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
not then they know before hand that the evidence of Scripture alone is not sufficient to convince a Protestant who rejects an infallible Judge and then it is a sensless thing for them to attempt the proof of such Doctrines by Scripure Good Catholicks are satisfied with the Authority of the Church and Hereticks who reject such an infallible Authority cannot be confuted and convinced by meer Scripture 3. I ask again Whether the evidence of Reason in expounding Scripture be a sufficient Foundation for a Divine Faith if it be then Protestants who disown an Infallible Judge may have a true Divine Faith without the Infallibility of the Church and then we may be true Believers without being Roman-Catholicks and I should be glad to hear that out of the mouth of a Iesuite for there is good use to be made of such a confession if Scripture as expounded by Reason without an Infallible Judge is not a sufficient Foundation for a Divine Faith then to what end does their disputing with Protestants from Scripture serve if this cannot make them true Believers 4. I ask once more Whether the belief of the Scriptures themselves must not be resolved into the Authority of the Church whether any man can believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God without it if they cannot and I would be glad to hear the Iesuite say they can then I am sure the Scripture is no proof of any thing without the Churches Authority and it is an absurd thing for those who think so to dispute from Scripture against those who deny the Authority of the Church From hence I think it evidently appears that the Authority of the Scriptures and the Authority of the Church are not two distinct Arguments in the Church of Rome for then I grant they might use either way of proof and dispute from Scripture against those who deny the Authority of the Church but if the Authority of the Scripture as to us is resolved into the Authority of the Church then the Scripture alone is no Argument but the Authority of the Church is all Whereforedo you believe the Scripture Because the Church tells me it is the Word of God Wherefore do you believe this to be the sense of Scripture Because the Church so expounds it Is not this the true Resolution of the Roman Faith Is this Misrepresenting too But if it be the truth does not every man see that as to us the Scripture has no Authority no sense but from the Church and therefore can prove nothing separated from the Authority of the Church If they allow of any Proofs from Scripture separated from the Authority of the Church then whether they will or no they must allow of the Protestant Resolution of Faith that is to resolve my Faith into the Authority of the Scriptures as expounded with the best reason and judgment I have in the careful use of all such means as are necessary for the understanding that Holy Book now if they will allow this to be a good Resolution of Faith we will allow of all their Scripture-proofs and give them leave to make us Converts to the Church of Rome by Scripture if they can but if they do allow of this then we Protestants are in a very good way already as to the Resolution of our Faith and so that Controversie is at an end and if they will not allow this then they confess that Scripture-proofs of themselves are not good for if they were we might certainly resolve our Faith as Protestants do immediately into the Authority of Scripture And thus much for Iohn and William and the Infallible Guide if Iohn has any Reasons independent on the Authority of his Guide he may then try his skill upon William who rejects his Guide but if all his other Reasons are resolved into the Authority of his Guide and are no good Reasons without it then he may spare his Reasons till he has made William submit to his Guide And this is the case between the Scripture and the Church in the Church of Rome the Scripture wholly depends both for its Authority and Interpretation on the Authority of the Church and therefore can signifie nothing and prove nothing but what the Church makes it signifie and prove The Scriptures may be supposed to be the Word of God and to have some sense antecedent to the Churches Authority but no man can know this without the Church and therefore as to us both the Authority and Interpretation of the Scripture depends upon the Authority of the Church and is no Argument to prove any thing by itself But I cannot pass on without taking notice of a pleasant Answer the Iesuite gives to a very substantial Argument of the Footman To prove that at least some Doctrines of the Church of Rome by their own confession cannot be proved by Scripture without the Authority of the Church he shews that Petrus de Alliaco Scotus and Tonstal do confess that Transubstantiation is not founded upon any necessary Scripture-proofs but on the Authority of the Church for the Scripture might and that very reasonably too be expounded to another sense had not the Church determined otherwise Now what does the Iesuite say to this 1. He prevericates like a Iesuite in repeating the Argument That the Words of Scripture brought in proof of Transubstantiation might be taken in a different sense from that which the Catholick Church hath ever received and delivered and that had not the Church ever taught that sense one might believe otherwise for all the letter of Scripture for the Authors alledged by the Footman do not say as the Iesuite makes them that the Catholick Church hath ever received and delivered that sense of Transubstantiation which the Church of Rome now teaches but Tonstal expresly declares the contrary in the words there cited That it was free for all men till the Council of Lateran to follow their own conjectures as concerning the manner of the Presence Which supposes that this Doctrine was never determined by the Church till the Council of Lateran and therefore not ever received and delivered and taught by the Catholick Church 2. In a Parenthesis he adds how truly this is said of the Catholick Divines that they did affirm this it belongs not to my present purpose very truly said it is not to his purpose but very much against it but if he means that he was not concerned to know whether these passages are truly cited from these Authors it seems he is not concerned to defend his Argument for that is very much concerned in it it is a plain confession he had nothing to say and therefore would not be concerned about it and will our Learned Iesuite confess that he is so ignorant as not to know that this was said by Petrus de Alliaco Scotus and Tonstal or will he so easily give up such men as these and let the ingenious Footman run away with them and his Argument together 3.
