Dispute will quickly be at an end It had been very easie to have given more instances under every head and to have observed more false ways of expounding Scripture which the Doctors of the Church of Rome are guilty of but these are the most obvious and therefore the best fitted to my design to instruct unlearned men and I must not suffer this Discourse which was at first intended much shorter than it already is to swell too much under my hands SECT III. Concerning the Antient Fathers and Writers of the Christian Church THough Learned men may squabble about the sense of Fathers and Councils it is very unreasonable that unlearned men should be concerned in such Disputes because they are not competent Judges of it and yet there is nothing which our Roman Disputants make a greater noise with among Women and Children and the meanest sort of People than Quotations out of Fathers and Councils whom they pretend to be all on their side Now as it is a ridiculous thing for them to talk of Fathers and Councils to such People so it is very ridiculous for such People to be converted by Sayings out of the Fathers and Councils I confess it has made me often smile with a mixture of pity and indignation at the folly of it for what more contemptible easiness can any man be guilty of than to change his Religion which he has been taught out of the Scriptures and may find there if he pleases because he is told by some honest Priest a sort of men who never deceive any one that such or such a Father who lived it may be they know not where nor when and wrote they know not what has spoke in favour of Transubstantiation or Purgatory or some other Popish Doctrine And therefore let me advise our Protestant who is not skilled in these matters when he is urged with the Authority of Fathers to ask them some few Questions 1. Ask them How you shall certainly know what the Judgment of the Fathers was and this includes a great many Questions which must be resolved before you can be sure of this as how you shall know that such Books were written by that Father whose name it bears or that it has not been corrupted by the ignorance or knavery of Transcribers while they were in the hands of Monks who usurped great Authority over the Fathers and did not only pare their Nails but altered their very Habit and Dress to fit them to the modes of the times and make them fashionable How you shall know what the true meaning of those words are which they cite from them which the words themselves many times will not discover without the Context How you shall know that such Sayings are honestly quoted or honestly translated How you shall know whether this Father did not in other places contradict what he here says or did not alter his opinion after he had wrote it without writing publick Recantations as St. Austin did Whether this Father was not contradicted by other Fathers And in that case Which of the Fathers you must believe You may add That you do not ask these Questions at random but for great and necessary Reasons for in reading some late English Books both of Protestants and Papists you find large Quotations out of the Fathers on both sides that some are charged with false Translations with perverting the Fathers sense with mis-citing his words with quoting spurious Authors as it seems many of those are which make up the late Speculum or Ecclesiastical Prospective-glass to name no more Now how shall you who are an unlearned man judge of such Disputes as these What Books are spurious or genuine whether the Fathers be rightly quoted and what the true sense of them is For my part I know not what Answer such a Disputant could make but to blush and promise not to alledge the Authority of Fathers any more It is certain in such matters those who are unlearned must trust the learned and then I suppose an unlearned Protestant will rather trust a Protestant than a Popish Doctor as Papists will rather trust their Priests that Protestant Divines and then there is not much to be got on either side this way For when a Protestant shews an inclination rather to believe a Popish than a Protestant Divine he is certainly three quarters a Papist before-hand Indeed unlearned Protestants who are inquisitive and have time to read have such advantages now to satisfie themselves even about the sense of Fathers and Councils as it may be no Age before ever afforded There being so many excellent Books written in English as plainly confirm the Protestant Faith and confute Popery by the Testimonies and Authorities of ancient Writers and such men though they do not understand Latin and Greek are in no danger of all the Learning of their Popish Adversaries and any man who pleases may have recourse to such Books and see the state of the Controversie with his own Eyes and judge for himself but those who cannot do this may very fairly decline such a trial as improper for them For 2. Let our Protestant ask such Disputers whether a plain man may not attain a sufficient knowledge and certainty of his Religion without understanding Fathers and Councils If they say he cannot ask them how many Roman-Catholicks there are that understand Fathers and Councils Ask them how those Christians understood their Religion who lived before there were any of these Fathers Councils Ask them again whether they believe that God has made it impossible to the greatest part of Mankind to understand the Christian Religion For even among Christians themselves there is not one in an hundred thousand who understands Fathers and Councils and it is morally impossible they should and therefore certainly there must be a shorter and easier way to understand Christian Religion than this or else the generallity of Mankind even of profest Christians are out of all possibility of Salvation Ask them once more whether it be not a much easier matter for a plain honest man to learn all things necessary to Salvation out of the Scriptures themselves especially with the help of a wise and learned Guide than to understand all Fathers and Councils and take his Religion from them Why then do they so quarrel at Peoples reading the Scriptures and put them upon reading Fathers and Councils I suppose they will grant the Scriptures may be read a little sooner than so many Voluminous Fathers and Labbe's Councils into the bargain and I believe most men who try will think that they are more easily understood and therefore if Protestants as they pretend can have no certainty of the true sense of Scripture I am sure there is much less certainty to be had from the Fathers A short time will give us a full view of the Scriptures to read and understand all the Fathers is work enough for a man's life the Scripture is all of a piece every part of
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
