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
not then they know before hand that the evidence of Scripture alone is not sufficient to convince a Protestant who rejects an infallible Judge and then it is a sensless thing for them to attempt the proof of such Doctrines by Scripure Good Catholicks are satisfied with the Authority of the Church and Hereticks who reject such an infallible Authority cannot be confuted and convinced by meer Scripture 3. I ask again Whether the evidence of Reason in expounding Scripture be a sufficient Foundation for a Divine Faith if it be then Protestants who disown an Infallible Judge may have a true Divine Faith without the Infallibility of the Church and then we may be true Believers without being Roman-Catholicks and I should be glad to hear that out of the mouth of a Iesuite for there is good use to be made of such a confession if Scripture as expounded by Reason without an Infallible Judge is not a sufficient Foundation for a Divine Faith then to what end does their disputing with Protestants from Scripture serve if this cannot make them true Believers 4. I ask once more Whether the belief of the Scriptures themselves must not be resolved into the Authority of the Church whether any man can believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God without it if they cannot and I would be glad to hear the Iesuite say they can then I am sure the Scripture is no proof of any thing without the Churches Authority and it is an absurd thing for those who think so to dispute from Scripture against those who deny the Authority of the Church From hence I think it evidently appears that the Authority of the Scriptures and the Authority of the Church are not two distinct Arguments in the Church of Rome for then I grant they might use either way of proof and dispute from Scripture against those who deny the Authority of the Church but if the Authority of the Scripture as to us is resolved into the Authority of the Church then the Scripture alone is no Argument but the Authority of the Church is all Whereforedo you believe the Scripture Because the Church tells me it is the Word of God Wherefore do you believe this to be the sense of Scripture Because the Church so expounds it Is not this the true Resolution of the Roman Faith Is this Misrepresenting too But if it be the truth does not every man see that as to us the Scripture has no Authority no sense but from the Church and therefore can prove nothing separated from the Authority of the Church If they allow of any Proofs from Scripture separated from the Authority of the Church then whether they will or no they must allow of the Protestant Resolution of Faith that is to resolve my Faith into the Authority of the Scriptures as expounded with the best reason and judgment I have in the careful use of all such means as are necessary for the understanding that Holy Book now if they will allow this to be a good Resolution of Faith we will allow of all their Scripture-proofs and give them leave to make us Converts to the Church of Rome by Scripture if they can but if they do allow of this then we Protestants are in a very good way already as to the Resolution of our Faith and so that Controversie is at an end and if they will not allow this then they confess that Scripture-proofs of themselves are not good for if they were we might certainly resolve our Faith as Protestants do immediately into the Authority of Scripture And thus much for Iohn and William and the Infallible Guide if Iohn has any Reasons independent on the Authority of his Guide he may then try his skill upon William who rejects his Guide but if all his other Reasons are resolved into the Authority of his Guide and are no good Reasons without it then he may spare his Reasons till he has made William submit to his Guide And this is the case between the Scripture and the Church in the Church of Rome the Scripture wholly depends both for its Authority and Interpretation on the Authority of the Church and therefore can signifie nothing and prove nothing but what the Church makes it signifie and prove The Scriptures may be supposed to be the Word of God and to have some sense antecedent to the Churches Authority but no man can know this without the Church and therefore as to us both the Authority and Interpretation of the Scripture depends upon the Authority of the Church and is no Argument to prove any thing by itself But I cannot pass on without taking notice of a pleasant Answer the Iesuite gives to a very substantial Argument of the Footman To prove that at least some Doctrines of the Church of Rome by their own confession cannot be proved by Scripture without the Authority of the Church he shews that Petrus de Alliaco Scotus and Tonstal do confess that Transubstantiation is not founded upon any necessary Scripture-proofs but on the Authority of the Church for the Scripture might and that very reasonably too be expounded to another sense had not the Church determined otherwise Now what does the Iesuite say to this 1. He prevericates like a Iesuite in repeating the Argument That the Words of Scripture brought in proof of Transubstantiation might be taken in a different sense from that which the Catholick Church hath ever received and delivered and that had not the Church ever taught that sense one might believe otherwise for all the letter of Scripture for the Authors alledged by the Footman do not say as the Iesuite makes them that the Catholick Church hath ever received and delivered that sense of Transubstantiation which the Church of Rome now teaches but Tonstal expresly declares the contrary in the words there cited That it was free for all men till the Council of Lateran to follow their own conjectures as concerning the manner of the Presence Which supposes that this Doctrine was never determined by the Church till the Council of Lateran and therefore not ever received and delivered and taught by the Catholick Church 2. In a Parenthesis he adds how truly this is said of the Catholick Divines that they did affirm this it belongs not to my present purpose very truly said it is not to his purpose but very much against it but if he means that he was not concerned to know whether these passages are truly cited from these Authors it seems he is not concerned to defend his Argument for that is very much concerned in it it is a plain confession he had nothing to say and therefore would not be concerned about it and will our Learned Iesuite confess that he is so ignorant as not to know that this was said by Petrus de Alliaco Scotus and Tonstal or will he so easily give up such men as these and let the ingenious Footman run away with them and his Argument together 3.
