Reason or to Judge for my self It does not make void the use of Common Sense and Reason when it should lead us to submit to any just Authority but to submit to such an unjust Authority makes void the use of Common Sense and Reason because he will not allow us to use our Reason The Iews had no Reason as he pretends to reject St. Paul's Disputation till he had renounced Infallibility because he never urged his own Infallibility as the sole Reason of their Faith and to debar them from a liberty of Judging as the Church of Rome does if he had it had been as vain a thing for the Iews to have Disputed with St. Paul as it is for Protestants to Dispute with Papists His next Exception is against those Words Pres. p. 6. What difference is there betwxit mens using their private Iudgments to turn Papists or to turn Protestants To this he answers The same as betwixt two sick men the one whereof chooses to put himself in an able Doctors hands whom he knows to have an infallible Remedy which none but Mountebanks ever had yet whilst the other chooses his own Simples and makes his own Medicines The case is this I was giving a reason why Papists who have any modesty should not dispute with Protestants because it is an appeal to every man's private judgment if ever they make Converts they must be beholden to every man's private judgment 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 private judgments it is as great a fault in a Papist as it is in a Protestant So that all that I said is that there is no difâ—erence with respect to mens using their private judgment whether they use their private judgment to turn Papists or to turn Protestants for both is but private judgment and to confute this he tells us that there is a great difference between turning Papist and turning Protestant which I granted there was but is nothing to the present Argument I say there is no difference as to the principle or cause of their change when the change of both is owing to private judgment and he learnedly proves that the change itself is different as widely different as Papist and Protestant differ But though the Footman had plainly told him this the Jesuite had not wit to understand it and therefore Preservative Consid. p. 11. adds is there no difference then betwixt one who follows his fancy in chusing his way and him who chuses a good guide and follows him because they both chuse do both equally rely on their fancy I grant there is a difference between these two as there is between a Protestant and a Papist but when the dispute is whether they shall follow their own reason and judgment or give up themselves to follow a Guide with a blind and implicite faith and every man must determine this by his own private judgment which is the case I proposed which way so ever they determine this question whether to follow their own reason or to follow a Guide in this point they both equally rely on their own private reason and judgment or as he calls it fancy In the next place he says I take the Catholicks part and tho' faintly yet speak well in so clear a cause The intention of those Disputes is only 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 This I do alledge as the most plausible pretence to justifie Papists in disputing with Protestants that the end of it is to lead us to an infallible Church That our own judgment must bring us to the infallible Guide but when we have found him we have no farther use for our own judgment I offered two Answers to this neither of which he durst meddle with but nibbles at a Passage in each The 1. he thus represents they cannot with any sense dispute with us about the particular Articles of Faith because the sense given of Scripture and Fathers takes its Authority from the Church understanding it so But my Answer was this That if Disputes be only to lead us to the infallible Church then 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 Iudge but they cannot with any sense dispute with us about the particular Articles of Faith such as Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass c. for these are to be learnt only from the Church and cannot be proved by Scripture or Fathers without the Authority of the Church Which is a demonstration if Faith must be resolved into the infallible Authority of the Church for then no Arguments are a sufficient foundation for Faith without the Authority of the Church or if they be there is no necessity of resolving our Faith into Church Authority because we have a good foundation for Faith without it He answers This is false The sense of Scripture takes its authority from God who spoke that Word though we are certain that we have the true sense of that Word because we receive it from the Church which is protected and guided in delivering us both the letter and sense by the infallible Spirit of God that is to abide with her for ever according to Christ's promise John 14.16 This is a choice Paragraph The Question between us is Whether they can by Scripture convince a man who does not yet believe the infallible Authority of the Church as we Protestants do not that their Doctrines of Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass the Worship of Images c. are true Gospel-Doctrines This I say they cannot if they be true to their own Doctrine that we cannot be certain what the true sense of Scripture is without the infallible Authority of the Church of Rome For a man cannot be convinced by Scripture till he be sure what the true sense of Scripture is and if we cannot be sure of this without relying on the Authority of the Church in expounding Scripture then a Protestant who disowns such an Authority can never be sure what the true sense of Scripture is and therefore cannot be convinced by Scripture-Proofs which shews how absurd it is for a Papist who professes to believe all this to attempt to perswade a Protestant who rejects the Authority of their Church of the truth of Popish Doctrines from Scripture either he thinks these Doctrines so plainly contained in
by the Church representative so that it is evident after the explanation that it is the same Faith still I say every Protestant will acknowledge that this Faith is infallibly true for we believe the Faith delivered by the Apostles to be infallibly true and if it appears that the same Faith is still taught by the Church whether in or out of Council it matters not it must be infallibly true still But yet there is a little difference between us and the Jesuit He believes and would have us believe that the present Faith of the Church of Rome viz. the Doctrine of the Council of Trent is that Faith which was received from the Apostles preserved in all the Members of the Catholick Church and only explained upon occasion by the Council of Trent which was the Church representative this we deny this we know this we can and often have proved to be false And I beseech you what greater infallibility can any Church pretend to than to have the World receive all her Decrees as infallibly true But they do not pretend that either thâ— whole Church or any person or persons in it are held to