Flesh and Bloud of Christ is in the Sacrament nor that the substance of Bread and Wine does not remain after Consecration nor that the Accidents of Bread and Wine such as colour smell tast quantity weight subsist without any substance or subject to subsist in These are such Paradoxes to Sense and Reason that they ought to be very well supported with Scripture before they are received for Articles of Faith or else our Faith will be as very an Accident without any substance as the sacramental species themselves are But though they have no Text which proves the least Tittle of all this yet they have a Text whereon they graft this Doctrine of Transubstantiation viz. This is my Body which they say signifies every thing which they teach concerning Transubstantiation but then I hope they will prove that it does so not expect that we should take it for granted because they say it Now not to insist upon those Arguments whereby our Divines have so demonstratively proved that Transubstantiation as explained by the Church of Rome cannot be the sence of This is my Body my advice to Protestants is to put them upon the proof that this is the sence of it which in reason they ought to prove because there is not one word of it in the Text and I shall only tell them what Proofs they ought to demand for it Now I suppose all men will think it reasonable that the Evidence for it should at least be equal to the Evidence against it though we ought indeed to have more reason to believe it than to dis-believe it or else we must hang in suspence when the Balance is equal and turns neither way Now I will not oppose the Evidence of Sense and Reason against the Authority of Scripture for I will never suppose that they can contradict each other and if there should appear some contradiction between them I will be contented at present without disputing that point to give it on the side of Scripture but I will oppose the Evidence of Sense and Reason against any private man's or any Churches Exposition of Scripture and if that Exposition they give of any Text of Scripture as suppose This is my Body contradict the Evidence of Sense and Reason I may modestly require as plain proof that this is the meaning of the Text as I have that such a meaning is contrary to all Sense and Reason for though Sense and Reason be not the Rule and Measure of Faith yet we must use our Sense and Reason in expounding Scripture or we may quickly make a very absurd and senseless Religion Now this shews us what kind of Proof we must require that Transubstantiation is the Doctrine of the Gospel viz. as certain Proof as we have that Transubstantiation is contrary to Sense and Reason And therefore 1. We must demand a self-evident Proof of this because it is self-evident that Transubstantiation contradicts Sense and Reason Every man who knows what the word means which I believe men may do without being great Philosophers and will consult his own Senses and Reason will need no Arguments to prove that Transubstantiation contradicts both Now such a Scripture-Proof I would see for Transubstantiation so plain and express and self-evident that no man who understands the words can doubt whether this be the meaning of them I mean a reasonable not an obstinate wilful and sceptical doubting Now I believe that our Adversaries themselves will not say that This is my Body is such a self-evident Proof of Transubstantiation I am sure some of the wisest men among them have not thought it so and the fierce Disputes for so many Ages about the interpretation of those words proves that it is not so for men do not use to dispute what is self-evident and proves it self without any other Arguments Now it is very unreasonable to require any man to believe Transubstantiation against a self-evident Proof that it is contrary to Sense and Reason without giving him a self-evident Proof that it is the Doctrine of Scripture which is to require a man to believe against the best Reason and Evidence 2. We must demand such a Scripture-Proof of Transubstantiation as cannot possibly signifie any thing else or else it will not answer that Evidence which we have against Transubstantiation for Sense and Reason pronounce Transubstantiation to be naturally impossible and therefore unless it be as impossible to put any other sense upon Scripture than what signifies Transubstantiation as it is to reconcile Transubstantiation to Sense and Reason there is not such good Evidence for Transubstantiation as against it Were the Scripture-Proofs for Transubstantiation so plain and evident that it were impossible to put any other sense on the words then I would grant that it is as impossible for those who believe the Scriptures to disbelieve Transubstantiation as it is for those who trust to their own Sense and Reason to believe it Here the difficulty would be equal on both sides and then I should prefer a Divine Revelation if it were possible to prove such a Revelation to be Divine before natural Sense and Reason but I presume no man will say that it is impossible to put another and that a very reasonable interpretation upon those words This is my Body without expounding them to the sense of Transubstantiation Our Roman Adversaries do not deny but that these words are capable of a figurative as well as of a literal sense as when the Church is called the Body of Christ Flesh of his Flesh and Bone of his Bone it is not meant of his natural but his mystical Body and thus when the Bread is called the Body of Christ it may not signifie his natural but sacramental Body or his Body to all the ends and purposes of a Sacrament Now if there be any other good sense to be made of these words besides Transubstantiation there cannot be such a necessity to expound them of Transubstantiation as there is not to expound them of it for I do not reject Scripture if I deny Transubstantiation when the words of Scripture do not necessarily prove it but I renounce Sense and Reason if I believe it Now though I were bound to renounce my Sence and Reason when they contradict Scripture yet sure I am not bound to deny my Sense and Reason when they do not contradict Scripture and Sense and Reason are never contrary to Scripture nor Scripture to them when the words of Scripture are capable of such an interpretation as is reconcilable both to Sense and Reason In such a case to expound Scripture contrary to Sense and Reason is both to pervert the Scripture and to contradict Reason without any necessity An unlearned man need not enter into a large Dispute about Transubstantiation let him but require his Adversary to give him as plain Evidence that Transubstantiation is the Doctrine of the Gospel as he can give him that it is contrary to Sense and Reason and the
his Son for he owns himself our Father in no other Name and if he will hear our Prayers and answer our humble Petitions only as a Father then he will hear only those Prayers which are made to him in the Name of his Son How great Favourites soever the Blessed Virgin and other Saints may be if God hear Prayers only as a Father it is to no purpose to pray to God in their Names for he hears us not 3. To Worship God as a Father signifies to pray to him with the humble assurance and confidence of Children This is the spirit of adoption whereby we cry Abba Father For because ye are sons God hath sent forth the spirit of his Son into your hearts crying Abba Father A dutiful Son does not question his Father's good will to him nor readiness to hear and answer all his just requests he depends upon the kindness of his Father and his interest and relation to him and seeks for no other Friends and Favourites to recommend him And upon this account also the Invocation of Saints is a contradiction to the Gospel-Spirit of Prayer to that Spirit of Adoption which teaches us to cry Abba Father for surely those have not the hope and assurance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Children who dare not go to their Father themselves but must send their Petitions to him by the hands of Favourites and Intercessors To pray to God in the Name of Christ is onely to pray to him as Sons for it is in his Name only that he owns us for Sons and this is the true Spirit of Adoption