say is the Protestant Heresie and the foundation of Protestant uncertainty if they once open this gap to Hereticks into the Church there is great danger that more will run out at it than will come in and it is well if the Church itself staies behind for what becomes of the Church of Rome if all their glorious Cant of the Infallibility of Church and Popes and General Councils be at last resolved into a private Spirit while these men go about to Dispute Hereticks into their Church they unavoidably give up the Cause of the Church and of Infallibility which is the way to Dispute a great many good Catholicks out of it who are kept there only by the power of a blind and implicite Faith. Here then let our Protestant fix his foot and not stir an inch till they disown Infallibility and confess that every man can and must judge for himself in matters of Religion according to the proofs that are offered to him For will a wise man Dispute with one who he knows banters him all the while who appeals to his private judgment as all men do who dispute with one another and at the same time cries down this private Spirit as the cause of Schisms and Heresies and Blasphemies and every thing that is evil no man of any spirit but will scorn to dispute with one who intends only to put a trick on him and to out wit him if he can and in truth it is no more to endeavour to dispute a man into Popery when the Fundamental Principle of Popery is that we must not Reason and Dispute but believe that we must take our Faith upon the Authority of the Church without asking any questions about it There are two or three things which may be answered to this 1. That though Disputing be not a proper way for Papists to take yet it is the only way that can be taken with Protestants who are all for Disputing and will believe nothing without a Reason and therefore Protestants ought not to blame Papists for Disputing unless they would be good Catholicks without it Now in answer to this I have something to say to Papists and something to Protestants 1. As for the Papists what necessity soever they be in of Disputing I desire to know with what face they can reproach Protestants with adhering to their own private judgments when they themselves are such zealous Disputants which is an Appeal to every private mans judgment if ever they make any Converts they must be beholden to mens private judgments for it for I think men cannot change their Opinions without exercising a private judgment about it and I suppose when they dispute with men to make them Papists they intend to convert them by their own private judgments Now what difference is there between mens using their private judgments to turn Papists or to turn Protestants one indeed may be false and the other true but private judgment is private judgment still and if it be so great a fault for men to use their own private judgments it is as great a fault in a Papist as it is in a Protestant So that at least as to Converts the Church of Rome has no advantage in this particular over Protestant Churches some by the exercise of their own Reason and judgment go over to the Church of Rome and some to the Church of England some are disputed into Popery and some into Protestantism and therefore for the sake of their beloved Converts and their beloved Disputations they ought to be more favourable to a private Spirit The truth is by Disputing with Hereticks they give up their Cause and confess that in all Disputes of Religion there lies an Appeal to every mans private Judgment and Conscience and should they lose this point by their Disputing all the Converts they make cannot recompence such a loss 2. As for Protestants though they have no other way to satisfie themselves or to convince others but by Reason and Discourse yet this is no reason why they should Dispute with those men who disown the judgment of Reason as a private Spirit For why should I Dispute with any man who uses such Arguments to convince me as he himself does not think a sufficient Reason of Faith Ask then one of these Disputers who alledges Scripture Reason and Antiquity to prove any Doctrines of the Romish Faith Do you Sir believe Transubstantiation the Worship of Images the Invocation of Saints Purgatory Mass for the Dead upon the bare Authority of these Scriptures and Fathers you have produced for them If these Doctrines were not Defined by the Church should you think these Arguments sufficient to prove them or could you suppose the Church had Defined the contrary should you think the Arguments good still In short can any Reason any Authority of Scripture or Fathers be any Foundation for a Divine Faith but onely the Authority of the Church He that says they can is no Papist and he that says they cannot confesses that he uses such Arguments as he himself does not build his Faith upon If you will believe them you may but though you do you are no sound Believer without resolving your Faith solely into the Authority of the Church And I think he must love Disputing well who will Dispute with such men as these and those must have a good degree of assurance who will be troublesome with their Disputes after such a discovery The end of Disputing I suppose is either toconvince or to be convinced but should you Answer and baffle all such a man's Arguments if he be modest it may be he may blush a little but is not to be moved for his Faith after all is not built upon these Arguments but upon Church-Authority and it is to no purpose for you to suffer your self to be convinced by these Arguments for it will not make you a good Catholick without resolving your Faith wholly into the Authority of the Church It is certainly a very surprizing thing for a Protestant to be disputed into Popery for as soon as he is converted he must renounce the very means of his Conversion He must use his own Judgment to turn Papist and as soon as he is turned he must renounce his own Judgment and confess it to be of no Authority Now though it may be such a private Judgment as leads a man to Popery may as well deserve to be renounced as any yet it is an odd kind of contradiction to renounce our own private Reason and Judgment and yet to own our Conversion methinks such men should renounce their Conversion too at the same time they renounce their Reason for if their Conversion be good it is a sign their Judgment was so but if their Judgment be not fit to be trusted methinks this should make them question their Conversion And therefore they should either maintain the Reputation of their Judgment and Conversion together and then they cannot be good Catholicks
while they adhere to their own Judgment or they should renounce them both together nay they must not onely renounce their own Judgments as soon as they are Converted but they must renounce the Authority and Validity of those very Arguments whereby they are Converted whether from Scripture Reason or Fathers they must confess that these Arguments are not a sufficient Foundation for a Divine Faith without the Authority of the Church for it is a dangerous thing to allow any Authority to Scripture or Fathers without the Church for that may make men Hereticks and yet I suppose when Hereticks are converted by these Arguments it must be the force of the Arguments and not the Authority of the Church which converts them unless they believed the Authority of the Church before they were converted and that was a little to early for it Now methinks when Protestants turn Papists as they pretend from the conviction of their own Reason and Judgment and as soon as they are converted are taught that there is no relying upon their own Judgment and that the Reasons whereby they were converted are not good in themselves without Church Authority if it were possible for them ever to use their Reason more after such a change it would certainly make them disown their Conversion which it seems was the effect of a very fallible Judgment and very uncertain and inauthentick Reasons 2. There is another pretence for these Disputes which may seem to answer this difficulty that the intention of these Disputes is onely to lead you to the Infallible Church and set you upon a Rock and then it is very natural to renounce your own Judgment when you have an Infallible Guide Our own Judgment then must bring us to the Infallible Guide and when we have found him we have no farther use for our own Judgment I answer 1. Should we grant this it puts an end to all the particular Disputes of Religion between us and the Church of Rome We may Dispute on about an Infallible Judge but they cannot with any sence Dispute with us about the particular Articles of Faith such as Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass the Worship of Images and the like for these are to be learnt onely from the Church and cannot be proved by Scripture or Fathers without the Authority of the Church And if they would confess this they would save us and themselves a great deal of trouble For why should they be at the trouble of writing such Arguments or we to answer them when they themselves confess that the Arguments are not good unless they be confirmed by the Churches Authority I confess I have often wondered to see such Volumes of Controversies written by the Roman Divines for I could never imagine to what end they are writ Is not their Faith wholly resolved into the Authority of the Church what need Reasons and Arguments then which cannot work Faith in us Either these Arguments are sufficient to confirm the Articles of their Faith without the Authority of the Church or they are not If they are then there is no need of Infallibility since all the Articles of Faith are confirmed by such Reasons as are a sufficient Foundation for Faith without it And thus they give up all their Arguments for an Infallible Judge from the necessity of such a Judge If they be not of what use are they does the Decision of the Church need to be confirmed by such Arguments If they are not good Arguments without the Authority of the Church they can no more give Authority to the Church than an Infallible Church can want any Authority but it s own Are they to convince Hereticks but how if Hereticks should confute them If they be not in themselves good Arguments they may be confuted and they know by sad experience that there are Hereticks as they call them who have Wit and Learning enough to confute what is to be confuted and if they fall into such hands which has been their hard fate of late they are sure to be confuted And I doubt then they had better have let them alone for the Catholick Cause may suffer much in the Opinion of the World when all their Arguments are confuted All then that they can design by such Arguments is to impose upon the Weak and Ignorant when Learned Men are out of the way which is no very commendable design and that