The Grounds of Protestant Religion, Part 1 · Chapter 5 (1 of 3)
CHAP. V. The Romanists way of Resolving Faith.
The ill consequences of the resolution of Faith by the Churches Infallibility. The grand Absurdities of it, manifested by its great unreasonableness in many particulars. The certain Foundations of Faith unsettled by it, as is largely proved. The Circle unavoidable by their new attempts. The impossibility of proving the Church Infallible by the way that Moses, Christ, and his Apostles were proved to be so. Of the Motives of Credibility, and how far they belong to the Church. The difference between Science and Faith considered, and the new art of mens believing with their wills. The Churches testimony must be, according to their principles, the formal object of Faith. Of their esteem of Fathers, Scripture, and Councils. The rare distinctions concerning the Churches infallibility discussed. How the Church can be Infallible by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, yet not divinely Infallible, but in a manner and after a sort. T. C. applauded for his excellent faculty in contradicting himself.
HE that hath a mind to betray an excellent Cause, may more advantagiously do it, by bringing weak and insufficient Evidences for it,§. 1. then by the greatest heat and vigour of Opposition against it. For there cannot possibly be any greater prejudice done to a weighty and important truth, then to perswade men to believe it on such grounds, which are, if not absolutely false, yet much more disputable then the thing it self. For hereby the minds of men are taken off from the native evidence, which the truth enquired after offers to them, and build their assent upon the certainty of the medium's suggested as the only grounds to establish a firm assent upon. By which means, when upon severe enquiry, the falsity and insufficiency of those grounds is discovered, the person so discovering lyes under a dangerous temptation of calling into question the truth of that, which he finds he assented to upon grounds apparently weak and insufficient. And the more refined and subtle the speculations are, the more sublime and mysterious the matters believed; the greater still the danger of Scepticism is, upon a discovery of the unsoundness of those principles which such things were believed upon. Especially, if the more confident and Magisterial party of those who profess the belief of such things, do with the greatest heat decry all other wayes as uncertain, and obtrude these principles upon the world, as the only sure foundation for the belief of them. It was anciently a great question among the Philosophers, whether there were any certainty in the principles of knowledge; or, supposing certainty in things, whether there were any undoubted foreign, or rules to obtain this certainty of knowledge by: If then any one Sect of Philosophers should have undertaken to prove the certainty that was in knowledge upon this account, because whatever their Sect or Party delivered was infallibly true; they had not only shamefully beg'd the thing in dispute, but made it much more lyable to question then before. Because every errour discovered in that Sect, would not only prove the fondness and arrogance of their pretence of being Infallible; but would, to all such as believed the certainty of things on the authority of their Sect, be an argument to disprove all certainty of knowledge, when they once discovered the errours of those whose authority they relyed upon. Just such is the case of the Church of Rome in this present Controversie concerning the Resolution of Faith. The question is, What the certain grounds of our assent are to the principles and rule of Christian Religion? the Romanists pretend, that there can be no ground of True and Divine Faith at all, but the Infallible testimony of Their Church; let then any rational man judge, whether this be not the most compendious way to overthrow the belief of Christianity in the world? For our assent must be wholly suspended upon that supposed Infallibility, which when once it falls (as it unavoidably, doth upon the discovery of the least errour in the doctrine of that Church) what becomes then of the belief of Christianity which was built upon that, as its only sure foundation? So that it is hardly imaginable, there could be any design more really destructive to Christianity, or that hath a greater tendency to Atheism then the modern pretence of Infallibility, and the Jesuits way of resolving Faith.
§. 2.Which was the reason why his Lordship was so unwilling to engage in that Controversie, How we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God: not out of any distrust he had of solving it upon Protestant Principles, as you vainly suggest; nor out of any fears of being left himself in that Labyrinth, which after all your endeavours you have lost your self and your cause in; as appears by your attempting this way, and that way to get out, and at last standing in the very middle of that circle you thought your self out of. If his Lordship thought this more a question of curiosity then necessity, it was because out of his great Charity he supposed them to be Christians he had to deal with. But if his charity were therein deceived, you shall see how able we are to make good the grounds of our Religion against all Adversaries, whether Papists or others. And so far is the answering of this question from making the weakness of our cause appear, that I doubt not but to make it evident that our cause stands upon the same grounds which our common Christianity doth; and that we are Protestants by the same reason that we are Christians. And on the other side, that you are so far from giving any true grounds of Christian Faith, that nothing will more advance the highest Scepticism and Irreligion, then such Principles as you insist on for resolving Faith. The true reason then, why the Archbishop declared any unwillingness to enter upon this dispute, was not the least apprehension how insuperably hard the resolution of this question was, (as you pretend) but because of the great mischief your Party had done in starting such questions you could not resolve with any satisfaction to the common reason of mankind;Pag. 55. and that you run your selves into such a Circle in which you conjure up more Spirits then ever you are able to lay, by giving those advantages to Infidelity, which all your Sophistry can never answer on those principles you go upon. That this was the true ground of his Lordship's seeming averseness from this Controversie, appears by his plain words, where he tells you at first, of the danger of mens being disputed into infidelity by the Circle between Scripture and Tradition, Sect. 16. n. 1.and by his expressing his sense of the great harm you have done by the starting of that question among Christians, How we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God. But although in this respect he might be said to be drawn into it, yet lest you should think his averseness argued any consciousness of his own inability to answer it, you may see how closely he follows it; with what care and accuracy he handles it, with what strength of reason and evidence he hath discovered the weakness of your way, which he hath done with that success, that he hath put you to miserable shifts to avoid the force of his arguments, as will appear afterwards. I am therefore fully of his mind, that it is a matter of such consequence it deserves to be sifted, were it for no other end, but to lay open the juglings and impostures of your way of resolving Faith.
