then it is to no purpose to dispute about such a Judge for Disputing is nothing else but weighing Reason against Reason and Argument against Argument or Scripture against the pretence of Scripture but whoever gets the better of it this way no Reasons or Arguments or Scripture Proofs can beget an Infallible Certainty which is necessary in this case and therefore this is all lost labour and they do but put a trick upon you when they pretend to dispute you into the belief of an Infallible Judge for they themselves know and must confess if you ask them that the best and must convincing Arguments cannot give us an Infallible assurance of this matter and yet unless we are infallibly assured of an infallible Judge it is all to no purpose 3. I can think but of one thing more that can be said in this cause viz. that it is manifestly unreasonable not to grant to the Church of Rome that Liberty which all men and Churches challenge to dispute for themselves and against their Adversaries for when two men or two Churches differ in matters of Faith there is no other way to end the Controversie but by disputing it out whereas this Discourse will not allow them to dispute nor any Protestants to dispute with them In answer to this I grant that the Charge is in a great measure true and shews the absurdity of that Church and Religion but does not disprove the reasonableness of this method If men will embrace such a Religion as will not admit of disputing it is their own and their Religions fault not the fault of those men who will not dispute with them Now a Religion which leaves no room for the exercise of Reason and private Judgment leaves no place for Disputes neither for how shall men dispute who must not use their own Reason and Judgment They ought not to dispute themselves if they be true to their own Principles and no man ought to dispute with them who will not be laugh'd at by them and by all the World For to dispute without Reason is a new way of disputing though it is the only thing that can justifie the Romanists and our late Disputants have been very careful to observe it and to dispute with Reason is to use our private Reason in Religion which is Protestant Heresie Infallible men ought not to dispute for that is to quit their Infallibility and fallible men are very unwise to dispute with them because no good can come of it for Reason can never confute their infallible Adversaries nor make themselves infallible Believers But for the better understanding of this I have two things to say 1. That Papists may dispute against Protestant Heresies as they call them but cannot dispute for their own Religion 2. Protestants may dispute against Popish Doctrines and to vindicate their own Faith but cannot reasonably be disputed into Popery 1. That Papists may dispute against Protestant Heresies but cannot dispute for their own Religion And the reason of this difference is plain because Protestants allow of Reason and Discourse in matters of Religion and therefore they may be confuted if good Reasons can be produced against them And here the Romanists may try their skill but the Religion of Rome is not founded on Reason but on Infallibility and therefore is not the subject of a Dispute because the truth and certainty of those Doctrines is not resolved into the Reasons of them They ought to alledge no other ground of their Faith but the Infallibility of the Church and they ought not to dispute about this neither but those who will believe it may and those who won't may let it alone because Infallibility is not to be proved by Reason for Reason proves nothing infallibly and therefore cannot give us an infallible certainty of the Churches Infallibility But you will say if they have other Arguments for the truth of their Faith besides the Infallibility of the Church why may they not urge those other Reasons and Arguments to convince those who will not own the Churches Infallibility I answer Because whatever other Reasons they have their Faith is not resolved into them and therefore it is not honest in them to urge those for the Reasons of their Faith which are not the Reasons why they believed For let me ask them Suppose they may have very good Reasons for some of their Doctrines do they believe them meerly because they are reasonable If they say they do then they believe just as Protestants believe and there is no need of Infallibility when men believe nothing but what is reasonable and it is pity that so good a thing as Infallibility should serve only to support an unreasonable Faith. Let me ask them again Can they have a sufficient certainty that these Reasons are good without an infallible Judge If they can then the Faith of Protestants which is grounded upon rational Evidences may be very certain too though it be not infallible if they cannot then their Reasons are none since the very certainty of them is resolved into an infallible Authority and therefore they are no certain Reasons that is not such as a man may rely on when they are separated from Infallibility and consequently they ought never to be urged apart from Infallibility because they themselves do not think them good Reasons that is not a sufficient foundation of Faith alone and then I know not why they should be urged at all for Infallibility can stand by it self without the support of any Reasons I ask them again Would they reject those Doctrines which they think they can prove by such evident Reasons did they see those Reasons as evidently confuted If they would not then it is plain they do not believe them for the sake of those Reasons for if they did they would reject them when