for to condemn is an act of Judgment which you must not use in matters of Religion So that this is a point which no man can dispute against and which no man can be convinced of by disputing without the reproach of self-contradiction This is an honourable way of silencing these troublesome and clamorous Disputants to let them see that their Principles will not allow of Disputing and that some of their Fundamental Doctrines which they impose upon the World are a direct contradiction to all Disputes for the very admitting of a Dispute confutes them and the meanest man may quickly say more in this Cause than their greatest Disputants can answer CHAP. II. Concerning the several Topicks of Dispute SECT I. Concerning Arguments from Reason 2. THe next Direction relates to the Topicks from which they Dispute which are either Reason Scripture or the Authority of the ancient Fathers and Writers of the Christian Church for the infallible Authority of Popes or General Councils is the thing
Popish Worship do not very well agree Those who would not make Gods of Stocks and Stones of dead Men and Women had certainly better not Worship them which is the most certain way not to make them Gods and those who think it such damnable Idolatry to Worship a Breaden God in my Opinion are on the safer side not to Worship the visible Species of Bread in the Eucharist Let but our Protestant observe this That when they would Represent Popery most favourably they either say what Protestants do or something as like it as they can and he will see no reason either to change his Faith or his Practice The END Books lately Printed for Will. Rogers THE Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented in Answer to a Book intituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented c. Quarto An Answer to a Discourse intituled Papists protesting against Protestant Popery being a Vindication of Papists not Misrepresented by Protestants And containing a particular Examination of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condom his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the Articles of Invocation of Saints Worship of Images occasioned by that Discourse Quarto An Answer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Difference between the Representer and the Answerer Quarto A View of the whole Controversie between the Representer and the Answerer with an Answer to the Representer's last Reply in which are laid open some of the Methods by which Protestants are Misrepresented by Papists Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the first Part Wherein an Answer is given to the late Proofs of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation in the Books called Consensus Veterum and Nubes Testium c. Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the Second Part Wherein the Doctrine of the Trinity is shewed to be agreeable to Scripture and Reason and Transubstantiation repugnant to both Quarto An Answer to the Eighth Chapter of the Representer's Second Part in the first Dialogue between him and his Lay-Friend Of the Authority of Councils and the Rule of Faith. By a Person of Quality With an Answer to the Eight Theses laid down for the Tryal of the English Reformation in a Book that came lately from Oxford Sermons and Discourses some of which never before Printed The Third Volume By the Reverend Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury Octavo A Manual for a Christian Souldier Written by Erasmus and Translated into English Twelves A new and easie Method to learn to Sing by Book whereby one who hath a good Voice and Ear may without other help learn to Sing true by Notes Design'd chiefly for and applied to the promoting of Psalmody and furnished with Variety of Psalm-Tunes in Parts with Directions for that kind of Singing A Perswasive to frequent Communion in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper By John Tillotson Dean of Canterbury in Octavo Price Three Pence A Discourse against Transubstantiation In Octavo Price Three Pence The State of the Church of Rome when the Reformation began as it appears by the Advices given to Paul III. and Julius III. by Creatures of their Own. With a Preface leading to the matter of the Book Quarto A Letter to a Friend Reflecting on some Passages in a Letter to the D. of P. in Answer to the Arguing Part of his first Letter to Mr. G. The Reflecter's Defence of his Letter to a Friend against the Furious Assaults of Mr. I. S. in his second Catholic Letter In four Dialogues Quarto A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Benj. Calamy D.D. and late Minister of St. Lawrence-Jury Lond. Jan. 7th 1685 6. By W. Sherlock D. D. Master of the Temple A Vindication of some Protestant Principles of Church-Unity and Catholick-Communion from the Charge of Agreement with the Church of Rome In Answer to a late Pamphlet Intituled An Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome evinced from the Concertation of some of her Sons with their Brethren the Dissenters By William Sherlock D. D. Master of the Temple Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus The Second Part of the Preservative against Popery May 3. 1688. Guil. Needham R. R. in Christo P. ac D.D. Wilhelmo Archiepisc. Gant. Ã Sacr. Domest The Second Part OF THE Preservative AGAINST POPERY Shewing how Contrary POPERY is to the True Ends OF THE Christian Religion Fitted for the INSTRUCTION OF Vnlearned PROTESTANTS By WILLIAM SHERLOCK D.D. Master of the Temple LONDON Printed for William Rogers at the Sun over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-street M DC LXXXVIII Part II. THE PRESERVATIVE AGAINST POPERY CHAP. IV. Some Directions relating to particular Controversies THose who would understand the particular Disputes between us and the Church of Rome must of necessity read such Books as give the true State of the Controversie between us and fairly represent the Arguments on both sides and where such Books are to be met with he may learn from a late Letter Entituled The Present State of the Controversie between the Church of England and the Church of Rome Or an Account of Books written on both sides But my present Design is of another nature to give some plain and easie Marks and Characters of true Gospel Doctrines whereby a man who has any relish of the true Spirit of Christianity may as certainly know Truth from Error in many cases as the Palate can distinguish Tasts There are some things so proper to the Gospel and so primarily intended in it that they may fitly serve for distinguishing marks of true Evangelical Doctrine I shall name some of the chief and Examine some Popish Doctrines by them SECTION 1. Concerning IDOLATRY 1. ONE principal intention of the Gospel was more perfectly to extirpate all Idolatry For this purpose the son of God was manifested to destroy the works of the devil that is not only all Sin and Wickedness but the very Kingdom of Darkness that Kingdom the Devil had erected in the world the very Foundation of which was laid in Idolatrous Worship To this purpose Christ has expresly taught us that there is but one God and has more perfectly instructed us in the nature of God For no man hath seen God at any time but the only begotten son who is in the bosom of the father he hath declared him Ignorance was the Mother of Pagan Idolatry because they did not know the true God they Worshipped any thing every thing for a God and therefore the most effectual course to cure Idolatry was to make known the true God to the world for those men are inexcusable who know the true God and Worship any thing else Tho' indeed according to some mens Divinity the knowledge of the true God cures Idolatry not by rooting
evident then I can no more believe them as to any Revelation than I can as to their natural Reasonings for the same Faculties must judge of both and if the Faculty be false I can trust its judgment in neither 3 ly The Doctrine of Transubstantiation destroys all possible certainty what the true sence and interpretation of Scripture is and thereby overthrows all supernatural Knowledge The Scripture we know is Expounded to very different and contrary Sences and made to countenance the most monstrous and absurd Doctrines Witness all the ancient Heresies which have been Fathered on the Scriptures Now what way have we to confute these Heresies but to shew either that the words of Scripture will not bare such a sence or at least do not necessarily require it that such an Interpretation is contrary to Sense to Reason to the natural Notions we have of God and therefore is in itself absurd and impossible But if Transubstantiation be a gospel-Gospel-Doctrine I desire any Papist among all the ancient Heresies to pick out any Doctrine more absurd and impossible more contrary to Sense and Reason than the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is and then it is no Argument against any Doctrine or any Exposition of Scripture that it is absurd and impossible contrary to Sense and Reason for so Transubstantiation is and if we may believe one absurd Doctrine we may believe five hundred how absurd soever they be And then what defence has any man against the most monstrous Corruptions of the Christian Faith Is this the way to improve Knowledge to destroy all the certain marks and characters of Truth and Error and to leave no Rule to judge by If the design of the Gospel was to improve our Minds by a knowing and understanding Faith Transubstantiation which overthrows the certainty both of natural and revealed Knowledge can be no gospel-Gospel-Doctrine 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-Gospel-Doctrine because it is not the way to make men wise and understanding Christians which is the great design of the Gospel for to suspend the exercise of Reason and Judgment is not the