in the Name and Mediation of Christ to go to God as Children to a Father but to pray to him in any other Name how powerful soever is not to go to him as a Father but as to our Lord and King who must be Addressed to by the Mediation of some great Favourites To pray to God in any other Name which does not make us his Sons is to distrust our Relation to him as our Father in Christ and this is contrary to the Spirit of Adoption which teaches us to call God Father and gives us that assurance of his Fatherly goodness to us in Christ that we need and desire no other Advocates Thirdly To Worship God in Spirit is to Worship him with our Mind and Spirit for that is most agreeable to the Nature of God who is a Spirit God cannot be Worshipped but by a reasonable Creature and yet a Beast may Worship God as well as a Man who Worships without any act of Reason and Understanding or devout Affections To pray to God without knowing what we say when neither our Understandings nor Affections can joyn in our Prayers is so absurd a Worship of a pure Mind that Transubstantiation it self is not more contrary to Sense than Prayers in an unknown Tongue are to the Essential Reason and Nature of Worship I suppose no man will say that to pray to God or praise him in words which we do not understand is to Worship God in Spirit unless he thinks that a Parrot may be taught to pray in the Spirit What difference is there between a man 's not speaking and speaking what he does not understand Just so much difference there is between not praying and praying what we do not understand and he honours God to the full as much who does not pray at all as he who prays he knows not what and I am sure he affronts him a great deal less However if Christian Worship be to worship God in Spirit Prayers in an unknown Tongue in which the Mind and Spirit cannot be concerned is no Christian Worship SECT IV. Concerning the Reformation and Improvement of Humane Nature by the Gospel of CHRIST 4. ANother principal end and intention of the Gospel was to cure the Degeneracy of Mankind and to advance Humane Nature to its utmost Perfection for as Man fell from his original Happiness by falling from the purity and integrity of his Nature so there was no restoring him to his lost Happiness much less no advancing him to a more perfect state of Happiness not to an earthly but to an heavenly Paradise without changing and transforming his Nature and renewing him after the Image of God. And therefore our very entrance into Christianity is a new Birth Except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit And such a man is called a new Creature and a Christian Life is a newness of Life and living after the Spirit and walking after the Spirit and this new Nature is the Divine Nature the Image of God the new man which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness which is renewed in knowledge after the Image of him that created him So that there are two things wherein this new Nature consists Knowledge and Righteousness or true Holiness and I doubt it will appear that the Church of Rome is no great Friend to either I. Knowledge Now I suppose neither the Church of Rome nor any one for her will pretend that she is any great Friend to Knowledge She is so horribly afraid of Heresie that she endeavours to nurse men up in Ignorance of their Religion for fear they should prove Hereticks and indeed she has some reason for it for the Church of Rome was never so Triumphant as in the most ignorant and barbarous Ages but as Knowledge broke in upon the World so men turned Hereticks apace If there be any knowing Papists and it would be very hard if there should be none they are not beholding to their Church for it which deprives them of all the means of Knowledge for she will not allow them to believe their Senses which is one way of knowing things and the most certain we have and yet she commands us to believe Transubstantiation which no man can do who believes his Senses and if I must not believe my Senses in so plain a matter as what is Bread and Wine I know no reason I have to believe them in any thing and then there is an end of all Knowledge that depends on Sense as the proof of the Christian Religion itself does for Miracles are a sensible proof and if I must not trust my Senses I cannot rely on Miracles because I cannot know whether there be any such thing as a real Miracle The Church of Rome also forbids men the use of Reason in matters of Religion will not allow men to judge for themselves nor to examine the Reasons of their Faith and what knowledge any man can have without exercising his Reason and Understanding I cannot guess for to know without understanding sounds to me like a contradiction She also denies Christians the use of the Bible which is the only means to know the revealed Will of God and when men
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
while they adhere to their own Judgment or they should renounce them both together nay they must not onely renounce their own Judgments as soon as they are Converted but they must renounce the Authority and Validity of those very Arguments whereby they are Converted whether from Scripture Reason or Fathers they must confess that these Arguments are not a sufficient Foundation for a Divine Faith without the Authority of the Church for it is a dangerous thing to allow any Authority to Scripture or Fathers without the Church for that may make men Hereticks and yet I suppose when Hereticks are converted by these Arguments it must be the force of the Arguments and not the Authority of the Church which converts them unless they believed the Authority of the Church before they were converted and that was a little to early for it Now methinks when Protestants turn Papists as they pretend from the conviction of their own Reason and Judgment and as soon as they are converted are taught that there is no relying upon their own Judgment and that the Reasons whereby they were converted are not good in themselves without Church Authority if it were possible for them ever to use their Reason more after such a change it would certainly make them disown their Conversion which it seems was the effect of a very fallible Judgment and very uncertain and inauthentick Reasons 2. There is another pretence for these Disputes which may seem to answer this difficulty that the intention of these Disputes is onely to lead you to the Infallible Church and set you upon a Rock and then it is very natural to renounce your own Judgment when you have an Infallible Guide Our own Judgment then must bring us to the Infallible Guide and when we have found him we have no farther use for our own Judgment I answer 1. Should we grant this it puts an end to all the particular Disputes of Religion between us and the Church of Rome We may Dispute on about an Infallible Judge but they cannot with any sence Dispute with us about the particular Articles of Faith such as Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass the Worship of Images and the like for these are to be learnt onely from the Church and cannot be proved by Scripture or Fathers without the Authority of the Church And if they would confess this they would save us and themselves a great deal of trouble For why should they be at the trouble of writing such Arguments or we to answer them when they themselves confess that the Arguments are not good unless they be confirmed by the Churches Authority I confess I have often wondered to see such