all their Reasons were confuted They only impose upon the World with a pretence and flourish of Reason and set up a Man of Straw for Protestants to shoot at but whatever becomes comes of their Reasons they have a safe Retreat into Infallibility If they believed any Doctrine because it is reasonable if they will be true to themselves they ought to reject all Doctrines which are unreasonable or contrary to Sense and Reason He who believes for the sake of Reason can never believe against it for if Reason makes a thing credible then what is unreasonable is incredible too and we may as reasonably dis-believe what is confirmed by Reason as believe what Reason contradicts and therefore it is not very modest to hear men talk of Reason in any case who can believe such an absurd and unreasonable Doctrine as Transubstantiation Now whatever Opinion Protestants have of Reason Papists ought not to pretend to it because their Faith has nothing to do with Reason it is a Reproach to an infallible Church and infallible Faith to need the supports of Reasons And the truth is those who will have nothing to do
presumed to understand their own Religion the first Reformers who were all educated in Popery might be as well presumed to understand what Popery then was and therefore there can be no reason to suspect that they Mis-represented Popery out of Ignorance Nor is it more probable that they should Mis-represent Popery out of Interest and Design for if they were conscious to themselves that Popery was not so bad as they represent it to be why should they themselves have set up for Reformers and what hope could they have that at that time when Popery was so well known they should perswade the World to believe their Mis-representations Was it so desirable a thing for men to bring all the Powers of the Church and Court of Rome upon themselves meerly to gratifie a Mis-representing humour Do these men remember what our Reformers suffered for opposing Popery the loss of their Estates their Liberties their Lives all the Vengeance of a blind and enraged Zeal And did they undergo all this with such constancy and Christian patience only for the sake of telling Lyes and raising scandalous Reports of the Church of Rome We think it a very good Argument that the Apostles and first Preachers of Christianity were very honest men and had no design to cheat the World because they served no worldly Interest by it but chearfully exposed themselves to all manner of Sufferings in Preaching the Gospel and why does not the same Argument prove our first Reformers to be honest men and then they could not be wilful Mis-representers Nay if we will but allow them to have been cunning men and it is evident they did not want wit they would never have undertaken so hopeless a design as to run down Popery meerly by Mis-representing it when had their Exceptions against Popery been onely Mis-representations of their own all the World could have confuted them had the first Reformers been onely Mis-representers can we think that they could have imposed upon such vast numbers of Men Learned and Unlearned who knew and saw what Popery was They were no Fools themselves and therefore could not hope to impose such a Cheat upon the World. 2. Ask them again How old this Complaint is of Protestant Mis-representations of Popery how long it has been discovered that Popery has been thus Abused and Mis-represented were the first Reformers charged with these Mis-representations by their Adversaries in those days did they deny that they gave Religious Worship to Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary to Images and Reliques did they cry out of Mis-representations when they were charged with such Doctrines and Practices as these or did they defend them and endeavour to answer those Arguments which the Reformers brought against them And yet methinks if Popery had been so grosly Mis-represented by the Reformers this would as soon have been discovered by the Learned Papists of those days as by our late Representer but it is most likely they did not then think Popery so much Mis-represented for if they had they would certainly have complained of it So that the high improbability of the thing is a sufficient Reason to Unlearned Protestants to reject this Charge of Protestant Mis-representations of Popery as nothing else but a Popish Calumny against Protestants and to conclude that if Popery be Mis-represented now it is onely by themselves and that is the very truth of the Case Secondly Let us consider this Charge of Mis-representations in the Consequences of it It would a little puzzle a man to guess what service they intend to do the Church of Rome by it For 1. By complaining of such Mis-representations of Popery they plainly confess that those Doctrines and Practices which we charge the Church of Rome with are very bad and fit to be rejected and abhorred of all Christians This the Representer himself confesses and is very Copious and Rhetorical upon it Now this is of mighty dangerous consequence for if it appears that we have not Mis-represented them that the Doctrines and Practices we charge them with are truly the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome then by their own confession Popery is a very bad Religion and to be rejected by Christians Then there was a very just reason for our Separation from the Church of Rome and we are no longer either Schismaticks or Hereticks and if the Cause be put upon this Issue we need desire no better Vindication of the Church of England for if they cannot prove us Hereticks or Schismaticks till they can prove us Mis-representers I