have changed my Religion for bafe fecular Ends, with out Reason.

Prot. You know that beft; but that was not my meaning: but the reafon of my Question was, because you changed for an infallible Faith. Now if you rely ftill upon Reason, I don't fee how your Faith is more infallible than mine: for I am as confident, as you can be, that I have as good Reasons for my Faith, and in my opinion much better, than you have for yours.

Conv. I beg your pardon for that: I rely upon the Authority of an Infallible Church, you trust to your private Reason.

Prot. And I beg your pardon, Sir: for I rely on the Authority of Scripture, which is as infallible as your Church.

Conv. But you rely on your own Reafon for the Authority of Scripture, and those particular Doctrines you

draw from it.

Prot. And you rely on your own Reason and Judg. ment, for the Infallibility of your Church, and coniequently of all the Doctrines of it; and therefore your infallible Faith is as much resolved into your own fallible Judgment, as the Proteftant Faith is: fo 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; but the Dispute is, whether your Reason and Judgment, or ours, be best: and therefore if you think your Reafon better than ours, you did well to change; but if you changed your Church, hoping to grow more infallible by it, you were miserably mistaken, and may return to us again: for we have more rational Certainty than you have, and you have no more infallible Certainty than we. You think you are reasonably affured that your Church is infallible, and

then

then you take up your Religion upon trust from your Church, without, and many times against Senfe and Reafon, according as it happens; fo that you have onely a general affurance of the Infallibility of your Church, and that no greater than Proteftants pretend to in other cafes, viz. the certainty of Reafon and Argument; but have not so much as a rational affurance of the truth of your particular Doctrines; that if you be 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 affured, that the Scriptures are the Word of God, and in particular are aflured, that the Faith, which we profefs, is agreeable to Scripture, or exprefly contained in it, and does not contradict either Senfe or Reason, or any other Principle of Knowledge. So that we have as much affurance of every Article of our Faith, as you have of the Infallibility of your Church; and therefore have at leaft double and treble the affurance that you have. But if you know the Reasons of your Converfion, I defire to know of you, What made you think, that you wanted Certainty in the Church of England?

Conv. Because with you every man is left to his own private Reason and Judgment, the effects of which, are very visible in that infinite variety of Sects among you, which fhews what an uncertain thing your Reason is, that fo few judge alike of the power and validity of the fame Reafons.

Prot. And were you not fenfible at the fame time, that you were left to your own Reason and Judgment,. when you turned Papift? Are you not fenfible, that men do as little agree about your Reasons for Infallibility, as they do about any Proteftant Reasons? Do not I know the Reasons alledged by you for the Infallibility of

your

your Church as well as you do: And do we not ftill differ about them? And is not this as much an Argument of the uncertainty of thofe Reasons, which make you a Papift, that they cannot make me a Papift, as the diffent of Proteftants in other matters, is of the uncertainty of their Reasons? Could you indeed be infallibly affured of the Infallibility of your Church, I grant you would have the advantage of us, but while you found your belief of Infallibility upon fuch an uncertain Principle, as you think Reason is; if Certainty had been your onely aim, you might as well have continued in the Church of England, as have gone over to Rome.

This abundantly fhews what a ridiculous thing it is for a Proteftant to be difputed out of his Church and Religion, upou a pretence of more infallible Certainty in the Church of Rome: Were they indeed infpired with an infallible affurance, that the Church of Rome is Infallible, there might be fome pretence for this; but an Infallibility which has no better foundation than mens private Reafon, and private Judgment, is no Infallibility, but has all the fame uncertainties, which they charge on the Protestant Faith, and a great deal more, becaule it is not founded upon fuch great and certain Realons.

The plain truth is, men may be taught from their Infancy to believe the Church Infallible, and when they are grown up, may take it, without examination, for a first and felf-evident Principle, and think this an infallible. Faith but men who understand the difference between the evidence of Reason and Infallibility, can never found an infallible Faith on Reason, nor think that a man who is reasoned into the belief of the Infallibility of the Church, is more infallible in his Eaith, than a Proteftant is: And fuch a man will fee no reason to quit the Church of England, for the fake of an infallible Faith; for though

they

they had an infallible Guide, yet Reason cannot give them an infallible affurance of it, but can rife no higher at most than a Proteftant certainty.

2. It is impoffible alfo by Reafon to prove, that men must not use their own Reafon and Judgment in matters of Religion. If any man should attempt to perfwade you of this, ask him, why then he goes about to difpute with you about Religion? whether men can difpute without using their own Reafon and Judgment? whether they can be convinced without it? whether his of fering to dispute with you against the ufe of your Reafon, does not prove him ridiculous and abfurd? For if you must not use your Reafon, why does he appeal to your Reafon? And whether you should not be as ridiculous and abfurd as he, if by his Reasons and Arguments you should be perfwaded to condemn the ufe of Reason in Religion? Which would be in the fame act to do, what you condemn, to use your Reafon when you condemn it. If you must not use your Reason and private Judgment, then you must not by any Reasons be perfwaded to condemn the ufe of Reafon; for to condemn is an act of Judgment, which you must not use in matters of Religion. So that this is a point which no man can dispute againft, and which no man can be convinced of by difputing, without the reproach of felf-contradiction.

This is an honourable way of filencing thefe-troublefome and clamorous Difputants, to let them fee, that their Principles will not allow of Difputing, and that fome of their Fundamental Doctrines, which they impose upon the World, are a direct contradiction to all Disputes, for the very admitting of a Difpute, confutes them; and the meanest man may quickly fay more in this Cause, than their greatest Difputants can answer.

CHAP.

2.

CHA P. II.

Concerning the feveral Topicks of Difpute.

TH

SECT. I.

Concerning Arguments from Reafon.

"He next Direction relates to the Topicks from which they Dispute; which are, either Reafon, Scripture, or the Authority of the ancient Fathers and Writers of the Christian Church; for the infallible Authority of Popes, or General Councils, is the thing in dispute between us, and therefore can prove nothing till that be first proved by fomething else.

I. To begin then with Reason: Now we do allow of Reafon in matters of Religion; and our Adverfaries pretend to use it, when they think it will ferve their turn, and rail at it, and despise it, when it is against them.

Not that we make Natural Reafon the Rule or the Measure of our Faith; for to believe nothing but what may be proved by Natural Reafon, is to reject Revelation, or to deftroy the neceffity of it; For what ufe is there of a Revelation, or at least what neceffity of it, if nothing must be revealed, but what might have been known by Natural Reafon without Revelation; or at least what Natural Reason can fully comprehend, when it is revealed? But though we believe fuch things, when they are revealed by God, which Natural Reafon could never have taught us, and which Natural Reafon does not fee the depths and mysteries of; and therefore do not stint

our