not then they know before hand that the evidence of Scripture alone is not sufficient to convince a Protestant who rejects an infallible Judge and then it is a sensless thing for them to attempt the proof of such Doctrines by Scripure Good Catholicks are satisfied with the Authority of the Church and Hereticks who reject such an infallible Authority cannot be confuted and convinced by meer Scripture 3. I ask again Whether the evidence of Reason in expounding Scripture be a sufficient Foundation for a Divine Faith if it be then Protestants who disown an Infallible Judge may have a true Divine Faith without the Infallibility of the Church and then we may be true Believers without being Roman-Catholicks and I should be glad to hear that out of the mouth of a Iesuite for there is good use to be made of such a confession if Scripture as expounded by Reason without an Infallible Judge is not a sufficient Foundation for a Divine Faith then to what end does their disputing with Protestants from Scripture serve if this cannot make them true Believers 4. I ask once more Whether the belief of the Scriptures themselves must not be resolved into the Authority of the Church whether any man can believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God without it if they cannot and I would be glad to hear the Iesuite say they can then I am sure the Scripture is no proof of any thing without the Churches Authority and it is an absurd thing for those who think so to dispute from Scripture against those who deny the Authority of the Church From hence I think it evidently appears that the Authority of the Scriptures and the Authority of the Church are not two distinct Arguments in the Church of Rome for then I grant they might use either way of proof and dispute from Scripture against those who deny the Authority of the Church but if the Authority of the Scripture as to us is resolved into the Authority of the Church then the Scripture alone is no Argument but the Authority of the Church is all Whereforedo you believe the Scripture Because the Church tells me it is the Word of God Wherefore do you believe this to be the sense of Scripture Because the Church so expounds it Is not this the true Resolution of the Roman Faith Is this Misrepresenting too But if it be the truth does not every man see that as to us the Scripture has no Authority no sense but from the Church and therefore can prove nothing separated from the Authority of the Church If they allow of any Proofs from Scripture separated from the Authority of the Church then whether they will or no they must allow of the Protestant Resolution of Faith that is to resolve my Faith into the Authority of the Scriptures as expounded with the best reason and judgment I have in the careful use of all such means as are necessary for the understanding that Holy Book now if they will allow this to be a good Resolution of Faith we will allow of all their Scripture-proofs and give them leave to make us Converts to the Church of Rome by Scripture if they can but if they do allow of this then we Protestants are in a very good way already as to the Resolution of our Faith and so that Controversie is at an end and if they will not allow this then they confess that Scripture-proofs of themselves are not good for if they were we might certainly resolve our Faith as Protestants do immediately into the Authority of Scripture And thus much for Iohn and William and the Infallible Guide if Iohn has any Reasons independent on the Authority of his Guide he may then try his skill upon William who rejects his Guide but if all his other Reasons are resolved into the Authority of his Guide and are no good Reasons without it then he may spare his Reasons till he has made William submit to his Guide And this is the case between the Scripture and the Church in the Church of Rome the Scripture wholly depends both for its Authority and Interpretation on the Authority of the Church and therefore can signifie nothing and prove nothing but what the Church makes it signifie and prove The Scriptures may be supposed to be the Word of God and to have some sense antecedent to the Churches Authority but no man can know this without the Church and therefore as to us both the Authority and Interpretation of the Scripture depends upon the Authority of the Church and is no Argument to prove any thing by itself But I cannot pass on without taking notice of a pleasant Answer the Iesuite gives to a very substantial Argument of the Footman To prove that at least some Doctrines of the Church of Rome by their own confession cannot be proved by Scripture without the Authority of the Church he shews that Petrus de Alliaco Scotus and Tonstal do confess that Transubstantiation is not founded upon any necessary Scripture-proofs but on the Authority of the Church for the Scripture might and that very reasonably too be expounded to another sense had not the Church determined otherwise Now what does the Iesuite say to this 1. He prevericates like a Iesuite in repeating the Argument That the Words of Scripture brought in proof of Transubstantiation might be taken in a different sense from that which the Catholick Church hath ever received and delivered and that had not the Church ever taught that sense one might believe otherwise for all the letter of Scripture for the Authors alledged by the Footman do not say as the Iesuite makes them that the Catholick Church hath ever received and delivered that sense of Transubstantiation which the Church of Rome now teaches but Tonstal expresly declares the contrary in the words there cited That it was free for all men till the Council of Lateran to follow their own conjectures as concerning the manner of the Presence Which supposes that this Doctrine was never determined by the Church till the Council of Lateran and therefore not ever received and delivered and taught by the Catholick Church 2. In a Parenthesis he adds how truly this is said of the Catholick Divines that they did affirm this it belongs not to my present purpose very truly said it is not to his purpose but very much against it but if he means that he was not concerned to know whether these passages are truly cited from these Authors it seems he is not concerned to defend his Argument for that is very much concerned in it it is a plain confession he had nothing to say and therefore would not be concerned about it and will our Learned Iesuite confess that he is so ignorant as not to know that this was said by Petrus de Alliaco Scotus and Tonstal or will he so easily give up such men as these and let the ingenious Footman run away with them and his Argument together 3.