believe we are pretty secure for this Age. 2. These men who complain so much of Mis-representing endeavour to make the Doctrines of the Church of Rome look as like Protestant Doctrines as possibly they can as if there were little or no difference between them Now methinks this is no great reason for a Protestant to turn Papist that the Popish Faith is so much the better the nearer it comes to the Protestant Faith. The truth is the chief Mystery in this late Trade of Representing and Mis-representing is no more but this to joyn a Protestant Faith with Popish Practices to believe as Protestants do and to do as Papists do As to give some few instances of this in the Papist Mis-represented and Represented The Papist Represented believes it damnable to Worship Stocks and Stones for Gods to Pray to Pictures or Images of Christ the Virgin Mary or any other Saints This is good Protestant Doctrine but then this Papist says his Prayers before an Image Kneels and Bows before it and pays all external Acts of Adoration to Christ and the Saints as represented by their Images though it is not properly the Image he honours but Christ and his Saints by the Images Which is down-right Popery in Practice Thus he believes it is a most damnable Idolatry to make Gods of men either living or dead Which is the Protestant Faith but yet he prays to Saints and beggs their Intercession without believing them to be Gods or his Redeemers which is Popery in Practice He believes it damnable to think the Virgin Mary more powerful in Heaven than Christ. Which is Protestant Doctrine but yet he prays to Her ostner than either to God or Christ says ten Ave-Maries for one Pater Noster which is a Popish Devotion He believes it unlawful to commit Idolatry and most damnable to Worship any Breaden God. Which is spoke like a Protestant but yet he pays Divine Adoration to the Sacrament which is done like a Papist And thus in most of those thirty seven Particulars of the double Characters of a Papist Mis-represented his great Art is to Reconcile a Protestant Faith with Popish Practices So that this new way of Representing Popery is no reason to a Protestant to alter his Faith because it seems they believe in many things just as we do but I think it is a very great reason for a Papist to alter his Practice because a Protestant Faith and
obscure unintelligible and useless more severe and intollerable then the Jewish Yoke itself which St. Peter tells the Jews neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear it is indeed almost all Outside and Pageantry as unlike the Plainness and Simplicity of the Gospel-Worship as Show and Ceremony can make it It is true external and visible Worship must consist of external Actions and must be performed with such grave and decent circumstances of time and place and posture and habit as become the Solemnity of Religious Worship this Reason and Nature teaches and this the Church of England prudently observes whose Ceremonies are not Religious Rites but decent Circumstances of Worship few in number as the necessary Circumstances of Action are but few and Grave and Solemn in their use but this is not to place Religion in any thing that is external but only to pay an external Homage and Worship to God which differ as Worshipping God in a Decent Habit differs from the Religion of Consecrated Habits and Vestments or as praying to God with an audible Voice differs from placing Religion in Words and Sounds which we do not understand or as Kneeling at receiving the Sacrament differs from a Bodily Worship of the Host in bowing the knee But though the bare number of external Ceremonies which are always the Seat of Superstition be a great corruption of the Christian Worship yet the number of them is the least fault of the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome as will appear if we consider a little their nature For 1. Most of their external Rites are professedly intended as Expiations and Satisfactions for their Sins This is the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome that notwithstanding the satisfaction made by Christ every Sinner must satisfie for his own Sins or have the satisfaction of other mens applied to him out of the Treasury of the Church by the Pope's Indulgences this is the meaning of all external Penances in Whippings Fastings Pilgrimages and other superstitious Severities their Backs or their Feet or their Bellies must pay for their Sins unless they can redeem them out of their Pockets too now it is plain that these are such external Superstitions as can have no place in the Christian Religion which allows of no other expiation or satisfaction for Sin but the Blood of Christ. 2 ly Those distinctions between Meats which the Church of Rome calls Fasting for a Canonical Fast is not to abstain from Food but only from such Meats as are forbid on Fasting Days can be no part of Christian Worship because the Gospel allows of no distinction between clean and unclean things and therefore of no distinction of Meats neither for meat commendeth us not to God 1 Cor. 8. 