Which we now come more closely to the discovery of; for,§. 3. as you tell us, The Bishop propounding diverse wayes of resolving the Question, first falls to the attaquing your way, Ibid.who prove it by Tradition and authority of the Church. And his first onset is so successful that it makes you visibly recoyle, and withdraw your self into so untenable a Shelter as exposeth you to all the attempts which any adversary would desire to make upon you. For, whereas you are charged by his Lordship with running into the most absurd kind of argumentation, viz. by proving the Scriptures infallible by Tradition, and that Tradition infallible by Scripture; you think to escape that Circle by telling us, That you prove not the Churches Infallibility by the Scripture, but by the motives of credibility belonging to the Church. This then being your main principle which your following discourse is built upon, and in your judgement the only probable way to avoid the Circle, that you may not think I am afraid of encountering you in your greatest strength, I dare put the issue of the cause upon this Promise, that (besides the weak proofs you bring for the thing it self, which shall after be considered) if this way of yours be not chargeable with all the absurdities such an attempt is capable of, I will be content to acknowledge what you say to be true, which is, That your way of resolving Faith hath no difficulty at all, and that ours is insuperably hard, which I think are as hard terms as can be imposed upon me. Now there are two grand Absurdities, which any vindication of an Opinion are subject to; first, If it be manifestly unreasonable, and, 2. If supposing it true, it doth not effect what it was intended for: now these two I undertake to make good against this way of your resolving Faith, that it is guilty of the highest unreasonableness; and that, supposing it true, you are in a circle as much as before.
1. First, I begin with the unreasonableness of it, which is so great, that I know not, whether I may abstain from calling it ridiculous; but, that I may not seem to follow you, in asserting confidently, and proving weakly, it will be necessary throughly to examine the grounds on which your opinion stands, and then raise our batteries against it. Three grand principles your discourse relyes upon, which are your postulata in order to the resolving Faith.
1. That it is necessary to the believing the Scriptures to be the Word of God with a Divine Faith, that it be built on the infallible testimony of the Church.
2. That your Church is that Catholick Church whose testimony is Infallible.
3. That this Infallibility is to be known and assented to upon the motives of credibility. These three, I suppose, if your confused discourse were reduced to method, would be freely acknowledged by your self to be the Principles on which your resolution of Faith depends. And although I am sufficiently assured of the falseness of your two first Principles (as will appear in the sequel of this discourse) yet that which I have now particularly undertaken, is, the unreasonableness of resolving Faith upon these Principles taken together, viz. That the Infallible Testimony of your Church, is the only Foundation for Divine Faith; and that this Infallibility can be known only by the Motives of Credibility. If then in this way of resolving Faith, you require Assent beyond all proportion of evidence, if you run into the same Absurdities you would seem to avoid, if you leave men more uncertain in their Religion than you found them; you cannot certainly excuse this way from unreasonableness, and each of these I undertake to make good against this way of yours, whereby you would assure men of the Truth and Divinity of the Scriptures.
1. An Assent is hereby required beyond all proportion or degree of evidence; for you require an Infallible Assent, §. 4.only upon Probable grounds; which is as much as requiring Infallibility in the conclusion, where the premises are only probable. Now that you require an Assent Infallible to the nature of Faith, appears by the whole series of your Discourse: for, to this very end you require Infallibility in the Testimony of your Church, because otherwise, you say Our Faith would be uncertain; it is plain then, you require an Infallible Assent in Faith; and, it is as plain, that this Assent, according to you, can be built only upon probable grounds, for you acknowledge the motives of Credibility, to be no more than such; yet those are all the grounds you give, why the Church should be believed Infallible. If you say, That which makes the Assent Infallible, is, that Infallibility which is in the Churches Testimony; I reply, That this is a most unreasonable thing, to go about to establish an Infallible Assent, meerly because the Testimony is supposed to be in it self Infallible: For, Assent is not according to the Objective Certitude of things, but the evidence of them to our Vnderstandings. For, is it possible to assent to the truth of a Demonstration in a demonstrative manner, because any Mathematician tells one, The thing is demonstrable? for in that case the Assent is not according to the Evidence of the thing, but according to the opinion such a person hath of him, who tells him, It is demonstrable. Nay, supposing that person infallible in saying so, yet if the other hath no means to be infallibly assured, that he is so; such a ones Assent is as doubtful, as if he were not infallible: Therefore, supposing the Testimony of your Church to be really infallible, yet since the Means of believing it are but probable and prudential, the Assent cannot be according to the nature of the Testimony, considered in it self, but according to the reasons which induce me to believe such a Testimony infallible. And, in all such cases, where I believe one thing for the sake of another, my Assent to the Object believed, is according to my Assent to the Medium on which I believe it; for by the means of that, the other is conveyed to our minds. As our sight is not according to the light in the body of the Sun, but that which presseth upon our Organs of sense: So that, supposing your Churches Testimony to be in it self infallible, if one may be deceived in judging whether your Church be infallible or no, one may be deceived in such things which he believes upon that supposed Infallibility. It being an impossibility, that the Assent to the matters of Faith, should rise higher, or stand firmer, than the Assent to the Testimony is, upon which those things are believed. Now, that one may be deceived according to your own principles, in judging whether the Church be Infallible, appears by this, That you have no other means to prove the Infallibility of your Church, but only probable and prudential Motives. For, I desire to know, whether an Infallible Assent to the Infallibility of your Church, can be grounded on those Motives of Credibility? If you affirm it, then there can be no imaginable necessity, to make the Testimony of your Church infallible, in order to Divine Faith; for you will not, I hope, deny, but that there are at least equal Motives of Credibility, to prove the Divine Authority of the Scriptures, as the Infallibility of your Church; and if so, why may not an Infallible Assent be given to the Scriptures upon those Motives of Credibility, as well as to your Churches Infallibility? If you deny the Assent built upon the Motives of Credibility to be Infallible; how can you make the Assent to your Churches Testimony to be infallible, when that Infallibility is attempted to be proved only by the Motives of Credibility? And therefore it necessarily follows, That notwithstanding your bearing it so high under the pretence of Infallibility, you leave mens minds much more wavering in their Assent than before; in that, as shall afterwards appear, these very Motives of Credibility do not at all prove the Infallibility of your Church, which undoubtedly prove the Truth and Certainty of Christian Religion. Thus, while by this device, you seek to avoid the Circle, you destroy the Foundation of your Discourse, That there must be an Infallible Assent to the truth of that Proposition, That the Scriptures are the Word of God (which you call Divine Faith) which, how can it be infallible, when that Infallibility, at the highest, by your own confession, is but evidently credible, and so, I suppose the Authority of the Scriptures is, without your Churches Infallibility.
And thus you run into the same Absurdities which you would seem to avoid, which is the second thing, to manifest the unreasonableness of this way;§. 5. for whatever Absurdity you charge us with, for believing the Doctrine of Christ upon the Motives of Credibility, unavoidably falls upon your selves for believing the Churches Infallibility on the same grounds: for if we leave the Foundation of Faith uncertain, you do so too; if we build a Divine Faith upon Motives of Credibility, so do you; if we make every ones reason the Judge in the choice of his Religion, so must you be forced to do, if you understand the consequence of your own principles.
