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
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
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
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
Scripture that a man who rejects the Authority of the Church may be forced to acknowledge that they are in Scripture and then he must reject the necessity of Church-Authority for the understanding of Scripture which is to yield up a very concerning point to Protestants or else he must confess that he does very foolishly or knavishly in urging Scripture-Proofs to a man who rejects the Authority of their Church without which he knows there are no Scripture-Proofs of any Authority But this which was the true state of the Controversie the Jesuite takes no notice of all that he says is this That the sense of Scripture takes its Authority from God that is is ultimately resolved into God's Authority who intended such a sense in it but as to Catholicks for such he must mean their certainty of the sense of Scripture is resolved immediately into the Authority of the Church which is guided in expounding Scripture by an infallible Spirit Now is not this the very same that I saiâ— that all Scripture-Proofs must be resolved into the Authority of the Church and are not good without it as it is impossible they should be if we cannot certainly know what the true sense of Scripture is but from the Exposition of the Church And yet if the Church of Rome be no more infallible in delivering the sense of Scripture than in delivering the letter of it there is no great encouragement to rely on her infallibility as is evident from the many Corruptions of their Vulgar Latine which one Pope corrected after another and yet it is not corrected still that it was a little over-sight in this Jesuite though possibly he knew nothing of the matter to make the Church equally infallible in delivering the letter and the sense of Scripture But to do him right he seems to offer at something of sense in his dispute between Iohn and William which is the right way to a place For says he is John disabled from convincing William of his mistake by reasons because he hath with him a Guide who certainly knows the way and that he himself would certainly pass by those reasons if his Guide assured him that he applied them ill and wrongly to that way This has something of argument in it and therefore shall be considered and I am glad to meet with any thing that deserves to be considered The sum of his Argument which I shall represent fairly for him because he has not shewn it to the best advantage is this That Roman-Catholicks have two ways of finding out the sense of Scripture either by the use of Reason or by the Expositions of an infallible Guide but that Reason must be subordinate to the Guide and if Reason dictates one sense of Scripture and the Church teaches another Reason must submit and a true Catholick must embrace the sense of the Church though it be against his Reason but yet if Reason and his Guide be both of a side and he can prove by Reason that to be the true sense of Scripture which the Church gives of it he may then wave the Authority of the Church when he disputes with those who reject such Authority and argue from the reasons of things and the natural interpretation of Scripture it self As Iohn may convince William who rejects the infallibility of Iohn's Guide which is the true way by plain reason while his reason is not contradicted by his Guide and if our Jesuite can make more of this Argument himself let him I am sure he has spoiled it by repeating it in his Preserv Consider p. 11. John is not disabled of convincing William of his mistake because he receives the reasons he uses from an infallible Guide Where he has set it upon another bottom and a very silly one for his purpose for if the force of his Reasons be resolved into the Authority of an infallible Guide it is all lost to him who disowns the infallibility of the Guide or if he means that Iohn is taught such Reasons by an infallible Guide as are able by their own evidence to convince William without any regard to the infallibility of the Guide we desire no more than to see such Reasons and to be left to judge for our selves but this ends in a Protestant Resolution of Faith for every man to judge for himself according to the evidence of Reason which in it self is neither more nor less evident for being proposed or learnt from a fallible or infallible Guide And yet by what follows he can mean no more but that the Authority of an infallible Judge must over-rule every Man's private Reason for he appeals to the learned Gentlemen of the Temple hoping they will joyn with him maintaining against their Master that all the Iudges of the Land may very reasonably convince by Law an impertinent Party though he should oppose that they may not do it because their interpretation of the Law is to deliver the true sense of it Which is glorious Nonsence that all the Judges of the Land can convince a man who is not convinced but declares still that they have not given the true sense of the Law. In all Civil Causes there must be a final judgment and every private man must submit to the decision of Authority whether his own reason be satisfied or not but it is not so in matters of Religion in which no man at the peril of his Soul must be over-ruled by any Authority till he be first convinced So that the Jesuite had said a good thing by chance but for want of understanding it had lost it again and any man may see that I could as easily have lost it as he had I a mind to it but I will not part with it without