say is the Protestant Heresie and the foundation of Protestant uncertainty if they once open this gap to Hereticks into the Church there is great danger that more will run out at it than will come in and it is well if the Church itself staies behind for what becomes of the Church of Rome if all their glorious Cant of the Infallibility of Church and Popes and General Councils be at last resolved into a private Spirit while these men go about to Dispute Hereticks into their Church they unavoidably give up the Cause of the Church and of Infallibility which is the way to Dispute a great many good Catholicks out of it who are kept there only by the power of a blind and implicite Faith. Here then let our Protestant fix his foot and not stir an inch till they disown Infallibility and confess that every man can and must judge for himself in matters of Religion according to the proofs that are offered to him For will a wise man Dispute with one who he knows banters him all the while who appeals to his private judgment as all men do who dispute with one another and at the same time cries down this private Spirit as the cause of Schisms and Heresies and Blasphemies and every thing that is evil no man of any spirit but will scorn to dispute with one who intends only to put a trick on him and to out wit him if he can and in truth it is no more to endeavour to dispute a man into Popery when the Fundamental Principle of Popery is that we must not Reason and Dispute but believe that we must take our Faith upon the Authority of the Church without asking any questions about it There are two or three things which may be answered to this 1. That though Disputing be not a proper way for Papists to take yet it is the only way that can be taken with Protestants who are all for Disputing and will believe nothing without a Reason and therefore Protestants ought not to blame Papists for Disputing unless they would be good Catholicks without it Now in answer to this I have something to say to Papists and something to Protestants 1. As for the Papists what necessity soever they be in of Disputing I desire to know with what face they can reproach Protestants with adhering to their own private judgments when they themselves are such zealous Disputants which is an Appeal to every private mans judgment if ever they make any Converts they must be beholden to mens private judgments for it for I think men cannot change their Opinions without exercising a private judgment about it and I suppose when they dispute with men to make them Papists they intend to convert them by their own private judgments Now what difference is there between mens using their private judgments to turn Papists or to turn Protestants one indeed may be false and the other true but private judgment is private judgment still and if it be so great a fault for men to use their own private judgments it is as great a fault in a Papist as it is in a Protestant So that at least as to Converts the Church of Rome has no advantage in this particular over Protestant Churches some by the exercise of their own Reason and judgment go over to the Church of Rome and some to the Church of England some are disputed into Popery and some into Protestantism and therefore for the sake of their beloved Converts and their beloved Disputations they ought to be more favourable to a private Spirit The truth is by Disputing with Hereticks they give up their Cause and confess that in all Disputes of Religion there lies an Appeal to every mans private Judgment and Conscience and should they lose this point by their Disputing all the Converts they make cannot recompence such a loss 2. As for Protestants though they have no other way to satisfie themselves or to convince others but by Reason and Discourse yet this is no reason why they should Dispute with those men who disown the judgment of Reason as a private Spirit For why should I Dispute with any man who uses such Arguments to convince me as he himself does not think a sufficient Reason of Faith Ask then one of these Disputers who alledges Scripture Reason and Antiquity to prove any Doctrines of the Romish Faith Do you Sir believe Transubstantiation the Worship of Images the Invocation of Saints Purgatory Mass for the Dead upon the bare Authority of these Scriptures and Fathers you have produced for them If these Doctrines were not Defined by the Church should you think these Arguments sufficient to prove them or could you suppose the Church had Defined the contrary should you think the Arguments good still In short can any Reason any Authority of Scripture or Fathers be any Foundation for a Divine Faith but onely the Authority of the Church He that says they can is no Papist and he that says they cannot confesses that he uses such Arguments as he himself does not build his Faith upon If you will believe them you may but though you do you are no sound Believer without resolving your Faith solely into the Authority of the Church And I think he must love Disputing well who will Dispute with such men as these and those must have a good degree of assurance who will be troublesome with their Disputes after such a discovery The end of Disputing I suppose is either toconvince or to be convinced but should you Answer and baffle all such a man's Arguments if he be modest it may be he may blush a little but is not to be moved for his Faith after all is not built upon these Arguments but upon Church-Authority and it is to no purpose for you to suffer your self to be convinced by these Arguments for it will not make you a good Catholick without resolving your Faith wholly into the Authority of the Church It is certainly a very surprizing thing for a Protestant to be disputed into Popery for as soon as he is converted he must renounce the very means of his Conversion He must use his own Judgment to turn Papist and as soon as he is turned he must renounce his own Judgment and confess it to be of no Authority Now though it may be such a private Judgment as leads a man to Popery may as well deserve to be renounced as any yet it is an odd kind of contradiction to renounce our own private Reason and Judgment and yet to own our Conversion methinks such men should renounce their Conversion too at the same time they renounce their Reason for if their Conversion be good it is a sign their Judgment was so but if their Judgment be not fit to be trusted methinks this should make them question their Conversion And therefore they should either maintain the Reputation of their Judgment and Conversion together and then they cannot be good Catholicks
then it is to no purpose to dispute about such a Judge for Disputing is nothing else but weighing Reason against Reason and Argument against Argument or Scripture against the pretence of Scripture but whoever gets the better of it this way no Reasons or Arguments or Scripture Proofs can beget an Infallible Certainty which is necessary in this case and therefore this is all lost labour and they do but put a trick upon you when they pretend to dispute you into the belief of an Infallible Judge for they themselves know and must confess if you ask them that the best and must convincing Arguments cannot give us an Infallible assurance of this matter and yet unless we are infallibly assured of an infallible Judge it is all to no purpose 3. I can think but of one thing more that can be said in this cause viz. that it is manifestly unreasonable not to grant to the Church of Rome that Liberty which all men and Churches challenge to dispute for themselves and against their Adversaries for when two men or two Churches differ in matters of Faith there is no other way to end the Controversie but by disputing it out whereas this Discourse will not allow them to dispute nor any Protestants to dispute with them In answer to this I grant that the Charge is in a great measure true and shews the absurdity of that Church and Religion but does not disprove the reasonableness of this method If men will embrace such a Religion as will not admit of disputing it is their own and their Religions fault not the fault of those men who will not dispute with them Now a Religion which leaves no room for the exercise of Reason and private Judgment leaves no place for Disputes neither for how shall men dispute who must not use their own Reason and Judgment They ought not to dispute themselves if they be true to their own Principles and no man ought to dispute with them who will not be laugh'd at by them and by all the World For to dispute without Reason is a new way of disputing though it is the only thing that can justifie the Romanists and our late Disputants have been very careful to observe it and to dispute with Reason is to use our private Reason in Religion which is Protestant Heresie Infallible men ought not to dispute for that is to quit their Infallibility and fallible men are very unwise to dispute with them because no good can come of it for Reason can never confute their infallible Adversaries nor make themselves infallible Believers But for the better understanding of this I have two things to say 1. That Papists may dispute against Protestant Heresies as they call them but cannot dispute for their own Religion 2. Protestants may dispute against Popish Doctrines and to vindicate their own Faith but cannot reasonably be disputed into Popery 1. That Papists may dispute against Protestant Heresies but cannot dispute for their own Religion And the reason of this difference is plain because Protestants allow of Reason and Discourse in matters of Religion and therefore they may be confuted if good Reasons can be produced against them And here the Romanists may try their skill but the Religion of Rome is not founded on Reason but on Infallibility and therefore is not the subject of a Dispute because the truth and certainty of those Doctrines is not resolved into the Reasons of them They ought to alledge no other ground of their Faith but the Infallibility of the Church