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
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
by the Church representative so that it is evident after the explanation that it is the same Faith still I say every Protestant will acknowledge that this Faith is infallibly true for we believe the Faith delivered by the Apostles to be infallibly true and if it appears that the same Faith is still taught by the Church whether in or out of Council it matters not it must be infallibly true still But yet there is a little difference between us and the Jesuit He believes and would have us believe that the present Faith of the Church of Rome viz. the Doctrine of the Council of Trent is that Faith which was received from the Apostles preserved in all the Members of the Catholick Church and only explained upon occasion by the Council of Trent which was the Church representative this we deny this we know this we can and often have proved to be false And I beseech you what greater infallibility can any Church pretend to than to have the World receive all her Decrees as infallibly true But they do not pretend that either thâ— whole Church or any person or persons in it are held to possess any intrinsick Infallibility which they own to be proper to God alone Thank 'em for nothing they do not believe that the Church or Pope or Council are by nature infallible for all the World would laugh at them if they did We do not say as he adds that they cannot of themselves deceive us but that God according to his Promise directing them by his infallible Spirit it cannot possibly happen that they should deceive us The Modesty of a Jesuit who claims no more Infallibility for the Pope and General Council than the Apostles had and wonders any man should grudge them this since they do not pretend to an intrinsick Infallibility not to be infallible by Nature but only by Grace Thus he adds that they do not preâ—end to new Revelations and Lights nor admit any new Article of Faith though where a doubt arises the Church-hath infallibly power to declare what hath been revealed by Christ to the Apostles and preached by them which perhaps some part of the Church might have had a less clear understanding thereof but this is done not by making any new Article of Faith but more clearly delivering what was ever believed by the Apostles and all Catholicks from their time to this That is to say what ever the Church determines though the Christian Church in former ages knew nothing of it yet it must not be called a new Article of Faith but a declaring what had been revealed by Christ to his Apostles and preached by them though the world had long since forgot it whatever the Church determines to day we must believe to have been the Faith of the Apostolick Age though there are no other evidences nor symptomes of it but because the Church which is infallible says so And this is all the Infallibility the Church pretends too a very small matter to be denied her by Christians it is only to believe whatever she says without disputing or examining her Faith nay to believe that to be the old Faith which the most authentick Records of the Church prove to be new I have thus stept out of my way to see what fine thing he had to say of the Churches Infallibility which he promised a very favourable representation of but it is all the old cant still a little disguised by some ignorant blunders or artificial Non-sense as for his proofs of this Infallibility I am not concerned with them at present and after so many discourses on that Argument they need no answer Another Argument whereby I proved that no man can be disputed into Popery which denies us the use of our own Reason and Judgment in matters of Religion was this Because it is impossible by Reason to prove that men must not use their own Reason and Iudgment in matters of Religion For to dispute is to appeal to Reason and to dispute against the use of Reason in Religion is to appeal to Reason against the use of Reason in Answer to this he tells us That men must use their Reason to come to this knowledge that God hath revealed what they believe Now I would desire no more but this to prove that we must use our Reason in matters of Religion for no man at this day can know what is revealed without it I do assert and let him disprove me when he can that since God has given us reason to judge of the truth or falshood of such things as are knowable by the light of Nature and a standing Rule of Faith and Manners in the writings of the Old and New Testament for matters of Revelation we must believe no Mans or Churches pretences to Infallibility who either teaches any Doctrine which plainly contradicts the light of Reason or a standing revelation and therefore we must judge of mens pretences to the Spirit by the Doctrines they teach and therefore must particularly judge of their Doctrines too This is the fair state of the Controversie between us and here I leave it and let him take it up again when he pleases And here he returns back to the Conference between a sturdy Protestant and a new Convert which belonged to the former head the design of which is to shew the new Convert that by going over to the Church of Rome he has gained no more Infallibility than a Protestant has nay has lost some degrees of certainty which he might have had before for thus the Protestant tells him You rely on your own reason and judgment for the Infallibility of your Church and consequently of all the Doctrines of it and therefore your infallible Faith is as much resolved into your own fallible Iudgment as the Protestant Faith is So that the difference between us is not that your Faith is infallible and ours fallible for they are both alike call it