Scripture that a man who rejects the Authority of the Church may be forced to acknowledge that they are in Scripture and then he must reject the necessity of Church-Authority for the understanding of Scripture which is to yield up a very concerning point to Protestants or else he must confess that he does very foolishly or knavishly in urging Scripture-Proofs to a man who rejects the Authority of their Church without which he knows there are no Scripture-Proofs of any Authority But this which was the true state of the Controversie the Jesuite takes no notice of all that he says is this That the sense of Scripture takes its Authority from God that is is ultimately resolved into God's Authority who intended such a sense in it but as to Catholicks for such he must mean their certainty of the sense of Scripture is resolved immediately into the Authority of the Church which is guided in expounding Scripture by an infallible Spirit Now is not this the very same that I saiâ— that all Scripture-Proofs must be resolved into the Authority of the Church and are not good without it as it is impossible they should be if we cannot certainly know what the true sense of Scripture is but from the Exposition of the Church And yet if the Church of Rome be no more infallible in delivering the sense of Scripture than in delivering the letter of it there is no great encouragement to rely on her infallibility as is evident from the many Corruptions of their Vulgar Latine which one Pope corrected after another and yet it is not corrected still that it was a little over-sight in this Jesuite though possibly he knew nothing of the matter to make the Church equally infallible in delivering the letter and the sense of Scripture But to do him right he seems to offer at something of sense in his dispute between Iohn and William which is the right way to a place For says he is John disabled from convincing William of his mistake by reasons because he hath with him a Guide who certainly knows the way and that he himself would certainly pass by those reasons if his Guide assured him that he applied them ill and wrongly to that way This has something of argument in it and therefore shall be considered and I am glad to meet with any thing that deserves to be considered The sum of his Argument which I shall represent fairly for him because he has not shewn it to the best advantage is this That Roman-Catholicks have two ways of finding out the sense of Scripture either by the use of Reason or by the Expositions of an infallible Guide but that Reason must be subordinate to the Guide and if Reason dictates one sense of Scripture and the Church teaches another Reason must submit and a true Catholick must embrace the sense of the Church though it be against his Reason but yet if Reason and his Guide be both of a side and he can prove by Reason that to be the true sense of Scripture which the Church gives of it he may then wave the Authority of the Church when he disputes with those who reject such Authority and argue from the reasons of things and the natural interpretation of Scripture it self As Iohn may convince William who rejects the infallibility of Iohn's Guide which is the true way by plain reason while his reason is not contradicted by his Guide and if our Jesuite can make more of this Argument himself let him I am sure he has spoiled it by repeating it in his Preserv Consider p. 11. John is not disabled of convincing William of his mistake because he receives the reasons he uses from an infallible Guide Where he has set it upon another bottom and a very silly one for his purpose for if the force of his Reasons be resolved into the Authority of an infallible Guide it is all lost to him who disowns the infallibility of the Guide or if he means that Iohn is taught such Reasons by an infallible Guide as are able by their own evidence to convince William without any regard to the infallibility of the Guide we desire no more than to see such Reasons and to be left to judge for our selves but this ends in a Protestant Resolution of Faith for every man to judge for himself according to the evidence of Reason which in it self is neither more nor less evident for being proposed or learnt from a fallible or infallible Guide And yet by what follows he can mean no more but that the Authority of an infallible Judge must over-rule every Man's private Reason for he appeals to the learned Gentlemen of the Temple hoping they will joyn with him maintaining against their Master that all the Iudges of the Land may very reasonably convince by Law an impertinent Party though he should oppose that they may not do it because their interpretation of the Law is to deliver the true sense of it Which is glorious Nonsence that all the Judges of the Land can convince a man who is not convinced but declares still that they have not given the true sense of the Law. In all Civil Causes there must be a final judgment and every private man must submit to the decision of Authority whether his own reason be satisfied or not but it is not so in matters of Religion in which no man at the peril of his Soul must be over-ruled by any Authority till he be first convinced So that the Jesuite had said a good thing by chance but for want of understanding it had lost it again and any man may see that I could as easily have lost it as he had I a mind to it but I will not part with it without an Answer because it is the most plausible thing that can be said and possibly other men may understand it who can't answer it though he don't His Argument then as first proposed is this That they allow of Reason in expounding Scripture so long as they do not contradict the Sense and Exposition of the Church and therefore they may dispute with Hereticks from Scripture without concerning the Authority of the Church in the dispute Now in answer to this there are some material Questions to be asked As 1. Whether they can dispute with Protestants by Scripture-Arguments without allowing them to judge of the sense of Scripture by their own private Reason and whether this be agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that every man may judge of the sense of Scripture by his own private Reason 2. Whether the Scripture be so plain and perspicuous especially in the Doctrines in dispute between us and the Church of Rome that every honest impartial Inquirer may find the true sense of them without an infallible Interpreter if they be I think they never ought to talk of the obscurity of Scripture nor the necessity of an infallible Judge more if they be not and if they know that they are
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 at least have double and triple the assurance that you have I have repeated this at large that the Reader might see what the dispute is and indeed the very repetition of it is a sufficient justification for it carries its own evidence along with it Now as to what I said that we are in general assured that the Scriptures are the Word of God. To this he answers The conclusion would be this Catholicks are as certain of the sense of Scripture as Protestants are that they have the letter Now I believe any Reader will be as much puzled to guess how this comes in or what relation it has to this dispute as I am I tell the new Convert that his old Protestant Friend has as much certainty of his Religion as he has for tho' he flatters himself with the conceit of an infallible Church yet his belief of the Churches Infallibility is founded only on Reason and Argument as the Protestant Faith is and therefore his Faith is no more infallible than the Protestant Faith is and so far they are equal But then I add that the Protestant has at least as good assurance that the Scriptures are the Word of God as the Papists can pretend to have that the Church is infallible and so far they may be allowed equal still that the one thinks he has an infallible Guide the other an infallible Rule of Faith Now how can the Jesuit's conclusion come in here Catholics are as certain of the Sense of Scripture as Protestants are that they have the Letter For the comparison did not lie between the Sense and the Letter of Scripture but between that Evidence Papists have of the Infallibility of their Church and Protestants have that the Scriptures are the Word of God both which is not infallible but a rational