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
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
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
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
Doctrine was to be examined by them and accordingly he appeals to Moses and the Prophets to bear testimony to his Person and Doctrine and exhorts them to search the Scriptures which gave testimony to him and how the Miracles he wrought gave authority to any new Revelations he made of God's Will to the World since he did not contradict the old The Law of Nature and the Laws of Moses were the Laws of God and God cannot contradict himself and therefore the Doctrine of all new Prophets even of Christ himself was to be examined and is to be examined to this day by the Law and the Prophets and therefore though he was certainly an Infallible Teacher yet men were to judge of his Doctrine before they believed him and he did not require them to lay aside their Reason and Judgment and submit to his Infallible Authority without Examination So that all this while there could be no Infallible Judge to whom all men were bound to submit their own private Reason and Judgment and to receive all their Dictates as divine Oracles without Examination because they could not know them to be such Infallible Teachers till they had examined their Doctrine by the Light of Nature and the Law of Moses and we cannot to this day know that Moses and Christ were true Prophets but in the same way Since the writing of the New Testament there is a farther Test of an Infallible Teacher if there be any such in the world that he neither contradicts the Light of Nature nor the true intent of the Law of Moses nor alter or add to the Gospel of Christ and therefore there can be no Infallible Judge because be he never so Infallible we can never know that he is so but by the agreement of his Doctrine with the Principles of Reason with the Law and the Prophets and with the Gospel of Christ and therefore must examine his Doctrine by these Rules and therefore must judge for our selves and not suffer any man to judge for us upon a pretence of his Infallibility Could I know that any man were Infallible without judging of his Doctrine then indeed there were some reason to believe all that he says without any inquiry or examination but this never was never can be and therefore though there may be an Infallible Teacher there can be no Infallible Judge to whom I must submit my own Reason and Judgment without asking any Questions Which by the way shews how ridiculous that Sophism is The Church has not erred because she is Infallible when it is impossible for me to know she is Infallible till by examining her Doctrine by an Infallible Rule I know that she has not erred And the truth is it is well there can be no Infallible Judge for if there were it would suspend and silence the Reason and Judgment of all Mankind and what a knowing Creature would Man be in matters of Religion when he must not reason and must not judge just as knowing as a man can be without exercising any Reason and Judgment And therefore not only the reason and nature of the thing proves that there can be no Infallible Judge but the design of Christ to advance humane Nature to the utmost perfection of Reason and Understanding in this World proves that he never intended there should be any for to take away the exercise of Reason and private Judgment is not the way to make men wise and knowing Christians and if Christ allows us to judge for our selves there can be no Infallible Judge whose Office it shall be to judge for us all 4 ly To pretend the Scripture to be an obscure or imperfect Rule is a direct contradiction to the design of the Gospel to improve and perfect Knowledge for if the Scripture be so obscure in the essential matters of Faith and Christian knowledge that we cannot have any certainty what the true sence and interpretation of it is without an Infallible Judge then the Scriptures cannot improve our knowledge because we cannot know what they are we cannot understand their meaning and therefore can learn nothing from them Yes you 'll say we may know their meaning when they are expounded to us by an Infallible Judge though the Scriptures are so obscure that we cannot understand them without an Infallible Judge yet we may certainly learn what the sence of Scripture is from such a Judge Now in answer to this I observe that though such an Infallible Judge should determine the sense of all obscure Texts of Scripture which neither the Pope nor Church of Rome have ever done yet this would not be to understand the Scriptures or to learn from the Scriptures but only to rely on this Infallible Judge for the sense of Scripture To understand the Scriptures is to be able to give a reason why I expound Scripture to such a sense as that the words signifie so that the circumstances of the place and the context and coherence of the words require it that the analogy of Faith and the reason and nature of things will either justifie such an interpretation or admit no other and an Expositor who can thus open our Understandings and not only tell us what the sense of Scripture is but make us see that this is the true sense and interpretation of it does indeed make us understand the Scripture Thus Christ himself did when he was risen from the dead He opened their understandings that they might understand the Scriptures 24 Luke 45. But to be told that this is the true sence of Scripture and that we must believe this is the sense though we can see no reason why it should be thus expounded nay though all the Reason we have tells us that it ought not to be thus expounded no man will say that this is to understand the Scriptures but to believe the Judge No man can learn any thing from a Book which he does not and cannot understand and if men neither do nor can understand the