Volumes of Controversies written by the Roman Divines for I could never imagine to what end they are writ Is not their Faith wholly resolved into the Authority of the Church what need Reasons and Arguments then which cannot work Faith in us Either these Arguments are sufficient to confirm the Articles of their Faith without the Authority of the Church or they are not If they are then there is no need of Infallibility since all the Articles of Faith are confirmed by such Reasons as are a sufficient Foundation for Faith without it And thus they give up all their Arguments for an Infallible Judge from the necessity of such a Judge If they be not of what use are they does the Decision of the Church need to be confirmed by such Arguments If they are not good Arguments without the Authority of the Church they can no more give Authority to the Church than an Infallible Church can want any Authority but it s own Are they to convince Hereticks but how if Hereticks should confute them If they be not in themselves good Arguments they may be confuted and they know by sad experience that there are Hereticks as they call them who have Wit and Learning enough to confute what is to be confuted and if they fall into such hands which has been their hard fate of late they are sure to be confuted And I doubt then they had better have let them alone for the Catholick Cause may suffer much in the Opinion of the World when all their Arguments are confuted All then that they can design by such Arguments is to impose upon the Weak and Ignorant when Learned Men are out of the way which is no very commendable design and that design will be spoiled too if Unlearned Men do but learn to ask them the Question Whether they build their Faith upon such Arguments For then they must either quit the Authority of their Church or the strength of their Arguments The first reduces them to Protestant Uncertainty for then they have no other Foundation for their Faith than Protestants have which resolves it self into the Reasons and Arguments of Faith The second puts an end to Disputing about these matters for no man needs answer any Arguments which the Disputant himself acknowledges not to be good 2. There is nothing left then for Disâ—utation and the Exercise of our private Reason and Judgment but the inquiry after an Infallible Judge And here also before you dispute it will be necessary to ask them Whether the belief of an Infallible Judge must be resolved into every mans private Judgment whether it be not necessary to believe this with a Divine-Faith and whether there can be any Divine Faith without an Infallible Judge Certainly if ever it be necessary to have an Infallible Faith it is so to be infallibly assured of an Infallible Judge because this is the Foundation of all the rest for though the Judge be Infallible if I be not infallibly assured of this I can never arrive to Infallibility in any thing for I cannot be more certain that his Determinations are Infallible than I am that he himself is Infallible and if I have but a Moral assurance of this I can be but morally assured of the rest for the Building cannot be more firm than the Foundation is and thus there is an end to all the Roman Pretences to Infallibility Now if we must believe the Infallibility of the Church or Pope of Rome with an Infallible Faith there is an end of Disputing for no Reasons or Arguments not the Authority of the Scripture it self without an Infallible Judge can beget an Infallible Faith according to the Roman Doctors For this reason they charge the Protestant Faith with Uncertainty and will not allow it to be a Divine but Humane Faith though it is built upon the firmest Reasons the best Authority and the most express Scripture that can be had for any thing but because we do not pretend to rely on the Authority of a Living Infallible Judge therefore forsooth our Faith is Uncertain Humane and Fallible and this they say makes an Infallible Judge necessary because without him we have no Infallible Certainty of any thing Now if nothiâ—â— but an Infallible Judge can be the Foundation of an Infallible Faith
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
by this Law to forbid the Worship of any Images under what notion or respects soever I would desire to know what more significant and comprehensive words could have been used to have declared his mind unless he had expresly rejected those false Interpretations which the Patrons of Image-Worship have since invented but were never thought on at that time The same Author whom I have so often mentioned having expounded the first Commandment only to a positive sence not to forbid the Worship of other Gods but only to command the Worship of the Lord Jehovah expresly contrary to the very letter and plain sense of the Law agreeably to this he makes the second Commandment only to forbid the Worship of Idols or false Gods and not that neither unless they take them for the Supreme Deity His words are these In the next place he forbids them the Worship of all Idols i.e. as himself describes them the likeness or similitude of any thing that is in Heaven above or in the Earth beneath or in the Water under the Earth A plain and indeed a logical definition this that Idolatry is giving the Worship of the Supream God to any created corporeal or visible Deity or any thing that can be represented by an Image which nothing but corporeal Beings can and to suppose such a Being the Supream Deity is the only true and proper Idolatry Now let any man judge whether this be not such a gloss as utterly destroys the Text. As for his Worship of Idols there is no such word in the Law but Images Likenesses Similitudes but yet I will not dispute about this for an Idol does not only signifie a false God but the Images either of false Gods or false and corporeal Images of the true God. For the Idols of the Heathens as the Psalmist tells us are silver and gold the work of mens hands which can relate to nothing but Images and Pictures for corporeal Deities which were made by God are not the work of mens hands Now Idolatry he says is giving the Worship of the Supream God to any created corporeal or visible Deity or any thing which can be represented by an Image which nothing but corporeal Beings can Now how plain and logical soever this definition of Idolatry be there is not a word of it in the Text. That forbids not the Worship of any created corporeal or visible Deity which is forbid in the first Commandment but only the Worship of Images the likeness of any thing in Heaven or Earth or in the Water under the Earth Now an Image differs from the thing whose Image it is And it is a very strange Exposition of the second Commandment which forbids nothing else but the Worship of Images to take no notice of the Worship of Images as forbid in it According to this gloss upon the Law a man may worship ten thousand Images and Pictures so he do not worship any visible and corporeal Deity and not break this Commandment which I think is not to give the sense of the Law but to expound it away But how does the Worship of corporeal and visible Deities and nothing else appear to be forbid by this Law which mentions nothing at all but the likeness of things in Heaven and Earth and Water Why our learned Author imagines that no Images can be made but only for corporeal and visible Deities because nothing but corporeal Beings can be represented by an Image which Conceit is worth its weight in Gold for it evidently proves that there