Evidence and therefore so far equal and this he has nothing to say to In the Preserv Consid. p. 29. he represents it otherwise This is the case On one side there is supposed an infallible Interpreter of the Christians great Law-Book for thus Dr. Sherlock states the case on the other are some men far the greater part unlearned and weak who allow not any Sense to this Book which seems to them to contradict their Sense or Reason or any other principle of their Knowledge And I am asked Whether I proceed more prudently in receiving the Sense of the Law from that Interpreter which is actually supposed infallible or in proceeding by the second Method Now this is as wide of the mark as t'other I never suppose an infallible Interpreter never make any dispute whether I should submit to an infallible Interpreter or follow my own Reason which were indeed a ridiculos question supposing the Interpreter were actually infallible but our only dispute was Whether a man who by the appearing evidence of Reason is perswaded to believe an infallible Judge believes more infallibly than a Protestant does who believes also upon the evidence of Reason and Argument This is the Question he cannot answer and therefore would lose if he could But then I added that Protestants had much the advantage of Papists because besides that general assurance they had that the Scriptures are the Word of God and the infallible Rule of Faith they are in particular assured that the Faith they profess is agreeable to the Scripture or expresly contained in it and does not contradict either Sense or Reason nor any other Principle of Knowledge whereas Papists have no other evidence for the particular Articles of their Faith but the infallible Authority of their Church which is the last resolution of their Faith and that many times in contradiction to Sense and Reason and Scripture as far as fallible men can judge of it So that we have as much assurance of every Article of our Faith as they have of the Infallibility of their Church The meaning of which is that we have a rational assurance of every Article of our Faith in particular as they think they have the assurance of Reason and Argument that their Church is infallible To which he answers If he means they have the same proofs for this which Catholicks have for the Infallibility of the Church it is false No Sir I do not mean the same for I hope they are better but proofs of the same kind i. e. from Reason and Argument which are the only proofs they can pretend to for the Infallibility of their Church and therefore our Assurance for that I said not Proofs is of the same kind too a moral rational Assurance not infallible for that they have not for Infallibility itself as our Answerer confest above But the Argument he hints in his Answer p. 5. is so very new and so very pretty that I cannot pass it If he means they have the same proofs for this which Catholics have for the Infallibility of the Church that is for the being of that Church which declares her self Infallible for a Church erring in such a point would cease to be the Church of Christ then 't is evidently false The Argument is this that the Infallibility of a Church which declares herself infallible is as evident as the being of that Church for if she declares her self infallible and is not infallible such an Errour as this makes her cease to be the Church of Christ. So that the Church of Rome is either an infallible Church or no Church Well for Argument's â—ake we will say she is no Church and try then how he can prove her Infallibility But he has another bold stroke in what follows That the Christians of this Age have the same evidence of Her he must mean the Church of Rome being the Church of Christ and of her teaching Truth and consequently of her Infallibility which she hath of Christ viz. Prophesie Miracles c. What will no less evidence serve his turn is it full as evident that the Church of Rome is the Church of Christ and speaks Truth and consequently is Infallible which it seems every one that speaks truth must by consequence be as that there was such a person as Christ the true Prophet and Messias I hope by Prophesies he does not mean the Revelations of St. Iohn nor by Miracles the School of the Eucharist His next exception is against that Argument If you must not use your Reason and private Iudgment then you must not by any Reason be perswaded to condemn the use of Reason for to condemn is an act of Iudgment 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 Here our Jesuit is as pleasant as his wit would serve him the sum of his Answer is That a man
which St. Paul understands the Law which he calls the Letter or an External Administration and the Ministration of Death and of Condemnation in distinction from the Gospel which is the Ministration of the Spirit and the Ministration of Righteousness 2 Cor. 3.6 7 8 9. but our learned Jesuite understands it of the Letter of the Gospel as distinguished from the Sense of it which is such a distinction as no men of sense ever thought of till the Church of Rome found it necessary to distinguish the Letter and the Words of Scripture from the Sense of it and to separate them too which they have effectually done but yet how the Letters which are very innocent things in all other Books should be such killing things in Scripture is worthy of the Wit and Learning of a Jesuite to unriddle But I say to let this pass I grant a Protestant must understand the true sense of Scripture which must be done by venturing to understand the killing Letter of it before he can know much less believe what the Scripture teaches but that they should understand and remember every place of Scripture which relates to such a Subject I see no reason for if we have one or two or more plain and express places for it it is enough at least for ordinary Christians and a great deal more than the Church of Rome has for any of her new Articles of Faith. For we are sure what is plainly and expresly said in one place cannot be contradicted by another and therefore if I had no more than that one plain Text Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve I should think it a sufficient Proof against the Worship of Saints and Angels though there were no other Text in the Bible against it Now whatever Papists say for we desire to hear them prove as well as say this is so far from being impossible to any or almost any man that every considering Protestant has sufficient assurance of all this to found a Divine Faith on Well but what says Dr. Sherlock to give Protestants any certainty Truly not one word for that was not my business to shew what positive certainty Protestants have but to shew upon what vain pretences Papists charge the Protestant Faith with uncertainty And 1. I observe that could they prove the Protestant Faith uncertain this is no 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 be necessarily found amongst them because it is not found with us is Thomas an honest man because John is a knave Yes he says if the stolen goods were found with John an honest Iury he conceives would bring Thomas in not guilty And if Protestant Uncertainty and Popish Infallibility were to be decided by an honest Popish Jury we might guess pretty near at their Verdict But he says there is a true Faith and consequently a certain Rule of Faith. Protestants on one side chuse one Rule viz. the Holy Scriptures for we have no other Rule Catholicks another therefore not the Holy Scriptures for that is the Protestant Rule but here he ignorantly misrepresents his own Church for the Church of Rome does own the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith though not a compleat and perfect Rule but the dispute between Protestants and Papists is not so much about the Rule as about the Judge but he seems not to understand this distinction between the Rule and the Judge of Faith. But now for his conceiving I conceive then that if the Protestant Rule be proved uncertain that is the Holy Scriptures 't is plain the Catholick Rule must be the certain one But when the Scriptures are proved uncertain I fear there will be no Rule at all But however his Argument is so far true that if he could prove that there are but two Rules that one is false and the other true then when he has proved one to be false I grant without any more disputing that the other is true