Scriptures it is certain they can learn nothing from them an Infallible Judge would teach as well without the Scriptures as with them and indeed somewhat better because then no man could have a pretence to contradict him and therefore if this be true the holy Scripture deserves all those contemptible Characters which the Romanists have given it for it is so far from improving and perfecting our knowledge that it self cannot be known and therefore is good for nothing So that the obscurity of the Scripture makes it wholly useless to the great ends and purposes of the Christian Religion viz. to improve and perfect the knowledge of Mankind in the necessary and essential Doctrines of Faith and therefore this can be no Gospel-Doctrine because it makes the Gospel it self considered as written of no use Thus if the Scripture be an imperfect Rule as the Romanists affirm that it does not teach us the whole mind and will of God but that we must learn
Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus A Preservative against Popery c. Febr. 2 1687. Guil. Needham R. R. in Christo P. ac D.D. Wilhelmo Archiepisc. Cant. Ã Sacr. Domest A Preservative AGAINST POPERY Being some Plain DIRECTIONS TO Vnlearned PROTESTANTS How to Dispute with Romish Priests THE FIRST PART By WILL. SHERLOCK D.D. Master of the Temple LONDON Printed for William Rogers at the Sun over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-street M DC LXXXVIII A PRESERVATIVE AGAINST POPERY The Introduction WHile so many Learned Pens are employed to such excellent purpose in answering the Writings and confuting the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome I cannot but think it a very useful Work to give some plain Directions to those who are Vnlearned who have neither Time to Read nor Money to Buy nor Abilities to Vnderstand more Learned Controversies Our Divines indeed have taken great care to write short Tracts with great Plainness and Perspicuity and with as little unnecessary shew of Learning as may be to fit them the better for Vnlearned Readers and they have had by the blessing of God wonderful Success Popery was never so generally understood as it is at this day the meanest Tradesmen can now dispute against Popery with sufficient Skill and Judgment and need not be beholding to the prejudices of Education to secure them and therefore my business shall not be at present downright to state any one Controversie between us and the Church of Rome but to direct our people how to secure themselves against the Attaques of our Roman Adversaries to check their conferring and disputing humour or to baffle them I shall reduce all into as plain a Method and as short a compass as I can and show First How to stop them at the beginning of their Dispute Secondly Give some Rules about the Topicks from which they dispute such as Reason Scripture and the Authority of the Ancient Fathers and Writers of the Church Thirdly How to answer some of their most popular pretences such as the Vncertainty of the Protestant Religion the Misrepresentations of Popery c. Fourthly To give some short Directions as to particular Controversies CHAP. I. How Protestants may prevent Disputing with Papists NOw I do not by this mean that they should always avoid their company and run away from them where-ever they meet them which is very ill Manners though it is not adviseable neither to court such acquaintance or to make them our Intimates when neither the obligations of Nature nor other Civil or Political Reasons make it necessary for Conversation many times prevails more than Arguments can do and will as soon corrupt Mens Faith as Manners Nor do I mean that Protestants should obstinately refuse to discourse with Papists when they meet them to hear what they have to say for themselves and to give a Reason for their own Faith this is not agreeable to Protestant Principles to prove all things and to hold fast that which is good and yet this ought to be done with great prudence and caution too for there are a sort of perverse Disputers who are to be avoided according to the Apostolick Precept if any man teach otherwise and consent not to wholsome words even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ and to the Doctrine which is according to godliness he is proud knowing nothing but doting about questions and strife of words whereof cometh envy strife railings evil surmizing perverse disputing of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth supposing that gain is godliness from such withdraw thy self 1 Tim. 6. 3 4 5. Men of weak judgments and who are not skilled in the Laws of Disputation may easily be imposed on by cunning Sophisters and such as lie in wait to deceive The Church of Rome is very sensible of this and therefore will not suffer her people to dispute their Religion or to read Heretical Books nay not so much as to look into the Bible itself but though we allow all this to our people as that which God not only allows but requires and which all considering men will allow themselves whoever forbids it yet we do not allow them to be perpetual Seekers to be always doubtful of their Religion to be like children tossed too and fro with every wind of Doctrine And therefore the liberty of Judging and Inquiring which we allow is only that they may understand the true Reasons of their Faith and be well grounded in it which Men may be who are not able to answer every cavilling objection but it is an abuse of this liberty when men have itching ears and hearken after all Novelties of Opinions and grow wanton and Seeptical Disputers and therefore it is very consistent with that liberty which Protestants allow to advise Christians to be very careful how they hearken to such as Preach any new Doctrine which they have not been taught that the weak in Faith and knowledge should not venture upon doubtful Disputations that they should not be