way to improve mens Knowledge an infallible Teacher and an infallible Rule do indeed mightily contribute to the improvement of Knowledge but such an infallible Judge as the Church of Rome boasts of can only make men ignorant and stupid Believers For there is a vast difference between an infallible Teacher and an infallible Judge which few men observe at least have not well explained for an infallible Teacher is onely an external Proponent and while men only teach and instruct how infallible soever they are every man is at liberty to use his own Reason and Judgment for though the Teacher be infallible he that learns must use his own Reason and Judgment unless a man can learn without it But now an infallible Judge is not contented to teach and instruct which is an appeal to the Reason of Mankind but he usurps the office of every mans private Reason and Judgment and will needs judge for all Mankind as if he were an Vniversal Soul an Vniversal Reason and Judgment that no man had any Soul any Reason or Judgment but himself for if every man has a private Reason and Judgment of his own surely every man must have a right to the private exercise of it that is to judge for himself and then there can be no such universal Judge who must be that to every man which in other cases his own private Reason and Judgment is which is to un-Soul all Mankind in matters of Religion And therefore though there have been a great many infallible Teachers as Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles yet none ever pretended to be infallible Judges but the Church of Rome that is none ever pretended to deny People a liberty of judging for themselves or ever exacted from them an universal submission to their infallible Judgment without exercising any act of Reason and Judgment themselves I am sure Christ and his Apostles left People to the exercise of their own Reason and Judgment and require it of them they were infallible Teachers but they did not judge for all Mankind but left every man to judge for himself as every man must and ought and as every man will do who has any Reason and Judgment of his own but an infallible Judge who pretends to judge for all men treats Mankind like Bruits who have no reasonable Souls of their own But you 'll say this distinction between an infallible Teacher and an infallible Judge is very nice and curious but seems to have nothing in it for does not he who teaches infallibly judge infallibly too And must I not submit my private Judgment which all men allow to be fallible to a publick infallible Judgment which I know to be infallible If I know that I may be deceived and that such a man cannot be deceived is it not reasonable for me to be governed by his Judgment rather than my own I answer All this is certainly true as any demonstration but then it is to be considered that I cannot be so certain of any man's Infallibility as to make him my Infallible Judge in whose Judgment I must acquiesce without exercising any Reason or Judgment of my own and the reason is plain because I cannot know that any man teaches infallibly unless I am sure that he teaches nothing that is contrary to any natural or revealed Law. Whoever does so is so far from being Infallible that he actually errs and whether he does so I cannot know unless I may judge of his Doctrine by the Light of Nature and by Revelation and therefore though there may be an Infallible Teacher there never can be any Infallible Judge to whom I must submit my own Reason and Judgment because I must judge of his Doctrine my self before I can know that he is Infallible As for instance when Moses appeared as a Prophet and a Law-giver to the Children of Israel there was no written Law but only the Law of Nature and therefore those great Miracles he wrought gave authority to his Laws because he contradicted no necessary Law of Nature but had any other person at that time wrought as many Miracles as Moses did and withal taught the Worship of many Gods either such as the AEgyptians or any other Nations worshipped at that time this had been reason enough to have rejected him as a false Prophet because it is contrary to the natural Worship of one Supream God which the Light of Nature teaches When Christ appeared there was a written Law the Writings of Moses and the Prophets 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 his
Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus A Preservative against Popery c. Febr. 2 1687. Guil. Needham R. R. in Christo P. ac D.D. Wilhelmo Archiepisc. Cant. Ã Sacr. Domest A Preservative AGAINST POPERY Being some Plain DIRECTIONS TO Vnlearned PROTESTANTS How to Dispute with Romish Priests THE FIRST PART By WILL. SHERLOCK D.D. Master of the Temple LONDON Printed for William Rogers at the Sun over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-street M DC LXXXVIII A PRESERVATIVE AGAINST POPERY The Introduction WHile so many Learned Pens are employed to such excellent purpose in answering the Writings and confuting the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome I cannot but think it a very useful Work to give some plain Directions to those who are Vnlearned who have neither Time to Read nor Money to Buy nor Abilities to Vnderstand more Learned Controversies Our Divines indeed have taken great care to write short Tracts with great Plainness and Perspicuity and with as little unnecessary shew of Learning as may be to fit them the better for Vnlearned Readers and they have had by the blessing of God wonderful Success Popery was never so generally understood as it is at this day the meanest Tradesmen can now dispute against Popery with sufficient Skill and Judgment and need not be beholding to the prejudices of Education to secure them and therefore my business shall not be at present downright to state any one Controversie between us and the Church of Rome but to direct our people how to secure themselves against the Attaques of our Roman Adversaries to check their conferring and disputing humour or to baffle them I shall reduce all into as plain a Method and as short a compass as I can and show First How to stop them at the beginning of their Dispute Secondly Give some Rules about the Topicks from which they dispute such as Reason Scripture and the Authority of the Ancient Fathers and Writers of the Church Thirdly How to answer some of their most popular pretences such as the Vncertainty of the Protestant Religion the Misrepresentations of Popery c. Fourthly To give some short Directions as to particular Controversies CHAP. I. How Protestants may prevent Disputing with Papists NOw I do not by this mean that they should always avoid their company and run away from them where-ever they meet them which is very ill Manners though it is not adviseable neither to court such acquaintance or to make them our Intimates when neither the obligations of Nature nor other Civil or Political Reasons make it necessary for Conversation many times prevails more than Arguments can do and will as soon corrupt Mens Faith as Manners Nor do I mean that Protestants should obstinately refuse to discourse with Papists when they meet them to hear what they have to say for themselves and to give a Reason for their own Faith this is not agreeable to Protestant Principles to prove all things and to hold fast that which is good and yet this ought to be done with great prudence and caution too for there are a sort of perverse Disputers who are to be avoided according to the Apostolick Precept if any man teach otherwise and consent not to wholsome words even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ and to the Doctrine which is according to godliness he is proud knowing nothing but doting about questions and strife of words whereof cometh envy strife railings evil surmizing perverse disputing of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth supposing that gain is godliness from such withdraw thy self 1 Tim. 6. 3 4 5. Men of weak judgments and who are not skilled in the Laws of Disputation may easily be imposed on by cunning Sophisters and such as lie in wait to deceive The Church of Rome is very sensible of this and therefore will not suffer her people to dispute their Religion or to read Heretical Books nay not so much as to look into the Bible itself but though we allow all this to our people as that which God not only allows but requires and which all considering men will allow themselves whoever forbids it yet we do not allow them to be perpetual Seekers to be always doubtful of their Religion to be like children tossed too and fro with every wind of Doctrine And therefore the liberty of Judging and Inquiring which we allow is only that they may understand the true Reasons of their Faith and be well grounded in it which Men may be who are not able to answer every cavilling objection but it is an abuse of this liberty when men have itching ears and hearken after all Novelties of Opinions and grow wanton and Seeptical Disputers and therefore it is very consistent with that liberty which Protestants allow to advise Christians to be very careful how they hearken to such as Preach any new Doctrine which they have not been taught that the weak in Faith and knowledge should not venture upon doubtful Disputations that they should not be hasty to question what they have believed nor to give heed to new Doctrines that they should not rely on their own understanding in these matters but when they meet with any difficulties should consult their Spiritual Guides not to be finally determined by their Authority as the Church of Rome requires but to hear their Reasons and what Answers they can give to such difficulties as they themselves cannot answer with such cautions as these we dare venture our people to hear and read and enquire as much as they please and have not found yet that our Roman Adversaries have been able to make any great impression upon such honest and prudent Inquirers But that which I intend at present is of another nature to teach our people a way to make these men sick of Disputing themselves to make them leave off those Impertinent and noisy squabbles with which they disturb all company they come into and this is no such mighty secret neither as may be expected but is very plain and obvious at the first proposal For when you are assaulted by such troublesome Disputers only ask them whether they will allow you to judge for yourselves in matters of Religion if they will not why do they trouble you with Disputing for the end of Disputing is to convince and you cannot be convinced unless you may judge too would they Dispute with a stone that can neither hear nor understand or would they make a Speech to convince a Horse that he is out of his way and must take another Road if he would return home and do they not talk to as little purpose and spend their breath as vain upon a man who can hear indeed and understand somewhat but must not follow his own understanding if they say that you must judge for your selves ask them whether this be the Doctrine of their Church that private men may judge for themselves whether this do not resolve our Faith into a private Spirit which they