and they ought not to dispute about this neither but those who will believe it may and those who won't may let it alone because Infallibility is not to be proved by Reason for Reason proves nothing infallibly and therefore cannot give us an infallible certainty of the Churches Infallibility But you will say if they have other Arguments for the truth of their Faith besides the Infallibility of the Church why may they not urge those other Reasons and Arguments to convince those who will not own the Churches Infallibility I answer Because whatever other Reasons they have their Faith is not resolved into them and therefore it is not honest in them to urge those for the Reasons of their Faith which are not the Reasons why they believed For let me ask them Suppose they may have very good Reasons for some of their Doctrines do they believe them meerly because they are reasonable If they say they do then they believe just as Protestants believe and there is no need of Infallibility when men believe nothing but what is reasonable and it is pity that so good a thing as Infallibility should serve only to support an unreasonable Faith. Let me ask them again Can they have a sufficient certainty that these Reasons are good without an infallible Judge If they can then the Faith of Protestants which is grounded upon rational Evidences may be very certain too though it be not infallible if they cannot then their Reasons are none since the very certainty of them is resolved into an infallible Authority and therefore they are no certain Reasons that is not such as a man may rely on when they are separated from Infallibility and consequently they ought never to be urged apart from Infallibility because they themselves do not think them good Reasons that is not a sufficient foundation of Faith alone and then I know not why they should be urged at all for Infallibility can stand by it self without the support of any Reasons I ask them again Would they reject those Doctrines which they think they can prove by such evident Reasons did they see those Reasons as evidently confuted If they would not then it is plain they do not believe them for the sake of those Reasons for if they did they would reject them when all their Reasons were confuted They only impose upon the World with a pretence and flourish of Reason and set up a Man of Straw for Protestants to shoot at but whatever becomes comes of their Reasons they have a safe Retreat into Infallibility If they believed any Doctrine because it is reasonable if they will be true to themselves they ought to reject all Doctrines which are unreasonable or contrary to Sense and Reason He who believes for the sake of Reason can never believe against it for if Reason makes a thing credible then what is unreasonable is incredible too and we may as reasonably dis-believe what is confirmed by Reason as believe what Reason contradicts and therefore it is not very modest to hear men talk of Reason in any case who can believe such an absurd and unreasonable Doctrine as Transubstantiation Now whatever Opinion Protestants have of Reason Papists ought not to pretend to it because their Faith has nothing to do with Reason it is a Reproach to an infallible Church and infallible Faith to need the supports of Reasons And the truth is those who will have nothing to do
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
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 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
even some necessary Doctrines of Faith from unwritten Traditions which no body has the keeping of but the Church of Rome This I say contradicts the great design of the Gospel which is to improve and perfect knowledge for an imperfect Rule of Faith is I think as bad as no Rule at all because we can never trust it If you say that though the Scripture in it self be an imperfect Rule yet we have a perfect Rule because the defects of the Scripture are supplied by unwritten Traditions and therefore we have the whole Gospel and all the Christian knowledge delivered down to us either in the written or unwritten Rule I answer 1. If the Scriptures be an imperfect Rule then all Christians have not a perfect Rule because they have not the keeping of unwritten Traditions and know not what they are and never can know what they are till the Church is pleased to tell them and it seems it was a very great while before the Church thought fit to do it For suppose that all the new Articles of the Council of Trent which are not contained in Scripture were unwritten Traditions fifteen hundred years was somewhat of the longest to have so considerable a part of the Rule of Faith concealed from the World and who knows how much of it is concealed still for the Church has not told us that she has published all her unwritten Traditions there may be a Nest-egg left still which in time may add twelve new Articles to the Trent-Creed as that has done to the Apostles Creed So that if the Scripture be an imperfect Rule of Faith the Church never had a perfect Rule till the Council of Trent for a Rule which is not known is none at all and no body can tell whether our Rule be perfect yet whether some more unwritten Traditions may not start up in the next Age to make our Faith more perfect than the Council of Trent it self has made it Now if the design of the Gospel was to instruct men in all divine knowledge can we think that our Saviour has given us such an imperfect Rule as needs to be supplied by unwritten Traditions in every Age especially when we consider that some of the greatest Mysteries and most useful Doctrines of the Christian Religion if the Church of Rome be in the right were not written or so obscurely that no body could find them in the Scriptures till they were discovered by the help of unwritten Traditions such as the Supremacy of the Pope the Infallibility of Popes and General Councils the Worship of Images the Invocation of Saints and the great Glory and Prerogatives of the Virgin Mary the Doctrine of Purgatory Indulgences the Sacrament of Penance c. as necessary Doctrines as any that are recorded in Scripture and the denial of which makes us all Hereticks and Schismaticks as the Church of Rome says Though thanks be to God as far as appears we are no greater Hereticks and Schismaticks than the Apostles were unless they are excused for not knowing these necessary Articles of Faith and we are Hereticks for denying them since the Church of Rome in the Council of Trent has decreed and published them 2. These unwritten Traditions cannot supply the defects of a written Rule because they are of uncertain Authority and therefore not the Objects much less the Rule of a certain Faith and Knowledge What is not written but said to be delivered down from Age to Age by oral Tradition and kept so privately that the Church of God never heard of it for several hundred years can never be proved but by Miracles and they must be more credible Miracles too than the School of the Eucharist and the Legends of the Saints furnish us with and yet I know of no better the Church of Rome has It is impossible to prove that a private Tradition cannot be corrupted it is unreasonable to think that any thing which concerns the necessary Articles of Faith or Rules of Worship should be a private and secret Tradition for several Ages Miracles themselves cannot prove any Tradition which is contrary to the written Rule and the Catholick Faith of Christians for several Ages as several of the Trent-Doctrines are nay no Miracles can prove any new Article of Faith which was never known before without proving that Christ and his Apostles did not teach all things necessary to salvation which will go a great way to overthrow the truth and certainty of the Christian Faith for Miracles themselves can never prove that Christ and his Apostles taught that which the Christian Church never heard of before which is either to prove that the whole World had forgot what they had been once taught which I doubt is not much for the credit of Tradition or that the Church for several Ages did not teach all that Christ taught which is no great reason to rely on the teachings of the Church or to prove against matter of fact that Christ and his Apostles taught that which no body ever heard of and I do not think a Miracle sufficient to prove that true which every body knows to be false or at least do not know it to be true though they must have known it if it had been true And does not every body now see how improper unwritten Traditions are to supply the Defects and Imperfections of the written Rule for they can never make one Rule because they are not of equal Authority A Writing may be proved Authentick an obscure unwritten Tradition cannot and can any man think that Christ would have one half of his Gospel written the other half unwritten if he intended to perfect the knowledge of Christians for they cannot have so perfect a knowledge because they cannot have so great certainty of the unwritten as they have of the written Gospel Writing is the most certain Way to perpetuate Knowledge and if Christ intended that his Church in all Ages should have a perfect Rule of Faith we must acknowledge the perfection of the written Rule The truth is I cannot but admire the great artifice of the Church of Rome in preaching up the Obscurity and Imperfection of the Scriptures for she has hereby put it into her own power to make Christian Religion what she pleases for if the Scriptures be obscure and she alone can infallibly interpret them if the Scriptures be imperfect and she alone can supply their defects by unwritten Traditions it is plain that Christian Religion must be what she says it is and it shall be what her interest requires it to be But whether this be consistent with our Saviour's design in publishing the Gospel or whether it be the best way of improving the knowledge of Mankind let any impartial man judge 5 ly An Implicit Faith or believing as the Church believes without knowing what it is we believe can be no Gospel-Doctrine because this to be sure cannot be for the improvement of knowledge Some of the Roman Doctors think