but now though there can be but one true Rule there may be a great many false ones and then both the Rules in competition may be false and uncertain In the Preservat Consider â— 38. he endeavours to salve this and now does not put the question about two Rules of Faith for that he says we are agreed on That the Scriptures are the Word of God that if we understood the full extent of its sense and meaning there would never be Error or Heresie amongst us Which shews that as I observed before he did not understand the difference between a Rule of Faith and a Guide or Expositor till some wiser mâ—n had told him of it Well now the thing in question is by what method we ought to come to that knowledge as far as it is necessary to a Christian. And I say that all the methods are reduced to these two heads that we are guided to the certain knowledge of what God hath revealed either by a knowledge communicated to each of us or by a knowledge communicated only to Guides appointed to direct the rest What he means by this communicated knowledge I cannot tell for we think the Scriptures may be understood without either publick or private Enthusiasms as all other Books are to be understood by considering the use and signification of words the scope and design of the place and by comparing one Text with another and the like Thus the Guides of the Church must understand Scripture and by their assistance thus private Christians may understand Scripture This all Mankind confess to be one way of understanding Scripture the same way that all men use to understand any Writing nay the only natural way that we know of No says the Church of Rome there is another possible way for God to direct the Guides the Pope of Rome or General Council by an infallible Spirit in expounding Scripture right say I this is possible indeed for God can do it if he pleases but it does not follow this is any way at all till it appears that God has revealed that he will take this way so that before there can be any competition between these two ways of expounding Scriptures it must be proved that there are two ways the Protestant way is acknowledged by all Mankind for Nature teaches no other way of understanding Books whether of Humane or Divine Composition that there is such a way as the Popish Method must be proved by Revelation for it depends wholly upon the Will of God and therefore can be proved only by Revelation now to make a competition between two ways of expounding Scripture before it is proved there are two ways is ridiculous and much more ridiculous to prove the certainty of the unknown and unproved way from the uncertainty of the known way if they can prove the Protestant way of expounding Scripture which is the
conceal the force of this Argument and to represent it thus Were all Protestants of a mind would their consent and agreement prove the certainty of the Protestant Faith. By which alone no man living could guess what I was proving and to this he answers Not at all and I agree with him in it for meer agreement does not prove the certainty of Faith no more then meer disagreement or variety of Opinions proves the uncertainty of Faith. But they prove them both alike as I observed which he calls a ridiculous Inference and as he has reported it he has made it ridiculous enough This is the same Rule and their disagreement proves not their uncertainty This is to mangle and transprose an Argument that it may not be understood but to confute this he says all Vnion is no Argument of the Spirit of God for People may combine to do ill But what is this to agreement in Opinions May not that argue the certainty of Faith because some men agree to do ill for a general consent and agreement of mens understandings may be an argument of the truth of what they consent in though the agreement of their Wills may not be a vertuous but a wicked Combination But yet St. Paul assures us disunion and dissention is a certain mark of the absence of the Spirit of God that is Contentions and Quarrels and Schisms are indeed so far the Works of the Flesh. But when two men or two Churches differ in their opinions of things can neither of them be in the right Is the Spirit of God with neither of them Is truth on neither side Then the Controversies between the Church of Rome and the Church of England prove that the Spirit of God is no more with the Church of Rome then with the Church of England The plain case is this our Roman Adversaries perswade Protestants that they can have no certainty of their Faith because Protestants are so much divided about it and therefore they must go to the Church of Rome which alone pretends to Infallibility But say I why should these differences among Protestants oblige them to go over to the Church of Rome when Protestants have no difference about this matter but are all agreed that the Church of Rome is so far from being infallible that she is a very corrupt Church I do not say that the differences of Protestants is a good Argument to prove the uncertainty of their Faith nor their bare agreement to prove the certainty of it but I say one proves as much as t'other and therefore 't is a better reason to Protestants not to turn Papists that all Protestants are agreed that the Church of Rome is not infallible but has greatly erred then it is for Protestants to go to the Church of Rome for Infallibility because they differ in some things among themselves especially considering that many points they now differ about will not be reconciled by their going to the Church of Rome for the same points are as fiercely disputed among them too as to instance at present only in the Quinquearticular Controversie CHAP. III. A Vindication of some Positions which are pretended to make void all Scripture-proof all use of Fathers and Councils and of Civil Charity and Moral Iustice to our Neighbours AS for Scripture-proof I was directing Protestantâ— what kind of Scripture-proof to demand for Transubstantiation and having shewn that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation does manifestly contradict the evidence of all our Senses and the most necessary principles of Reason I told them that it is but reasonable that the evidence for Transubstantiation should at least be equal to the evidence against it and therefore they must demand such a Scripture-proof of Transubstantiation as cannot possibly signifie any thing else or else it will not answer that evidence which we have against Transubstantiation for sense and reason pronounce Transubstantiation to be naturally impossible and therefore unless it be as impossible to put any other sense upon Scripture as it is to reconcile Transubstantiation to sense and reason there is not such good evidence for Transubstantiation as there is against it This he repeats after his usual manner to take care that no body shall understand what it relates to or see the force of the Argument and in answer to it he gives us a new instance of his good will to the Doctrine of the Trinity He says A Text which cannot possibly have another sense doth not leave it in any one's liberty who owns Scripture to be an Heretick therefore the Church produced no such Text against the Arians or Nestorians whence it evidently follows that according to Dr. Sherlock the Arians and Nestorians were not bound to believe the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ. But did I say that nothing can be proved but by such express Texts as it is not possible to understand otherwise I said this was necessary to prove any Doctrine which sense and reâ—son declare to be absolutely impossible And will he say the Doctrine of the Trinity is such a Doctrine No he says Preservative Considered p. 45. But they so appeared to the Nestorians and Arians and that is the case put by Dr. Sherlock but I put no case about meer appearing but of such palpable contradictions as the sense and reason of all Mankind agree in as Papists themselves cannot deny and know not how to justifie without pressing the Almighty Power of God to make good their absurd Imaginations Now where there is only an appearance of contradiction where a Doctrine only lies cross to mens natural reason there such express Texts as do more evidently prove that Doctrine then that Doctrine does evidently contradict reason is a sufficient foundation for the belief of it because in this case there is more evidence for it than against it and did not the Church alledge such Scripture-proofs for the Trinity And are there no such Proofs to be alledged He thinks they did not because then the Arians could not have continued Hereticks for a Text which cannot possibly have any other sense doth not leave it in any ones liberty to be a Heretick But I suppose he will allow that I spoke not of a natural but of a moral impossibility now a moral impossibility of interpreting Scripture otherwise is when a man cannot reasonably do it without offering manifest violence to the words and this a wilful and obstinate Heretick may do how plain and self-evident how uncapable soever the words are of any other possible sense to a reasonable and impartial Inquirer This principle I confess makes void all Scripture-proof of such Doctrines as sense and reason pronounce absolutely impossible but this is no injury but the greatest right we can do the Scripture But I cannot without some indignation observe how the Doctrine of the ever blessed Trinity is upon all occasions introduced by these men as contradicting sense and reason which would make one suspect they kept it for no