while they adhere to their own Judgment or they should renounce them both together nay they must not onely renounce their own Judgments as soon as they are Converted but they must renounce the Authority and Validity of those very Arguments whereby they are Converted whether from Scripture Reason or Fathers they must confess that these Arguments are not a sufficient Foundation for a Divine Faith without the Authority of the Church for it is a dangerous thing to allow any Authority to Scripture or Fathers without the Church for that may make men Hereticks and yet I suppose when Hereticks are converted by these Arguments it must be the force of the Arguments and not the Authority of the Church which converts them unless they believed the Authority of the Church before they were converted and that was a little to early for it Now methinks when Protestants turn Papists as they pretend from the conviction of their own Reason and Judgment and as soon as they are converted are taught that there is no relying upon their own Judgment and that the Reasons whereby they were converted are not good in themselves without Church Authority if it were possible for them ever to use their Reason more after such a change it would certainly make them disown their Conversion which it seems was the effect of a very fallible Judgment and very uncertain and inauthentick Reasons 2. There is another pretence for these Disputes which may seem to answer this difficulty that the intention of these Disputes is onely to lead you to the Infallible Church and set you upon a Rock and then it is very natural to renounce your own Judgment when you have an Infallible Guide Our own Judgment then must bring us to the Infallible Guide and when we have found him we have no farther use for our own Judgment I answer 1. Should we grant this it puts an end to all the particular Disputes of Religion between us and the Church of Rome We may Dispute on about an Infallible Judge but they cannot with any sence Dispute with us about the particular Articles of Faith such as Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass the Worship of Images and the like for these are to be learnt onely from the Church and cannot be proved by Scripture or Fathers without the Authority of the Church And if they would confess this they would save us and themselves a great deal of trouble For why should they be at the trouble of writing such Arguments or we to answer them when they themselves confess that the Arguments are not good unless they be confirmed by the Churches Authority I confess I have often wondered to see such Volumes of Controversies written by the Roman Divines for I could never imagine to what end they are writ Is not their Faith wholly resolved into the Authority of the Church what need Reasons and Arguments then which cannot work Faith in us Either these Arguments are sufficient to confirm the Articles of their Faith without the Authority of the Church or they are not If they are then there is no need of Infallibility since all the Articles of Faith are confirmed by such Reasons as are a sufficient Foundation for Faith without it And thus they give up all their Arguments for an Infallible Judge from the necessity of such a Judge If they be not of what use are they does the Decision of the Church need to be confirmed by such Arguments If they are not good Arguments without the Authority of the Church they can no more give Authority to the Church than an Infallible Church can want any Authority but it s own Are they to convince Hereticks but how if Hereticks should confute them If they be not in themselves good Arguments they may be confuted and they know by sad experience that there are Hereticks as they call them who have Wit and Learning enough to confute what is to be confuted and if they fall into such hands which has been their hard fate of late they are sure to be confuted And I doubt then they had better have let them alone for the Catholick Cause may suffer much in the Opinion of the World when all their Arguments are confuted All then that they can design by such Arguments is to impose upon the Weak and Ignorant when Learned Men are out of the way which is no very commendable design and that design will be spoiled too if Unlearned Men do but learn to ask them the Question Whether they build their Faith upon such Arguments For then they must either quit the Authority of their Church or the strength of their Arguments The first reduces them to Protestant Uncertainty for then they have no other Foundation for their Faith than Protestants have which resolves it self into the Reasons and Arguments of Faith The second puts an end to Disputing about these matters for no man needs answer any Arguments which the Disputant himself acknowledges not to be good 2. There is nothing left then for Disâ—utation and the Exercise of our private Reason and Judgment but the inquiry after an Infallible Judge And here also before you dispute it will be necessary to ask them Whether the belief of an Infallible Judge must be resolved into every mans private Judgment whether it be not necessary to believe this with a Divine-Faith and whether there can be any Divine Faith without an Infallible Judge Certainly if ever it be necessary to have an Infallible Faith it is so to be infallibly assured of an Infallible Judge because this is the Foundation of all the rest for though the Judge be Infallible if I be not infallibly assured of this I can never arrive to Infallibility in any thing for I cannot be more certain that his Determinations are Infallible than I am that he himself is Infallible and if I have but a Moral assurance of this I can be but morally assured of the rest for the Building cannot be more firm than the Foundation is and thus there is an end to all the Roman Pretences to Infallibility Now if we must believe the Infallibility of the Church or Pope of Rome with an Infallible Faith there is an end of Disputing for no Reasons or Arguments not the Authority of the Scripture it self without an Infallible Judge can beget an Infallible Faith according to the Roman Doctors For this reason they charge the Protestant Faith with Uncertainty and will not allow it to be a Divine but Humane Faith though it is built upon the firmest Reasons the best Authority and the most express Scripture that can be had for any thing but because we do not pretend to rely on the Authority of a Living Infallible Judge therefore forsooth our Faith is Uncertain Humane and Fallible and this they say makes an Infallible Judge necessary because without him we have no Infallible Certainty of any thing Now if nothiâ—â— but an Infallible Judge can be the Foundation of an Infallible Faith
in dispute between us and therefore can prove nothing till that be first proved by something else 1. To begin then with Reason Now we do allow of Reason in matters of Religion and our Adversaries pretend to use it when they think it will serve their turn and rail at it and despise it when it is against them Not that we make Natural Reason the Rule or the Measure of our Faith for to believe nothing but what may be proved by Natural Reason is to reject Revelation or to destroy the necessity of it For what use is there of a Revelation or at least what necessity of it if nothing must be revealed but what might have been known by Natural Reason without Revelation or at least what Natural Reason can fully comprehend when it is revealed But though we believe such things when they are revealed by God which Natural Reason could never have taught us and which Natural Reason does not see the depths and mysteries of and therefore do not stint our Faith and confine it within the narrow bounds of Natural Reason yet we use our Reason to distinguish a true from a counterfeit Revelation and we use Reason to understand a Revelation and we Reason and Argue from revealed Principles as we do from the Principles of Natural Knowledge As from that Natural Principle that there is but one God we might conclude without a Revelation that we must Worship but one God so from that revealed Doctrine of one Mediator between God and man we may as safely conclude that we must make our Applications and offer up our Prayers and Petitions to God onely by this one Mediator and so in other cases Now to direct Protestants how to secure themselves from being imposed on by the fallacious Reasoning of Roman Priests I shall take notice of some of the chief faults in their