prove such an Institution Were there nothing in Scripture or Reason to prove that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is not a propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead yet no Reason can prove that it is For the vertue and acceptation of a Sacrifice intirely depends upon the will and appointment of God at least so far that no Sacrifice can be Propitiatory without it And therefore there can be no other proof that the Mass is a propitiatory Sacrifice but the declaration of God's Will and Institution that it shall be so 2. Those things also can be proved onely by Scripture which are done in the other World which is an unknown and invisible State to us any farther than the Scripture has revealed it and men may more reasonably expect to find out by the power of Reason what is done every day in China or the most remote and unknown parts of the Earth than what is done in the other World. And then there are a great many things wherein you must reject all pretences to Reason any farther than it is supported by plain and evident Scripture As to give some instances of this also 1. No Reason can prove that there is such a place as Purgatory for that is an invisible place in the other World if there be any such place no man living ever saw it and then how can any man know that there is such a place unless it be revealed To attempt to prove that there is such a place as Purgatory meerly by Reason is just as if a man who had some general notion of an Inquisition but never had any credible information that there actually was any such place should undertake to prove by Reason that there is and must be such a place as the Inquisition though he would happen to guess right yet it is certain his Reasons signified nothing for some Countries have the Inquisition and some have not and therefore there might have been no Inquisition any where how strong soever the Reasons for it might be thought to be We may as well describe by the power of Reason the World in the Moon and what kind of Inhabitants there are there by what Laws they live what their Business what their Pleasures and what their Punishments are as pretend to prove that there is a Purgatory in the next World for they are both equally unknown to us and if Reason cannot prove that there is such a place as Purgatory nothing else which relates to Purgatory can be proved by Reason 2. Nor can we know what the State of Saints in Heaven is without a Revelation for no man has been there to see the State of the other World is such things as neither Eye hath seen nor Ear heard neither hath it entred into the Heart of man to conceive And then I cannot understand how we should know these things by Reason The Church of Rome teaches us to Pray to Saints and to flie to their Help and Aid And there are a great many things which a wise man would desire to know before he can think it fit to pray to them which yet it is impossible to know without a Revelation as Whether the Saints we direct our Prayers to be in Heaven Which is very fit to be known and yet can certainly be known but of a very few of that vast number that are worshipped in the Church of Rome the Apostles of Christ and the Virgin Mary we have reason to believe are in Heaven and we may hope well of others but we cannot know it No man can see who is there and bare hope how strong soever is not a sufficient foundation for such a Religious Invocation of unknown Saints who after all our perswasions that they are in Heaven may be in Hell or at least in Purgatory where they want our Prayers but are not in a condition to interceed for us Thus it is very necessary to know what the power and authority of the Saints in Heaven is before we pray to them for it is to no purpose to pray to them unless we know they can help us The Council of Trent recommends to us the Invocation of Saints as of those who reign with Christ in Heaven and therefore have power and authority to present our Petitions and procure those Blessings we pray for And if I could find any such thing in Scripture it would be a good reason to pray to them but all the Arguments in the World cannot prove this without a Revelation they may be in Heaven and not be Mediators and Advocates Thus whatever their power and authority may be it is to no purpose to pray to them unless we are sure that they hear our Prayers and this nothing but a Revelation can assure us of for no natural Reason can assure us that meer Creatures as the most glorious Saints in Heaven are can hear our soft nay mental Prayers at such a vast distance as there is between Heaven and Earth Such matters as these which Reason can give us no assurance of if they be to be proved at all must be proved by Scripture and therefore as the pretence of proving these things by Reason is vain so no Protestant should be so vain as to trouble himself to answer such Reasons But you 'll say The Papists do pretend to prove these things by Scripture I answer So far it is very well and I onely desire our Protestant to keep them to their Scripture Proofs and to reject all their Reasons and then let them see what they can make of it As for Scripture-Proofs they shall be considered presently 3. More particularly you must renounce all such Reasons as amount to no more than some May-bes and Possibilities for what onely may be may not be and every thing that is possible is not actually done As for instance When you ask these men How you can be assured that the Saints in Heaven can hear our Prayers They offer to shew you by what ways this may be done They may see all things in the Glass of the Trinity and thereby know all things that God knows Which is but a may-be and yet it is a more likely may-be that there is no such Glass as gives the Saints a comprehensive view of all that is in God. Well but God can reveal all the Prayers to the Saints which are made to them on Earth Very right we dispute not God's power to do this but desire to know Whether he does it or not and his bare power to do it does not prove that But the Saints in Heaven may be informed of what is done on Earth by those who go from hence thither or by those Ministring Angels who frequently pass between Heaven and Earth but this may not be too and if it were it would not answer the purposes of Devotion for in this way of intercourse the News may come too late to the Saints to whom we pray for the Saints to do us any
good As suppose a man pray to the Virgin Mary in the hour of Death or in a great Storm at Sea the man may be dead and Ship wrackt before the Virgin knows of his Prayers and may carry the first news of it into the other World himself Such kind of May-bes and Conjectures as these are a very sorry Foundation for an Infallible Church to build her Faith on 4. You must reject also all such Reasons in Divine and Spiritual things as are drawn from Earthly Patterns A considering man would a little wonder how a Papist should so punctually determine what is done in the other World without speaking with any one who has seen it and without having any Revelation about it as I have already observed but whoever considers many of their Arguments will soon find that they make this World the Pattern of the next and reason from Sensible to Spiritual things Thus the true Foundation of Saint-worship is that men judge of the Court of Heaven by the Courts of earthly Princes The most effectual way to obtain any Request of our Prince is to address our selves to some powerful Favourite and they take it for granted that all Saints and Angels in Heaven are such Favourites and can obtain whatever they ask and therefore they pray very devoutly to them and beg their Intercession with God and their Saviour Especially in earthly Courts the Queen Mother is supposed to have a powerful influence upon the young Prince her Son and therefore they do not doubt but the Virgin Mary the Mother of Christ can do what she pleases with her Son And since it is generally observed that Women are more soft and tender and compassionate than men they hope to gain that by her Intercession which He who died for them would not grant without it and therefore they beg her to shew her self to be a Mother that is to take the Authority of a Mother upon her and command her Son. Thus Princes and Great Men love to have their Pictures set up in publick places and to have all civil Respects paid to them which redounds to the honour of those whose Pictures they are and therefore they imagine that this is as acceptable to Christ and the Saints as it is to Men as if the other World were nothing else but a new Scene of Sense and Passion Mankind is very apt to such kind of Reasonings as these and indeed they can have no other when they will undertake to guess at unseen and unknown things But if there be any difference between the Court of Heaven and Earth if pure Spirits who are separated from Flesh and Sense have other Passions and Resentments than Men have that is if we must not judge of spiritual things by Sense of the Government of God by the Passions of men then such Reasonings as these may betray us to absurd and foolish Superstitions but are a very ill foundation for any new and uncommanded Acts of Worship 5. Never admit any Arguments meerly from the usefulness conveniency or supposed necessity of any thing to prove that it is As for instance A Supream Oecumenical Bishop and an Infallible Judge of Controversies are thought absolutely necessary to the Unity of the Church and certainty of Faith and confounding of Schisms and Heresies If there be not a Supream Pastor there can be no Unity if there be not an Infallible Judge there can be no certainty in Religion every man must be left to his own private Judgment and then there will be as many different Religions as there are Faces Now if I thought all this were true as I believe not a word of it is I should only conclude that it is great pity that there is not an Universal Pastor and Infallible Judge instituted by Christ but if you would have me conclude from these Premises Ergo there is an Universal Bishop and Head of the Church and an Infallible Judge of Controversies I must beg your pardon for that for such Arguments as these do not prove that there is such a Judge but only that there ought to be one and therefore I must conclude no more from them Indeed this is a very fallacious way of Reasoning because what we may call useful convenient necessary may not be so in it self and we have reason to believe it is not so if God have not appointed what we think so useful convenient or necessary which is a truer and more modest way of Reasoning than to conclude that God has appointed such a Judge when no such thing appears only because we think it so useful and necessary that he ought to do it These Directions are sufficient to Preserve all considering Protestants from being imposed on by the fallacious Reasonings of Papists SECT II. Concerning Scripture-Proofs 2. LEt us now consider their Scripture-Proofs though it is not choice but necessity which puts them upon this Tryal When they have good Catholicks to deal with a little Scripture will serve the turn but Hereticks will be satisfied with nothing else and therefore in disputing with them they are forced to make some little shew and appearance of proving their Doctrines by Scripture but they come very unwillingly to it and make as much of a little as may be The truth is there is Evidence enough that they have no great confidence in the Scripture themselves and therefore do not deal honestly and fairly with poor Hereticks when they make their boasts of Scripture For did they believe that their Doctrines which they endeavour to prove from Scripture were plainly and evidently contained in them why should they deny the People the liberty of reading the Scriptures If the Scriptures be for them why should they be against the Scriptures The common Pretence is that those who are unlearned put very wild sences upon Scripture and expound it by their own fancies which in many cases indeed is too true but why should the Church of Rome be more afraid of this than other Protestant Churches If they think the Scripture is as much for them as we think it is for us why dare not they venture this as well as we We are not afraid men should read the Scripture though we see what wild Interpretations some put on them because we are certain we can prove our Faith by Scripture and are able to satisfie all honest men who will impartially study the Scriptures that we give the true sence of them and if they believed they could do so too Why do they avoid this tryal when ever they can For though they admit People to dispute from the Scripture in England where they cannot help it yet they will not allow them so much as to see the Scriptures in Italy or Spain where they have power to hinder it Nay they themselves do in effect confess that the peculiar Doctrines and Practices of their Religion wherein they differ from all other Christian Churches cannot be proved by Scripture And therefore to help them out