what you will fallible or infallible We have more rational certainty than you have and you have no more infallible certainty than we You think you are reasonably assured your Church is infallible and then you take up your Religion upon trust from your Church without and many times against Sense and Reason according as it happens So that you have only a general assurance of the Infallibity of your Church and that no greater than Protestants pretend to in other cases viz. the certainty of Reason and Argument but have not so much as a rational assurance of the truth of your particular Doctrines that if you are mistaken about the Infallibility of your Church you must be miserably mistaken about every thing else which you have no other evidence for But now we are in general assured that the Scriptures are the Word of God and in particular assured that the Faith which we profess is agreeable to Scripture or expresly contained in it and does not contradict either Sense or Reason nor any
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
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
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
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 can be infallible in nothing Protestants believe Christ to be an infallible Teacher and the Christian Faith to be infallibly true and this they believe with all the firmness and certainty of assent but this is not what the Church of Rome used to call Infallibility though the Jesuite if it be not meer want of understanding in him seems to be hammering out a new notion of Infallibility but it is but a rude and imperfect Embryo yet we shall see what they will make of it in time And here I find my self obliged to look a little backwards to see how he states the Churches Infallibility for he mightily complains of Protestant Misrepresentations about it Our Guide then he tells us is the Catholick Church either diffusive in its whole extent that is as it contains or signifies the whole number of Christians all the World over or representative in its Head and Bishops the Pope and a General Council The Church diffusive or the whole number of Christians on Earth is most certainly the true notion of the Catholick Church on Earth is that Church to which most of the Promises made to The Church in Scripture are made but how this Church diffusive should be our Guide wants to be explained if the Church diffusive or the whole number of Christians is the Guide who is to be guided unless the Guide is to be a Guide only to himself However I hope then every particular Christian will be allowed a private judgment of his own for the Church diffusive will be a very strange Guide if it cannot use its own reason and judgment and how the whole which consists of all particular Christians should judge for itself when no particular Christian must judge is somewhat mysterious that is that all Christians must judge and yet none must judge But I will not dispute with him about this but whenever he will collect the Votes of the Church diffusive or of all the Christians in the World I promise to subscribe to their Definitions The Representative Church is the Head and Bishops the Pope and a General Council I thought the Pope in Jesuits Divinity had been the Church virtual and a General Council the Church representative But I have in a late Discourse proved that the Pope is not the Head of the Catholick Church nor a Council of Bishops the representative of it and he may try his skill upon it when he pleases Now it seems the Church diffusive has the keeping of the general faith of Christians first received from Christ and his Apostles and preserved by all Bishops in their respective Diocesses and in the minds and actions of each faithful Believer in the whole Catholick Church Strange that our Jesuite should now at last turn a meer Blackloist or Traditionary Divine This general Faith of Christians he compares to the common Laws of the Land to shew I suppose his skill in the Law and make the learned Gentlemen of the Temple to pity or scorn The Master's ignorance well let that be as it will for I pretend to no skill in Laws but as for this general Faith of Christians whatever it be like I would gladly learn from the Church diffusive what it is for I matter nothing else but the General Faith of Christians but how to learn this he has not told us it is preserved he says by all Bishops in their respective Diocesses and in the minds and actions of each faithful Believer in the whole Catholick Church Well then must we examine all Bishops and every particular Believer about this this is impossible to be done will any one Bishop or any one particular Believer since every Bishop and every particular Believer has it suffice to tell us what this general Faith of Christians is is this an infallible Conveyance of the Faith to depend upon the Tradition of Bishops and Christian People is there no faithful and authentick Record of this Faith from whence we may learn what Christ and his Apostles delivered to the Church So one would think by this Jesuit's account who takes no notice of the Holy Scriptures as if the common Faith of Christians could not be learnt from them but from the tradition of the Church diffusive Thus much for Common Law but the Church has her Statute Laws too and they are the Decisions or Canons of General Councils declaring and applying to particular Instances the Common Law and Belief of the Church but how does the Pope and a General Council or the Church representative as he calls it come to have the power of declaring and applying the common Faith of Christians which is in the keeping of the Church diffusive and therefore one would think could be declared by none else do