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
he himself say this but suppose they neither felt nor owned it May it not be as intolerable as the Jewish Law Did the Scribes and Pharisees who were so fond of the Rites of Moses own it to be a heavy Yoke And yet does not St. Peter say it was so Superstition will bear very heavy yokes of external Rites and Ceremonies without complaining to be delivered from what they think a more terrible yoke of mortifying and subduing sin but yet they are very unsupportable Yokes still to ingenuous and vertuous Minds Hence I proceeded to a more particular consideration of their Worship 1. That most of their external Rites are professedly intended as expiations and satisfactions for sin This he durst not deny and therefore all their expiatory Rites are no part of Christian Worship which allows no expiation for sin but the Blood of Christ. Secondly Those distinctions between Meats which the Church of Rome calls fasting for a Canonical Fast is not to abstain from Food but from such Meats as are forbid on fasting days can be no part of Christian Worship because the Gospel allows of no distinction between clean and unclean things and therefore of no distinction of Meats neither For meat commendeth us not to God 1 Cor. 8.8 Here is another Mis-representation That a Canonical Fast is not to abstain from Food Does he deny this Yes he says this is most false but one Meal being allowed of on Fasting days A terrible Penance this which most of our Merchants and Citizens endure all the year round and eat later too generally than they do on fasting days But is there no Repast of Wine and Sweetmeats to be had at night for those who can purchase them I added There is no imaginable reason why it should be an Act of Religion meerly to abstain from Flesh if Flesh have no legal uncleanness and if it had we must all have been Carthusians and never eat Flesh more for how it should be clean one day and unclean anothâ—r is not easie to understand This is another of his Mis-representations for that is the word right or wrong He says I would insinuate that they Iudaize Whereas I expresly said that they did not Judaize but did something more absurd for they do not make such a distinction between clean and unclean Beasts as the Law of Moses did and therefore are the more absurd in forbidding to eat Flesh or any thing that comes of Flesh. But he says when God by Ieremy praises the Rechabites for abstaining from Wine was it because Wine was held by them to have a legal uncleanness No nor is Wine Flesh. But Is taming of the flesh the curbing of sensuality no reason at all for abstinence And does abstinence consist meerly in abstaining from Flesh Will not good Fish and good Wine pamper the Flesh too To place abstinence in delectu ciborum as in abstaining from Flesh is a senseless piece of Superstition if it serve the ends of Mortification it is well if it be made essential to a Religious Fast it 's absurd and no part of Christian Worship Thus I shewed 3ly that the Church of Rome has infinitely out-done the Jewish Law in the Religion of holy Places Altars Vestments Utensils c. which he passes over silently 4ly That they attribute divine Vertues and Powers to senseless and inanimate things as is evident from that great Veneration they pay to Relicks and those great Vertues they ascribe to them from their consecrations of their Agnus Dei's their Wax-Candles Oyl Bells Crosses Images Ashes Holy Water for the health of Soul and Body to drive away evil Spirits to allay Storms to heal Diseases to pardon Venial and sometimes mortal Sins meerly by kissing or touching them carrying them in their hands wearing them about their necks c. These things look more like Charms than Christian Worship Indeed they argue that such men do not understand what Grace and Sanctification means who think that little Images of Wax that Candles that Oyl that Water and Salt that Bells that Crosses can be sanctified by the Spirit of God and convey Grace and Sanctification by the sight or sound or touch or such external applications He who thinks that inanimate things are capable of the Sanctification of the Spirit or can convey this Sanctification to us by some divine and invisible effluviums of Grace may as well lodge Reason and Understanding and Will and Passions in senseless matter and receive it from them again by a kiss or touch Here are three of his thirty Mis-representations all together and yet the Jesuit is more tame than the Devil is usually represented to be when he is frighted with Holy Water But let us hear him All these are Mis-representations of our Faith which teaches us nothing of all this Well however this is pretty moderate here is no Hectoring yet no Minister Oates and Minister Sherlock What we believe is that nothing can free us from the guilt of any sin which is external and doth not affect and change the heart But this is not the Question Sir but whether Agnus Dei's Holy Water c. can deliver from the guilt of sin and drive away the Devil and