where his infallible Interpretation is to be found for if there be such an Interpreter who never Interprets I know not how either they or we shall understand Scripture the better for him Now have either Popes or General Councils given us an authentick and infallible Exposition of Scripture I know of none such all the Expositions of Scripture in the Church of Rome are writ by private Doctors who were far enough from being infallible and the business of General Councils was not to expound Scripture but to define Articles of Faith and therefore we find the sence of very few Texts of Scripture Synodically defined by any General Council I think not above four or five by the Council of Trent So that after all their talk of an infallible Interpreter when they undertake to expound particular Texts and to dispute with us about the sence of them they have no more Infallibility in this than we have for if they have an infallible Interpreter they are never the better for him for he has not given them an infallible Interpretation and therefore they are forced to do as Protestants do interpret Scripture according to their own skill and understanding which I suppose they will not say is infallible But you 'll say though the Church has not given us an infallible Interpretation of Scripture yet she has given us an infallible Exposition of the Faith and that is an infallible Rule for expounding Scripture I answer there is a vast difference between these two for our dispute is not about the sence of their Church but about the sence of the Scripture we know what Doctrines their Church has defined but we desire to see them proved from Scripture And is it not a very modest and pleasant proposal when the dispute is how their Faith agrees with Scripture to make their Faith the Rule of expounding Scripture Though I confess that is the only way I know of to make their Faith and the Scriptures agree but this brings the Scriptures to their Faith does not prove their Faith from Scripture II. As for Expounding Scripture by the unanimous consent of Primitve Fathers This is indeed the Rule which the Council of Trent gives and which their Doctors swear to observe how well they keep this Oath they ought to consider Now as to this you may tell them that you would readily pay a great deference to the unanimous consent of Fathers could you tell how to know it and therefore in the first place you desire to know the agreement of how many Fathers makes an unanimous Consent for you have been told that there have been as great variety in interpreting Scripture among the ancient Fathers as among our modern Interpreters that there are very few if any controverted Texts of Scripture which are interpreted by an unanimous consent of all the Fathers If this unanimous Consent then signifie all the Fathers we shall be troubled to find such a Consent in expounding Scripture must it then be the unanimous Consent of the greatest number of Fathers This will be a very hard thing especially for unlearned men to tell Noses we can know the Opinion onely of those Fathers who were the Writers in every Age and whose Writings have been preserved down to us and who can tell whether the major number of those Fathers who did not write or whose Writings are lost were of the same mind with those whose Writings we have and why must the major part be always the wisest and best men and if they were not the consent of a few wise men is to be preferred before great numbers of other Expositors Again ask them whether these Fathers were Infallible or Traditionary Expositors of Scripture or whether they expounded Scripture according to their own private Reason and Judgment if they were Infallible Expositors and delivered the Traditionary sence and interpretation of Scripture it is a little strange how they should differ in their Expositions of Scripture and as strange how private Doctors and Bishops should in that Age come to be Infallible and how they should lose it in this for now Infallibility is confined to the Bishop of Rome and a General Council If they were not Infallible Expositors how comes their Interpretation of Scripture to be so sacred that it must not be opposed Nay how comes an Infallible Church to prescribe such a fallible Rule of interpreting Scriptures If they expounded Scripture according to their own Reason and Judgment as it is plain they did then their Authority is no more sacred than their Reason is and those are the best Expositors whether Ancient or Modern whose Expositions are backed with the best Reasons We think it a great confirmation of our Faith that the Fathers of the Church in the first and best Ages did believe the same Doctrines and expound Scripture in great and concerning points much to the same sence that we do and therefore we refuse not to appeal to them but yet we do not wholly build our Faith upon the Authority of the Fathers we forsake them where they forsake the Scriptures or put perverse sences on them and so does the Church of Rome too after all their boast of the Fathers when they contradict the present Roman-Catholick as they do very often though I believe without any malicious design because they knew nothing of it However ask them once more whether that sence which they give of those Texts of Scripture which are controverted between us and the Church of Rome be confirmed by the unanimous consent of all the ancient Fathers whether for instance all the ancient Fathers did expound those Texts Thou art Peter and on this Rock will I build my Church and feed my Sheep c. of the personal Supremacy and Infallibility of Peter and his Successors the Bishops of Rome Whether they all expounded those words This is my Body of the Transubstantiation of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the natural Flesh and Bloud of Christ and those words Drink ye all of this to signifie Let none drink of the Cup but the Priest who consecrates and so in other Scriptures If they have the confidence to say that all the Fathers expounded these and such-like Scriptures as the Doctors of the Church of Rome now do tell them you have heard and seen other Expositions of such Scriptures cited from the ancient Fathers by our Divines and that you will refer that cause to them and have it tried whenever they please III. There is no other way then left of understanding Scripture but to expound it as we do other Writings by considering the signification and propriety of words and phrases the scope and context of the place the reasons of things the Analogie between the Old and New Testament and the like When they dispute with Protestants they can reasonably pretend to no other way of expounding Scripture because we admit of no other and yet if they allow of this they open a wide Gap for all Heresies
Sins which are forgiven in the next World because there is a Sin which shall not be forgiven there Now not to consider the ordinary use of such Phrases to signifie no more than it shall never be without distinguishing between what is to be done in this World and what in the next nay not to consider how contrary this is to their own Doctrine of Purgatory that men who go to Purgatory have all their Sins already forgiven though they must suffer the punishment of them there which how absurd soever it is yet shews that Purgatory is not a place of forgiving Sins and therefore cannot be meant by our Saviour in those words yet supposing all they would have that there shall be some Sins forgiven in the next World which are not forgiven in this How does this prove a Popish Purgatory where Souls endure such torments as are not inferiour to those of Hell it self excepting their duration That some Sins shall be forgiven in the next World I think does not very evidently prove that men shall be tormented it may be for several Ages in the Fire of Purgatory Thus they prove the necessity of Auricular Confession to Priest from the power of Judicial Absolution Christ has given the Priest power to forgive Sins and hereby has made him a Judge to retain or remit Sins to absolve and inflict Penances Now a Judge cannot judge right without a particular knowledge of the Fact and all the circumstances of it and this the Priest cannot know without the confession of the Penitent and therefore as Priests have authority to absolve so a Penitent who would be absolved must of necessity confess But now I should think it a much better consequence that the Priest has not such a judicial authority of Absolution as requires a particular confession of the Penitent because Christ has no where commanded all men to confess their Sins to a Priest than that the Priest has such a judicial Authority and therefore all men must confess to a Priest for though our Saviour does give power to his Apostles to remit and retain Sins yet those words do not necessarily signifie a judicial Authority to forgive Sins or if it did it may relate onely to publick Sins which are too well known without a private confession or however it is not the particular knowledge of the Sin with all the circumstances of it but the marks and characters of true Repentance for publick or secret Sins which is the best rule and direction whom to absolve and therefore there is no need of a particular confession to this purpose But the Sophistry of this is most palpable when they draw such consequences from one Text of Scripture as directly contradict other plain and express Texts Thus because St. Peter tells us That there are many things hard to be understood in St. Paul's Epistles which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest as they do also the other scriptures to their own destruction 2 Pet. 3. 