possess any intrinsick Infallibility which they own to be proper to God alone Thank 'em for nothing they do not believe that the Church or Pope or Council are by nature infallible for all the World would laugh at them if they did We do not say as he adds that they cannot of themselves deceive us but that God according to his Promise directing them by his infallible Spirit it cannot possibly happen that they should deceive us The Modesty of a Jesuit who claims no more Infallibility for the Pope and General Council than the Apostles had and wonders any man should grudge them this since they do not pretend to an intrinsick Infallibility not to be infallible by Nature but only by Grace Thus he adds that they do not preâ—end to new Revelations and Lights nor admit any new Article of Faith though where a doubt arises the Church-hath infallibly power to declare what hath been revealed by Christ to the Apostles and preached by them which perhaps some part of the Church might have had a less clear understanding thereof but this is done not by making any new Article of Faith but more clearly delivering what was ever believed by the Apostles and all Catholicks from their time to this That is to say what ever the Church determines though the Christian Church in former ages knew nothing of it yet it must not be called a new Article of Faith but a declaring what had been revealed by Christ to his Apostles and preached by them though the world had long since forgot it whatever the Church determines to day we must believe to have been the Faith of the Apostolick Age though there are no other evidences nor symptomes of it but because the Church which is infallible says so And this is all the Infallibility the Church pretends too a very small matter to be denied her by Christians it is only to believe whatever she says without disputing or examining her Faith nay to believe that to be the old Faith which the most authentick Records of the Church prove to be new I have thus stept out of my way to see what fine thing he had to say of the Churches Infallibility which he promised a very favourable representation of but it is all the old cant still a little disguised by some ignorant blunders or artificial Non-sense as for his proofs of this Infallibility I am not concerned with them at present and after so many discourses on that Argument they need no answer Another Argument whereby I proved that no man can be disputed into Popery which denies us the use of our own Reason and Judgment in matters of Religion was this Because it is impossible by Reason to prove that men must not use their own Reason and Iudgment in matters of Religion For to dispute is to appeal to Reason and to dispute against the use of Reason in Religion is to appeal to Reason against the use of Reason in Answer to this he tells us That men must use their Reason to come to this knowledge that God hath revealed what they believe Now I would desire no more but this to prove that we must use our Reason in matters of Religion for no man at this day can know what is revealed without it I do assert and let him disprove me when he can that since God has given us reason to judge of the truth or falshood of such things as are knowable by the light of Nature and a standing Rule of Faith and Manners in the writings of the Old and New Testament for matters of Revelation we must believe no Mans or Churches pretences to Infallibility who either teaches any Doctrine which plainly contradicts the light of Reason or a standing revelation and therefore we must judge of mens pretences to the Spirit by the Doctrines they teach and therefore must particularly judge of their Doctrines too This is the fair state of the Controversie between us and here I leave it and let him take it up again when he pleases And here he returns back to the Conference between a sturdy Protestant and a new Convert which belonged to the former head the design of which is to shew the new Convert that by going over to the Church of Rome he has gained no more Infallibility than a Protestant has nay has lost some degrees of certainty which he might have had before for thus the Protestant tells him 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 Iudgment 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 We have more rational certainty than you have and you have no more infallible certainty than we You think you are reasonably assured your Church is infallible and then you take up your Religion upon trust from your Church without and many times against Sense and Reason according as it happens So that you have only a general assurance of the Infallibity 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 are 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 assured that the Faith which we profess is agreeable to Scripture or expresly contained in it and does not contradict either Sense or Reason nor any
absurdity of Praying to God in an Unknown Tongue when neither our Understandings nor Affections can joyn in our Prayers For 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 This he calls a Calumny He would insinuate that Catholicks when they assist to present he should have said at Prayers which they do not understand are not commanded to pray in Spirit by devout Thoughts and pious Affections Now I insinuate no such thing when they are present at Prayers which they do not understand they may have other devout thoughts for ought I know but I say they cannot offer those Prayers to God with their understanding which they do not understand and in such Prayers they do not pray with the Mind and Spirit and therefore all such Prayers are absurd and contrary to the nature of Christian Worship which is to worship God in Spirit But my work is not at an end yet there are some other Misrepresentations and Calumnies which he has picked out of the fourth Section of the Preservative which must be considered The fourth Section concerns the reformation and improvement of Humane Nature which I shewed to be the great design of the Gospel and that particularly with respect to Knowledge and Holiness and I examined how far the Principles and Practices of the Church of Rome did comply with this great Gospel Design 1. As for Knowledge I supposed neither the Church of Rome nor any one for her would pretend that she is any great Friend to Knowledge which is so apt to make men Hereticks That knowing Papists are not beholden to their Church for their Knowledge which deprives them of all the means of Knowledge will not allow them to believe their senses but commands them to believe Transubstantiation which is contrary to the evidence of sense forbids men the use of Reason in matters of Religion suffers them not to judge for themselves nor examine the Reasons of their Faith and denies them the use of the Bible which is the only means to know the revealed Will of God and when men must neither believe their Senses nor use their Reason nor read the Scripture it is easie to guess what knowing and understanding Christians they must needs be Against this it may be objected that the Church of Rome does