from choofing his own Remedies, and defired to fend for a skilful Doctor, fhould answer, 'tis impoffible by Reason to perfmade me not to use my Reafon, in governing my felf by Reafon, as my own Reafon teacheth me; which would be to condemn Reason, and yet be guided by your Reafon; fuch Difcourfe would prove the Sick Man, at least somewhat Light-headed. What 'tis a Symptom of in Dr. Sherlock, his Modesty will not let him be pofitive in. But Sir, Is this fame Sick Man, when he is defired to fend for some able Doctor, perfwaded too to renounce his Reafon, or rather, is it not that he Thould fubmit his Judgment (not renounce his Reason) in that cafe, to that person whom he hath all the reason in the World to believe, hath better knowledge and understanding of thofe things which are to be us'd for his Recovery than himself? And all this while, methinks he is govern'd by Reason, though he doth not think fit to truft his own Skill; 'tis the Doctors profeffion to know what Medicines are fit to be used in fuch and fuch Cafes and Constitutions, which I never trouble my felf about, and therefore furely I may be govern'd by him without renouncing my Reafon; nay, 'tis Reafon that makes me do it. But this bears no comparison; Religion is, or ought to be the concern of all: Phyfical Speculations, those only who are pleased to make it their Study; eve ry one must believe for himself, but every one is not obliged to be his own Doctor.

Prefervative, &c fol. 25.) We must allow of no Rea fon against the Authority of plain and exprefs Scripture We may reasonably conolude, that God understands the reafons and nature of things better then we. This the Anfwerer faith, is a very true and Catholick Principle. Whence we may infer, That when the Doctor comes to apply

D 2

it,

it,that he will be guilty of fome most Illogical Inference. Alasfor Dr. Sherlock! who can hold no Catholick Principle, but what must have fome Illogical Inference attending it to fpoil all; but let's hear it: Thou shalt Worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou ferve, is fuch a plain and express Scripture, that no Reason can justifie the Worship of another Being. And what faith the Anfwerer to this, fure fome great matter, fince he prepared his Reader before hand with a Behold? Why 'tis like this,A Subject must love his King, and owe Allegiance to him alone; therefore no Reason can justifie the love of a Child for his Father, or of a Wife for her Husband. What a delicate piece of Sophiftry is here! But 'tis no matter, his defign is to confound us unlearned Hereticks: but Sirs, the command is, to ferve God only; which Service, we muft of neceffity understand to be that which is Divine; but Worship is fo: wherefore it irresistibly follows, that we must not Worship any other Being, but what we are here commanded to ferve, which is, God alone: So your fimilitude will not hold. I am to love my King, (and I thank God I do it heartily) and to owe all Allegiance to him, but I may love another to whom I owe no Allegiance; but to Worship a Being, I can't without ferving that Being; wherefore the Text is plain against the Worship of any other but God.

Prefervative, &c. fol. 26. and in the Answer, page 6. The Sense of the Law is the Law ------ but when the Law is not capable of a different fenfe, or there is no fuch Rea Son as makes one fenfe abfurd, and the other neceffary, the Law must be expounded according to the most plain and obvious fenfe of the words. Anfwerer. This Principle is found. You may then be fure of a falfe Inference at the heel of it, just as before. Surely this Gentleman is one

of

of Momus's Race, whom nothing could pleafe. They write of him, That none of the Gods could do any thing but he had a quarrel at it; when Neptune had made a Bull, Vulcan a Man, and Minerva a House, he quarrell'd at the Bull because the Horns stood on his Head; the Man, because he had not a Window in his Breaft; the Houfe because it ftood not upon Wheels, to remove it when it ftood not well; and when Venus walked by, fmiling at his conceit, he told her, fhe was not well made neither; and her Shoes made too much creaking as she went. But for the Doctors falfe Inference; and this is it, Thou shalt not make to thy felf any Image, &c. which is fo exprefs a Law against ImageWorship, that no Reafon must be admitted for it; and what hath he to fay to this? Why, there are two queftions which he thinks cannot be anfwer'd, but that the Doctors falle Inference will appear: First then, What if you be told, that although the Jews had perhaps a command of making no graven Image, &c. yet this being a pofitive Law, and not confirmed in the Gospel, doth not oblige us? Will this reafon be admitted? No; and yet you have no other motive to pass by as express a Law of Sanctifying Saturday? And do you indeed Sir, think it all one? Is it not held on all hands, that the keeping of the Seventh day was Figurative, and fo abolish'd at the Death of Christ? but fo far as it was Moral, namely, that a Seventh day fhould be kept, that still remains. Befides, were we, or Chrift and his Apoftles, Authors of this change? Christ as he rose on that day, fo he did ufually appear on that day to his Disciples: And doth not the Scripture maintain the Celebration of it by the constant practice of the Apostles, Ads 20. & 7. 1 Corinthians 16. & 21. which fhews, that we have better foundation for our belief in this point, than you who rely on Tradition. Well!