work a great many Deliverances for us whether with or without the change of heart if they can affect and change the heart that is the better way and then they effectually convey Grace which is the thing I said and which he dares not deny if they cannot forgive sin I desire him to tell his People so who like that better than changing the heart and then they will purchase no more Agnus Dei's nor trade in such Roman Merchandize But they believe That all Creatures of God are good and that they are sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer What! to forgive Sins to give Grace to allay Storms to drive away Devils Was this the Apostle's meaning in those words Is there any word of Promise in the Gospel for this Which is the meaning of being sanctified by the word Neither doth Faith teach us that any material thing hath any other than moral connexion with Grace either obtained for us by the Prayers of the Church offered for us at the blessing of those things or of those blessed Saints whom we honour and call upon by that Veneration or by the Sacraments according to the Institution and Covenant of Christ but we do not believe that God's Grace is inherent but in the Souls of the Faithful or that any sin is remitted without a due disposition in a repentant sinner As for the Sacraments I have already given an account of their Vertue and Efficacy that they are instituted signs and means of our Union to Christ and that intitles us to the influences of the divine Grace Whether it be a natural or moral connexion between Grace and such inanimate things is not the Question but it seems Grace is annexed to them which is all I affirm But however Grace is
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
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
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
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
be not necessary for all Lay-Christians suppose in their station they are necessary for no body but the Pope and his Clergy and that is the truth of the story for they are the only people that get any thing by them and it concerns them only to know these matters Secondly I proceeded to Holiness and Vertue the promoting of which is another great Gospel-design and shewed how many ways this is hindred in the Church of Rome I observed That great value the Church of Rome sets upon an external Righteousness is very apt to corrupt mens notions of what is good to perswade them that such external Observances are much more pleasing to God and therefore certainly much better in themselves than true Gospel-Obedience than Moral and Evangelical Vertues for that which will merit of God the pardon of the greatest Immoralities and a great Reward that which supplies the want of true Vertue which compensates for sin and makes men great Saints must needs be more pleasing to God than Vertueit self This he cites as a great Mis-representation and so it is as he puts it for he makes me say that they teach all this whereas all that I say is that these are natural inferences which men draw from that great value the Church of Rome puts upon an external Righteousness and that such Conceits as these are very apt to make men careless of a holy life Thus he makes me say The Roman Church teaches that men need take no care of venial sins and that they may keep clear of mortal sins without any great attainment in Vertue But I never said the Roman Church taught this I say The Doctrine of venial sins which cannot deserve eternal punishments how many soever they are is apt to give men very slight thoughts of very great evils that wdile this distinction lasts men have an excuse at hand for a great many sins which they need take no care of What! because the Church teaches that they need not avoid venial sins By no means But because they shall not be damned for them which is encouragement enough to most men to be careless about them If they keep clear of mortal sins they are safe that is as to eternal damnation and that men may do without any great attainments in Vertue which is certainly true whoever teaches it according to the Roman distinction between venial and mortal sins I shewed farther that the Church of Rome makes void most of the Gospel Motives to a holy life The second was the Holiness and Purity and inflexible Justice of the divine Nature which enforces the necessity of Holiness because a holy God cannot be reconciled to wicked men nor forgive our sins unless we repent and reform But the force of this Argument is lost in the Church of Rome by the Iudicial Absolution of the Priest. For they see daily the Priest does absolve them without forsaking their sins and God must confirm the Sentence of his Ministers and therefore they are absolved and need not fear that God will not absolve them Which must either destroy all sense of God's essential Holiness and Purity and perswade them that God can be reconciled to Sinners while they continue in their sins or else they must believe that God hath given power to his Priests