hasty to question what they have believed nor to give heed to new Doctrines that they should not rely on their own understanding in these matters but when they meet with any difficulties should consult their Spiritual Guides not to be finally determined by their Authority as the Church of Rome requires but to hear their Reasons and what Answers they can give to such difficulties as they themselves cannot answer with such cautions as these we dare venture our people to hear and read and enquire as much as they please and have not found yet that our Roman Adversaries have been able to make any great impression upon such honest and prudent Inquirers But that which I intend at present is of another nature to teach our people a way to make these men sick of Disputing themselves to make them leave off those Impertinent and noisy squabbles with which they disturb all company they come into and this is no such mighty secret neither as may be expected but is very plain and obvious at the first proposal For when you are assaulted by such troublesome Disputers only ask them whether they will allow you to judge for yourselves in matters of Religion if they will not why do they trouble you with Disputing for the end of Disputing is to convince and you cannot be convinced unless you may judge too would they Dispute with a stone that can neither hear nor understand or would they make a Speech to convince a Horse that he is out of his way and must take another Road if he would return home and do they not talk to as little purpose and spend their breath as vain upon a man who can hear indeed and understand somewhat but must not follow his own understanding if they say that you must judge for your selves ask them whether this be the Doctrine of their Church that private men may judge for themselves whether this do not resolve our Faith into a private Spirit which they
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
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
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
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
Dispute will quickly be at an end It had been very easie to have given more instances under every head and to have observed more false ways of expounding Scripture which the Doctors of the Church of Rome are guilty of but these are the most obvious and therefore the best fitted to my design to instruct unlearned men and I must not suffer this Discourse which was at first intended much shorter than it already is to swell too much under my hands SECT III. Concerning the Antient Fathers and Writers of the Christian Church THough Learned men may squabble about the sense of Fathers and Councils it is very unreasonable that unlearned men should be concerned in such Disputes because they are not competent Judges of it and yet there is nothing which our Roman Disputants make a greater noise with among Women and Children and the meanest sort of People than Quotations out of Fathers and Councils whom they pretend to be all on their side Now as it is a ridiculous thing for them to talk of Fathers and Councils to such People so it is very ridiculous for such People to be converted by Sayings out of the Fathers and Councils I confess it has made me often smile with a mixture of pity and indignation at the folly of it for what more contemptible easiness can any man be guilty of than to change his Religion which he has been taught out of the Scriptures and may find there if he pleases because he is told by some honest Priest a sort of men who never deceive any one that such or such a Father who lived it may be they know not where nor when and wrote they know not what has spoke in favour of Transubstantiation or Purgatory or some other Popish Doctrine And therefore let me advise our Protestant who is not skilled in these matters when he is urged with the Authority of Fathers to ask them some few Questions 1. Ask them How you shall certainly know what the Judgment of the Fathers was and this includes a great many Questions which must be resolved before you can be sure of this as how you shall know that such Books were written by that Father whose name it bears or that it has not been corrupted by the ignorance or knavery of Transcribers while they were in the hands of Monks who usurped great Authority over the Fathers and did not only pare their Nails but altered their very Habit and Dress to fit them to the modes of the times and make them fashionable How you shall know what the true meaning of those words are which they cite from them which the words themselves many times will not discover without the Context How you shall know that such Sayings are honestly quoted or honestly translated How you shall know whether this Father did not in other places contradict what he here says or did not alter his opinion after he had wrote it without writing publick Recantations as St. Austin did Whether this Father was not contradicted by other Fathers And in that case Which of the Fathers you must believe You may add That you do not ask these Questions at random but for great and necessary Reasons for in reading some late English Books both of Protestants and Papists you find large Quotations out of the Fathers on both sides that some are charged with false Translations with perverting the Fathers sense with mis-citing his words with quoting spurious Authors as it seems many of those are which make up the late Speculum or Ecclesiastical Prospective-glass to name no more Now how shall you who are an unlearned man judge of such Disputes as these What Books are spurious or genuine whether the Fathers be rightly quoted and what the true sense of them is For my part I know not what Answer such a Disputant could make but to blush and promise not to alledge the Authority of Fathers any more It is certain in such matters those who are unlearned must trust the learned