instruct her Children in the true Christian Faith though she will not allow them to read the Scriptures nor judge for themselves which is the safer way to teach them the pure Catholick Faith without danger of Error or Heresie To this I answered This were something did the Church of Rome take care to instruct them in all necessary Doctrines and to teach nothing but what is true and could such men who thus tamely receive the dictates of the Church be said to know and to understand their Religion so that here were two Inquiries 1. Whether the Church of Rome instructs her Children in all necessary truth and nothing but the truth 2. Whether she so instructs them that they may be said to know and understand How far the Church of Rome is from doing the first I said all Christians in the World are sensible but themselves but that is not our present Dispute But our Jesuite it seems will make it the Dispâ—te or it shall pass for a perfect Slander for thus he repeats it they take no care to instruct mâ—n in all necâ—ssary Doctrines Which I did not positively affirm bâ—t since he will have it so I do now affirm That they do not instruct men in all necessary Doctrines and that thâ—y teach them a great many false Doctrines But then he must remember what I mean by instructing it is not meerly to teach them to repeat the Articles of their Creed but to give them the true sense and meaning of them and I do affirm and am ready to prove it and possibly may do so when leisure permits that they do not rightly instruct men in the great and necessary Doctrine of forgiveness of Sins in the Name of Christ nor in the nature of Christ's Mediation and Intercession for us nor in the nature of Justification or of Gospel and Obedience but teach such Errors as overthrow the true Gospel notion of these great and necessary Doctrines Then as for their manner of Teaching to require men to believe what they say meerly upon the Authority of the Church without suffering them to examine whether such Doctrines are taught in Scripture or to exercise their own reason and judgment about it can make no man a knowing and understanding Christian. For no man understands his Religion who does not in some measure know the reasons of his Faith and judge whether they be sufficient or not who knows not how to distinguish between Truth and Error who has no Rule to go by but must take all upon trust and the credit of his Teachers who believes whatever he is told and learns his Creed as School-boys do their Grammar without understanding it this is not an active but a kind of passive knowledge Such men receive the impression that is made on them as Wax does and understand no more of the matter These Sayings that are marked out are more of his Misrepresentations which need no other Vindication but to be shewn in their own light and proper places And yet I did not deny but some men might be so dull and stupid as to be capable of little more than to be taught their Religion as Children but certainly this is not the utmost perfection of knowledge that any Christian must aim at which he thus represents With them this is the utmost perfection of Knowledge that any Christian must aim at This I did not say but this I say that it is the utmost perfection of Knowledge which any man can attain to who will be contented with the Methods of the Church of Rome not to examine his Religion but to take all upon the credit of the Church Well How does our Jesuite confute this heavy Charge and perfect Slander Does he shew that they teach all necessary Truths and nothing but Truth Does he prove that men may be very knowing Christians without understanding the Reasons of their Faith Not one word of this which alone was to his purpose but he says hundreds of thousands of Religious men are employed in instructing the Ignorant and teaching Children and whoever denied this that they do teach Men and Children after their fashion But does this prove that they teach them all necessary Truths and nothing but truth Or that they make them ever the wiser for their teaching As for those ignorant Protestants he has had to deal with if he made Converts of them I believe they were very ignorant otherwise if there were Ignorance between them it was as likely to lie on the Jesuite's side Having laid down
He answers let it be so but what follows here but the necessity of an unerring Interpreter What follows why it follows that they cannot prove Transubstantiation from Scripture without the Authority of the Church and consequently that it is not Scripture but their Church they rely on for the proof of their Doctrines which is the thing the Footman intended to prove by it and has done it effectually but how an unerring Interpreter follows from hence I cannot see unless it be to prove that to be in Scripture which the most searching and inquisitive men cannot find there and this indeed is the true use of an unerring Interpreter in the Church of Rome to impose upon mens Faith to believe that to be in Scripture which no man can see there for what men can see there one would think they might believe to be there without an unerring Interpreter As for what he adds that the Arians gave as natural a sense of 1 Iohn 5.7 8. as the Catholicks did is to be answered at present only with abhorrence and detestation But to proceed In the next place to shew them how absurd it is to dispute even about an infallible Judge I direct our Protestant to ask them Whether the belief of an Infallible Iudge must be resolved into every man's 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 Iudge To this the Jesuite answers Ans. p. ◠There can be no Divine Faith without a Divine Revelation nor a prudent one without a Moral Evidence in the Motives of Credibility on which may be grounded the evident obligation to accept it This he calls a Moral Infallibility and shews by what steps it may fasten on God's Veracity and with a submission not capable of any doubt embrace the revealed Truth Now all this amounts to no more than Protestant certainty void of all doubt which the Church of Rome would never yet allow to be a Divine and Infallible Faith. But what is this to my Question Which was not Whether a Divine Faith required a Divine Revelation but whether there can be any Divine Faith without an Infallible Iudge which it seems he durst not own nor say one word to And yet here lay the force of the Argument as I told him in the same place If we must believe the Infallibility of the Pope or Church of Rome with an infallible Faith there is an end of Disputing for no Reasons or Arguments not the Authority of the Scripture itself which I hope he means by his Divine Revelation without an infallible Iudge 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 upon the authority of a living infallible judge forsooth our Faith is uncertain humane and fallible This he knew to be true and yet knew that he could not build the belief of an Infallible Judge upon the authority of an Infallible Judge unless he could find one Infallible Judge to give testimony to the Infallibility of another and a third to give testimony to the second and thus to dance round in a circle of Infallibility without finding any beginning or end and therefore he slips this pretence of an Infallible Judge and would found a Divine Faith upon revelation or prudential motives of credibility which indeed is to quit Infallibility and to take up with a Protestant moral certainty or moral infallibility as he calls it that he may retain the name at least when the thing is lost Nay he gives a substantial Reason against an Infallible Faith of the Churches Infallibility For if the Infallibility of the Church were more than Morally Evident it were impossible that any Heresie should be the wisest word that he has said yet but I shall make him repent of saying it before I have done for this is an evident demonstration against Infallibility He says we can have no more than a Moral Evidence for the Infallibility of the Church and if this be true and our Faith be founded upon the Authority of the Church then we can have no more than a Moral Evidence for the Truth of the Christian Religion or any Article of it for as I argued in that very place Though the Iudge be Infallible if I be not infallibly assured of this if I have only a Moral Evidence of his Infallibility I can never arrive to Infallibility in any thing or can never get higher than a Moral Certainty for I can never be more certain that his Determinations are Infallible then I am that he himself is Infallible and if I have but à 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 Though he slipt this at first Reading I hope he may judge it worth Answering upon second Thoughts But how he will get rid of his own Reason I cannot guess if the Infallibility of the Church were more than Morally Evident it were impossible that any Heresies should be by which he either means that de facto the Being of Heresies in the World is a sensible Argument that there is no Infallible assurance of the Infallibility of the Church for an Infallible Proof cannot be resisted and then all the World must believe the Churches Infallibility and give up themselves to the Directions of the Church and then there could be no Heresies or else his meaning is that since there must be Heresies in the World as the Apostle tells us therefore God has given us no more than a Moral Evidence of the Infallibility of the Church because an Infallible assurance of this would have prevented all Heresies which God it seems for very wise Reasons did not intend thus irresistibly to prevent Now rightly to understand this Matter I would desire to know why they say God has bestowed Infallibility on the Church Was it not to prevent Heresies and Schisms Is not this the Popish Objection against the Protestant Resolution of Faith that for want of an Infallible Guide men fall into Errors and Heresies and divide and disturb the Peace of the Church with Schisms Is not this the great Reason they urge for the necessity of an Infallible Guide to prevent all Heresies and Schisms and yet now it seems there must be no more than a Moral Evidence for the Infallibility of the Church that there may be Heresies How often have they been told by Protestant Divines that if God intend an Infallible Judge to prevent all Heresies the Being of an Infallible Judge ought to be as evident and demonstrable as
Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus A Vindication of both Parts of the Preservative against Popery c. Guil. Needham R. R. in Christo P. ac D.D. Wilhelmo Archie pisc Cant. Ã Sacr. Domest Iuly 4. 1688. A VINDICATION OF Both PARTS OF THE Preservative AGAINST POPERY IN ANSWER TO THE CAVILS OF LEWIS SABRAN Jesuit By WILLIAM SHERLOCK D. D. Master of the Temple LONDON Printed for William Rogers at the Sun over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet 1688. TO THE READER I Must confess F. Lewis Sabran of the Society of Jesus as he writes himself has all the good Qualities belonging to his Order excepting that Learning which some of his Order have formerly had but he is excusable for that because of late that has been the least of their care but what they want in Learning they make up in Confidence and Noise which is a nearer conformity to the temper and spirit of their first Founder When I first saw his Sheet which he wrote against the First Part of the Preservative I read it over and laid it aside as I thought it deserved for I easily perceived that he could not or would not understand the plainest sense and I saw nothing he had objected which could impose upon the most unlearned Protestant and I had no mind to engage with a Man who has not Vnderstanding enough to be Confuted But the honest Footman thought fit to call him to an account and I believe all impartial Men thought the Footman had the better of him and yet the Jesuite had an honourable occasion to retreat had his Wit served him to take it for no Man would have expected that a Jesuite should have encountered a Footman but here his Courage out-ran his Wit as it often happens to Knights Errant in their bold Adventures I do intend as little as possibly I can to concern my self in the Dispute between the Jesuite and the Footman the Footman is able to Defend himself and I e'en quake for the Jesuite for fear he should but having a little leisure at present I will spare some few hours to Vindicate the Preservative from this Jesuite's Cavils for it will appear that they are no better As for those many good words he has bestowed on me I take them for Complements on course and to be plain with him they are all lost upon me for when I have Reason and Truth on my sidâ— I am perfectly insensible of all the Sportings of Wit and Satyr for there are no Iests bite but those that are true I do not intend to pursue this Jesuite in all his rambling Excursions but shall keep close to my business to Vindicate The Preservative and that in as few words as I can and this will come into a very narrow compass for he has as little to say as ever man had if you keep him out of his Common-place Disputes but if you suffer him to draw you into those beaten Roads there is no end of him for he has the Confidence of a Jesuite to repeat all the old baffled Arguments without blushing I confess I am a little ashamed to meddle with so trifling an Adversary and know not how I shall Answer it to the Ingenious Gentlemen of the Temple to whom he so often Appeals against the Master for spending my time so ill unless his Character of a Jesuite will plead my excuse which has been a formidable Name in former Ages and if this will do I have a very honourable and a very easie Task of it an Adversary to encounter with the glorious Character of a Jesuite but without the Sense of a Footman A VINDICATION OF THE FIRST PART OF THE Preservative THE Charge against me is very formidable that I advance such Principles in the Preservative as make void the use of Reason Faith Fathers Councils Scripture and Moral Honesty if he had said less he might sooner have been believed or might have proved it better when such wild and extravagant Accusations confute themselves but Iesuits commonly spoil all by over-doing Let us examine particulars