design will be spoiled too if Unlearned Men do but learn to ask them the Question Whether they build their Faith upon such Arguments For then they must either quit the Authority of their Church or the strength of their Arguments The first reduces them to Protestant Uncertainty for then they have no other Foundation for their Faith than Protestants have which resolves it self into the Reasons and Arguments of Faith The second puts an end to Disputing about these matters for no man needs answer any Arguments which the Disputant himself acknowledges not to be good 2. There is nothing left then for Disâ—utation and the Exercise of our private Reason and Judgment but the inquiry after an Infallible Judge And here also before you dispute it will be necessary to ask them Whether the belief of an Infallible Judge must be resolved into every mans private Judgment whether it be not necessary to believe this with a Divine-Faith and whether there can be any Divine Faith without an Infallible Judge Certainly if ever it be necessary to have an Infallible Faith it is so to be infallibly assured of an Infallible Judge because this is the Foundation of all the rest for though the Judge be Infallible if I be not infallibly assured of this I can never arrive to Infallibility in any thing for I cannot be more certain that his Determinations are Infallible than I am that he himself is Infallible and if I have but a Moral assurance of this I can be but morally assured of the rest for the Building cannot be more firm than the Foundation is and thus there is an end to all the Roman Pretences to Infallibility Now if we must believe the Infallibility of the Church or Pope of Rome with an Infallible Faith there is an end of Disputing for no Reasons or Arguments not the Authority of the Scripture it self without an Infallible Judge can beget an Infallible Faith according to the Roman Doctors For this reason they charge the Protestant Faith with Uncertainty and will not allow it to be a Divine but Humane Faith though it is built upon the firmest Reasons the best Authority and the most express Scripture that can be had for any thing but because we do not pretend to rely on the Authority of a Living Infallible Judge therefore forsooth our Faith is Uncertain Humane and Fallible and this they say makes an Infallible Judge necessary because without him we have no Infallible Certainty of any thing Now if nothiâ—â— but an Infallible Judge can be the Foundation of an Infallible Faith
Sir for I rely on the Authority of Scripture which is as infallible as your Church Conv. But you rely on your own Reason for the Authority of Scripture and those particular Doctrines you draw from it Prot. And you rely on your own Reason and Judgment for the Infallibility of your Church and consequently of all the Doctrines of it and therefore your infallible Faith is as much resolved into your own fallible Judgment as the Protestant Faith is so that the difference between us is not that your Faith is infallible and ours fallible for they are both alike call it what you will fallible or infallible but the Dispute is whether your Reason and Judgment or ours be best and therefore if you think your Reason better than ours you did well to change but if you changed your Church hoping to grow more infallible by it you were miserably mistaken and may return to us again for we have more rational Certainty than you have and you have no more infallible Certainty than we You think you are reasonably assured that your Church is infallible and then you take up your Religion upon trust from your Church without and many times against Sence and Reason according as it happens so that you have onely a general assurance of the Infallibility of your Church and that no greater than Protestants pretend to in other cases viz. the certainty of Reason and Argument but have not so much as a rational assurance of the truth of your particular Doctrines that if you be mistaken about the Infallibility of your Church you must be miserably mistaken about every thing else which you have no other evidence for But now we are in general assured that the Scriptures are the Word of God and in particular are assured that the Faith which we profess is agreeable to Scripture or expresly contained in it and does not contradict either Sence or Reason nor any other Principle of Knowledge So that we have as much assurance of every Article of our Faith as you have of the Infallibility of your Church and therefore have at least double and trible the assurance that you have But if you know the Reasons of your Conversion I desire to know of you What made you think that you wanted Certainty in the Church of England Conv. Because with you every man is left to his own private Reason and Judgment the effects of which are very visible in that infinite variety of Sects among you which shews what an uncertain thing your Reason is that so few judge alike of the power and validity of the same Reasons Prot. And were you not sensible at the same time that you were left to your own Reason and Judgment when you turned Papist Are you not sensible that men do as little agree about your Reasons for Infallibility as they do about any Protestant Reasons Do not I know the Reasons alledged by you for the Infallibility of your Church as well as you do And do we not still differ about them And is not this as much an Argument of the uncertainty of those Reasons which make you a Papist that they cannot make me a Papist as the dissent of Protestants in other matters is of the uncertainty of their Reasons Could you indeed be infallibly assured of the Infallibility of your Church I grant you would have the advantage of us but while you found your belief of Infallibility upon such an uncertain Principle as you think Reason is if certainty had been your onely aim you might as well have continued in the Church of England as have gone over to Rome This abundantly shews what a ridiculous thing it is for a Protestant to be disputed out of his Church and Religion upon a pretence of more infallible certainty in the Church of Rome Were they indeed inspired with an infallible assurance that the Church of Rome is Infallible there might be some pretence for this but an Infallibility which has no better foundation than mens private Reason and private Judgment is no Infallibility but has all the same uncertainties which they charge on the Protestant Faith and a great deal more because it is not founded upon such great and certain Reasons The plain truth is men may be taught from their Infancy to believe the Church Infallible and when they are grown up may take it without examination for a first and self-evident Principle and think this an infallible Faith but men who understand the difference between the evidence of Reason and Infallibility can never found an infallible Faith on Reason nor think that a man who is reasoned into the belief of the Infallibility of the Church is more infallible in his Faith than a Protestant is And such a man will see no reason to quit the Church of England for the sake of an infallible Faith for though they had an infallible Guide yet Reason cannot give them an infallible assurance of it but can rise no higher at most than a Protestant certainty 2. It is impossible also by Reason to prove that men must not use their own Reason and Judgment in matters of Religion If any man should attempt to perswade you of this ask him Why then he goes about to dispute with you about Religion whether men can dispute without using their own Reason and Judgment whether they can be convinced without it whether his offering to dispute with you against the use of your Reason does not prove him ridiculous and absurd For if you must not use your Reason why does he appeal to your Reason And whether you should not be as ridiculous and absurd as he if by his Reasons and Arguments you should be perswaded to condemn the use of Reason in Religion Which would be in the same act to do what you condemn to use your Reason when you condemn it If you must not use your Reason and private Judgment then you must not by any Reasons be perswaded to condemn the use of Reason for to condemn is an act of Judgment which you must not use in matters of Religion So that this is a point which no man can dispute against and which no man can be convinced of by disputing without the reproach of self-contradiction This is an honourable way of silencing these troublesome and clamorous Disputants to let them see that their Principles will not allow of Disputing and that some of their Fundamental Doctrines which they impose upon the World are a direct contradiction to all Disputes for the very admitting of a Dispute confutes them and the meanest man may quickly say more in this Cause than their greatest Disputants can answer CHAP. II. Concerning the several Topicks of Dispute SECT I. Concerning Arguments from Reason 2. THe next Direction relates to the Topicks from which they Dispute which are either Reason Scripture or the Authority of the ancient Fathers and Writers of the Christian Church for the infallible Authority of Popes or General Councils is the thing
where the Scripture fails they fly to unwritten Traditions which they make of equal authority with the Scriptures themselves which they would never do were they not convinced that the Scriptures are not so plain on their side as to satisfie any man who has not already given himself up to the Church of Rome with an implicite Faith. And therefore before you enter into any debate about the sence of any particular Texts of Scripture and their way of proving their particular Doctrines from Scripture ask them two Questions without a plain Answer to which it is to no purpose to dispute with them out of Scripture Ask 1. Whether they will allow the Holy Scriptures to be a complete and perfect Rule of Faith that no Christian ought to receive any Doctrine for an Article of Faith which cannot be proved from Scripture This to be sure they must not allow unless they will reject the Council of Trent which gives as venerable an Authority to Tradition as to Scripture it self Since then they have two Rules Scripture and Tradition when they pretend to dispute from Scripture it is reasonable to know of them whether they will stand to Scripture and reject such a Doctrine if it cannot be plainly proved out of Scripture For if they will not stand to this they give up their Cause and there is no need to dispute with them For why should I dispute with any man from Scripture who will not stand to the determination of Scripture We Protestants indeed do own the Authority of Scripture and what we see plainly proved out of Scripture we must abide by which is reason enough for us to examine the Scripture-proofs which are produced by our Adversaries But it is sufficient to make them