uncertainty of their Faith, as to fuch matters wherein they differ, then by the fame Rule their agreement in oppofition to Popery, fhews their great certainty in fuch matters. And this I fuppofe is no great inducement to a Proteftant to turn Papist.

Our Jefuit had fo much Wit in his Anger, as to conceal the force of this Argument, and to reprefent it thus, Were all Proteftants of a mind would their confent and agreement prove the certainty of the Proteftant Faith. By which a lone no man living could guess, what I was proving; and to this he answers, Not at all, and I agree with him in it; for meer agreement does not prove the certainty of Faith, no more then meer difagreement, or variety of Opinions proves the uncertainty of Faith. But they prove them both alike, as I obferved, which he calls a ridiculous Inference, and as he has reported it, he has made it ridiculous enough, This is the fame Rule, and their difagreement proves not their uncertainty. This is to mangle and trans profe an Argument that it may not be understood: but to confute this he says, all Union is no Argument of the Spi rit of God, for People may combine to do ill: But what is this to agreement in Opinions? May not that argue the certainty of Faith, because fome men agree to do ille for á general confent and agreement of mens understandings, may be an argument of the truth of what they confeat in, though the agreement of their Wills may not be a vertuous but a wicked Combination. But yet St. Paul affures us, difunion and diffention is a certain mark of the absence of the Spirit of God,that is,Contentions and Quarrels and Schifms are indeed fo far the Works of the Flesh. But when two men or two Churches differ in their opinions of things, can neither of them be in the right? Is the Spirit of God with neither of them? Is truth on neither fide? Then the Controverfies between the Church of Rome, and the Church of England, prove that the Spirit of God is no

more

more with the Church of Rome, then with the Church of England.

The plain cafe is this; our Roman Adverfaries perfwade Proteftants, that they can have no certainty of their Faith, because Proteftants are fo much divided about it, and therefore they must go to the Church of Rome, which alone pretends to Infallibility. But fay I, why should these differences among Proteftants oblige them to go over to the Church of Rome, when Proteftants have no difference about this matter, but are all agreed, that the Church of Rome is fo far from being infallible, that she is a very corrupt Church: I do not fay, that the differences of Proteftants is a good Argument to prove the uncertainty of their Faith, nor their bare agreement to prove the certainty of it, "but I fay, one proves as much as t'other, and therefore 'tis a better reafon to Proteftants not to turn Papifts, that all Proteftants are agreed, that the Church of Rome is not infallible, but has greatly erred, then it is for Proteftants to go to the Church of Rome for Infallibility, because they differ in fome things among themselves; especially confidering that many points they now differ about, will not be reconciled by their going to the Church of Rome; for the fame points are as fiercely difputed among them too, as to inftance at present only in the Quinquearticular Controversie.

CHAP.

I

CHAP. III.

A Vindication of fome Pofitions, which are pretended to make void all Scripture-proof, all ufe of Fathers and Councils, and of Civil Charity, and Moral Juftice to our Neighbours.

S for Scripture-proof: I was directing Proteftants what kind of Scripture-proof to demand for Tranfubftantiation and having fhewn that the Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation does manifeftly contradict the evidence of all our Senfes and the most neceffary principles of Reason, I told them, that it is but reasonable, that the evidence for Tranfubftantiation fhould at least be equal to the evidence against it, and therefore they must demand fuch a Scripture-proof of Tranfubftantiation, as cannot poffibly fignifie any thing elfe; or else it will not answer that evidence which we have against Tranfubftantiation: Pref. p. 72. for fenfe and reafon pronounce Transubstantiation to be natu rally impoffible; and therefore unless it be as impoffible to put any other fenfe upon Scripture, as it is to reconcile TranSubstantiation to fenfe and reason, there is not fuch good evidence for Tranfubftantiation, as there is against it. This he repeats after his ufual manner, to take care that no body shall understand what it relates to, or fee the force of the Argument; and in answer to it he gives us a new inftance of his good will to the Doctrine of the Trinity. He fays, A Text which cannot poffibly have another fenfe, Answer p. 2. doth not leave it in any one's liberty, who owns Scripture to be an Heretick; therefore the Church produced no fuch

I

Text

Text against the Arians or Neftorians; whence it evidently follows, that according to Dr. Sherlock, the Arians and Neftorians were not bound to believe the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ. But did I fay, that nothing can be proved but by fuch exprefs Texts, as it is not poffible to underftand otherwife? I faid, this was neceflary to prove any Doctrine which fenfe and reafon declare to be absolutely impoffible. And will he fay the Doctrine of the Trinity is fuch a Doctrine? No he says, Prefervative Confidered, p. 45. But they fo appeared to the Neftorians and Arians, and that is the cafe put by Dr. Sherlock: but I put no cafe about meer appearing, but of fuch palpable contradictions as the fenfe and reafon of all Mankind agree in as Papifts themselves cannot deny, and know not how to justifie, without preffing the Almighty Power of God to make good their abfurd Imaginations. Now where there is only an appearance of contradiction, where a Doctrine only lies cross to mens natural reafon, there fuch exprefs Texts as do more evidently prove that Doctrine, then that Doctrine does evidently contradict reason, is a fufficient foundation for the belief of it, because in this cafe there is more evidence for it than against it and did not the Church alledge fuch Scripture-proofs for the Trinity? And are there no fuch Proofs to be alledged? He thinks they did not, because then the Arians could not have continued Hereticks ; for a Text which cannot possibly have any other fenfe, doth not leave it in any ones liberty to be a Heretick. But I fuppofe, he will allow, that I fpoke not of a natural but of a moral impoffibility; now a moral impoffibility of interpreting Scripture otherwife is, when a man cannot reasonably do it without offering manifeft violence to the words, and this a wilful and obftinate Heretick may do, how plain and felf-evident, how uncapable foever the words are of any other poffible fenfe to a reaso

nable

nable and impartial Inquirer. This principle, I confefs, makes void all Scripture-proof of fuch Doctrines as sense and reason pronounce abfolutely impoffible, but this is no injury, but the greatest right we can do the Scripture. But I cannot without fome indignation obferve, how the Doctrine of the ever bleffed Trinity is upon all occasions introduced by these men as contradicting fenfe and reafon, which would make one fufpect, they kept it for no other reafon but to justifie the abfurdities and contradictions of Transubstantiation.

As for the making void the use of Fathers and Councils to unlearned men, it is the thing I defigned, and I am very glad if I have done it but as for learned men they may make fuch use of them ftill, as fuch Writings are defigned for; not to make them the Rule of Faith, but either to learn what was the Doctrine and Practice of the Church in their days, or what their private Opinions were, or how they expounded Scripture and the like: that I call it Squabling about the sense of Fathers, if the expreffion be undecent, it is owing to himself and fome fuch late Scriblers, whose Disputes have been nothing elfe but Squables. But I cannot blame him, that he is fo angry, that I direct the Protestant to inquire, Whether fuch Books were written by that Father, whofe Name it bears, for he knows fuch an inquiry has very lately coft him dear, I was going to fay a blush, but that is impoffible. If fuch Queftions as I ask cannot be answered to the fatisfaction of learned men, they are of no more ufe to them, than they are to the unlearned, who cannot answer them themfelves, and want the Learning which is neceffary to make them capable of a fatisfactory Anfwer, and this is all the Answer I fhall return to this Charge.

I 2

His