He answers let it be so but what follows here but the necessity of an unerring Interpreter What follows why it follows that they cannot prove Transubstantiation from Scripture without the Authority of the Church and consequently that it is not Scripture but their Church they rely on for the proof of their Doctrines which is the thing the Footman intended to prove by it and has done it effectually but how an unerring Interpreter follows from hence I cannot see unless it be to prove that to be in Scripture which the most searching and inquisitive men cannot find there and this indeed is the true use of an unerring Interpreter in the Church of Rome to impose upon mens Faith to believe that to be in Scripture which no man can see there for what men can see there one would think they might believe to be there without an unerring Interpreter As for what he adds that the Arians gave as natural a sense of 1 Iohn 5.7 8. as the Catholicks did is to be answered at present only with abhorrence and detestation But to proceed In the next place to shew them how absurd it is to dispute even about an infallible Judge I direct our Protestant to ask them Whether the belief of an Infallible Iudge must be resolved into every man's private judgment Whether it be not necessary to believe this with a Divine Faith And whether there can be any Divine Faith without an Infallible Iudge To this the Jesuite answers Ans. p. ◠There can be no Divine Faith without a Divine Revelation nor a prudent one without a Moral Evidence in the Motives of Credibility on which may be grounded the evident obligation to accept it This he calls a Moral Infallibility and shews by what steps it may fasten on God's Veracity and with a submission not capable of any doubt embrace the revealed Truth Now all this amounts to no more than Protestant certainty void of all doubt which the Church of Rome would never yet allow to be a Divine and Infallible Faith. But what is this to my Question Which was not Whether a Divine Faith required a Divine Revelation but whether there can be any Divine Faith without an Infallible Iudge which it seems he durst not own nor say one word to And yet here lay the force of the Argument as I told him in the same place If we must believe the Infallibility of the Pope or Church of Rome with an infallible Faith there is an end of Disputing for no Reasons or Arguments not the Authority of the Scripture itself which I hope he means by his Divine Revelation without an infallible Iudge can beget an Infallible Faith according to the Roman Doctors For this Reason they charge the Protestant Faith with uncertainty and will not allow it to be a Divine but Humane Faith though it is built upon the firmest Reasons the best Authority and the most express Scripture that can be had for any thing but because we do not pretend to rely upon the authority of a living infallible judge forsooth our Faith is uncertain humane and fallible This he knew to be true and yet knew that he could not build the belief of an Infallible Judge upon the authority of an Infallible Judge unless he could find one Infallible Judge to give testimony to the Infallibility of another and a third to give testimony to the second and thus to dance round in a circle of Infallibility without finding any beginning or end and therefore he slips this pretence of an Infallible Judge and would found a Divine Faith upon revelation or prudential motives of credibility which indeed is to quit Infallibility and to take up with a Protestant moral certainty or moral infallibility as he calls it that he may retain the name at least when the thing is lost Nay he gives a substantial Reason against an Infallible Faith of the Churches Infallibility For if the Infallibility of the Church were more than Morally Evident it were impossible that any Heresie should be the wisest word that he has said yet but I shall make him repent of saying it before I have done for this is an evident demonstration against Infallibility He says we can have no more than a Moral Evidence for the Infallibility of the Church and if this be true and our Faith be founded upon the Authority of the Church then we can have no more than a Moral Evidence for the Truth of the Christian Religion or any Article of it for as I argued in that very place Though the Iudge be Infallible if I be not infallibly assured of this if I have only a Moral Evidence of his Infallibility I can never arrive to Infallibility in any thing or can never get higher than a Moral Certainty for I can never be more certain that his Determinations are Infallible then I am that he himself is Infallible and if I have but à moral assurance of this I can be but morally assured of the rest for the Building cannot be more firm than the Foundation is and thus there is an end to all the Roman Pretences to Infallibility Though he slipt this at first Reading I hope he may judge it worth Answering upon second Thoughts But how he will get rid of his own Reason I cannot guess if the Infallibility