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
only way we know of to be uncertain the consequence is that there is no certain way of expounding Scripture not that the Church of Rome is the infallible Interpreter of Scripture and therefore any Protestant who is perswaded to own the Infallibility of the Church of Rome because he is told that the Protestant Faith is uncertain is a very foolish Convert and has so little sense and reason that it were fit he had an infallible Guide if he were to be found So that he is a little too forward when he says that all the Methods of coming to the knowledge of Scripture are reduced to these two heads for we know but of one way of expounding Scripture till he proves another and when he can prove his infallible Guide we will give up Protestant certainty as I told him before but till he has in another way proved the infallible Authority of his Church in expounding Scripture though he could prove our Faith uncertain this cannot prove his own to be infallible In the next place I directed our Protestant to ask these Popish Disputants what they meant 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 2ly That our perswasion about these matters is uncertain and wavering The Jesuite answers that this is not a true diâ—ision for there is a third thing also to wit that whatever Reasons there may be for a thing he who believes it hath for the motive of his belief those certain Reasons For he that believes in Christ only because his Mother hath taught him so hath a very uncertain and no Divine Faith. But suppose this Mother be the Church and he believes it only because the Church hath taught him so Has this man a divine and certain Faith No doubt must our Jesuite say because the Church is Infallible But suppose this man can no more prove the Church to be infallible than that his natural Mother is infallible What difference is there between those who believe upon the Authority of the Church and of their Mother I can assign none and shall be glad to learn the difference from our Jesuite He who believes the true Christian Faith and lives in conformity to it shall certainly be saved or else I fear we must at least damn half the Christians in the World whether Protestants or Papists for want of understanding the reasons of their Faith. Nay I am afraid all Traditionary Christians must be damned who believe this is the true Faith to day because their Fathers and Mothers were taught so and believed so yesterday So that I guess upon second thoughts our Jesuite will compound this matter with me and let fall the third part of the division and I am contented at present till I hear farther from him But he might have observed that I said not only that the Objects of our Faith are in themselves certain but that they may be proved by certain Reasons And therefore for him to say that they are indeed in themselves certain but not to any Protestant whose Rule of Faith cannot make him certain of any one Article without offering to shew that the Reasons why we believe are uncertain is to drop half of the first branch of the division and then to complain of the want of it When the Footman had minded him that our Rule of Faith is the Scripture and therefore if what he says be true the Scripture cannot make us certain of any one Article of Faith instead of answering this Blunder his Superiors only correct his Words in a Parenthesis Preserv Consid. p. 40. The Protestant Rule of Faith considering the Method he applies it by cannot make him certain c. which is a plain confession that the Footman was too hard for the Jesuite but then he should have shewn us how we had misapplied and what the uncertainties of our Reasons are but I suppose he will take time to consider that As for what he calls my Rule of Faith which he says justifies Turk Iew and Gentile We believe all that God hath revealed and nothing else is not all that he hath revealed certain Though I grant a Divine Revelation is the only Rule of my Faith yet here I spoke not of the Rule but of the Objects of my Faith and challenge him to shew that we do reject any thing that God has revealed in the Gospel of his Son or believe any thing else and dare him as I well might all professed Christians to deny the truth or certainty of what is revealed in the Gospel but Turks and Iews believe what they think in their judgments God hath revealed that is their Rule and 't is yours And is there any fault to be found with this so far Do Papists believe what they think in their judgments God has not revealed or what they think he has revealed If they believe what they think God has revealed then they justifie Jews and Turks too as much as Protestants No says the Jesuite Your own private judgments are on both hands your Guides and not any authority established by Almighty God. Now I confess I am not ashamed to own that Turk and Jew and Gentile that is all Mankind except Papists agree with Protestants in this that all men must believe with their own judgments and that there is no other faculty to believe with and much good may it do Papists that they have found out a way to believe without judgment wherein they differ from the rest of Mankind As for their Authority appointed by God on which they must rely without using their own Judgment when they can prove any such Authority we will submit to it I proved that the Articles of the Christian Faith which Protestants believe are certain and founded on certain Reasons as they themselves must grant unless they renounce the Christian Religion for here Infallibility itself cannot help them out For Infallibility cannot make that certain which is in its 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 Now this he says is notoriously false since she the Church is not infallible by any light of her own but by the guidance of the Spirit of Truth Now this is nothing to the purpose by what light the Church sees the Question is Whether an infallible Church can know that to be certain which is uncertain if she can then she infallibly knows that which is not true But were not the Apostles certain of what Christ told them when they acknowledged him the Son of God before he gave them certain Reason for it But was
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