He answers let it be so but what follows here but the necessity of an unerring Interpreter What follows why it follows that they cannot prove Transubstantiation from Scripture without the Authority of the Church and consequently that it is not Scripture but their Church they rely on for the proof of their Doctrines which is the thing the Footman intended to prove by it and has done it effectually but how an unerring Interpreter follows from hence I cannot see unless it be to prove that to be in Scripture which the most searching and inquisitive men cannot find there and this indeed is the true use of an unerring Interpreter in the Church of Rome to impose upon mens Faith to believe that to be in Scripture which no man can see there for what men can see there one would think they might believe to be there without an unerring Interpreter As for what he adds that the Arians gave as natural a sense of 1 Iohn 5.7 8. as the Catholicks did is to be answered at present only with abhorrence and detestation But to proceed In the next place to shew them how absurd it is to dispute even about an infallible Judge I direct our Protestant to ask them Whether the belief of an Infallible Iudge must be resolved into every man's 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 Iudge To this the Jesuite answers Ans. p. ◠There can be no Divine Faith without a Divine Revelation nor a prudent one without a Moral Evidence in the Motives of Credibility on which may be grounded the evident obligation to accept it This he calls a Moral Infallibility and shews by what steps it may fasten on God's Veracity and with a submission not capable of any doubt embrace the revealed Truth Now all this amounts to no more than Protestant certainty void of all doubt which the Church of Rome would never yet allow to be a Divine and Infallible Faith. But what is this to my Question Which was not Whether a Divine Faith required a Divine Revelation but whether there can be any Divine Faith without an Infallible Iudge which it seems he durst not own nor say one word to And yet here lay the force of the Argument as I told him in the same place If we must believe the Infallibility of the Pope or Church of Rome with an infallible Faith there is an end of Disputing for no Reasons or Arguments not the Authority of the Scripture itself which I hope he means by his Divine Revelation without an infallible Iudge 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 upon the authority of a living infallible judge forsooth our Faith is uncertain humane and fallible This he knew to be true and yet knew that he could not build the belief of an Infallible Judge upon the authority of an Infallible Judge unless he could find one Infallible Judge to give testimony to the Infallibility of another and a third to give testimony to the second and thus to dance round in a circle of Infallibility without finding any beginning or end and therefore he slips this pretence of an Infallible Judge and would found a Divine Faith upon revelation or prudential motives of credibility which indeed is to quit Infallibility and to take up with a Protestant moral certainty or moral infallibility as he calls it that he may retain the name at least when the thing is lost Nay he gives a substantial Reason against an Infallible Faith of the Churches Infallibility For if the Infallibility of the Church were more than Morally Evident it were impossible that any Heresie should be the wisest word that he has said yet but I shall make him repent of saying it before I have done for this is an evident demonstration against Infallibility He says we can have no more than a Moral Evidence for the Infallibility of the Church and if this be true and our Faith be founded upon the Authority of the Church then we can have no more than a Moral Evidence for the Truth of the Christian Religion or any Article of it for as I argued in that very place Though the Iudge be Infallible if I be not infallibly assured of this if I have only a Moral Evidence of his Infallibility I can never arrive to Infallibility in any thing or can never get higher than a Moral Certainty for I can never be more certain that his Determinations are Infallible then I am that he himself is Infallible and if I have but à 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 Though he slipt this at first Reading I hope he may judge it worth Answering upon second Thoughts But how he will get rid of his own Reason I cannot guess if the Infallibility of the Church were more than Morally Evident it were impossible that any Heresies should be by which he either means that de facto the Being of Heresies in the World is a sensible Argument that there is no Infallible assurance of the Infallibility of the Church for an Infallible Proof cannot be resisted and then all the World must believe the Churches Infallibility and give up themselves to the Directions of the Church and then there could be no Heresies or else his meaning is that since there must be Heresies in the World as the Apostle tells us therefore God has given us no more than a Moral Evidence of the Infallibility of the Church because an Infallible assurance of this would have prevented all Heresies which God it seems for very wise Reasons did not intend thus irresistibly to prevent Now rightly to understand this Matter I would desire to know why they say God has bestowed Infallibility on the Church Was it not to prevent Heresies and Schisms Is not this the Popish Objection against the Protestant Resolution of Faith that for want of an Infallible Guide men fall into Errors and Heresies and divide and disturb the Peace of the Church with Schisms Is not this the great Reason they urge for the necessity of an Infallible Guide to prevent all Heresies and Schisms and yet now it seems there must be no more than a Moral Evidence for the Infallibility of the Church that there may be Heresies How often have they been told by Protestant Divines that if God intend an Infallible Judge to prevent all Heresies the Being of an Infallible Judge ought to be as evident and demonstrable as
only way we know of to be uncertain the consequence is that there is no certain way of expounding Scripture not that the Church of Rome is the infallible Interpreter of Scripture and therefore any Protestant who is perswaded to own the Infallibility of the Church of Rome because he is told that the Protestant Faith is uncertain is a very foolish Convert and has so little sense and reason that it were fit he had an infallible Guide if he were to be found So that he is a little too forward when he says that all the Methods of coming to the knowledge of Scripture are reduced to these two heads for we know but of one way of expounding Scripture till he proves another and when he can prove his infallible Guide we will give up Protestant certainty as I told him before but till he has in another way proved the infallible Authority of his Church in expounding Scripture though he could prove our Faith uncertain this cannot prove his own to be infallible In the next place I directed our Protestant to ask these Popish Disputants what they meant by the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith. For this may signifie two things either 1. That the Objects of our Faith are in themselves uncertain and cannot be proved by certain reasons Or 2ly That our perswasion about these matters is uncertain and wavering The Jesuite answers that this is not a true diâ—ision for there is a third thing also to wit that whatever Reasons there may be for a thing he who believes it hath for the motive of his belief those certain Reasons For he that believes in Christ only because his Mother hath taught him so hath a very uncertain and no Divine Faith. But suppose this Mother be the Church and he believes it only because the Church hath taught him so Has this man a divine and certain Faith No doubt must our Jesuite say because the Church is Infallible But suppose this man can no more prove the Church to be infallible than that his natural Mother is infallible What difference is there between those who believe upon the Authority of the Church and of their Mother I can assign none and shall be glad to learn the difference from our Jesuite He who believes the true Christian Faith and lives in conformity to it shall certainly be saved or else I fear we must at least damn half the Christians in the World whether Protestants or Papists for want of understanding the reasons of their Faith. Nay I am afraid all Traditionary Christians must be damned who believe this is the true Faith to day because their Fathers and Mothers were taught so and believed so yesterday So that I guess upon second thoughts our Jesuite will compound this matter with me and let fall the third part of the division and I am contented at present till I hear farther from him But he might have observed that I said not only that the Objects of our Faith are in themselves certain but that they may be proved by certain Reasons And therefore for him to say that they are indeed in themselves certain but not to any Protestant whose Rule of Faith cannot make him certain of any one Article without offering to shew that the Reasons why we believe