and then I suppose an unlearned Protestant will rather trust a Protestant than a Popish Doctor as Papists will rather trust their Priests that Protestant Divines and then there is not much to be got on either side this way For when a Protestant shews an inclination rather to believe a Popish than a Protestant Divine he is certainly three quarters a Papist before-hand Indeed unlearned Protestants who are inquisitive and have time to read have such advantages now to satisfie themselves even about the sense of Fathers and Councils as it may be no Age before ever afforded There being so many excellent Books written in English as plainly confirm the Protestant Faith and confute Popery by the Testimonies and Authorities of ancient Writers and such men though they do not understand Latin and Greek are in no danger of all the Learning of their Popish Adversaries and any man who pleases may have recourse to such Books and see the state of the Controversie with his own Eyes and judge for himself but those who cannot do this may very fairly decline such a trial as improper for them For 2. Let our Protestant ask such Disputers whether a plain man may not attain a sufficient knowledge and certainty of his Religion without understanding Fathers and Councils If they say he cannot ask them how many Roman-Catholicks there are that understand Fathers and Councils Ask them how those Christians understood their Religion who lived before there were any of these Fathers Councils Ask them again whether they believe that God has made it impossible to the greatest part of Mankind to understand the Christian Religion For even among Christians themselves there is not one in an hundred thousand who understands Fathers and Councils and it is morally impossible they should and therefore certainly there must be a shorter and easier way to understand Christian Religion than this or else the generallity of Mankind even of profest Christians are out of all possibility of Salvation Ask them once more whether it be not a much easier matter for a plain honest man to learn all things necessary to Salvation out of the Scriptures themselves especially with the help of a wise and learned Guide than to understand all Fathers and Councils and take his Religion from them Why then do they so quarrel at Peoples reading the Scriptures and put them upon reading Fathers and Councils I suppose they will grant the Scriptures may be read a little sooner than so many Voluminous Fathers and Labbe's Councils into the bargain and I believe most men who try will think that they are more easily understood and therefore if Protestants as they pretend can have no certainty of the true sense of Scripture I am sure there is much less certainty to be had from the Fathers A short time will give us a full view of the Scriptures to read and understand all the Fathers is work enough for a man's life the Scripture is all of a piece every part of
must neither believe their Senses nor trust their Reason nor read the Scripture it is easie to guess what knowing and understanding Christians they must needs be But it may be said that notwithstanding this the Church of Rome does Instruct her Children in the true Catholick Faith though she will not venture them to judge for themselves nor to read the Scriptures which is the effect of her great care of them to keep them Orthodox for when men trust to their own fallible Reasons and private Interpretations of Scripture it is a great hazard that they do not fall into one Heresie or other but when men are taught the pure Catholick Faith without any danger of Error and Heresie is not this much better then to suffer them to reason and judge for themselves when it is great odds but they will judge wrong Now this would be something indeed did the Church of Rome take care to Instruct them in all necessary Doctrines and to teach nothing but what is true and could such men who thus tamely receive the dictates of the Church be said to know and to understand their Religion How far the Church of Rome is from doing the first all Christians in the world are sensible but themselves but that is not our present dispute for though the Church of Rome did instruct her people into the true Christian Faith yet such men cannot be said to know and understand their Religion and to secure the Faith by destroying knowledge is a direct contradiction to the design of the Gospel which is to make men wise and understanding Christians For no man understands his Religion who does not in some measure know the reasons of his Faith and judge whether they be sufficient or not who knows not how to distinguish between Truth and Error who has no Rule to go by but must take all upon trust and the credit of his Teachers who believes whatever he is told and learns his Creed as School boys do their Grammar without understanding it This is not an active but a kind of passive knowledge such men receive the impression that is made on them as wax does and understand no more of the matter now will any one call this the knowledge and understanding of a man or the Discipline of a Child But suppose there were some men so dull and stupid that they could never rise higher that they are not capable of inquiring into the reasons of things but must take up their Religion upon trust yet will any man say that this is the utmost perfection of knowledge that any Christian must aim at is this the meaning of the word of God dwelling in us richly in all wisdom is this the way to give an answer to any one who asks a reason of the hope that is in us the perfection of Christian knowledge is a great and glorious attainment to understand the secrets of God's Laws those depths and mysteries of wisdom and goodness in the oeconomy of Mans Salvation to see the Analogy between the Law and the Gospel how the Legal Types and ancient Prophecies received their accomplishment in Christ how far the Gospel has advanced us above the state of Nature and the Law of Moses what an admirable design it was to redeem the world by the Incarnation and death and sufferings and intercession of the Son of God what mysteries of Wisdom and Goodness the Gospel contains the knowledge of which is not only the perfection of our understandings but raises and ennobles our minds and transforms us into the Divine Image These things were revealed that they might be known not that they should be concealed from the world or neglected and despised but this is a knowledge which cannot be attained without diligent and laborious inquiries without using all the reason and understanding we have in searching the Scriptures and all other helps which God has afforded us Now if Christian Knowledge be something more than to be able to repeat our Creed and to believe it upon the authority of our Teachers if the Gospel of our Saviour was intended to advance us to a true manly knowledge Christ and the Church of Rome seem to have two very different designs our Lord in causing the Gospel to be wrote and publisht to the world the other in concealing it as much as she can and suffering no body to read it without her leave as a dangerous Book which is apt to make men Hereticks for it is hard to conceive that the Gospel was written that it might not be read and then one would guess that he by whose authority and inspiration the Gospel was written and those by whose authority it is forbid to be read are not of a mind in this matter 1. This I think in the first place is an evident proof that to forbid Christian people to read and study and mediate on the word of God is no Gospel Doctrine unless not to read the Bible be a better way to improve in all true Christian knowledge and wisdom than to read it for that is the duty of Christians to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ this was one great end of publishing the Gospel to the world to enlighten and improve mens understandings as well as to govern their Lives and though we grant men may be taught the principles of Christian Religion as Children are without reading the Bible yet if they will but grant that studying and meditating on the holy Scriptures is the best and only way to improve in all true Christian knowledge this shows how contrary this prohibition of reading the Scriptures is to the great design of the Gospel to perfect our knowledge in the mysteries of Christ. 2 ly This is a mighty presumption also against Transubstantiation that it is no Gospel Doctrine because it overthrows the very Fundamental Principles of Knowledge which is a direct contradiction to the design of the Gospel to advance Divine Knowledge to the utmost perfection it can attain in this world Whoever has his eyes in his head must confess that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is contrary to Sense for were our senses to be Judges of this matter they would pronounce the Bread and Wine after Consecration to be Bread and Wine still and therefore what ever reason there may be to believe it not to be Bread and Wine but Flesh and Blood yet it must be confessed that our Faith in this matter contradicts our sense for even Roman Catholick Eyes and Noses and Hands can see and feel and smell nothing but Bread and Wine and if to our senses it appears to be nothing but Bread and Wine those who believe it to be the Natural Body and Blood of Christ believe contrary to what they see Thus there is nothing more contrary to the natural notions we have of things than the Doctrine of Transubstantiation for if this Doctrine be true then the same individual body of Christ
is in Heaven at the right hand of God and on ten thousand Altars at a great distance from each other on earth at the same time Then a humane Body is contracted into the compass of a Wafer or rather subsists without any dimensions without extension of parts and independent on place Now not to dispute whether this be true or false my only inquiry at present is whether this do not contradict those natural notions all men have of the properties of a Humane Body let a man search his own mind and try whether he find any such notion of a Body as can be present at more places than one at the same time a Body that is without Extension nay that has parts without Extension and therefore without any distinction too for the parts of an Organical Body must be distinguished by place and scituation which cannot be if they have no Extension a Body which is present without occupying a place or being in a place if we have no such natural notion of a Body as I am sure I have not and I believe no man else has then let Transubstantiation be true or false it is contrary to the natural notions of our minds which is all I am at present concerned for Thus let any man try if he have any notion of an accident subsisting without any substance of a white and soft and hard nothing of the same body which is extended and not extended which is in a place and not in a place at the same time for in Heaven I suppose they will grant the Body of Christ fills a place and has the just dimensions and proportions of a Humane Body and at the same time in the Host the very same body is present without any extension and independent on place that is the same body at the same time is extended and not extended fills a place and fills no place which I suppose they mean by being Independent on place now is and is not is a contradiction to natural Reason and I have no other natural notion of it but as of a contradiction both parts of which cannot be true Let us then briefly examine whether it be likely that Transubstantiation which contradicts the evidence of sense and the natural notions of our Minds should be a Gospel Doctrine considering the Gospel as the most Divine and excellent Knowledge and most perfective of Humane understandings For 1. This Doctrine of