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
Reason or to Judge for my self It does not make void the use of Common Sense and Reason when it should lead us to submit to any just Authority but to submit to such an unjust Authority makes void the use of Common Sense and Reason because he will not allow us to use our Reason The Iews had no Reason as he pretends to reject St. Paul's Disputation till he had renounced Infallibility because he never urged his own Infallibility as the sole Reason of their Faith and to debar them from a liberty of Judging as the Church of Rome does if he had it had been as vain a thing for the Iews to have Disputed with St. Paul as it is for Protestants to Dispute with Papists His next Exception is against those Words Pres. p. 6. What difference is there betwxit mens using their private Iudgments to turn Papists or to turn Protestants To this he answers The same as betwixt two sick men the one whereof chooses to put himself in an able Doctors hands whom he knows to have an infallible Remedy which none but Mountebanks ever had yet whilst the other chooses his own Simples and makes his own Medicines The case is this I was giving a reason why Papists who have any modesty should not dispute with Protestants because it is an appeal to every man's private judgment if ever they make Converts they must be beholden to every man's private judgment for it for I think men cannot change their opinions without exercising a private judgment about it and I suppose when they dispute with men to make them Papists they intend to convert them by their own private judgments now what difference is there between mens using their private judgments to turn Papists or to turn Protestants one indeed may be false and the other true but private judgment is private judgment still and if it be so great a fault for men to use their private judgments it is as great a fault in a Papist as it is in a Protestant So that all that I said is that there is no difâ—erence with respect to mens using their private judgment whether they use their private judgment to turn Papists or to turn Protestants for both is but private judgment and to confute this he tells us that there is a great difference between turning Papist and turning Protestant which I granted there was but is nothing to the present Argument I say there is no difference as to the principle or cause of their change when the change of both is owing to private judgment and he learnedly proves that the change itself is different as widely different as Papist and Protestant differ But though the Footman had plainly told him this the Jesuite had not wit to understand it and therefore Preservative Consid. p. 11. adds is there no difference then betwixt one who follows his fancy in chusing his way and him who chuses a good guide and follows him because they both chuse do both equally rely on their fancy I grant there is a difference between these two as there is between a Protestant and a Papist but when the dispute is whether they shall follow their own reason and judgment or give up themselves to follow a Guide with a blind and implicite faith and every man must determine this by his own private judgment which is the case I proposed which way so ever they determine this question whether to follow their own reason or to follow a Guide in this point they both equally rely on their own private reason and judgment or as he calls it fancy In the next place he says I take the Catholicks part and tho' faintly yet speak well in so clear a cause The intention of those Disputes is only to lead you to the infallible Church and set you upon a Rock and then it is very natural to renounce your own judgment when you have an infallible Guide This I do alledge as the most plausible pretence to justifie Papists in disputing with Protestants that the end of it is to lead us to an infallible Church That our own judgment must bring us to the infallible Guide but when we have found him we have no farther use for our own judgment I offered two Answers to this neither of which he durst meddle with but nibbles at a Passage in each The 1. he thus represents they cannot with any sense dispute with us about the particular Articles of Faith because the sense given of Scripture and Fathers takes its Authority from the Church understanding it so But my Answer was this That if Disputes be only to lead us to the infallible Church then it puts an end to all the particular Disputes of Religion between us and the Church of Rome We may dispute on about an infallible Iudge but they cannot with any sense dispute with us about the particular Articles of Faith such as Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass c. for these are to be learnt only from the Church and cannot be proved by Scripture or Fathers without the Authority of the Church Which is a demonstration if Faith must be resolved into the infallible Authority of the Church for then no Arguments are a sufficient foundation for Faith without the Authority of the Church or if they be there is no necessity of resolving our Faith into Church Authority because we have a good foundation for Faith without it He answers This is false The sense of Scripture takes its authority from God who spoke that Word though we are certain that we have the true sense of that Word because we receive it from the Church which is protected and guided in delivering us both the letter and sense by the infallible Spirit of God that is to abide with her for ever according to Christ's promise John 14.16 This is a choice Paragraph The Question between us is Whether they can by Scripture convince a man who does not yet believe the infallible Authority of the Church as we Protestants do not that their Doctrines of Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass the Worship of Images c. are true Gospel-Doctrines This I say they cannot if they be true to their own Doctrine that we cannot be certain what the true sense of Scripture is without the infallible Authority of the Church of Rome For a man cannot be convinced by Scripture till he be sure what the true sense of Scripture is and if we cannot be sure of this without relying on the Authority of the Church in expounding Scripture then a Protestant who disowns such an Authority can never be sure what the true sense of Scripture is and therefore cannot be convinced by Scripture-Proofs which shews how absurd it is for a Papist who professes to believe all this to attempt to perswade a Protestant who rejects the Authority of their Church of the truth of Popish Doctrines from Scripture either he thinks these Doctrines so plainly contained in