blush if they had any modesty to pretend to prove their Doctrines from Scripture when they themselves do not believe them meerly upon the Authority of Scripture and dare not put their Cause upon that issue which gives a just suspicion that they are conscious to themselves that their Scripture-proofs are not good and should make Protestants very careful how they are imposed on by them To dispute upon such Principles as are not owned on both sides can establish nothing tho' it may blunder and confound an Adversary it is onely a tryal of Wit where the subtilest Disputant will have the Victory and it is not worth the while for any man to dispute upon these terms This is not to reject the Authority of Scriptures because the Papists reject it which no Protestant can or will do but it is an effectual way for men who are not skilled in Disputations to deliver themselves from the troublesome Importunities of Popish Priests when learned men who can detect their Fallacies are out of the way Let them but ask them Whether all the peculiar Doctrines of the Church of Rome can be proved by plain Scripture-evidence If they say they can then they must reject the necessity of unwritten Traditions and acknowledge the Scripture to be a complete and perfect Rule of Faith. A point which I believe no understanding Priest will yeild If they say they cannot ask them With what confidence they pretend to prove that from Scripture which they confess is not in it Why they go about to impose upon you and to perswade you to believe that upon the Authority of Scripture which they themselves confess is not at least not plainly contained in Scripture 2. Ask such Disputants who alledge the Authority of Scripture to prove their Popish Doctrines How they themselves know what the sence of Scripture is and how you shall know it For it is a ridiculous undertaking to prove any thing by Scripture unless there be a certain way of finding out the sence of Scripture Now there can be but three ways of doing this either by an infallible Interpreter or by the unanimous consent of Primitive Fathers or by such Humane means as are used to find out the sence of other Books I. If they say we must learn the sence of Scripture from an infallible Interpreter Tell them this is not to dispute but to beg the Cause They are to prove from Scripture the Doctrines of the Church of Rome and to do this they would have us take the Church of Rome's Exposition of Scripture And then we had as good take her word for all without disputing But yet 1. They know that we reject the pretences of an infallible Interpreter We own no such infallible Judge of the sence of Scripture And therefore at least if they will dispute with us and prove their Doctrines by Scripture they must fetch their Proofs from the Scriptures themselves and not appeal to an infallible Interpreter whom we disown Which is like appealing to a Judge in Civil matters whom one of the contending Parties tlhinks incompetent and to whose Judgment they will not stand which is never likely to end any Controversie and yet they cannot quit an infallible Interpreter without granting that we may understand the Scriptures without such an Interpreter which is to give up the Cause of Infallibility 2. One principal Dispute between us and the Church of Rome is about this infallible Interpreter and they know that we will not own such an Interpreter unless they can prove from Scripture that there is such an one and who he is The inquiry then is How we shall learn from Scripture that there is such an infallible Interpreter that is who shall Expound those Scriptures to us which must prove that there is an infallible Interpreter if without an infallible Interpreter we cannot find out the true sence of Scripture how shall we know the true sence of Scripture before we know this infallible Interpreter For an Interpreter how infallible soever he be cannot interpret Scripture for us before we know him and if we must know this infallible Interpreter by Scripture we must at least understand these Scriptures which direct us to this infallible Interpreter without his assistance So that of necessity some Scriptures must be understood without an infallible Interpreter and therefore he is not necessary for the Interpretation of all Scripture And then I desire to know why other Scriptures may not be understood the same way by which we must find out the meaning of those Texts which direct us to an infallible Interpreter There are a hundred places of Scripture which our Adversaries must grant areas plain and easie to be understood as those And we believe it as easie a matter to find all the other Trent-Articles in Scripture as the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Bishop of Rome If ever there needed an infallible Interpreter of Scripture it is to prove such an infallible Interpreter from Scripture but upon this occasion he cannot be had and if we may make shift without him here we may as well spare him in all other cases 3. Suppose we were satisfied from Scripture that there is such an infallible Interpreter yet it were worth knowing
where his infallible Interpretation is to be found for if there be such an Interpreter who never Interprets I know not how either they or we shall understand Scripture the better for him Now have either Popes or General Councils given us an authentick and infallible Exposition of Scripture I know of none such all the Expositions of Scripture in the Church of Rome are writ by private Doctors who were far enough from being infallible and the business of General Councils was not to expound Scripture but to define Articles of Faith and therefore we find the sence of very few Texts of Scripture Synodically defined by any General Council I think not above four or five by the Council of Trent So that after all their talk of an infallible Interpreter when they undertake to expound particular Texts and to dispute with us about the sence of them they have no more Infallibility in this than we have for if they have an infallible Interpreter they are never the better for him for he has not given them an infallible Interpretation and therefore they are forced to do as Protestants do interpret Scripture according to their own skill and understanding which I suppose they will not say is infallible But you 'll say though the Church has not given us an infallible Interpretation of Scripture yet she has given us an infallible Exposition of the Faith and that is an infallible Rule for expounding Scripture I answer there is a vast difference between these two for our dispute is not about the sence of their Church but about the sence of the Scripture we know what Doctrines their Church has defined but we desire to see them proved from Scripture And is it not a very modest and pleasant proposal when the dispute is how their Faith agrees with Scripture to make their Faith the Rule of expounding Scripture Though I confess that is the only way I know of to make their Faith and the Scriptures agree but this brings the Scriptures to their Faith does not prove their Faith from Scripture II. As for Expounding Scripture by the unanimous consent of Primitve Fathers This is indeed the Rule which the Council of Trent gives and which their Doctors swear to observe how well they keep this Oath they ought to consider Now as to this you may tell them that you would readily pay a great deference to the unanimous consent of Fathers could you tell how to know it and therefore in the first place you desire to know the agreement of how many Fathers makes an unanimous Consent for you have been told that there have been as great variety in interpreting Scripture among the ancient Fathers as among our modern Interpreters that there are very few if any controverted Texts of Scripture which are interpreted by an unanimous consent of all the Fathers If this unanimous Consent then signifie all the Fathers we shall be troubled to find such a Consent in expounding Scripture must it then be the unanimous Consent of the greatest number of Fathers This will be a very hard thing especially for unlearned men to tell Noses we can know the Opinion onely of those Fathers who were the Writers in every Age and whose Writings have been preserved down to us and who can tell whether the major number of those Fathers who did not write or whose Writings are lost were of the same mind with those whose Writings we have and why must the major part be always the wisest and best men and if they were not the consent of a few wise men is to be preferred before great numbers of other Expositors Again ask them whether these Fathers were Infallible or Traditionary Expositors of Scripture or whether they expounded Scripture according to their own private Reason and Judgment if they were Infallible Expositors and delivered the Traditionary sence and interpretation of Scripture it is a little strange how they should differ in their Expositions of Scripture and as strange how private Doctors and Bishops should in that Age come to be Infallible and how they should lose it in this for now Infallibility is confined to the Bishop of Rome and a General Council If they were not Infallible Expositors how comes their Interpretation of Scripture to be so sacred that it must not be opposed Nay how comes an Infallible Church to prescribe such a fallible Rule of interpreting Scriptures If they expounded Scripture according to their own Reason and Judgment as it is plain they did then their Authority is no more sacred than their Reason is and those are the best Expositors whether Ancient or Modern whose Expositions are backed with the best Reasons We think it a great confirmation of our Faith that the Fathers of the Church in the first and best Ages did believe the same Doctrines and expound Scripture in great and concerning points much to the same sence that we do and therefore we refuse not to appeal to them but yet we do not wholly build our Faith upon the Authority of the Fathers we forsake them where they forsake the Scriptures or put perverse sences on them and so does the Church of Rome too after all their boast of the Fathers when they contradict the present Roman-Catholick as they do very often though I believe without any malicious design because they knew nothing of it However ask them once more whether that sence which they give of those Texts of Scripture which are controverted between us and the Church of Rome be confirmed by the unanimous consent of all the ancient Fathers whether for instance all the ancient Fathers did expound those Texts Thou art Peter and on this Rock will I build my Church and feed my Sheep c. of the personal Supremacy and Infallibility of Peter and his Successors the Bishops of Rome Whether they all expounded those words This is my Body of the Transubstantiation of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the natural Flesh and Bloud of Christ and those words Drink ye all of this to signifie Let none drink of the Cup but the Priest who consecrates and so in other Scriptures If they have the confidence to say that all the Fathers expounded these and such-like Scriptures as the Doctors of the Church of Rome now do tell them you have heard and seen other Expositions of such Scriptures cited from the ancient Fathers by our Divines and that you will refer that cause to them and have it tried whenever they please III. There is no other way then left of understanding Scripture but to expound it as we do other Writings by considering the signification and propriety of words and phrases the scope and context of the place the reasons of things the Analogie between the Old and New Testament and the like When they dispute with Protestants they can reasonably pretend to no other way of expounding Scripture because we admit of no other and yet if they allow of this they open a wide Gap for all Heresies
