evident confequences from Scripture, and if they can but hale a Text of Scripture into the premises, whatever the conclufion be, they call it a Scripture-Proof. There are infinite Instances of this, but I can only name fome few. Thus they prove the perpetual Infallibility of the Church, becaufe Christ promises his Difciples to be with them to the end of the world, 28 Matth. 20. which promise cannot be confined to their perfons, for they were to die long before the end of the World, and therefore muft extend to their Succeffors. Suppofe that, and does Christ's being with them, neceffarily fignifie, that he will make them Infallible? Is not Chrift with every particular Church, with every particular Bishop, nay with every particular good Chriftian, and muft they all be Infallible then? Thus Chrift promises that the Gates of Hell fhall not prevail against his Church; Ergo, the Church is Infallible; for if Error and Herefie prevails against the Church, the Gates of Hell prevail against it: And I add, if Sin and Wickedness prevail against the Church, the Gates of Hell prevail against it; Ergo, the Church is Impeccable, and cannot fin; which is to the full as good a confequence as the other: And therefore the Gates of Hell prevailing, can neither fignifie the meer prevalency of Errors or Sin in the Church, but fuch a prevalency as destroys the Church; and this fhall never be, because Chrift has promised it shall never be; and it may never be, though the Church be not Infallible; and therefore this does not prove Infallibility. Thus they prove there is fuch a place as Purgatory, where Sins are forgiven and expiated, because our Saviour fays, That the fin against the Holy Ghoft, fhall neither be forgiven in this world, nor in the world to come, K Matth. Matt. 12. 32. and therefore there are fome Sins which are forgiven in the next World, because there is a fin which fhall not be forgiven there. Now not to confider the ordinary ufe of fuch Phrases to fignifie no more, than it shall never be, without diftinguishing between what is to be done in this World, and what in the next; nay, not to confider how contrary this is to their own Doctrine of Purgatory, that men who go to Purgatory have all their Sins already forgiven, though they muft fuffer the punishment of them there; which how abfurd foever it is, yet fhews, that Purgatory is not a place of forgiving Sins; and therefore cannot be meant by our Saviour in those words; yet fuppofing all they would have, that there fhall be fome Sins forgiven in the next World, which are not forgiven in this; How does this prove a Popish Purgatory, where Souls endure fuch torments as are not inferiour to thofe of Hell it felf, excepting their duration? That fome Sins fhall be forgiven in the next World, I think, does not very evidently prove, that men fhall be tormented, it may be for several Ages, in the Fire of Purgatory. Thus they prove the neceffity of Auricular Confeffion toa Prieft, from the power of Judicial Abfolution. Chrift has given the Prieft power to forgive Sins, and hereby has made him a Judge, to retain or remit Sins, to abfolve and inflict Penances. Now a Judge cannot judge right, without a particular knowledge of the Fact, and all the circumftances of it; and this the Prieft cannot know without the confeffion of the Penitent: and therefore as Priests have authority to abfolve, fo a Penitent, who would be abfolved, muft of neceffity confefs. But now I should think it a much better confequence, that the Priest has not fuch a judicial authority of Absolution, as requires a particular confeffion of the Penitent, because Chrift Chrift has no where commanded all men to confefs their Sins to a Priest, than that the Priest has such a judicial Authority, and therefore all men must confess to a Prieft: for though our Saviour does give power to his Apoftles to remit and retain fins, yet thofe words do not neceílarily fignifie 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 confeffion; 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 fecret Sins, which is the beft: rule and direction whom to abfolve; and therefore there is no need of a particular Confeffion to this purpose. But the Sophiftry of this is moft palpable, when they draw fuch confequences from one Text of Scripture, as directly contradict other plain and exprefs Texts. Thus because St. Peter tells us, That there are many things hard to be understood, in St. Paul's Epiftles, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do alfo the other fcriptures to their own deftruction, 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 Epiftles, which St. Paul had written to them;. nay, to read this very Epiftle which he himself now fent to them: For these Epiftles which were fent to the Churches, that they might be read by them, make a confiderable part of the New Teftament, which the People muft not be allowed to read now. But fetting afide this, this confequence that the People muft not read the Bible, is directly contrary to a great many other Texts, which exprefly command them to read,and fearch, and study, and meditate on the Laws of God, and the Holy Scriptures, as every body knows. I confefs it amazes me to hear men argue at this rate: when they can K 2 not not produce any one Text which forbids People to read the Scriptures, and there are a great many express commands, that they fhould read the Scriptures, they think it fufficient to oppofe against all this Authority, a confequence of their own making, and a very abfurd 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 confequence to prove an Inftitution, which must be delivered in plain terms, as all Laws ought to be; and where I have no other proof, but fome Scripture-confequences, I fhall not think it equivalent to a Scripture-proof: if the confequences be plain and obvi ous, and fuch as every man fees, I fhall not queftion it; but remote, and dubious, and difputed confequences, if we have no better evidence, to be fure are a very ill foundation for Articles of Faith. Let our Protestant then tell fuch Difputants, that for the Inftitution of Sacraments, and for Articles of Faith, he expects plain pofitive Proofs: that as much as the Proteftant Faith is charged with uncertainty, we defire a little more certainty for our Faith, than meer inferences from Scripture, and thofe none of the plaineft neither. 4. Another falfe pretence to Scripture-proofs is, to clap their own sense upon the words of Scripture, without any regard to the ufe and propriety of words, to the circumstances of the place, to the reafon and nature of things; and to call this a Scripture-proof of their Do&trine, when their Doctrines do not naturally grow there, but are only engrafted by fome cunning Artists, upon a Scripture-stock. I fhall give you onely one instance of this, their Doctrine of Tranfubstantiation. As for Tranfubftantiation, they teach, that the Elements of Bread and Wine are converted into the natural Flefb Flesh and Bloud of Chrift, which was born of the Virgin Mary: That after Confecration there is nothing of the fubftance of Bread and Wine, but the Accidents fubfift without a substance: That the natural Body of Christ his Soul and Divinity, are prefent under the fpecies of Bread; nay, that whole Chrift, Flesh and Bloud, is under the fpecies of Bread, and in every particle of it, and under the fpecies of Wine, and every drop of it: That the Body of Chrift is not broken, nor his Bloud fhed in the Sacrament, but only the fpecies 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 ftomachs, and carries whole Christ down with it. Now this Doctrine founds fo very harfh, is so contrary to all the Evidence of our Senfes, and has fo many Abfurdities 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 perfwaded to renounce his Senses and Reason to believe Scripture, yet it ought to be equally evident to him at leaft, 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 Tranfubftantiation : neither that the natural Flesh and Blood of Chrift is in the Sacrament, nor that the fubftance of Bread and Wine does not remain after Confecration, nor that the Accidents of Bread and Wine, fuch as colour, fmell, tafte, quantity, weight, fubfift without any substance, or subject to fubfift in. These are fuch Paradoxes to Senfe and Reason, that they ought to be very well fupported with Scripture, before they are received for Articles of Faith, or else our Faith will be as very an Accident, without any fubftance, as the facramental species themselves are. But though they have no Text which proves the leaft Tittle ད་ |