the Pope and a General Council infallibly know the Sentiments and Opinions of all the Christian Bishops and People in the World This they must do or else they cannot declare the common Faith of Christians unless they can infallibly declare what they do not know If their Authority be only to declare the common Faith of Christians how shall we know that they declare nothing but the common Faith of Christians for if they do their Decrees are not valid for they declare that which is false This Jesuit has greatly intangled and perplexed the Cause by laying the whole stress upon the declarative and applying Power Had he said that the Pope and a General Council had Authority to declare what is the Christian Faith and though they declared that to be the true Faith which the Church diffusive never heard of before yet after their decision it must be received as the common Faith of Christians though it had not been so formerly there had been some sense in this though no truth but when he says the Church can only declare what is and always has been the common Faith of Christians if I can find by ancient Records that what the Council declares to be the common Faith of Christians now was either not known or condemned in former Ages if I certainly know that she declares that to be the Faith which at the very time of the Council was so far from being the common Faith of Christians that it was not the common Faith of the Council but was contradicted by the wisest and best part of it then I certainly know that the Council has not declared the common Faith of Christians and therefore that its Decrees are of no Authority But he proceeds We hold that this general Faith received from the Apostles and preserved in all the Members of the Catholick Church explained upon occasion by the Church representative is infallibly true and this is all the Infallibility the Catholick Church pretends to And there is no Protestant but will own this Infallibility That the Faith at first received from the Apostles the same Faith which was delivered by the Apostles preserved in all the Members of the Catholick Church and the same Faith explained upon occasion
other principle of Knowledge so that we have as much assurance of every Article of our Faith as you have of the Infallibility of your Church and therefore at least have double and triple the assurance that you have I have repeated this at large that the Reader might see what the dispute is and indeed the very repetition of it is a sufficient justification for it carries its own evidence along with it Now as to what I said that we are in general assured that the Scriptures are the Word of God. To this he answers The conclusion would be this Catholicks are as certain of the sense of Scripture as Protestants are that they have the letter Now I believe any Reader will be as much puzled to guess how this comes in or what relation it has to this dispute as I am I tell the new Convert that his old Protestant Friend has as much certainty of his Religion as he has for tho' he flatters himself with the conceit of an infallible Church yet his belief of the Churches Infallibility is founded only on Reason and Argument as the Protestant Faith is and therefore his Faith is no more infallible than the Protestant Faith is and so far they are equal But then I add that the Protestant has at least as good assurance that the Scriptures are the Word of God as the Papists can pretend to have that the Church is infallible and so far they may be allowed equal still that the one thinks he has an infallible Guide the other an infallible Rule of Faith Now how can the Jesuit's conclusion come in here Catholics are as certain of the Sense of Scripture as Protestants are that they have the Letter For the comparison did not lie between the Sense and the Letter of Scripture but between that Evidence Papists have of the Infallibility of their Church and Protestants have that the Scriptures are the Word of God both which is not infallible but a rational Evidence and therefore so far equal and this he has nothing to say to In the Preserv Consid. p. 29. he represents it otherwise This is the case On one side there is supposed an infallible Interpreter of the Christians great Law-Book for thus Dr. Sherlock states the case on the other are some men far the greater part unlearned and weak who allow not any Sense to this Book which seems to them to contradict their Sense or Reason or any other principle of their Knowledge And I am asked Whether I proceed more prudently in receiving the Sense of the Law from that Interpreter which is actually supposed infallible or in proceeding by the second Method Now this is as wide of the mark as t'other I never suppose an infallible Interpreter never make any dispute whether I should submit to an infallible Interpreter or follow my own Reason which were indeed a ridiculos question supposing the Interpreter were actually infallible but our only dispute was Whether a man who by the appearing evidence of Reason is perswaded to believe an infallible Judge believes more infallibly than a Protestant does who believes also upon the evidence of Reason and Argument This is the Question he cannot answer and therefore would lose if he could But then I added that Protestants had much the advantage of Papists because besides that general assurance they had that the Scriptures are the Word of God and the infallible Rule of Faith they are in particular assured that the Faith they profess is agreeable to the Scripture or expresly contained in it and does not contradict either Sense or Reason nor any other Principle of Knowledge whereas Papists have no other evidence for the particular Articles of their Faith but the infallible