are uncertain is to drop half of the first branch of the division and then to complain of the want of it When the Footman had minded him that our Rule of Faith is the Scripture and therefore if what he says be true the Scripture cannot make us certain of any one Article of Faith instead of answering this Blunder his Superiors only correct his Words in a Parenthesis Preserv Consid. p. 40. The Protestant Rule of Faith considering the Method he applies it by cannot make him certain c. which is a plain confession that the Footman was too hard for the Jesuite but then he should have shewn us how we had misapplied and what the uncertainties of our Reasons are but I suppose he will take time to consider that As for what he calls my Rule of Faith which he says justifies Turk Iew and Gentile We believe all that God hath revealed and nothing else is not all that he hath revealed certain Though I grant a Divine Revelation is the only Rule of my Faith yet here I spoke not of the Rule but of the Objects of my Faith and challenge him to shew that we do reject any thing that God has revealed in the Gospel of his Son or believe any thing else and dare him as I well might all professed Christians to deny the truth or certainty of what is revealed in the Gospel but Turks and Iews believe what they think in their judgments God hath revealed that is their Rule and 't is yours And is there any fault to be found with this so far Do Papists believe what they think in their judgments God has not revealed or what they think he has revealed If they believe what they think God has revealed then they justifie Jews and Turks too as much as Protestants No says the Jesuite Your own private judgments are on both hands your Guides and not any authority established by Almighty God. Now I confess I am not ashamed to own that Turk and Jew and Gentile that is all Mankind except Papists agree with Protestants in this that all men must believe with their own judgments and that there is no other faculty to believe with and much good may it do Papists that they have found out a way to believe without judgment wherein they differ from the rest of Mankind As for their Authority appointed by God on which they must rely without using their own Judgment when they can prove any such Authority we will submit to it I proved that the Articles of the Christian Faith which Protestants believe are certain and founded on certain Reasons as they themselves must grant unless they renounce the Christian Religion for here Infallibility itself cannot help them out For Infallibility cannot make that certain which is in its self uncertain an infallible man must know things as they are or else he is mistaken and ceases to be infallible and therefore what is certain he infallibly knows to be certain and what is uncertain he infallibly knows to be uncertain for the most certain and infallible Knowledge does not change its Object but sees it just as it is Now this he says is notoriously false since she the Church is not infallible by any light of her own but by the guidance of the Spirit of Truth Now this is nothing to the purpose by what light the Church sees the Question is Whether an infallible Church can know that to be certain which is uncertain if she can then she infallibly knows that which is not true But were not the Apostles certain of what Christ told them when they acknowledged him the Son of God before he gave them certain Reason for it But was
this as a Principle that one great design of the Gospel is to improve the Knowledge of Mankind I hence inferred 1. That to forbid People to read and meditate on the Word of God can be no Gospel Doctrine unless not to read the Bible be a better way to improve Knowledge than to read it 2. This is a mighty presumption also against Transubstantiation that it is no Gospel Doctrine because it overthrows the very fundamental principles of Knowledge as I shewed at large and wonder he has not one word to say for Transubstantiation 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 anâ— understanding Christians for to suspend the exercise of Reason and Judgment is not the way to improve Mens Knowledge and here I distinguish between an infallible Teacher and an infallible Judge The first teaches infallibly but yet he that learns must use his own Reason and Judgment unless a man can learn without it But the Second usurps the Office of every Man 's private Reason and Judgment and will needs judge for all Mankind as if he were an universal Soul an universal Reason and Understanding which is to unsoul all Mankind in matters of Religion And therefore though there have been infallible Teachers as Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles yet none ever pretended to be infallible Judges but the Church of Rome Though there may be an infallible Teacher there never can be an infallible Iudge to whom I must submit my own Reason and Judgment without examination because I cannot know that he teaches infallibly unless I am sure that he teaches nothing that is contrary to any natural or revealed Law and that I cannot know unless I may judge of his Doctrine by the light of Nature and Revelation for he is not infallible if he contradicts any natural or revealed Laws I gave an instance of this in Moses and the Prophets and in Christ himself for when Christ appeared there was a written Law 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 he appeals to Moses and the Prophets to bear testimony to his Person and Doctrine and then Miracles gave Authority to any New Revelation he made of God's Will when it appeared that he had not contradicted the Old. The Law of Nature and the Law 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 and he did not require them to lay aside their Reason and Iudgement and submit to his infallible Authority without examination This our Jesuite makes a horrible outcry about which has made me transcribe the whole of this Argument He will hardly allow either the Author or the Licenser to be Christians and reserved this for the concluding Blow to end his Pamphlet with What Iesus our God blessed for evermore even when owned the Son of God even from us Christians cannot exact a submission to his infallible Authority without examining the truth of what he says by comparing it with the principles of humane reason this is the sum of all his Answer the rest is raving and senseless harangue But the fallacy of all this lies in a few words Iesus the Son of God blessed for evermore even when owned the Son of Son even by us Christians For those who own him the Son of God no doubt will submit to his infallible Authority and therefore all profest Christians must do so but that which I said is this that no man could nor to this day can own him upon wise consideration to be a true Prophet and the Son of God till he is satisfied that he neither contradicts the plain light of Nature nor the Lâ—w of Moses and therefore thus far we are to examine his Doctrine but when it is evident he contradicts no former Revelations and confirms his Authority by Miracles then we are to believe any new Revelations he makes upon his own Authority And therefore in my own Name and the Name of the Licenser I here profess that when by examining the Doctrine of Christ by the Light of Nature and the Law of Moses I find he has contradicted neither and by the great Miracles he wrought I am satisfied he is an Infallible Teacher then I own him for such an Infallible Teacher or Judge if he pleases that I must not judge of his Doctrine excepting the case of the Light of Nature and the Law of Moses but believe it and submit to him and in these cases I submit to his Infallible Authority without examination I receive all his Dictates as Divine Oracles I do not wonder the Jesuite is so much disturbed at this for if it appears that Christ himself did not pretend to be such an Infallible Judge as he would have us believe the Pope or Church of Rome to be they must for shame give up this kind of Infallibility and therefore if he has a mind to Confute this Principle thoroughly that he may understand my mind plainly I will reduce all to some few Propositions which he may try his skill upon when he pleases 1. That no Prophet is to be believed in contradiction to such plain and evident Principles of Nature as all Mankind agree in 2. That the first Prophet who appears in the World before any revealed Law and confirms his Authority by plain and evident Miracles is to be believed in every thing he says while he does not contradict the plain and evident principles of natural Knowledge And for that reason Moses was to be believed in every thing which did not contradict the light of Nature because he was the first Prophet who made a Publick Revelation of God's Will to the World. 3. That succeeding Prophets who confirm their Authority with Miracles are to be believed in all new Revelations they make which neither contradict the Light of Nature nor any former Revelations and therefore Christ is absolutely to be believed when it appears that he neither contradicted the Light of Nature nor the Law of Moses 4. When the Revelation is compleat and perfect and has no new additions to be made to it as the Gospel-Revelation is how infallible soever any Teachers may be we must believe them in nothing which either contradicts the light of Nature or the standing Revelation or is not contained in the Revelation And this shews us how far we are to submit our own Reason and Judgment