it sufficient that a man believes as the Church believes without an explicite knowledge of any thing they believe but the general opinion is that a man must have an explicite belief of the Apostles Creed but as for every thing else it suffices if he believes as the Church believes without knowing what the faith of the Church is that is it is not necessary men should so much as know what the new Articles of the Trent Faith are if they believe the Apostles Creed and resign up their Faith implicitely to the Church Now this is a plain confession that all the Doctrines in dispute between us and the Church of Rome are of no use much less necessary to salvation for if they were they would be as necessary to be known and explicitely believed as the Apostles Creed and I cannot imagine why we Hereticks who believe the Apostles Creed and understand it as orthodoxly as they may not be saved without believing the new Trent Creed for if we need not know what it is there seems to be no need of believing it for I always thought that no man can and therefore to be sure no man need believe what he does not know So that it seems we know and believe all things the explicite knowledge and belief of which by their own confession is necessary to salvation except that one single Point of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome believe but that and ye need believe or know nothing more but the Apostles Creed and yet go to Heaven as a good Catholick which makes an implicite Faith in the Church of Rome as necessary as Faith in Christ is But if the intent of the Gospel was to improve our Knowledge then Christ never taught an implicite Faith for that does not improve Knowledge and if the Faith of the Church of Rome excepting the Apostles Creed which is the common Faith of all Christians need not be known then they are no Gospel-Doctrines much less necessary Articles of Faith for Christ taught nothing but what he would have known and though the knowledge of all things which Christ taught is not equally necessary to salvation yet it tends to the perfecting our knowledge and Christ taught nothing which a man need not know which I think is a reproach to meaner Masters and much more to the eternal and incarnate Wisdom Secondly The improvement and perfection of Humane Nature consists in true Holiness and Virtue in a likeness and conformity to God and a participation of the Divine Nature and this is the great end of the Gospel to advance us to as perfect Holiness as is attainable in this life Christ indeed has made expiation for our sins by his own Bloud but then this very Bloud of Atonement does not only expiate the guilt of sin but purges the Conscience from dead works that we may serve the living God for no Sacrifice not of the Son of God himself can reconcile an impenitent and unreformed Sinner to God that is can move God to love a Sinner who still loves and continues in his sins which an infinitely holy and pure being cannot do Indeed the expiation of sin is but one part of the work of our Redemption for a sinner cannot be saved that is cannot be advanced to immortal life in the Kingdom of Heaven without being born again without being renewed and sanctified by the holy Spirit after the Image and likeness of God. For this new Nature is the only Principle of a new immortal life in us an earthly sensual mind is no more capable of living in Heaven than an earthly mortal body In both senses flesh and bloud cannot inherit the Kingdom of God neither can corruption inherit incorruption The Church of Rome indeed has taken great care about the first of these and has found out more ways of expiating sin and making satisfaction for it than the Gospel ever taught us whether they are so effectual to this purpose let those look to it who trust in them but there is not that care taken to inculcate the necessity of internal holiness and purity of mind and one would easily guess there can be no great need of it in that Church which has so many easie ways of expiating sin The true character of Gospel-Doctrines is a Doctrine according to Godliness the principal design of which is to promote true goodness all the Articles of the Christian Faith tend to this end to lay great and irresistible obligations on us to abstain from every sin and to exercise our selves in every thing that is good as we have ability and opportunity to do it and therefore all Doctrines which secretly undermine a good life and make it unnecessary for men to be truly and sincerely vertuous can be no Gospel-Doctrines That there are such Doctrines in the Church of Rome has been abundantly proved by the late Learned and Reverend Bishop Taylor in his Disswasive from Popery which is so very useful a Book that I had rather direct my Readers to it than transcribe out of it My design leads me to another method for if I can prove that the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome naturally tend to evacuate the force of the Gospel it self to make men good and holy every one will easily see that that can be no Gospel-Faith and Worship which sets aside the Gospel it self The whole Doctrine of the Gospel either consists of the Rules of Holiness or of the Motives and Instruments of it for the Articles of the Christian Faith are all of them so many Motives to a good life let us then consider how the Faith and Worship of the Church of Rome has made void the Gospel of our Saviour as the Pharisees made void the Law of Moses by their Traditions 1. Let us begin then with the Gospel-Rules of Holiness It would be an endless thing here to take notice of the loose Determinations of their famed and approved Casuists of their Doctrine of probable Opinions of the direction of the intention by which means the very Laws and Boundaries of Vertue and Vice are in a great measure quite altered and it may be this would only make work for the Representer and furnish out a fourth part of the Papist Misrepresented if we venture to tell the World what has been the avowed Doctrines of their great Divines and Casuists But whether such Definitions be the Doctrine of their Church or not I am sure they are equally mischievous if they be the Doctrines of their Confessors who have the immediate direction of mens Conscience Those who have a mind to be satisfied in this matter may find enough of it in the Provincial Letters the Jesuits Morals and Bishop Taylor 's Disswasive It sufficiently answers my present design to take notice of some few plain things which will admit of no dispute I have already shewn what a great value the Church of Rome sets upon an external Righteousness which is much more meritorious than a
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
Sir for I rely on the Authority of Scripture which is as infallible as your Church Conv. But you rely on your own Reason for the Authority of Scripture and those particular Doctrines you draw from it Prot. And you rely on your own Reason and Judgment for the Infallibility of your Church and consequently of all the Doctrines of it and therefore your infallible Faith is as much resolved into your own fallible Judgment as the Protestant Faith is so that the difference between us is not that your Faith is infallible and ours fallible for they are both alike call it what you will fallible or infallible but the Dispute is whether your Reason and Judgment or ours be best and therefore if you think your Reason better than ours you did well to change but if you changed your Church hoping to grow more infallible by it you were miserably mistaken and may return to us again for we have more rational Certainty than you have and you have no more infallible Certainty than we You think you are reasonably assured that your Church is infallible and then you take up your Religion upon trust from your Church without and many times against Sence and Reason according as it happens so that you have onely a general assurance of the Infallibility of your Church and that no greater than Protestants pretend to in other cases viz. the certainty of Reason and Argument but have not so much as a rational assurance of the truth of your particular Doctrines that if you be mistaken about the Infallibility of your Church you must be miserably mistaken about every thing else which you have no other evidence for But now we are in general assured that the Scriptures are the Word of God and in particular are assured that the Faith which we profess is agreeable to Scripture or expresly contained in it and does not contradict either Sence or Reason nor any other Principle of Knowledge So that we have as much assurance of every Article of our Faith as you have of the Infallibility of your Church and therefore have at least double and trible the assurance that you have But if you know the Reasons of your Conversion I desire to know of you What made you think that you wanted Certainty in the Church of England Conv. Because with you every man is left to his own private Reason and Judgment the effects of which are very visible in that infinite variety of Sects among you which shews what an uncertain thing your Reason is that so few judge alike of the power and validity of the same Reasons Prot. And were you not sensible at the same time that you were left to your own Reason and Judgment when you turned Papist Are you not sensible that men do as little agree about your Reasons for Infallibility as they do about any Protestant Reasons Do not I know the Reasons alledged by you for the Infallibility of your Church as well as you do And do we not still differ about them And is not this as much an Argument of the uncertainty of those Reasons which make you a Papist that they cannot make me a Papist as the dissent of Protestants in other matters is of the uncertainty of their Reasons Could you indeed be infallibly assured of the Infallibility of your