of the Church were more than Morally Evident it were impossible that any Heresies should be by which he either means that de facto the Being of Heresies in the World is a sensible Argument that there is no Infallible assurance of the Infallibility of the Church for an Infallible Proof cannot be resisted and then all the World must believe the Churches Infallibility and give up themselves to the Directions of the Church and then there could be no Heresies or else his meaning is that since there must be Heresies in the World as the Apostle tells us therefore God has given us no more than a Moral Evidence of the Infallibility of the Church because an Infallible assurance of this would have prevented all Heresies which God it seems for very wise Reasons did not intend thus irresistibly to prevent Now rightly to understand this Matter I would desire to know why they say God has bestowed Infallibility on the Church Was it not to prevent Heresies and Schisms Is not this the Popish Objection against the Protestant Resolution of Faith that for want of an Infallible Guide men fall into Errors and Heresies and divide and disturb the Peace of the Church with Schisms Is not this the great Reason they urge for the necessity of an Infallible Guide to prevent all Heresies and Schisms and yet now it seems there must be no more than a Moral Evidence for the Infallibility of the Church that there may be Heresies How often have they been told by Protestant Divines that if God intend an Infallible Judge to prevent all Heresies the Being of an Infallible Judge ought to be as evident and demonstrable as
only way we know of to be uncertain the consequence is that there is no certain way of expounding Scripture not that the Church of Rome is the infallible Interpreter of Scripture and therefore any Protestant who is perswaded to own the Infallibility of the Church of Rome because he is told that the Protestant Faith is uncertain is a very foolish Convert and has so little sense and reason that it were fit he had an infallible Guide if he were to be found So that he is a little too forward when he says that all the Methods of coming to the knowledge of Scripture are reduced to these two heads for we know but of one way of expounding Scripture till he proves another and when he can prove his infallible Guide we will give up Protestant certainty as I told him before but till he has in another way proved the infallible Authority of his Church in expounding Scripture though he could prove our Faith uncertain this cannot prove his own to be infallible In the next place I directed our Protestant to ask these Popish Disputants what they meant by the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith. For this may signifie two things either 1. That the Objects of our Faith are in themselves uncertain and cannot be proved by certain reasons Or 2ly That our perswasion about these matters is uncertain and wavering The Jesuite answers that this is not a true diâ—ision for there is a third thing also to wit that whatever Reasons there may be for a thing he who believes it hath for the motive of his belief those certain Reasons For he that believes in Christ only because his Mother hath taught him so hath a very uncertain and no Divine Faith. But suppose this Mother be the Church and he believes it only because the Church hath taught him so Has this man a divine and certain Faith No doubt must our Jesuite say because the Church is Infallible But suppose this man can no more prove the Church to be infallible than that his natural Mother is infallible What difference is there between those who believe upon the Authority of the Church and of their Mother I can assign none and shall be glad to learn the difference from our Jesuite He who believes the true Christian Faith and lives in conformity to it shall certainly be saved or else I fear we must at least damn half the Christians in the World whether Protestants or Papists for want of understanding the reasons of their Faith. Nay I am afraid all Traditionary Christians must be damned who believe this is the true Faith to day because their Fathers and Mothers were taught so and believed so yesterday So that I guess upon second thoughts our Jesuite will compound this matter with me and let fall the third part of the division and I am contented at present till I hear farther from him But he might have observed that I said not only that the Objects of our Faith are in themselves certain but that they may be proved by certain Reasons And therefore for him to say that they are indeed in themselves certain but not to any Protestant whose Rule of Faith cannot make him certain of any one Article without offering to shew that the Reasons why we believe are uncertain is to drop half of the first branch of the division and then to complain of the want of it When the Footman had minded him that our Rule of Faith is the Scripture and therefore if what he says be true the Scripture cannot make us certain of any one