Answer the Question and if there be a Dispute depending which of them contradicts St. Paul's Doctrine I would desire him to tell me How we shall know which of them does it without examining them When we know these Books which contradict St Paul's Doctrine we will reject them with an Anathema and for that reason we reject the Council of Trent whose Authority we think to be inferior to an Angels and that shews that we do not think rejecting and yet reading such Books to make void common Sense for though we reject the Council of Trent yet we read it as they find to their cost His next Question or else I cannot make three of them is By what Text doth God deliver this Injunction viz of reading Heretical Books which in his Sense of Heretical Books is a very senseless Question for no man pretends that God commands us to read Books which we know to be Heretical though a man who is inquiring after Truth must read such Books as the several divided Sects of Christians may call Heretical But his killing Question is to come I asked further How standing to the first Principles of Common Sense a Church which declares all men bound to judge for themselves could countenance Laws which exact of Dissenters that they stand not to that their Iudgment but comply against it and that constrain their liberty of judging by the dread of Excommunications Sequestrations Imprisonments c. which is to make it Death not to act against a strict Duty of Conscience acknowledged by the Persecutors to be such But what is this to reading Heretical Books Is there any Law in the Church of England thus to punish men for reading Heretical Books There is we know in the Church of Rome where besides other Heretical Books to have and to read the Bible in the vulgar Tongue without License which is rarely granted and ought not to be at all brings a man in danger of the Inquisition which one word signifies more than any man can tell but he who has felt it witness the late account of the Inquisition of Goa Well but to allow a liberty of Judging and not to suffer men to stand to their Judgment is contrary to Common Sense It is so but who gives a liberty of Judging and forbids men to stand to their own Judgment I am sure the Church of England accounts any man a Knave who contradicts his own Judgment and Conscience There is no Inquisition for mens private Opinions no ransacking Consciences in the Church of England as we know where there is Yes We constrain this liberty of Iudging by the dread of Excommunications Sequestrations Imprisonments Exclusion from the chiefest Properties of free born Subjects even by Hanging and Quartering which is to make it Death not to act against a strict Duty of Conscience acknowledged by the Persecutors to be such It is a blessed time for these Jesuits who like that no body should be able to Persecute but themselves to rail at Persecution but let that pass It seems then it is contrary to Common Sense to allow a liberty of Judging and to deny a liberty of Practice for God suppose to allow men to choose their Religion and to Damn them if they choose wrong That is to say a Natural liberty of Judgment and by the same reason the Natural liberty of Will is inconsistent with all Government in Church and State If this were so it would indeed make Persecution as he calls it in a free-judging Church very absurd but it is very reconcileable to Common Sense for a Church which denies this liberty of Judging to Persecute too and this justifies the Persecutions of the Church of Rome Let Protestants here see if such Jesuits could rule the Roast what it will cost them to part with their liberty of Judging they loose their Argument against Persecution for an Infallible Church which will not suffer men to Judge may with good Reason Persecute them if they do that all men who like Liberty of Conscience are concerned to oppose Popery which it seems is the only Religion that can make it reasonable to Persecute nay which makes it unreasonable not to Persecute for it is as much against Common Sense for a Church which denies a liberty of Judging to allow a liberty of Conscience as for a Church to deny Liberty of Conscience which allows a liberty of Judging Thus far the Preservative is safe and let his following Harangue against the liberty of Judging shift for it self that is not my business at present His next Quarrel is that Preser p. 4 5. I advise Protestants not to dispute with Papists till they disown Infallibility I own the charge and repeat it again that it is a ridiculous thing to dispute with Papists till they renounce Infallibility as that is opposed to a lâ—berty of Judging for so the whole Sentence runs Here then let our Protestant fix his Foot and not stir an inch till they disown Infallibility and confess that every man must Iudge for himself in Matters of Religion according to the Proofs that are offered to him This the Jesuit either designedly concealed or did not understand though it is the whole design of that Discourse For the plain state of the Case is this The Church of Rome pretends to be Infallible and upon this pretence she requires us to submit to her Authority and to receive all the Doctrines she teaches upon her bare Word without Examination for we must not Judge for our selves but learn from an Infallible Church Now I say it is a ridiculous thing for such men to pretend to Dispuâ—e with us about Religion when they will not allow that we can judge what is true or false for it is to no purpose to Dispute unless we can Judge and therefore a Protestant before he Disputes with them ought to exact this Confession from them that every man must Judge for himself and ought not to be over-ruled by the pretended Infallible Authority of the Church against his own Sense and Reason and this is to make them disown Infallibility as far as that is Matter of Controversie between us and the Church of Rome to disown Infallibility as that is opposed to a liberty of Judging If it be absurd to Dispute with a man who denies me a liberty of Judging then I must make him allow me this liberty before I Dispute and then he must disown the over-ruling Authority of an Infallible Judge which is a contradiction to such a Liberty By this time I suppose he sees to what little purpose his Objections are that to require such a disowning of Infallibility is to say 'T is impossible to convince a man that in Reason he ought to submit his Iudgment to any other though Infallible No Sir but 't is to say that I cannot make use of my Reason in any thing till I am delivered from the Usurping Authority of such an Infallible Judge who will not suffer me to use my
Reason or to Judge for my self It does not make void the use of Common Sense and Reason when it should lead us to submit to any just Authority but to submit to such an unjust Authority makes void the use of Common Sense and Reason because he will not allow us to use our Reason The Iews had no Reason as he pretends to reject St. Paul's Disputation till he had renounced Infallibility because he never urged his own Infallibility as the sole Reason of their Faith and to debar them from a liberty of Judging as the Church of Rome does if he had it had been as vain a thing for the Iews to have Disputed with St. Paul as it is for Protestants to Dispute with Papists His next Exception is against those Words Pres. p. 6. What difference is there betwxit mens using their private Iudgments to turn Papists or to turn Protestants To this he answers The same as betwixt two sick men the one whereof chooses to put himself in an able Doctors hands whom he knows to have an infallible Remedy which none but Mountebanks ever had yet whilst the other chooses his own Simples and makes his own Medicines The case is this I was giving a reason why Papists who have any modesty should not dispute with Protestants because it is an appeal to every man's private judgment if ever they make Converts they must be beholden to every man's private judgment for it for I think men cannot change their opinions without exercising a private judgment about it and I suppose when they dispute with men to make them Papists they intend to convert them by their own private judgments now what difference is there between mens using their private judgments to turn Papists or to turn Protestants one indeed may be false and the other true but private judgment is private judgment still and if it be so great a fault for men to use their private judgments it is as great a fault in a Papist as it is in a Protestant So that all that I said is that there is no difâ—erence with respect to mens using their private judgment whether they use their private judgment to turn Papists or to turn Protestants for both is but private judgment and to confute this he tells us that there is a great difference between turning Papist and turning Protestant which I granted there was but is nothing to the present Argument I say there is no difference as to the principle or cause of their change when the change