Church I grant you would have the advantage of us but while you found your belief of Infallibility upon such an uncertain Principle as you think Reason is if certainty had been your onely aim you might as well have continued in the Church of England as have gone over to Rome This abundantly shews what a ridiculous thing it is for a Protestant to be disputed out of his Church and Religion upon a pretence of more infallible certainty in the Church of Rome Were they indeed inspired with an infallible assurance that the Church of Rome is Infallible there might be some pretence for this but an Infallibility which has no better foundation than mens private Reason and private Judgment is no Infallibility but has all the same uncertainties which they charge on the Protestant Faith and a great deal more because it is not founded upon such great and certain Reasons The plain truth is men may be taught from their Infancy to believe the Church Infallible and when they are grown up may take it without examination for a first and self-evident Principle and think this an infallible Faith but men who understand the difference between the evidence of Reason and Infallibility can never found an infallible Faith on Reason nor think that a man who is reasoned into the belief of the Infallibility of the Church is more infallible in his Faith than a Protestant is And such a man will see no reason to quit the Church of England for the sake of an infallible Faith for though they had an infallible Guide yet Reason cannot give them an infallible assurance of it but can rise no higher at most than a Protestant certainty 2. It is impossible also by Reason to prove that men must not use their own Reason and Judgment in matters of Religion If any man should attempt to perswade you of this ask him Why then he goes about to dispute with you about Religion whether men can dispute without using their own Reason and Judgment whether they can be convinced without it whether his offering to dispute with you against the use of your Reason does not prove him ridiculous and absurd For if you must not use your Reason why does he appeal to your Reason And whether you should not be as ridiculous and absurd as he if by his Reasons and Arguments you should be perswaded to condemn the use of Reason in Religion Which would be in the same act to do what you condemn to use your Reason when you condemn it If you must not use your Reason and private Judgment then you must not by any Reasons be perswaded to condemn the use of Reason for to condemn is an act of Judgment which you must not use in matters of Religion So that this is a point which no man can dispute against and which no man can be convinced of by disputing without the reproach of self-contradiction This is an honourable way of silencing these troublesome and clamorous Disputants to let them see that their Principles will not allow of Disputing and that some of their Fundamental Doctrines which they impose upon the World are a direct contradiction to all Disputes for the very admitting of a Dispute confutes them and the meanest man may quickly say more in this Cause than their greatest Disputants can answer CHAP. II. Concerning the several Topicks of Dispute SECT I. Concerning Arguments from Reason 2. THe next Direction relates to the Topicks from which they Dispute which are either Reason Scripture or the Authority of the ancient Fathers and Writers of the Christian Church for the infallible Authority of Popes or General Councils is the thing
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
does this prove the Bishop of Rome's Infallibility Just as St. Peter's Primacy proves the Pope to be the Oecumenical Primate They themselves must grant that an infallible Apostle may have a fallible Bishop for his Successor or else they must either deny that the rest of the Apostles as well as St. Peter were infallible or they must grant that all the Apostles Successors that is all the Bishops who succeeded any of the Apostles in their Sees must be as infallible as the Bishops of Rome who succeeded St. Peter and then there will be so much Infallibility that it will be worth nothing If then there be not a natural and necessary entail of Infallibility upon the Successors of infallible Apostles they must shew us an express Institution which makes the Successors of Peter at Rome infallible And let our Protestant demand this before he owns the Infallibility of the Pope of Rome and then I believe they will not think him worth Converting Thus as for those who place Infallibility in a General Council demand a Scripture-proof of it that they would produce the General Council's Charter for Infallibility This they can't do but they say the Church is infallible and the General Council is the Church Representative and therefore a General Council must be infallible too So that here are several things for them to prove and to prove by Scripture too for there is no other way of proving them before they can prove the Infallibility of General Councils As 1. That the Church is infallible 2. That a General Council is the Church Representative 3. That the Church Representative is that Church to which the promise of Infallibility is made And then they might conclude that a General Council as being the Church Representative is infallible Now instead of proving every particular of this by Scripture as they must do if they will prove by Scripture that General Councils are infallible they pretend to prove no more than the first of the three that the Church is infallible and that very lamely too as may appear more hereafter and then they take all the rest for granted without any proof which is just as if a man who in order to prove his Title to an Estate is required to prove that this Estate did anciently belong to his Family that it was entailed upon the Heir Male that this entail was never cut off nor the Estate legally alienated and that he alone is the true surviving Heir should think it enough to prove onely the first of these that the Estate did anciently belong to his Family which it might have done and yet not belong to it now or if it did still belong to it he may not be the true Heir Thus if we consider what it is they teach about Purgatory we shall quickly perceive how little it is they pretend to prove of it they tell us that there is a Purgatory-fire after this life where men undergo the punishment of their Sins when the fault is pardoned that the Church has power out of her stock of Merits which consists of the supererogating Works of great and eminent Saints to grant Pardons and Indulgencies to men while they live to deliver them from several thousand Years punishment which is due to their Sins in Purgatory that the Souls in Purgatory may be released out of it by the Prayers and Alms and Masses of the living which is the very life and soul of this Doctrine of Purgatory Now of all this they pretend to prove no more from Scripture but that there is a Purgatory-fire after this Life and how they prove it you have already heard But that either Penances or Pilgrimages and other extraordinary Acts of Devotion while we live or the Pope's Pardons and Indulgencies can either remit or shorten the pains of Purgatory or that the Prayers and Alms of our living Friends or Masses said for us by mercenary Priests can deliver us out of Purgatory which we are principally concerned to know and without which Purgatory will not enrich the Priests nor the Church this they never attempt that I know of to prove by Scripture whether there be a Purgatory or not in it self considered is a meer speculative point and of no value But could they prove that the Pope has the Keys of Purgatory and that Alms and Masses will deliver out of Purgatory this were worth knowing and is as well worth proving as any Doctrine of the Church of Rome for there is nothing they get more by But if you will not believe this till they produce a Scripture-proof of it you may let them dispute on about the place of Purgatory and keep your Money in your Pocket Thus it is in most other cases if you take their whole Doctrine together and demand a Proof of every part of it and not take a Proof of some little branch of it for a Proof of the whole you will quickly find that they will not be so fond of disputing as some of them now are 3. Another way our Roman Adversaries have of proving their Doctrines from Scripture is instead of plain and positive proofs to produce some very remote and inevident consequences from Scripture and if they can but hale a Text of Scripture into the premises whatever the conclusion be they call it a Scripture-proof There are infinite instances of this but I can only name some few Thus they prove the perpetual Infallibility of the Church because Christ promises his Disciples to be with them to the end of the world 28. Matth. 20. which promise cannot be confined to their persons for they were to die long before the end of the World and therefore must extend to their Successors Suppose that and does Christ's being with them necessarily signifie that he will make them Infallible Is not Christ with every particular Church with every particular Bishop nay with every particular good Christian and must they all be Infallible then Thus Christ promises that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against his Church Ergo the Church is Infallible for if Error and Heresie prevails against the Church the Gates of Hell prevail against it And I add if Sin and Wickedness prevail against the Church the Gates of Hell prevail against it Ergo the Church is Impeccable and cannot Sin which is to the full as good a consequence as the other And therefore the Gates of Hell prevailing can neither signifie the meer prevalency of Errors or Sin in the Church but such a prevalency as destroys the Church and this shall never be because Christ has promised it shall never be and it may never be though the Church be not Infallible and therefore this does not prove Infallibility Thus they prove there is such a place as Purgatory where Sins are forgiven and expiated because our Saviour says That the sin against the Holy Ghost shall neither be forgiven in this world nor in the world to come Matt. 12. 32. and therefore there are some