an Answer because it is the most plausible thing that can be said and possibly other men may understand it who can't answer it though he don't His Argument then as first proposed is this That they allow of Reason in expounding Scripture so long as they do not contradict the Sense and Exposition of the Church and therefore they may dispute with Hereticks from Scripture without concerning the Authority of the Church in the dispute Now in answer to this there are some material Questions to be asked As 1. Whether they can dispute with Protestants by Scripture-Arguments without allowing them to judge of the sense of Scripture by their own private Reason and whether this be agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that every man may judge of the sense of Scripture by his own private Reason 2. Whether the Scripture be so plain and perspicuous especially in the Doctrines in dispute between us and the Church of Rome that every honest impartial Inquirer may find the true sense of them without an infallible Interpreter if they be I think they never ought to talk of the obscurity of Scripture nor the necessity of an infallible Judge more if they be not and if they know that they are
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
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
other reason but to justifie the absurdities and contradictions of Transubstantiation As for the making void the use of Fathers and Councils to unlearned men it is the thing I designed and I am very glad if I have done it but as for learned men they may make such use of them still as such Writings are designed for not to make them the Rule of Faith but either to learn what was the Doctrine and Practice of the Church in their days or what their private Opinions were or how they expounded Scripture and the like that I call it squabling about the sense of Fathers if the expression be undecent it is owing to himself and some such late Scriblers whose Disputes have been nothing else but Squables But I cannot blame him that he is so angry that I direct the Protestant to inquire Whether such Books were written by that Father whose Name it bears for he knows such an inquiry has very lately cost him dear I was going to say a blush but that is impossible If such Questions as I ask cannot be answered to the satisfaction of learned men they are of no more use to them than they are to the unlearned who cannot answer them themselves and want the Learning which is necessary to make them capable of a satisfactory Answer and this is all the Answer I shall return to this Charge His next Charge is a dreadful one Such Principles as make void all use of Civil Charity and Moral Iustice to our Neighbours He lays it in the very last Section of the Preservative Concerning Protestant Mis-representations of Popery Wherein I shewed how vain and silly this charge was and he has not one word to say in defence of it Among other things I observed that these men who complain so much of Mis-representing endeavour to make the Doctrines of the Church of Rome look as like Protestant Doctrines as ever they can as if there were little or no difference between them The truth is the chief Mystery in this late Trade of Representing and Mis-representing is no more but this to joyn a Protestant Faith with Popish Practices to believe as Protestants do and to do as Papists do This I gave some few instances of out of the Representer and shewed that their Faith as he Represented it came very near and in some cases was the very same with the Protestant Faith but their Practice was Popish How is this contrary to Civil Charity and Moral Honesty He says it is this When a man 's exterior Actions are naturally capable of a good and pious meaning and he ever and clearly declares that it is his yet to fasten upon him another opposite design and meaning But how does this concern me who fasten no meaning at all upon their Actions but only barely relate what they profess to believe and what they practice He instances in two and let all the World judge who makes void Civil Charity and Moral Honesty He or I. To insinuate says he that a Catholick thinks the Virgin Mary more powerful in Heaven than Christ he tells you that he says Ten Ave-Maries for one Pater Noster whereas all that I say is He the Papist Represented believes it damnable to think the Virgin Mary more powerful in Heaven than Christ which is Protestant Doctrine But yet he prays to her oftner than either to God or Christ says ten Ave-Maries for one Pater Noster which is a Popish Devotion Is here any breach of Moral Honesty in this is not all this true do I put any sense or interpretation upon this action I believe all men will think that this does more than insinuate what a belief they have of the power of the Virgin and this the Jesuite was sensible of and therefore says that I insinuate it but I will leave it as I did at first to what judgment all indifferent men will make of it In the next place he says I charge the Catholicks with worshipping the visible Species in the Eucharist Hear my words again He believes it unlawful to commit Idolatry and most damnable to worship any Breaden God which is spoke like a Protestant but yet he pays Divine Adoration to the Sacrament which is done like a Papist Here is nothing about worshipping the visible Species in the Eucharist but whatever is the Sacrament they worship and must do so by the Doctrine of their Church if they can make a Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ without the visible Species then according to their Doctrine they need not worship the visible Species if they