of both is owing to private judgment and he learnedly proves that the change itself is different as widely different as Papist and Protestant differ But though the Footman had plainly told him this the Jesuite had not wit to understand it and therefore Preservative Consid. p. 11. adds is there no difference then betwixt one who follows his fancy in chusing his way and him who chuses a good guide and follows him because they both chuse do both equally rely on their fancy I grant there is a difference between these two as there is between a Protestant and a Papist but when the dispute is whether they shall follow their own reason and judgment or give up themselves to follow a Guide with a blind and implicite faith and every man must determine this by his own private judgment which is the case I proposed which way so ever they determine this question whether to follow their own reason or to follow a Guide in this point they both equally rely on their own private reason and judgment or as he calls it fancy In the next place he says I take the Catholicks part and tho' faintly yet speak well in so clear a cause The intention of those Disputes is only 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 This I do alledge as the most plausible pretence to justifie Papists in disputing with Protestants that the end of it is to lead us to an infallible Church That our own judgment must bring us to the infallible Guide but when we have found him we have no farther use for our own judgment I offered two Answers to this neither of which he durst meddle with but nibbles at a Passage in each The 1. he thus represents they cannot with any sense dispute with us about the particular Articles of Faith because the sense given of Scripture and Fathers takes its Authority from the Church understanding it so But my Answer was this That if Disputes be only to lead us to the infallible Church then 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 Iudge but they cannot with any sense dispute with us about the particular Articles of Faith such as Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass c. for these are to be learnt only from the Church and cannot be proved by Scripture or Fathers without the Authority of the Church Which is a demonstration if Faith must be resolved into the infallible Authority of the Church for then no Arguments are a sufficient foundation for Faith without the Authority of the Church or if they be there is no necessity of resolving our Faith into Church Authority because we have a good foundation for Faith without it He answers This is false The sense of Scripture takes its authority from God who spoke that Word though we are certain that we have the true sense of that Word because we receive it from the Church which is protected and guided in delivering us both the letter and sense by the infallible Spirit of God that is to abide with her for ever according to Christ's promise John 14.16 This is a choice Paragraph The Question between us is Whether they can by Scripture convince a man who does not yet believe the infallible Authority of the Church as we Protestants do not that their Doctrines of Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass the Worship of Images c. are true Gospel-Doctrines This I say they cannot if they be true to their own Doctrine that we cannot be certain what the true sense of Scripture is without the infallible Authority of the Church of Rome For a man cannot be convinced by Scripture till he be sure what the true sense of Scripture is and if we cannot be sure of this without relying on the Authority of the Church in expounding Scripture then a Protestant who disowns such an Authority can never be sure what the true sense of Scripture is and therefore cannot be convinced by Scripture-Proofs which shews how absurd it is for a Papist who professes to believe all this to attempt to perswade a Protestant who rejects the Authority of their Church of the truth of Popish Doctrines from Scripture either he thinks these Doctrines so plainly contained in
Scripture that a man who rejects the Authority of the Church may be forced to acknowledge that they are in Scripture and then he must reject the necessity of church-Church-Authority for the understanding of Scripture which is to yield up a very concerning point to Protestants or else he must confess that he does very foolishly or knavishly in urging Scripture-Proofs to a man who rejects the Authority of their Church without which he knows there are no Scripture-Proofs of any Authority But this which was the true state of the Controversie the Jesuite takes no notice of all that he says is this That the sense of Scripture takes its Authority from God that is is ultimately resolved into God's Authority who intended such a sense in it but as to Catholicks for such he must mean their certainty of the sense of Scripture is resolved immediately into the Authority of the Church which is guided in expounding Scripture by an infallible Spirit Now is not this the very same that I saiâ— that all Scripture-Proofs must be resolved into the Authority of the Church and are not good without it as it is impossible they should be if we cannot certainly know what the true sense of Scripture is but from the Exposition of the Church And yet if the Church of Rome be no more infallible in delivering the sense of Scripture than in delivering the letter of it there is no great encouragement to rely on her infallibility as is evident from the many Corruptions of their Vulgar Latine which one Pope corrected after another and yet it is not corrected still that it was a little over-sight in this Jesuite though possibly he knew nothing of the matter to make the Church equally infallible in delivering the letter and the sense of Scripture But to do him right he seems to offer at something of sense in his dispute between Iohn and William which is the right way to a place For says he is John disabled from convincing William of his mistake by reasons because he hath with him a Guide who certainly knows the way and that he himself would certainly pass by those reasons if his Guide assured him that he applied them ill and wrongly to that way This has something of argument in it and therefore shall be considered and I am glad to meet with any thing that deserves to be considered The sum of his Argument which I shall represent fairly for him because he has not shewn it to the best advantage is this That Roman-Catholicks have two ways of finding out the sense of Scripture either by the use of Reason or by the Expositions of an infallible Guide but that Reason must be subordinate to the Guide and if Reason dictates one sense of Scripture and the Church teaches another Reason must submit and a true Catholick must embrace the sense of the Church though it be against his Reason but yet if Reason and his Guide be both of a side and he can prove by Reason that to be the true sense of Scripture which the Church gives of it he may then wave the Authority of the Church when he disputes with those who reject such Authority and argue from the reasons of things and the natural interpretation of Scripture it self As Iohn may convince William who rejects the infallibility of Iohn's Guide which is the true way by plain reason while his reason is not contradicted by his Guide and if our Jesuite can make more of this Argument himself let him I am sure he has spoiled it by repeating it in his Preserv Consider p. 11. John is not disabled of convincing William of his mistake because he receives the reasons he uses from an infallible Guide Where he has set it upon another bottom and a very silly one for his purpose for if the force of his Reasons be resolved into the Authority of an infallible Guide it is all lost to him who disowns the infallibility of the Guide or if he means that Iohn is taught such Reasons by an infallible Guide as are able by their own evidence to convince William without any regard to the infallibility of the Guide we desire no more than to see such Reasons and to be left to judge for our selves but this ends in a Protestant Resolution of Faith for every man to judge for himself according to the evidence of Reason which in it self is neither more nor less evident for being proposed or learnt from a fallible or infallible Guide And yet by what follows he can mean no more but that the Authority of an infallible Judge must over-rule every Man's private Reason for he appeals to the learned Gentlemen of the Temple hoping they will joyn with him maintaining against their Master that all the Iudges of the Land may very reasonably convince by Law an impertinent Party though he should oppose that they may not do it because their interpretation of the Law is to deliver the true sense of it Which is glorious Nonsence that all the Judges of the Land can convince a man who is not convinced but declares still that they have not given the true sense of the Law. In all Civil Causes there must be a final judgment and every private man must submit to the decision of Authority whether his own reason be satisfied or not but it is not so in matters of Religion in which no man at the peril of his Soul must be over-ruled by any Authority