not then they know before hand that the evidence of Scripture alone is not sufficient to convince a Protestant who rejects an infallible Judge and then it is a sensless thing for them to attempt the proof of such Doctrines by Scripure Good Catholicks are satisfied with the Authority of the Church and Hereticks who reject such an infallible Authority cannot be confuted and convinced by meer Scripture 3. I ask again Whether the evidence of Reason in expounding Scripture be a sufficient Foundation for a Divine Faith if it be then Protestants who disown an Infallible Judge may have a true Divine Faith without the Infallibility of the Church and then we may be true Believers without being Roman-Catholicks and I should be glad to hear that out of the mouth of a Iesuite for there is good use to be made of such a confession if Scripture as expounded by Reason without an Infallible Judge is not a sufficient Foundation for a Divine Faith then to what end does their disputing with Protestants from Scripture serve if this cannot make them true Believers 4. I ask once more Whether the belief of the Scriptures themselves must not be resolved into the Authority of the Church whether any man can believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God without it if they cannot and I would be glad to hear the Iesuite say they can then I am sure the Scripture is no proof of any thing without the Churches Authority and it is an absurd thing for those who think so to dispute from Scripture against those who deny the Authority of the Church From hence I think it evidently appears that the Authority of the Scriptures and the Authority of the Church are not two distinct Arguments in the Church of Rome for then I grant they might use either way of proof and dispute from Scripture against those who deny the Authority of the Church but if the Authority of the Scripture as to us is resolved into the Authority of the Church then the Scripture alone is no Argument but the Authority of the Church is all Whereforedo you believe the Scripture Because the Church tells me it is the Word of God Wherefore do you believe this to be the sense of Scripture Because the Church so expounds it Is not this the true Resolution of the Roman Faith Is this Misrepresenting too But if it be the truth does not every man see that as to us the Scripture has no Authority no sense but from the Church and therefore can prove nothing separated from the Authority of the Church If they allow of any Proofs from Scripture separated from the Authority of the Church then whether they will or no they must allow of the Protestant Resolution of Faith that is to resolve my Faith into the Authority of the Scriptures as expounded with the best reason and judgment I have in the careful use of all such means as are necessary for the understanding that Holy Book now if they will allow this to be a good Resolution of Faith we will allow of all their Scripture-proofs and give them leave to make us Converts to the Church of Rome by Scripture if they can but if they do allow of this then we Protestants are in a very good way already as to the Resolution of our Faith and so that Controversie is at an end and if they will not allow this then they confess that Scripture-proofs of themselves are not good for if they were we might certainly resolve our Faith as Protestants do immediately into the Authority of Scripture And thus much for Iohn and William and the Infallible Guide if Iohn has any Reasons independent on the Authority of his Guide he may then try his skill upon William who rejects his Guide but if all his other Reasons are resolved into the Authority of his Guide and are no good Reasons without it then he may spare his Reasons till he has made William submit to his Guide And this is the case between the Scripture and the Church in the Church of Rome the Scripture wholly depends both for its Authority and Interpretation on the Authority of the Church and therefore can signifie nothing and prove nothing but what the Church makes it signifie and prove The Scriptures may be supposed to be the Word of God and to have some sense antecedent to the Churches Authority but no man can know this without the Church and therefore as to us both the Authority and Interpretation of the Scripture depends upon the Authority of the Church and is no Argument to prove any thing by itself But I cannot pass on without taking notice of a pleasant Answer the Iesuite gives to a very substantial Argument of the Footman To prove that at least some Doctrines of the Church of Rome by their own confession cannot be proved by Scripture without the Authority of the Church he shews that Petrus de Alliaco Scotus and Tonstal do confess that Transubstantiation is not founded upon any necessary Scripture-proofs but on the Authority of the Church for the Scripture might and that very reasonably too be expounded to another sense had not the Church determined otherwise Now what does the Iesuite say to this 1. He prevericates like a Iesuite in repeating the Argument That the Words of Scripture brought in proof of Transubstantiation might be taken in a different sense from that which the Catholick Church hath ever received and delivered and that had not the Church ever taught that sense one might believe otherwise for all the letter of Scripture for the Authors alledged by the Footman do not say as the Iesuite makes them that the Catholick Church hath ever received and delivered that sense of Transubstantiation which the Church of Rome now teaches but Tonstal expresly declares the contrary in the words there cited That it was free for all men till the Council of Lateran to follow their own conjectures as concerning the manner of the Presence Which supposes that this Doctrine was never determined by the Church till the Council of Lateran and therefore not ever received and delivered and taught by the Catholick Church 2. In a Parenthesis he adds how truly this is said of the Catholick Divines that they did affirm this it belongs not to my present purpose very truly said it is not to his purpose but very much against it but if he means that he was not concerned to know whether these passages are truly cited from these Authors it seems he is not concerned to defend his Argument for that is very much concerned in it it is a plain confession he had nothing to say and therefore would not be concerned about it and will our Learned Iesuite confess that he is so ignorant as not to know that this was said by Petrus de Alliaco Scotus and Tonstal or will he so easily give up such men as these and let the ingenious Footman run away with them and his Argument together 3.