can't they must for they must adore the Sacrament and if the Sacrament should prove to be Bread and Wine not the natural Body and Blood of Christ and it is strange if it should not then I need not tell them what they worship But those matters have been debated often enough of late He concludes with an advice to Protestants urging the Argument against Scriptures which I had before done against Fathers Amongst Christians there is not one in an hundred thousand who understand all Scripture and it is morally impossible they should and therefore certainly there must be an easier and shorter way to understand Christian Religion than this or else the generality of Mankind even of profest Christians are out of possibility of Salvation I grant every word of it to be true if understanding all Scripture as he puts it were necessary to Salvation but the only easier and shorter way is to understand so much of the Scripture as is necessary to Salvation and let him when he pleases if he dare venture the Blasphemy of it prove that this is morally impossible to the generality of Mankind even of profest Christians A VINDICATION OF THE SECOND PART OF THE Preservative against POPERY HEre our Jesuite gives me a great many hard Words but nothing of Argument He talks tragically of Calumnies and Misrepresentations how much he proves of it unless a bold Accusation must pass for a Proof I dare leave to every ordinary Reader who will compare my Book with his He is much off of his byass here for I did not dispute directly against any Popish Doctrines but used such collateral Arguments as are very evident and convincing to ordinary Readers but so much out of the road that the Jesuite could find nothing in his Common-place Book about it and therefore does not pretend to answer any one Section of my Book but yet out of every Section he picks some single Sayings and if he meets with an Argument that he cannot answer he takes some few words of it and calls it Calumny and Misrepresentation the only way I have to write such an Answer to him as may be fit to be read is to give a short Abstract of each Section of my Book and to take notice where those Passages come in which he calls Calumnies and Misrepresentations SECT I. Concerning Idolatry I Shewed the great Design of our Saviour was more perfectly to
Answer the Question and if there be a Dispute depending which of them contradicts St. Paul's Doctrine I would desire him to tell me How we shall know which of them does it without examining them When we know these Books which contradict St Paul's Doctrine we will reject them with an Anathema and for that reason we reject the Council of Trent whose Authority we think to be inferior to an Angels and that shews that we do not think rejecting and yet reading such Books to make void common Sense for though we reject the Council of Trent yet we read it as they find to their cost His next Question or else I cannot make three of them is By what Text doth God deliver this Injunction viz of reading Heretical Books which in his Sense of Heretical Books is a very senseless Question for no man pretends that God commands us to read Books which we know to be Heretical though a man who is inquiring after Truth must read such Books as the several divided Sects of Christians may call Heretical But his killing Question is to come I asked further How standing to the first Principles of Common Sense a Church which declares all men bound to judge for themselves could countenance Laws which exact of Dissenters that they stand not to that their Iudgment but comply against it and that constrain their liberty of judging by the dread of Excommunications Sequestrations Imprisonments c. which is to make it Death not to act against a strict Duty of Conscience acknowledged by the Persecutors to be such But what is this to reading Heretical Books Is there any Law in the Church of England thus to punish men for reading Heretical Books There is we know in the Church of Rome where besides other Heretical Books to have and to read the Bible in the vulgar Tongue without License which is rarely granted and ought not to be at all brings a man in danger of the Inquisition which one word signifies more than any man can tell but he who has felt it witness the late account of the Inquisition of Goa Well but to allow a liberty of Judging and not to suffer men to stand to their Judgment is contrary to Common Sense It is so but who gives a liberty of Judging and forbids men to stand to their own Judgment I am sure the Church of England accounts any man a Knave who contradicts his own Judgment and Conscience There is no Inquisition for mens private Opinions no ransacking Consciences in the Church of England as we know where there is Yes We constrain this liberty of Iudging by the dread of Excommunications Sequestrations Imprisonments Exclusion from the chiefest Properties of free born Subjects even by Hanging and Quartering which is to make it Death not to act against a strict Duty of Conscience acknowledged by the Persecutors to be such It is a blessed time for these Jesuits who like that no body should be able to Persecute but themselves to rail at Persecution but let that pass It seems then it is contrary to Common Sense to allow a liberty of Judging and to deny a liberty of Practice for God suppose to allow men to choose their Religion and to Damn them if they choose wrong That is to say a Natural liberty of Judgment and by the same reason the Natural liberty of Will is inconsistent with all Government in Church and State If this were so it would indeed make Persecution as he calls it in a free-judging