Authority of their Church which is the last resolution of their Faith and that many times in contradiction to Sense and Reason and Scripture as far as fallible men can judge of it So that we have as much assurance of every Article of our Faith as they have of the Infallibility of their Church The meaning of which is that we have a rational assurance of every Article of our Faith in particular as they think they have the assurance of Reason and Argument that their Church is infallible To which he answers If he means they have the same proofs for this which Catholicks have for the Infallibility of the Church it is false No Sir I do not mean the same for I hope they are better but proofs of the same kind i. e. from Reason and Argument which are the only proofs they can pretend to for the Infallibility of their Church and therefore our Assurance for that I said not Proofs is of the same kind too a moral rational Assurance not infallible for that they have not for Infallibility itself as our Answerer confest above But the Argument he hints in his Answer p. 5. is so very new and so very pretty that I cannot pass it If he means they have the same proofs for this which Catholics have for the Infallibility of the Church that is for the being of that Church which declares her self Infallible for a Church erring in such a point would cease to be the Church of Christ then 't is evidently false The Argument is this that the Infallibility of a Church which declares herself infallible is as evident as the being of that Church for if she declares her self infallible and is not infallible such an Errour as this makes her cease to be the Church of Christ. So that the Church of Rome is either an infallible Church or no Church Well for Argument's â—ake we will say she is no Church and try then how he can prove her Infallibility But he has another bold stroke in what follows That the Christians of this Age have the same evidence of Her he must mean the Church of Rome being the Church of Christ and of her teaching Truth and consequently of her Infallibility which she hath of Christ viz. Prophesie Miracles c. What will no less evidence serve his turn is it full as evident that the Church of Rome is the Church of Christ and speaks Truth and consequently is Infallible which it seems every one that speaks truth must by consequence be as that there was such a person as Christ the true Prophet and Messias I hope by Prophesies he does not mean the Revelations of St. Iohn nor by Miracles the School of the Eucharist His next exception is against that Argument If you must not use your Reason and private Iudgment then you must not by any Reason be perswaded to condemn the use of Reason for to condemn is an act of Iudgment which you must not use in matters of Religion So that this is a point which no man can dispute against and which no man can be convinced of by disputing without the reproach of self contradiction Here our Jesuit is as pleasant as his wit would serve him the sum of his Answer is That a man
may be convinced by Reason that he ought to choose a Guide and not to trust his Reason in all things I readily grant it for this is to use our Reason but the inquiry is Whether Reason can convince any man that he ought to follow this Guide in contradiction to his own Sense and Reason whether because Reason will direct a sick man to choose a Physician it will direct him also to submit to this Physician when he certainly knows that he gives him Poison The next Principle which overthrows the use of common Sense and Reason for that is his charge against me is this That we must allow of no Reason against the Authority of plain and express Scripture This he allows to be a true Catholic Principle and therefore I hope the Principle does not overthrow common Sense unless Catholic Principles may do it But he does not like an instance or two I give of it in the first and second Commandments I say such an express Law is that Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve No reason in the World can justifie the worship of any other Being good or bad Spirits besides God because there is an express Law against it and no Reason can take place against a Law. A rare consequence says the Jesuit to infer a Negative from an Affirmative antecedent But I thought Him only shalt thou serve had signified thou shalt serve none but him and that I think excludes all other Beings from any share in our Worship Now to take his own instance were there such a Law that a Subject should love his King only this would exclude Father or Wife or any other Friends or Relations from a share in our love Here he begins to distinguish between that worship they pay to Creatures and to God and alleadges St. Austin's Authority for it but if he have a mind to renew that Dispute about the sense of the Primitive Fathers as to Invocation of Saints he knows his man and had best keep to him or at least do him right before he engages any farther It had been more to the purpose to have examined that explication I gave of the first Commandment and how I proved that it is an express Law against the worship of any other Being but the Supreme God but what is most to the purpose is seldom most to his purpose The next instance I gave of this rule was the second Commandment Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image and there the Jesuite stops with an c. for he durst not trust good Catholicks who might read his paper though they will read nothing else with the whole Commandment and this I affirmed and affirm still is so express a Law against Image-Worship that no reason must be admitted for it What says he if you be told that although the Iews had perhaps a command of making no graven Image