View of Some Exceptions Made by a Romanist, Part 2 · Subpart 21 – Subpart 24
C. 10. Anſw: To the Chap. 10.
Section 1 His Lordſhip's argument Sect. 11. is very ſtrong againſt the collecting a neceſſity of an Infallible guide for the interpreting of Scripture from the topick of God's goodneſſe, by propoſing another way of reconciling God's providence with his goodneſſe in this matter, (which if it may be done, concludes that other unneceſſary) viz. by mentioning a doctrine of more Evangelicall oeconomy; in which errours may be reconcileable with mercy, when God doth give grace to the diligent ſeeker to finde out truth, or by this dilemma, that without ſuch an infallible guide, upon the uſe of Reaſon in the interpretation of Scripture, and ſearch for tradition, God will either give grace to finde what is ſo ſought, or pardon if he miſſe; and ſo though it ſtand not with Gods goodneſſe to damne him for every errour, to whom he hath aſſigned no infallible way to finde out all truth, yet to him that is confident that God will not damne any man upon ſuch tearmes, as the ſervant laid to his charge, when he told him he was an auſtere man, &c. to him that teaches not ſuch legall bloudy doctrine againſt God, this argument of the Romaniſts will not be preſſing at all; this expedient of the Goſpell-grace or Goſpell-mercy being as fit for the turne of infirme ſoules, as an infallible guide would be; as indeed the ſtate of imperfection wherein we are placed, is as fit for our turnes, when the foreign of the Goſpell is revealed, and proportioned to it, as Adam's Paradiſe of Supernaturall all-ſufficient ſtrength, and innocence would be.
Section 2 To all which all that you returne is only this that all this is nothing againſt the ordinary proviſion and neceſſity of a guide; becauſe thoſe miſſes or miſtakings are caſes extraordinary: To which I anſwer, Firſt, that if it were ſuppoſed that againſt the ordinary proviſion of a guide the argument were not of force, yet ſure it might againſt the neceſſity of it, and then that is all that is pretended to by his Lordſhip, and that which alone is deſtructive to you; and therefore 'tis ſtrange you ſhould couple them together as ſo ſociall things, which are ſo diſtant and ſeparable, for ſure though Evangelicall grace and mercy doe not exclude an ordinary proviſion of an infallible way, but leave it in medio, that God may if he will make that ordinary proviſion, yet notwithſtanding this, it followes not that ſuch a proviſion is required, or neneſſary; There is a wide diſtance betwixt [poſſible if God pleaſe] and [neceſſary to the vindicating of God's goodneſſe] now againſt the latter onelyonly it is that his Lordſhip argues, and is not at all concern'd in th'other, and therefore I ſhall not need to examine whether the firſt be true, it being ſo cleare, that the ſecond hangs ſo looſe from it, and will alone ſerve our turnes as well.
Section 3 But then Secondly, I profeſſe not at all to underſtand what you meane by that reaſon of your aſſertion, [becauſe the miſſes or miſtakings be caſes extraordinary] for firſt, how can it be denied in this imperfect infirme ſtate of mortality, that now we are in, but that errours and miſtakings are very ordinary? That they are common there is no doubt, and as little that they are agreeable to that order or courſe that is now among men, and to you that ſay in the next words, that you know not why ſuch defects ſhould need any pardon (and to us that acknowledge that they that reforme all other, and pray daily, demitte debita, ſhall through Chriſt have pardon of courſe for theſe) ſure they cannot paſſe for extraordinary caſes in either ſenſe, for that would imply, that now under the Goſpell it ſhould be ordinary, or regular to puniſh involuntary errours (which you ſay can be no crimes) and extraordinary either for us to commit, or for God to pardon them.
Section 4 But then Secondly, if it were true that theſe miſſes, &c. were caſes extraordinary, yet can I not ſee how theſe words can be annext to your former, as a proofe of their being anſwer to his Lordſhip (becauſe how extraordinary ſoever the miſſes may be, the pardon for miſſes may doe as well for you, as an infallible guide) unleſſe you meane ſomewhat elſe by ordinary caſes, then what my capacity hath reacht to, and till you pleaſe to inſtruct me better, I ſhall foreign, and by exerciſing my charity in not judging what I doe not underſtand, invite yours to inſtruct me that I may.
Section 5 As for the Coherence of his Lordſhips diſcourſe, you have little temptation to doubt of that, when you have ſaid that he conceives that ſuch errours or miſſings ſhould need pardon, for to that, all that he ſaith is coherent; It ſeemes you are not of his opinion for the truth of that; and whether is in the right I ſhall not now examine, or enlarge to any ſo accidentall and extrinſecall diſcourſe, but onelyonly tell you, that believing as you doe, you ought to have ſaid [not true] when you miſtooke, and ſaid [not coherent.]
To the 12. Section, Chap. 11.
To this charge we anſwer, that our proofes of a ſure guide, are themſelves alſo ſure; and what proofes thoſe are, we before have ſignified, Chap. 8. & Sect. 8. and before Chap. 5. Sect. 4.
Ch. 11. Anſw. to the 11. Chap.
Your next Chapter being but a reference to what you had before ſaid (and that before examined by us) my anſwer ſhall be anſwerably onelyonly a reference alſo, without taking more paines, to put you in minde, how unfit your Verba ſignorum (which you there affirmed to be motives of credibility) are now to proceed or commence infallible proofes, for thoſe are they which his Lordſhip's argument requires in his 12. Section.
To the 13, 14, 15, 16, Sections, Chap. 12.
The Infallibility of Popes or Councels is no point of doctrine neceſſary to be knowne diſtinctly, before any reſolution of faith can be made, becauſe it is ſufficient to learne out of Catechiſmes and the common practice of the Church, what is to be believed: Neither is there any more probable feare of miſſing which is the See Apoſtolique, and which the Churches living in communion with it, then there is of a Subjects being ignorant to what Kingdome he belongs; and, as for doctrine of beliefe, it is found out as readily, and as ſurely as the other, by thoſe meanes of inſtruction which we have ſignified already. As for the Simony objected, Sect. 14. it is no impediment of his power, ſo he be received peaceably by the Church, and not … in queſtion for it. The like may be ſaid of the decrees and definitions of Councels, together with the ſenſe or meaning of them. And by this the 15, and the 16 Sections are anſwered.