16. From hence they would conclude that People ought not to be allowed to read the Bible as if St. Peter had intended to forbid them to read those Epistles which St. Paul had written to them nay to read this very Epistle which he himself now sent to them For these Epistles which were sent to the Churches that they might be read by them make a considerable part of the New Testament which the People must not be allowed to read now But setting aside this this consequence that the People must not read the Bible is directly contrary to a great many other Texts which expresly command them to read and search and study and meditate on the Laws of God and the Holy Scriptures as every body knows I confess it amazes me to hear men argue at this rate when they cannot produce any one Text which forbids People to read the Scriptures and there are a great many express commands that they should read the Scriptures they think it sufficient to oppose against all this Authority a consequence of their own making and a very absurd one too and call this a Scripture-proof I would not be thought wholly to reject a plain and evident consequence from Scripture but yet I will never admit of a meer consequence to prove an Institution which must be delivered in plain terms as all Laws ought to be and where I have no other proof but some Scripture-consequences I shall not think it equivalent to a Scripture-proof if the consequences be plain and obvious and such as every man sees I shall not question it but remote and dubious and disputed consequences if we have no better evidence to be sure are a very ill foundation for Articles of Faith. Let our Protestant then tell such Disputants that for the Institution of Sacraments and for Articles of Faith he expects plain positive Proofs that as much as the Protestant Faith is charged with uncertainty we desire a little more certainty for our Faith than meer inferences from Scripture and those none of the plainest neither 4. Another false pretence to Scripture-proofs is to clap their own sense upon the words of Scripture without any regard to the use and propriety of words to the circumstances of the place to the reason and nature of things and to call this a Scripture-proof of their Doctrine when their Doctrines do not naturally grow there but are onely engrafted by some cunning Artists upon a Scripture-stock I shall give you onely one instance of this their Doctrine of Transubstantiation As for Transubstantiation they teach that the Elements of Bread and Wine are converted into the natural Flesh and Bloud of Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary That after Consecration there is nothing of the substance of Bread and Wine but the Accidents subsist without a substance That the natural Body of Christ his Soul and Divinity are present under the species of Bread nay that whole Christ Flesh and Bloud is under the species of Bread and in every particle of it and under the species of Wine and every drop of it That the Body of Christ is not broken nor his Bloud shed in the Sacrament but only the species of Bread and Wine which are nothing That it is only this Nothing which we eat and drink in the Sacrament and which goes down into our stomachs and carries whole Christ down with it Now this Doctrine founds so very harsh is so contrary to all the Evidence of our Senses and has so many Absurdities and Contradictions to Reason that it ought to be very plainly proved from Scripture in every part of it for if a man might be perswaded to renounce his Senses and Reason to believe Scripture yet it ought to be equally evident to him at least that Scripture is for it as it is that Sense and Reason is against it and yet there is not one word in Scripture to prove any one part of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation neither that the natural
Aquinas's Rule that the Image must be worshipped with the same Worship which is due to the Proto-type or that Being whose Image it is which is such old Popery as Monsieur De Meaux and the Representer cry shame of well But how does he prove that any Worship was directed to these Cherubims I can find no proof he offers for it but David's Exhortation as he calls it to the People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to honour the Ark he should have said worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bow down to or worship his Footstool for it or he is holy Now suppose this did relate to the Ark What is that to the Cherubims When but four Pages before he tells us that the Ark is called God's Footstool and the Cherubims his Throne How then does David's Exhortation to worship the Ark which is God's Footstool prove that all their Worship must be directed to the Cherubims which are his Throne It is pitty that great Wits have but short Memories And yet I fancy our Author would have been much troubled to prove the Ark to be meant by God's Footstool 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 and the Psalmist expresly applies it to Zion and to the Holy Hill which I will not prove was not the Ark. And this I suppose is a sufficient confutation of his Exposition of the words To bow down to or worship his foot-stool for I believe he did not think that Mount Zion or the Holy Hill was the object of worship or the symbol of God's presence but there God was present and that was reason enough to worship at his foot-stool and at his holy hill as our English Translation reads it But now suppose the Jews were to direct their Worship towards the Mercy-seat which was covered with 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 at 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 I grant that bowing to and bowing towards any thing as the Object of Worship is the very same as this Author observes and therefore had the Jews 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 great difference and this was all the Jews did at most if they did that they bowed to God towards the Mercy-seat where he dwelt without any regard to the Cherubims or Mercy-seat as the Object of Worship which was as invisible to the Jews then as the Throne of God and the Angels in Heaven are now to us and we may as well say that those who lift up their eyes and their hands to Heaven when they pray to God worship the Angels who incircle his Throne because they know that the Angels are there as say that the Jews worshipped their invisible Cherubims because they knew that the Cherubims were there For is there any necessity that the Jews must worship whatever they knew was in the Holy of Holies because they worshipped God towards that place any more than there is that we must worship whatever we know to be in Heaven when we direct our Worship to God in Heaven Men I grant may worship an unseen Object for so we all worship God whom we do not and cannot see but it is a good argument still that the Cherubims were not intended by God for the Objects of Worship because they were concealed from the Peoples sight for I believe the World never heard before of worshipping invisible Images The original intention of Images is to have a visible Object of Worship for an invisible Image can affect us no more than an invisible God and if our Author had consulted all the Patrons of Image-worship whether Pagan or Popish he would have found most of the reasons they alleadge for this Worship to depend on sight and therefore whatever he thought are all lost when a man shuts his eyes A man who directs his worship to an Image may be an Idolater in the dark and with his eyes shut but as blind as Idolaters are there never had been any Image-worship had their Images been as invisible as their Gods and therefore sight has more to do in this matter than our Author was aware of But it seems the High-Priest once a Year did see these Cherubims and adore and worship them But this is another mistake for the Jews did believe that the High-Priest never saw the Cherubims or Mercy-seat even when he went once a Year into the Holy of Holies and they have great reason for what they say since God expresly commanded That when he went into the Holy of Holies he should take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small and bring it within the veil And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy-seat that is upon the testimony that he die not 16. Levit. 12 13. which shews that the Cherubims and Mercy-seat were to be covered with a Cloud of Incense and to become as invisible to the High-Priest within the Veil as to the People without it But suppose the High-Priest did see the Cherubims when he entred within the Veil I have one plain Argument to prove that he did not worship them not only because no act of Worship was commanded him when he went into the Holy Place but because as the Holy of Holies was the figure of Heaven and the Cherubims the types of Angels who stand about the Throne of God so the High-Priest entring into the Holy of Holies was the type of Christ ascending into Heaven with his own Bloud and therefore the High-Priest must do nothing in the Holy of Holies but what was a proper figure and type of what Christ does in Heaven and then he must no more worship the Cherubims which covered the Mercy-seat or the Typical Throne of God than Christ himself when he ascended to Heaven was to worship the Angels who stand about the Throne So that notwithstanding God's command to make two Cherubims and to place them at the two ends of the Mercy-seat in the Holy of Holies all Image-Worship was strictly forbid by the Law of Moses and God has provided the most effectual remedy against it by the Incarnation of his Son Mankind have been always fond
Doctrine was to be examined by them and accordingly he appeals to Moses and the Prophets to bear testimony to his Person and Doctrine and exhorts them to search the Scriptures which gave testimony to him and how the Miracles he wrought gave authority to any new Revelations he made of God's Will to the World since he did not contradict the old The Law of Nature and the Laws of Moses were the Laws of God and God cannot contradict himself and therefore the Doctrine of all new Prophets even of Christ himself was to be examined and is to be examined to this day by the Law and the Prophets and therefore though he was certainly an Infallible Teacher yet men were to judge of his Doctrine before they believed him and he did not require them to lay aside their Reason and Judgment and submit to his Infallible Authority without Examination So that all this while there could be no Infallible Judge to whom all men were bound to submit their own private Reason and Judgment and to receive all their Dictates as divine Oracles without Examination because they could not know them to be such Infallible Teachers till they had examined their Doctrine by the Light of Nature and the Law of Moses and we cannot to this day know that Moses and Christ were true Prophets but in the same way Since the writing of the New Testament there is a farther Test of an Infallible Teacher if there be any such in the world that he neither contradicts the Light of Nature nor the true intent of the Law of Moses nor alter or add to the Gospel of Christ and therefore there can be no Infallible Judge because be he never so Infallible we can never know that he is so but by the agreement of his Doctrine with the Principles of Reason with the Law and the Prophets and with the Gospel of Christ and therefore must examine his Doctrine