1. It is impossible for you to give a better account of Faith by the Infallibility of your Church, than we can do without it; for, if Divine Faith cannot be built upon the Motives proving the Doctrine of Christ, what sense or reason is there, that it should be built on those Motives which prove your Churches Infallibility? so that, if we leave the Foundation of Faith uncertain, you much more; and that I prove by a Rule of much Authority with you, by which you use to pervert the weak judgements of such, who in your case do not discern the Sophistry of it: Which is; when you come to deal with persons, whom you hope to Proselyte, you urge them with this great Principle, That Prudence is to be our Guide in the choice of our Religion, and that Prudence directs us to chuse the safest way, and that it is much safer to make choice of that way, which both sides agree Salvation is to be obtained in, than of that which the other side utterly denies men can be saved in. How far this Rule will hold in the choice of Religion, will be examined afterwads: but if we take your word, that it is a sure Rule; I know nothing will be more certainly advantagious to us, in on present case. For both sides, I hope, are agreed, that there are sufficient Motives of Credibility, as to the belief of the Scriptures; but we utterly deny that there are any such Motives as to the Infallibility of your Church; it then certainly follows, That our way is the more eligible and certain, and that we lay a surer Foundation for Faith, than you do upon your principles for resolving Faith.
2. Either you must deny any such thing as that you call Divine Faith; or you must assert, that it may have no other Foundation than the Motives of Credibility, which yet is that, you would seem most to avoid by introducing the Infallibility of your Church, that the Foundation of Faith may not be uncertain: whereas, supposing what you desire, you must of necessity do that you would seem most fearful of, which is making a Divine Faith to rest upon prudential Motives. Which I thus prove: It is an undoubted Axiom among the great men of your side, That whatever is a Foundation for a Divine Faith, must itself be believed with a firm, certain, and infallible Assent: Now, according to your principles, the Infallibility of the Church, is the Foundation for Divine Faith; and therefore that must be believed with an Assent Infallible. It is apparent then, an Assent Infallible is required, which is that which in other terms you call Divine Faith; now when you make it your business to prove the Churches Infallibility upon your prudential Motives, I suppose your design is by those proofs, to induce men to believe it; and if men then do believe it upon those Motives, do you not found an Assent Infallible, or a Divine Faith, upon the Motives of Credibility? And by the same reason that you urge against us the necessity of believing the Scriptures to be the Word of God by Divine Faith, because it is the ground why we believe the things contained in the Scripture, we press on your side the necessity of believing the Infallibility of the Church by a Faith equally Divine, because that is to you the only sufficient Foundation of believing the Scriptures, or any thing contained in them.
3. You make by this way of resolving Faith, every man's Reason the only Judge in the choice of his Religion: which you are pleased to charge on us as a great Absurdity: yet, you who have deserved so very ill of Reason, are fain to call in her best assistance in a case of the greatest moment, viz. On what ground we must believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God. You say, Because the Church is infallible, which delivers them to us; but how should we come to know that she is infallible? you tell us, By the Motives of Credibility; very good: But must not every ones reason judge whether these Motives be credible or no? and whether they belong peculiarly to your Church, so as to prove the Infallibility of it, as it is distinct from all other societies of Christians in the world? You tell us indeed, That these Motives make it evidently credible; but must we believe it to be so, because you say so? If so; then the ground of believing is not the Credibility of the Motives, but of your Testimony, and therefore you ought to make it evidently true, that whatever you speak is undoubtedly true, which whosoever reads your Book, will hardly be perswaded to. So that of necessity every mans reason must be Judge, whether your Church be infallible or no; and thus at last you give Reason the Vmpirage in the choice of Religion. And what is there more than this that we contend for? If there be then any danger of Scepticism, a private spirit, or what other inconveniencies you object against our way of judging the truth of Religion by the Vse of Reason, it will fall much more heavily upon your selves, in this way of believing the Infallibility of the Church on the Motives of Credibility. Therefore I assure you, it were much more consonant to the principles of your party, to tell men, The Infallibility of your Church ought to be taken for granted, and that men are damned for not believing it, though no reason be given for it, but only because you say it (which is as much as to say, the reason of the Point is, It must needs be so) then thus to expose it to the scorn and contempt of the world, by offering to prove it by your Motives of Credibility. For unawares you thereby give away the main of your Cause; for by the very offer of proving it, you make him whom you offer to prove it to, judge whether these proofs be sufficient or no? and if he be capable to judge of his Guide, certainly he may be of his Way too, considering that he hath, according to us, an Infallible Rule to judge of his Way; whereas, according to you, he hath but Prudential Motives in the choice of his Guide. Thus, by this Opinion of yours, you have gained thus much, That there is nothing so absurd, which you charge upon us, but it falls unavoidably upon your own head.
By this way of resolving Faith, you undermine it;§. 6. and leave a sure Foundation for nothing but Scepticism; which is the last thing to shew the great unreasonableness of this way of yours, that when you are making us believe you are taking the greatest care to make our Religion sure, you cancel our best evidences, and produce nothing but crackt and broken titles, which will not stand any fair tryal at the bar of Reason. And that you make the Foundations of Religion uncertain, I offer to prove by the reason of the thing; for, if you require that as necessary for Faith, which was never believed to be so, when the Doctrine of Faith was revealed; if upon the pretence of Infallibility you assert such things, which destroy all the rational evidence of Christian Religion, and if at last you are far from giving the least satisfactory account concerning this Infallibility of your Church; then certainly we may justly charge you with unsetling the Foundations of Religion, instead of giving us a certain resolution of Faith.