Transubstantiation is so far from perfecting our Knowledge that it destroys the very Principles of all Humane Knowledge All natural knowledge is owing either to Sense or Reason and Transubstantiation contradicts both and whoever believes it must believe contrary to his Senses and Reason which if it be to believe like a Catholick I am sure is not to believe like a man if the perfection of knowledge consist in contradicting our own Faculties Transubstantiation is the most perfect knowledge in the world but however I suppose no man will say that this is the natural perfection of knowledge which overthrows the most natural notions we have of things and yet 2. All supernatural Knowledge must of necessity be grafted upon that which is natural for we are capable of revealed and supernatural Knowledge only as we are by nature reasonable Creatures and destroy Reason and Beasts are as fit to be preached too as Men And yet to contradict the plain and most natural notions of our minds is to destroy Humane Reason and to leave Mankind no Rule or Principle to know and judge by No man can know any thing which contradicts the Principles of Natural Knowledge because he has only these natural Principles to know by and therefore however his Faith may be improved by it he forfeits his natural Knowledge and has no supernatural Knowledge in the room of it For how can a man know and understand that which is contrary to all the natural Knowledge and Understanding he has There may be some revealed Principles of Knowledge super-added to natural Principles and these things we may know to be so though we have no natural Notion of them and this perfects because it enlarges our Knowledge as the Knowledge of three Divine Persons super-added to the natural Belief of one Supreme God which does not overthrow the belief of one God but only acquaints us that there are three Divine Persons in the Unity of the Godhead which whatever difficulty there may be in apprehending it yet overthrows no natural Notion this is an improvement of Knowledge because we know all we did before and we know something more that as there is one God so there are three Persons who are this one God and though we have no natural Notion of this how three Persons are one God because we know no distinction between Person and Essence in Finite Beings yet we have no natural Notion that there cannot be more Persons than one in an Infinite Essence and therefore this may be known by Revelation because there is no natural Notion against it But now I can never know that which is contrary to all the Principles of Knowledge I have such men may believe it who think it a Vertue to believe against Knowledge Who can believe that to be true which they know to be false For whatever is contrary to the plain and necessary Principles of Reason which all Mankind agree in I know must be false if my Faculties be true and if my Faculties be not true then I can know nothing at all neither by Reason nor Revelation because I have no true Faculties to know with Revelation is a Principle of Knowledge as well as Faith when it does not contradict our natural Knowledge of things for God may teach us that which Nature does not teach and thus Revelation improves enlarges and perfects Knowledge in such cases Faith serves instead of natural Knowledge the Authority of the Revelation instead of the natural Notions and Idea's of our Minds but I can never know that by Revelation which contradicts my natural Knowledge which would be not only to know that which I have no natural Knowledge of which is the knowledge of Faith but to know that by Revelation which by Reason and Nature I know cannot be which is to know that which I know cannot be known because I know it cannot be So that Transubstantiation which contradicts all the evidence of Sence and Reason is not the Object of any Humane Knowledge and therefore cannot be a Gospel-Revelation which is to improve and perfect not to destroy Humane Knowledge I can never know it because it contradicts all the Notions of my Mind and I can never believe it without denying the truth of my Faculties and no Revelation can prove my Faculties to be false for I can never be so certain of the truth of any Revelation as I am that my Faculties are true and could I be perswaded that my Faculties are not true but deceive me in such things as I judge most certain and
sinners while they continue in their sins if they believe the judicial authority of the Priest to forgive sins for they every day absolve men who do not forsake their sins and if their absolution be good God must forgive them too and thus the holiness and inflexible justice of God loses its force upon good Catholicks to reform their lives and therefore were there no other arguments against it it is not likely that the judicial absolution of the Priest as it is taught and practised in the Church of Rome should be a Gospel-Doctrine 3. The Death and Sacrifice of Christ is another Gospel-Motive to Holiness of Life not only because he has now bought us with his own Blood and therefore we must no longer live unto our selves but to him who died for us but because his Blood is the Blood of the Covenant and the efficacy of his Sacrifice extends no farther than the Gospel-Covenant which teaches us to deny all ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live soberly righteously and godly in this present world That is no man can be saved by the Blood of Christ but those who obey the Gospel which obliges all men who hope to be saved by Christ to the practise of an universal righteousness This the Church of Rome seems very sensible of that none but sincere Penitents and truly good men can be saved by the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross which gives no hope to Sinners who do not repent of their sins and amend their lives and therefore she has found out a great many other ways of