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
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
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