way of Reasoning and when these are once known it will be an easie matter for men of ordinary understandings to detect their Sophistry 1. As first we must allow of no Reason against the Authority of plain and express Scripture This all men must grant who allow the Authority of Scripture to be superiour to Natural Reason for though Scripture cannot contradict plain and necessary and eternal Reasons i. e. what the universal Reason of Mankind teaches for a necessary and eternal truth yet God may command such things as we see no Natural Reason for and forbid such things as we see no Natural Reason against nay it may be when we think there are plausible Reasons against what God commands and for what he forbids But in all such cases a Divine Law must take place against our uncertain Reasonings for we may reasonably conclude that God understands the Reasons and Natures of things better than we do As for instance when there is such an express Law as Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely 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. The like may be said of the second Commandment Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image nor the likeness of any thing which is in heaven above or in the earth beneath or in the waters under the earth thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them Which is so express a Law against Image-Worship that no Reason must be admitted for it No man need to trouble himself to answer the Reasons urged for such Practices for no Reasons ought to be allowed nor any Dispute admitted against such express Laws This I suppose all men will grant but then the difficulty is What is an express Law For the Sence of the Law is the Law and if there may be such a Sence put on the words as will reconcile these Reasons with the Law we must not say then that such Reasons are against the Law when though they may be against the Law in some sence yet they are consistent with other sences of the Law and it is most likely that is the true sence of the Law which has the best reason on its side It must be confessed there is some truth in this when the words of the Law are capable of different sences and reason is for one sence and the other sence against reason there it is fit that a plain and necessary Reason should expound the Law but when the Law is not capable of such different sences or there is no such reason as makes one sence absurd and the other necessary the Law must be expounded according to the most plain and obvious signification of the Words though it should condemn that which we think there may be some reason for or at least no reason against for otherwise it is an easie matter to expound away all the Laws of God. To be sure all men must grant that such Reasons as destroy the Law or put an absurd or impossible sence on it are against the Law and therefore must be rejected how plausible soever they appear As for instance Some there are who to excuse the Church of Rome from Idolatry in Worshipping Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary positively affirm that no man can be guilty of Idolatry who Worships one Supreme God as a late Author expresly teaches As for the Invocation of Saints unless they Worship them as the Supreme God the Charge of Idolatry is an idle word and the Adoration it self which is given to them as Saints is a direct Protestation against Idolatry because it supposes a Superiour Deity and that supposition cuts off the very being of Idolatry Now not to examine what force there is in this Reason our present inquiry is onely How this agrees with the first Commandment Thou shalt have none other Gods before me before my Face as it is in the Hebrew Which supposes an acknowledgment of the Supreme God together with other Gods for otherwise though they Worship other Gods they do not do it before the Face of God while they see him as it were present before them to worship other Gods in the presence of the Supreme God or before his Face as that Phrase signifies is to worship them together with him and therefore this is well expressed by the Septuagint by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides me which supposes that they Worshipped him too And our Saviour expounds this Law by Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve So that this Reason That there can be no Idolatry where the Lord Jehovah is Worshipped as the Supreme God contradicts the very letter of this Law. How then does this Author get rid of the first Commandment Truly by laying it all aside for he gives this as the whole Sence of the first Commandment That God enjoyns the Worship of himself who by his Almighty Power had delivered them from their AEgyptian
Sins which are forgiven in the next World because there is a Sin which shall not be forgiven there Now not to consider the ordinary use of such Phrases to signifie no more than it shall never be without distinguishing between what is to be done in this World and what in the next nay not to consider how contrary this is to their own Doctrine of Purgatory that men who go to Purgatory have all their Sins already forgiven though they must suffer the punishment of them there which how absurd soever it is yet shews that Purgatory is not a place of forgiving Sins and therefore cannot be meant by our Saviour in those words yet supposing all they would have that there shall be some Sins forgiven in the next World which are not forgiven in this How does this prove a Popish Purgatory where Souls endure such torments as are not inferiour to those of Hell it self excepting their duration That some Sins shall be forgiven in the next World I think does not very evidently prove that men shall be tormented it may be for several Ages in the Fire of Purgatory Thus they prove the necessity of Auricular Confession to Priest from the power of Judicial Absolution Christ has given the Priest power to forgive Sins and hereby has made him a Judge to retain or remit Sins to absolve and inflict Penances Now a Judge cannot judge right without a particular knowledge of the Fact and all the circumstances of it and this the Priest cannot know without the confession of the Penitent and therefore as Priests have authority to absolve so a Penitent who would be absolved must of necessity confess But now I should think it a much better consequence that the Priest has not such a judicial authority of Absolution as requires a particular confession of the Penitent because Christ has no where commanded all men to confess their Sins to a Priest than that the Priest has such a judicial Authority and therefore all men must confess to a Priest for though our Saviour does give power to his Apostles to remit and retain Sins yet those words do not necessarily signifie a judicial Authority to forgive Sins or if it did it may relate onely to publick Sins which are too well known without a private confession or however it is not the particular knowledge of the Sin with all the circumstances of it but the marks and characters of true Repentance for publick or secret Sins which is the best rule and direction whom to absolve and therefore there is no need of a particular confession to this purpose But the Sophistry of this is most palpable when they draw such consequences from one Text of Scripture as directly contradict other plain and express Texts Thus because St. Peter tells us That there are many things hard to be understood in St. Paul's Epistles which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest as they do also the other scriptures to their own destruction 2 Pet. 3. 16. From hence they would conclude that People ought not to be allowed to read the Bible as if St. Peter had intended to forbid them to read those Epistles which St. Paul had written to them nay to read this very Epistle which he himself now sent to them For these Epistles which were sent to the Churches that they might be read by them make a considerable part of the New Testament which the People must not be allowed to read now But setting aside this this consequence that the People must not read the Bible is directly contrary to a great many other Texts which expresly command them to read and search and study and meditate on the Laws of God and the Holy Scriptures as every body knows I confess it amazes me to hear men argue at this rate when they cannot produce any one Text which forbids People to read the Scriptures and there are a great many express commands that they should read the Scriptures they think it sufficient to oppose against all this Authority a consequence of their own making and a very absurd one too and call this a Scripture-proof I would not be thought wholly to reject a plain and evident consequence from Scripture but yet I will never admit of a meer consequence to prove an Institution which must be delivered in plain terms as all Laws ought to be and where I have no other proof but some Scripture-consequences I shall not think it equivalent to a Scripture-proof if the consequences be plain and obvious and such as every man sees I shall not question it but remote and dubious and disputed consequences if we have no better evidence to be sure are a very ill foundation for Articles of Faith. Let our Protestant then tell such Disputants that for the Institution of Sacraments and for Articles of Faith he expects plain positive Proofs that as much as the Protestant Faith is charged with uncertainty we desire a little more certainty for our Faith than meer inferences from Scripture and those none of the plainest neither 4. Another false pretence to Scripture-proofs is to clap their own sense upon the words of Scripture without any regard to the use and propriety of words to the circumstances of the place to the reason and nature of things and to call this a Scripture-proof of their Doctrine