View of Some Exceptions Made by a Romanist, Part 2 · Subpart 15 – Subpart 16
C. 7. Anſ. to Chap. 7.
Section 1 Your anſwer to the ſixth Section is by giving a diſtinction to tell us now both ſides make uſe of the pretence of ſeeking truth ſincerely] and concludes, that ſincerity is not a diſpoſition unprofitable, though it be a proofe inefficacious; which becauſe you are willing to grant, I will containe my ſelfe from ſpringing any game or recreation for the Reader at this time (of which he that were playſomely diſpoſed, would finde aboundant matter in the review of your diſtinction here applied) and give you preſent payment for your favour by acknowledging, that that which you grant, is all that is begg'd from you, viz. that God's promiſe of revealing of truth to thoſe who ſeeke it ſincerely, is not at all an argument, that they that pretend to the benefit of that promiſe, muſt have reall title to it; or conſequently, that they that have no other arguments to prove their Churches Infallibility, but that they ſeeke truth ſincerely, and yet after that ſincere ſearch are of that opinion, are to be heeded in their pretenſions. This juſtifies his Lordſhips ſixth paragraph, as fully as if you had ſubſcribed it without your diſtinction.
Section 2 His Lordſhips ſeventh Paragraph conſiſts of two things; Firſt, a reſuming of a part of his former argument, which had beene onelyonly mentioned, but not inforc'd before, that [ſuppoſing the Church were proved to be infallible, yet were not that ſufficient to give any man certaine knowledge which were it:] Secondly, a ſolid proofe of this affirmation, by plaine reaſon, becauſe the granting the Infallibility of the Church did onelyonly conclude, that God would alwaies have a Church that ſhould not erre, but not that this was appropriated to any particular Church, to ſuch a Succeſſion, to the Biſhop and Clergy of ſuch a place, &c. Thirdly, by a lively inſtance of the Greeke Church, which though it were now in the right, might hereafter erre, and ſo the Greeke Church be now fallible, and yet at the time that that erred, another Church might ariſe the Champion of truth, and ſo ſtill the Church be infallible.
Section 3 To theſe two parts of the Paragraph your diſpatch is ſhort, (and annext to the nothing that was replied to the former Section) to the firſt, a liberall Grant of that which no man thankes you for, (that it is as neceſſary to know which that infallible Church is, as that the Church is ſo) but then ſaying and profeſſing, that you doe, de facto, know which is the Church, and that ſhe is infallible; which (beſide that it is your old beloved petitio principii, to ſay you know it, & offer no proof for it, but your profeſſion and a Latine word, (when the very thing that his Lordſhip was juſt a proving, was, that you neither did nor could know it) comes not at all home to his Lordſhip's matter of ſhewing, that the acknowledgement of the Infallibility of the Church doth not evict, which is ſhe: For if 'twere acknowledged that you did know it, yet might it be by ſome other meanes, and not by proving or confeſſing the Church to be infallible.
Section 4 As for his Lordſhip's proofe and inſtance added to his propoſition, 'twas ſo deſpicable a thing, that 'twas not worth taking notice of; but inſtead of any ſuch thing, you give us a declaration of your owne opinion, that the Infallible Church was not a Proteus, but a conſpicuous body conſtantly adorned with truth, &c. which is againe the meaneſt begging of that which was juſt then denied, and diſprov'd; and muſt ſo ſtand, till you can annex reaſons to your opinion, and anſwers to his Lordſhips reaſons.
To the 8. Section. Chap. 8.
We never goe about to prove our Church to be the true, therefore, becauſe it holdeth with the truth, or teacheth true doctrine, as this Enquirer ſeemeth to ſuppoſe we doe; but rather contrariwiſe, becauſe it is the true Church of Chriſt, therefore we inferre it teacheth true doctrine; but that it is the true Church, we prove firſt of all and originally by reall revelations, called in the Scripture, Verba Signorum, that is, by ſignes, oſtenſions, or motives of credibility;Pſal. 104.27. which motives for a great and ſufficient part of them, are the ſame by which we prove to Infidels the truth of Chriſtianity it ſelfe. For theſe ſame motives, though when they are conſidered but in generall, and as it were afarre off, doe perſwade Chriſtianity but in generall, without deſigning out in particular this or that Individuall Chriſtianity; yet nevertheleſſe the ſelfe-ſame being underſtood diſtinctly, doe deſigne out a diſtinct and individuall Chriſtianity, and are applicable to none elſe; as for example, the ſame species which ſhew me a man in generall afarre off, the ſelfe-ſame afterwards, when he comes nearer, being diſtinctly perceived, doe ſhew me that man is this individuall; as Plato for example, and no other: For reall species doe not repreſent unto us, Entia rationis, or, Individua vaga, but determinate Individuals, namely, as often as thoſe species are diſtinctly and compleatly underſtood. As for the Circles into which both this Enquirer and Chillingworth would caſt us, and make us dance within them whether we will or no, they are but Chymaericall conceptions of fidling and trifling dispoſitions, which love to have toyes wherewith to entertaine themſelves, and in this point of reſolution, as we have declared it already, have no ſemblance of reality.