c. again why not and not to worship it we do not say they were forbid to make any graven Image but they were forbid to make them for worship and therefore his following instances of Bezaleel and Solomon who made no Images or likenesses of things in Heaven or Earth for worship are nothing to the purpose he adds yet this being a positive Law and not confirmed in the Gospel doth not oblige us will this reason be admitted He answers for me No but I answer yes if it be true and he dare stand to it but this is no reason against an express Law but an exception to the Law itself as of no force I do affirm that if the second Commandment be still in force it does so expresly condemn all Image-worship that no reasons can justifie Image-worship against such an express Law but if it be a Law no longer the case I confess is altered and I desire to know whether he will stand to this but he had best advise with some wiser men first who understand the sense of the Church and of the Fathers and of their own Divines a little better about this matter But before they abrogate this Law I would desire them to make it a Commandment by it self and call it the second Commandment as we do for fear of abrogating the first Commandment with it of which they make it a part though the truth is the Church of Rome could spare them both and thank you too His parting blow is a very terrible one I direct Protestants never to admit any Arguments meerly from the usefulness conveniency or pretended necessity of any thing to prove that it is As for instance A supreme Oecumenical Bishop and an Infallible Iudge of Controversies are thought absolutely necessary to the Vnity of the Church and certainty of Faith and confounding of Schisms and Heresies Now if I thought all this were true as I believe not a word of it is I should only conclude that it were great pity that there is not an Vniversal Pastor and Infallible Iudge Instituted by Christ but if you would have me conclude from these Premises Ergo there is an Vniversal Pastor and infallible Iudge I must beg your pardon for that for these Arguments do not prove that there is such a Iudge but that there ought to be one and therefore I must conclude no more from them This he says is not only to misuse humane Reason but to deny Wisdom and Reason in God Alphonsus the Royal Mathematician was ever looked on as guilty of a horrid Blasphemy for having said he thought he could have ordered some things better than God did at the first Creation 'T is one of as deep a dye to think God ought to have done what we belive that â—e hath not done But do I any where say that God ought to have done what I believe he has not done do I any where say that God ought by necessary and infallible means to have prevented Schisms and Heresies Dare our Author himself say this who assigns this as the reason why the Infallibility of the Church is no more than morally evident because otherwise it were impossible that any Heresie should be which at least supposes that God did not intend to make it impossible that there should be Heresies and Schisms and therefore though we should grant it absolutely necessary to prevent all Heresies and Schisms that there should be an Oecumenical Pastor and Infallible Judge is this to grant it necessary that there should be one or to say that there ought to be one unless I had said also that it were absolutely necessary that all Heresies and Schisms should be prevented Is there no difference between saying that such a thing is absolutely necessary to such an end and to say that such an end is abfolutely necessary But however where do I say that God has not done that which I believe he ought to have done is it the same thing to say such a thing is not and such a thing is not proved by such
not Christ's telling them so a certain Reason If they believed without Reason I am of opinion how blind an impiety soever it be that they believed too soon I envy no Church the priviledge of believing infallibly without Reason or Evidence but it is well for the Church of Rome if she have this priviledge for unless she can be Infallible without Reason nay in contradiction to it I am sure she is not infallible But what tergiversation is here Does the Church of Rome infallibly know that the Christian Religion is certainly true Does she infallibly know that the certain Truth of Christian Religion is founded upon certain Reasons if so then the Christian Religion is certain and founded on certain Reasons and then those who believe the Christian Religion for the sake of such certain Reasons have a certain Faith whether they believe upon the Authority of the Church or not unless a Faith built upon certain Reasons may be uncertain or cannot be certain for if the Church infallibly knows that there are certain Reasons for the truth of Christianity then there are certain Reasons distinct from the Infallibility of the Church and they may be a Foundation for a certain Faith without the Churches Infallibility I observed that their great Argument to prove the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith is that there is a great variety of Opinions among Protestants and that they condemn one another with equal confidence and assurance He says I should have added thô they use the same Rule of Faith and apply it by the same means But there was no need of adding this it was supposed in all the Arguments I used which he answers only by saying 'T is an unanswerable Argument against your Rule of Faith and evidently proves it uncertain What does it prove the Scripture to be uncertain for that is our Rule or does he mean this of our Way of applying it that is by using the best Reason and Judgment we have to understand it and then his Argument