are no Pictures of God the Father nor of the Trinity in the Church of Rome because they are not corporeal Deities and therefore cannot be represented by an Image so miserably have all Travellers been mistaken who tell us of a great many such Pictures and not very decent ones neither There can indeed be no Picture or Image to represent the likeness and similitude of an incorporeal God but yet the visible parts of Heaven and Earth and the visible Creatures in them may be represented by Images and the Images of such visible things may be made the symbolical representations of invisible and incorporeal Deities and such invisible and incorporeal Deities may be worshipped in the likeness and similitude of corporeal things and then I am sure to forbid the Worship of Images may signifie something more than meerly to forbid the Worship of some visible and corporeal Deities for it may signifie the Worship of invisible and incorporeal Deities by visible Images But I perceive he imagined that when God forbad them to make and worship the likeness of any thing in Heaven in Earth or in the Waters under the Earth he only forbad the Worship of those Beings whose likeness or Images they made whereas all men know that those very Idolaters who worshipped these glorious parts of the Creation did not represent them in their proper likenesses and figures and that those who worshipped invisible and incorporeal Beings did it by material and visible figures which plainly proves that when God forbad the Worship of Images he had not respect meerly to visible and corporeal Deities but forbad Image-worship whether they were the Images of visible and corporeal or of invisible and incorporeal Deities Our Author durst not say as the Roman Advocates do that God in the second Commandment only forbids the Worship of Images as Gods which is such glorious Nonsence that he could not digest it and therefore he supposes that God does not forbid the Worship of Images at all but only of such corporeal Deities as may be represented by Images which is a more gentile way of discarding the second Commandment than to leave it out of their Books of Devotions But if he will stand to this he condemns the Popish Worship of dead Men and Women for they are corporeal Deities nay of Christ himself considered as a man who might be represented by an Image or Picture And thus I doubt he has done the Church of Rome no kindness at all for this is a Demonstration against the Worship of Saints and the Virgin Mary because they are created corporeal and visible Beings who may be represented by Images and he has thought of an Argument against Images which neither the Scripture nor the Church of Rome know any thing of The Church of Rome thinks it a good Argument for the Images of Christ and the Saints and the Virgin Mary that they are representable by Images and Pictures and therefore there can be no hurt in such Images And the Scripture perpetually urges that Argument against Images that the Deity cannot be represented by an Image but neither of these Arguments are good if our Author's Notion be good For then to worship such corporeal Beings as may be represented by Images is to worship corporeal Gods which is Idolatry And there is no danger in the Images of an incorporeal Deity which cannot represent the God for which they are made for whatever the
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
to come into the Church they give up the Authority of the Church and make every man his own Pope and expose themselves to all the senseless Rallery of their admired Pax Vobis By this they confess that the Scripture may be understood by Reason that they can back their Interpretations with such powerful Arguments as are able to convince Hereticks who reject the Authority of an Infallible Interpreter and then they must unsay all their hard Sayings against the Scriptures That they are dark and obscure dead Letters unsenced Characters meer figured Ink and Paper they must recant all their Rallery against expounding Scripture by a private Spirit and allowing every man to judge of the sence of it and to chuse what he pleases for thus they do themselves when they dispute with Hereticks about the sence of Scripture and I am pretty confident they would never speak against Scripture nor a private Spirit more if this private Spirit would but make us Converts but the mischief is a private Spirit if it have any tincture of Sence and Reason seldom expounds Scripture to a Roman-Catholick sence So that in truth it is a vain nay a dangerous thing for Papists to dispute with Protestants about the sence of Scripture for it betrays the Cause of the Church and vindicates the Scriptures and every mans natural Right of judging from the Usurpations and Encroachments of a pretended Infallibility but yet dispute they do and attempt to prove their Doctrines from Scripture And because it is too large a task for this present Undertaking to examine all their Scripture-Proofs I shall only observe some general faults tâ—y are guilty of which whoever is aware of is in no danger of being imposed on by their Pretences to Scripture and I shall not industriously multiply Particulars for there are some few palpable mistakes which run through most of their Scripture-Proofs 1. As first many of their Scripture-Proofs are founded upon the likeness of a word or phrase without any regard to the sense and signification of that word in Scripture or to the matter to which it is applied As for instance There is not a more useful Doctrine to the Church of Rome than that of unwritten Traditions which are of equal Authority with the Scriptures for were this owned they might put what novel Doctrines they pleased upon us under the venerable name of ancient and unwritten Traditions Well we deny that there are any such unwritten Traditions which are of equal Authority with the Scripture since the Canon of Scripture was written and perfected and desire them to prove that there are any such unwritten Traditions Now they think it sufficient to do this if they can but find the word Tradition in Scripture and that we confess they do in several places for Tradition signifies only the delivery of the Doctrine of the Gospel which we grant was not done perfectly in writing when those Epistles were written which speak of Traditions by word as well as by Epistle But because the whole Doctrine of the Gospel was not written at first but delivered by word of mouth does it hence follow that after the Gospel is written there are still unwritten Traditions of equal Authority with the Scripture This is what they should prove and the meer naming of Traditions in Scripture before the Canon was perfected does not prove this for all men know that the Gospel was delivered by word of mouth or by unwritten Tradition before it was written but this does by no means prove that there are unwritten Traditions after the Gospel was written To prove this they should shew us where it is said that there are some Traditions which shall never be written that the Rule of Faith shall always consist partly of written partly of unwritten Traditions Thus we know how zealous the Church of Rome is for their Purgatory-fire wherein all men who are in a state of grace or delivered from the guilt of their sins must yet undergo that punishment of them which has not been satisfied for by other means As profitable a Doctrine as any the Church of Rome has because it gives great Authority to Sacerdotal Absolutions and sets a good price upon Masses for the Dead and Indulgences and yet the best proof they have for this is that Fire mentioned 1 Cor. 3. 