it agrees with the rest the Fathers many times contradict themselves and each other and if men differ about the sense of Scripture they differ much more about Fathers and Councils That it is a mighty Riddle that those who think ordinary Christians not fit to read the Scriptures should think it necessary for them to understand Fathers and Councils and yet they are ridiculous indeed to dispute with every Tradesman about Fathers and Councils if they do not think they ought to read and understand them The sum is such Protestants as are not skilled in Book-learning may very reasonably tell these men who urge them with the Authority of Councils and Fathers That they do not pretend to any skill in such matters and hope it is not required of them for if it be they are in an ill case the Holy Scriptures not Fathers and Councils is the Rule of their Faith if they had read the Fathers they should believe them no farther than what they taught was agreeable to Scripture and therefore whatever Opinions any of the Fathers had it is no concern of theirs to know if they can learn what the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles was without it learned men may dispute about these things and they have heard learned Protestants affirm that the Church of Rome can find none of her peculiar Doctrines in the Writings of any of the Fathers for the first three hundred Years and its certain if this be true all the later Fathers are of no Authority to establish any new Doctrine for there was no more Authority in the Church to bring in any new Doctrines after three hundred Years than there is at this day Unlearned men may very honourably reject all dispute about Fathers and Councils though learned men cannot and indeed need not for if they are not bound to read Fathers and Councils I think they are not bound to understand them nor to dispute about them and it is very unadviseably done when they do for it is past a Jest in so serious a matter though otherwise it were comical enough for men to be converted by Fathers and Councils without understanding them CHAP. III. How to Answer some of the most popular Pretences urged by Papists against Protestants SECT I. 1. Concerning the Vncertainty of the Protestant Faith. OUr Popish Adversaries of late have not so much disputed as fenced have neither down-right opposed the Protestant Faith nor vindicated their own but have betaken themselves to some tricks and amusements to divert and perplex the Dispute and to impose upon the ignorant and unwary One of their principal Arts has been to cry out of the Uncertainty of the Protestant Faith. This every body is nearly concerned in for there is nothing wherein certainty is so necessary and so much desired as in matters of Religion whereon our eternal State depends This has been often answered by Protestants and I do not intend to enter into the merits of the Cause and shew upon what a firm and sure bottom the Protestant Faith stands this is a Cavil easily enough exposed to the scorn and contempt of all considering men without so much trouble For 1. Suppose the Protestant Faith were uncertain How is the cause of the Church of Rome ever the better is this a sufficient reason to turn Papists because Protestants are uncertain does this prove the Church of Rome to be Infallible because the Church of England is Fallible must certainty necessarily be found among them because it is not to be found with us is Thomas an honest man because John is a Knave These are two distinct questions and must be distinctly proved If they can prove our Faith uncertain and their own certain there is reason then to go over to them but if they cannot do this they may it may be perswade men to renounce the Protestant Faith but not to embrace Popery Ask them then What greater assurance they have of their Faith than we have of ours If they tell you their Church is Infallible tell them that is another question and does not belong to this dispute For the Infallibility of their Church does not follow from the Uncertainty of our Faith if they can prove their Church Infallible whether they prove our Faith uncertain or not we will at any time change Protestant Certainty for Infallibility And if they could prove our Faith uncertain unless they could prove their own more certain though we bate them Infallibility we may cease to be Protestants but shall never turn Papists 2. Ask them What they mean by the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith For this may signifie two things either 1. That the Objects of our Faith are in themselves uncertain and cannot be proved by certain Reasons Or 2dly That our Perswasion about these matters is uncertain and wavering If they mean the first then the sense is that the Christian Religion is an uncertain thing and cannot be certainly proved for this is the whole Protestant Faith We believe the Apostles Creed and whatever is contained in the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles and this is all we believe And I hope they will not say these things are uncertain for then they renounce the Christian Religion and Infallibility it self cannot help them out for Infallibility cannot make that certain which is in it self uncertain an infallible man must know things as they are or else he is mistaken and ceases to be infallible and therefore what is certain he infallibly knows to be certain and what is uncertain he infallibly knows to be uncertain for the most certain and infallible knowledge does not change its Object but sees it just as it is And therefore they must allow the Objects of our Faith or the Protestant Faith as to the matter of it to be very certain and built upon certain reason or else their infallible Church can have no certainty of the Christian Faith. If they mean the second thing that we have no certain perswasion about what we profess to believe This is a great abuse to Protestants as if we were all Knaves and Hypocrites who do not heartily and firmly believe what we profess to believe and a Protestant who knows that he does very firmly and stedfastly believe his Religion ought to reject such a Villanous Accusation as this with indignation and scorn Indeed it is both impudent and silly for any man to tell a Protestant that his Faith is uncertain as that signifies an uncertain and doubtful Perswasion when he knows and feels the contrary and no body else can know this but himself In what Notion then is the Protestant Faith uncertain what can Faith signifie but either the Objects of Faith or the internal Assent and Perswasion The Objects of our Faith are certain if Christian Religion be so that is they have very certain Evidence our Assent and Perswasion is very certain as that is opposed to all doubtfulness and wavering And what certainty then is wanting to the
presumed to understand their own Religion the first Reformers who were all educated in Popery might be as well presumed to understand what Popery then was and therefore there can be no reason to suspect that they Mis-represented Popery out of Ignorance Nor is it more probable that they should Mis-represent Popery out of Interest and Design for if they were conscious to themselves that Popery was not so bad as they represent it to be why should they themselves have set up for Reformers and what hope could they have that at that time when Popery was so well known they should perswade the World to believe their Mis-representations Was it so desirable a thing for men to bring all the Powers of the Church and Court of Rome upon themselves meerly to gratifie a Mis-representing humour Do these men remember what our Reformers suffered for opposing Popery the loss of their Estates their Liberties their Lives all the Vengeance of a blind and enraged Zeal And did they undergo all this with such constancy and Christian patience only for the sake of telling Lyes and raising scandalous Reports of the Church of Rome We think it a very good Argument that the Apostles and first Preachers of Christianity were very honest men and had no design to cheat the World because they served no worldly Interest by it but chearfully exposed themselves to all manner of Sufferings in Preaching the Gospel and why does not the same Argument prove our first Reformers to be honest men and then they could not be wilful Mis-representers Nay if we will but allow them to have been cunning men and it is evident they did not want wit they would never have undertaken so hopeless a design as to run down Popery meerly by Mis-representing it when had their Exceptions against Popery been onely Mis-representations of their own all the World could have confuted them had the first Reformers been onely Mis-representers can we think that they could have imposed upon such vast numbers of Men Learned and Unlearned who knew and saw what Popery was They were no Fools themselves and therefore could not hope to impose such a Cheat upon the World. 