8. The Church of Rome indeed does not make such a distinction between clean and unclean Beasts as the Law of Moses did and therefore is the more absurd in forbidding the eating of Flesh or any thing that comes of Flesh as Eggs or Milk or Cheese or Butter on their Fasting Days which is to impose a new kind of Jewish Yoke upon us when the reason of it is ceased For there is no imaginable reason why it should be an Act of Religion meerly to abstain from Flesh if Flesh have no legal uncleanness and if it had we must all turn Carthusians and never eat Flesh for how should it be clean one day and unclean another is not easie to understand I am sure St. Paul makes this part of the Character of the Apostacy of the latter days that they shall Command to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth For every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer And let no man judge you in meat or drink wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world why as though living in the world are ye subject to ordinances touch not tast not handle not which all are to perish with the using after the Commandments and Doctrines of men And yet though they do not own the legal distinctions between clean and unclean things their Consecrations would perswade one that there were something more than a meer legal uncleanness in all Creatures viz. that they are all possessed by the Devil and wicked Spirits for when they Consecrate Salt and Water to make their Holy-water they first exorcise both the Salt and Water to cast the Devil out of them and if such innocent Creatures are possessed I doubt none can escape which has made me sometimes wonder that they durst eat any thing before it was first exorcised for fear the Devil should take possession of them with their meat It is certain if the Christian Religion takes away all such distinctions between Meat and Drinks the meer abstaining from Flesh can be no part of Christian Worship much less so satisfactory and meritorious as the Church of Rome pretends when such Abstinence is appointed as a satisfactory Penance 3 dly As for the Religion of Holy Places Altars Vestments Utensils the Church of Rome has infinitely out-done the Jewish Laws instead of one Temple at Jerusalem they have thousands to the full as Holy and Sacred as that as may appear from their Rites of Consecration Though herein I confess they differ that the Temple of Jerusalem was only God's House and that alone made it a Holy Place because God was there peculiarly present but the Popish Churches derive their Sanctity not so much from the presence of God for then they would be all equally Holy as from some great and eminent Saint who is peculiarly Worshipped there It is a great argument of the opinion men have of the Holiness of any place to go in Pilgrimage to it not meerly in Curiosity but Devotion as if either going so far to see the place were in itself an act of Religion or their Prayers would be better heard there than if they prayed at home Thus they travel to Jerusalem to visit the Holy Land and the Sepulchre and this may be thought in honour of our Saviour who Lived and Died and was Buried there but otherwise I know not any Church or Chappel which the most devout Pilgrims think worth visiting meerly upon the account of God or Christ The several Churches or Chappels of the Virgin especially those which are the most famed for Miracles or the Churches where the Reliques of some great and adored Saints are lodged have their frequent Visits for the sake of the Virgin or of the Saints but without some Saint Churches lose their Sacredness and Veneration which I suppose is the reason why they always take care of some Reliques to give a Sacredness to them without which no Church can be Consecrated that is its Dedication to the Worship of God cannot make it Holy unless some Saint take
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
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
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
all these Jewish Rites and has Instituted nothing in the room of them excepting the two Sacraments Baptism and the Lord's Supper which are of a very different Nature and Use as we shall see presently He did not indeed while he was on Earth blame the Observation of the Law of Moses which till that time was in full force and which he observed himself but he blamed the External Superstitions of the Pharisees in washing Cups and Platters and making broad their Phylacteries and thinking themselves very righteous persons for their scrupulous observation even of the Law of Moses in paying Tithe of Mint and Cummin c. while they neglected the weightier matters of the Law judgement mercy and faith 23 Mat. 23. But when our Saviour was Risen from the Dead and had accomplished all the Types and Shadows of the Law then the Apostles with greater freedom opposed a Legal and External Righteousness and though they did for a time indulge the Jews in the Observation of the Rites of Moses yet they asserted the Liberty of the Gentile Converts from that Yoke as we may see in the first Council at Antioch and in St. Paul's Disputes with the Jews in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians and elsewhere And indeed whoever considers the Nature of the Christian Religion will easily see that all those ends which such External Rites served either in the Jewish or Pagan Religion have no place here and therefore nothing that is meerly External can be of any use or value in the Christian Worship As to show this particularly 1. There is no expiation or satisfaction for sin under the Gospel but only the Blood of Christ and therefore all External Rites are useless to this purpose Him and him only God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood Death was the punishment of sin and Death is the only expiation of it and none else has died for our sins but Christ alone and therefore he only is a propitiation for our sins and yet we know how great a part both of the Pagan and Jewish Religion was taken up in the expiation of sin all their Sacrifices to be sure were designed for this purpose and so were their Washings and Purifications in