Article of Faith instead of answering this Blunder his Superiors only correct his Words in a Parenthesis Preserv Consid. p. 40. The Protestant Rule of Faith considering the Method he applies it by cannot make him certain c. which is a plain confession that the Footman was too hard for the Jesuite but then he should have shewn us how we had misapplied and what the uncertainties of our Reasons are but I suppose he will take time to consider that As for what he calls my Rule of Faith which he says justifies Turk Iew and Gentile We believe all that God hath revealed and nothing else is not all that he hath revealed certain Though I grant a Divine Revelation is the only Rule of my Faith yet here I spoke not of the Rule but of the Objects of my Faith and challenge him to shew that we do reject any thing that God has revealed in the Gospel of his Son or believe any thing else and dare him as I well might all professed Christians to deny the truth or certainty of what is revealed in the Gospel but Turks and Iews believe what they think in their judgments God hath revealed that is their Rule and 't is yours And is there any fault to be found with this so far Do Papists believe what they think in their judgments God has not revealed or what they think he has revealed If they believe what they think God has revealed then they justifie Jews and Turks too as much as Protestants No says the Jesuite Your own private judgments are on both hands your Guides and not any authority established by Almighty God. Now I confess I am not ashamed to own that Turk and Jew and Gentile that is all Mankind except Papists agree with Protestants in this that all men must believe with their own judgments and that there is no other faculty to believe with and much good may it do Papists that they have found out a way to believe without judgment wherein they differ from the rest of Mankind As for their Authority appointed by God on which they must rely without using their own Judgment when they can prove any such Authority we will submit to it I proved that the Articles of the Christian Faith which Protestants believe are certain and founded on certain Reasons as they themselves must grant unless they renounce the Christian Religion for here Infallibility itself cannot help them out For Infallibility cannot make that certain which is in its self uncertain an infallible man must know things as they are or else he is mistaken and ceases to be infallible and therefore what is certain he infallibly knows to be certain and what is uncertain he infallibly knows to be uncertain for the most certain and infallible Knowledge does not change its Object but sees it just as it is Now this he says is notoriously false since she the Church is not infallible by any light of her own but by the guidance of the Spirit of Truth Now this is nothing to the purpose by what light the Church sees the Question is Whether an infallible Church can know that to be certain which is uncertain if she can then she infallibly knows that which is not true But were not the Apostles certain of what Christ told them when they acknowledged him the Son of God before he gave them certain Reason for it But was
not Christ's telling them so a certain Reason If they believed without Reason I am of opinion how blind an impiety soever it be that they believed too soon I envy no Church the priviledge of believing infallibly without Reason or Evidence but it is well for the Church of Rome if she have this priviledge for unless she can be Infallible without Reason nay in contradiction to it I am sure she is not infallible But what tergiversation is here Does the Church of Rome infallibly know that the Christian Religion is certainly true Does she infallibly know that the certain Truth of Christian Religion is founded upon certain Reasons if so then the Christian Religion is certain and founded on certain Reasons and then those who believe the Christian Religion for the sake of such certain Reasons have a certain Faith whether they believe upon the Authority of the Church or not unless a Faith built upon certain Reasons may be uncertain or cannot be certain for if the Church infallibly knows that there are certain Reasons for the truth of Christianity then there are certain Reasons distinct from the Infallibility of the Church and they may be a Foundation for a certain Faith without the Churches Infallibility I observed that their great Argument to prove the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith is that there is a great variety of Opinions among Protestants and that they condemn one another with equal confidence and assurance He says I should have added thô they use the same Rule of Faith and apply it by the same means But there was no need of adding this it was supposed in all the Arguments I used which he answers only by saying 'T is an unanswerable Argument against your Rule of Faith and evidently proves it uncertain What does it prove the Scripture to be uncertain for that is our Rule or