2. Ask them again How old this Complaint is of Protestant Mis-representations of Popery how long it has been discovered that Popery has been thus Abused and Mis-represented were the first Reformers charged with these Mis-representations by their Adversaries in those days did they deny that they gave Religious Worship to Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary to Images and Reliques did they cry out of Mis-representations when they were charged with such Doctrines and Practices as these or did they defend them and endeavour to answer those Arguments which the Reformers brought against them And yet methinks if Popery had been so grosly Mis-represented by the Reformers this would as soon have been discovered by the Learned Papists of those days as by our late Representer but it is most likely they did not then think Popery so much Mis-represented for if they had they would certainly have complained of it So that the high improbability of the thing is a sufficient Reason to Unlearned Protestants to reject this Charge of Protestant Mis-representations of Popery as nothing else but a Popish Calumny against Protestants and to conclude that if Popery be Mis-represented now it is onely by themselves and that is the very truth of the Case Secondly Let us consider this Charge of Mis-representations in the Consequences of it It would a little puzzle a man to guess what service they intend to do the Church of Rome by it For 1. By complaining of such Mis-representations of Popery they plainly confess that those Doctrines and Practices which we charge the Church of Rome with are very bad and fit to be rejected and abhorred of all Christians This the Representer himself confesses and is very Copious and Rhetorical upon it Now this is of mighty dangerous consequence for if it appears that we have not Mis-represented them that the Doctrines and Practices we charge them with are truly the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome then by their own confession Popery is a very bad Religion and to be rejected by Christians Then there was a very just reason for our Separation from the Church of Rome and we are no longer either Schismaticks or Hereticks and if the Cause be put upon this Issue we need desire no better Vindication of the Church of England for if they cannot prove us Hereticks or Schismaticks till they can prove us Mis-representers I believe we are pretty secure for this Age. 2. These men who complain so much of Mis-representing endeavour to make the Doctrines of the Church of Rome look as like Protestant Doctrines as possibly they can as if there were little or no difference between them Now methinks this is no great reason for a Protestant to turn Papist that the Popish Faith is so much the better the nearer it comes to the Protestant Faith. The truth is the chief Mystery in this late Trade of Representing and Mis-representing is no more but this to joyn a Protestant Faith with Popish Practices to believe as Protestants do and to do as Papists do As to give some few instances of this in the Papist Mis-represented and Represented The Papist Represented believes it damnable to Worship Stocks and Stones for Gods to Pray to Pictures or Images of Christ the Virgin Mary or any other Saints This is good Protestant Doctrine but then this Papist says his Prayers before an Image Kneels and Bows before it and pays all external Acts of Adoration to Christ and the Saints as represented by their Images though it is not properly the Image he honours but Christ and his Saints by the Images Which is down-right Popery in Practice Thus he believes it is a most damnable Idolatry to make Gods of men either living or dead Which is the Protestant Faith but yet he prays to Saints and beggs their Intercession without believing them to be Gods or his Redeemers which is Popery in Practice He believes it damnable to think the Virgin Mary more powerful in Heaven than Christ. Which is Protestant Doctrine but yet he prays to Her ostner than either to God or Christ says ten Ave-Maries for one Pater Noster which is a Popish Devotion He believes it unlawful to commit Idolatry and most damnable to Worship any Breaden God. Which is spoke like a Protestant but yet he pays Divine Adoration to the Sacrament which is done like a Papist And thus in most of those thirty seven Particulars of the double Characters of a Papist Mis-represented his great Art is to Reconcile a Protestant Faith with Popish Practices So that this new way of Representing Popery is no reason to a Protestant to alter his Faith because it seems they believe in many things just as we do but I think it is a very great reason for a Papist to alter his Practice because a Protestant Faith and
Sinners which are much weakned by some Popish Doctrines 2. THe Gospel of Christ was intended to give the highest demonstration of God's Love to Mankind and the greatest possible Security to all humble penitent Sinners of the Forgiveness of their Sins Hence the Gospel is called the Grace of God and the Gospel of Grace as being a Dispensation of Love and Goodness and therefore whatever lessens and disparages the Gospel-Grace can be no Gospel-Doctrine As to consider this particularly The Gospel magnifies the Grace of God in giving his own Son for us God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life 3 John 16. In this was manifested the love of God towards us because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him Herein is love not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins 1 John 4.9 10. And St. Paul assures us that this is such a glorious manifestation of God's love as will not suffer us to doubt of any other expressions of his Goodness He that spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all how shall he not with him also freely give us all things 8 Rom. 32. So that the Gospel of our Saviour gives us much higher demonstrations of God's love and goodness than either the Light of Nature or the Law of Moses did Love is the prevailing Attribute of God under the Gospel-dispensation For God is love and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God and God in him 1 John 4.16 Thus the Gospel of Christ gives a humble Penitent as great assurance of Pardon as his own guilty Fears can desire for Repentance and Remission of Sins is preached in the Name of Christ He has expiated our Sins by the Sacrifice of his Death God commendeth his love towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us much more then being justified by his bloud we shall be saved from wrath through him for if when we were enemies we were reconciled unto God by the death of his Son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life 5 Rom. 8 9 10. For as he was delivered for our Offences so he was raised again for our Justification And him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance unto Israel and remission of sins So that if any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous who is able to save all them to the uttermost that come unto God by him seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them 7 Heb. 25. These are the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity and therefore nothing can be a Gospel-Doctrine which weakeâ—s or overthrows them Let us then examine the Popish Doctrine of Purgatory and the Invocation of Saints and Angels as our Mediators with God and see how they are reconcileable with the Gospel-notion of God's love and that security it gives us of Pardon through the Merits and Intercession of Christ. 1. Let us consider the Doctrine of Purgatory which is but the outward Court or Region of Hell where the Punishments are as severe as in Hell itself only of a less continuance and yet as short as they are they may last many hundred nay thousand Years unless their Friends and the Priests be more merciful to them or they themselves have taken care before Death to pay the Price of their Redemption This is a barbarous Doctrine and so inconsistent with that mighty Love of God to penitent Sinners as it is represented in the Gospel of Christ that it is not reconcileable with any notion of Love and Goodness at all you may call it Justice you may call it Vengeance if you please but Love it is not or if it be it is such a Love as no man can distinguish from Hatred for my part I declare I do not desire to be thus loved I should rather chuse to fall into nothing when I die than to endure a thousand Years torments to be happy for ever for Humane Nature cannot bear the Thoughts of that And is this that wonderful Love of God to Sinners which is so magnified in the Gospel to torment those who are Redeemed by the Bloud of Christ some hundred or thousand Years in the Fire of Purgatory which is not cooler than the Fire of Hell The Light of Nature I confess never taught this for Mankind never had any Notion of such an outragious Love they always thought that the Love of God consisted in doing good not in damning those whom he loves for so many Ages And if this be all the Discovery the Gospel has made of the Love of God we have no great reason to glory in it He who can believe that God who so loved the World as to give his only begotten Son for the Redemption of Sinners will torment a penitent Sinner so many Years in Purgatory till he has either endured the punishment of his Sins himself or is released by the Charity of his Friends or the Masses of some Mercenary Priests deserves to lie in Purgatory till he thinks more honourably of the divine goodness and be convinced that it is no such extravagant commendation of the love of God to send penitent Sinners to Purgatory There are two extravagant Notions whereon the Doctrine of Purgatory is founded which overthrow all the natural Notions men have of Goodness and destroy all the hope and confidence of the most penitent Sinners in the goodness of God. As 1. That God may forgive Sins and yet punish us for them for no man can go into Purgatory according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome whose Sins are not already forgiven but though his Sins are forgiven he must make satisfaction for that temporal punishment which is due to them either in this World or in Purgatory Now how reconcilable these two are to forgive and to punish let all mankind judge I believe very few men think they are forgiven when they are punished for that which all men desire should be forgiven them is the punishment they have deserv'd What is it men are afraid of when they have sinned is it not that they shall be punished for it What is it men desire when they desire Pardon is it not that they may not be punished And is it any comfort to a Malefactor to be pardoned and to be hanged Does any man boast of his love and kindness or take any comfort in it who freely forgives him but exacts the payment of the Debt or the punishment of his fault And if this be so contrary to the very notion of goodness and forgiveness among men how comes it to be the notion of goodness and forgiveness in God How comes that to be love and goodness which the Sinner receives no benefit by for love and goodness I think signifies