by these Rules and therefore must judge for our selves and not suffer any man to judge for us upon a pretence of his Infallibility Could I know that any man were Infallible without judging of his Doctrine then indeed there were some reason to believe all that he says without any inquiry or examination but this never was never can be and therefore though there may be an Infallible Teacher there can be no Infallible Judge to whom I must submit my own Reason and Judgment without asking any Questions Which by the way shews how ridiculous that Sophism is The Church has not erred because she is Infallible when it is impossible for me to know she is Infallible till by examining her Doctrine by an Infallible Rule I know that she has not erred And the truth is it is well there can be no Infallible Judge for if there were it would suspend and silence the Reason and Judgment of all Mankind and what a knowing Creature would Man be in matters of Religion when he must not reason and must not judge just as knowing as a man can be without exercising any Reason and Judgment And therefore not only the reason and nature of the thing proves that there can be no Infallible Judge but the design of Christ to advance humane Nature to the utmost perfection of Reason and Understanding in this World proves that he never intended there should be any for to take away the exercise of Reason and private Judgment is not the way to make men wise and knowing Christians and if Christ allows us to judge for our selves there can be no Infallible Judge whose Office it shall be to judge for us all 4 ly To pretend the Scripture to be an obscure or imperfect Rule is a direct contradiction to the design of the Gospel to improve and perfect Knowledge for if the Scripture be so obscure in the essential matters of Faith and Christian knowledge that we cannot have any certainty what the true sence and interpretation of it is without an Infallible Judge then the Scriptures cannot improve our knowledge because we cannot know what they are we cannot understand their meaning and therefore can learn nothing from them Yes you 'll say we may know their meaning when they are expounded to us by an Infallible Judge though the Scriptures are so obscure that we cannot understand them without an Infallible Judge yet we may certainly learn what the sence of Scripture is from such a Judge Now in answer to this I observe that though such an Infallible Judge should determine the sense of all obscure Texts of Scripture which neither the Pope nor Church of Rome have ever done yet this would not be to understand the Scriptures or to learn from the Scriptures but only to rely on this Infallible Judge for the sense of Scripture To understand the Scriptures is to be able to give a reason why I expound Scripture to such a sense as that the words signifie so that the circumstances of the place and the context and coherence of the words require it that the analogy of Faith and the reason and nature of things will either justifie such an interpretation or admit no other and an Expositor who can thus open our Understandings and not only tell us what the sense of Scripture is but make us see that this is the true sense and interpretation of it does indeed make us understand the Scripture Thus Christ himself did when he was risen from the dead He opened their understandings that they might understand the Scriptures 24 Luke 45. But to be told that this is the true sence of Scripture and that we must believe this is the sense though we can see no reason why it should be thus expounded nay though all the Reason we have tells us that it ought not to be thus expounded no man will say that this is to understand the Scriptures but to believe the Judge No man can learn any thing from a Book which he does not and cannot understand and if men neither do nor can understand the Scriptures it is certain they can learn nothing from them an Infallible Judge would teach as well without the Scriptures as with them and indeed somewhat better because then no man could have a pretence to contradict him and therefore if this be true the holy Scripture deserves all those contemptible Characters which the Romanists have given it for it is so far from improving and perfecting our knowledge that it self cannot be known and therefore is good for nothing So that the obscurity of the Scripture makes it wholly useless to the great ends and purposes of the Christian Religion viz. to improve and perfect the knowledge of Mankind in the necessary and essential Doctrines of Faith and therefore this can be no Gospel-Doctrine because it makes the Gospel it self considered as written of no use Thus if the Scripture be an imperfect Rule as the Romanists affirm that it does not teach us the whole mind and will of God but that we must learn
not die so suddenly as to be surprized in any mortal sin that Hell seems to be very little thought of or feared in the Church of Rome Now I desire no better Argument that all these are not Gospel-Doctrines than that they destroy the force of all those Arguments the Gospel uses to make men good that is they are a direct contradiction to the Gospel of Christ. 6. I shall name but one Motive more and that is the Examples of good men To be followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises that being incompassed with such a cloud of witnesses we should lay aside every weight and the sin which doth so easily beset us and run with patience the race which is set before us Now this is a powerful Argument because they were men as we are subject to the same temptations and infirmities and therefore their Examples prove that Holiness is a practicable thing that it is possible for men to conquer all the difficulties of Religion and all the temptations in this life and many times in them we see the visible rewards of Vertue in great peace of mind great assurances of the divine favour great supports under all adversities and such a triumphant death as is a blessed presage of a glorious Resurrection But now in the Church of Rome if there be any great and meritorious Saints as they call them their extraordinary Vertues are not so much for Imitation as for a stock of Merits The more Saints they have the less reason other men have to be Saints if they have no mind to it because there is a greater treasury of Merits in the Church to relieve those who have none of their own The extraordinary Devotion of their Monasteries and Nunneries for so they would perswade the World that there is nothing but Devotion there is not for Imitation and it is unreasonable it should because no body sees it and it is impossible to imitate that recluse life without turning the whole World into a Monastery but these Religious Societies furnish the Church with a stock of Merits out of which she grants Indulgencies to those who are not very religious and it is plain that if one man can merit for twenty there is no need there should be above one in twenty good Herein indeed the Members of the Church of Rome have the advantage of all other Churches especially if they enter themselves into any religious Confraternity to partake in the Merits of the Society that others can merit for them and then if we can share in the Merits of the Saints we need not imitate them a Church which has Saints to merit for them on Earth and to intercede for them in Heaven if she can but maintain and propagate a Race of such meriting Saints which is taken care of in the Institution and Encouragement of Monastick Orders and Fraternities may be very indulgent to the rest of her Members who do not like meriting themselves So that the principal Motives of the Gospel to Holy Life as appears in these Six Particulars lose their force and efficacy in the Church of Rome and certainly those cannot be Gospel-Doctrines which destroy the great end of the Gospel to make men Good. 3 ly Nor do the Gospel-means and Instruments of Holiness and Vertue escape better in the Church of Rome as will appear in a very few words Reading and Meditating on the Holy Scriptures is one excellent means of Grace not only as it informs us of our Duty but as it keeps a constant warm sense of it upon our Minds which nothing can so effectually do as a daily reading of the Scripture which strikes the mind with a more sacred authority than any Humane Discourses can do but this is denied to the People of the Church of Rome who are not allowed to read the Scriptures in the Vulgar Tongue for fear of Heresie which it seems is more plain and obvious in the Scripture than Catholick Doctrines but they should also have considered whether the danger of Heresie or Sin be the greater whether an orthodox faith or a good life be more valuable and if denying the people the use of the Bible be the way to keep them orthodox I am sure it is not the way to make them good True Piety will lose more by this than the Faith will get by it Thus constant and servent Prayer besides that supernatural grace and assistance it obtains for us is an excellent moral instrument of holiness for when men confess their sins to God with shame and sorrow when with inflamed Devotions they beg the assistances of the Divine Grace when their souls are every day possessed with such a great sence awe and reverence for God as he must have who prays devoutly to him every day I say it is impossible such men should easily return to those sins which they have so lately confessed with such shame and confusion and bitter remorse that those who so importunately beg the assistance of the Divine Grace should not use their best endeavours to resist Temptations and to improve in Grace and Vertue which is a prophane mockery of God to beg his assistance that he will work in us and with us when we will not work that those who have a constant sence and reverence of God should do such things as argue that men have no fear of God before their eyes But this is all lost in the Church of Rome where men are taught to Pray they know not what and when men do not understand their Prayers it is certain such Prayers cannot affect their minds what other good soever Latin Prayers may do them and thus one of the most powerful Instruments of Piety and Vertue is quite spoiled by Prayers in an unknown Tongue which can no more improve their Vertue than their Knowledge Sorrow for Sin is an excellent Instrument of true Repentance as that signifies the reformation of our Lives for the natural effect of Sorrow is not to do that again which we are sorry for doing but in the Church of Rome this contrition or sorrow for sin serves only to qualifie men for absolution and that puts them into a state of grace and then they may expiate their sins by Penances but are under no necessity of forsaking them The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper besides those supernatural conveyances of Grace which are annexed to it by our Saviour's Institution is a great Moral Instrument of Holiness it representing to us the Love of our crucified Lord the Merit and Desert of Sin the Vertue of his Sacrifice to expiate our Sins and to purge our Consciences from Dead Works and requiring the exercise of a great many Vertues an abhorrence and detestation of our Sins great and ardent Passions of Love and Devotion firm Resolutions of Living to him who Died for us Forgiveness of Enemies and an Universal Love and Charity to all Men especially to the Members of the same Body with us but