when their Doctrines do not naturally grow there but are onely engrafted by some cunning Artists upon a Scripture-stock I shall give you onely one instance of this their Doctrine of Transubstantiation As for Transubstantiation they teach that the Elements of Bread and Wine are converted into the natural Flesh and Bloud of Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary That after Consecration there is nothing of the substance of Bread and Wine but the Accidents subsist without a substance That the natural Body of Christ his Soul and Divinity are present under the species of Bread nay that whole Christ Flesh and Bloud is under the species of Bread and in every particle of it and under the species of Wine and every drop of it That the Body of Christ is not broken nor his Bloud shed in the Sacrament but only the species of Bread and Wine which are nothing That it is only this Nothing which we eat and drink in the Sacrament and which goes down into our stomachs and carries whole Christ down with it Now this Doctrine founds so very harsh is so contrary to all the Evidence of our Senses and has so many Absurdities and Contradictions to Reason that it ought to be very plainly proved from Scripture in every part of it for if a man might be perswaded to renounce his Senses and Reason to believe Scripture yet it ought to be equally evident to him at least that Scripture is for it as it is that Sense and Reason is against it and yet there is not one word in Scripture to prove any one part of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation neither that the natural
presumed to understand their own Religion the first Reformers who were all educated in Popery might be as well presumed to understand what Popery then was and therefore there can be no reason to suspect that they Mis-represented Popery out of Ignorance Nor is it more probable that they should Mis-represent Popery out of Interest and Design for if they were conscious to themselves that Popery was not so bad as they represent it to be why should they themselves have set up for Reformers and what hope could they have that at that time when Popery was so well known they should perswade the World to believe their Mis-representations Was it so desirable a thing for men to bring all the Powers of the Church and Court of Rome upon themselves meerly to gratifie a Mis-representing humour Do these men remember what our Reformers suffered for opposing Popery the loss of their Estates their Liberties their Lives all the Vengeance of a blind and enraged Zeal And did they undergo all this with such constancy and Christian patience only for the sake of telling Lyes and raising scandalous Reports of the Church of Rome We think it a very good Argument that the Apostles and first Preachers of Christianity were very honest men and had no design to cheat the World because they served no worldly Interest by it but chearfully exposed themselves to all manner of Sufferings in Preaching the Gospel and why does not the same Argument prove our first Reformers to be honest men and then they could not be wilful Mis-representers Nay if we will but allow them to have been cunning men and it is evident they did not want wit they would never have undertaken so hopeless a design as to run down Popery meerly by Mis-representing it when had their Exceptions against Popery been onely Mis-representations of their own all the World could have confuted them had the first Reformers been onely Mis-representers can we think that they could have imposed upon such vast numbers of Men Learned and Unlearned who knew and saw what Popery was They were no Fools themselves and therefore could not hope to impose such a Cheat upon the World. 2. Ask them again How old this Complaint is of Protestant Mis-representations of Popery how long it has been discovered that Popery has been thus Abused and Mis-represented were the first Reformers charged with these Mis-representations by their Adversaries in those days did they deny that they gave Religious Worship to Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary to Images and Reliques did they cry out of Mis-representations when they were charged with such Doctrines and Practices as these or did they defend them and endeavour to answer those Arguments which the Reformers brought against them And yet methinks if Popery had been so grosly Mis-represented by the Reformers this would as soon have been discovered by the Learned Papists of those days as by our late Representer but it is most likely they did not then think Popery so much Mis-represented for if they had they would certainly have complained of it So that the high improbability of the thing is a sufficient Reason to Unlearned Protestants to reject this Charge of Protestant Mis-representations of Popery as nothing else but a Popish Calumny against Protestants and to conclude that if Popery be Mis-represented now it is onely by themselves and that is the very truth of the Case Secondly Let us consider this Charge of Mis-representations in the Consequences of it It would a little puzzle a man to guess what service they intend to do the Church of Rome by it For 1. By complaining of such Mis-representations of Popery they plainly confess that those Doctrines and Practices which we charge the Church of Rome with are very bad and fit to be rejected and abhorred of all Christians This the Representer himself confesses and is very Copious and Rhetorical upon it Now this is of mighty dangerous consequence for if it appears that we have not Mis-represented them that the Doctrines and Practices we charge them with are truly the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome then by their own confession Popery is a very bad Religion and to be rejected by Christians Then there was a very just reason for our Separation from the Church of Rome and we are no longer either Schismaticks or Hereticks and if the Cause be put upon this Issue we need desire no better Vindication of the Church of England for if they cannot prove us Hereticks or Schismaticks till they can prove us Mis-representers I believe we are pretty secure for this Age. 2. These men who complain so much of Mis-representing endeavour to make the Doctrines of the Church of Rome look as like Protestant Doctrines as possibly they can as if there were little or no difference between them Now methinks this is no great reason for a Protestant to turn Papist that the Popish Faith is so much the better the nearer it comes to the Protestant Faith. The truth is the chief Mystery in this late Trade of Representing and Mis-representing is no more but this to joyn a Protestant Faith with Popish Practices to believe as Protestants do and to do as Papists do As to give some few instances of this in the Papist Mis-represented and Represented The Papist Represented believes it damnable to Worship Stocks and Stones for Gods to Pray to Pictures or Images of Christ the Virgin Mary or any other Saints This is good Protestant Doctrine but then this Papist says his Prayers before an Image Kneels and Bows before it and pays all external Acts of Adoration to Christ and the Saints as represented by their Images though it is not properly the Image he honours but Christ and his Saints by the Images Which is down-right Popery in Practice Thus he believes it is a most damnable Idolatry to make Gods of men either living or dead Which is the Protestant Faith but yet he prays to Saints and beggs their Intercession without believing them to be Gods or his Redeemers which is Popery in Practice He believes it damnable to think the Virgin Mary more powerful in Heaven than Christ. Which is Protestant Doctrine but yet he prays to Her ostner than either to God or Christ says ten Ave-Maries for one Pater Noster which is a Popish Devotion He believes it unlawful to commit Idolatry and most damnable to Worship any Breaden God. Which is spoke like a Protestant but yet he pays Divine Adoration to the Sacrament which is done like a Papist And thus in most of those thirty seven Particulars of the double Characters of a Papist Mis-represented his great Art is to Reconcile a Protestant Faith with Popish Practices So that this new way of Representing Popery is no reason to a Protestant to alter his Faith because it seems they believe in many things just as we do but I think it is a very great reason for a Papist to alter his Practice because a Protestant Faith and