possession of it by his or her Reliques This I confess is not Judaism for under the Jewish Law all Holiness of things or places was derived from their relation to God now the Names and Reliques and wonder-working Images of Saints and the Blessed Virgin give the most peculiar and celebrated Holiness and whether this be not at least to ascribe such a Divinity to them as the Pagans did to their Deified Men and Women to whom they erected Temples and Altars let any impartial Reader judge Those must have a good share of Divinity who can give Holiness to any thing else But since they must have Holy Places and something to answer the Jewish Superstition who cried The Temple of the LORD the Temple of the LORD I cannot blame them for making choice of Saints to inhabitate their Churches and sanctifie them with their presence since under the Gospel God is no more present in one place than in another He dwelt indeed in the Temple of Jerusalem by Types and Figures but that was but a Type of God's dwelling in Humane Nature the Body of Christ was the true Temple as he told the Jews Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up which he spake of the Temple of his Body And now Christ is ascended into Heaven there is no Temple on Earth and therefore if they will have Temples they must have the Temples of Saints for the Presence of God is now no more confined to a House than his Providence is to the Land of Judaea as it was in a very peculiar manner while the Temple stood there God dwells not on Earth now as he did among the Jews but his Presence viz. our Lord Jesus Christ is removed into Heaven and therefore he has no House on Earth to answer to the Jewish Temple as the Ancient Fathers asserted that the Christians had neither Temples nor Altars The Christian Church indeed is a holy and living Temple wherein the Holy Spirit dwells but that is built not with Stones or Brick but of living Saints and therefore the Holiness of Places and Altars and Garments c. which makes up so great a part of the Roman Religion is a manifest Corruption of the Simplicity of the Christian Worship The Jewish Temple made that Worship most acceptable to God which was offered there because it was a Type of Christ and signified the acceptance of all our Prayers and Religious Services as offered up to God only in the Name of Christ but to think that any place is so Holy now that the bare visiting it or praying in it should bestow a greater holiness upon us and all we do should expiate our Sins or merit a Reward is no better than Jewish or Pagan Superstition 4 hly That the Church of Rome does attribute Divine Virtues and Powers to senseless and inanimate Things is so evident from that great Veneration they pay to the Reliques and those great Vertues they ascribe to them from their Consecrations of their Agnus Dei their Wax-candles Oyl Bells Crosses Images Ashes Holy-water for the Health of Soul and Body to drive away evil Spirits to allay Storms to heal Diseases to pardon Venial and sometimes Mortal Sins meerly by kissing or touching them carrying them in their hands wearing them about their necks c. that no man can doubt of it who can believe his own eyes and read their Offices and see what the daily Practice of their Church is Whoever has a mind to be satisfied about it needs only read Dr. Brevint's Saul and Samuel at Endor Chap. 15. These things look more like Charms than Christian Worship and are a great Profanation of the Divine Grace and Spirit indeed they argue that such men do not understand what Grace and Sanctification means who think that little Images of Wax that Candles that Oyl that Water and Salt that Bells that Crosses can be sanctified by the Spirit of God and convey Grace and Sanctification by the sight or sound or touch or such external applications Christ has given his Holy Spirit to dwell in us which works immediately upon our minds and rational powers and requires our concurrence to make his Grace effectual to cleanse and purifie our Souls and to transform us into the Divine Image the grace of the Spirit is to enlighten our Minds to change our Wills to govern and regulate our Passions to instruct to perswade to admonish to awaken our Consciences to imprint and fix good thoughts in us to inspire us with holy desires with great hopes with divine consolations which may set us above the fears of the World and the allurements of it and give greater fervour to our Devotions greater strength to our Resolutions greater courage and constancy in serving God than the bare powers of Reason tho' enforced with supernatural Motives could do This is all the Sanctification the Gospel knows and he who thinks that inanimate Things are capable of this Sanctification of the Spirit or can convey such Sanctification to us by some Divine and Invisible Effluviums of Grace may as well lodge Reason and Understanding and Will and Passions in senseless matter and receive it from them again by a kiss or touch To be sure men who know what the Sanctification of the Spirit means must despise such Fooleries as these 5 ly That all this encourages men to trust in an External Righteousness is too plain to need a proof and therefore I shall not need to insist long on it For 1. such External Rites are naturally apt to degenerate into Superstition especially when they are very numerous The Jewish Ceremonies themselves their Circumcision Sacrifices Washings Purifications Temple Altars New Moons and Sabbaths and other Festival Solemnities were the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees and a cloak for their Hypocrisie and great Immoralities though they were never intended by God for the justification of a Sinner For such External Rites are so much easier to carnal men than to subdue their Lusts and live a holy and vertuous Life that they are willing to abound in such External Observances and hope that these will make Expiation for their other Sins and therefore when the Typical use of these Ceremonies was fulfilled by Christ the External Rites were Abrogated that men might no longer place any hope or confidence in any thing which is meerly External And therefore that Church which fills up Religion with External Rites and Ceremonies were there no other hurt in it laies a Snare for Mens Souls and tempts them to put their trust in an External Righteousness without any regard to the Internal Purity of Heart and Mind Especially 2. when such External Rites are recommended as very acceptable to God as satisfactions for our Sins and meritorious of great rewards and this is the use they serve in the Church of Rome as you have already heard They assert the necessity of Humane Satisfactions And what are these satisfactory Works wherewith men must expiate their
his Son for he owns himself our Father in no other Name and if he will hear our Prayers and answer our humble Petitions only as a Father then he will hear only those Prayers which are made to him in the Name of his Son How great Favourites soever the Blessed Virgin and other Saints may be if God hear Prayers only as a Father it is to no purpose to pray to God in their Names for he hears us not 3. To Worship God as a Father signifies to pray to him with the humble assurance and confidence of Children This is the spirit of adoption whereby we cry Abba Father For because ye are sons God hath sent forth the spirit of his Son into your hearts crying Abba Father A dutiful Son does not question his Father's good will to him nor readiness to hear and answer all his just requests he depends upon the kindness of his Father and his interest and relation to him and seeks for no other Friends and Favourites to recommend him And upon this account also the Invocation of Saints is a contradiction to the Gospel-Spirit of Prayer to that Spirit of Adoption which teaches us to cry Abba Father for surely those have not the hope and assurance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Children who dare not go to their Father themselves but must send their Petitions to him by the hands of Favourites and Intercessors To pray to God in the Name of Christ is onely to pray to him as Sons for it is in his Name only that he owns us for Sons and this is the true Spirit of Adoption in the Name and Mediation of Christ to go to God as Children to a Father but to pray to him in any other Name how powerful soever is not to go to him as a Father but as to our Lord and King who must be Addressed to by the Mediation of some great Favourites To pray to God in any other Name which does not make us his Sons is to distrust our Relation to him as our Father in Christ and this is contrary to the Spirit of Adoption which teaches us to call God Father and gives us that assurance of his Fatherly goodness to us in Christ that we need and desire no other Advocates Thirdly To Worship God in Spirit is to Worship him with our Mind and Spirit for that is most agreeable to the Nature of God who is a Spirit God cannot be Worshipped but by a reasonable Creature and yet a Beast may Worship God as well as a Man who Worships without any act of Reason and Understanding or devout Affections To pray to God without knowing what we say when neither our Understandings nor Affections can joyn in our Prayers is so absurd a Worship of a pure Mind that Transubstantiation it self is not more contrary to Sense than Prayers in an unknown Tongue are to the Essential Reason and Nature of Worship I suppose no man will say that to pray to God or praise him in words which we do not understand is to Worship God in Spirit unless he thinks that a Parrot may be taught to pray in the Spirit What difference is there between a man 's not speaking and speaking what he does not understand Just so much