expiating Sin which give more comfort to Sinners The Sacrifice of the Mass has a distinct vertue and merit from the Sacrifice upon the Cross it is a propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead to expiate especially the sins of those for whom it is particularly offered and thus those sins which are not expiated by the Death of Christ upon the Cross are expiated by the Sacrifice of the Mass and that by the bear opus operatum by the offering this Sacrifice of the Mass itself without any good motion in the person for whom it is offered and thus the Sacrifice of the Mass destroys the vertue of Christ's Sacrifice upon the Cross to oblige men to holiness of life for though none but sincere and reformed Penitents are pardoned by the Sacrifice of the Cross the Sacrifice of the Mass will expiate the sins of unreformed Sinners and then there is no need to reform our lives Thus I am sure all men understand it or they would never put their confidence in the Mass-Sacrifice for if it does no more for us than Christ's Death upon the Cross it might be spared for it gives no new comforts to impenitent Sinners They are very sensible that holiness of life is necessary to intitle us to the Pardon and Forgiveness purchased by the Death of Christ but then the Sacrifice of the Mass Humane Penances and Satisfactions and Merits and Indulgences seem on purpose contrived to supply the place of Holiness of Life for no body can imagine else what they are good for Christ has by his Death upon the Cross made a perfect Atonement for the sins of all true penitent and reformed Sinners and therefore a true Penitent who according to the terms of the Gospel denies all ungodliness and worldly lusts and lives soberly righteously and godly in this present world needs no Expiation but the Death of Christ Will they deny this by no means They grant that all our sins are done away in Baptism meerly by the application of Christ's Death and Passion to us and therefore the Death of Christ is a complete and perfect satisfaction for all Sin or else Baptism which derives its whole vertue from the Death of Christ could not wash away all sin What use can there be then of the new propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass of humane Satisfactions and Merits and Indulgences Truly none but this that when our sins are expiated by the Death of Christ and the pardon of all our sins applied to us in Baptism the Gospel exacts a holy life from us and therefore men forfeit the baptismal Pardon of their sins by the Bloud of Christ unless they either live very holy lives or make some other satisfaction for their not doing so And for this purpose the Sacrifice of the Mass humane Penances and Satisfactions serve It will not be unuseful nor unpleasant to draw a short Scheme of this whole matter which will explain this great Mystery and make it intelligible which now appears to be nothing but nonsence and confusion Christ then has made a perfect Atonement and Expiation for sin this is applied to us at Baptism wherein all our sins are forgiven and while we continue in this state of Grace we cannot be eternally damned though we may be punished for our sins both in this World and Purgatory But every mortal sin puts us out of the state of Grace which we were in by Baptism and till we be restored to the state of Grace again we must be eternally damned because we have no right to the Sacrifice and Expiation of Christ's Death the only way in the Church of Rome to restore us to this state of Grace is by the Sacrament of Penance and the Absolution of the Priest which restores us to the same state which Baptism at first put us into and therefore very well deserves to be thought a Sacrament And thus we recover our interest in the Merits of Christ's Death and therefore cannot be eternally damned for our sins but still it is our duty to live well for the Death of Christ does not excuse us from Holiness of Life which is the condition of the Gospel and therefore if we are in a state of Grace and thereby secured from eternal damnation yet if we live in sin we must be punished for it unless we can find some other expiation for sin than the Death of Christ upon the Cross which still leaves us under the obligations of a holy life and therefore cannot make such an Expiation for sin as shall serve instead of a holy life Now here comes in the Sacrifice of the Mas Humane Penance Satisfactions Indulgencies For the sacrifice of the Mass as I observed before does not serve the same end that the Sacrifice of the Cross does the Sacrifice of the Mass is a propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead But what sins is it a Propitiation for For such sins for which men are to satisfie themselves that is for all sins the eternal punishment of which is remitted for the Sacrifice of the Cross. This is evident from their making the Sacrifice of the Mass a propitiatory Sacrifice for the dead that is for the Souls in Purgatory who suffer there the temporal punishments of sin when the eternal punishment is forgiven the Souls in Hell are capable of no Expiation and therefore an expiatory Sacrifice for the dead can be only for