is this some men misunderstand Scripture and therefore no man can rightly understand it some men reason wrong and therefore no man can reason right some men are confidently perswaded that they are in the right when they are in the wrong and therefore no man can be certain when he is in the right an Argument which in all other cases mankind would hiss at Some men believe they are awake when they are in a dream therefore no man can know when he is awake there are silly confident people who are cheated with slight appearances of things therefore no man can distinguish between appearances and realities Or to put but one case which will sensibly affect him some men nay the greatest part of Chrisâ—ians do not believe the Infallibility of the Church of Rome and therefore no man can be certain that the Church is Infallible For here are all his Conditions the same Rule applied the same way for he confess'd above that there can be no more than a Moral Evidence for the Infallibility of the Church Now in Moral Evidence every man must use his own Judgment thus we do we consider all the Arguments they alledge for the Infallibility of their Church from Scripture from Promises from Prophesies from Bellarmin's Fifteen Notes of the Church or whatever other Reasons and Arguments they use upon the whole we conclude that the Church of Rome is not Infallible they that it is now if he will stand to his Argument That variety of Opinions when men use the same Rule and apply it the same way is an unanswerable Argument that the Rule is uncertain then it is impossible that they should have so much as a Moral certainty of Infallibility since all mankind besides are against them His Answer to Dr. St.'s Arguments to prove that the Scriptures may be a very certain Rule though men differ in expounding them are so very senseless that I have no patience to answer them especially since he grants all that the Dean intended to prove that a Rule may be a certain Rule though men who do not understand it may mis-apply it But the principle he has laid down for mine I confess is very extraordinary and surprizing that if two men have the Bible read it endeavouâ— to understand it and believing they do draw from the same Scriptures two different Conclusions two opposite Articles of Faith both are bound to stand to their private judgment and to believe themselves in the right though all the World should accuse them in lieu of the true pretended Rule to have used a false One. I affirm that one man may expound the Scripture right and know that he does so though another expounds it wrong and he makes me say that when two men expound the Scripture to different and contrary senses they are both bound to believe that they are in the right this it is certain they will do and there is no remedy against it but what is worse than the disease that men should not use their own Judgments and then they dare not believe themselves when they are in the right which is as bad as to believe themselves in the right when they are in the wrong but that for this reason all the World should accuse them in lieu of the true pretended Rule to have used a false one is very senseless unless by all the World he means the World of Roman-Catholicks for no other men as I have already shewn nay not he himself if he will stand to his own word will accuse the Rule to be false because men make a false judgment of it for to call every man's private judgment of the Rule his Rule which is the substance of his following harangue is to resolve neither to think nor speak like other men for that no man thinks his own private judgment to be his Rule is evident from hence that upon better Information he alters his judgment without changing his Rule I concluded this Section concerning the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith with this observation that this very Argument from the different and contrary opinions of Protestants to prove the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith signifies nothing as to our disputes with the Church of Rome for ask them what they would think of the Protestant Faith were all Protestants of a mind would their consent and agreement prove the certainty of the Protestant Faith then the Protestant Faith in opposition to Popery is very certain for they all agree in condemning the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome And thus I think they get nothing by this Argument for if the dissensions of Protestants proves the uncertainty of their Faith as to such matters wherein they differ then by the same Rule their agreement in opposition to Popery shews their great certainty in such matters And this I suppose is no great inducement to a Protestant to turn Papist Our Jesuit had so much Wit in his Anger as to
absurdity of Praying to God in an Unknown Tongue when neither our Understandings nor Affections can joyn in our Prayers For I suppose no man will say that to pray to God or praise him in words which we do not understand is to worship God in Spirit unless he thinks that a Parrot may be taught to pray in the Spirit This he calls a Calumny He would insinuate that Catholicks when they assist to present he should have said at Prayers which they do not understand are not commanded to pray in Spirit by devout Thoughts and pious Affections Now I insinuate no such thing when they are present at Prayers which they do not understand they may have other devout thoughts for ought I know but I say they cannot offer those Prayers to God with their understanding which they do not understand and in such Prayers they do not pray with the Mind and Spirit and therefore all such Prayers are absurd and contrary to the nature of Christian Worship which is to worship