1. You make that necessary to Faith, which was not looked on as such, when the Doctrine of the Gospel was revealed; and what other design can such a pretence seem to have, than to expose to contempt that Religion which was not received by a true Divine Faith, because it wanted that, which is now thought to be the only sure Foundation of Faith, viz. the Infallibility of the Church of Rome? What then will become of the Faith of all those who received Divine Revelations, without the infallible Testimony of any Church at all? With what Faith did the Disciples of Christ at the time of his suffering, believe the Divine Authority of the Old Testament? was it a true Divine Faith or not? If it was, whereon was it built? not certainly on the Infallible Testimony of the Jewish Church, which at that time consented to the death of the Messias, condemning him as a malefactor and deceiver: Or did they believe it because of that great Rational Evidence they had to convince them, that those Prophecies came from God? If so, why may not we believe the Divinity of all the Scriptures on the same grounds, and with a Divine Faith too? With what Faith did those believe in the Messias, who were not personally present at the Miracles which our Saviour wrought, but had them conveyed to them by such reports as the woman of Samaria was to the Samaritans? Or were all such persons excused from believing, meerly because they were not Spectators? But by the same reason all those would be excused, who never saw our Saviour's miracles, or heard his Doctrine, or his Apostles: But if such persons then were bound to believe, I ask, On what Testimony was their Faith founded? Was the woman of Samaria infallible, in reporting the discourse between Christ and her? Were all the persons infallible, who gave an account to others of what Christ did? yet, I suppose, had it been your own case, you would have thought your self bound to have believed Christ to have been the Messias, if you had lived at that time, and a certain account had been given you of our Saviour's Doctrine and Miracles by men faithful and honest, though you had no reason to have believed them infallible: I pray, Sir, answer me, would you have thought your self bound to have believed, or no? If you affirm it (as I will suppose you so much a Christian as to say so) I pray then tell me, Whether persons in those circumstances might not have a true and Divine Faith, where there was no infallible Testimony, but only Rational Evidence to build it self upon? And if those persons might have a Divine Faith upon such evidence as that was, may not we much more, who have evidence of the same nature indeed, but much more extensive, universal, and convincing than that was? And how then can you still assert an infallible Testimony of the conveyers of Divine Revelation, to be necessary to a Divine Faith? Nay further yet, How very few were there in comparison, in the first Ages of the Christian Church, who received the Doctrine of the Gospel from the mouths of persons infallible? And of those who did so, what certain evidence have men, That all those persons did receive the Doctrine upon the account of the Infallibility of the propounders, and not rather upon the Rational Evidence of the Truth of the Doctrine delivered; and whether the belief of their Infallibility was absolutely necessary to Faith, when the report of the Evidences of the Truth of the Doctrine might raise in them an obligation to believe, supposing them not infallible in that delivery of it; but that they looked on them as honest men, who faithfully related, What they had seen and heard. And this seems the more probable, in that the Apostles themselves, in their undoubtedly divine writings, do so often appeal to their own sufficiency and integrity, 1 Joh. 1.1.without pleading so much their Infallibility. S. John saith, That which we have seen and heard, and handled, declare we unto you. S. Peter appeals to his being an Eye-witness, 2 Pet. 1.16.to make it appear he delivered no cunningly devised fables. Luk. 1.1, 2.S. Luke makes this a ground, That the things were surely believed, because delivered from them who were Eye-witnesses and Ministers of the Word. If they insisted so much upon this Rational Evidence, and so sparingly on their own Infallibility; certainly they thought the one afforded not a good foundation for Faith, though the other, after believing it, might highly advance it. And therefore I suggest not these things, in the least, to question the Infallibility of the Apostles, but to let us see, that even at that time, when there was a certainly infallible Testimony, yet that is not urged as the only Foundation for Faith, but Rational Evidence produced even by those persons who were thus infallible. If we descend lower in the Christian Church, or walk abroad to view the several Plantations of the Churches at that time, Where do we read or meet with the least intimation of an infallible Testimony of the Catholick Church, so call'd from its Communion with that of Rome? What infallible Testimony of that Church had the poor Brittains to believe on? or those Barbarians mentioned in Irenaeus, who yet believed without a written word? What mention do we meet with, in all the ancient Apologeticks of Christians, wherein they give so large an account of the grounds of Christian Faith, of the modern method for resolving Faith? Nay, what one ancient Father or Council give the least countenance to this pretended Infallibility, much less make it the only sure Foundation of Faith, as you do? Nay, how very few are there among your selves who believe it, and yet think themselves never the worse Christians for it? If then your Doctrine be true, what becomes of the Faith of all these persons mentioned? Upon your principles their Faith, could not be a true and Divine Faith; that is, Let them all think they believed the Doctrine of Christ never so heartily, and obeyed it never so conscientiously; yet because they did not believe it on the Infallibility of your Church, their Faith was but a kind of guilded and splendid Infidelity, and none of them Christians, because not Jesuits. And doth not this principle then fairly advance Christianity in the world, when the belief of it comes to be setled on Foundations never heard of in the best and purest times of it; nay, such Foundations, as for want of their believing them, their Faith must be all in vain, and Christ dyed in vain for them?
2. You assert such things upon the pretence of Infallibility, which destroy all the rational evidence of Christian Religion: §. 7.And what greater disservice could you possibly do to it, than by taking away all the proper grounds of certainty of it? And, instead of building it super hanc Petram, upon the Rock of Infallibility, you do it only upon a Quick-sand, which swallows up the Edifice, and sucks in the Foundations of it. You would have men to believe the Infallibility of your Church, that their Faith might stand upon sure grounds; and yet, if men believe this Infallibility of your Church, you require such things to be believed upon it, which destroy all kind of certainty in Religion. And that I prove by some of those principles which are received among you upon the account of the Churches Infallibility.