this Case to Pardon the Sentence of Death would deliver such a man from all other Punishments too which by the Law are due only to that man who is under the Sentence of Death and in such a Constitution for any man to say that the Prince's Pardon extends only to Life but does not excuse from Whipping and Pilloring and perpetual Imprisonment would be to make the Pardon void since no man by the Law can suffer those other Punishments but he who is Condemned to Die and therefore he who is pardoned the Sentence of Death in consequence of that is pardoned all other Punishments too Thus it is here the original Curse against sin was in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die which by the Gospel of Christ is expounded of Eternal Death and there is no other threatning in all the Gospel against sin but Eternal Death and therefore all other Punishments are inflicted by Vertue of this Law and consequently he who is delivered from this Curse of the Law from Eternal Punishments is delivered from the whole Punishment due to sin unless they can find some other Law in the Gospel besides that which threatens Eternal Death which obliges a Sinner to Punishment Again since they acknowledge that Christ by his Death has delivered us from Eternal Punishments I do not think it worth the while to Dispute with them whether those Sufferings and Calamities which good men are exposed to in this World may properly be called Punishments or only Correction and Discipline but I desire to know Why they call Purgatory which is a place of Punishment in the other World a Temporal Punishment for this is an abuse of the Language of Scripture which makes this World Temporal and the next World Eternal as St. Paul expresly tells us the things which are seen are temporal but the things which are not seen are eternal 2 Cor. 4. 18. And therefore Temporal Punishments signifie the Punishments in this World but the unseen Punishments as well as the unseen Rewards of the next World are Eternal which is a demonstration that there is no Purgatory unless it be Eternal and then it is but another Name for Hell and therefore the State of the next World is called either Life or Death eternal life or eternal death those who believe in Christ shall never die 11 John 25 26. Now I desire to know the difference between Living and Dying and Perishing in the next World for bad men do not cease to be nor loose all sence in the next World no more than good men and therefore Life can only signifie a state of Happiness and Death a state of Misery which is much worse than not being now if good men must not perish must not die but live in the next World they must not go to Purgatory which as much perishing as much dying as Hell though not so long but if they must never die never perish they must never suffer the pains of Purgatory which is a dying and perishing that is a state of Torment and Misery while they continue there Let us then see how a Papist who believes a Purgatory-fire in the next World wherein he shall be tormented God knows how long for his Sins can prove that a penitent Sinner shall not be eternally damned Oh! says he Christ has died for our Sins and made attonement for them and we are pardoned and justified through Faith in his Bloud and what then may we not still be punished for our Sins If not what becomes of Purgatory If we may prove that we shall not be eternally damned for Sin which is the proper punishment of it For if to be pardoned and justified signifie to be delivered from punishment it signifies our deliverance from the whole punishment of Sin since the Scripture does not limit it if they do not signifie our deliverance from punishment then we may be eternally punished for Sin though we are pardoned and justified But we are redeemed from the curse of the Law and saved from wrath But if such a man may go to Purgatory why not to Hell Or if the Curse of the Law and the Wrath of God be in Hell but not in Purgatory though the torments are equally great why may not he lie for ever in Purgatory as well as a thousand Years with this comfort that though he be infinitely tormented yet it is not the curse of the Law nor the wrath of God. Well but Christ has promised That those who believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life And that proves that the pains of Purgatory cannot be for ever for then Christ could not make good his promise of bestowing everlasting Life on them so I confess one would think and so I should have thought also that when Christ promised that such Believers should not perish and should never die that he meant such men should not go to Purgatory in the next World but if falling into Purgatory be not perishing and not dying it may be everlasting life too for ought I know and then the pains of Purgatory may be eternal Whoever would not forfeit all the assurance the Gospel has given us of our Redemption from Hell and a glorious Immortality must reject the Popish Doctrine of Purgatory as a flat contradiction to all the gracious Promises of the Gospel for Hell or an eternal Purgatory is as reconcileable with the Promises of Forgiveness and immortal Life as the Popish Purgatory is 2. This Doctrine of Purgatory destroys our hope and confidence in the Mediation and Intercession of Christ and that for these two plain reasons 1. As it represents him less merciful and compassionate And 2. less powerful than the wants and necessities of Sinners require him to be For I. After all that is said in Scripture of his being so merciful and compassionate an High-Priest a Sinner who hears what is told him of Purgatory could wish him a great deal more compassionate than he is for it is no great sign of tenderness and compassion to leave his Members in Purgatory-fire which burns as hot as Hell. Could I believe this of our Saviour I should have very mean thoughts of his kindness and not much rely on him for any thing We should think him far enough from being a merciful and compassionate Prince who can be contented to torture his Subjects for a year together and it is a wonderful thing to me that when a merciful man cannot see a Beast in torment without relieving it it should be thought consistent with the mercy and compassion of our Saviour to see us burn in Purgatory for Years and Ages To be sure this destroys all our hope in him in this World for why should we think he will be concerned what we suffer here who can contentedly let us lie in Purgatory to which all the calamities and sufferings of this life are meer trifles O Blessed and Merciful JESU pardon such Blasphemies as these For II. If he be
must neither believe their Senses nor trust their Reason nor read the Scripture it is easie to guess what knowing and understanding Christians they must needs be But it may be said that notwithstanding this the Church of Rome does Instruct her Children in the true Catholick Faith though she will not venture them to judge for themselves nor to read the Scriptures which is the effect of her great care of them to keep them Orthodox for when men trust to their own fallible Reasons and private Interpretations of Scripture it is a great hazard that they do not fall into one Heresie or other but when men are taught the pure Catholick Faith without any danger of Error and Heresie is not this much better then to suffer them to reason and judge for themselves when it is great odds but they will judge wrong Now this would be something indeed did the Church of Rome take care to Instruct them in all necessary Doctrines and to teach nothing but what is true and could such men who thus tamely receive the dictates of the Church be said to know and to understand their Religion How far the Church of Rome is from doing the first all Christians in the world are sensible but themselves but that is not our present dispute for though the Church of Rome did instruct her people into the true Christian Faith yet such men cannot be said to know and understand their Religion and to secure the Faith by destroying knowledge is a direct contradiction to the design of the Gospel which is to make men wise and understanding Christians For no man understands his Religion who does not in some measure know the reasons of his Faith and judge whether they be sufficient or not who knows not how to distinguish between Truth and Error who has no Rule to go by but must take all upon trust and the credit of his Teachers who believes whatever he is told and learns his Creed as School boys do their Grammar without understanding it This is not an active but a kind of passive knowledge such men receive the impression that is made on them as wax does and understand no more of the matter now will any one call this the knowledge and understanding of a man or the Discipline of a Child But suppose there were some men so dull and stupid that they could never rise higher that they are not capable of inquiring into the reasons of things but must take up their Religion upon trust yet will any man say that this is the utmost perfection of knowledge that any Christian must aim at is this the meaning of the word of God dwelling in us richly in all wisdom is this the way to give an answer to any one who asks a reason of the hope that is in us the perfection of Christian knowledge is a great and glorious attainment to understand the secrets of God's Laws those depths and mysteries of wisdom and goodness in the oeconomy of Mans Salvation to see the Analogy between the Law and the Gospel how the Legal Types and ancient Prophecies received their accomplishment in Christ how far the Gospel has advanced us above the state of Nature and the Law of Moses what an admirable design it was to redeem the world by the Incarnation and death and sufferings and intercession of the Son of God what mysteries of Wisdom and Goodness the Gospel contains the knowledge of which is not only the perfection of our understandings but raises and ennobles our minds and transforms us into the Divine Image These things were revealed that they might be known not that they should be concealed from the world or neglected and despised but this is a knowledge which cannot be attained without diligent and laborious inquiries without using all the reason and understanding we have in searching the Scriptures and all other helps which God has afforded us Now if Christian Knowledge be something more than to be able to repeat our Creed and to believe it upon the authority of our Teachers if the Gospel of our Saviour was intended to advance us to a true manly knowledge Christ and the Church of Rome seem to have two very different designs our Lord in causing the Gospel to be wrote and publisht to the world the other in concealing it as much as she can and suffering no body to read it without her leave as a dangerous Book which is apt to make men Hereticks for it is hard to conceive that the Gospel was written that it might not be read and then one would guess that he by whose authority and inspiration the Gospel was written and those by whose authority it is forbid to be read are not of a mind in this matter 1. This I think in the first place is an evident proof that to forbid Christian people to read and study and mediate on the word of God is no Gospel Doctrine unless not to read the Bible be a better way to improve in all true Christian knowledge and wisdom than to read it for that is the duty of Christians to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ this was one great end of publishing the Gospel to the world to enlighten and improve mens understandings as well as to govern their Lives and though we grant men may be taught the principles of Christian Religion as Children are without reading the Bible yet if they will but grant that studying and meditating on the holy Scriptures is the best and only way to improve in all true Christian knowledge this shows how contrary this prohibition of reading the Scriptures is to the great design of the Gospel to perfect our knowledge in the mysteries of Christ. 