Church very absurd but it is very reconcileable to Common Sense for a Church which denies this liberty of Judging to Persecute too and this justifies the Persecutions of the Church of Rome Let Protestants here see if such Jesuits could rule the Roast what it will cost them to part with their liberty of Judging they loose their Argument against Persecution for an Infallible Church which will not suffer men to Judge may with good Reason Persecute them if they do that all men who like Liberty of Conscience are concerned to oppose Popery which it seems is the only Religion that can make it reasonable to Persecute nay which makes it unreasonable not to Persecute for it is as much against Common Sense for a Church which denies a liberty of Judging to allow a liberty of Conscience as for a Church to deny Liberty of Conscience which allows a liberty of Judging Thus far the Preservative is safe and let his following Harangue against the liberty of Judging shift for it self that is not my business at present His next Quarrel is that Preser p. 4 5. I advise Protestants not to dispute with Papists till they disown Infallibility I own the charge and repeat it again that it is a ridiculous thing to dispute with Papists till they renounce Infallibility as that is opposed to a lâ—berty of Judging for so the whole Sentence runs Here then let our Protestant fix his Foot and not stir an inch till they disown Infallibility and confess that every man must Iudge for himself in Matters of Religion according to the Proofs that are offered to him This the Jesuit either designedly concealed or did not understand though it is the whole design of that Discourse For the plain state of the Case is this The Church of Rome pretends to be Infallible and upon this pretence she requires us to submit to her Authority and to receive all the Doctrines she teaches upon her bare Word without Examination for we must not Judge for our selves but learn from an Infallible Church Now I say it is a ridiculous thing for such men to pretend to Dispuâ—e with us about Religion when they will not allow that we can judge what is true or false for it is to no purpose to Dispute unless we can Judge and therefore a Protestant before he Disputes with them ought to exact this Confession from them that every man must Judge for himself and ought not to be over-ruled by the pretended Infallible Authority of the Church against his own Sense and Reason and this is to make them disown Infallibility as far as that is Matter of Controversie between us and the Church of Rome to disown Infallibility as that is opposed to a liberty of Judging If it be absurd to Dispute with a man who denies me a liberty of Judging then I must make him allow me this liberty before I Dispute and then he must disown the over-ruling Authority of an Infallible Judge which is a contradiction to such a Liberty By this time I suppose he sees to what little purpose his Objections are that to require such a disowning of Infallibility is to say 'T is impossible to convince a man that in Reason he ought to submit his Iudgment to any other though Infallible No Sir but 't is to say that I cannot make use of my Reason in any thing till I am delivered from the Usurping Authority of such an Infallible Judge who will not suffer me to use my
which St. Paul understands the Law which he calls the Letter or an External Administration and the Ministration of Death and of Condemnation in distinction from the Gospel which is the Ministration of the Spirit and the Ministration of Righteousness 2 Cor. 3.6 7 8 9. but our learned Jesuite understands it of the Letter of the Gospel as distinguished from the Sense of it which is such a distinction as no men of sense ever thought of till the Church of Rome found it necessary to distinguish the Letter and the Words of Scripture from the Sense of it and to separate them too which they have effectually done but yet how the Letters which are very innocent things in all other Books should be such killing things in Scripture is worthy of the Wit and Learning of a Jesuite to unriddle But I say to let this pass I grant a Protestant must understand the true sense of Scripture which must be done by venturing to understand the killing Letter of it before he can know much less believe what the Scripture teaches but that they should understand and remember every place of Scripture which relates to such a Subject I see no reason for if we have one or two or more plain and express places for it it is enough at least for ordinary Christians and a great deal more than the Church of Rome has for any of her new Articles of Faith. For we are sure what is plainly and expresly said in one place cannot be contradicted by another and therefore if I had no more than that one plain Text Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve I should think it a sufficient Proof against the Worship of Saints and Angels though there were no other Text in the Bible against it Now whatever Papists say for we desire to hear them prove as well as say this is so far from being impossible to any or almost any man that every considering Protestant has sufficient assurance of all this to found a Divine Faith on Well but what says Dr. Sherlock to give Protestants any certainty Truly not one word for that was not my business to shew what positive certainty Protestants have but to shew upon what vain pretences Papists charge the Protestant Faith with uncertainty And 1. I observe that could they prove the Protestant Faith uncertain this is no sufficient reason to turn Papists because Protestants are uncertain does this prove the