SECT I. The Principles which are pretended to overthrow all right Vse of Common Sense Vindicated THE first instance of this nature is that I Charge Catholicks with this great Crime that they will not allow the reading Heretical Books and prove my Charge because God not only allows but requires it The Paragraph he refers to is in p. 3. of the Preservative in these words 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 it self but though we allow all this to our People as that which God not only allows but requires c. from hence he charges me with saying that God not only allows but requires People to read Heretical Books But the honest Footman plainly told him what the meaning of Heretical Books was that I spoke the Language of their Church which calls all Books Heretical which are not of the Roman stamp and this is all that I meant by it as every honest Reader would see Does not he use the very same way of speaking himself in the same Paragraph when he retorts this Crime upon us that we use all endeavours to hinder our Flocks from hearing Catholick Sermons and reading Catholick Books for are any Christians so absurd as to forbid People to hear Catholick Sermons and to read Catholick Books No sure not what they think Catholick and why may not I use Heretical as well as he use Catholick in the sense of the Church of Rome by Heretical meaning such Books as the Church of Rome calls Heretical as by Catholick he means such Books as the Church of Rome calls Catholick for they are both equally Heretical and Catholick But he complains in the Preservative Considered p. 4. That he had asked three very material Questions and the Footman had not vouchsafed an Answer to them and I believe the Footman was in the right for they deserved none But let us hear them This says he seemed to me extravagant not to say impious and to all those who have inherited from St. Paul that Faith to which he exacts so firm and unwavering an adherency that if an Angel from Heaven should teach us any thing in opposition to it we ought not to mind him or return him any other Answer than Anathema How can said I this positive certainty stand with an obligation of reading Heretical Books which oppose that Faith to frame by them and settle a judgment But now if these Heretical Books do not oppose that Faith which was Preached by St. Paul I hope there was no need of answering this Question and if the Catholick Books do I would desire him to
Answer the Question and if there be a Dispute depending which of them contradicts St. Paul's Doctrine I would desire him to tell me How we shall know which of them does it without examining them When we know these Books which contradict St Paul's Doctrine we will reject them with an Anathema and for that reason we reject the Council of Trent whose Authority we think to be inferior to an Angels and that shews that we do not think rejecting and yet reading such Books to make void common Sense for though we reject the Council of Trent yet we read it as they find to their cost His next Question or else I cannot make three of them is By what Text doth God deliver this Injunction viz of reading Heretical Books which in his Sense of Heretical Books is a very senseless Question for no man pretends that God commands us to read Books which we know to be Heretical though a man who is inquiring after Truth must read such Books as the several divided Sects of Christians may call Heretical But his killing Question is to come I asked further How standing to the first Principles of Common Sense a Church which declares all men bound to judge for themselves could countenance Laws which exact of Dissenters that they stand not to that their Iudgment but comply against it and that constrain their liberty of judging by the dread of Excommunications Sequestrations Imprisonments c. which is to make it Death not to act against a strict Duty of Conscience acknowledged by the Persecutors to be such But what is this to reading Heretical Books Is there any Law in the Church of England thus to punish men for reading Heretical Books There is we know in the Church of Rome where besides other Heretical Books to have and to read the Bible in the vulgar Tongue without License which is rarely granted and ought not to be at all brings a man in danger of the Inquisition which one word signifies more than any man can tell but he who has felt it witness the late account of the Inquisition of Goa Well but to allow a liberty of Judging and not to suffer men to stand to their Judgment is contrary to Common Sense It is so but who gives a liberty of Judging and forbids men to stand to their own Judgment I am sure the Church of England accounts any man a Knave who contradicts his own Judgment and Conscience There is no Inquisition for mens private Opinions no ransacking Consciences in the Church of England as we know where there is Yes We constrain this liberty of Iudging by the dread of Excommunications Sequestrations Imprisonments Exclusion from the chiefest Properties of free born Subjects even by Hanging and Quartering which is to make it Death not to act against a strict Duty of Conscience acknowledged by the Persecutors to be such It is a blessed time for these Jesuits who like that no body should be able to Persecute but themselves to rail at Persecution but let that pass It seems then it is contrary to Common Sense to allow a liberty of Judging and to deny a liberty of Practice for God suppose to allow men to choose their Religion and to Damn them if they choose wrong That is to say a Natural liberty of Judgment and by the same reason the Natural liberty of Will is inconsistent with all Government in Church and State If this were so it would indeed make Persecution as he calls it in a free-judging Church very absurd but it is very reconcileable to Common Sense for a Church which denies this liberty of Judging to Persecute too and this justifies the Persecutions of the Church of Rome Let Protestants here see if such Jesuits could rule the Roast what it will cost them to part with their liberty of Judging they loose their Argument against Persecution for an Infallible Church which will not suffer men to Judge may with good Reason Persecute them if they do that all men who like Liberty of Conscience are concerned to oppose Popery which it seems is the only Religion that can make it reasonable to Persecute nay which makes it unreasonable not to Persecute for it is as much against Common Sense for a Church which denies a liberty of Judging to allow a liberty of Conscience as for a Church to deny Liberty of Conscience which allows a liberty of Judging Thus far the Preservative is safe and let his following Harangue against the liberty of Judging shift for it self that is not my business at present His next Quarrel is that Preser p. 4 5. I advise Protestants not to dispute with Papists till they disown Infallibility I own the charge and repeat it again that it is a ridiculous thing to dispute with Papists till they renounce Infallibility as that is opposed to a lâ—berty of Judging for so the whole Sentence runs Here then