Sir for I rely on the Authority of Scripture which is as infallible as your Church Conv. But you rely on your own Reason for the Authority of Scripture and those particular Doctrines you draw from it Prot. And you rely on your own Reason and Judgment for the Infallibility of your Church and consequently of all the Doctrines of it and therefore your infallible Faith is as much resolved into your own fallible Judgment as the Protestant Faith is so that the difference between us is not that your Faith is infallible and ours fallible for they are both alike call it what you will fallible or infallible but the Dispute is whether your Reason and Judgment or ours be best and therefore if you think your Reason better than ours you did well to change but if you changed your Church hoping to grow more infallible by it you were miserably mistaken and may return to us again for we have more rational Certainty than you have and you have no more infallible Certainty than we You think you are reasonably assured that your Church is infallible and then you take up your Religion upon trust from your Church without and many times against Sence and Reason according as it happens so that you have onely a general assurance of the Infallibility of your Church and that no greater than Protestants pretend to in other cases viz. the certainty of Reason and Argument but have not so much as a rational assurance of the truth of your particular Doctrines that if you be mistaken about the Infallibility of your Church you must be miserably mistaken about every thing else which you have no other evidence for But now we are in general assured that the Scriptures are the Word of God and in particular are assured that the Faith which we profess is agreeable to Scripture or expresly contained in it and does not contradict either Sence or Reason nor any other Principle of Knowledge So that we have as much assurance of every Article of our Faith as you have of the Infallibility of your Church and therefore have at least double and trible the assurance that you have But if you know the Reasons of your Conversion I desire to know of you What made you think that you wanted Certainty in the Church of England Conv. Because with you every man is left to his own private Reason and Judgment the effects of which are very visible in that infinite variety of Sects among you which shews what an uncertain thing your Reason is that so few judge alike of the power and validity of the same Reasons Prot. And were you not sensible at the same time that you were left to your own Reason and Judgment when you turned Papist Are you not sensible that men do as little agree about your Reasons for Infallibility as they do about any Protestant Reasons Do not I know the Reasons alledged by you for the Infallibility of your Church as well as you do And do we not still differ about them And is not this as much an Argument of the uncertainty of those Reasons which make you a Papist that they cannot make me a Papist as the dissent of Protestants in other matters is of the uncertainty of their Reasons Could you indeed be infallibly assured of the Infallibility of your Church I grant you would have the advantage of us but while you found your belief of Infallibility upon such an uncertain Principle as you think Reason is if certainty had been your onely aim you might as well have continued in the Church of England as have gone over to Rome This abundantly shews what a ridiculous thing it is for a Protestant to be disputed out of his Church and Religion upon a pretence of more infallible certainty in the Church of Rome Were they indeed inspired with an infallible assurance that the Church of Rome is Infallible there might be some pretence for this but an Infallibility which has no better foundation than mens private Reason and private Judgment is no Infallibility but has all the same uncertainties which they charge on the Protestant Faith and a great deal more because it is not founded upon such great and certain Reasons The plain truth is men may be taught from their Infancy to believe the Church Infallible and when they are grown up may take it without examination for a first and self-evident Principle and think this an infallible Faith but men who understand the difference between the evidence of Reason and Infallibility can never found an infallible Faith on Reason nor think that a man who is reasoned into the belief of the Infallibility of the Church is more infallible in his Faith than a Protestant is And such a man will see no reason to quit the Church of England for the sake of an infallible Faith for though they had an infallible Guide yet Reason cannot give them an infallible assurance of it but can rise no higher at most than a Protestant certainty 2. It is impossible also by Reason to prove that men must not use their own Reason and Judgment in matters of Religion If any man should attempt to perswade you of this ask him Why then he goes about to dispute with you about Religion whether men can dispute without using their own Reason and Judgment whether they can be convinced without it whether his offering to dispute with you against the use of your Reason does not prove him ridiculous and absurd For if you must not use your Reason why does he appeal to your Reason And whether you should not be as ridiculous and absurd as he if by his Reasons and Arguments you should be perswaded to condemn the use of Reason in Religion Which would be in the same act to do what you condemn to use your Reason when you condemn it If you must not use your Reason and private Judgment then you must not by any Reasons be perswaded to condemn the use of Reason for to condemn is an act of Judgment which you must not use in matters of Religion So that this is a point which no man can dispute against and which no man can be convinced of by disputing without the reproach of self-contradiction This is an honourable way of silencing these troublesome and clamorous Disputants to let them see that their Principles will not allow of Disputing and that some of their Fundamental Doctrines which they impose upon the World are a direct contradiction to all Disputes for the very admitting of a Dispute confutes them and the meanest man may quickly say more in this Cause than their greatest Disputants can answer CHAP. II. Concerning the several Topicks of Dispute SECT I. Concerning Arguments from Reason 2. THe next Direction relates to the Topicks from which they Dispute which are either Reason Scripture or the Authority of the ancient Fathers and Writers of the Christian Church for the infallible Authority of Popes or General Councils is the thing
in dispute between us and therefore can prove nothing till that be first proved by something else 1. To begin then with Reason Now we do allow of Reason in matters of Religion and our Adversaries pretend to use it when they think it will serve their turn and rail at it and despise it when it is against them Not that we make Natural Reason the Rule or the Measure of our Faith for to believe nothing but what may be proved by Natural Reason is to reject Revelation or to destroy the necessity of it For what use is there of a Revelation or at least what necessity of it if nothing must be revealed but what might have been known by Natural Reason without Revelation or at least what Natural Reason can fully comprehend when it is revealed But though we believe such things when they are revealed by God which Natural Reason could never have taught us and which Natural Reason does not see the depths and mysteries of and therefore do not stint our Faith and confine it within the narrow bounds of Natural Reason yet we use our Reason to distinguish a true from a counterfeit Revelation and we use Reason to understand a Revelation and we Reason and Argue from revealed Principles as we do from the Principles of Natural Knowledge As from that Natural Principle that there is but one God we might conclude without a Revelation that we must Worship but one God so from that revealed Doctrine of one Mediator between God and man we may as safely conclude that we must make our Applications and offer up our Prayers and Petitions to God onely by this one Mediator and so in other cases Now to direct Protestants how to secure themselves from being imposed on by the fallacious Reasoning of Roman Priests I shall take notice of some of the chief faults in their way of Reasoning and when these are once known it will be an easie matter for men of ordinary understandings to detect their Sophistry 1. As first we must allow of no Reason against the Authority of plain and express Scripture This all men must grant who allow the Authority of Scripture to be superiour to Natural Reason for though Scripture cannot contradict plain and necessary and eternal Reasons i. e. what the universal Reason of Mankind teaches for a necessary and eternal truth yet God may command such things as we see no Natural Reason for and forbid such things as we see no Natural Reason against nay it may be when we think there are plausible Reasons against what God commands and for what he forbids But in all such cases a Divine Law must take place against our uncertain Reasonings for we may reasonably conclude that God understands the Reasons and Natures of things better than we do As for instance when there is such an express Law as Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve No reason in the World can justifie the Worship of any other Being good or bad Spirits besides God because there is an express Law against it and no Reason can take place against a Law. The like may be said of the second Commandment Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image nor the likeness of any thing which is in heaven above or in the earth beneath or in the waters under the earth thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them Which is so express a Law against Image-Worship that no Reason must be admitted for it No man need to trouble himself to answer the Reasons urged for such Practices for no Reasons ought to be allowed nor any Dispute admitted against such express Laws This I suppose all men will grant but then the difficulty is What is an express Law For the Sence of the Law is the Law and if there may be such a Sence put on the words as will reconcile these Reasons with the Law we must not say then that such Reasons are against the Law when though they may be against the Law in some sence yet they are consistent with other sences of the Law and it is most likely that is the true sence of the Law which has the best reason on its side It must be confessed there is some truth in this when the words of the Law are capable of different sences and reason is for one sence and the other sence against reason there it is fit that a plain and necessary Reason should expound the Law but when the Law is not capable of such different sences or there is no such reason as makes one sence absurd and the other necessary the Law must be expounded according to the most plain and obvious signification of the Words though it should condemn that which we think there may be some reason for or at least no reason against for otherwise it is an easie matter to expound away all the Laws of God. To be sure all men must grant that such Reasons as destroy