13 14 15. Every mans work shall be made manifest for the day shall declare it because it shall be revealed by fire and the fire shall declare every mans work of what sort it is If any mans work shall be burnt he shall suffer loss but he himself shall be saved but so as by fire Now here is mention of fire indeed but how does it appear to be the Popish Purgatory Suppose it were meant of a material fire though that does not seem so proper to try good or bad Actions a true and Orthodox or Heretical Faith yet this fire is not kindled till the day of Judgment which is eminently in Scripture called the day and is the only day we know of in Scripture which shall be revealed by fire when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire 2 Thess. 1. 7 8. So that here is nothing but the word fire applied to another Fire than St. Paul ever thought on to prove a Popish Purgatory Thus they make Confession to a Priest ordinarily necessary to obtain the Forgiveness of our sins and have no better Scripture-Proofs for it but that we are often commanded to confess our sins sometimes to God and sometimes to another but never to a Priest. They have made a Sacrament of Extream Unction wherein the sick Person is anointed for the Forgiveness of sins and though a Sacrament ought to have the most plain and express institution both as to the matter and form and use and end of it yet the only Proofs they produce for this is the Disciples working miraculous Cures by anointing the sick with Oyl 6 Mark 13 which methinks is a little different from the Sacrament of extream Unction which is not to cure their sickness but to forgive their sins and St. James his Command Is any sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with oyl in the name of the Lord and the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him Where anointing with Oyl joyned with servent Prayer is prescribed as a means of restoring the sick person to health again and therefore is not the Popish Extream Unction which is to be administred only to those who are dying And though St. James adds And if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him yet 1. This is not said to be the effect of Anointing but of the servent Prayer and 2. This very Forgiveness of sins does not refer to a plenary Pardon of sins in the
Sins which are forgiven in the next World because there is a Sin which shall not be forgiven there Now not to consider the ordinary use of such Phrases to signifie no more than it shall never be without distinguishing between what is to be done in this World and what in the next nay not to consider how contrary this is to their own Doctrine of Purgatory that men who go to Purgatory have all their Sins already forgiven though they must suffer the punishment of them there which how absurd soever it is yet shews that Purgatory is not a place of forgiving Sins and therefore cannot be meant by our Saviour in those words yet supposing all they would have that there shall be some Sins forgiven in the next World which are not forgiven in this How does this prove a Popish Purgatory where Souls endure such torments as are not inferiour to those of Hell it self excepting their duration That some Sins shall be forgiven in the next World I think does not very evidently prove that men shall be tormented it may be for several Ages in the Fire of Purgatory Thus they prove the necessity of Auricular Confession to Priest from the power of Judicial Absolution Christ has given the Priest power to forgive Sins and hereby has made him a Judge to retain or remit Sins to absolve and inflict Penances Now a Judge cannot judge right without a particular knowledge of the Fact and all the circumstances of it and this the Priest cannot know without the confession of the Penitent and therefore as Priests have authority to absolve so a Penitent who would be absolved must of necessity confess But now I should think it a much better consequence that the Priest has not such a judicial authority of Absolution as requires a particular confession of the Penitent because Christ has no where commanded all men to confess their Sins to a Priest than that the Priest has such a judicial Authority and therefore all men must confess to a Priest for though our Saviour does give power to his Apostles to remit and retain Sins yet those words do not necessarily signifie a judicial Authority to forgive Sins or if it did it may relate onely to publick Sins which are too well known without a private confession or however it is not the particular knowledge of the Sin with all the circumstances of it but the marks and characters of true Repentance for publick or secret Sins which is the best rule and direction whom to absolve and therefore there is no need of a particular confession to this purpose But the Sophistry of this is most palpable when they draw such consequences from one Text of Scripture as directly contradict other plain and express Texts Thus because St. Peter tells us That there are many things hard to be understood in St. Paul's Epistles which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest as they do also the other scriptures to their own destruction 2 Pet. 3. 16. From hence they would conclude that People ought not to be allowed to read the Bible as if St. Peter had intended to forbid them to read those Epistles which St. Paul had written to them nay to read this very Epistle which he himself now sent to them For these Epistles which were sent to the Churches that they might be read by them make a considerable part of the New Testament which the People must not be allowed to read now But setting aside this this consequence that the People must not read the Bible is directly contrary to a great many other Texts which expresly command them to read and search and study and meditate on the Laws of God and the Holy Scriptures as every body knows I confess it amazes me to hear men argue at this rate when they cannot produce any one Text which forbids People to read the Scriptures and there are a great many express commands that they should read the Scriptures they think it sufficient to oppose against all this Authority a consequence of their own making and a very absurd one too and call this a Scripture-proof I would not be thought wholly to reject a plain and evident consequence from Scripture but yet I will never admit of a meer consequence to prove an Institution which must be delivered in plain terms as all Laws ought to be and where I have no other proof but some Scripture-consequences I shall not think it equivalent to a Scripture-proof if the consequences be plain and obvious and such as every man sees I shall not question it but remote and dubious and disputed consequences if we have no better evidence to be sure are a very ill foundation for Articles of Faith. Let our Protestant then tell such Disputants that for the Institution of Sacraments and for Articles of Faith he expects plain positive Proofs that as much as the Protestant Faith is charged with uncertainty we desire a little more certainty for our Faith than meer inferences from Scripture and those none of the plainest neither 4. Another false pretence to Scripture-proofs is to clap their own sense upon the words of Scripture without any regard to the use and propriety of words to the circumstances of the place to the reason and nature of things and to