1. That the judgement of Sense is not to be relyed on, in matters of Faith: This is the great Principle upon which the Doctrine of Transubstantiation stands in your Church; and this is all, the most considerative men among you have to say, when all those Contradictions are offered to them, which that Doctrine is so big of, both to the judgement of sense and reason, viz. That though it seem so contradictory; yet because the Church, which is infallible, delivers it, they are bound not to question it. If this Principle then be true, That the judgement of sense is not to be relyed on, in matters which sense is capable of judging of; it will be impossible for any one to give any satisfactory account of the grand Foundations of Christian Faith. For if we carefully examine the grounds of Certainty in Christian Religion, we find the great appeal made to the judgement of Sense, (That which we have seen, and heard, and handled.) If then the judgement of Sense must not be taken in a proper object, at due distance, and in such a thing wherein all mens Senses are equally Judges; I pray, tell me what assurance the Apostles could have, or any from them, of any miracles which Christ wrought, of any Doctrine which he preached; especially because in his miracles there was something above nature, in which case men are more apt to suspect Impostures, than in things which are the continual Objects of Sense, as in the case of Transubstantiation? Wherein, if men are not bound to rely on the judgement of Sense, you must say, that our Faculties are so made, that they may be imposed upon, in the proper Objects of them; and if so, farewell all Certainty, not only in Religion, but in all things else in the world. For what assurance can I have of the knowledge of any thing, if I find that my Faculties not only may be, but I am bound to believe that they actually are, deceived in a thing that is as proper an Object of sense, as any in the world. And if a thing, which the judgement of all mankind (those excepted who have given away their sense and reason in this present case) doth unanimously concurr in, may be false; What evidence can we have, when any thing is true? For, if a thing so plain and evident to our Senses may be false, viz. That what I and all other men see, is bread, what ground of certainty can we have, but that which my Senses, and all other mens judge to be false, may be true? For by this means you take away the foreign both of Sense and Reason in things, and consequently, all things are equally true and false to us; and thence it follows, That Truth and Falshood are but Fancies, that our Faculties have no means to difference the one from the other, that in things we all agree in, as proper objects of Sense, we not only may be, but are deceived; and then farewell Sense, Reason and Religion together. For, I pray, Tell me what Assurance could the Apostles have of the Resurrection of Christ's Individual Body from the grave, but the Judgement of Sense? What waies did he use to convince them, that he was not a Spectre or Apparition, but by an appeal to their Senses? by what means did he reclaim Thomas from his Infidelity, but by bidding him make use of his Senses? If Thomas had believed Transubstantiation, he would easily have answered our Saviours Argument, and told him, If there were not a productive, yet there might be an Adductive Transmutation of some other person into him: And the Disciples might all have said, It was true, there were the accidents of Christ's Body, the external shape and figure of it; but, for all they could discern, there might be some Invisible Spirit under those external accidents of shape: and therefore they must desire to be excused from believing it to be his Body; for, Hoc est corpus meum, had told them already, That the external accidents might remain, where the substance was changed. Now therefore, when the Assurance of Christian Religion came from the judgement of the Senses of those who were Eye-witnesses of the Miracles and the Resurrection of Christ; if the Senses of men may be so grosly deceived in the proper Objects of them in the case of Transubstantiation, what assurance could they themselves have, who were Eye-witnesses of them? and how much less assurance can we have, who have all our Evidence from the certainty of their report? So that it appears upon the whole, that, take away the certainty of the judgement of Sense, you destroy all Certainty in Religion; for, Tradition only conveys to us now, what was originally grounded upon the judgement of Sense, and delivers to us in an undoubted manner, that which the Apostles saw and heard. And do not you then give a very good account of Religion by the Infallibility of your Church; when, if I believe your Church to be infallible, I must by vertue of that Infallibility, believe something to be true, which if it be true, there can be no certainty at all of the Truth of Christian Religion.
§. 8.2. Another principle is, That we can have no certainty of any of the grounds of Faith, but from the Infallibility of your present Church. Whereby you do these two things. 1. Destroy the obligation to Faith which ariseth from the rational evidence of Christian Religion. 2. Put the whole stress of the truth of Christianity upon the proofs of your Churches Infallibility; by which things any one may easily see what tendency your doctrine of resolving Faith hath, and how much it designs the overthrow of Christianity. 1. You destroy the obligation to Faith from the rational evidence of Christian Religion, by telling men, as you do expresly in the very Title of your next Chapter, That there can be no unquestionable assurance of Apostolical Tradition, but for the infallible authority of the present Church. If so, then men cannot have any unquestionable assurance that there was such a Person as Christ in the world, that he wrought such great miracles for confirmation of his Doctrine, that he dyed and rose again; it seems we can have no assurance of these things if the present Church be not Infallible. And if we can have no assurance of them, what obligation can lye upon us to believe them? for, assurance of the matters of fact which are the foundations of Faith, is necessary in order to the obligation to believe; I mean such an assurance as matters of fact are capable of; for no higher can be required then the nature of things will bear. And what a strange assertion then is this, that matters of fact cannot be conveyed to us in an unquestionable manner, unless the present Church stamp her Infallibility upon them? Cannot we have an unquestionable assurance that there were such persons as Caesar and Pompey, and that they did such and such things, without some infallible testimony? if we may in such things, why not in other matters of fact which infinitely more concern the world to know then whatever Caesar or Pompey did? But this will be more at large examined afterwards; I only now take notice of the consequence of this principle, and how fairly it destroyes all rational evidence of the truth of our Religion; which whosoever takes away will be by force of reason, a Sceptick in the first place, and an Infidel in the second. Neither is the danger meerly in destroying the rational evidence of Religion; but, 2. In putting the whole weight of Religion upon the proofs of the present Churches infallibility, which whosoever considers how silly and weak they are, cannot sufficiently wonder at the design of those men, who put the most excellent Religion in the world, and which is built upon the highest and truest reason to such a strange kind of Ordeal tryal, that if she pass not through this St. Winifreds needle, her innocency must be suspected, and her truth condemned. So that whosoever questions the truth of this kind of Purgation, will have a greater suspition of a juggle and imposture if she be acquitted, then if she had never submitted to such a tryal. And when we come to examine the proofs brought for this Infallibility, it will then further appear, what uncertainty in Religion men are betrayed to, under this confident pretext of Infallibility. Thus we see what Scepticism in Religion the principles owned upon the account of Infallibility, do bring men to.
3. When you have brought men to this, that the only sure ground of Faith is the Infallibility of your Church, §. 9.you are not able to give them any satisfactory account at all concerning it; but plunge them into greater uncertainties then ever they were in before. For you can neither satisfie them what that Church is which you suppose Infallible, what in that Church is the proper subject of this Infallibility, what kind of Infallibility this is, nor how we should know when the Church doth decide Infallibly and when not; and yet every one of these questions is no less then absolutely necessary to be resolved, in order to the satisfaction of mens minds, as to the foundation of their Faith.