some degree and many other voluntary Severities and Superstitions this being the principal thing they intended in their Religious Rites to appease God and make him propitious to them since then Christ has made a full and compleat satisfaction and atonement for sin and there is no expiation or satisfaction required of us all external Rites for expiation and atonement can have no place in the Christian Worship without denying the atonement of Christ and this necessarily strips Christian Religion of a vast number of external Rites practised both by Jews and Heathens 2 ly Nor does the Gospel admit of any legal Uncleannesses and Pollutions distinction between clean and unclean Meats which occasioned so many Laws and Observances both among Jews and Heathens so many ways of contracting legal Uncleanness and so many ways to expiate it and so many Laws about Eating and Drinking and such Superstition in Washing Hands and Cups and Platters but our Saviour told his Disciples Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man but that which cometh out of the mouth this defileth the man. For whatsoever entreth into the mouth goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught but those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts murders adulteries fornications thefts false witnesses blasphemies these are the things which defile a man but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. And this also delivers Christian Religion from all those Rites and Observances which concerned legal cleanness which were very numerous 3 ly Nor is there any Symbolical Presence of God under the Gospel which puts an end to the legal Holiness of Places and Things God dwelt among the Jews in the Temple at Jerusalem where were the Symbols and Figures of his Presence it was God's House and therefore a holy place and every thing that belonged to it had a legal Holiness for the Holiness of Things and Places under the Law was derived from their relation to God and his Presence this was the only place for their Typical and Ceremonial Worship whither all the Males of the Children of Israel were to resort three times a year and where alone they were to offer their Sacrifices and Oblations to God the very place gave Virtue to their Worship and Sacrifices which were not so acceptable in other places nay which could not be offered in other places without sin as is evident from Jeroboam's sin in setting up the Calves at Dan and Bethel for places of Worship and the frequent Complaints of the Prophets against those who offered Sacrifices in the High Places and therefore the Dispute between the Jews and Samaritans was which was the place of Worship whether the Temple at Jerusalem or Samaria but Christ tells the Woman of Samaria that there should be no such distinction of places in the Christian Worship Woman believe me the hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worship the father But the hour cometh and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the father in spirit and in truth Not as if the Father should not be Worshipped neither at Jerusalem nor Samaria but that neither the Temple at Jerusalem nor Samaria should be the peculiar and appropriate place of Worship that God's Presence and Worship should no longer be confined to any one place that the Holiness of the place should no longer give any value to the Worship but those who worshipped God in spirit and in truth should be accepted by him where-ever they worshipped him Such Spiritual Worship and Worshippers shall be as acceptable to God at Samaria as at Jerusalem and as much in the remotest Corners of the Earth as at either of them for God's Presence should no longer be confined to any one place but he would hear our devout Prayers from all parts of the World where-ever they were put up to him and consequently the Holiness of places is lost which consists only in some peculiar Divine Presence and with the Holiness of places the external and legal Holiness of things ceases also for all other things were Holy only with relation to the Temple and the Temple Worship For indeed God's Typical Presence in the Temple was only a Figure of the Incarnation Christ's Body was the true Temple where God dwelt for which reason he calls his Body the Temple Destroy this Temple and I will raise it up in three days And the Apostle assures us that the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ Bodily 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 really and substantially in opposition to God's Typical Presence in the material Temple and therefore
is in Heaven at the right hand of God and on ten thousand Altars at a great distance from each other on earth at the same time Then a humane Body is contracted into the compass of a Wafer or rather subsists without any dimensions without extension of parts and independent on place Now not to dispute whether this be true or false my only inquiry at present is whether this do not contradict those natural notions all men have of the properties of a Humane Body let a man search his own mind and try whether he find any such notion of a Body as can be present at more places than one at the same time a Body that is without Extension nay that has parts without Extension and therefore without any distinction too for the parts of an Organical Body must be distinguished by place and scituation which cannot be if they have no Extension a Body which is present without occupying a place or being in a place if we have no such natural notion of a Body as I am sure I have not and I believe no man else has then let Transubstantiation be true or