View of Some Exceptions Made by a Romanist, Part 2 · Subpart 4 – Subpart 6
To the 1. §. Chap. 2.
Section 1 True it is, and we grant it willingly, that every proofe that is ſolid and good, muſt be, a notioribus, and that every ſure concluſion muſt alſo be deduced from no other premiſes or principles, then ſuch as be knowne, and, at leaſt, be as certaine as we deſire the concluſion ſhould be. Nevertheleſſe we doe abſolutely deny, that this aſſertion of ours touching the Churches infallibility, is by us offered to be proved by waies no better then our Adverſaries offer to prove that ſhe hath erred, as this Inquirer pretends we doe; for we affirme that our Churches infallibility is proved by reaſons which are reall and true, and that on the other ſide, the adverſary offers to prove the contrary, onelyonly by ſuch as be no more then ſeeming and pretended. Now true reaſon or authority is a way quite different from pretended, and much better then it, and therefore the Inquirers charge is falſe, or, at leaſt, light and ineffectuall. Muſt all controverſies in Philoſophy be undecidable, becauſe both ſides pretend reaſon; or no ſuits of Law be judged, becauſe both ſides pretend Law? Certainly, whatſoever both ſides doe pretend, yet there is but one ſide that hath it, as namely, but one ſide of Philoſophers have true reaſon, and but one ſide of contendents have true Law, and ſo in like manner but one ſide of contending Chriſtians have true reaſon for them, Scripture, or Tradition, howſoever both may pretend it, and therefore we doe not goe about to prove the Church is infallible by the ſelfe ſame wayes that you goe about to prove that ſhe hath erred, but by wayes that are quite different from them, and the ſame but in name onelyonly, and no farther; By which it followes, that, either you are deceived, or we, and it is not neceſſary that both. And ſo much for this great and principall difficulty which troubled the Inquirer ſo much as he writ to London for the ſolution of it, which thing, ſurely, was more then needed, for it might have been done at Great Tue without conſulting London about it, or either of our two Ʋniverſities.
We doe not maintaine, as he falſely ſuppoſes, that Reaſon, Scripture, and Fathers be all fallible, univerſally ſpeaking but, in ſome caſes only, as, namely, reaſon is not fallible in ſuch verities as be evident, but in other that be not ſo, it is. Againe, Scripture is a moſt certain rule whenſoever it is certainly expounded, otherwiſe it is not. Laſtly, the Fathers be aſſured and undoubted witneſſes of the Doctrines which were held in their time, though not undoubted definers of them. And, by this anſwer, all the three main propps of this Authors diſcourſe are overthrown, and fall unto the ground.*In this place the Apologiſt in his reviſal put in theſe words [So that in fine all theſe three be infallible] I muſt a little wonder to what purpoſe. For if they belong to the words immediatly precedent, they will then ſignify, that the three propps of his Lordſhips diſcourſe are infallible. But if to the former part of the Section to ſignify Reaſon &c. to be infallible, they are then either to be underſtood, that they are infallible in all caſes, and then that is point blanke contrary to what he had ſaid [that they were fallible in ſome] or elſe that they are infallible onelyonly in ſome; and then that he had ſaid diſtinctly before, and needed not to have again a new repeated.
C. 2. Anſw. to the 2. Chap.
Section 1 To the ſecond Chapter, I need only to put you in mind, that when his Lordſhip ſaith [the wayes of proofe that the Church of Rome can never have any errours, are no better then thoſe by which we offer to prove ſhe hath erred, and nameth three heads of Arguments, from Scripture, Reaſon, and Ancient writers, and proveth you to affirme all theſe are infallible, becauſe nothing is in your opinion infallible but the Church; and from thence concludes that we can never infallibly know that the Church is infallible, becauſe all the meanes propoſed to induce that knowledge, being of neceſſity ſomewhat elſe beſide that only infallible, muſt needs be fallible] it will be very unſufficient in you to reply, that his Lordſhip hath not ſaid true in the firſt particular, upon no other ground of proofe, but only becauſe you [affirme that the Churches infallibility is proved by Reaſons which are really true, and that the contrary is by us offered to be prov'd only by ſuch as be only ſeeming and pretended] for this very thing that you affirme, viz. that thoſe your reaſons are reall and true, is a part of the very queſtion in hand, and as much denyed by us, as the infallibility of your Church, and therefore, by your own rule of proceeding à notioribus, cannot be proper means to conclude, that his Lordſhip erred, to him that will farre more eaſily be brought to believe that your reaſons are not reall, then that his Lordſhip erred in this particular, and that will as readily confeſſe he erres, as that thoſe reaſons are reall.