1. You cannot satisfie men What that Church is which you suppose to be Infallible. Certainly, if you had a design to give men a certain foundation for their Faith, you would not be so shy of discovering what it is you understand by that Church which you would have Infallible; if you had meant honestly, the first thing you should have done was to have prevented all mistakes concerning the meaning of the Church, when you know what various significations it hath, not only in Scripture, but among your selves. Whether you mean the Church essential, representative, or vertual, for every one of these upon occasion you make use of: and it was never more necessary to have explained them then in this place, and yet you with wonderful care and industry avoid any intimation of what you mean by that Church which you would prove Infallible. When you plead so earnestly for the Churches Infallibility, I pray tell us what you mean by the Church; do you intend the truly Catholick and Vniversal Church which comprehends in it all such as own and profess the Doctrine of Christ, in which sense it was well said by Abulensis, Ecclesia universalis nunquam errat, quia nunquam tota errat, Praefat. in Mat. quaest. 13.The universal Church never erres, because the whole Church is never deceived. Or, do you mean by your Catholick Church some particular part of it, to which you apply the name of Catholick not for Vniversality of extent, but soundness of Doctrine? then it will be necessary yet further, to shew what part of the Church that is, by what right and title that hath engrossed the name of Catholick, so as to exclude other Societies of Christians from it; and whether you must not first prove the absolute integrity and soundness of her Doctrine, before you can attribute this title to it. For otherwise you will find that marvellously true, which the same Tostatus saith, Ecclesia Latinorum non est Ecclesia Vniversalis sed quaedam pars ejus: Quaest. 4. in Math. ad proleg. 2.ideò etiamsi tota ipsa errâsset, non errabat Ecclesia Vniversalis, quia manet Ecclesia Vniversalis in partibus illis quae non errant, sive illae sint numero plures quàm errantes, sive non. So that if you prove the Infallibility of the Catholick Church, this proves nothing at all as to the Roman Church, which at most can be supposed to be but a part of it, and though that should err, the Catholick Church might not err, because that remains in those parts which err not, though they be more or less in number then those that err. This is the sense of his words; who seemed to have a much truer conception of the Vniversal Church, than those now of your Sect and Party. If then we may believe the Church to be infallible, and yet, in the mean time, condemn your Church for the grossest Errours: Will it not be found necessary for you, to tell us yet more distinctly, What you mean by the Church you would prove Infallible? But, supposing that only those parts you esteem Catholick, make up the Catholick Church, even among them the Question will still return, What you mean by this Catholick Church; Do you mean all the Individual Persons in this number, taken either distributively or collectively? or, Do you mean, all those who are entrusted with the Government of these? and then, Whether all Inferiour Pastors, or only Bishops? And if Bishops, Whether all these collectively, or else by way of Representation in a Council? and still remember to make it good, that what you pitch upon as the acception of the Church, be not an effect of humane Policy, as Albertus Pighius said, All Councils were no more; but that what you fasten the acception of the Church-Catholick upon, you be sure to make it out, that is the Catholick Church to whom the Promises are made in Scripture: And, be sure to tell us, How a Church comes to be infallible by Representation? Whether as they, who make the Church representative, deliver the sense of the Church they represent; or by an immediate Promise made to them upon their Convention. If the former, Whether it will not be necessary, in order to the Infallibility of the Council, to know, that it speaks the sense of all those particular Churches whom they represent: If the latter, you must remember such places as belong to them, as representing the Church; for otherwise any company of Christians assembled together, will challenge an equal interest in them; and then you will find it a hard matter to prove one infallible, and not the other. But, if after all this, your Windmill should dwindle into a Nutcracker, and this harangue concerning the Infallibility of the Catholick Church, should at last end in one particular Person; which by a strange Catachresis, must be call'd the Church, or else, as Heir at Law to her, doth take possession of all her priviledges. Then the Testament must be produced wherein he is named so, and those clauses especially, wherein the rights and priviledges of her are devolved over to him and his Heirs for ever. There being then so much ambiguity and uncertainty in the very name of the Church-Catholick, which you would prove infallible, that if nothing else discovered your Imposture, yet this would sufficiently, that you would undertake to resolve Mens Faith by the Infallibility of the Church, and yet never offer to shew what that Church is.
2. Supposing you had shewn what the Church is, yet you never tell us what the subject of Infallibility is in that Church. For, when in this case you speak of Infallibility, you must remember you are not to shew what that Church is, which is not deceived in judging concerning things necessary to Salvation, but what that Church is, which is infallible in her Direction of others to Salvation: For, you speak of such an Infallibility as must be a Guide to others, and whose infallible judgement must be known to all such who must resolve their Faith into her Testimony: You would have done then no more than was absolutely necessary to have precisely shewn us where this infallibility is lodged in your Church; whether in Pope or Council, or both together. I suppose it can be no news either to you, or to the Reader, what Controversies there are among the greatest of your side, whether the Pope or Council be the greater, and to whom this Infallibility belongs; neither are either side fully agreed in their own way, for some that are for the Infallibility of a general Council, will make that infallible without the Pope, others account that opinion, if not haeretical, the next step to it. Those who are for the Pope's Infallibility, are not agreed neither when he shall be said to be infallible: They who speak Oracles tell us, when he doth define ex Cathedrâ, but what that is, neither they nor we can well tell; some say it is, when he hath a Congregation of chosen Cardinals about him, others make the whole Colledge of Cardinals necessary, and therefore some in the late Definition concerning the Jansenists were refractory, because it was defined only by a Congregation of chosen Cardinals, which they said, was not defining ex Cathedrâ: some again make neither of these necessary, but suppose the Infallibility lodged in the Pope himself. And are we not at a fine pass for the certainty of our Faith, if it must rely upon the infallible Testimony of your Church; and yet you your selves not at all agreed to whom this Infallible Testimony doth belong? Think not that we will be put off with that silly evasion, That these differences among you hinder not the certainty of Faith, because it is not de fide either way. For 1. How shall we come to know among you what is de fide, and what not, till you are agreed to whom this Infallibility belongs? And if it belongs to a general Council, then it is de fide; for it was determined at the Council of Basil, in behalf of the Council, and therefore if one of the opinions be true, it must be de fide; for, I suppose you make that to be so, which is determined by the infallible Testimony of your Church. 2. How shall a man believe, that any thing at all is de fide among you, if that on which your Faith is to rest, be not de fide? For, supposing a difference to happen, which hath often done between the Pope and Council, and they decree contrary things to each other, if it be not de fide, to believe either the one or the other distinctly to be infallible, upon what Testimony at such a time must that which supposeth the infallible Testimony of your Church rely? 3. If it be said not to be de fide, because not determined; by the same reason your Churches Infallibility cannot be de fide, because not determined neither: For, if the Determination of the Church be necessary to make any thing de fide, it must by the same reason be necessary to make your Churches Infallibility de fide; and, I suppose, you will not readily instance in any decree of the Catholick Church, where the Testimony of your Church is determined to be infallible. And yet one would imagine, that if there were such a necessity in order to Faith, of the Infallible Testimony of your Church, there would be an equal necessity of believing this Infallibility on the same Testimony: or if one may believe one Article especially so important a one as that, without any precedent infallible Testimony, why not any other, nay, why not all the rest? Thus you still see, how uncertainties grow upon us, when we search into your account of Faith.