call this a Scripture-proof of their Doctrine when their Doctrines do not naturally grow there but are onely engrafted by some cunning Artists upon a Scripture-stock I shall give you onely one instance of this their Doctrine of Transubstantiation As for Transubstantiation they teach that the Elements of Bread and Wine are converted into the natural Flesh and Bloud of Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary That after Consecration there is nothing of the substance of Bread and Wine but the Accidents subsist without a substance That the natural Body of Christ his Soul and Divinity are present under the species of Bread nay that whole Christ Flesh and Bloud is under the species of Bread and in every particle of it and under the species of Wine and every drop of it That the Body of Christ is not broken nor his Bloud shed in the Sacrament but only the species of Bread and Wine which are nothing That it is only this Nothing which we eat and drink in the Sacrament and which goes down into our stomachs and carries whole Christ down with it Now this Doctrine founds so very harsh is so contrary to all the Evidence of our Senses and has so many Absurdities and Contradictions to Reason that it ought to be very plainly proved from Scripture in every part of it for if a man might be perswaded to renounce his Senses and Reason to believe Scripture yet it ought to be equally evident to him at least that Scripture is for it as it is that Sense and Reason is against it and yet there is not one word in Scripture to prove any one part of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation neither that the natural
evident then I can no more believe them as to any Revelation than I can as to their natural Reasonings for the same Faculties must judge of both and if the Faculty be false I can trust its judgment in neither 3 ly The Doctrine of Transubstantiation destroys all possible certainty what the true sence and interpretation of Scripture is and thereby overthrows all supernatural Knowledge The Scripture we know is Expounded to very different and contrary Sences and made to countenance the most monstrous and absurd Doctrines Witness all the ancient Heresies which have been Fathered on the Scriptures Now what way have we to confute these Heresies but to shew either that the words of Scripture will not bare such a sence or at least do not necessarily require it that such an Interpretation is contrary to Sense to Reason to the natural Notions we have of God and therefore is in itself absurd and impossible But if Transubstantiation be a Gospel-Doctrine I desire any Papist among all the ancient Heresies to pick out any Doctrine more absurd and impossible more contrary to Sense and Reason than the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is and then it is no Argument against any Doctrine or any Exposition of Scripture that it is absurd and impossible contrary to Sense and Reason for so Transubstantiation is and if we may believe one absurd Doctrine we may believe five hundred how absurd soever they be And then what defence has any man against the most monstrous Corruptions of the Christian Faith Is this the way to improve Knowledge to destroy all the certain marks and characters of Truth and Error and to leave no Rule to judge by If the design of the Gospel was to improve our Minds by a knowing and understanding Faith Transubstantiation which overthrows the certainty both of natural and revealed Knowledge can be no Gospel-Doctrine 3. The Authority of an infallible Judge whom we must believe in every thing without examining the reasons of what he affirms nay though he teaches such Doctrines as appear to us most expresly contrary to Sense and Reason and Scripture is no Gospel-Doctrine because it is not the way to make men wise and understanding Christians which is the great design of the Gospel for to suspend the exercise of Reason and Judgment is not the way to improve mens Knowledge an infallible Teacher and an infallible Rule do indeed mightily contribute to the improvement of Knowledge but such an infallible Judge as the Church of Rome boasts of can only make men ignorant and stupid Believers For there is a vast difference between an infallible Teacher and an infallible Judge which few men observe at least have not well explained for an infallible Teacher is onely an external Proponent and while men only teach and instruct how infallible soever they are every man is at liberty to use his own Reason and Judgment for though the Teacher be infallible he that learns must use his own Reason and Judgment unless a man can learn without it But now an infallible Judge is not contented to teach and instruct which is an appeal to the Reason of Mankind but he usurps the office of every mans private Reason and Judgment and will needs judge for all Mankind as if he were an Vniversal Soul an Vniversal Reason and Judgment that no man had any Soul any Reason or Judgment but himself for if every man has a private Reason and Judgment of his own surely every man must have a right to the private exercise of it that is to judge for himself and then there can be no such universal Judge who must be that to every man which in other cases his own private Reason and Judgment is which is to un-Soul all Mankind in matters of Religion And therefore though there have been a great many infallible Teachers as Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles yet none ever pretended to be infallible Judges but the Church of Rome that is none ever pretended to deny People a liberty of judging for themselves or ever exacted from them an universal submission to their infallible Judgment without exercising any act of Reason and Judgment themselves I am sure Christ and his Apostles left People to the exercise of their own Reason and Judgment and require it of them they were infallible Teachers but they did not judge for all Mankind but left every man to judge for himself as every man must and ought and as every man will do who has any Reason and Judgment of his own but an infallible Judge who pretends to judge for all men treats Mankind like Bruits who have no reasonable Souls of their own But you 'll say this distinction between an infallible Teacher and an infallible Judge is very nice and curious but seems to have nothing in it for does not he who teaches infallibly judge infallibly too And must I not submit my private Judgment which all men allow to be fallible to a publick infallible Judgment which I know to be infallible If I know that I may be deceived and that such a man cannot be deceived is it not reasonable for me to be governed by his Judgment rather than my own I answer All this is certainly true as any demonstration but then it is to be considered that I cannot be so certain of any man's Infallibility as to make him my Infallible Judge in whose Judgment I must acquiesce without exercising any Reason or Judgment of my own and the reason is plain because I cannot know that any man teaches infallibly unless I am sure that he teaches nothing that is contrary to any natural or revealed Law. Whoever does so is so far from being Infallible that he actually errs and whether he does so I cannot know unless I may judge of his Doctrine by the Light of Nature and by Revelation and therefore though there may be an Infallible Teacher there never can be any Infallible Judge to whom I must submit my own Reason and Judgment because I must judge of his Doctrine my self before I can know that he is Infallible As for instance when Moses appeared as a Prophet and a Law-giver to the Children of Israel there was no written Law but only the Law of Nature and therefore those great Miracles he wrought gave authority to his Laws because he contradicted no necessary Law of Nature but had any other person at that time wrought as many Miracles as Moses did and withal taught the Worship of many Gods either such as the AEgyptians or any other Nations worshipped at that time this had been reason enough to have rejected him as a false Prophet because it is contrary to the natural Worship of one Supream God which the Light of Nature teaches When Christ appeared there was a written Law the Writings of Moses and the Prophets and all the Miracles he wrought could not have proved him a true Prophet had he contradicted the Scriptures of the Old Testament and therefore his