real and substantial Piety and Virtue Now let any man judge whether this be not apt to corrupt mens notions of what is good to perswade them that such external observances are much more pleasing to God and therefore certainly much better in themselves than true Gospel-Obedience than Moral and Evangelical Vertues for that which will merit of God the pardon of the greatest immoralities and a great reward that which supplies the want of true Vertue which compensates for sin and makes men great Saints must needs be more pleasing to God than Vertue it self is and if men can believe this all the Laws of Holiness signifie nothing but to let men know when they break them that they may make satisfaction by some meritorious Superstitions Thus the Doctrine of venial sins which are hardly any sins at all to be sure how numerous soever they are or how frequently soever repeated cannot deserve eternal punishments is apt to give men very slight thoughts of very great Evils For very great Evils may come under the notion of venial sins when they are the effects of Passion and Surprize and the like Indeed this very Doctrine of venial sins is so perplexed and undermined that the Priest and the Penitent may serve themselves of it to good purpose I am sure this distinction is apt to make men careless of what they think little faults which are generally the seeds and dispositions to much greater such as the sudden eruptions of Passion some wanton thoughts an indecorum and undecency in words and actions and what men will please to call little venial sins for there is no certain Rule to know them by so that while this distinction lasts men have an excuse at hand for a great many sins which they need take no care of they are not obliged to aim at those perfections of Vertue which the Gospel requires if they keep clear of mortal sins they are safe and that men may do without any great attainments in Vertue which does not look very like a Gospel-Doctrine which gives us such admirable Laws which requires such great circumspection in our Lives such a command over our Passions such inoffensiveness in our Words and Actions as no Institution in the World ever did before Whatever corrupt mens Notions of Good and Evil as External Superstitions and the distinction between Venial and Mortal Sins is apt to do is a contradiction to the design of the Gospel to give us the plain Rules and Precepts of a perfect Vertue Secondly Let us consider some of the principal Motives of the Gospel to a Holy Life and see whether the Church of Rome does not evacuate them also and destroy their force and power Now 1. The Fundamental Motive of all is the absolute necessity of a Holy Life that without holiness no man shall see God for no other Argument has any necessary force without this But the absolute necessity of a holy life to please God and to go to Heaven is many ways overthrown by the Church of Rome and nothing would more effectually overthrow the Church of Rome than to re-establish this Doctrine of the absolute necessity of a good life For were men once convinced of this that there is no way to get to Heaven but by being truly and sincerely good they would keep their Money in their Pockets and not fling it so lavishly away up Indulgencies or Masses they would stay at home and not tire themselves with fruitless Pilgrimages and prodigal Offerings at the Shrines of some powerful Saints all external troublesome and costly Superstitions would fall into contempt good men would feel that they need them not and if bad men were convinced that they would do them no good there were an end of them for the only use of them is to excuse men from the necessity of being good But this is most evident in their Doctrine about the Sacrament of Penance that bare Contrition with the Absolution of the Priest puts a man into a state of Salvation I do not lay it upon Attrition which is somewhat less than Contrition though the Council of Trent if I can understand plain words makes that sufficient with the Absolution of the Priest but because some men will unreasonably wrangle about this I shall insist only on what is acknowledged by themselves that Contrition which is only a sorrow for sin if we confess our sins to a Priest and receive absolution puts us into a state of Grace now contrition or sorrow for sin is not a holy life and therefore this Doctrine overthrows the necessity of a holy life because men may be saved by the Sacrament of Penance without it and then I know no necessity there is of mortifying their Lusts for if they sin again it is only repeating the same remedy confessing their sins and being sorry for them and receiving absolution and they are restored to the favour of God and to a state of salvation again Nay some of their Casuists tell us that God has not commanded men to repent but only at the time of death and then contrition with absolution will secure their salvation after a whole life spent in wickedness without any other good action but only sorrow for sin and if men are not bound by the Laws of God so much as to be contrite for their sins till they find themselves dying and uncapable of doing any good all men must grant that a holy life is not necessary to salvation 2. More particularly The love of God in giving his own Son to die for us and the love of Christ in giving himself for us are great Gospel Motives to Obedience and a Holy Life but these can only work upon ingenuous minds who have already in some measure conquered the love of sin for where the love of sin prevails it is too powerful for the love of God but the holiness and purity and inflexible justice of the Divine Nature is a very good argument because it enforces the necessity of a holy life for a holy God cannot be reconciled to wicked Men will not forgive our sins unless we repent of them and reform them which must engage all men who hope for pardon and forgiveness from God to forsake their sins and reform their lives but the force of this Argument is lost in the Church of Rome by the judicial absolution of the Priest for they see daily the Priest does absolve them without forsaking their sins and God must confirm the sentence of his Ministers and therefore they are absolved and need not fear that God will not absolve them when the Priest has which must either destroy all sence of God's essential holiness and purity and perswade them that God can be reconciled to sinners while they continue in their sins or else they must believe that God has given power to his Priests to absolve those whom he could not have absolved himself To be sure it is in vain to tell men that God will not forgive