to absolve those whom he could not have absolved himself This he thus repeats They teach for this must always come in to make me a Mis-representer that when a Priest absolves men that forsake not their sins God must confirm the Sentence of his Minister and therefore they are absolved and need not fear whence they believe that God can be reconciled to sinners whilst they remain in their sins and therefore they must believe that God hath given power to his Priests to absolve those whom he could not absolve himself How unlike this is to what I said I need not tell any man but he has not only mis-represented my words and sense but has made non-sense of it too which is a little too much at once for if they believe that God can be reconciled to sinners while they continue in their sins they need not believe that God had given power to the Priest to absolve those whom he could not absolve himself that is unreformed sinners for if God can be reconciled to such men who continue in their sins he may absolve them too as well as the Priest. But I must not part with this point thus I said that de facto men saw that they are every day or as oft as they please to go to confession absolved by the Priest without forsaking their sins is not this true That they are taught that God confirms the Sentence of his Ministers and when they are forgiven by the Priest they are forgiven by God That the Priest is a Judge and absolves as a Judge by a true judicial not a meer declarative power Is not this true And is not this reason enough for them to believe that when they are absolved by the Priest without forsaking their sins they are absolved by God And does not this destroy that Argument from the holiness and justice of God that he will not forgive our sins unless we forsake them But he says They teach that to receive absolution without a real forsaking of our sins in lieu of forgiveness of them adds a hainous Sacriledge But how do they teach this by words or actions Their actions teach quite otherwise for they absolve men over and over who do not forsake their sins though they know that they do not and if such Absolutions do not avail to the forgiveness of sins what greater security is there in the Popish judicial than in the Protestant declarative Absolution Nay why do they cheat people out of their Souls and lull them into security by such void Absolutions Nor do their words teach any necessity of mens forsaking sin to make their Absolution valid Contrition is the most that is required to Absolution Now suppose Contrition signifie a sorrow for sin and a resolution to forsake it yet Contrition is not forsaking sin is not holiness of life and if Absolution upon Contrition puts men into a state of salvation then men may be saved by the Sacrament of Penance without an actual forsaking of sin for if they sin again it is only repeating the same Remedy the Sacrament of Penance with the Absolution of the Priest will restore them to the favour of God and a state of salvation again Which shews that the Church of Rome does not teach what he pretends I wish she did or that he would teach it for her that the Absolution of the Priest will avail no man who does not actually forsake his sins and reform his life and then we should see what value men would have for their Judicial Absolution A third Gospel-Motive to Holiness is the Death and Sacrifice of Christ because his Bloud is the Bloud of the Covenant and the efficacy
they be contâ—ite and absolved again they are restored to a state of Grace again and so toties quoties Now such Penitents as are sorry for their sins but do not reform them are condemned to Hell 〈◊〉 the Protestant Church and only to Purgatory in the Church of Rome and therefore the First is no Calumny The Second is That Indulgencies may be bought for Money this is no Calumny as I have already shewn or avail a Soul undisposed to receive the benefit of them through want of contrition the guilt of sin not being before remitted This I never said and therefore is no Calumny of mine The third That Masses said for any Soul in Purgatory avail such as during life have not deserved and merited that mercy This I take to be nonsense according to the Doctrines of their own Church For certainly those Souls who have merited to get into Purgatory have merit enough to receive the benefit of Masses Another Gospel-Motive to Holiness are the Examples of Good Men but in the Church of Rome the extraordinary Vertues of great and meritorious Saints are not so much for imitation as for a stock of Merits The more Saints they have the less need is there for other men to be Saints unless they have a mind to it because there is a greater treasure of Merits to relieve those who have none of their own and if one man can merit for twenty there is no need there should be above one in twenty good Here he quibbles upon the different acceptation of Merit as it relates to a reward or as it expiates the punishment of sin In the first sense he says Merit is personal not communicative but if it be