Section 2 It appeared ſtrange to me that you ſhould begin with ſuch a petitio principii, untill by reading on, I diſcerned that this one meane Sophiſme hath run through moſt Paragraphs of your following Treatiſe, which is a ſhrewd infirmity in a confutation, to take that for a principle granted, and ſo beſtow no proofe upon it, which is by you known to be denied by us, and yet to conceive that this will be able to ſatisfy our other importunities.
Section 3 2dly. You muſt obſerve that his Lordſhip had ſaid only this, [that your Churches infallibility is offered to be proved by no better wayes, than thoſe by which we offer to prove ſhe hath erred] which is an undertaking of his Lordſhip, and not a bare aſſertion, and ſure you cannot ſay he offers to prove it by reaſons onelyonly ſeeming, for you as yet know not particularly, what thoſe reaſons are, any farther, then that they are from the ſame heads, by which you offer to prove the contrary.
Section 4 And Thirdly, if the Arguments which he offers be only ſeeming on his ſide, yet if you marke it, they are ſo ſeeming to him, and as long as they ſeem to him to conclude that the Church hath erred, the very ſame arguments, or thoſe that are no more ſeeming, cannot aſſure him, that ſhe is infallible; for by your own confeſſion every ſolid proofe muſt be ex notioribus, i. e. not only by media which are more true, but which are more known to him, to whom this proofe is offered; and, if you marke, that is it to which his Lordſhip's argument drives, that the reaſons by which you prove the infallibility of your Church, are ſuch as you confeſſe your ſelves to be fallible: Marke, not which you confeſſe to be falſe, but fallible, your confeſſing them fallible is enough to his Lordſhip's turne, though they ſhould have the luck to be true, becauſe the infallibility of your Church, on which, as on a foundation and principle, you muſt build in many after difficulties, had need be infallibly aſſerted and knowne, or if it be but fallibly, will it ſelfe be fallible (no concluſion aſcending higher, then the premiſes have aſcended) and ſo, though it were true, yet not fit to commence a principle of all other truths.
Section 5 Now that theſe reaſons or premiſes of yours are fallible and by you acknowledged to be ſo, his Lordſhip was not content to affirme (and ſo is himſelfe farre enough from giving you example of begging the queſtion) but proves it by this argument, becauſe with you nothing is not fallible but the Church. This may be diſſolved into an hypotheticall ſyllogiſme, whereof you muſt deny one propoſition, or elſe the concluſion is forfeited. If with you the Church be the only infallible, then with you any other reaſons, by which you prove the infallibility of the Church, are not infallible, but with you the Church is the only infallible, therefore with you any other reaſons by which you prove the infallibility of the Church are not infallible. Now if you look over your anſwer againe, you ſhall find that your only exception commeth not home to any part of this ſyllogiſme, for you doe not ſo much as ſay, that any thing is infallible but the Church; Or, if now you will ſee your want, and make additions to your anſwer, then ſay diſtinctly, is any other thing beſide the Church infallible, or no? If it be, let it be named; if it be not, the concluſion is granted us. And till this addition be thus made (i. e. for this preſent anſwer of yours) 'tis, I conceive manifeſt, that you have ſaid no ſyllable to the prime part of his Lordſhip's firſt Section.
Section 6 As for your inſtances of Phyloſophy and Law ſuites, they can prove nothing againſt his Lordſhip, unleſſe you can name ſome ſect of Phyloſophy, that hath not only truth, but infallibility, and tell us which it is, and prove that by arguments which are confeſt to be infallible; till you have done that, your inſtance is not pertinent, and if ever you ſhall doe it, 'twill not be concluding againſt us, unleſſe you produce the like arguments for the infallibility of your Church againſt us, which muſt be ſome other then are yet propoſed.
Section 7 As for Lawſuits, that they are determined to one ſide by the Judge, doth not prove that that Judge is infallible (which is the only matter of debate,) and if the contenders are bound to ſtand to his award, it is, becauſe the Law and ſupreme Magiſtrate have commanded them to doe ſo, and becauſe this is evident and infallible, that they have done ſo, by the commiſſion which the Judge hath from them. And when the like is produced for your Church, I hope all your Subjects will ſubmit to it, but then it muſt be moreover proved that all Chriſtians are ſuch Subjects, or elſe we hope we ſhall not be involved under that obligation.
Section 8 As for your long deduction from whence you conclude that either wee are deceived, or you, and that it is not neceſſary that both ſhould, we grant it, and profeſſe our opinions, that though both you and we are fallible, yet only you are, or can be deceived in this particular, (which we conceive is cleare, becauſe only you pretend Infallibility, which we not pretending, but affirming that we are not ſo, cannot in this be deceived, unleſſe we be infallible) but ſee not what it concludes againſt his Lordſhip, whoſe argument depends not on any ſuch aſſertion, that both parties are deceived, but only that your pretended Infallibility is by you proved by no other arguments, then thoſe which you confeſſe are fallible.