2 ly This is a mighty presumption also against Transubstantiation that it is no Gospel Doctrine because it overthrows the very Fundamental Principles of Knowledge which is a direct contradiction to the design of the Gospel to advance Divine Knowledge to the utmost perfection it can attain in this world Whoever has his eyes in his head must confess that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is contrary to Sense for were our senses to be Judges of this matter they would pronounce the Bread and Wine after Consecration to be Bread and Wine still and therefore what ever reason there may be to believe it not to be Bread and Wine but Flesh and Blood yet it must be confessed that our Faith in this matter contradicts our sense for even Roman Catholick Eyes and Noses and Hands can see and feel and smell nothing but Bread and Wine and if to our senses it appears to be nothing but Bread and Wine those who believe it to be the Natural Body and Blood of Christ believe contrary to what they see Thus there is nothing more contrary to the natural notions we have of things than the Doctrine of Transubstantiation for if this Doctrine be true then the same individual body of Christ
is in Heaven at the right hand of God and on ten thousand Altars at a great distance from each other on earth at the same time Then a humane Body is contracted into the compass of a Wafer or rather subsists without any dimensions without extension of parts and independent on place Now not to dispute whether this be true or false my only inquiry at present is whether this do not contradict those natural notions all men have of the properties of a Humane Body let a man search his own mind and try whether he find any such notion of a Body as can be present at more places than one at the same time a Body that is without Extension nay that has parts without Extension and therefore without any distinction too for the parts of an Organical Body must be distinguished by place and scituation which cannot be if they have no Extension a Body which is present without occupying a place or being in a place if we have no such natural notion of a Body as I am sure I have not and I believe no man else has then let Transubstantiation be true or false it is contrary to the natural notions of our minds which is all I am at present concerned for Thus let any man try if he have any notion of an accident subsisting without any substance of a white and soft and hard nothing of the same body which is extended and not extended which is in a place and not in a place at the same time for in Heaven I suppose they will grant the Body of Christ fills a place and has the just dimensions and proportions of a Humane Body and at the same time in the Host the very same body is present without any extension and independent on place that is the same body at the same time is extended and not extended fills a place and fills no place which I suppose they mean by being Independent on place now is and is not is a contradiction to natural Reason and I have no other natural notion of it but as of a contradiction both parts of which cannot be true Let us then briefly examine whether it be likely that Transubstantiation which contradicts the evidence of sense and the natural notions of our Minds should be a Gospel Doctrine considering the Gospel as the most Divine and excellent Knowledge and most perfective of Humane understandings For 1. This Doctrine of Transubstantiation is so far from perfecting our Knowledge that it destroys the very Principles of all Humane Knowledge All natural knowledge is owing either to Sense or Reason and Transubstantiation contradicts both and whoever believes it must believe contrary to his Senses and Reason which if it be to believe like a Catholick I am sure is not to believe like a man if the perfection of knowledge consist in contradicting our own Faculties Transubstantiation is the most perfect knowledge in the world but however I suppose no man will say that this is the natural perfection of knowledge which overthrows the most natural notions we have of things and yet 2. All supernatural Knowledge must of necessity be grafted upon that which is natural for we are capable of revealed and supernatural Knowledge only as we are by nature reasonable Creatures and destroy Reason and Beasts are as fit to be preached too as Men And yet to contradict the plain and most natural notions of our minds is to destroy Humane Reason and to leave Mankind no Rule or Principle to know and judge by No man can know any thing which contradicts the Principles of Natural Knowledge because he has only these natural Principles to know by and therefore however his Faith may be improved by it he forfeits his natural Knowledge and has no supernatural Knowledge in the room of it For how can a man know and understand that which is contrary to all the natural Knowledge and Understanding he has There may be some revealed Principles of Knowledge super-added to natural Principles and these things we may know to be so though we have no natural Notion of them and this perfects because it enlarges our Knowledge as the Knowledge of three Divine Persons super-added to the natural Belief of one Supreme God which does not overthrow the belief of one God but only acquaints us that there are three Divine Persons in the Unity of the Godhead which whatever difficulty there may be in apprehending it yet overthrows no natural Notion this is an improvement of Knowledge because we know all we did before and we know something more that as there is one God so there are three Persons who are this one God and though we have no natural Notion of this how three Persons are one God because we know no distinction between Person and Essence in Finite Beings yet we have no natural Notion that there cannot be more Persons than one in an Infinite Essence and therefore this may be known by Revelation because there is no natural Notion against it But now I can never know that which is contrary to all the Principles of Knowledge I have such men may believe it who think it a Vertue to believe against Knowledge Who can believe that to be true which they know to be false For whatever is contrary to the plain and necessary Principles of Reason which all Mankind agree in I know must be false if my Faculties be true and if my Faculties be not true then I can know nothing at all neither by Reason nor Revelation because I have no true Faculties to know with Revelation is a Principle of Knowledge as well as Faith when it does not contradict our natural Knowledge of things for God may teach us that which Nature does not teach and thus Revelation improves enlarges and perfects Knowledge in such cases Faith serves instead of natural Knowledge the Authority of the Revelation instead of the natural Notions and Idea's of our Minds but I can never know that by Revelation which contradicts my natural Knowledge which would be not only to know that which I have no natural Knowledge of which is the knowledge of Faith but to know that by Revelation which by Reason and Nature I know cannot be which is to know that which I know cannot be known because I know it cannot be So that Transubstantiation which contradicts all the evidence of Sence and Reason is not the Object of any Humane Knowledge and therefore cannot be a Gospel-Revelation which is to improve and perfect not to destroy Humane Knowledge I can never know it because it contradicts all the Notions of my Mind and I can never believe it without denying the truth of my Faculties and no Revelation can prove my Faculties to be false for I can never be so certain of the truth of any Revelation as I am that my Faculties are true and could I be perswaded that my Faculties are not true but deceive me in such things as I judge most certain and