communicative in the second sense that one man may be delivered from punishments by the Merits of another and if it be not there is an end of the gainful trade of Indulgencies that is sufficient to my Argument and will satisfie most sinners who are not concerned about degrees of glory if they can escape punishment Lastly I shewed that the Gospel-Means and Instruments of Holiness do not escape much better in the Church of Rome among others I instanced in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper which besides those supernatural conveyances of Grace which are annexed to it by our Saviour's Institution is a great Moral Instrument of Holiness but in the Church of Rome this admirable Sacrament is turned into a dumb shew which no body can be edified with or into a sacrifice for the living and the dead which expiates sin and serves instead of a holy life Here he says there are three crying Calumnies 1. That the Sacrament among them is nothing but a shew or a sacrifice whereas they very often receive it and did I say the Sacrament was never received in the Church of Rome 2. That they require the practice of no Vertue to the receiving the Sacrament whereas they require the Sacrament of Penance to prepare for the Eucharist But I spoke of those Vertues which were to be exercised in receiving which there are not such advantages for in the Church of Rome where the Office is not understood and the mind diverted with a thousand insignificant Ceremonies 3. That our exposing the blessed Sacrament is a dumb shew and so we assist at holy Mass. And whether it be or no let those judge who have seen the Ceremony How much the Sacrifice of the Mass encourages Vertue we have already seen I doubt not but our Jesuite can give as good an Answer to this Vindication as he did to the Preservative and I as little doubt but he will unless Mr. Needham's Name to the License may be my security for he has threatned it shall be to him a sufficient Note and Character of a Book not worth the Reading much less the Censuring where-ever he sees that Reverend Person has opened it the Press and I commend him for it for he has had very ill success with such Books of late but though I never grudge my pains in answering an Adversary who gives occasion for any useful and material Discourse for I desire whatever I say should be sifted to the very bottom and am as ready to own any Error I am convinced of as to vindicate the Truth yet it is very irksom to be forced to write a great Book meerly to rescue my words from the injuries of a perverse Comment which has been my present Task Thus any Book may be answered by a man who has wit or ignorance enough to pervert it and such Answers may be easily answered again by men who have nothing else to do but if this trade grow too common they must be very idle people indeed who will find time to read them And therefore to prevent such an impertinent trouble for the future before I take leave of my Adversary I will venture to give him a little good Advice which may stand him in stead against the next time 1. That he would be more modest and sparing in his Title-page not to paint it so formidable as to make it ridiculous it is a little too much to talk of Principles which destroy all right use of Reason Scripture Fathers Councils undermine Divine Faith and abuse Moral Honesty Or Forty malicious Culumnies and forged untruths besides several Fanatical Principles which destroy all Church Discipline and oppose Christ's Divine Authority If such things be proved against any Book I assure you it is very terrible though there be nothing of it in the Title but the World has been so long deceived with Titles that commonly the more the Title promises the less they expect in the Book Some cry it is a Mountebank's Bill otheâ—s the Man raves and if curiosity tempts any to look any farther the disappointment they meet with provokes their scorn or indignation The bare name of an Answer to a Book which is commonly known and approved is a sufficient invitation to all men to read it but it is a very impolitick thing to prejudice the Readers by a frightful Title 2. That he would not think he has confuted a Book by picking out some sayings which he thinks very inconvenient and obnoxious but in which the main Arguâ—ent of the Book is not concerned this is the case in many passages he has objected against the Preservative for though there is never a one but what is very defensible and what I have defended yet there are many that if they could not be defended the main Argument of the Book is never the worse This is as vain as to think to kill a man by launâ—hing a Sore while all his Vitals are sound and untoucht 3. That he would not boast of confuting a Book without bearing up fairly to any one Argument in it I know in his Postscript he says that he omitted nothing in Answer to the First part of the Preservative that even pretended to the appearance of an Argument that all the rest which he did not answer in his
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