Church of Rome to be infallible because the Church of England is fallible must certainty be necessarily found amongst them because it is not found with us is Thomas an honest man because John is a knave Yes he says if the stolen goods were found with John an honest Iury he conceives would bring Thomas in not guilty And if Protestant Uncertainty and Popish Infallibility were to be decided by an honest Popish Jury we might guess pretty near at their Verdict But he says there is a true Faith and consequently a certain Rule of Faith. Protestants on one side chuse one Rule viz. the Holy Scriptures for we have no other Rule Catholicks another therefore not the Holy Scriptures for that is the Protestant Rule but here he ignorantly misrepresents his own Church for the Church of Rome does own the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith though not a compleat and perfect Rule but the dispute between Protestants and Papists is not so much about the Rule as about the Judge but he seems not to understand this distinction between the Rule and the Judge of Faith. But now for his conceiving I conceive then that if the Protestant Rule be proved uncertain that is the Holy Scriptures 't is plain the Catholick Rule must be the certain one But when the Scriptures are proved uncertain I fear there will be no Rule at all But however his Argument is so far true that if he could prove that there are but two Rules that one is false and the other true then when he has proved one to be false I grant without any more disputing that the other is true but now though there can be but one true Rule there may be a great many false ones and then both the Rules in competition may be false and uncertain In the Preservat Consider â— 38. he endeavours to salve this and now does not put the question about two Rules of Faith for that he says we are agreed on That the Scriptures are the Word of God that if we understood the full extent of its sense and meaning there would never be Error or Heresie amongst us Which shews that as I observed before he did not understand the difference between a Rule of Faith and a Guide or Expositor till some wiser mâ—n had told him of it Well now the thing in question is by what method we ought to come to that knowledge as far as it is necessary to a Christian. And I say that all the methods are reduced to these two heads that we are guided to the certain knowledge of what God hath revealed either by a knowledge communicated to each of us or by a knowledge communicated only to Guides appointed to direct the rest What he means by this communicated knowledge I cannot tell for we think the Scriptures may be understood without either publick or private Enthusiasms as all other Books are to be understood by considering the use and signification of words the scope and design of the place and by comparing one Text with another and the like Thus the Guides of the Church must understand Scripture and by their assistance thus private Christians may understand Scripture This all Mankind confess to be one way of understanding Scripture the same way that all men use to understand any Writing nay the only natural way that we know of No says the Church of Rome there is another possible way for God to direct the Guides the Pope of Rome or General Council by an infallible Spirit in expounding Scripture right say I this is possible indeed for God can do it if he pleases but it does not follow this is any way at all till it appears that God has revealed that he will take this way so that before there can be any competition between these two ways of expounding Scriptures it must be proved that there are two ways the Protestant way is acknowledged by all Mankind for Nature teaches no other way of understanding Books whether of Humane or Divine Composition that there is such a way as the Popish Method must be proved by Revelation for it depends wholly upon the Will of God and therefore can be proved only by Revelation now to make a competition between two ways of expounding Scripture before it is proved there are two ways is ridiculous and much more ridiculous to prove the certainty of the unknown and unproved way from the uncertainty of the known way if they can prove the Protestant way of expounding Scripture which is the
conceal the force of this Argument and to represent it thus Were all Protestants of a mind would their consent and agreement prove the certainty of the Protestant Faith. By which alone no man living could guess what I was proving and to this he answers Not at all and I agree with him in it for meer agreement does not prove the certainty of Faith no more then meer disagreement or variety of Opinions proves the uncertainty of Faith. But they prove them both alike as I observed which he calls a ridiculous Inference and as he has reported it he has made it ridiculous enough This is the same Rule and their disagreement proves not their uncertainty This is to mangle and transprose an Argument that it may not be understood but to confute this he says all Vnion is no Argument of the Spirit of God for People may combine to do ill But what is this to agreement in Opinions May not that argue the certainty of Faith because some men agree to do ill for a general consent and agreement of mens understandings may be an argument of the truth of what they consent in though the agreement of their Wills may not be a vertuous but a wicked Combination But yet St. Paul assures us disunion and dissention is a certain mark of the absence of the Spirit of God that is Contentions and Quarrels and Schisms are indeed so far the Works of the Flesh. But