A Key for Catholics, Treatise 1 · Chapter 12
CHAP. XII.
Detect. 3. IF you enter into Diſpute with any Papiſt, enquire firſt what he will take for ſufficient Proof, and what common Principles you are agreed on by which the reſt muſt be decided. For men that agree in nothing at all, are not capable of a diſpute. For the Principles in which they are agreed, are thoſe that the reſt muſt be reduced to. And when you have made this enquiry, you ſhall find that the Popiſh way of Diſputing is to forbid you to Diſpute, unleſs you will firſt yield the cauſe to them as beyond diſpute: and that they are not agreed with the reſt of the world in any common principles to which the differences may be reduced for tryal, and ſo that there is no ſort of Proof that they will admit of as ſufficient: For if there be any ground of Proof at all, it muſt be 1. From the ſenſes. 2. Or from Reaſon. 3. Or from Scripture. 4. Or from the Church; but they will ſtand to none of all theſe.
1. Begin at the bottom of all, and know of them whether they will take that for a Valid Proof, which is fetcht from ſenſe, even from the ſoundeſt ſenſes of all men in the world, ſuppoſing a convenient object and Medium? If they will not take this for Proof, how can you diſpute with them? Or what Proof can be admitted, if this be not admitted? We have this advantage in dealing even with thoſe Heathen that have blotted out much of the Law of nature it ſelf, that yet they will yield to an Argument from ſenſe.
But if they would yield to the Validity of this proof, then they give away their cauſe, ſeeing ſenſe telleth us that it is bread which we ſee, and feel, and eat after the Conſecration. They know this; and therefore they muſt diſown and deny this ſort of proof.
2. But will they then admit of Proofs from Reaſon? No, that cannot be, if proof from ſenſe be not admitted. For Reaſon receiveth its object by means or occaſion of the ſenſes, and muſt needs be deceived if it be deceived: And Reaſon hath not a principle that it holds faſter, then that ſenſe is to be credited; that this is white or black which my own eyes and the eyes of all other men do ſee to be ſo: and ſo that this is bread which we all ſee, and feel, and taſte to be ſo. And therefore the Papiſts tell us that Reaſon muſt ſtoop to faith, that is, they will not ſtand to Reaſon when it contradicteth the doctrine of their ſect. It ſeems they are in ſome parts of their Religion unreaſonable. But I would know, whether they have any Reaſon to be unreaſonable. If they have, then why might not our Reaſon be valid as well as their Reaſon which they bring againſt Reaſon? by which they contradict themſelves. For if Reaſon be vain, why Reaſon they to prove its Vanity or invalidity? But if they have no Reaſon againſt Reaſon, let them confeſs it, and offer us none, and then their diſputes will do no harm. We eaſily yield, that we have Reaſon to believe Gods Revelations, about thoſe things which we had no Reaſon to believe if they were not Revealed: And that many of thoſe Revelations are above Reaſon, ſo far as that Reaſon cannot diſcern the truth of the thing without them; yea it would rather judge the things improbable: But yet Revelations are received by Reaſon, and inform Reaſon, and not deſtroy it; nor do they ſo contradict Senſe or Reaſon, as to make that credible which Senſe and Reaſon have ſufficient ground to judge falſe.
So that here we muſt break with a Papiſt, even where we might join in diſpute with a heathen. And how will Papiſts deal with Heathens if they will deny the proofs from ſenſe and reaſon?
3. But will they ſtand to the Validity of Proofs from Scripture? No; For 1. They take it to be but part of Gods word, ſo that we may nor argue Negatively, [It is not in the holy Scripture: therefore it is not an Article of faith or a Law of God] For they will preſently appeal to Tradition. 2. And even ſo much as is in Scripture, though they confeſs it to be true, yet they confeſs it not to be by us intelligible, and will not admit of any proof from it, but with this limitation, that you take it in that ſenſe as the Church takes it. For they are ſworn by the Trent Oath [to take it in that ſence as the Holy Mother Church doth hold, and hath held it in, and never to take or interpret it but according to the unanimous ſenſe of the Fathers.] So that they muſt know what ſenſe all the Fathers are unanimous in before they can admit a proof from Scripture. And before that can be done, above a Cart-load of books muſt be read over or ſearched: and when thats done, they will find that moſt texts were never medled with by moſt of thoſe Fathers in their writings; and in thoſe that they did meddle with, they diſagreed in multitudes, and where they diſagree they are not unanimous; and there the Papiſts are ſworn to believe no ſenſe at all. And if they would have come down to a Major vote, it is no ſhort or eaſie matter to gather the votes. And if they know the Fathers unanimous conſent, yet muſt they have the ſenſe of the preſent Church too: And is it not all one to make your adverſary the Judge of your cauſe, as the Judge of your Evidences and all your proofs?
4. Well, but at leaſt may we not hope that they will ſtand to the Judgement of the Catholick Church? And if ſo, we will not take it for our adverſary? No: they will not do ſo neither. For 1. When they deny proof from ſenſe and reaſon, they muſt needs deny all thats brought from the Church: For the Church cannot judge it ſelf but on ſuppoſition of the infallibility of ſenſe. 2. And when you argue from the judgement and practice of the greater part of the Church, they preſently diſclaim them all as Hereticks or Schiſmaticks, and will have no man be a Valid witneſs but themſelves. The Greeks, the Aethiopians, the Armenians, the Proteſtants, all are Hereticks or Schiſmaticks ſave they; and therefore may not be witneſſes in the caſe. So that you ſee upon what terms we ſtand with the Papiſts, that will admit of no proofs upon the Infallibility of Senſe or Reaſon, or the ſufficiency of Scripture, or the teſtimony of the Catholick Church, but only from themſelves.