3. You are not certain neither, What kind of Infallibility this is; For you offer to prove the Church infallible, by the same way that Moses, Christ, and his Apostles were proved infallible: P. 55. n. 1.A very fair Offer, if you could make it good; but then we were in hopes you would have proved such a kind of Infallibility as they had; you tell us, No: for your Infallibility is Supernatural, P. 58. n. 4.but not Divine; that it is precise Infallibility, but not absolute; that it is not by immediate Revelation, but by immediate Assistance of the Holy Ghost: Something you would have, but you cannot tell what; an Infallibility in the Conclusion, without any in the Vse of means; an Infallibility by immediate Assistance of the Holy Ghost, yet but in a sort Divine; an Infallibility yielding nothing to Scripture in point of Supernaturality and Certainty, yet nothing so infallible as Scripture. Are not these brave things to make wise men certain in their Religion with! that they are to believe the Scriptures upon a Testimony infallible, yet not infallible; divine, yet not divine; and therefore certain, but not certain; true, but not true. But of the silliness of these Distinctions, afterwards. But, can you think to perswade wise or rational men to believe their Religion on such terms as these are? Had they no other evidence than what you give them, would they not be shrewdly tempted to reject all Religion, as a meer Imposture, as no doubt your Doctrine of Infallibility is? A strange kind of Talisman, which secures your Pope from a possibility of erring, but still he must be under the certain direction of his Stars; for, if he be not in Cathedrâ, this Telesm doth him no good at all. It were heartily to be wished, if he should once happen to be in Cathedrâ, he would infallibly determine what it was to be in Cathedrâ for ever after; for it would ease mens minds of a great many troublesome scruples, which they cannot, without some infallible Determination, get themselves quit of. But still we are bound to believe your Church infallible: But, I pray, whence comes this Infallibility? Comes it from Heaven, or is it of Men? From Heaven, no doubt, you say; for it is by a promise of the Holy Ghost. This were something, if it were proved; but yet you maintain this Infallibility in such a manner, that none that read the Scriptures could ever think, it were promised there. For there they alwaies read, That the Spirit of Truth is a Spirit of Holiness, and never dwells in those who are carnal or wicked men; but, you tell us, That let the lives of Popes be what they will, they have no promise to secure them from being wicked, but the Spirit of God doth by immediate Assistance secure them from being fallible. But, I pray, Which of these two is not only more contrary to Scripture, but to Humane Nature; Wickedness or Fallibility? This latter, so consequent upon the imperfection of our understandings, that, till we put off the one, we can hardly be freed from the other; but Wickedness is that which the whole design of Christian Religion is against, and administers the highest Motives, and the greatest Assistance for the conquest of; and can it then be thought suitable to such a Doctrine, that the Divine Spirit should, like Mahomet's Dove, be alwaies ready to whisper in the ear of the most profligate person, if it be but his fortune to sit in Cathedrá? Such a kind of Infallibility as this, I assure you, will never prevail with any such persons, who understand Christian Religion, to believe the Doctrine of it upon such pretences as yours are.
4. Supposing,§. 10. you could tell men intelligibly and suitably to the Doctrine of Christianity, What kind of Infallibility this is; yet if you cannot satisfie them, When your Church doth define infallibly, you leave them still in the same Labyrinth, without any clue to direct them out of it. But, if we consider what things are necessary to be believed, before we can believe any definition of your Church infallible, how impossible it is to be infallibly assured of any such definition of your Church, sure you cannot blame us for crying out of the Labyrinth you have brought us into.
1. How many things in Christian Religion are to be believed, before we can imagine any such thing as an infallible Testimony of your Church? And if the Infallibility of that be the ground of Faith, on what account must those things be believed, which are antecedent to the belief of such an infallible Testimony? Now, that many things, and some of them far from being clear, are to be believed antecedently to an infallible Testimony, will appear; if we do but consider what they commonly mean by that Church, which they suppose infallible, and what must be supposed, that this Infallibility be the Rule of Faith. By the Church, they tell you, they mean the Catholick Church: but lest you should think them too honest in saying so, at next word it is, the Roman-Catholick Church (just as if one should say, the German-Vniversal Emperour.) But lest you should think at least they meant the Roman Church of all Ages, and think you might have some relief from the Primitive Roman Church, they will soon rectifie your mistakes, by telling you, it is the present Roman-Church they mean; but if it be the present Roman-Church, it may be you would be willing to hear the judgement of all the honest men in that Church, and that you hope many of the people and learned men (not in Orders) may speak their minds freely. To prevent that, they tell you they mean only the representative Church. But still the Bishops, who make up this representative Church, may in their several Synods complain of abuses, and rectifie miscarriages; therefore they understand not Bishops by themselves, or particular Synods, but met together in General Councils. But yet, if the Councils were truly Oecumenical, there might be some hopes of redress. But for that they are sure; for they allow none to be members of the General Councils, which are in Schism or Heresie; and their own Church is to be Judge, what Schism and Heresie is; and they are hugely to blame then, if they admit any but those of their own party. But yet, some Councils have stood upon their priviledges in opposition to the Pope, as those of Constance and Basil. Therefore, to make all sure, no Council is lawful in it self, or its decrees bind the Church, but such as is call'd and confirmed by the Pope: who is strangely to blame then, if he suffers any thing to pass to his own prejudice: So that this Infallibility of the Pope, is the last resort in the resolution of Faith; for all the rest, we see, are uncertain. And what a vast measure of Faith (greater than that which our Saviour said, would remove mountains) is necessary to believe this Infallibility of the Pope? for in the first place, unless he believes the particular Roman-Church to be the Catholick Church, he spoils all the Conjuring afterwards, with not having Faith enough about him. Again, he must believe, that Christ hath promised an Infallible Assistance to the Pastors of the Church as distinct from the People; but this avails little still, unless he believes these Credentials must not be opened, but in full Council; and that Council such a one as the Pope calls, and in which himself presides, either in Person, or by his Legates, and that the Decrees of the Council oblige not the Church, without the Pope's Confirmation; and to that end you must believe, that S. Peter was made Monarch of the Church by Christ; that this Monarchy was to be derived to all his Successors in all places; but as to this (where-ever he was besides) he never had any Successor any where but at Rome: And these Successors of his at Rome, cannot for their lives err, if they do but sit in Cathedrâ. Certainly he that hath Faith to swallow all these things, is hugely to blame if he stick at any thing; and by that time a man's understanding is debauched sufficiently by these Principles, I make no question but such a one will believe Infallibility, Transubstantiation, or any thing in the world. But beside these things, in order to the making the Churches Testimony the Rule of Faith to any one, there must another dose of Principles be taken, which have Opium enough in them to lay asleep all the remainders of reason: For he must infallibly believe the Church to be infallible, though no infallible Argument be brought for the proof of it; That this Church doth judicially and authoritatively pronounce her Sentence in matters of Faith, though we know not what that Church is, which must so pronounce; That he infallibly know that this particular Sentence was so pronounced, though he can have no other than Moral Means of knowing it; And lastly, That the Infallibility must be the first thing believed, although all these things must of necessity be believed before it. And if after this second Purgation, he be not a true Son of the Church of Rome, he deserves to be Anathematized as an obstinate person, for having any thing of reason in him. Therefore I wonder not that the Doctrine of Infallibility seems no strange thing to you; for a man must devour such Giant-like Absurdities, before he comes to it, that when he comes at it, he finds it nothing. But still, one would think it a little strange, that this Infallibility should be the only Foundation of believing all things in Religion; and yet so many things, and some of them very strange ones, must of necessity be certainly believed before it.