to come into the Church they give up the Authority of the Church and make every man his own Pope and expose themselves to all the senseless Rallery of their admired Pax Vobis By this they confess that the Scripture may be understood by Reason that they can back their Interpretations with such powerful Arguments as are able to convince Hereticks who reject the Authority of an Infallible Interpreter and then they must unsay all their hard Sayings against the Scriptures That they are dark and obscure dead Letters unsenced Characters meer figured Ink and Paper they must recant all their Rallery against expounding Scripture by a private Spirit and allowing every man to judge of the sence of it and to chuse what he pleases for thus they do themselves when they dispute with Hereticks about the sence of Scripture and I am pretty confident they would never speak against Scripture nor a private Spirit more if this private Spirit would but make us Converts but the mischief is a private Spirit if it have any tincture of Sence and Reason seldom expounds Scripture to a Roman-Catholick sence So that in truth it is a vain nay a dangerous thing for Papists to dispute with Protestants about the sence of Scripture for it betrays the Cause of the Church and vindicates the Scriptures and every mans natural Right of judging from the Usurpations and Encroachments of a pretended Infallibility but yet dispute they do and attempt to prove their Doctrines from Scripture And because it is too large a task for this present Undertaking to examine all their Scripture-Proofs I shall only observe some general faults tâ—y are guilty of which whoever is aware of is in no danger of being imposed on by their Pretences to Scripture and I shall not industriously multiply Particulars for there are some few palpable mistakes which run through most of their Scripture-Proofs 1. As first many of their Scripture-Proofs are founded upon the likeness of a word or phrase without any regard to the sense and signification of that word in Scripture or to the matter to which it is applied As for instance There is not a more useful Doctrine to the Church of Rome than that of unwritten Traditions which are of equal Authority with the Scriptures for were this owned they might put what novel Doctrines they pleased upon us under the venerable name of ancient and unwritten Traditions Well we deny that there are any such unwritten Traditions which are of equal Authority with the Scripture since the Canon of Scripture was written and perfected and desire them to prove that there are any such unwritten Traditions Now they think it sufficient to do this if they can but find the word Tradition in Scripture and that we confess they do in several places for Tradition signifies only the delivery of the Doctrine of the Gospel which we grant was not done perfectly in writing when those Epistles were written which speak of Traditions by word as well as by Epistle But because the whole Doctrine of the Gospel was not written at first but delivered by word of mouth does it hence follow that after the Gospel is written there are still unwritten Traditions of equal Authority with the Scripture This is what they should prove and the meer naming of Traditions in Scripture before the Canon was perfected does not prove this for all men know that the Gospel was delivered by word of mouth or by unwritten Tradition before it was written but this does by no means prove that there are unwritten Traditions after the Gospel was written To prove this they should shew us where it is said that there are some Traditions which shall never be written that the Rule of Faith shall always consist partly of written partly of unwritten Traditions Thus we know how zealous the Church of Rome is for their Purgatory-fire wherein all men who are in a state of grace or delivered from the guilt of their sins must yet undergo that punishment of them which has not been satisfied for by other means As profitable a Doctrine as any the Church of Rome has because it gives great Authority to Sacerdotal Absolutions and sets a good price upon Masses for the Dead and Indulgences and yet the best proof they have for this is that Fire mentioned 1 Cor. 3. 13 14 15. Every mans work shall be made manifest for the day shall declare it because it shall be revealed by fire and the fire shall declare every mans work of what sort it is If any mans work shall be burnt he shall suffer loss but he himself shall be saved but so as by fire Now here is mention of fire indeed but how does it appear to be the Popish Purgatory Suppose it were meant of a material fire though that does not seem so proper to try good or bad Actions a true and Orthodox or Heretical Faith yet this fire is not kindled till the day of Judgment which is eminently in Scripture called the day and is the only day we know of in Scripture which shall be revealed by fire when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire 2 Thess. 1. 7 8. So that here is nothing but the word fire applied to another Fire than St. Paul ever thought on to prove a Popish Purgatory Thus they make Confession to a Priest ordinarily necessary to obtain the Forgiveness of our sins and have no better Scripture-Proofs for it but that we are often commanded to confess our sins sometimes to God and sometimes to another but never to a Priest. They have made a Sacrament of Extream Unction wherein the sick Person is anointed for the Forgiveness of sins and though a Sacrament ought to have the most plain and express institution both as to the matter and form and use and end of it yet the only Proofs they produce for this is the Disciples working miraculous Cures by anointing the sick with Oyl 6 Mark 13 which methinks is a little different from the Sacrament of extream Unction which is not to cure their sickness but to forgive their sins and St. James his Command Is any sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with oyl in the name of the Lord and the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him Where anointing with Oyl joyned with servent Prayer is prescribed as a means of restoring the sick person to health again and therefore is not the Popish Extream Unction which is to be administred only to those who are dying And though St. James adds And if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him yet 1. This is not said to be the effect of Anointing but of the servent Prayer and 2. This very Forgiveness of sins does not refer to a plenary Pardon of sins in the
not die so suddenly as to be surprized in any mortal sin that Hell seems to be very little thought of or feared in the Church of Rome Now I desire no better Argument that all these are not Gospel-Doctrines than that they destroy the force of all those Arguments the Gospel uses to make men good that is they are a direct contradiction to the Gospel of Christ. 6. I shall name but one Motive more and that is the Examples of good men To be followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises that being incompassed with such a cloud of witnesses we should lay aside every weight and the sin which doth so easily beset us and run with patience the race which is set before us Now this is a powerful Argument because they were men as we are subject to the same temptations and infirmities and therefore their Examples prove that Holiness is a practicable thing that it is possible for men to conquer all the difficulties of Religion and all the temptations in this life and many times in them we see the visible rewards of Vertue in great peace of mind great assurances of the divine favour great supports under all adversities and such a triumphant death as is a blessed presage of a glorious Resurrection But now in the Church of Rome if there be any great and meritorious Saints as they call them their extraordinary Vertues are not so much for Imitation as for a stock of Merits The more Saints they have the less reason other men have to be Saints if they have no mind to it because there is a greater treasury of Merits in the Church to relieve those who have none of their own The extraordinary Devotion of their Monasteries and Nunneries for so they would perswade the World that there is nothing but Devotion there is not for Imitation and it is unreasonable it should because no body sees it and it is impossible to imitate that recluse life without turning the whole World into a Monastery but these Religious Societies furnish the Church with a stock of Merits out of which she grants Indulgencies to those who are not very religious and it is plain that if one man can merit for twenty there is no need there should be above one in twenty good Herein indeed the Members of the Church of Rome have the advantage of all other Churches especially if they enter themselves into any religious Confraternity to partake in the Merits of the Society that others can merit for them and then if we can share in the Merits of the Saints we need not imitate them a Church which has Saints to merit for them on Earth and to intercede for them in Heaven if she can but maintain and propagate a Race of such meriting Saints which is taken care of in the Institution and Encouragement of Monastick Orders and Fraternities may be very indulgent to the rest of her Members who do not like meriting themselves So that the principal Motives of the Gospel to Holy Life as appears in these Six Particulars lose their force and efficacy in the Church of Rome and certainly those cannot be Gospel-Doctrines which destroy the great end of the Gospel to make men Good. 3 ly Nor do the Gospel-means and Instruments of Holiness and Vertue escape better in the Church of Rome as will appear in a very few words Reading and Meditating on the Holy Scriptures is one excellent means of Grace