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
does this prove the Bishop of Rome's Infallibility Just as St. Peter's Primacy proves the Pope to be the Oecumenical Primate They themselves must grant that an infallible Apostle may have a fallible Bishop for his Successor or else they must either deny that the rest of the Apostles as well as St. Peter were infallible or they must grant that all the Apostles Successors that is all the Bishops who succeeded any of the Apostles in their Sees must be as infallible as the Bishops of Rome who succeeded St. Peter and then there will be so much Infallibility that it will be worth nothing If then there be not a natural and necessary entail of Infallibility upon the Successors of infallible Apostles they must shew us an express Institution which makes the Successors of Peter at Rome infallible And let our Protestant demand this before he owns the Infallibility of the Pope of Rome and then I believe they will not think him worth Converting Thus as for those who place Infallibility in a General Council demand a Scripture-proof of it that they would produce the General Council's Charter for Infallibility This they can't do but they say the Church is infallible and the General Council is the Church Representative and therefore a General Council must be infallible too So that here are several things for them to prove and to prove by Scripture too for there is no other way of proving them before they can prove the Infallibility of General Councils As 1. That the Church is infallible 2. That a General Council is the Church Representative 3. That the Church Representative is that Church to which the promise of Infallibility is made And then they might conclude that a General Council as being the Church Representative is infallible Now instead of proving every particular of this by Scripture as they must do if they will prove by Scripture that General Councils are infallible they pretend to prove no more than the first of the three that the Church is infallible and that very lamely too as may appear more hereafter and then they take all the rest for granted without any proof which is just as if a man who in order to prove his Title to an Estate is required to prove that this Estate did anciently belong to his Family that it was entailed upon the Heir Male that this entail was never cut off nor the Estate legally alienated and that he alone is the true surviving Heir should think it enough to prove onely the first of these that the Estate did anciently belong to his Family which it might have done and yet not belong to it now or if it did still belong to it he may not be the true Heir Thus if we consider what it is they teach about Purgatory we shall quickly perceive how little it is they pretend to prove of it they tell us that there is a Purgatory-fire after this life where men undergo the punishment of their Sins when the fault is pardoned that the Church has power out of her stock of Merits which consists of the supererogating Works of great and eminent Saints to grant Pardons and Indulgencies to men while they live to deliver them from several thousand Years punishment which is due to their Sins in Purgatory that the Souls in Purgatory may be released out of it by the Prayers and Alms and Masses of the living which is the very life and soul of this Doctrine of Purgatory Now of all this they pretend to prove no more from Scripture but that there is a Purgatory-fire after this Life and how they prove it you have already heard But that either Penances or Pilgrimages and other extraordinary Acts of Devotion while we live or the Pope's Pardons and Indulgencies can either remit or shorten the pains of Purgatory or that the Prayers and Alms of our living Friends or Masses said for us by mercenary Priests can deliver us out of Purgatory which we are principally concerned to know and without which Purgatory will not enrich the Priests nor the Church this they never attempt that I know of to prove by Scripture whether there be a Purgatory or not in it self considered is a meer speculative point and of no value But could they prove that the Pope has the Keys of Purgatory and that Alms and Masses will deliver out of Purgatory this were worth knowing and is as well worth proving as any Doctrine of the Church of Rome for there is nothing they get more by But if you will not believe this till they produce a Scripture-proof of it you may let them dispute on about the place of Purgatory and keep your Money in your Pocket Thus it is in most other cases if you take their whole Doctrine together and demand a Proof of every part of it and not take a Proof of some little branch of it for a Proof of the whole you will quickly find that they will not be so fond of disputing as some of them now are 3. Another way our Roman Adversaries have of proving their Doctrines from Scripture is instead of plain and positive proofs to produce some very remote and inevident consequences from Scripture and if they can but hale a Text of Scripture into the premises whatever the conclusion be they call it a Scripture-proof There are infinite instances of this but I can only name some few Thus they prove the perpetual Infallibility of the Church because Christ promises his Disciples to be with them to the end of the world 28. Matth. 20. which promise cannot be confined to their persons for they were to die long before the end of the World and therefore must extend to their Successors Suppose that and does Christ's being with them necessarily signifie that he will make them Infallible Is not Christ with every particular Church with every particular Bishop nay with every particular good Christian and must they all be Infallible then Thus Christ promises that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against his Church Ergo the Church is Infallible for if Error and Heresie prevails against the Church the Gates of Hell prevail against it And I add if Sin and Wickedness prevail against the Church the Gates of Hell prevail against it Ergo the Church is Impeccable and cannot Sin which is to the full as good a consequence as the other And therefore the Gates of Hell prevailing can neither signifie the meer prevalency of Errors or Sin in the Church but such a prevalency as destroys the Church and this shall never be because Christ has promised it shall never be and it may never be though the Church be not Infallible and therefore this does not prove Infallibility Thus they prove there is such a place as Purgatory where Sins are forgiven and expiated because our Saviour says That the sin against the Holy Ghost shall neither be forgiven in this world nor in the world to come Matt. 12. 32. and therefore there are some