other reason but to justifie the absurdities and contradictions of Transubstantiation As for the making void the use of Fathers and Councils to unlearned men it is the thing I designed and I am very glad if I have done it but as for learned men they may make such use of them still as such Writings are designed for not to make them the Rule of Faith but either to learn what was the Doctrine and Practice of the Church in their days or what their private Opinions were or how they expounded Scripture and the like that I call it squabling about the sense of Fathers if the expression be undecent it is owing to himself and some such late Scriblers whose Disputes have been nothing else but Squables But I cannot blame him that he is so angry that I direct the Protestant to inquire Whether such Books were written by that Father whose Name it bears for he knows such an inquiry has very lately cost him dear I was going to say a blush but that is impossible If such Questions as I ask cannot be answered to the satisfaction of learned men they are of no more use to them than they are to the unlearned who cannot answer them themselves and want the Learning which is necessary to make them capable of a satisfactory Answer and this is all the Answer I shall return to this Charge His next Charge is a dreadful one Such Principles as make void all use of Civil Charity and Moral Iustice to our Neighbours He lays it in the very last Section of the Preservative Concerning Protestant Mis-representations of Popery Wherein I shewed how vain and silly this charge was and he has not one word to say in defence of it Among other things I observed that 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 ever they can as if there were little or no difference between them 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 This I gave some few instances of out of the Representer and shewed that their Faith as he Represented it came very near and in some cases was the very same with the Protestant Faith but their Practice was Popish How is this contrary to Civil Charity and Moral Honesty He says it is this When a man 's exterior Actions are naturally capable of a good and pious meaning and he ever and clearly declares that it is his yet to fasten upon him another opposite design and meaning But how does this concern me who fasten no meaning at all upon their Actions but only barely relate what they profess to believe and what they practice He instances in two and let all the World judge who makes void Civil Charity and Moral Honesty He or I. To insinuate says he that a Catholick thinks the Virgin Mary more powerful in Heaven than Christ he tells you that he says Ten Ave-Maries for one Pater Noster whereas all that I say is He the Papist Represented believes it damnable to think the Virgin Mary more powerful in Heaven than Christ which is Protestant Doctrine But yet he prays to her oftner than either to God or Christ says ten Ave-Maries for one Pater Noster which is a Popish Devotion Is here any breach of Moral Honesty in this is not all this true do I put any sense or interpretation upon this action I believe all men will think that this does more than insinuate what a belief they have of the power of the Virgin and this the Jesuite was sensible of and therefore says that I insinuate it but I will leave it as I did at first to what judgment all indifferent men will make of it In the next place he says I charge the Catholicks with worshipping the visible Species in the Eucharist Hear my words again 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 Here is nothing about worshipping the visible Species in the Eucharist but whatever is the Sacrament they worship and must do so by the Doctrine of their Church if they can make a Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ without the visible Species then according to their Doctrine they need not worship the visible Species if they can't they must for they must adore the Sacrament and if the Sacrament should prove to be Bread and Wine not the natural Body and Blood of Christ and it is strange if it should not then I need not tell them what they worship But those matters have been debated often enough of late He concludes with an advice to Protestants urging the Argument against Scriptures which I had before done against Fathers Amongst Christians there is not one in an hundred thousand who understand all Scripture and it is morally impossible they should and therefore certainly there must be an easier and shorter way to understand Christian Religion than this or else the generality of Mankind even of profest Christians are out of possibility of Salvation I grant every word of it to be true if understanding all Scripture as he puts it were necessary to Salvation but the only easier and shorter way is to understand so much of the Scripture as is necessary to Salvation and let him when he pleases if he dare venture the Blasphemy of it prove that this is morally impossible to the generality of Mankind even of profest Christians A VINDICATION OF THE SECOND PART OF THE Preservative against POPERY HEre our Jesuite gives me a great many hard Words but nothing of Argument He talks tragically of Calumnies and Misrepresentations how much he proves of it unless a bold Accusation must pass for a Proof I dare leave to every ordinary Reader who will compare my Book with his He is much off of his byass here for I did not dispute directly against any Popish Doctrines but used such collateral Arguments as are very evident and convincing to ordinary Readers but so much out of the road that the Jesuite could find nothing in his Common-place Book about it and therefore does not pretend to answer any one Section of my Book but yet out of every Section he picks some single Sayings and if he meets with an Argument that he cannot answer he takes some few words of it and calls it Calumny and Misrepresentation the only way I have to write such an Answer to him as may be fit to be read is to give a short Abstract of each Section of my Book and to take notice where those Passages come in which he calls Calumnies and Misrepresentations SECT I. Concerning Idolatry I Shewed the great Design of our Saviour was more perfectly to
knee As I observed before that how dear soever the Saints are to God they are but his Creatures and if Soveraign Princes will not receive their greatest Favourites into their Throne much less will God. This is another of his Misrepresentations that I say the Papists by their worshipping Saints Angels and the Virgin Mary put them in the Throne of God but this I do not say but only that God will not take any of his Creatures into his Throne But yet if giving Religious Worship placed the Heathen Deities in God's Throne I would gladly be satisfied why the Worship of Saints and Angels should not be thought to do the same I am sure to worship Saints in the same Temple and at the same Altar and with the same humble Prostrations and in the very same Prayers that we worship God looks very like placing a Favourite on the same Throne with his Prince but yet this is not the dispute whether they do so or not but whether it be not so like it that it is unreasonable to think that Christ who came to root out all Idolatry will allow or command it Another kind of Idolatry the Heathens were fond of was the Worship of Images and Pictures whereby they represented their Gods as visibly present with them For they wanted some material representations of their Gods in which they might as it were see them present and offer up their Petitions to them and court them with some visible and sensible honours To cure this kind of Idolatry under the Law though God forbad the Worship of Images yet he appoints them to erect a Tabernacle or Temple where he would dwell among them and place the Symbols of his Presence the Mercy-seat and the Cherubims covering the Mercy-seat which was a symbolical Representation of God's Throne in Heaven where he is surrounded with Angels as the Holy of Holies itself was the Figure of Heaven Thus under the Law to give them assurance of his presence with them though they could not see him he had a peculiar Place for Worship and peculiar Symbols of his Presence but no Images to represent his Person or to be the Objects of Worship And here I took notice of that Pretence of the Church of Rome for Image-Worship that the Cherubims were worshipped by the Iews and particularly answered the Arguments of the late Bishop of Oxford to prove it and it had been worthy of the Jesuite to have made some reply to this but he was wiser than to meddle with it among other things the Bishop had urged David's Exhortation to the People to Honour the Ark Bow down to or worship his Foot-stool for it or he is holy 99 Psalm to prove that the Iews worshipped the Cherubims this I said was very strange when he himself four Pages before had told us that the Ark was God's Foot-stool and the Cherubims his Throne now suppose David had exhorted the people to Worship the Ark which as he says is God's Foot-stool how does this prove that they must Worship the Cherubims which are God's Throne this he calls a misrepresentation and so it is indeed and a very gross one too but it is his own for he represents this as my Argument against the Worship of the Cherubims that