Section 9 What you adde by way of triumph and ſcoffe I muſt not anſwer, but by yeilding you free leave thus to pleaſe your ſelfe, and (if this recreation tend at all to your health) to adviſe you to do ſo ſtill, and (whenſoever it may be for your divertiſement) to reckon up the names of London, Great Tue, and the two Ʋniverſities.
Section 10 After the foreign ſang, you at length bethinke your ſelfe that his Lordſhip had affirmed, that Scripture, Reaſon and Fathers, are by you maintained to be all fallible; and to this you anſwer by a diſtinction of univerſally ſpeaking, and in ſome caſes onelyonly, and acknowledge that you affirme them all to be fallible onelyonly in ſome caſes. Now firſt you ought to have given anſwer to his Lordſhip's proofe for what he ſaid, which was this, that you affirme that onelyonly the Church is infallible; from whence it is a concluſion, that therefore Reaſon, and Scripture, and Fathers, are by you affirmed to be fallible, whereas you letting the premiſes alone, apply anſwer to the concluſion, which is as much againſt Logicke as to deny it. without denying the premiſes, or ſhewing the falſeneſſe of them. But then Secondly, that which is fallible in ſome caſes onelyonly, is by that acknowledged to be fallible, and by that is proved unſufficient to prove another thing to be infallible in all things, for if it be fallible in any, caſe, it may be fallible in this, that it pronounces that other to be infallible; and till there be ſome infallible argument produced that it is infallible in that particular pronouncing, its Infallibility in other things will availe nothing; or if it doe, it may availe alſo for us to prove what we offer to prove from it, that your Church hath erred.
Section 11 There is no poſſible avoiding of this, but by ſaying and proveing it infallible in inducing your concluſion, and falſe aſwell as fallible in inducing ours, (for if it be true, though it be fallible, it will ſerve our turne, but it muſt be both, or will not ſerve yours, you being obliged to prove the Infallibility of your Church by ſomething which is it ſelfe infallible, becauſe it muſt be matter of faith with you, which nothing is, but what is infallibly induced, but it is ſufficient for us to beleive you and your Church fallible, though we ſhould make it no matter of faith that you are ſo) which becauſe you endeavour not to doe in this place, it will be impertinent to examine the truth of what elſe you adde (concerning the caſes wherein you affirme Reaſon, and Scripture, and Fathers to be infallible) any farther then thus, that by your owne explication of the diſtinction, and enumeration of caſes, I ſhall conclude, that Reaſon doth not prove infallibly that your Church is infallible, becauſe the Infallibility of your Church is not an evident verity; Scripture doth not prove it ſo, becauſe it is not certainly expounded to that probation; Fathers doe not prove it ſo, becauſe it was not a doctrine held in their time, and affirmed by them to be ſo. Each of which negations of mine though they were as ſufficient proofe as what you have offered to the contrary, yet I ſhall undertake to make good againſt you, if you ſhall thinke fit to call me to it, by ſetting downe your reaſons to the contrary.
Section 12 And ſo if on your ſuppoſition, his Lordſhip's three maine props were fallen to the ground (which is another boaſt that had no more relation to the preſent matter, then ground in truth; and therefore I beſeech you leave out ſuch exceſſes hereafter) yet your ſuppoſition being not ſo much as endeavoured to be proved, the props ſtand as firmly as is deſired.
To the ſecond §. Chap. 3.
The Enquirer is here much miſtaken, for we are not at all offended with Proteſtants for their alleadging Scriptures, but for their doing of it after a way which is fallible and uncertaine; in which caſe we ſay Scripture can be no foundation of faith. Wherefore though they alleadge Scripture and we alſo, yet doth it not follow thence that the Proteſtants diſprove the infallibility by the ſelfe ſame media or meanes, by which we endeavour to prove the ſame. It is true, they attempt to doe ſo, but that they doe it, is denied. The Scripture when ſurely ſenſed or expounded, is a different medium from the ſame Scripture ſenſed unſurely or expounded falſely. Now he that takes an unſure way, which no reaſon or diſcretion commends unto him, and leaves the ſure, which Reaſon does perſwade him to be ſuch, if that man chance to erre, it is eaſie to underſtand why God ſhould be more offended with him, then with others that doe not ſo but hold a prudent and contrary courſe.
The ſumme is, that holy Scripture, after ſuch time as it comes to be knowne certainly for Canonicall and ſhall be expounded according to the interpretation of the Church, foundeth an argument ſtrong and invincible; but when otherwiſe, one that is probable onelyonly, or ad hominem; and this latter we ſay is your caſe, and out of this give a reaſon why your reſolves are temerarious and preſumptuous, and, in fine, ſuch wherewith God may be diſpleaſed juſtly, foraſmuch as no man ought to goe about this worke unadviſedly, or expoſe his ſalvation without all need, to chance and uncertainty, as if he meant to build upon the ſand.