let our Protestant fix his Foot and not stir an inch till they disown Infallibility and confess that every man must Iudge for himself in Matters of Religion according to the Proofs that are offered to him This the Jesuit either designedly concealed or did not understand though it is the whole design of that Discourse For the plain state of the Case is this The Church of Rome pretends to be Infallible and upon this pretence she requires us to submit to her Authority and to receive all the Doctrines she teaches upon her bare Word without Examination for we must not Judge for our selves but learn from an Infallible Church Now I say it is a ridiculous thing for such men to pretend to Dispuâ—e with us about Religion when they will not allow that we can judge what is true or false for it is to no purpose to Dispute unless we can Judge and therefore a Protestant before he Disputes with them ought to exact this Confession from them that every man must Judge for himself and ought not to be over-ruled by the pretended Infallible Authority of the Church against his own Sense and Reason and this is to make them disown Infallibility as far as that is Matter of Controversie between us and the Church of Rome to disown Infallibility as that is opposed to a liberty of Judging If it be absurd to Dispute with a man who denies me a liberty of Judging then I must make him allow me this liberty before I Dispute and then he must disown the over-ruling Authority of an Infallible Judge which is a contradiction to such a Liberty By this time I suppose he sees to what little purpose his Objections are that to require such a disowning of Infallibility is to say 'T is impossible to convince a man that in Reason he ought to submit his Iudgment to any other though Infallible No Sir but 't is to say that I cannot make use of my Reason in any thing till I am delivered from the Usurping Authority of such an Infallible Judge who will not suffer me to use my
not Christ's telling them so a certain Reason If they believed without Reason I am of opinion how blind an impiety soever it be that they believed too soon I envy no Church the priviledge of believing infallibly without Reason or Evidence but it is well for the Church of Rome if she have this priviledge for unless she can be Infallible without Reason nay in contradiction to it I am sure she is not infallible But what tergiversation is here Does the Church of Rome infallibly know that the Christian Religion is certainly true Does she infallibly know that the certain Truth of Christian Religion is founded upon certain Reasons if so then the Christian Religion is certain and founded on certain Reasons and then those who believe the Christian Religion for the sake of such certain Reasons have a certain Faith whether they believe upon the Authority of the Church or not unless a Faith built upon certain Reasons may be uncertain or cannot be certain for if the Church infallibly knows that there are certain Reasons for the truth of Christianity then there are certain Reasons distinct from the Infallibility of the Church and they may be a Foundation for a certain Faith without the Churches Infallibility I observed that their great Argument to prove the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith is that there is a great variety of Opinions among Protestants and that they condemn one another with equal confidence and assurance He says I should have added thô they use the same Rule of Faith and apply it by the same means But there was no need of adding this it was supposed in all the Arguments I used which he answers only by saying 'T is an unanswerable Argument against your Rule of Faith and evidently proves it uncertain What does it prove the Scripture to be uncertain for that is our Rule or does he mean this of our Way of applying it that is by using the best Reason and Judgment we have to understand it and then his Argument is this some men misunderstand Scripture and therefore no man can rightly understand it some men reason wrong and therefore no man can reason right some men are confidently perswaded that they are in the right when they are in the wrong and therefore no man can be certain when he is in the right an Argument which in all other cases mankind would hiss at Some men believe they are awake when they are in a dream therefore no man can know when he is awake there are silly confident people who are cheated with slight appearances of things therefore no man can distinguish between appearances and realities Or to put but one case which will sensibly affect him some men nay the greatest part of Chrisâ—ians do not believe the Infallibility of the Church of Rome and therefore no man can be certain that the Church is Infallible For here are all his Conditions the same Rule applied the same way for he confess'd above that there can be no more than a Moral Evidence for the Infallibility of the Church Now in Moral Evidence every man must use his own Judgment thus we do we consider all the Arguments they alledge for the Infallibility of their Church from Scripture from Promises from Prophesies from Bellarmin's Fifteen Notes of the Church or whatever other Reasons and Arguments they use upon the whole we conclude that the Church of Rome is not Infallible they that it is now if he will stand to his Argument That variety of Opinions when men use the same Rule and apply it the same way is an unanswerable Argument that the Rule is uncertain then it is impossible that they should have so much as a Moral certainty of Infallibility since all mankind besides are against them His Answer to Dr. St.'s Arguments to prove that the Scriptures may be a very certain Rule though men differ in expounding them are so very senseless that I have no patience to answer them especially since he grants all that the Dean intended to prove that a Rule may be a certain Rule though men who do not understand it may mis-apply it But the principle he has laid down for mine I confess is very extraordinary and surprizing that if two men have the Bible read it endeavouâ— to understand it and believing they do draw from the same Scriptures two different Conclusions two opposite Articles of Faith both are bound to stand to their private judgment and to believe themselves in the right though all the World should accuse them in lieu of the true pretended Rule to have used a false One. I affirm that one man may expound the Scripture right and know that he does so though another expounds it wrong and he makes me say that when two men expound the Scripture to different and contrary senses they are both bound to believe that they are in the right this it is certain they will do and there is no remedy against it but what is worse than the disease that men should not use their own Judgments and then they dare not believe themselves when they are in the right which is as bad as to believe themselves in the right when they are in the wrong but that for this reason all the World should accuse them in lieu of the true pretended Rule to have used a false one is very senseless unless by all the World he