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
Bondage But is this all that these words Thou shalt have no other Gods before me signifies The Worship of God indeed is supposed in them but the express words of the Law are not for the Worship of the Lord Jehovah but against the Worship of any other Gods before him or besides him But according to our new Expositor this is no part of the Law though according to the express words it is the principal if not the whole meaning of it If this Argument be good viz. That Idolatry is nothing else but the Worship of other Beings besides the Lord Jehovah as Supreme Gods then other Gods in this Commandment must signifie other Supreme Gods and then the Commandment runs thus Thou shalt have no other supreme Gods before me Now this is a very absurd sence because it supposes that men may Believe and Worship more Supreme Gods than one for if there can be but one Supreme God and by Gods in the Commandment be meant Supreme Gods then it is absurd to forbid any man to have other Supreme Gods because no man can acknowledge two Supremes It should have been Thou shalt not have any other God besides me not Gods For though it had been possible for them to have acknowledged some other God to be Supreme and rejected the Lord Jehovah from being Supreme yet they could not have other Supreme Gods. But it is evident that God here forbids the Worship of a Plurality of Gods of other Gods and therefore they could not all be Supreme Gods. But suppose it had been any other God in the single number yet to understand this of a Supream God is very absurd because there is no other supream God but the Lord Jehovah and those who worship but one Supream God worship him and none else For a supream God is not to be pointed at is not to be distinguished by his Person or Features as one man is distinguished from another indeed a Prince may properly say to his Subjects You shall own none but me for your King because they know his Person and can distinguish him from all other men But the Jews never saw God nor any likeness or similitude of him they were not acquainted with his Person nor could they distinguish him from other Gods by any personal Characters they knew him only by his Notion and Character of the Supream Being who made the World and all things in it and brought them by a mighty hand out of the Land of AEgypt Now does it not found very strange that the Supream God who is known only by this Character that he is Supream the great Creator and Soveraign Lord of the World should make a Law that we should worship no other Supream God but himself when it is absolutely impossible that he who worships a Supream and Soveraign God should worship any other God but himself because he alone is the Supream God and therefore those who worship the Supream God under this Notion as Supream worship him and no other Being So that if we will make sense of it the meaning of the first Commandment is plainly this Thou shalt not give Divine Honours to any other Beings as to inferiour Gods as the Idolatrous Practice of the World now is which worships a great many things for Gods but thou shalt worship only one Supream and Soveraign Being the maker and Soveraign Lord of the World which is I my self the Lord Jehovah who brought thee out of the Land of AEgypt out of the House of Bondage When the Supream God commands us to worship himself the meaning must be that we pay our Worship and Adorations to a Supream Being considered as Supream and he who worships such a Supream Being worships the true God whom we can distinguish from false Gods only by this Character that he is Supream And when this Supream Being forbids us to worship any other Gods it must signifie that we must worship nothing which is not Supream not that we must not believe that which is not Supream to be the Supream God which would be ridiculous Nonsence to command them not to own that Being for the Supream God which they know not to be Supream But it may be said that the Heathens did worship some Beings who were not the Supream God as Supream as this Author tells us they did the Sun though no body told him so that I know of for Macrobius whom he cites in this Cause does not say that they worshipped the Sun as Supream God though he says that most of the Gods they worshipped did signifie the Sun But suppose the Sun were the chief Object of their Worship and look'd on as the greatest and most principal God this does not prove that they worshipped it as the Supream God for these are two very different things to be worshipped as the chief God which such a People have and to be worshipped under the Notion of Absolutely Supream Some Pagan Idolaters might worship a Creature as their chief and greatest Deity and might call it their great their greatest God because it is the greatest God they have their King and Prince of Gods as Mr. Selden tells us they called the Sun as being the chief Planet who directed and governed the Influences of the rest not as the Maker of the World as this Author asserts But those who direct their Worship to a Supream and Soveraign Being considered as absolutely Supream infinite in all Perfections the Maker and Governour of the whole World can under this Notion worship no other but the Lord Jehovah because there is no other Supream God but he Which shews that the first Commandment is so far from forbidding the Worship of other Supream Gods besides the Lord Jehovah that to make sense of it these other Gods must be expounded not of Supream but inferiour Deities and it is so far from being the Notion of Idolatry to worship other Supream Beings besides the Lord Jehovah that it is Nonsence to suppose it The true Notion of Idolatry in the first Commandment is to worship some Inferiour Beings together with the Supream God It is a grosser sort of Idolatry when men wholly neglect the Worship of the Supream God and worship some Creature for their greatest and chiefest God and it is worse still when men worship bad Spirits than when they worship good Spirits together with the Supream God but it is evident this Law condemns the Worship of any Inferiour Beings though we do also worship the Supream God. I shall give but one Instance more of this nature and that is the second Commandment which in such express words forbids the Worship of all Images of what kind or nature soever Now whatever Reasons men may imagine there are for the Worship of Images they can be of no force against an express Law And if these words be not express Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven image c. I despair of ever seeing an express Law For had God intended