not only as it informs us of our Duty but as it keeps a constant warm sense of it upon our Minds which nothing can so effectually do as a daily reading of the Scripture which strikes the mind with a more sacred authority than any Humane Discourses can do but this is denied to the People of the Church of Rome who are not allowed to read the Scriptures in the Vulgar Tongue for fear of Heresie which it seems is more plain and obvious in the Scripture than Catholick Doctrines but they should also have considered whether the danger of Heresie or Sin be the greater whether an orthodox faith or a good life be more valuable and if denying the people the use of the Bible be the way to keep them orthodox I am sure it is not the way to make them good True Piety will lose more by this than the Faith will get by it Thus constant and servent Prayer besides that supernatural grace and assistance it obtains for us is an excellent moral instrument of holiness for when men confess their sins to God with shame and sorrow when with inflamed Devotions they beg the assistances of the Divine Grace when their souls are every day possessed with such a great sence awe and reverence for God as he must have who prays devoutly to him every day I say it is impossible such men should easily return to those sins which they have so lately confessed with such shame and confusion and bitter remorse that those who so importunately beg the assistance of the Divine Grace should not use their best endeavours to resist Temptations and to improve in Grace and Vertue which is a prophane mockery of God to beg his assistance that he will work in us and with us when we will not work that those who have a constant sence and reverence of God should do such things as argue that men have no fear of God before their eyes But this is all lost in the Church of Rome where men are taught to Pray they know not what and when men do not understand their Prayers it is certain such Prayers cannot affect their minds what other good soever Latin Prayers may do them and thus one of the most powerful Instruments of Piety and Vertue is quite spoiled by Prayers in an unknown Tongue which can no more improve their Vertue than their Knowledge Sorrow for Sin is an excellent Instrument of true Repentance as that signifies the reformation of our Lives for the natural effect of Sorrow is not to do that again which we are sorry for doing but in the Church of Rome this contrition or sorrow for sin serves only to qualifie men for absolution and that puts them into a state of grace and then they may expiate their sins by Penances but are under no necessity of forsaking them The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper besides those supernatural conveyances of Grace which are annexed to it by our Saviour's Institution is a great Moral Instrument of Holiness it representing to us the Love of our crucified Lord the Merit and Desert of Sin the Vertue of his Sacrifice to expiate our Sins and to purge our Consciences from Dead Works and requiring the exercise of a great many Vertues an abhorrence and detestation of our Sins great and ardent Passions of Love and Devotion firm Resolutions of Living to him who Died for us Forgiveness of Enemies and an Universal Love and Charity to all Men especially to the Members of the same Body with us but
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
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
Image be this is not to worship a corporeal God since we know him to be incorporeal and therefore it is not Idolatry But he has one Salvo still to excuse those from Idolatry who worship even corporeal Gods for he speaks not a word of worshipping the Images of any Gods that they are not Idolaters unless they worship such corporeal Gods supposing them to be the Supream Deity whereby he explains what he means by giving the Worship of the Supream God to any created corporeal or visible Deity viz. to think such a God to be the Supream God is to worship it as Supream And thus those who worshipped the Sun not thinking him to be the Supream God but the chief Minister of Providence under the Supream God with reference to this Lower World as most of the Sun-Idolaters seemed to do were not Idolaters Nay very few of the Philosophers though they worshipped their Country Gods were Idolaters because they either did not believe them to be any Gods or at least not to be the Supream as it is certain Socrates and Plato and Tully and many others did not But it is plain that to worship the Supream God is not meerly to suppose him to be Supream for St. Paul tells us that there were some who knew God but did not worship him as God and therefore there is an external and visible Worship which is due to the Supream God as well as the belief that he is Supream And if this Worship which is due to the Supream God be given to any Being which we our selves do not believe to be Supream we are Idolaters and then though we do not believe the Gods we worship to be Supream any kind or degree of Religious Worship or which is used as an Act of Religion not as common and civil Respects is Idolatry This Commandment brings it as low as meerly bowing to an Image and then I doubt no other Act of Religious Worship can escape the Charge of Idolatry But though it is not my business to persue this Author I cannot pass over the very next Paragraph where he observes Though there may seem to be two sorts of it this Idolatry in worshipping corporeal Beings first either to worship a material and created Being as the Supream Deity Or secondly to ascribe any corporeal form or shape to the Divine Nature yet in result both are but one for to ascribe unto the Supreme God any corporeal form is the same thing as to worship a created Being for so is every corporeal Substance Which is a very wonderful Paragraph for thus some of the Ancient Christians who believed God to be Corporeal as Tertullian himself did but yet did not believe that he was created but that he created all things were as very Idolaters as those who Worshipped the Sun or Earth And I would gladly know who those men are who ascribe unto the Supreme God a Corporeal form and yet think that he was Created I am apt to think they differ a little in their Philosophy from our Author and did believe that a Corporeal Supreme Deity might be uncreated and then I suppose there may be some difference also between their worshipping a Corporeal Created and a Corporeal Uncreated God at least if mens Belief and Opinions of things makes a difference as this Author must allow for if I understand him to Worship a corporeal Being without believing it to be Supreme does not make them Idolaters but if they believe it Supreme it does and by the same reason thô to Worship a Supreme Corporeal Created Deity if that be not a contradiction be Idolatry yet to Worship a Corporeal which they believe to be an uncreated Deity is no Idolatry For though I believe with our Author that all corporeal Beings are Created yet I suppose those who believed God to be Corporeal did not believe that every thing that is Corporeal was Created So that the first and second Commandments are very plain and express Laws the one forbidding the Religious Worship of all inferiour Beings corporeal or incorporeal with or without the Supreme God or forbidding the Worship of all other Beings but the Supreme God the other forbidding the External and Visible Worship of any material Images and Pictures And though I am certain there can be no good Arguments to justifie such Practices as are forbid by these Laws yet no Christian need trouble himself to answer them for be they what they will it is a sufficient answer to them to say That they are against an express Law. 2. Another Rule is in matters of Faith or in such things as can be known onely by Revelation Not to build our Faith upon any Reasons without the Authority of Scripture That this may be the better understood I shall briefly shew what these things are which can be known onely by Revelation and therefore which every Protestant should demand a plain Scripture Proof for before he believes them whatever Reasons are pretended for them As 1. Whatever depends solely upon the will and appointment of God which God might do or might not do as he pleased In such cases our onely inquiry is What God has done And this can be known onely by Revelation for Reason cannot discover it because it depends not upon any necessary Reason but on the free and arbitrary appointment of God as St. Paul tells us That as no man knows the things of a man but the spirit of man that is in him so no man knoweth the things of God but the spirit of God That is as no man can tell the secret thoughts and purposes of a man nor how he will determine himself in matters of his own free choice and election so what depends purely upon the will of God is known onely to the Spirit of God and therefore can be made known to us onely by Revelation Many such things there are in dispute between us and the Church of Rome which depend so intirely upon the Will of God that they may be or may not be as God pleases As for instance No man nor company of men can be Infallible unless God bestow Infallibility on them for Infallibility is not a natural Endowment but a supernatural Gift and therefore no Reason can prove the Bishop of Rome or a General Council to be Infallible God may make them Infallible if he pleases and if he pleases he may not do it and therefore our onely inquiry here is What God has done And this can be known onely by Revelation Thus that the Church of Rome onely and those Churches that are in Communion with her should be the Catholick Church and the Bishop of Rome the Oecumenical Pastor and the Center of Catholick Unity must depend wholly upon Institution for nothing but the Will and Appointment of God can give this Preheminence and Prerogative to the Church and Bishop of Rome above all other Churches and Bishops No Reason then can prove this without plain and express Scripture to