till he be first convinced So that the Jesuite had said a good thing by chance but for want of understanding it had lost it again and any man may see that I could as easily have lost it as he had I a mind to it but I will not part with it without an Answer because it is the most plausible thing that can be said and possibly other men may understand it who can't answer it though he don't His Argument then as first proposed is this That they allow of Reason in expounding Scripture so long as they do not contradict the Sense and Exposition of the Church and therefore they may dispute with Hereticks from Scripture without concerning the Authority of the Church in the dispute Now in answer to this there are some material Questions to be asked As 1. Whether they can dispute with Protestants by Scripture-Arguments without allowing them to judge of the sense of Scripture by their own private Reason and whether this be agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that every man may judge of the sense of Scripture by his own private Reason 2. Whether the Scripture be so plain and perspicuous especially in the Doctrines in dispute between us and the Church of Rome that every honest impartial Inquirer may find the true sense of them without an infallible Interpreter if they be I think they never ought to talk of the obscurity of Scripture nor the necessity of an infallible Judge more if they be not and if they know that they are
an Argument and yet this is the utmost that I say that the supposed necessity of an infallible Judge does not prove that there is such a Judge but only that there ought to be one and I must conclude no more from it and does this overthrow the use of Reason to conclude no more from an Argument than the Argument will prove whatever any man apprehends necessary to be sure he is mightily inclined to believe but whoever will believe like a reasonable creature must have good evidence for what he believes and yet that we believe it necessary is no evidence that it is not that God will not do what is necessary to be done but because that may not be necessary which we vainly and presumptuously imagine to be so which is the very reason I assign for it in the words immediately following Indeed this is a very fallacious way of reasoning because what we may call useful convenient necessary may not be so in itself and we have reason to believe it is not so if God have not appointed what we think so useful convenient or necessary which is a truer and more modest way of reasoning than to conclude that God has appointed such a Iudge when no such thing appears only because we think it so useful and necessary that God ought to do it Which is not to excuse a bad Saying with a good one as the Jesuite pretends in answer to the Footman Preservat Consider p. 36. but to justifie a good Saying with a good Reason But if it were such blasphemy in Alphonsus to say that he thought he could have ordered some things better than God did at the first Creation let the Jesuite consider what it is to mend what God has done in the work of our Redemption upon a meer supposition that it may be mended for Popery is nothing else but a mending or more properly speaking a corrupting the Gospel of Christ with a blasphemous opinion of mending it And I think to say that God has done what there is no other proof he has done but only that we think he ought to have done it is to say that God ought to have done what it does not appear he has done and if not to be and not to appear be the same in this case then this is equivalent to saying that God ought to have done what he has not done And this I hope is sufficient for the Vindication of those Principles which are pretended to overthrow the Use of Common Sense and Reason SECT II. The Principles pretended to make void all Faith vindicated HE begins with proving the Protestant Faith not to be a Divine Faith because it is not a certain one which if it were true is like proving a man not to live because he is weak for if there be as much certainty as is absolutely necessary to the essence of Faith it may be a true Faith though weak as a weak man is alive still and Faith receives its denomination of Divine or Humane Faith not from the Certainty or Uncertainty of it but from the Authority on which it rests a Divine Authority makes a Divine Faith Humane Authority an Humane Faith and both these may be either certain or uncertain or to speak properly strong or weak so that to prove that the Protestant Faith is not Divine because it is not Certain is like disproving the Essential Properties by Changeable Accidents that a Man is not a reasonable Creature because he is not strong for there is no more necessary connexion between Faith being Divine and being Strong or Certain than between Reason and Bodily Strength a weak Man may be a reasonable Creature and a weak Faith may be Divine if it be founded on a Divine Authority But I wish the Jesuite had told us what that degree of Certainty is which makes a Faith Divine whether any thing less than the certainty of Infallibility can do it for this used to be the old Argument that our Faith is not Divine nor Certain because it is not infallible but if they will abate any thing of Infallibility we will vie all other degrees of Certainty with them and that he very fairly quitted before when he owned and proved that there could be no more than Moral Evidence for the Infallibility of their Church and then I am sure they can have no more than a Moral Evidence for the rest of their Faith which is all founded upon their Churches Infallibility Well having proved that our Faith cannot be Divine because it is not certain he next undertakes to prove that our Faith is not certain because we cannot have an Act of Faith of any One Article till our Rule of Faith proposes it i. e. till we know certainly what Scripture teaches of it not by any one Text but by comparing all the Texts that speak of that Subject Very well we cannot believe any thing upon the Authority of Scripture which is our Rule of Faith till we know that it is in Scripture wisely observed and we grant it Let us see what follows 1. Then a Protestant must certainly know that he hath all the Books of Holy Writ 2. That all those he owns for such were really written by inspired Pens The second we accept of but there is no need to submit to his first Condition That a Protestant must certainly know that he hath all the Books of Holy Writ that is he must be able to prove that there never were any other Books written by the Apostles or other inspired Men but what we receive into our Canon of Scripture which is to prove a negative which is always thought unreasonable and at this distance from the Apostolick Age is impossible but whenever the Church of Rome will prove this of their Canon of Scripture we will prove it of ours In the mean time it is sufficient that we reject no Books which have been always acknowledged by the Universal Church and that the Books we receive have been received for inspired Writings by the Universal Church and if ever there were any other Books written by the Apostles or Evangelists which are now lost we have reason to believe that the Church does not need them but has a perfect Rule of Faith and Manners without them for the Divine Providence would never permit that the Church should want any necessary part of the Rule of Faith. He proceeds 3 ly And since the Letter kills that he understands the true sense of each Text which relates to the Object of that Act of Faith. 4ly That he remember them all so as comparing them to see which is the clearer to expound the obscurer and what is the result of them all for any one he understands not or hath forgotten may possibly be that one that must expound the rest he cannot have one Act of Faith. Now not to take notice of his ridiculous not to say blasphemous misapplication of Scripture in that Parenthesis the Letter kills by