2. Supposing a man not only believes all these things before it, but doth really believe your Church infallible, yet he is uncertain still how he should know When your Church defines infallibly. For so many things are required in reference to the Person defining, so many for the definition it self, that it will be no easie matter to remove those difficulties which lye in the way of his Assent to such a Definition. As to the Person, if he be not a Christian, if he be not a Priest, if not a Lawful Pope, all his Definitions are far from being infallible; yet none of all these can any one be assured of according to your Principles of the intention of the Priest being necessary in the administration of Sacraments, in order to the effect of them. (But the large train of Consequences following from hence, I forbear to urge you with, because they have been so often urged by abler Pens.) But, What will you say, when we are so far from assurance, as to the Pope's being legally chosen, that we have, if not great Evidence, yet very high Presumptions of the contrary, what becomes then of your Pope's Infallibility? Nay, from the illegality of one, follows the illegality of all his Successors, because they were chosen by Cardinals, made by him; who could be no lawful Cardinals, because he was no legal Pope, and consequently not they who were made by them. The case is this; There is a Bull of Pope Julius the second, against the Simoniacal Election of any Pope, which the Cardinals, upon their first entrance into the Conclave, swear solemnly to observe. In which Bull it is expresly said, That if any Pope be Simoniacally chosen by any of the Cardinals, upon any gift or promise whatsoever, that such an Election is ipso facto null; and the Cardinals may oppose one so chosen, as if guilty of manifest Heresie; and that none ought to receive or look on such a one as Pope; neither can this Simoniacal Election be made good by inthronisation, course of time, submission of Cardinals, &c. And that they ought all to avoid him as a Magician, Heathen, Publican, or the Founder of Heresie. This is the substance of that Bull. Now it is notoriously known, that Sixtus the fifth, was Simoniacally chosen Pope. For, that he might be chosen, he did under his hand promise to Cardinal d'Este, who had a great interest in the Conclave, that in the time of his Popedome, he would never create Jerome Matthew, the Cardinals great enemy, a Cardinal: upon which promise he was through his interest chosen Pope. But, when afterwards the Pope violated his Faith to him, by creating his enemy Cardinal; d'Este, being highly incensed against him for it, sent the very instrument subscribed by the Pope's own hand, to Philip the second King of Spain, who in the year 1589. sent the Duke of Suisse extraordinary Embassador to Rome, V. Supplicat. ad Imperat. Reg. Princip. super causis generalis Concilii convocandi contra Paulum 5. Lond. 1613.to intimate to Sixtus the fifth, his intention of calling a General Council, according to the Bull of Julius the second, for declaring this Simoniacal Election. When this Message was delivered to the Pope, and he saw the Instrument was discovered under his own hand, he fell into such a perplexity, that he dyed soon after, which stopt the progress of the business. By this it evidently appears, that Sixtus himself was no lawful Pope, and therefore could create no Cardinals: and, because the Cardinals created by him, had a voice in the Election of the subsequent Popes; it follows, That there hath been no legal Pope since Sixtus the fifth. For, after the death of Sixtus, Cardinal Montallo his Nephew, with forty Votes entred the Conclave, and chose Vrban the seventh, who lived but few daies; after him Gregory the fourteenth, who was Pope but ten months; after him Innocentius the ninth, who continued but two months; after him Clement the eighth, who out-lived the Election thirteen years. But not to enquire any further into the irregular Election, and the Simoniacal bargains of Paul the fifth, after the death of Clement; this certainly may suffice to let men see, what becomes of their Faith, when they pin it upon the Pope's sleeve: For, if we are to rely upon his infallible Testimony, and he so far from being infallible, that by their own Constitutions he was no Pope, nor to be looked on as other than a Magician, Heathen, and Heretick, is not our Faith then setled on a sure Foundation? For what assurance can any one have, that amidst all the enormities, and secret practices of the Conclave, any one is freely and legally chosen? but, Where will his Faith stand, when it is notorious, that a Cardinal must say, Dabo tibi claves, and that not without a Contract too. But, suppose all the assurance that may be of the person who is to deliver this infallible Testimony; yet at the utmost, the most men in the world can have no more than a Moral Certainty of the Definition it self. If we can imagine, that any one should know that great mystery, when the Pope should define ex Cathedrâ; yet, can he have any greater evidence of such a Definition, than we have concerning the things revealed in Scripture? I cannot think that you will suppose any greater evidence of it, than if one sees and hears it; and, what do we desire less in reference to the Doctrine of Christ? But how few in the world are there, who stand by, when the Pope defines? May others be certain of such a Definition or no, so as to be obliged to believe it? If not, What good can this Infallibility do them? if they may, Why do you quarrel with our way as uncertain? when if you grant your Infallibility, you cannot prescribe any more certain way, but one much more liable to question and dispute than ours is. Thus you see what little advantage you get by all these bravado's about Infallibility; and that you are so far from giving a satisfactory account of Faith, that you expose Christian Religion to more doubts, scruples, and uncertainties, than ever before. Which may abundantly shew to all unprejudiced minds, the great unreasonableness of your way of resolving Faith, which was the thing to be proved.