prove such an Institution Were there nothing in Scripture or Reason to prove that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is not a propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead yet no Reason can prove that it is For the vertue and acceptation of a Sacrifice intirely depends upon the will and appointment of God at least so far that no Sacrifice can be Propitiatory without it And therefore there can be no other proof that the Mass is a propitiatory Sacrifice but the declaration of God's Will and Institution that it shall be so 2. Those things also can be proved onely by Scripture which are done in the other World which is an unknown and invisible State to us any farther than the Scripture has revealed it and men may more reasonably expect to find out by the power of Reason what is done every day in China or the most remote and unknown parts of the Earth than what is done in the other World. And then there are a great many things wherein you must reject all pretences to Reason any farther than it is supported by plain and evident Scripture As to give some instances of this also 1. No Reason can prove that there is such a place as Purgatory for that is an invisible place in the other World if there be any such place no man living ever saw it and then how can any man know that there is such a place unless it be revealed To attempt to prove that there is such a place as Purgatory meerly by Reason is just as if a man who had some general notion of an Inquisition but never had any credible information that there actually was any such place should undertake to prove by Reason that there is and must be such a place as the Inquisition though he would happen to guess right yet it is certain his Reasons signified nothing for some Countries have the Inquisition and some have not and therefore there might have been no Inquisition any where how strong soever the Reasons for it might be thought to be We may as well describe by the power of Reason the World in the Moon and what kind of Inhabitants there are there by what Laws they live what their Business what their Pleasures and what their Punishments are as pretend to prove that there is a Purgatory in the next World for they are both equally unknown to us and if Reason cannot prove that there is such a place as Purgatory nothing else which relates to Purgatory can be proved by Reason 2. Nor can we know what the State of Saints in Heaven is without a Revelation for no man has been there to see the State of the other World is such things as neither Eye hath seen nor Ear heard neither hath it entred into the Heart of man to conceive And then I cannot understand how we should know these things by Reason The Church of Rome teaches us to Pray to Saints and to flie to their Help and Aid And there are a great many things which a wise man would desire to know before he can think it fit to pray to them which yet it is impossible to know without a Revelation as Whether the Saints we direct our Prayers to be in Heaven Which is very fit to be known and yet can certainly be known but of a very few of that vast number that are worshipped in the Church of Rome the Apostles of Christ and the Virgin Mary we have reason to believe are in Heaven and we may hope well of others but we cannot know it No man can see who is there and bare hope how strong soever is not a sufficient foundation for such a Religious Invocation of unknown Saints who after all our perswasions that they are in Heaven may be in Hell or at least in Purgatory where they want our Prayers but are not in a condition to interceed for us Thus it is very necessary to know what the power and authority of the Saints in Heaven is before we pray to them for it is to no purpose to pray to them unless we know they can help us The Council of Trent recommends to us the Invocation of Saints as of those who reign with Christ in Heaven and therefore have power and authority to present our Petitions and procure those Blessings we pray for And if I could find any such thing in Scripture it would be a good reason to pray to them but all the Arguments in the World cannot prove this without a Revelation they may be in Heaven and not be Mediators and Advocates Thus whatever their power and authority may be it is to no purpose to pray to them unless we are sure that they hear our Prayers and this nothing but a Revelation can assure us of for no natural Reason can assure us that meer Creatures as the most glorious Saints in Heaven are can hear our soft nay mental Prayers at such a vast distance as there is between Heaven and Earth Such matters as these which Reason can give us no assurance of if they be to be proved at all must be proved by Scripture and therefore as the pretence of proving these things by Reason is vain so no Protestant should be so vain as to trouble himself to answer such Reasons But you 'll say The Papists do pretend to prove these things by Scripture I answer So far it is very well and I onely desire our Protestant to keep them to their Scripture Proofs and to reject all their Reasons and then let them see what they can make of it As for Scripture-Proofs they shall be considered presently 3. More particularly you must renounce all such Reasons as amount to no more than some May-bes and Possibilities for what onely may be may not be and every thing that is possible is not actually done As for instance When you ask these men How you can be assured that the Saints in Heaven can hear our Prayers They offer to shew you by what ways this may be done They may see all things in the Glass of the Trinity and thereby know all things that God knows Which is but a may-be and yet it is a more likely may-be that there is no such Glass as gives the Saints a comprehensive view of all that is in God. Well but God can reveal all the Prayers to the Saints which are made to them on Earth Very right we dispute not God's power to do this but desire to know Whether he does it or not and his bare power to do it does not prove that But the Saints in Heaven may be informed of what is done on Earth by those who go from hence thither or by those Ministring Angels who frequently pass between Heaven and Earth but this may not be too and if it were it would not answer the purposes of Devotion for in this way of intercourse the News may come too late to the Saints to whom we pray for the Saints to do us any
good As suppose a man pray to the Virgin Mary in the hour of Death or in a great Storm at Sea the man may be dead and Ship wrackt before the Virgin knows of his Prayers and may carry the first news of it into the other World himself Such kind of May-bes and Conjectures as these are a very sorry Foundation for an Infallible Church to build her Faith on 4. You must reject also all such Reasons in Divine and Spiritual things as are drawn from Earthly Patterns A considering man would a little wonder how a Papist should so punctually determine what is done in the other World without speaking with any one who has seen it and without having any Revelation about it as I have already observed but whoever considers many of their Arguments will soon find that they make this World the Pattern of the next and reason from Sensible to Spiritual things Thus the true Foundation of Saint-worship is that men judge of the Court of Heaven by the Courts of earthly Princes The most effectual way to obtain any Request of our Prince is to address our selves to some powerful Favourite and they take it for granted that all Saints and Angels in Heaven are such Favourites and can obtain whatever they ask and therefore they pray very devoutly to them and beg their Intercession with God and their Saviour Especially in earthly Courts the Queen Mother is supposed to have a powerful influence upon the young Prince her Son and therefore they do not doubt but the Virgin Mary the Mother of Christ can do what she pleases with her Son And since it is generally observed that Women are more soft and tender and compassionate than men they hope to gain that by her Intercession which He who died for them would not grant without it and therefore they beg her to shew her self to be a Mother that is to take the Authority of a Mother upon her and command her Son. Thus Princes and Great Men love to have their Pictures set up in publick places and to have all civil Respects paid to them which redounds to the honour of those whose Pictures they are and therefore they imagine that this is as acceptable to Christ and the Saints as it is to Men as if the other World were nothing else but a new Scene of Sense and Passion Mankind is very apt to such kind of Reasonings as these and indeed they can have no other when they will undertake to guess at unseen and unknown things But if there be any difference between the Court of Heaven and Earth if pure Spirits who are separated from Flesh and Sense have other Passions and Resentments than Men have that is if we must not judge of spiritual things by Sense of the Government of God by the Passions of men then such Reasonings as these may betray us to absurd and foolish Superstitions but are a very ill foundation for any new and uncommanded Acts of Worship 5. Never admit any Arguments meerly from the usefulness conveniency or supposed necessity of any thing to prove that it is As for instance A Supream Oecumenical Bishop and an Infallible Judge of Controversies are thought absolutely necessary to the Unity of the Church and certainty of Faith and confounding of Schisms and Heresies If there be not a Supream Pastor there can be no Unity if there be not an Infallible Judge there can be no certainty in Religion every man must be left to his own private Judgment and then there will be as many different Religions as there are Faces Now if I thought all this were true as I believe not a word of it is I should only conclude that it is great pity that there is not an Universal Pastor and Infallible Judge instituted by Christ but if you would have me conclude from these Premises Ergo there is an Universal Bishop and Head of the Church and an Infallible Judge of Controversies I must beg your pardon for that for such Arguments as these do not prove that there is such a Judge but only that there ought to be one and therefore I must conclude no more from them Indeed this is a very fallacious way of Reasoning because what we may call useful convenient necessary may not be so in it self and we have reason to believe it is not so if God have not appointed what we think so useful convenient or necessary which is a truer and more modest way of Reasoning than to conclude that God has appointed such a Judge when no such thing appears only because we think it so useful and necessary that he ought to do it These Directions are sufficient to Preserve all considering Protestants from being imposed on by the fallacious Reasonings of Papists SECT II. Concerning Scripture-Proofs 2. LEt us now consider their Scripture-Proofs though it is not choice but necessity which puts them upon this Tryal When they have good Catholicks to deal with a little Scripture will serve the turn but Hereticks will be satisfied with nothing else and therefore in disputing with them they are forced to make some little shew and appearance of proving their Doctrines by Scripture but they come very unwillingly to it and make as much of a little as may be The truth is there is Evidence enough that they have no great confidence in the Scripture themselves and therefore do not deal honestly and fairly with poor Hereticks when they make their boasts of Scripture For did they believe that their Doctrines which they endeavour to prove from Scripture were plainly and evidently contained in them why should they deny the People the liberty of reading the Scriptures If the Scriptures be for them why should they be against the Scriptures The common Pretence is that those who are unlearned put very wild sences upon Scripture and expound it by their own fancies which in many cases indeed is too true but why should the Church of Rome be more afraid of this than other Protestant Churches If they think the Scripture is as much for them as we think it is for us why dare not they venture this as well as we We are not afraid men should read the Scripture though we see what wild Interpretations some put on them because we are certain we can prove our Faith by Scripture and are able to satisfie all honest men who will impartially study the Scriptures that we give the true sence of them and if they believed they could do so too Why do they avoid this tryal when ever they can For though they admit People to dispute from the Scripture in England where they cannot help it yet they will not allow them so much as to see the Scriptures in Italy or Spain where they have power to hinder it Nay they themselves do in effect confess that the peculiar Doctrines and Practices of their Religion wherein they differ from all other Christian Churches cannot be proved by Scripture And therefore to help them out