the Law or put an absurd or impossible sence on it are against the Law and therefore must be rejected how plausible soever they appear As for instance Some there are who to excuse the Church of Rome from Idolatry in Worshipping Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary positively affirm that no man can be guilty of Idolatry who Worships one Supreme God as a late Author expresly teaches As for the Invocation of Saints unless they Worship them as the Supreme God the Charge of Idolatry is an idle word and the Adoration it self which is given to them as Saints is a direct Protestation against Idolatry because it supposes a Superiour Deity and that supposition cuts off the very being of Idolatry Now not to examine what force there is in this Reason our present inquiry is onely How this agrees with the first Commandment Thou shalt have none other Gods before me before my Face as it is in the Hebrew Which supposes an acknowledgment of the Supreme God together with other Gods for otherwise though they Worship other Gods they do not do it before the Face of God while they see him as it were present before them to worship other Gods in the presence of the Supreme God or before his Face as that Phrase signifies is to worship them together with him and therefore this is well expressed by the Septuagint by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides me which supposes that they Worshipped him too And our Saviour expounds this Law by Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve So that this Reason That there can be no Idolatry where the Lord Jehovah is Worshipped as the Supreme God contradicts the very letter of this Law. How then does this Author get rid of the first Commandment Truly by laying it all aside for he gives this as the whole Sence of the first Commandment That God enjoyns the Worship of himself who by his Almighty Power had delivered them from their AEgyptian
where the Scripture fails they fly to unwritten Traditions which they make of equal authority with the Scriptures themselves which they would never do were they not convinced that the Scriptures are not so plain on their side as to satisfie any man who has not already given himself up to the Church of Rome with an implicite Faith. And therefore before you enter into any debate about the sence of any particular Texts of Scripture and their way of proving their particular Doctrines from Scripture ask them two Questions without a plain Answer to which it is to no purpose to dispute with them out of Scripture Ask 1. Whether they will allow the Holy Scriptures to be a complete and perfect Rule of Faith that no Christian ought to receive any Doctrine for an Article of Faith which cannot be proved from Scripture This to be sure they must not allow unless they will reject the Council of Trent which gives as venerable an Authority to Tradition as to Scripture it self Since then they have two Rules Scripture and Tradition when they pretend to dispute from Scripture it is reasonable to know of them whether they will stand to Scripture and reject such a Doctrine if it cannot be plainly proved out of Scripture For if they will not stand to this they give up their Cause and there is no need to dispute with them For why should I dispute with any man from Scripture who will not stand to the determination of Scripture We Protestants indeed do own the Authority of Scripture and what we see plainly proved out of Scripture we must abide by which is reason enough for us to examine the Scripture-proofs which are produced by our Adversaries But it is sufficient to make them blush if they had any modesty to pretend to prove their Doctrines from Scripture when they themselves do not believe them meerly upon the Authority of Scripture and dare not put their Cause upon that issue which gives a just suspicion that they are conscious to themselves that their Scripture-proofs are not good and should make Protestants very careful how they are imposed on by them To dispute upon such Principles as are not owned on both sides can establish nothing tho' it may blunder and confound an Adversary it is onely a tryal of Wit where the subtilest Disputant will have the Victory and it is not worth the while for any man to dispute upon these terms This is not to reject the Authority of Scriptures because the Papists reject it which no Protestant can or will do but it is an effectual way for men who are not skilled in Disputations to deliver themselves from the troublesome Importunities of Popish Priests when learned men who can detect their Fallacies are out of the way Let them but ask them Whether all the peculiar Doctrines of the Church of Rome can be proved by plain Scripture-evidence If they say they can then they must reject the necessity of unwritten Traditions and acknowledge the Scripture to be a complete and perfect Rule of Faith. A point which I believe no understanding Priest will yeild If they say they cannot ask them With what confidence they pretend to prove that from Scripture which they confess is not in it Why they go about to impose upon you and to perswade you to believe that upon the Authority of Scripture which they themselves confess is not at least not plainly contained in Scripture 2. Ask such Disputants who alledge the Authority of Scripture to prove their Popish Doctrines How they themselves know what the sence of Scripture is and how you shall know it For it is a ridiculous undertaking to prove any thing by Scripture unless there be a certain way of finding out the sence of Scripture Now there can be but three ways of doing this either by an infallible Interpreter or by the unanimous consent of Primitive Fathers or by such Humane means as are used to find out the sence of other Books I. If they say we must learn the sence of Scripture from an infallible Interpreter Tell them this is not to dispute but to beg the Cause They are to prove from Scripture the Doctrines of the Church of Rome and to do this they would have us take the Church of Rome's Exposition of Scripture And then we had as good take her word for all without disputing But yet 1. They know that we reject the pretences of an infallible Interpreter We own no such infallible Judge of the sence of Scripture And therefore at least if they will dispute with us and prove their Doctrines by Scripture they must fetch their Proofs from the Scriptures themselves and not appeal to an infallible Interpreter whom we disown Which is like appealing to a Judge in Civil matters whom one of the contending Parties tlhinks incompetent and to whose Judgment they will not stand which is never likely to end any Controversie and yet they cannot quit an infallible Interpreter without granting that we may understand the Scriptures without such an Interpreter which is to give up the Cause of Infallibility 2. One principal Dispute between us and the Church of Rome is about this infallible Interpreter and they know that we will not own such an Interpreter unless they can prove from Scripture that there is such an one and who he is The inquiry then is How we shall learn from Scripture that there is such an infallible Interpreter that is who shall Expound those Scriptures to us which must prove that there is an infallible Interpreter if without an infallible Interpreter we cannot find out the true sence of Scripture how shall we know the true sence of Scripture before we know this infallible Interpreter For an Interpreter how infallible soever he be cannot interpret Scripture for us before we know him and if we must know this infallible Interpreter by Scripture we must at least understand these Scriptures which direct us to this infallible Interpreter without his assistance So that of necessity some Scriptures must be understood without an infallible Interpreter and therefore he is not necessary for the Interpretation of all Scripture And then I desire to know why other Scriptures may not be understood the same way by which we must find out the meaning of those Texts which direct us to an infallible Interpreter There are a hundred places of Scripture which our Adversaries must grant areas plain and easie to be understood as those And we believe it as easie a matter to find all the other Trent-Articles in Scripture as the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Bishop of Rome If ever there needed an infallible Interpreter of Scripture it is to prove such an infallible Interpreter from Scripture but upon this occasion he cannot be had and if we may make shift without him here we may as well spare him in all other cases 3. Suppose we were satisfied from Scripture that there is such an infallible Interpreter yet it were worth knowing
other World but signifies the removal of the visible and sensible punishments of sin in restoring the sick person to health again That though such sickness was inflicted on him for his sins and possibly were the effects of Church-censures which in those days were confirmed and ratified by bodily punishments yet upon his reconciliation to the Church and the Prayers of the Elders and the ceremony of Anointing he should be restored to health again which was an external and visible remission of his sins and should be a plenary pardon if he brought forth the true and genuine fruits of repentance This is very natural and very agreeable to the scope and design of the Text and differs as much from the Popish Extream Unction as their greatest Adversaries could wish Such kind of Proofs as these are meerly the work of fancy and imagination and can impose upon no man who will but attend to the different use and signification of words 2. Another grand fault our Roman Adversaries are guilty of is that their Scripture-Proofs are always very lame and imperfect that is that they never prove their whole Doctrine from Scripture but only some little part of it They draw very fine and artificial Schemes and if they can find some little appearance in Scripture to countenance any one part of it they take that for a Proof of the whole As for instance Thus they tell us that Christ made Peter the Prince of the Apostles and the Head of the Universal Church his own Vicar upon Earth and that the Bishops of Rome who are St. Peter's Successors succeed not only to his Chair but to all the Rights and Prerogatives of St. Peter and therefore the Bishop of Rome also is the Head of the Church the Oecumenical Pastor who neither wants St. Peter's Keys nor Sword. This is a very notable point if it were well proved but as I observed before this being a matter of pure institution which depends wholly upon the Will of God it can be proved only by Scripture How much then of this do they pretend to prove from Scripture Why they will prove by Scripture that St. Peter was the Prince of the Apostles because Christ said unto him Thou art Peter and on this Rock will I build my Church and I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and seed my Sheep which indeed are lamentable Proofs for the same Power was given to all the Apostles 20 John 21 22 23. Then said Jesus unto them Peace be unto you as my Father sent me even so send I you all of you and therefore not one in subjection to another but all with equal Power and when he had said this he breathed on them and saith unto them Receive ye the Holy Ghost whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained Accordingly on the day of Pentecost the Holy Ghost fell on them all they were all endowed with the Gift of Tongues and Miracles and Prophesie they all had the same Infallible Spirit and therefore needed no superiour Head over them They were to be separated into all parts of the World where they could have no Communication with each other and therefore could have no Universal Head. The History of the Acts of the Apostles gives not the least intimation of any such Superiority which either St. Peter challenged or the other Apostles paid him which are strong Presumptions against such a Supremacy of St. Peter and I suppose they themselves will grant that all the rest of the Apostles were as Infallible as he But suppose we should grant them that St. Peter was the chief of the Apostles and had a kind of Primacy not of Government but Order how do they prove from Scripture that the Bishop of Rome succeeds in all the Rights and Prerogatives of St. Peter for unless this be proved whatever Prerogative St. Peter had it signifies nothing to them and yet this cannot be proved but by institution for though Christ had bestowed a Primacy on S. Peter yet unless he expresly grant it to his Successors too nay to his Successors in the See of Rome his Pramacy as being a Personal Prerogative must die with his Person As a Prince may grant a Priority to Persons in the same Office and Power may make a first Colonel or a first Captain but if these men to whom the Precedency is given die or are removed those who succeed in their Office and power to the same Regiment or Company do not therefore succeed to their Priority too for this did not belong to their Office but to their Persons and the King may give the Priority again to whom he pleases or appoint them to succeed in course according to their admission into such Offices And by the same reason the Primacy of the Roman Bishops who are St. Peter's Successors does not follow from the Primacy of St. Peter unless they can shew that Christ has given them the Primacy also as well as St. Peter and this must be proved from Scripture because it is matter of Institution and no Arguments in the World can prove any thing which depends solely upon an Institution without proving the Institution But this the Roman Doctors never pretend to for they know that there is not one word in Scripture about it and nothing but the Authority of Scripture can prove a Divine Institution So that could they prove the Primacy of St. Peter from Scripture they prove but half their point and that the most inconsiderable half too for it does them no good And therefore when they make a great noise about St. Peter's Primacy and Prerogatives never trouble your selves to dispute that point with them which is nothing to the purpose but require them to prove from Scripture that the Bishop of Rome as St. Peter's Successor is appointed by Christ to be the Supreme Oecumenical Bishop and the Prince of all Bishops And if you stick here as in reason you ought there is an end of that Controversie Thus there is nothing the Church of Rome makes a greater noise about than Infallibility though they are not agreed where to place this Infallibility whether in the Pope or a General Council But let it be where it will this being a matter of Institution must be proved by Scripture how then in the first place do they prove the Pope to be Infallible That they think is very plain because Christ says Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it But how does this prove that the Bishop of Rome is Infallible For here is not one word of the Bishop of Rome Yes this proves St. Peter to be infallible who was afterwards Bishop of Rome and therefore all his Successors are infallible too Now that St. Peter was infallible as all the other Apostles were we readily grant though I think this Text does not prove it But
this Case to Pardon the Sentence of Death would deliver such a man from all other Punishments too which by the Law are due only to that man who is under the Sentence of Death and in such a Constitution for any man to say that the Prince's Pardon extends only to Life but does not excuse from Whipping and Pilloring and perpetual Imprisonment would be to make the Pardon void since no man by the Law can suffer those other Punishments but he who is Condemned to Die and therefore he who is pardoned the Sentence of Death in consequence of that is pardoned all other Punishments too Thus it is here the original Curse against sin was in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die which by the Gospel of Christ is expounded of Eternal Death and there is no other threatning in all the Gospel against sin but Eternal Death and therefore all other Punishments are inflicted by Vertue of this Law and consequently he who is delivered from this Curse of the Law from Eternal Punishments is delivered from the whole Punishment due to sin unless they can find some other Law in the Gospel besides that which threatens Eternal Death which obliges a Sinner to Punishment Again since they acknowledge that Christ by his Death has delivered us from Eternal Punishments I do not think it worth the while to Dispute with them whether those Sufferings and Calamities which good men are exposed to in this World may properly be called Punishments or only Correction and Discipline but I desire to know Why they call Purgatory which is a place of Punishment in the other World a Temporal Punishment for this is an abuse of the Language of Scripture which makes this World Temporal and the next World Eternal as St. Paul expresly tells us the things which are seen are temporal but the things which are not seen are eternal 2 Cor. 4. 18. And therefore Temporal Punishments signifie the Punishments in 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 and then it is but another Name for Hell and therefore 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 11 John 25 26. 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 loose all sence 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 which is much worse than not being now if good men must not perish must not die but live in the next World they must not go to Purgatory which as much perishing as much dying as Hell though not so long but if they must never die never perish they must never suffer the pains of Purgatory which is a dying and perishing that is a state of Torment and Misery while they continue there Let us then see how a Papist who believes a Purgatory-fire in the next World wherein he shall be tormented God knows how long for his Sins can prove that a penitent Sinner shall not be eternally damned Oh! says he Christ has died for our Sins and made attonement for them and we are pardoned and justified through Faith in his Bloud and what then may we not still be punished for our Sins If not what becomes of Purgatory If we may prove that we shall not be eternally damned for Sin which is the proper punishment of it For if to be pardoned and justified signifie to be delivered from punishment it signifies our deliverance from the whole punishment of Sin since the Scripture does not limit it if they do not signifie our deliverance from punishment then we may be eternally punished for Sin though we are pardoned and justified But we are redeemed from the curse of the Law and saved from wrath But if such a man may go to Purgatory why not to Hell Or if the Curse of the Law and the Wrath of God be in Hell but not in Purgatory though the torments are equally great why may not he lie for ever in Purgatory as well as a thousand Years with this comfort that though he be infinitely tormented yet it is not the curse of the Law nor the wrath of God. Well but 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 make good his promise of bestowing everlasting Life on them 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 such men should not go to Purgatory in the next World but if falling into Purgatory be not perishing and not dying it may be everlasting life too for ought I know and then the pains of Purgatory may be eternal Whoever would not forfeit all the assurance the Gospel has given us of our Redemption from Hell and a glorious Immortality must reject the Popish Doctrine of Purgatory as a flat contradiction to all the gracious Promises of the Gospel for Hell or an eternal Purgatory is as reconcileable with the Promises of Forgiveness and immortal Life as the Popish Purgatory is 2. This Doctrine of Purgatory destroys our hope and confidence in the Mediation and Intercession of Christ and that for these two plain reasons 1. As it represents him less merciful and compassionate And 2. less powerful than the wants and necessities of Sinners require him to be For I. After all that is said in Scripture of his being so merciful and compassionate an High-Priest a Sinner who hears what is told him of Purgatory could wish him a great deal more compassionate than he is for 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 We should think him far enough from being a merciful and compassionate Prince who can be contented to torture his Subjects for a year together and 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 To be sure this destroys all our hope in him in this World for why should we think he will be concerned what we suffer here who can contentedly let us lie in Purgatory to which all the calamities and sufferings of this life are meer trifles O Blessed and Merciful JESU pardon such Blasphemies as these For II. If he be
must neither believe their Senses nor trust their Reason nor read the Scripture it is easie to guess what knowing and understanding Christians they must needs be But it may be said that notwithstanding this the Church of Rome does Instruct her Children in the true Catholick Faith though she will not venture them to judge for themselves nor to read the Scriptures which is the effect of her great care of them to keep them Orthodox for when men trust to their own fallible Reasons and private Interpretations of Scripture it is a great hazard that they do not fall into one Heresie or other but when men are taught the pure Catholick Faith without any danger of Error and Heresie is not this much better then to suffer them to reason and judge for themselves when it is great odds but they will judge wrong Now this would be something indeed did the Church of Rome take care to Instruct them in all necessary Doctrines and to teach nothing but what is true and could such men who thus tamely receive the dictates of the Church be said to know and to understand their Religion How far the Church of Rome is from doing the first all Christians in the world are sensible but themselves but that is not our present dispute for though the Church of Rome did instruct her people into the true Christian Faith yet such men cannot be said to know and understand their Religion and to secure the Faith by destroying knowledge is a direct contradiction to the design of the Gospel which is to make men wise and understanding Christians For no man understands his Religion who does not in some measure know the reasons of his Faith and judge whether they be sufficient or not who knows not how to distinguish between Truth and Error who has no Rule to go by but must take all upon trust and the credit of his Teachers who believes whatever he is told and learns his Creed as School boys do their