they were commanded indeed to Worship the Ark which was God's Foot-stool but not the Cherubims which were his Throne whereas I never granted that by the Foot-stool of God was meant the Ark but all that I said was that if the Ark as the Bishop affirmed was meant by God's Foot-stool and the Cherubims were his Throne then though there had been such a Command to 〈…〉 God 's Foot-stool this could not prove the worship of the â—â—erubims which in his Divinity were not the Foot-stool but the Throne of God. This he could not be ignorant of because I expresly proved that by the Foot-stool of God could not be meant the Ark for the Ark was in the Holy of Holies which was a figure of Heaven and neither the Heaven nor any thing in it but the Earth is in Scripture called God's Foot-stool as the Psalmist expresly applies it to Zion and the Holy Hill. And this I observed is a sufficient confutation of his Exposition of the words to bow down to or worship his Foot-stool for Mount Zion or the Holy Hill was not the Object of Worship nor Symbol of God's Presence but there God was present and that was reason enough to worship him at his Foot-stool and at his Holy Hill as our English Translation reads it I added Suppose the Jews were to direct their Worship towards the Mercy-seat which was covered by the Cherubims where God had promised to be present how are the Cherubims concerned in this Worship the Worship was paid only to God though directed to God as peculiarly present in that place which is no more than to lift up our eyes and hands to Heaven where the Throne of God is when we pray to him but he adds the very Image for example of Christ crucified is the Object of the Worship of Papists which is certainly true but he should have given my own words The Bishop had said that bowing to or towards any thing was the same thing this I granted if they bowed to or towards any thing as the Object of Worship and therefore had the Iews either bowed to or towards the Cherubims as the Objects of their Worship as the Papists bow to or towards their Images they had been equally guilty of Idolatry and the breach of the Second Commandment but when bowing to signifies bowing to an Object of Worship and bowing towards signifies bowing to this Object of Worship only towards such a place where he is peculiarly present this makes a vast difference And this he calls a Misrepresentation that I say Papists bow to their Images as Objects of Worship but this has been so often proved upon them in the several Answers to the Representer and M. de Meaux and his Vindicator that it would be as foolish in me to prove it again as it is impudent in him to deny it But I observed farther that in the Gospel God has provided a more effectual remedy against Image-Worship in the Incarnation of his Son. Mankind have been always fond of some visible Deity and because God cannot be seen they have gratified their superstition by making some visible Images and Representations of an invisible God Now to take them off from mean corporeal Images and Representations which are both a dishonour to the Divine Nature and debase the Minds of Men God has given us a visible Image of himself has clothed his own Eternal Son with Humane Nature who is the brightness of his Father's Glory and the express Image of his Person Now when God has given us a visible Image of himself his eternal and incarnate Son whom we may worship and adore can we think he will allow us to worship material and sensible Images of Wood and Stone
by some Sayings of the Fathers that after the guilt of sin is forgiven there remains an obligation to undergo punishment but these have been answered often enough and are no Answer to the Argument of the Preservative and therefore I am not concerned about them I asked farther why they call Purgatory which is a place of punishment in the other World a temporal punishment which is an abuse of the Language of Scripture which makes this World temporal and the next World eternal The things which are seen are temporal but the things which are not seen are eternal and therefore temporal punishments signifie the punishments of this World but the unseen punishments as well as the unseen rewards of the next World are eternal which is a demonstration that there is no Purgatory unless it be eternal This he thus repeats p. 69. The things which are seen that is of this World are temporal but the things which are not seen that is of the next World are eternal This is a demonstration that there is no Purgatory which is both to conceal the force of the Argument and to pervert it for he should at least have added there is no Purgatory unless it be eternal But his answer to this is extremely pleasant p. 76. St. Paul never taught that all things that are not seen or of another World are eternal or else God would be eternally judging and so never rewarding his Servants or punishing his Enemies But it is plain the Apostle by things that are seen or not seen signifies things which are to be enjoyed or suffered by us not any transient Acts of God or Creatures and thus if there be any such thing as Purgatory in the other World it must be eternal To this I added The state of the next World is called either life or death eternal life or eternal death Those who believe in Christ shall never die Now I desire to know the difference between living and dying and perishing in the next World. For bad men do not cease to be nor lose all sense in the next World no more than good men and therefore life can only signifie a state of happiness and death a state of misery Now if good men must not perish must not die in the next World they must not go to Purgatory which is as much perishing as much dying as Hell though not so long This he thus recites p. 69. Who believes in Christ shall never die therefore good men must not go to Purgatory which is as much perishing and dying as Hell but not so long Which you see is still to conceal the force of the Argument but the comfort is he says nothing against it unless his repeating it must pass for a confutation But he immediately adds as if it were in the same period otherwise Purgatory may be everlasting life for all I know and so the pains of it eternal But this is several periods off In summing up this Argument I inquired how a Papist who believes a Purgatory-fire wherein he shall be tormented God knows how long for his sins can prove that a penitent sinner shall not be damned for his sins After other proofs which I thought it was reasonable for them to urge and I am sure they can urge no better I alledged this in their behalf that Christ has promised that those who believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life and that proves that the pains of Purgatory cannot be for ever for then Christ could not perform his promise of bestowing everlasting life on them To this I answer So I confess one would think and so I should have thought also that when Christ promised that such believers should not perish and should never die that he meant that such men should not go to Purgatory but if falling into Purgatory he not perishing and not dying it may 〈◊〉 â—verlasting life too for ought I know and then the pains of Purgatory may be eternal I hope the Reader is by this time sensible how easie it is to render any Discourse ridiculous by taking half Sentences and joyning those passages together which have no connexion and dependance I observed farther That the Doctrine of Purgatory destroys our hope and confidence in the mediation of Christ as it represents him less merciful and compassionate or less powerful than the necessities of sinners require him to be 1. As for his Compassion It is no great sign of tenderness and compassion to leave his Members in Purgatory-fire which burns as hot as Hell. Could I believe this of our Saviour I should have very mean thoughts of his kindness and not much rely on him for any thing it is a wonderful thing to me that when a merciful man cannot see a Beast in torment without relieving it it should be thought consistent with the mercy and compassion of our Saviour to see us burn in Purgatory for Years and Ages Part of this he repeats and I suppose thought all the World would take it for an ill saying and therefore leaves it as he found it but I shall stand to it till he confutes it 2. If it be not want of Compassion it must be want of