The safe religion, or, Three disputations for the reformed catholic religion against popery proving…The safe religion, or, Three disputations for the reformed catholike religion against popery proving…

Your argument therefore most vainly supposeth, that mens saith must be grounded on the word and credit of their Teachers, and that therefore they can have no stronger a faith, then is answerable to our credit with them. But its no such matter: It is Gods Veracity and not ours that is the formal object of the hearers faith: We do not desire (as it seems the Papists do) that they should take their faith on trust from us, and believe all on our words. We do but reveal to them that word of God, which is the ground of faith; and we prove it to be the word of God, and show them that in it which will prove it self to be so: so that as long as our Reasons, Proofs, Evidences are infallible, what necessity is there that the speaker must be infallible, and that in every thing that ought to be believed? Are all the Preachers of the Romish faction infallible? You will ⟨p. 353⟩say, no, your selves. Must they not therefore be heard? Or may not the doctrine which they preach beget a certain belief in the hearer? You will, I know, with one voice, say, that I may and doth. How then do fallible men among you, by preaching bring men to an infallible faith (in tant•m) and why may it not be so with us? Will you say that you preach in the name of the Pope who is infallible? Why but, how do your hearers know that; Must they take it on the preachers word, who proclaimeth himself fallible? Why then, may they not as well take it on our words that Christ and Scripture is infallible! When we say, we preach in Christs name, as confidently as you say that you preach in the Popes name? and so your doctrine and ours should be both uncertain, if both rested on the fallible preachers word. But if you will not bid your hearers take your word, but will undertake to demonstrate to them by cogent evidence, that you are sent by the Pope, and that he is infallible, and that you speak nothing but what he infallibly warranteth you to speak (all which will be incumbent on you to prove) then will we much more easily and truly prove, that God is true and that Scripture is his word (which is all that is incumbent on us to prove; seeing an infallible word, of an infallible God, must be heard, how fallible soever we may be) so that you might easily see, if you would that your task is incomparably harder then ours (even as much as to prove a falsehood is harder then to prove a truth.)

Your argument therefore most vainly supposeth, that mens saith must be grounded on the word and credit of their Teachers, and that therefore they can have no stronger a faith, then is answerable to our credit with them. But its no such matter: It is Gods Veracity and not ours that is the formal object of the hearers faith: We do not desire (as it seems the Papists do) that they should take their faith on trust from us, and believe all on our words. We do but reveal to them that word of God, which is the ground of faith; and we prove it to be the word of God, and shew them that in it which will prove it self to be so: so that as long as our Reasons, Proofs, Evidences are infallible, what necessity is there that the speaker must be infallible, and that in every thing that ought to be believed? Are all the Preachers of the Romish faction infallible? You will