Grammar without understanding it This is not an active but a kind of passive knowledge such men receive the impression that is made on them as wax does and understand no more of the matter now will any one call this the knowledge and understanding of a man or the Discipline of a Child But suppose there were some men so dull and stupid that they could never rise higher that they are not capable of inquiring into the reasons of things but must take up their Religion upon trust yet will any man say that this is the utmost perfection of knowledge that any Christian must aim at is this the meaning of the word of God dwelling in us richly in all wisdom is this the way to give an answer to any one who asks a reason of the hope that is in us the perfection of Christian knowledge is a great and glorious attainment to understand the secrets of God's Laws those depths and mysteries of wisdom and goodness in the oeconomy of Mans Salvation to see the Analogy between the Law and the Gospel how the Legal Types and ancient Prophecies received their accomplishment in Christ how far the Gospel has advanced us above the state of Nature and the Law of Moses what an admirable design it was to redeem the world by the Incarnation and death and sufferings and intercession of the Son of God what mysteries of Wisdom and Goodness the Gospel contains the knowledge of which is not only the perfection of our understandings but raises and ennobles our minds and transforms us into the Divine Image These things were revealed that they might be known not that they should be concealed from the world or neglected and despised but this is a knowledge which cannot be attained without diligent and laborious inquiries without using all the reason and understanding we have in searching the Scriptures and all other helps which God has afforded us Now if Christian Knowledge be something more than to be able to repeat our Creed and to believe it upon the authority of our Teachers if the Gospel of our Saviour was intended to advance us to a true manly knowledge Christ and the Church of Rome seem to have two very different designs our Lord in causing the Gospel to be wrote and publisht to the world the other in concealing it as much as she can and suffering no body to read it without her leave as a dangerous Book which is apt to make men Hereticks for it is hard to conceive that the Gospel was written that it might not be read and then one would guess that he by whose authority and inspiration the Gospel was written and those by whose authority it is forbid to be read are not of a mind in this matter 1. This I think in the first place is an evident proof that to forbid Christian people to read and study and mediate on the word of God is no Gospel Doctrine unless not to read the Bible be a better way to improve in all true Christian knowledge and wisdom than to read it for that is the duty of Christians to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ this was one great end of publishing the Gospel to the world to enlighten and improve mens understandings as well as to govern their Lives and though we grant men may be taught the principles of Christian Religion as Children are without reading the Bible yet if they will but grant that studying and meditating on the holy Scriptures is the best and only way to improve in all true Christian knowledge this shows how contrary this prohibition of reading the Scriptures is to the great design of the Gospel to perfect our knowledge in the mysteries of Christ. 2 ly This is a mighty presumption also against Transubstantiation that it is no Gospel Doctrine because it overthrows the very Fundamental Principles of Knowledge which is a direct contradiction to the design of the Gospel to advance Divine Knowledge to the utmost perfection it can attain in this world Whoever has his eyes in his head must confess that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is contrary to Sense for were our senses to be Judges of this matter they would pronounce the Bread and Wine after Consecration to be Bread and Wine still and therefore what ever reason there may be to believe it not to be Bread and Wine but Flesh and Blood yet it must be confessed that our Faith in this matter contradicts our sense for even Roman Catholick Eyes and Noses and Hands can see and feel and smell nothing but Bread and Wine and if to our senses it appears to be nothing but Bread and Wine those who believe it to be the Natural Body and Blood of Christ believe contrary to what they see Thus there is nothing more contrary to the natural notions we have of things than the Doctrine of Transubstantiation for if this Doctrine be true then the same individual body of Christ
even some necessary Doctrines of Faith from unwritten Traditions which no body has the keeping of but the Church of Rome This I say contradicts the great design of the Gospel which is to improve and perfect knowledge for an imperfect Rule of Faith is I think as bad as no Rule at all because we can never trust it If you say that though the Scripture in it self be an imperfect Rule yet we have a perfect Rule because the defects of the Scripture are supplied by unwritten Traditions and therefore we have the whole Gospel and all the Christian knowledge delivered down to us either in the written or unwritten Rule I answer 1. If the Scriptures be an imperfect Rule then all Christians have not a perfect Rule because they have not the keeping of unwritten Traditions and know not what they are and never can know what they are till the Church is pleased to tell them and it seems it was a very great while before the Church thought fit to do it For suppose that all the new Articles of the Council of Trent which are not contained in Scripture were unwritten Traditions fifteen hundred years was somewhat of the longest to have so considerable a part of the Rule of Faith concealed from the World and who knows how much of it is concealed still for the Church has not told us that she has published all her unwritten Traditions there may be a Nest-egg left still which in time may add twelve new Articles to the Trent-Creed as that has done to the Apostles Creed So that if the Scripture be an imperfect Rule of Faith the Church never had a perfect Rule till the Council of Trent for a Rule which is not known is none at all and no body can tell whether our Rule be perfect yet whether some more unwritten Traditions may not start up in the next Age to make our Faith more perfect than the Council of Trent it self has made it Now if the design of the Gospel was to instruct men in all divine knowledge can we think that our Saviour has given us such an imperfect Rule as needs to be supplied by unwritten Traditions in every Age especially when we consider that some of the greatest Mysteries and most useful Doctrines of the Christian Religion if the Church of Rome be in the right were not written or so obscurely that no body could find them in the Scriptures till they were discovered by the help of unwritten Traditions such as the Supremacy of the Pope the Infallibility of Popes and General Councils the Worship of Images the Invocation of Saints and the great Glory and Prerogatives of the Virgin Mary the Doctrine of Purgatory Indulgences the Sacrament of Penance c. as necessary Doctrines as any that are recorded in Scripture and the denial of which makes us all Hereticks and Schismaticks as the Church of Rome says Though thanks be to God as far as appears we are no greater Hereticks and Schismaticks than the Apostles were unless they are excused for not knowing these necessary Articles of Faith and we are Hereticks for denying them since the Church of Rome in the Council of Trent has decreed and published them 2. These unwritten Traditions cannot supply the defects of a written Rule because they are of uncertain Authority and therefore not the Objects much less the Rule of a certain Faith and Knowledge What is not written but said to be delivered down from Age to Age by oral Tradition and kept so privately that the Church of God never heard of it for several hundred years can never be proved but by Miracles and they must be more credible Miracles too than the School of the Eucharist and the Legends of the Saints furnish us with and yet I know of no better the Church of Rome has It is impossible to prove that a private Tradition cannot be corrupted it is unreasonable to think that any thing which concerns the necessary Articles of Faith or Rules of Worship should be a private and secret Tradition for several Ages Miracles themselves cannot prove any Tradition which is contrary to the written Rule and the Catholick Faith of Christians for several Ages as several of the Trent-Doctrines are nay no Miracles can prove any new Article of Faith which was never known before without proving that Christ and his Apostles did not teach all things necessary to salvation which will go a great way to overthrow the truth and certainty of the Christian Faith for Miracles themselves can never prove that Christ and his Apostles taught that which the Christian Church never heard of before which is either to prove that the whole World had forgot what they had been once taught which I doubt is not much for the credit of Tradition or that the Church for several Ages did not teach all that Christ taught which is no great reason to rely on the teachings of the Church or to prove against matter of fact that Christ and his Apostles taught that which no body ever heard of and I do not think a Miracle sufficient to prove that true which every body knows to be false or at least do not know it to be true though they must have known it if it had been true And does not every body now see how improper unwritten Traditions are to supply the Defects and Imperfections of the written Rule for they can never make one Rule because they are not of equal Authority A Writing may be proved Authentick an obscure unwritten Tradition cannot and can any man think that Christ would have one half of his Gospel written the other half unwritten if he intended to perfect the knowledge of Christians for they cannot have so perfect a knowledge because they cannot have so great certainty of the unwritten as they have of the written Gospel Writing is the most certain Way to perpetuate Knowledge and if Christ intended that his Church in all Ages should have a perfect Rule of Faith we must acknowledge the perfection of the written Rule The truth is I cannot but admire the great artifice of the Church of Rome in preaching up the Obscurity and Imperfection of the Scriptures for she has hereby put it into her own power to make Christian Religion what she pleases for if the Scriptures be obscure and she alone can infallibly interpret them if the Scriptures be imperfect and she alone can supply their defects by unwritten Traditions it is plain that Christian Religion must be what she says it is and it shall be what her interest requires it to be But whether this be consistent with our Saviour's design in publishing the Gospel or whether it be the best way of improving the knowledge of Mankind let any impartial man judge 5 ly An Implicit Faith or believing as the Church believes without knowing what it is we believe can be no Gospel-Doctrine because this to be sure cannot be for the improvement of knowledge Some of the Roman Doctors think