they be contâ—ite and absolved again they are restored to a state of Grace again and so toties quoties Now such Penitents as are sorry for their sins but do not reform them are condemned to Hell 〈◊〉 the Protestant Church and only to Purgatory in the Church of Rome and therefore the First is no Calumny The Second is That Indulgencies may be bought for Money this is no Calumny as I have already shewn or avail a Soul undisposed to receive the benefit of them through want of contrition the guilt of sin not being before remitted This I never said and therefore is no Calumny of mine The third That Masses said for any Soul in Purgatory avail such as during life have not deserved and merited that mercy This I take to be nonsense according to the Doctrines of their own Church For certainly those Souls who have merited to get into Purgatory have merit enough to receive the benefit of Masses Another Gospel-Motive to Holiness are the Examples of Good Men but in the Church of Rome the extraordinary Vertues of great and meritorious Saints are not so much for imitation as for a stock of Merits The more Saints they have the less need is there for other men to be Saints unless they have a mind to it because there is a greater treasure of Merits to relieve those who have none of their own and if one man can merit for twenty there is no need there should be above one in twenty good Here he quibbles upon the different acceptation of Merit as it relates to a reward or as it expiates the punishment of sin In the first sense he says Merit is personal not communicative but if it be communicative in the second sense that one man may be delivered from punishments by the Merits of another and if it be not there is an end of the gainful trade of Indulgencies that is sufficient to my Argument and will satisfie most sinners who are not concerned about degrees of glory if they can escape punishment Lastly I shewed that the Gospel-Means and Instruments of Holiness do not escape much better in the Church of Rome among others I instanced in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper which besides those supernatural conveyances of Grace which are annexed to it by our Saviour's Institution is a great Moral Instrument of Holiness but in the Church of Rome this admirable Sacrament is turned into a dumb shew which no body can be edified with or into a sacrifice for the living and the dead which expiates sin and serves instead of a holy life Here he says there are three crying Calumnies 1. That the Sacrament among them is nothing but a shew or a sacrifice whereas they very often receive it and did I say the Sacrament was never received in the Church of Rome 2. That they require the practice of no Vertue to the receiving the Sacrament whereas they require the Sacrament of Penance to prepare for the Eucharist But I spoke of those Vertues which were to be exercised in receiving which there are not such advantages for in the Church of Rome where the Office is not understood and the mind diverted with a thousand insignificant Ceremonies 3. That our exposing the blessed Sacrament is a dumb shew and so we assist at holy Mass. And whether it be or no let those judge who have seen the Ceremony How much the Sacrifice of the Mass encourages Vertue we have already seen I doubt not but our Jesuite can give as good an Answer to this Vindication as he did to the Preservative and I as little doubt but he will unless Mr. Needham's Name to the License may be my security for he has threatned it shall be to him a sufficient Note and Character of a Book not worth the Reading much less the Censuring where-ever he sees that Reverend Person has opened it the Press and I commend him for it for he has had very ill success with such Books of late but though I never grudge my pains in answering an Adversary who gives occasion for any useful and material Discourse for I desire whatever I say should be sifted to the very bottom and am as ready to own any Error I am convinced of as to vindicate the Truth yet it is very irksom to be forced to write a great Book meerly to rescue my words from the injuries of a perverse Comment which has been my present Task Thus any Book may be answered by a man who has wit or ignorance enough to pervert it and such Answers may be easily answered again by men who have nothing else to do but if this trade grow too common they must be very idle people indeed who will find time to read them And therefore to prevent such an impertinent trouble for the future before I take leave of my Adversary I will venture to give him a little good Advice which may stand him in stead against the next time 1. That he would be more modest and sparing in his Title-page not to paint it so formidable as to make it ridiculous it is a little too much to talk of Principles which destroy all right use of Reason Scripture Fathers Councils undermine Divine Faith and abuse Moral Honesty Or Forty malicious Culumnies and forged untruths besides several Fanatical Principles which destroy all Church Discipline and oppose Christ's Divine Authority If such things be proved against any Book I assure you it is very terrible though there be nothing of it in the Title but the World has been so long deceived with Titles that commonly the more the Title promises the less they expect in the Book Some cry it is a Mountebank's Bill otheâ—s the Man raves and if curiosity tempts any to look any farther the disappointment they meet with provokes their scorn or indignation The bare name of an Answer to a Book which is commonly known and approved is a sufficient invitation to all men to read it but it is a very impolitick thing to prejudice the Readers by a frightful Title 2. That he would not think he has confuted a Book by picking out some sayings which he thinks very inconvenient and obnoxious but in which the main Arguâ—ent of the Book is not concerned this is the case in many passages he has objected against the Preservative for though there is never a one but what is very defensible and what I have defended yet there are many that if they could not be defended the main Argument of the Book is never the worse This is as vain as to think to kill a man by launâ—hing a Sore while all his Vitals are sound and untoucht 3. That he would not boast of confuting a Book without bearing up fairly to any one Argument in it I know in his Postscript he says that he omitted nothing in Answer to the First part of the Preservative that even pretended to the appearance of an Argument that all the rest which he did not answer in his
that there is a Sun in the Heavens that all men might see him and believe him and now they tell us This Infallible Judge must not be thus Evident that men might not know him that there may be room for Heresies to creep into the World. Now methinks it is pretty odd that there should be an Infallible Judge to keep Heresies out of the Church and that the Being of this Judge should be no more than Morally Evident that Heresies may creep into the Church It seems the Romish Resolution of Faith leaves as great Scope for Heresies to come into the Church as the Protestants does and therefore from henceforward all the Arguments for Infallibility from the necessity of keeping Heresies out of the Church are given up and they must never more object against the Protestant Rule of Faith that by this means Heresies get into the Church His Argument I confess concludes fully against any Infallible Certainty of an Infallible Judge and the reason is to the full as good against an Infallible Judge as against an Infallible way of knowing that there is one And now since I cannot be Infallibly assured of this Infallible Judge I will trouble my head no further about him and therefore leave his Preservative Considered p. 13 c. to any Footman that pleases to answer it His next Objection is much of the same nature That Protestants cannot reasonably be disputed into Popery as that signifies resolving our Faith into the infallible Authority of the Church to believe whatever the Church believes and for no other reason but because the Church teaches it and the reason whereby I proved it is because no Arguments or Disputations can give me an infallible certainty of the infallibility of the Church And this he has just now granted that we cannot have an infallible certainty but only a moral evidence for the infallibility of the Church and if there can be no more than a moral evidence for this then no Arguments can give us an infallible certainty of it because this cannot be had And what has he to say now a very shrewd Objection I assure you and it is this We saw Dr. Sherlock just now pleading for the Jews against St. Paul that I have accounted for already now he reasons against Christ our God blessed for ever more His words prove that Christ who owned himself infallible did imprudently to Preach or work Miracles for since they could not give an infallible certainty an evident one he means by his whole Discourse no prudent Jew nor Gentile could be disputed by him into Faith. Those who corrected his first Paper for him which they have done in several places as being sensible the Footman had great advantage of his looâ—e way of Writing have made some Alterations here in the Preservative Considered p. 24. This Position proving that Christ our Lord who owned himself infallible did imprudently to Preach or work Miracles by which he exacted a certain firm Faith grounded upon his Infallibility in Teaching for since his Preaching and Miracles did not give an evident infallible certainty of his Infallibility and such an evident one Dr. Sherlock must mean for the certainty we have of a real Infallibility cannot be in reality fallible no prudent Jew or Gentile could be disputed by Christ into Faith. This is expressed with greater art and subtilty than the first but however they palliate it it is equally absurd and sensless The Fallacy lies only in this that by an infallible certainty they will have me mean only a certain firm faith or an evident certainty whereas I plainly mean such an infallible certainty as the Church of Rome opposes to the certain firm faith and evident certainty of Protestants The Papists perpetually object against Protestants that their Faith is uncertain we assert that our Faith is not uncertain that we have all the evident certainty that the thing is capable of but this will not satisfie them unless we can produce some such infallible certainty as they pretend to have and by this Argument they perswade men to forsake our Communion