Doctrine was to be examined by them and accordingly he appeals to Moses and the Prophets to bear testimony to his Person and Doctrine and exhorts them to search the Scriptures which gave testimony to him and how the Miracles he wrought gave authority to any new Revelations he made of God's Will to the World since he did not contradict the old The Law of Nature and the Laws of Moses were the Laws of God and God cannot contradict himself and therefore the Doctrine of all new Prophets even of Christ himself was to be examined and is to be examined to this day by the Law and the Prophets and therefore though he was certainly an Infallible Teacher yet men were to judge of his Doctrine before they believed him and he did not require them to lay aside their Reason and Judgment and submit to his Infallible Authority without Examination So that all this while there could be no Infallible Judge to whom all men were bound to submit their own private Reason and Judgment and to receive all their Dictates as divine Oracles without Examination because they could not know them to be such Infallible Teachers till they had examined their Doctrine by the Light of Nature and the Law of Moses and we cannot to this day know that Moses and Christ were true Prophets but in the same way Since the writing of the New Testament there is a farther Test of an Infallible Teacher if there be any such in the world that he neither contradicts the Light of Nature nor the true intent of the Law of Moses nor alter or add to the Gospel of Christ and therefore there can be no Infallible Judge because be he never so Infallible we can never know that he is so but by the agreement of his Doctrine with the Principles of Reason with the Law and the Prophets and with the Gospel of Christ and therefore must examine his Doctrine by these Rules and therefore must judge for our selves and not suffer any man to judge for us upon a pretence of his Infallibility Could I know that any man were Infallible without judging of his Doctrine then indeed there were some reason to believe all that he says without any inquiry or examination but this never was never can be and therefore though there may be an Infallible Teacher there can be no Infallible Judge to whom I must submit my own Reason and Judgment without asking any Questions Which by the way shews how ridiculous that Sophism is The Church has not erred because she is Infallible when it is impossible for me to know she is Infallible till by examining her Doctrine by an Infallible Rule I know that she has not erred And the truth is it is well there can be no Infallible Judge for if there were it would suspend and silence the Reason and Judgment of all Mankind and what a knowing Creature would Man be in matters of Religion when he must not reason and must not judge just as knowing as a man can be without exercising any Reason and Judgment And therefore not only the reason and nature of the thing proves that there can be no Infallible Judge but the design of Christ to advance humane Nature to the utmost perfection of Reason and Understanding in this World proves that he never intended there should be any for to take away the exercise of Reason and private Judgment is not the way to make men wise and knowing Christians and if Christ allows us to judge for our selves there can be no Infallible Judge whose Office it shall be to judge for us all 4 ly To pretend the Scripture to be an obscure or imperfect Rule is a direct contradiction to the design of the Gospel to improve and perfect Knowledge for if the Scripture be so obscure in the essential matters of Faith and Christian knowledge that we cannot have any certainty what the true sence and interpretation of it is without an Infallible Judge then the Scriptures cannot improve our knowledge because we cannot know what they are we cannot understand their meaning and therefore can learn nothing from them Yes you 'll say we may know their meaning when they are expounded to us by an Infallible Judge though the Scriptures are so obscure that we cannot understand them without an Infallible Judge yet we may certainly learn what the sence of Scripture is from such a Judge Now in answer to this I observe that though such an Infallible Judge should determine the sense of all obscure Texts of Scripture which neither the Pope nor Church of Rome have ever done yet this would not be to understand the Scriptures or to learn from the Scriptures but only to rely on this Infallible Judge for the sense of Scripture To understand the Scriptures is to be able to give a reason why I expound Scripture to such a sense as that the words signifie so that the circumstances of the place and the context and coherence of the words require it that the analogy of Faith and the reason and nature of things will either justifie such an interpretation or admit no other and an Expositor who can thus open our Understandings and not only tell us what the sense of Scripture is but make us see that this is the true sense and interpretation of it does indeed make us understand the Scripture Thus Christ himself did when he was risen from the dead He opened their understandings that they might understand the Scriptures 24 Luke 45. But to be told that this is the true sence of Scripture and that we must believe this is the sense though we can see no reason why it should be thus expounded nay though all the Reason we have tells us that it ought not to be thus expounded no man will say that this is to understand the Scriptures but to believe the Judge No man can learn any thing from a Book which he does not and cannot understand and if men neither do nor can understand the Scriptures it is certain they can learn nothing from them an Infallible Judge would teach as well without the Scriptures as with them and indeed somewhat better because then no man could have a pretence to contradict him and therefore if this be true the holy Scripture deserves all those contemptible Characters which the Romanists have given it for it is so far from improving and perfecting our knowledge that it self cannot be known and therefore is good for nothing So that the obscurity of the Scripture makes it wholly useless to the great ends and purposes of the Christian Religion viz. to improve and perfect the knowledge of Mankind in the necessary and essential Doctrines of Faith and therefore this can be no Gospel-Doctrine because it makes the Gospel it self considered as written of no use Thus if the Scripture be an imperfect Rule as the Romanists affirm that it does not teach us the whole mind and will of God but that we must learn
in the Church of Rome this admirable Sacrament is turned into a dumb shew which no body can be edified with or into a Sacrifice for the living and the dead which expiates Sin and serves us instead of a Holy Life as I observed above External Mortifications and Severities to the Body Fastings Watchings hard Lodging c. are very useful Instruments of Vertue when they are intended to subdue the Flesh to the Spirit and to wean our Minds from Sensual Enjoyments but when they are intended to satisfie for our Sins not to kill them to punish our selves for our sins that we may commit them more securely again this is not a means to break vicious Habits and to conquer the love of Sin but only to conquer the fear of committing it This is enough to shew how far Popery is from promoting the great design of the Gospel to improve and perfect Humane Nature and Holiness and were there no other Argument against it this were sufficient to me to prove That it cannot be the Religion of the Gospel of Christ. FINIS ERRATA PAge 27. line 10. for great read greater p. 37.l.5.f when r. where l. 23.f contract r. contact p. 40.l.27.f should it r. it should p. 79.l.22.f undermined r. undetermined p. 80.l.3.f corrupt r. corrupts l. 22.f up r. upon p. 91.l.22.r in knowledge and holiness Books lately Printed for W. Rogers THE Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented in Answer to a Book intituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented c. Quarto An Answer to a Discourse intituled Papists protesting against Protestant Popery Quarto An Answer to the Amicable Accommodation Quarto A View of the whole Controversie between the Representer and the Answerer Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition 1 st and 2 d Part. In two Dialogues between a Protestant and a Papist Quarto An Answer to the Eighth Chapter of the Representer's Second Part. Of the Authority of Councils and the Rule of Faith. By a Person of Quality With an Answer to the Eight Theses laid down for the Tryal of the English Reformation Sermons and Discourses The Third Volume By Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury 8o. A Manual for a Christian Souldier Written by Erasmus A new and easie Method to learn to Sing by Book A Book of Cyphers or Letters Reverst Price bound 5 s. A Perswasive to frequent Communion in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper By Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury In Octavo Price 3 d. A Discourse against Transubstantiation In Octavo Price 3 d. The State of the Church of Rome when the Reformation began A Letter to a Friend Reflecting on some Passages in a Letter to the D. of P. in Answer to the Arguing Part of his first Letter to Mr. G. The Reflecter's Defence of his Letter to a Friend In Four Dialogues A Discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry in which the Bishop of Oxford's true and only Notion of Idolatry is Considered and Confuted The Protestant Resolv'd or a Discourse shewing the Vnreasonableness of his Turning Roman Catholick for Salvation Second Edition The Absolute Impossibility of Transubstantiation Demonstrated A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Benj. Calamy D.D. A Vindication of some Protestant Principles of Church-Unity and Catholick-Communion from the Charge of Agreement with the Church of Rome In Answer to a late Pamphlet Intituled An Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome evinced from the Concertation of some of her Sons with their Brethren the Dissenters A Preservative against Popery being some Plain Directions to Unlearned Protestants how to Dispute with Romish Priests The First Part. The Fourth Edition These three last by William Sherlock D.D. Master of the Temple Reasons for Abrogating the Test p. 133. Matth. 4. 10. Ibid. p. 80. Ibid. p. 30. 135 Psal. 15. 1 Cor. 2. 11. 1 Thess. 2. 15. 5 Jam. 14 15. 1 John 3. 8. 1. Joh. 18. Mat. 10. 1 Cor. 8. 5 6. Dr. Stillin Defence of the Discourse concerning Idolatry 25 Exod. 22. Reasons for abrogating the Test p. 124 c. Ibid. p. 127. 9 Heb. 21 â—2 P. 130. Page 127. Page 130. 99 Psalm 2 9. 1 John 2.1 2. 3 Rom. 23. 15 Matth. 11 17 18 19 20. 4 John 21 23. 23 Matth. 16 17 18 19. 5 Matth. 20. 1 Tim. 4. 3 4 5. 2 Col. 16 ' 20 21 22. 40 Isa. 18. c. 4 John 22. 4 John 23. 99 Psal. 1 2. 14 John 2. 4 Heb. 16. 8 Rom. 15. 4 Gal. 6. 3 John 5 6 8 Rom. 1. 4 Eph. 24. 3 Colos 10. 3 Col. 16. 1 John 2.2 12 Heb. 1.