Power in our Saviour to help us and if he want Power to deliver from Purgatory I should more question his Power to deliver from Hell for that is the harder of the two if his Blood could not expiate for the temporal punishment of sin which the Merits of some supererâ—gating Saints or the Pope's Indulgencies or the Priests Masses can redeâ—m us from how câ—uld it make expiation for eternal punishment iâ— hâ—s intâ—râ—st in the Court of Heaven cannot do the less how can 〈◊〉 do the greater This he calls a Misrepresentation and truly as he has recited it it is a very great one P. 68. That the Blood of Christ could not expiate for the temporal punishment of sin which the Merits of some supererogating Saints or the Priest's Masses or Pope's Indulgencies can redeem us from how then can that Blood make expiation for eternal punishment I say if it cannot do one which is the greater muâ—h less can it do the other which is the less he makes me say that it cannot do one which is the less and therefore cannot do the greater This is Popish Liberty of Conscience with a witness From the Doctrine of Purgatory I proceeded to the Invocation of Saints and Angels 〈◊〉 our Mediators whether this does not also disparage the Graâ—â— of the Gospel the Love of God and of our Mediator and Advocate Jesus Christ to penitent sinners Now I observed 1. with respect to God That no man can believe that God is so very gracious to sinners for the sake of Christ who seeks to so many Advocates and Mediators to intercede for him with God. To imagine that we want any Mediator with God but only our High-Priest who mediates in vertue of his Sacrifice is a reproach to the Divine Goodness This the Jesuite
single sheet was only swelled up with words but void of Sense and Reason A strange Tympany this poor Preservative was sick of that when the wordy swelling was taken down that and the Answer too could be reduced to a single sheet But the Prefacer he says should have pointed at some pretended proofs which he slighted to expose or have praised him for not wearying his Readers with a dull prolixity But the Prefacer pointed him to the Book and that was enough unless he would have had him transcribe the Book again and concluded every entire Argument with this is not Answered by the Iesuite For I know not any one paragraph that he has pretended to answer though some single sayings he has nibled at and little pieces of Argument as appears from this Vindication and that so dully too that there was no need of more prolixity to tire his Readers Our Author little thinks how he exposes his Reputation among our people by such vain brags as these They can find a great many Arguments which he has not medled with and therefore conclude the Jesuite to be very blind or very impudent in pretending to have answered all he could find or which it may be is the truth of the case that he was not trusted to read the Preservative but had some sayings picked out for him to answer and he mistook them for the whole 4 ly That when he talks big of Calumnies and Misrepresentation he woulâ— not only say but prove them to be so that is that I attribute any Doctrines to them which are not taught by their own Councils and Doctors or impute such Practices to them as they are not guilty of for this Cry of Misrepresenting is grown so familiar now and that Charge has been so often bafled of late that our People will not take his Word for it nor allow every Argument he cannot Answer to pass for a Misrepresentation 5 ly I would advise him to have a care that he do not Confute his own Church while he is zealous to Confute his Adversary this often happens and has done so to him in this very Dispute especially in his Talk of Moral Infallibility which has effectually given up the Roman pretences to Infallibility as I have shewn above 6 ly If he resolves to Write again I desire him to take but any one Chapter or Section in the Preservative and try his skill on it not to pick out a single Saying or two but to Answer the whole Series of Argumentâ— as they lie there and if he can make any work of it I promise him a very grave and modest Reply But if he skips about from one Page to another and only hunts for Calumnies and Misrepresentations as he calls them which he first artificially makes by changing Words and Periods and joyning Sentences which have no relation to each other and then triumphs over his own Creatures I shall leave him to be answered and chastized by any Footman who pleases to undertake him and I wish the next may not be so much his Over-match as the first was I have taken no Notice of his Postscript in Answer to the Preface to the Protestant Footman's Defence of the Preservative That Author is able to Answer for himself if he thinks fit but I presume he looks upon that Dispute as at an end if Disputes must ever have an end for when all is said that a Cause 〈◊〉 bear and the same Arguments and the same Answers come to be repeated over again it is time then for a modest man to have done and to leave the World to judge unless Disputing be only an Art of Scolding where the last Word is thought the Victory THE END Books Printed for and are to be Sold by W. Rogers Bp Wilkins his Fifteen Sermons Octavo Dr. Wallis of the Necessity of Regeneration In Two Sermons to the University of Oxford Quarto His Defence of the Royal Society and the Philosophical Transactions particularly those of Iuly 1670. In Answer to the Cavils of Dr. William Holder Quarto The Necessity Dignity and Duty of Gospel-Ministers discoursed of before the University of Cambridge By Tho. Hodges B.D. Quarto The Peaceable Christian. A Sermon Quarto Price 3 d. A Treatise of Marriage with a Defence of the 32 d Article of the Church of England viz. Bishops Priests and Deacons are not commanded by God's Law either to Vow the State of Single Life or to Abstain from Marriage c. By Tho Hodges B. D. Octavo History of the Affairs of Europe in this present Age but more particularly of the Republick of Venice By Battista Nani Cavalier of St. Mark. Fol. Sterry's Freedom of the Will. Folio Light in the Waâ— to Paradise with other Occasionals By Dudley the 2 d late Lord North. Octavo Molins of the Muscles with Sir Charles Scarborough's Syllabus Musculorum Octavo A Collection of Letters of Gallantry Twelves Leonard's Reports in Four Parts The Second Edition Folio Bulstrode's Reports in Three Parts the Second Edition Corrected with the Addition of Thousands of References 1688. Fol. The Compleat Clark containing the best Forms of all sorts of Presidents for Conveyances and Assurances and other Instruments now in Use and Practice Quarto Sir Simon Degges Parsons Counsellor with the Law of Tithes and Tithing In Two Books The Fourth Edition Octavo An Answer to the Bishop of Condom now of Meaux his Exposition of the Catholick Faith c. wherein the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is Detected and that of the Church of England Expressed from the Publick Acts of both Churches To which are added Reflections on his Pastoral Letter THE Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome â—ruly Represenâ—ed in Answer to a Book intituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented c. Quarto Third Edition An Answer to a Discourse intituled Papists protesting against Protestant Popery being a Vindication of Papists not Misrepresented by Protestants And containing a particular Examination of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condom his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the Articles of Invocation of Saints Worship of Images occasioned by that Discourse Quarto Second Edition An Answer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Differences between the Representer and the Answerer Quarto A View of the 〈◊〉 â—ontroversie between the Representer and the Answerer with an 〈◊〉 to the Representer's last Reply in which are â—id open some of the Methods by which Protestants are Misreprensented by Papists Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scriptâ—â—â—â—eason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the 〈◊〉 Part Wherein an Answer is given to the late Proofs of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation in the Books called Consensus Veterum and Nubes Testiuâ— c. Quarto The Doctrine â—f the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the Second Part Wherein the