false it is contrary to the natural notions of our minds which is all I am at present concerned for Thus let any man try if he have any notion of an accident subsisting without any substance of a white and soft and hard nothing of the same body which is extended and not extended which is in a place and not in a place at the same time for in Heaven I suppose they will grant the Body of Christ fills a place and has the just dimensions and proportions of a Humane Body and at the same time in the Host the very same body is present without any extension and independent on place that is the same body at the same time is extended and not extended fills a place and fills no place which I suppose they mean by being Independent on place now is and is not is a contradiction to natural Reason and I have no other natural notion of it but as of a contradiction both parts of which cannot be true Let us then briefly examine whether it be likely that Transubstantiation which contradicts the evidence of sense and the natural notions of our Minds should be a Gospel Doctrine considering the Gospel as the most Divine and excellent Knowledge and most perfective of Humane understandings For 1. This Doctrine of Transubstantiation is so far from perfecting our Knowledge that it destroys the very Principles of all Humane Knowledge All natural knowledge is owing either to Sense or Reason and Transubstantiation contradicts both and whoever believes it must believe contrary to his Senses and Reason which if it be to believe like a Catholick I am sure is not to believe like a man if the perfection of knowledge consist in contradicting our own Faculties Transubstantiation is the most perfect knowledge in the world but however I suppose no man will say that this is the natural perfection of knowledge which overthrows the most natural notions we have of things and yet 2. All supernatural Knowledge must of necessity be grafted upon that which is natural for we are capable of revealed and supernatural Knowledge only as we are by nature reasonable Creatures and destroy Reason and Beasts are as fit to be preached too as Men And yet to contradict the plain and most natural notions of our minds is to destroy Humane Reason and to leave Mankind no Rule or Principle to know and judge by No man can know any thing which contradicts the Principles of Natural Knowledge because he has only these natural Principles to know by and therefore however his Faith may be improved by it he forfeits his natural Knowledge and has no supernatural Knowledge in the room of it For how can a man know and understand that which is contrary to all the natural Knowledge and Understanding he has There may be some revealed Principles of Knowledge super-added to natural Principles and these things we may know to be so though we have no natural Notion of them and this perfects because it enlarges our Knowledge as the Knowledge of three Divine Persons super-added to the natural Belief of one Supreme God which does not overthrow the belief of one God but only acquaints us that there are three Divine Persons in the Unity of the Godhead which whatever difficulty there may be in apprehending it yet overthrows no natural Notion this is an improvement of Knowledge because we know all we did before and we know something more that as there is one God so there are three Persons who are this one God and though we have no natural Notion of this how three Persons are one God because we know no distinction between Person and Essence in Finite Beings yet we have no natural Notion that there cannot be more Persons than one in an Infinite Essence and therefore this may be known by Revelation because there is no natural Notion against it But now I can never know that which is contrary to all the Principles of Knowledge I have such men may believe it who think it a Vertue to believe against Knowledge Who can believe that to be true which they know to be false For whatever is contrary to the plain and necessary Principles of Reason which all Mankind agree in I know must be false if my Faculties be true and if my Faculties be not true then I can know nothing at all neither by Reason nor Revelation because I have no true Faculties to know with Revelation is a Principle of Knowledge as well as Faith when it does not contradict our natural Knowledge of things for God may teach us that which Nature does not teach and thus Revelation improves enlarges and perfects Knowledge in such cases Faith serves instead of natural Knowledge the Authority of the Revelation instead of the natural Notions and Idea's of our Minds but I can never know that by Revelation which contradicts my natural Knowledge which would be not only to know that which I have no natural Knowledge of which is the knowledge of Faith but to know that by Revelation which by Reason and Nature I know cannot be which is to know that which I know cannot be known because I know it cannot be So that Transubstantiation which contradicts all the evidence of Sence and Reason is not the Object of any Humane Knowledge and therefore cannot be a Gospel-Revelation which is to improve and perfect not to destroy Humane Knowledge I can never know it because it contradicts all the Notions of my Mind and I can never believe it without denying the truth of my Faculties and no Revelation can prove my Faculties to be false for I can never be so certain of the truth of any Revelation as I am that my Faculties are true and could I be perswaded that my Faculties are not true but deceive me in such things as I judge most certain and
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