other World but signifies the removal of the visible and sensible punishments of sin in restoring the sick person to health again That though such sickness was inflicted on him for his sins and possibly were the effects of Church-censures which in those days were confirmed and ratified by bodily punishments yet upon his reconciliation to the Church and the Prayers of the Elders and the ceremony of Anointing he should be restored to health again which was an external and visible remission of his sins and should be a plenary pardon if he brought forth the true and genuine fruits of repentance This is very natural and very agreeable to the scope and design of the Text and differs as much from the Popish Extream Unction as their greatest Adversaries could wish Such kind of Proofs as these are meerly the work of fancy and imagination and can impose upon no man who will but attend to the different use and signification of words 2. Another grand fault our Roman Adversaries are guilty of is that their Scripture-Proofs are always very lame and imperfect that is that they never prove their whole Doctrine from Scripture but only some little part of it They draw very fine and artificial Schemes and if they can find some little appearance in Scripture to countenance any one part of it they take that for a Proof of the whole As for instance Thus they tell us that Christ made Peter the Prince of the Apostles and the Head of the Universal Church his own Vicar upon Earth and that the Bishops of Rome who are St. Peter's Successors succeed not only to his Chair but to all the Rights and Prerogatives of St. Peter and therefore the Bishop of Rome also is the Head of the Church the Oecumenical Pastor who neither wants St. Peter's Keys nor Sword. This is a very notable point if it were well proved but as I observed before this being a matter of pure institution which depends wholly upon the Will of God it can be proved only by Scripture How much then of this do they pretend to prove from Scripture Why they will prove by Scripture that St. Peter was the Prince of the Apostles because Christ said unto him Thou art Peter and on this Rock will I build my Church and I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and seed my Sheep which indeed are lamentable Proofs for the same Power was given to all the Apostles 20 John 21 22 23. Then said Jesus unto them Peace be unto you as my Father sent me even so send I you all of you and therefore not one in subjection to another but all with equal Power and when he had said this he breathed on them and saith unto them Receive ye the Holy Ghost whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained Accordingly on the day of Pentecost the Holy Ghost fell on them all they were all endowed with the Gift of Tongues and Miracles and Prophesie they all had the same Infallible Spirit and therefore needed no superiour Head over them They were to be separated into all parts of the World where they could have no Communication with each other and therefore could have no Universal Head. The History of the Acts of the Apostles gives not the least intimation of any such Superiority which either St. Peter challenged or the other Apostles paid him which are strong Presumptions against such a Supremacy of St. Peter and I suppose they themselves will grant that all the rest of the Apostles were as Infallible as he But suppose we should grant them that St. Peter was the chief of the Apostles and had a kind of Primacy not of Government but Order how do they prove from Scripture that the Bishop of Rome succeeds in all the Rights and Prerogatives of St. Peter for unless this be proved whatever Prerogative St. Peter had it signifies nothing to them and yet this cannot be proved but by institution for though Christ had bestowed a Primacy on S. Peter yet unless he expresly grant it to his Successors too nay to his Successors in the See of Rome his Pramacy as being a Personal Prerogative must die with his Person As a Prince may grant a Priority to Persons in the same Office and Power may make a first Colonel or a first Captain but if these men to whom the Precedency is given die or are removed those who succeed in their Office and power to the same Regiment or Company do not therefore succeed to their Priority too for this did not belong to their Office but to their Persons and the King may give the Priority again to whom he pleases or appoint them to succeed in course according to their admission into such Offices And by the same reason the Primacy of the Roman Bishops who are St. Peter's Successors does not follow from the Primacy of St. Peter unless they can shew that Christ has given them the Primacy also as well as St. Peter and this must be proved from Scripture because it is matter of Institution and no Arguments in the World can prove any thing which depends solely upon an Institution without proving the Institution But this the Roman Doctors never pretend to for they know that there is not one word in Scripture about it and nothing but the Authority of Scripture can prove a Divine Institution So that could they prove the Primacy of St. Peter from Scripture they prove but half their point and that the most inconsiderable half too for it does them no good And therefore when they make a great noise about St. Peter's Primacy and Prerogatives never trouble your selves to dispute that point with them which is nothing to the purpose but require them to prove from Scripture that the Bishop of Rome as St. Peter's Successor is appointed by Christ to be the Supreme Oecumenical Bishop and the Prince of all Bishops And if you stick here as in reason you ought there is an end of that Controversie Thus there is nothing the Church of Rome makes a greater noise about than Infallibility though they are not agreed where to place this Infallibility whether in the Pope or a General Council But let it be where it will this being a matter of Institution must be proved by Scripture how then in the first place do they prove the Pope to be Infallible That they think is very plain because Christ says Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it But how does this prove that the Bishop of Rome is Infallible For here is not one word of the Bishop of Rome Yes this proves St. Peter to be infallible who was afterwards Bishop of Rome and therefore all his Successors are infallible too Now that St. Peter was infallible as all the other Apostles were we readily grant though I think this Text does not prove it But
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
Flesh and Bloud of Christ is in the Sacrament nor that the substance of Bread and Wine does not remain after Consecration nor that the Accidents of Bread and Wine such as colour smell tast quantity weight subsist without any substance or subject to subsist in These are such Paradoxes to Sense and Reason that they ought to be very well supported with Scripture before they are received for Articles of Faith or else our Faith will be as very an Accident without any substance as the sacramental species themselves are But though they have no Text which proves the least Tittle of all this yet they have a Text whereon they graft this Doctrine of Transubstantiation viz. This is my Body which they say signifies every thing which they teach concerning Transubstantiation but then I hope they will prove that it does so not expect that we should take it for granted because they say it Now not to insist upon those Arguments whereby our Divines have so demonstratively proved that Transubstantiation as explained by the Church of Rome cannot be the sence of This is my Body my advice to Protestants is to put them upon the proof that this is the sence of it which in reason they ought to prove because there is not one word of it in the Text and I shall only tell them what Proofs they ought to demand for it Now I suppose all men will think it reasonable that the Evidence for it should at least be equal to the Evidence against it though we ought indeed to have more reason to believe it than to dis-believe it or else we must hang in suspence when the Balance is equal and turns neither way Now I will not oppose the Evidence of Sense and Reason against the Authority of Scripture for I will never suppose that they can contradict each other and if there should appear some contradiction between them I will be contented at present without disputing that point to give it on the side of Scripture but I will oppose the Evidence of Sense and Reason against any private man's or any Churches Exposition of Scripture and if that Exposition they give of any Text of Scripture as suppose This is my Body contradict the Evidence of Sense and Reason I may modestly require as plain proof that this is the meaning of the Text as I have that such a meaning is contrary to all Sense and Reason for though Sense and Reason be not the Rule and Measure of Faith yet we must use our Sense and Reason in expounding Scripture or we may quickly make a very absurd and senseless Religion Now this shews us what kind of Proof we must require that Transubstantiation is the Doctrine of the Gospel viz. as certain Proof as we have that Transubstantiation is contrary to Sense and Reason And therefore 1. We must demand a self-evident Proof of this because it is self-evident that Transubstantiation contradicts Sense and Reason Every man who knows what the word means which I believe men may do without being great Philosophers