means the World of Roman-Catholicks for no other men as I have already shewn nay not he himself if he will stand to his own word will accuse the Rule to be false because men make a false judgment of it for to call every man's private judgment of the Rule his Rule which is the substance of his following harangue is to resolve neither to think nor speak like other men for that no man thinks his own private judgment to be his Rule is evident from hence that upon better Information he alters his judgment without changing his Rule I concluded this Section concerning the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith with this observation that this very Argument from the different and contrary opinions of Protestants to prove the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith signifies nothing as to our disputes with the Church of Rome for ask them what they would think of the Protestant Faith were all Protestants of a mind would their consent and agreement prove the certainty of the Protestant Faith then the Protestant Faith in opposition to Popery is very certain for they all agree in condemning the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome And thus I think they get nothing by this Argument for if the dissensions of Protestants proves the uncertainty of their Faith as to such matters wherein they differ then by the same Rule their agreement in opposition to Popery shews their great certainty in such matters And this I suppose is no great inducement to a Protestant to turn Papist Our Jesuit had so much Wit in his Anger as to
Worship that God must be worshipped as a meer Spirit but that the nature of the Christian Religion will not admit of such an external Worship And yet if he can tell me how this Stipulation or Covenant can be made betwixt God and us by interior Graces without some visible covenanting Rite how the Christian Church which is a visible Society distinguished from the rest of the World by a visible Covenant can be thus visibly incorporated by interior invisible Graces I will confess then that there had been no need had Christ so pleased of any visible Sacraments He adds upon whatever account that interior Covenant but we speak of an external visible Covenant which requires visible Pledges and Seals requires a visible sensible Mark and our actual Communion with Christ another all the Communications of God's Graces to us all our return of Worship and Adoration will equally admit of sensible Signs and Rites Let us apply this then to those Instances I gave of this external Worship and see whether there be the same reason for that as there is for some visible signs of a visible Covenant The same reason and necessity for instance of some external Rites to expiate sin now the Gospel declares there is no expiation of sin but the Blood of Christ that there is of Gospel-Sacraments to apply the expiation of Christ's Death to us The same necessity of external Washings and Purifications distinction of Meats c. Now the Gospel has put an end to all legal Uncleanness as there is of Baptism to wash away our Sins or of the Lord's Supper to strengthen and refresh our Souls by a Spiritual feeding on the Body and Blood of Christ the same external holiness of Places to sanctifie our Worship now God has declared that he has no symbolical Presence on Earth the same necessity of material and inanimate receptacles and conveyances of Divine Graces and Vertues the same necessity of an external and ceremonial Righteousness which is such a contradiction to the whole design of the Gospel as there is of the Gospel-Sacraments to receive us into Covenant and to convey the Blessings of the Covenant to us As for external Acts and Circumstances of Worship and Adoration I allowed the necessity of them under the Gospel but these are very different things from external religious Rites and if he knows no reason why the conveyances of Grace should rather be confined to the two Gospel-Sacraments then to Holy Water or Agnus Dei's or the Reliques of Saints or such other Popish Inventions I will tell him one because the Spirit of Grace is the Spirit of Christ and derives his influences only to the mystical body of Christ all our Graces are the immediate influxes of the Divine Spirit and nothing can intitle us to the Graces of the Spirit but being Members of Christ's Body and there are no visible Sacraments of Union to Christ but Baptism and the Lord's Supper and therefore no visible Rites of conveying the Graces of the Divine Spirit to us but these Again As our Spiritual Life consists in our Union to Christ so this Union makes us New Creatures for he that is in Christ is a New Creature Now there are but two things necessary to a New Creature a new birth and a constant supply of nourishment for its increase and growth Baptism is our Regeneration or New Birth whereby we are incorporated into Christ's Mystical Body and receive the first Communications of a Divine Life from the Holy Spirit the Lord's Supper is the constant Food and Nourishment of our Souls wherein we receive fresh supplies of Grace as our Natural Bodies do new Spirits from the Meat we eat Now let any man tell me what more is necessary to a New Creature than to be born and to be nourished by fresh supplies of Grace till it grow up to a perfect man in Christ Jesus all this is done for us by Baptism and the Lord's Supper and if all Divine Grace must be derived to us from our Union to Christ as the Members of his Body nothing can be more congruous than that the Sacraments of our Union to Christ should be the only visible and external Rites of conveying all supernatural Grace to us so that unless Holy Water and Relicks c. be new Sacraments of our Union to Christ they can be no Gospel conveyances of Grace and by the way whoever well considers this will think it little less than a demonstration that there can be but two Gospel Sacraments because there are no other visible Rites of uniting us to Christ and consequently of conveying supernatural Grace to us which is the Notion of a Sacrament But to proceed I came to apply this Discourse to Popish Worship to see how consistent it is with that Reformation Christ had made of the Worship of God under the Gospel And I observed in general that whoever only considers the vast number of Rites and Ceremonies in the Church of Rome must conclude it as Ritual and Ceremonial a Religion as Judaism itself the Ceremonies are as many more obscure unintelligible and useless more severe and intolerable than the Iewish Yoke itself which St. Peter tells the Iews neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear The first part he has nothing to say to and by his silence confesses it to be true and that is proof enough that it is no Christian Worship But he will by no means allow that they are as severe and as intolerable as the Iewish Yoke this he calls a Mis-representation and looks about to see what it should be that is so intolerable he suspects I mean their Fasts in Lent or on Fridays and Saturdays but he is much mistaken I know all these are very easie and gentle things in the Church of