difference there is between not praying and praying what we do not understand and he honours God to the full as much who does not pray at all as he who prays he knows not what and I am sure he affronts him a great deal less However if Christian Worship be to worship God in Spirit Prayers in an unknown Tongue in which the Mind and Spirit cannot be concerned is no Christian Worship SECT IV. Concerning the Reformation and Improvement of Humane Nature by the Gospel of CHRIST 4. ANother principal end and intention of the Gospel was to cure the Degeneracy of Mankind and to advance Humane Nature to its utmost Perfection for as Man fell from his original Happiness by falling from the purity and integrity of his Nature so there was no restoring him to his lost Happiness much less no advancing him to a more perfect state of Happiness not to an earthly but to an heavenly Paradise without changing and transforming his Nature and renewing him after the Image of God. And therefore our very entrance into Christianity is a new Birth Except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit And such a man is called a new Creature and a Christian Life is a newness of Life and living after the Spirit and walking after the Spirit and this new Nature is the Divine Nature the Image of God the new man which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness which is renewed in knowledge after the Image of him that created him So that there are two things wherein this new Nature consists Knowledge and Righteousness or true Holiness and I doubt it will appear that the Church of Rome is no great Friend to either I. Knowledge Now I suppose neither the Church of Rome nor any one for her will pretend that she is any great Friend to Knowledge She is so horribly afraid of Heresie that she endeavours to nurse men up in Ignorance of their Religion for fear they should prove Hereticks and indeed she has some reason for it for the Church of Rome was never so Triumphant as in the most ignorant and barbarous Ages but as Knowledge broke in upon the World so men turned Hereticks apace If there be any knowing Papists and it would be very hard if there should be none they are not beholding to their Church for it which deprives them of all the means of Knowledge for she will not allow them to believe their Senses which is one way of knowing things and the most certain we have and yet she commands us to believe Transubstantiation which no man can do who believes his Senses and if I must not believe my Senses in so plain a matter as what is Bread and Wine I know no reason I have to believe them in any thing and then there is an end of all Knowledge that depends on Sense as the proof of the Christian Religion itself does for Miracles are a sensible proof and if I must not trust my Senses I cannot rely on Miracles because I cannot know whether there be any such thing as a real Miracle The Church of Rome also forbids men the use of Reason in matters of Religion will not allow men to judge for themselves nor to examine the Reasons of their Faith and what knowledge any man can have without exercising his Reason and Understanding I cannot guess for to know without understanding sounds to me like a contradiction She also denies Christians the use of the Bible which is the only means to know the revealed Will of God and when men
the Souls in Purgatory and that is for the temporal punishment of sin for which the Sacrifice of the Cross is no Expiation and the Mass is in no other sence made a Sacrifice for the living than for the dead and therefore is not to expiate the eternal but the temporal punishments of sin as appears from hence that the saying Masses or hearing Masses or purchasing Masses is reckoned among those Penances men must do for the Expiation of their sins and yet they can by all they do only expiate for the temporal punishment of sin and therefore Masses for the living are only for the Expiation of those temporal punishments of sin for which the Sacrifice of the Cross made no Expiation And I shall be so civil at present as not to inquire how the Sacrifice of the Cross and the Sacrifice of the Mass which are the very same Sacrifice of the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ come to serve such very different ends that when Christ was Sacrificed upon the Cross he expiated only for the eternal punishment of sin when Sacrificed in the Mass only for the temporal I need add nothing to prove that Humane Penances Satisfactions Merits Indulgencies are onely to expiate temporal punishment of sin because it is universally acknowledged Now if these temporal punishments be only in lieu of Holiness and Obedience which the Gospel requires to intitle us to the Expiation of Christ's Death upon the Cross as I have already shewn then it is evident to a demonstration that the Church of Rome has overthrown the Death and Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross consider'd as an argument of a holy life by setting up the Sacrifice of the Mass Humane Penances Satisfactions Merits Indulgencies instead of the Gospel-terms of obedience and holiness of life 4. The Intercession of Christ for us at the right hand of God is another powerful motive to Holiness of Life It gives all the encouragement to true penitent Sinners that can be desired For if any man sin we have an advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous who is also a propitiation for our sins But then Christ mediates only in vertue of his Bloud that is only upon the terms and conditions of the Covenant of Grace which was sealed by his Bloud that is he mediates and intercedes only for true penitent sinners which obliges us as we hope to be heard by God when we pray in the Name of Christ truly and heartily to repent of all our sins and to live a new life This the Church of Rome also seems very sensible of that Christ of his own accord will not intercede for impenitent and unreformed sinners that he who is the great Example and the great Preacher of Righteousness will not espouse the Cause of incorrigible sinners who are very desirous of pardon but hate to be reformed and therefore they seem to think it as hopeless a thing to go immediately to a holy Jesus as to appear before the Tribunal of a just and righteous God without a powerful Advocate For this reason they have found out a great many other Advocates and Mediators a great deal more pitiful and compassionate than Christ is who by their interest in him or their great favour with God may obtain that pardon which otherwise they could not hope for such as the Virgin Mary who is the Mother of Christ and therefore as they presume has as great interest in and authority over him as a Mother has over her Son besides those vast numbers of meritorious Saints whose Intercessions cannot but prevail for those sinners whose Cause they undertake And that this is the true reason of their Addresses to Saints and the Virgin Mary though they will not speak out is evident to any considering man For will they say that Christ who became man for us who suffered and died for us who was in all things tempted like as we are yet without sin who did and suffered all this on purpose that he might be a merciful and compassionate High Priest and might give us the highest assurance of his tenderness and compassion for us I say can they suspect that such a High Priest will not undertake to plead our Cause if we be such as according to the terms of the Gospel it is his Office to interceed for No Christian dare say this which is such a reproach to our common Saviour who hath bought us with his own Bloud and therefore no Christian who thinks himself within the reach and compass of Christ's Intercession can need or desire any other Advocate but those who are conscious to themselves of so much wickedness that they cannot hope the holy Jesus will intercede for them for their own sakes have reason to procure some other Favourites to intercede for them with their Intercessor and to countenance the matter they must recommend it to the practice of all Christians and more than so make it Heresie to deny it There is but one Argument I know of against this that any man should be so stupid as to think that the Intercession of the Virgin Mary or the most powerful Saints can prevail with our Saviour to do that which according to the Laws of his own Mediation they know he cannot and will not do and this I confess I cannot answer but yet so it is And thus the Intercession of Christ is made a very ineffectual Argument to make men good for though Christ will intercede for none but true Penitents the Church of Rome has a great many other Advocates that will or at least she perswades people that they will. 5. Another great Gospel-Motive to a holy life is the hope of Heaven and the fear of Hell. As for the hope of Heaven that is no otherwise a Motive to holiness of life but upon a supposition of the necessity of Holiness that without holiness no man shall see God but this you have already heard is overthrown by the Church of Rome and if men may go to Heaven without holiness I know no need of it for that purpose in this World. But Hell is a very terrible thing to be condemned to endless and eternal torments with the Devil and his Angels but then the Doctrine of Purgatory does mightily abate and take off this terror for though Purgatory be a terrible place too not cooler than Hell it self yet it is not eternal and men who are mightily in love with their sins will venture temporal punishments though somewhat of the longest to enjoy their present satisfactions especially considering how many easie ways there are for rich men to get out of Purgatory those who have money enough to buy Indulgences while they live and Masses for their Souls when they die need not lie long there if the Priests are not out in their reckoning and yet it is so easie a thing for a good Catholick to get into Purgatory especially if he take care frequently to confess himself and receive absolution or do