and will consult his own Senses and Reason will need no Arguments to prove that Transubstantiation contradicts both Now such a Scripture-Proof I would see for Transubstantiation so plain and express and self-evident that no man who understands the words can doubt whether this be the meaning of them I mean a reasonable not an obstinate wilful and sceptical doubting Now I believe that our Adversaries themselves will not say that This is my Body is such a self-evident Proof of Transubstantiation I am sure some of the wisest men among them have not thought it so and the fierce Disputes for so many Ages about the interpretation of those words proves that it is not so for men do not use to dispute what is self-evident and proves it self without any other Arguments Now it is very unreasonable to require any man to believe Transubstantiation against a self-evident Proof that it is contrary to Sense and Reason without giving him a self-evident Proof that it is the Doctrine of Scripture which is to require a man to believe against the best Reason and Evidence 2. We must demand such a Scripture-Proof of Transubstantiation as cannot possibly signifie any thing else or else it will not answer that Evidence which we have against Transubstantiation for Sense and Reason pronounce Transubstantiation to be naturally impossible and therefore unless it be as impossible to put any other sense upon Scripture than what signifies Transubstantiation as it is to reconcile Transubstantiation to Sense and Reason there is not such good Evidence for Transubstantiation as against it Were the Scripture-Proofs for Transubstantiation so plain and evident that it were impossible to put any other sense on the words then I would grant that it is as impossible for those who believe the Scriptures to disbelieve Transubstantiation as it is for those who trust to their own Sense and Reason to believe it Here the difficulty would be equal on both sides and then I should prefer a Divine Revelation if it were possible to prove such a Revelation to be Divine before natural Sense and Reason but I presume no man will say that it is impossible to put another and that a very reasonable interpretation upon those words This is my Body without expounding them to the sense of Transubstantiation Our Roman Adversaries do not deny but that these words are capable of a figurative as well as of a literal sense as when the Church is called the Body of Christ Flesh of his Flesh and Bone of his Bone it is not meant of his natural but his mystical Body and thus when the Bread is called the Body of Christ it may not signifie his natural but sacramental Body or his Body to all the ends and purposes of a Sacrament Now if there be any other good sense to be made of these words besides Transubstantiation there cannot be such a necessity to expound them of Transubstantiation as there is not to expound them of it for I do not reject Scripture if I deny Transubstantiation when the words of Scripture do not necessarily prove it but I renounce Sense and Reason if I believe it Now though I were bound to renounce my Sence and Reason when they contradict Scripture yet sure I am not bound to deny my Sense and Reason when they do not contradict Scripture and Sense and Reason are never contrary to Scripture nor Scripture to them when the words of Scripture are capable of such an interpretation as is reconcilable both to Sense and Reason In such a case to expound Scripture contrary to Sense and Reason is both to pervert the Scripture and to contradict Reason without any necessity An unlearned man need not enter into a large Dispute about Transubstantiation let him but require his Adversary to give him as plain Evidence that Transubstantiation is the Doctrine of the Gospel as he can give him that it is contrary to Sense and Reason and the
it agrees with the rest the Fathers many times contradict themselves and each other and if men differ about the sense of Scripture they differ much more about Fathers and Councils That it is a mighty Riddle that those who think ordinary Christians not fit to read the Scriptures should think it necessary for them to understand Fathers and Councils and yet they are ridiculous indeed to dispute with every Tradesman about Fathers and Councils if they do not think they ought to read and understand them The sum is such Protestants as are not skilled in Book-learning may very reasonably tell these men who urge them with the Authority of Councils and Fathers That they do not pretend to any skill in such matters and hope it is not required of them for if it be they are in an ill case the Holy Scriptures not Fathers and Councils is the Rule of their Faith if they had read the Fathers they should believe them no farther than what they taught was agreeable to Scripture and therefore whatever Opinions any of the Fathers had it is no concern of theirs to know if they can learn what the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles was without it learned men may dispute about these things and they have heard learned Protestants affirm that the Church of Rome can find none of her peculiar Doctrines in the Writings of any of the Fathers for the first three hundred Years and its certain if this be true all the later Fathers are of no Authority to establish any new Doctrine for there was no more Authority in the Church to bring in any new Doctrines after three hundred Years than there is at this day Unlearned men may very honourably reject all dispute about Fathers and Councils though learned men cannot and indeed need not for if they are not bound to read Fathers and Councils I think they are not bound to understand them nor to dispute about them and it is very unadviseably done when they do for it is past a Jest in so serious a matter though otherwise it were comical enough for men to be converted by Fathers and Councils without understanding them CHAP. III. How to Answer some of the most popular Pretences urged by Papists against Protestants SECT I. 1. Concerning the Vncertainty of the Protestant Faith. OUr Popish Adversaries of late have not so much disputed as fenced have neither down-right opposed the Protestant Faith nor vindicated their own but have betaken themselves to some tricks and amusements to divert and perplex the Dispute and to impose upon the ignorant and unwary One of their principal Arts has been to cry out of the Uncertainty of the Protestant Faith. This every body is nearly concerned in for there is nothing wherein certainty is so necessary and so much desired as in matters of Religion whereon our eternal State depends This has been often answered by Protestants and I do not intend to enter into the merits of the Cause and shew upon what a firm and sure bottom the Protestant Faith stands this is a Cavil easily enough exposed to the scorn and contempt of all considering men without so much trouble For 1. Suppose the Protestant Faith were uncertain How is the cause of the Church of Rome ever the better is this a sufficient reason to turn Papists because Protestants are uncertain does this prove the Church of Rome to be Infallible because the Church of England is Fallible must certainty necessarily be found among them because it is not to be found with us is Thomas an honest man because John is a Knave These are two distinct questions and must be distinctly proved If they can prove our Faith uncertain and their own certain there is reason then to go over to them but if they cannot do this they may it may be perswade men to renounce the Protestant Faith but not to embrace Popery Ask them then What greater assurance they have of their Faith than we have of ours If they tell you their Church is Infallible tell them that is another question and does not belong to this dispute For the Infallibility of their Church does not follow from the Uncertainty of our Faith if they can prove their Church Infallible whether they prove our Faith uncertain or not we will at any time change Protestant Certainty for Infallibility And if they could prove our Faith uncertain unless they could prove their own more certain though we bate them Infallibility we may cease to be Protestants but shall never turn Papists 2. Ask them What they mean by the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith For this may signifie two things either 1. That the Objects of our Faith are in themselves uncertain and cannot be proved by certain Reasons Or 2dly That our Perswasion about these matters is uncertain and wavering If they mean the first then the sense is that the Christian Religion is an uncertain thing and cannot be certainly proved for this is the whole Protestant Faith We believe the Apostles Creed and whatever is contained in the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles and this is all we believe And I hope they will not say these things are uncertain for then they renounce the Christian Religion and Infallibility it self cannot help them out for Infallibility cannot make that certain which is in it self uncertain an infallible man must know things as they are or else he is mistaken and ceases to be infallible and therefore what is certain he infallibly knows to be certain and what is uncertain he infallibly knows to be uncertain for the most certain and infallible knowledge does not change its Object but sees it just as it is And therefore they must allow the Objects of our Faith or the Protestant Faith as to the matter of it to be very certain and built upon certain reason or else their infallible Church can have no certainty of the Christian Faith. If they mean the second thing that we have no certain perswasion about what we profess to believe This is a great abuse to Protestants as if we were all Knaves and Hypocrites who do not heartily and firmly believe what we profess to believe and a Protestant who knows that he does very firmly and stedfastly believe his Religion ought to reject such a Villanous Accusation as this with indignation and scorn Indeed it is both impudent and silly for any man to tell a Protestant that his Faith is uncertain as that signifies an uncertain and doubtful Perswasion when he knows and feels the contrary and no body else can know this but himself In what Notion then is the Protestant Faith uncertain what can Faith signifie but either the Objects of Faith or the internal Assent and Perswasion The Objects of our Faith are certain if Christian Religion be so that is they have very certain Evidence our Assent and Perswasion is very certain as that is opposed to all doubtfulness and wavering And what certainty then is wanting to the
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-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-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-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