and to go over to the Church of Rome that they may have the certainty of Infallibility for their Faith This I tell our Protestants they cannot be disputed into because no Reasons or Disputations can give them an infallible certainty of the Infallibility of the Church and yet unless they can be infallibly assured of that they are no nearer to Infallibility in the Church of Rome than in the Church of England now had our Jesuite read this as he ought to have done before he answered it had it been possible for him had he not been a Jesuite to have said that by infallible I meant evident for we Protestants pretend to evident certainty and this we have and Iews and Gentiles might have of Christ's Preaching and Miracles and when I opposed this Infallible Certainty to Protestant Certainty surely I meant as much more by it then Evident as Papists do when notwithstanding all our Protestant Evidence they charge us with the want of Infallibility And yet for ought I can perceive now they are contented to let Evident Certainty pass for Infallible and the Corrector of F. Sabran's Sheet has given us a notable reason for it for which Protestants are bound to thank him for he has made them all infallible For the certainty we have of a real Infallibility cannot be in reality fallible That is to say when the Object is infallibly true our Faith or Assent to it cannot be fallible and thus before they can prove us Protestants to be fallible Creatures any more they must prove that what we believe viz. the Holy Scriptures and the Apostles Creed are not infallibly true Though I thought the Infallibility of Faith had not been owing to the Object of our Faith but to the Evidence of it This the Footman plainly saw and therefore minds him of the difference between True Certainty and Infallibility Doth Dr. Sherlock say that the Jews could not be disputed into Faith unless that Faith were infallible No he leaves that to be talked of by you who are the great Pretenders to it The Jesuite is very angry at the Reverend Licenser for this What do you own that we only are to look on the Faith even as preached by Christ to be necessarily infallible Is it no part of your belief that you are any way concerned in that that certain Faith which Christ exacted from the Jews St. Paul from each Christian must of necessity be infallible Fair and softly we believe whatever Christ and St. Paul taught to be infallibly true but we know that a fallible Creature as all private Christians at least are cannot believe with an infallible Faith that is no man who knows himself fallible though he may be very certain of what he believes can say he is infallible in his Faith unless there be a Divine Promise that he shall never err for if he be not infallible
to an infallible Teacher that is when we are convinced of his infallibility we must then believe him upon his own word but not till then And therefore we must of necessity judge of all Prophets till we can prove them true Prophets and then we must believe them without judging The Miracles Moses wrought were a sufficient reason to believe him to be a true Prophet while he did not contradict the Laws of Nature and thus far all men were to judge of him and not to rely upon his Authority but when by his Miracles and the agreement of his Doctrine with natural Principles they were satisfied he was a true Prophet they were to judge no farther but to receive every thing else upon his Authority When Christ appeared in the World men were to judge of him before they believed and that not only by Miracles and the Conformity of his Doctrine to the Light of Nature but by his Agreement with the Law of Moses which was a standing Revelation and when by these Marks he was known to be the true Messias they were to believe every thing else he said upon his own Authority But Christ having now given us a perfect Revelation of God'â— Will to which no additions must be made we are to believe no men how infallible soever any further than they agree with the Gospel-Revelation and therefore must judge for our selves both of the sense of Scripture and the Doctrine they teach which is a plain demonstration that as there never was such an infallible Teacher whom we must in all cases believe without examination which is what the Church of Rome means by an infallible Judge for Moses his Doctrine was to be examined by the Light of Nature and Christ's by the Light of Nature and the Law of Moses so now especially can there be no such infallible Judge because the Gospel is the entire and perfect Rule of Faith and we must believe no man against or beyond the Gospel-Revelation and therefore must judge for our selves and compare his Doctrine with the Rule which confounds the Infallibility of the Church of Rome This is the Scheme of my Principles and now he knows what he has to answer when he has a mind to it 4 ly I observed farther 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 He says nothing about the Obscurity of the Rule as for the Imperfections of it I observed they pretended to supply the Defects of Scripture by Unwritten Traditions The first Answer I gave to this which alone he pretends to say something to was this If the Sriptures be an imperfect Rule then all Christians have not a perfect Rule because they have not the keeping of unwritten Traditions and know not what they are till the Church is pleased to tell them and it seems it was a very great while before the Church thought fit to do it for suppose all the new Articles of the Council of Trent were unwritten Traditions fifteen hundred Years was somewhat of the longest to have so considerable a part of the Rule of Faith concealed from the World. Which the Jesuite thus repeats The Catholicks by unwritten Traditions that make up a part of their Rule of Faith mean such things as may be concealed from the World for 1500 Years never heard of before in the Church of God kept very privately and secretly for several Ages and totally unwritten Whereas I said nothing at all of this but that if the Twelve new Articles of Pope Pius his Creed in the Council of Trent be pretended as they do pretend to be the Tradition of the Church then de facto this Tradition was concealed for near 1500 Years for there was no such Tradition known before nor at the time of the Council of Trent as has been proved as to several Articles by the learned Dean of St. Pauls and when our Jesuite pleases he may try to confute him 5 ly I observed that an implicit Faith or believing as the Church believes without knowing what it is we believe can be no Gospel Doctrine because it is not for the improvement of Knowledge And here I observed that some Roman Doctors think it sufficient that a man believes as the Church believes without an explicite knowledge of any thing they believe but the general Opinion is that a man must have an explicite belief of the Aposâ—les Creed but as for every thing else it suffices if he believes as the Church believes That is as I inferred it is not necessary men should so much as know what the new Articles of the Trent Faith are if they believe the Apostles Creed and in other things resign up their Faith implicitely to the Church From whence I concluded that by their own confession all the Doctrines in dispute between us and the Church of Rome are of no use much less necessary to salvation for if they were they would be as necessary to be known and explicitely believed as the Apostles Creed and therefore Protestants who believe the Apostles Creed may be saved without believing the Trent Creed for what we need not know we need not believe What does our Jesuite say to this is an implicite Faith no Doctrine of their Church have I misrepresented their Doctrine he says nothing of this But this Calumniator he says meaning poor calumniated me confounds what is to be known necessitate medii so that he who through no fault of his hath not learned it is however uncapable of salvation which is all contained in the Creed with what must be known necessitate praecepti because God hath commanded all those who are in the occasion and in the capacity of being instructed in it to learn it Whatever I confounded I am sure this is a distinction would confound any man to reconcile it with an implicite Faith. Some things are so necesâ—ary to be known that a man shall be damned meerly for not knowing them though he had no opportunity to know them which some will say is very hard other things are necessaâ—y to be known to those who have opportunity to know them for that I suppose he means by occasion and capacity or he means nothing but a trick and what place is here for an implicite Faith when they must know all that is a necessary means of salvation at the peril of their salvation and must know every thing as far as they have opportunity of learning it and therefore must never take up with an implicite Faith. He says Each man is not bound to know all that Christ hath taught but yet all that Christ has taught as necessary to him in his station So that if all Christians are not bound to have an explicite belief and knowledge of any thing but the Apostles Creed then the knowledge of all the peculiar Doctrines of Popery it seems are not necessary for them in their station and if they