God in Spirit But my work is not at an end yet there are some other Misrepresentations and Calumnies which he has picked out of the fourth Section of the Preservative which must be considered The fourth Section concerns the reformation and improvement of Humane Nature which I shewed to be the great design of the Gospel and that particularly with respect to Knowledge and Holiness and I examined how far the Principles and Practices of the Church of Rome did comply with this great Gospel Design 1. As for Knowledge I supposed neither the Church of Rome nor any one for her would pretend that she is any great Friend to Knowledge which is so apt to make men Hereticks That knowing Papists are not beholden to their Church for their Knowledge which deprives them of all the means of Knowledge will not allow them to believe their senses but commands them to believe Transubstantiation which is contrary to the evidence of sense forbids men the use of Reason in matters of Religion suffers them not to judge for themselves nor examine the Reasons of their Faith and denies them the use of the Bible which is the only means to know the revealed Will of God and when men must neither believe their Senses nor use their Reason nor read the Scripture it is easie to guess what knowing and understanding Christians they must needs be Against this it may be objected that the Church of Rome does instruct her Children in the true Christian Faith though she will not allow them to read the Scriptures nor judge for themselves which is the safer way to teach them the pure Catholick Faith without danger of Error or Heresie To this I answered This were something did the Church of Rome take care to instruct them in all necessary Doctrines and to teach nothing but what is true and could such men who thus tamely receive the dictates of the Church be said to know and to understand their Religion so that here were two Inquiries 1. Whether the Church of Rome instructs her Children in all necessary truth and nothing but the truth 2. Whether she so instructs them that they may be said to know and understand How far the Church of Rome is from doing the first I said all Christians in the World are sensible but themselves but that is not our present Dispute But our Jesuite it seems will make it the Dispâ—te or it shall pass for a perfect Slander for thus he repeats it they take no care to instruct mâ—n in all necâ—ssary Doctrines Which I did not positively affirm bâ—t since he will have it so I do now affirm That they do not instruct men in all necessary Doctrines and that thâ—y teach them a great many false Doctrines But then he must remember what I mean by instructing it is not meerly to teach them to repeat the Articles of their Creed but to give them the true sense and meaning of them and I do affirm and am ready to prove it and possibly may do so when leisure permits that they do not rightly instruct men in the great and necessary Doctrine of forgiveness of Sins in the Name of Christ nor in the nature of Christ's Mediation and Intercession for us nor in the nature of Justification or of Gospel and Obedience but teach such Errors as overthrow the true Gospel notion of these great and necessary Doctrines Then as for their manner of Teaching to require men to believe what they say meerly upon the Authority of the Church without suffering them to examine whether such Doctrines are taught in Scripture or to exercise their own reason and judgment about it can make no man a knowing and understanding Christian. For no man understands his Religion who does not in some measure know the reasons of his Faith and judge whether they be sufficient or not who knows not how to distinguish between Truth and Error who has no Rule to go by but must take all upon trust and the credit of his Teachers who believes whatever he is told and learns his Creed as School-boys do their Grammar without understanding it this is not an active but a kind of passive knowledge Such men receive the impression that is made on them as Wax does and understand no more of the matter These Sayings that are marked out are more of his Misrepresentations which need no other Vindication but to be shewn in their own light and proper places And yet I did not deny but some men might be so dull and stupid as to be capable of little more than to be taught their Religion as Children but certainly this is not the utmost perfection of knowledge that any Christian must aim at which he thus represents With them this is the utmost perfection of Knowledge that any Christian must aim at This I did not say but this I say that it is the utmost perfection of Knowledge which any man can attain to who will be contented with the Methods of the Church of Rome not to examine his Religion but to take all upon the credit of the Church Well How does our Jesuite confute this heavy Charge and perfect Slander Does he shew that they teach all necessary Truths and nothing but Truth Does he prove that men may be very knowing Christians without understanding the Reasons of their Faith Not one word of this which alone was to his purpose but he says hundreds of thousands of Religious men are employed in instructing the Ignorant and teaching Children and whoever denied this that they do teach Men and Children after their fashion But does this prove that they teach them all necessary Truths and nothing but truth Or that they make them ever the wiser for their teaching As for those ignorant Protestants he has had to deal with if he made Converts of them I believe they were very ignorant otherwise if there were Ignorance between them it was as likely to lie on the Jesuite's side Having laid down
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