does he mean this of our Way of applying it that is by using the best Reason and Judgment we have to understand it and then his Argument is this some men misunderstand Scripture and therefore no man can rightly understand it some men reason wrong and therefore no man can reason right some men are confidently perswaded that they are in the right when they are in the wrong and therefore no man can be certain when he is in the right an Argument which in all other cases mankind would hiss at Some men believe they are awake when they are in a dream therefore no man can know when he is awake there are silly confident people who are cheated with slight appearances of things therefore no man can distinguish between appearances and realities Or to put but one case which will sensibly affect him some men nay the greatest part of Chrisâ—ians do not believe the Infallibility of the Church of Rome and therefore no man can be certain that the Church is Infallible For here are all his Conditions the same Rule applied the same way for he confess'd above that there can be no more than a Moral Evidence for the Infallibility of the Church Now in Moral Evidence every man must use his own Judgment thus we do we consider all the Arguments they alledge for the Infallibility of their Church from Scripture from Promises from Prophesies from Bellarmin's Fifteen Notes of the Church or whatever other Reasons and Arguments they use upon the whole we conclude that the Church of Rome is not Infallible they that it is now if he will stand to his Argument That variety of Opinions when men use the same Rule and apply it the same way is an unanswerable Argument that the Rule is uncertain then it is impossible that they should have so much as a Moral certainty of Infallibility since all mankind besides are against them His Answer to Dr. St.'s Arguments to prove that the Scriptures may be a very certain Rule though men differ in expounding them are so very senseless that I have no patience to answer them especially since he grants all that the Dean intended to prove that a Rule may be a certain Rule though men who do not understand it may mis-apply it But the principle he has laid down for mine I confess is very extraordinary and surprizing that if two men have the Bible read it endeavouâ— to understand it and believing they do draw from the same Scriptures two different Conclusions two opposite Articles of Faith both are bound to stand to their private judgment and to believe themselves in the right though all the World should accuse them in lieu of the true pretended Rule to have used a false One. I affirm that one man may expound the Scripture right and know that he does so though another expounds it wrong and he makes me say that when two men expound the Scripture to different and contrary senses they are both bound to believe that they are in the right this it is certain they will do and there is no remedy against it but what is worse than the disease that men should not use their own Judgments and then they dare not believe themselves when they are in the right which is as bad as to believe themselves in the right when they are in the wrong but that for this reason all the World should accuse them in lieu of the true pretended Rule to have used a false one is very senseless unless by all the World he means the World of Roman-Catholicks for no other men as I have already shewn nay not he himself if he will stand to his own word will accuse the Rule to be false because men make a false judgment of it for to call every man's private judgment of the Rule his Rule which is the substance of his following harangue is to resolve neither to think nor speak like other men for that no man thinks his own private judgment to be his Rule is evident from hence that upon better Information he alters his judgment without changing his Rule I concluded this Section concerning the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith with this observation that this very Argument from the different and contrary opinions of Protestants to prove the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith signifies nothing as to our disputes with the Church of Rome for ask them what they would think of the Protestant Faith were all Protestants of a mind would their consent and agreement prove the certainty of the Protestant Faith then the Protestant Faith in opposition to Popery is very certain for they all agree in condemning the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome And thus I think they get nothing by this Argument for if the dissensions of Protestants proves the uncertainty of their Faith as to such matters wherein they differ then by the same Rule their agreement in opposition to Popery shews their great certainty in such matters And this I suppose is no great inducement to a Protestant to turn Papist Our Jesuit had so much Wit in his Anger as to
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
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