but

but fuppofe it be rejoyn'd, that only the making to themselves (by private Authority) an Idol to adore it with Ďivine Worship is forbidden, can none of thefe Reasons be heard? no; then Bezeleel by Gods command, making several likeneffes of things on Earth, Solomon placing fuch in the Temple, finned against the firft Commandment The truth is, what fenfe they put on any Text, is the express Law, against which, no Reafon must be heard; fo they challenge to themselves the Infallibility which they fo sturdily deny to the Church of God. For Answer to this then, firft, we do not challenge the Infallibility which the polluted and degenerate Church of Rome (which he calls the Church of God) claims: for she would have us take the fenfe of any Scripture upon her own word; and because she so teacheth, we must fubmit to her definitions; and for this reafon, because the hath defined them: 'Tis not for private Chriftians to examine particular points of their Faith or Religion; no, 'tis fufficient to fubmit to an Infallible Guide; and that too, if he declare as the Council of Conftance did, Seffion 13. concerning the Eucharift, That notwithstanding our Lord did inftitute it in both kinds, and the Apostles fo celebrated it, yet now it should not be fo; which was confirmed by the Council of Trent, Seffion 21. But for us Proteftants, we cannot think that any reafon can be fufficient to lay afide an express Text. Well, but how fhall we excufe Bezeleel and Solomon from finning against the first Commandment? why truly that is very eafie; for 'tis plain, that they did not make them for any Religious Worship, neither did they pay any Adoration to them. And what comparison this hath to the practice of the Church of Rome at this day, I shall leave to any man who hath any knowledge of their Religion, to judge.

And

And now (in good time) he tells us he will conclude the Doctor's admirable Principles and Inferences (i.e. that make void all right ufe of common Sense and Reason with one fo fingular, that it deferves to be obferved by all: And truly it doth fo, but it is of his own coyning; take it in his own Words, page 6. No Argument from the necessity of a thing must be admitted to prove it is; if there be no Infallible Judge, there can be no certainty of Faith. Tho it be true, and you

think it to be true, you must not allow this confequence, therefore there is one.------ Such Arguments do not prove that there be such a Judge, but that there ought to be. Now to see the Difingenuity (to fay no worfe) of this Author, we must look into the Doctor's Book, and there, (fol. 44.) he tells us, That we should never admit any Arguments merely from the usefulness, conveniency, or fuppofed neceffity of any thing to prove it is. Now the Anfwerer leaves out the word fuppofed, and fo makes that abfolute, which was only conditional, (fol. 45.) If there be not an Infallible Judge, there can be no certainty in Religion: This the Doctor faid; but for whom, I pray, for himfelf, or for the Roman Catholick? and therefore he goes on, If I thought all this were true, (as I believe not a Word of it is) I should only conclude, that it is great pity that there is not an Infallible Fudge inftituted by Christ. But if you would have me conclude from these premises, Ergo, there is an infallible Judge of Controverfies, I must beg your pardon for that; for fuch Arguments as thefe do not prove, that there is fuch a Judge, but only that there ought to be one, and therefore I must conclude no more from them. Indeed this is a very fallacious way of reasoning, because what we may call useful, convenient, neceffary, may not be fo in its felf; and we have reason to believe it is not So, if God have not appointed what we think fo ufeful,

con