when two men or two Churches differ in their opinions of things can neither of them be in the right Is the Spirit of God with neither of them Is truth on neither side Then the Controversies between the Church of Rome and the Church of England prove that the Spirit of God is no more with the Church of Rome then with the Church of England The plain case is this our Roman Adversaries perswade Protestants that they can have no certainty of their Faith because Protestants are so much divided about it and therefore they must go to the Church of Rome which alone pretends to Infallibility But say I why should these differences among Protestants oblige them to go over to the Church of Rome when Protestants have no difference about this matter but are all agreed that the Church of Rome is so far from being infallible that she is a very corrupt Church I do not say that the differences of Protestants is a good Argument to prove the uncertainty of their Faith nor their bare agreement to prove the certainty of it but I say one proves as much as t'other and therefore 't is a better reason to Protestants not to turn Papists that all Protestants are agreed that the Church of Rome is not infallible but has greatly erred then it is for Protestants to go to the Church of Rome for Infallibility because they differ in some things among themselves especially considering that many points they now differ about will not be reconciled by their going to the Church of Rome for the same points are as fiercely disputed among them too as to instance at present only in the Quinquearticular Controversie CHAP. III. A Vindication of some Positions which are pretended to make void all Scripture-proof all use of Fathers and Councils and of Civil Charity and Moral Iustice to our Neighbours AS for Scripture-proof I was directing Protestantâ— what kind of Scripture-proof to demand for Transubstantiation and having shewn that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation does manifestly contradict the evidence of all our Senses and the most necessary principles of Reason I told them that it is but reasonable that the evidence for Transubstantiation should at least be equal to the evidence against it and therefore they must demand such a Scripture-proof of Transubstantiation as cannot possibly signifie any thing else or else it will not answer that evidence which we have against Transubstantiation for sense and reason pronounce Transubstantiation to be naturally impossible and therefore unless it be as impossible to put any other sense upon Scripture as it is to reconcile Transubstantiation to sense and reason there is not such good evidence for Transubstantiation as there is against it This he repeats after his usual manner to take care that no body shall understand what it relates to or see the force of the Argument and in answer to it he gives us a new instance of his good will to the Doctrine of the Trinity He says A Text which cannot possibly have another sense doth not leave it in any one's liberty who owns Scripture to be an Heretick therefore the Church produced no such Text against the Arians or Nestorians whence it evidently follows that according to Dr. Sherlock the Arians and Nestorians were not bound to believe the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ. But did I say that nothing can be proved but by such express Texts as it is not possible to understand otherwise I said this was necessary to prove any Doctrine which sense and reâ—son declare to be absolutely impossible And will he say the Doctrine of the Trinity is such a Doctrine No he says Preservative Considered p. 45. But they so appeared to the Nestorians and Arians and that is the case put by Dr. Sherlock but I put no case about meer appearing but of such palpable contradictions as the sense and reason of all Mankind agree in as Papists themselves cannot deny and know not how to justifie without pressing the Almighty Power of God to make good their absurd Imaginations Now where there is only an appearance of contradiction where a Doctrine only lies cross to mens natural reason there such express Texts as do more evidently prove that Doctrine then that Doctrine does evidently contradict reason is a sufficient foundation for the belief of it because in this case there is more evidence for it than against it and did not the Church alledge such Scripture-proofs for the Trinity And are there no such Proofs to be alledged He thinks they did not because then the Arians could not have continued Hereticks for a Text which cannot possibly have any other sense doth not leave it in any ones liberty to be a Heretick But I suppose he will allow that I spoke not of a natural but of a moral impossibility now a moral impossibility of interpreting Scripture otherwise is when a man cannot reasonably do it without offering manifest violence to the words and this a wilful and obstinate Heretick may do how plain and self-evident how uncapable soever the words are of any other possible sense to a reasonable and impartial Inquirer This principle I confess makes void all Scripture-proof of such Doctrines as sense and reason pronounce absolutely impossible but this is no injury but the greatest right we can do the Scripture But I cannot without some indignation observe how the Doctrine of the ever blessed Trinity is upon all occasions introduced by these men as contradicting sense and reason which would make one suspect they kept it for no
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
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
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