Rome or that Prayer and Almsdeeds may be these terrible things And here he comes pretty near the matter for I look upon it very intolerable to say over so many Prayers and Masses every day without understanding one word they say which is the daily Task of many thousand Priests who understand no more what they say than the People do To part with their real Estates many times to the great damage of their Families out of a blind Devotion to deliver their Souls from the imaginary Flames of Purgatory which they call Almsdeeds to whip and macerate their Bodies if they be so blindly devout with severe Fasts for men may fast severely in the Church of Rome if they please with long Watchings hard Lodging tedious and expensive Pilgrimages not to cure but to expiate their sins He says If the Ceremonies used in the Liturgy he should have said in their Mass-Book and Rituals and Breviaries be a burden surely the Clergy or Religious must feel the weight of it yet I am sure not one ever owned it Is he sure of this Has he confessed all the Nuns and Monks but if they have not owned it Have they never felt it neither Will
he himself say this but suppose they neither felt nor owned it May it not be as intolerable as the Jewish Law Did the Scribes and Pharisees who were so fond of the Rites of Moses own it to be a heavy Yoke And yet does not St. Peter say it was so Superstition will bear very heavy yokes of external Rites and Ceremonies without complaining to be delivered from what they think a more terrible yoke of mortifying and subduing sin but yet they are very unsupportable Yokes still to ingenuous and vertuous Minds Hence I proceeded to a more particular consideration of their Worship 1. That most of their external Rites are professedly intended as expiations and satisfactions for sin This he durst not deny and therefore all their expiatory Rites are no part of Christian Worship which allows no expiation for sin but the Blood of Christ. Secondly Those distinctions between Meats which the Church of Rome calls fasting for a Canonical Fast is not to abstain from Food but from such Meats as are forbid on fasting days can be no part of Christian Worship because the Gospel allows of no distinction between clean and unclean things and therefore of no distinction of Meats neither For meat commendeth us not to God 1 Cor. 8.8 Here is another Mis-representation That a Canonical Fast is not to abstain from Food Does he deny this Yes he says this is most false but one Meal being allowed of on Fasting days A terrible Penance this which most of our Merchants and Citizens endure all the year round and eat later too generally than they do on fasting days But is there no Repast of Wine and Sweetmeats to be had at night for those who can purchase them I added There is no imaginable reason why it should be an Act of Religion meerly to abstain from Flesh if Flesh have no legal uncleanness and if it had we must all have been Carthusians and never eat Flesh more for how it should be clean one day and unclean anothâ—r is not easie to understand This is another of his Mis-representations for that is the word right or wrong He says I would insinuate that they Iudaize Whereas I expresly said that they did not Judaize but did something more absurd for they do not make such a distinction between clean and unclean Beasts as the Law of Moses did and therefore are the more absurd in forbidding to eat Flesh or any thing that comes of Flesh. But he says when God by Ieremy praises the Rechabites for abstaining from Wine was it because Wine was held by them to have a legal uncleanness No nor is Wine Flesh. But Is taming of the flesh the curbing of sensuality no reason at all for abstinence And does abstinence consist meerly in abstaining from Flesh Will not good Fish and good Wine pamper the Flesh too To place abstinence in delectu ciborum as in abstaining from Flesh is a senseless piece of Superstition if it serve the ends of Mortification it is well if it be made essential to a Religious Fast it 's absurd and no part of Christian Worship Thus I shewed 3ly that the Church of Rome has infinitely out-done the Jewish Law in the Religion of holy Places Altars Vestments Utensils c. which he passes over silently 4ly That they attribute divine Vertues and Powers to senseless and inanimate things as is evident from that great Veneration they pay to Relicks and those great Vertues they ascribe to them from their consecrations of their Agnus Dei's 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. These things look more like Charms than Christian Worship 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 He who thinks that inanimate things are capable of the Sanctification of the Spirit or can convey this 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 Here are three of his thirty Mis-representations all together and yet the Jesuit is more tame than the Devil is usually represented to be when he is frighted with Holy Water But let us hear him All these are Mis-representations of our Faith which teaches us nothing of all this Well however this is pretty moderate here is no Hectoring yet no Minister Oates and Minister Sherlock What we believe is that nothing can free us from the guilt of any sin which is external and doth not affect and change the heart But this is not the Question Sir but whether Agnus Dei's Holy Water c. can deliver from the guilt of sin and drive away the Devil and work a great many Deliverances for us whether with or without the change of heart if they can affect and change the heart that is the better way and then they effectually convey Grace which is the thing I said and which he dares not deny if they cannot forgive sin I desire him to tell his People so who like that better than changing the heart and then they will purchase no more Agnus Dei's nor trade in such Roman Merchandize But they believe That all Creatures of God are good and that they are sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer What! to forgive Sins to give Grace to allay Storms to drive away Devils Was this the Apostle's meaning in those words Is there any word of Promise in the Gospel for this Which is the meaning of being sanctified by the word Neither doth Faith teach us that any material thing hath any other than moral connexion with Grace either obtained for us by the Prayers of the Church offered for us at the blessing of those things or of those blessed Saints whom we honour and call upon by that Veneration or by the Sacraments according to the Institution and Covenant of Christ but we do not believe that God's Grace is inherent but in the Souls of the Faithful or that any sin is remitted without a due disposition in a repentant sinner As for the Sacraments I have already given an account of their Vertue and Efficacy that they are instituted signs and means of our Union to Christ and that intitles us to the influences of the divine Grace Whether it be a natural or moral connexion between Grace and such inanimate things is not the Question but it seems Grace is annexed to them which is all I affirm But however Grace is