Brief Account of One Suggestion of the Romanist, Chapter 5 · Section 4
SECT. IV.
His tenth Section answered. His contradictory answers about speaking contradictions. Authority reconcileable with fallibility. Peters Primacy no proof of his Ʋniversal Pastorship. This includes falling at once into one kinde of sinne. The major part of a Roman Councel peccable, or fallible. The infallibility of Apostles no way argumentative for the like of the present Church. The many charges of weaknesse shew'd to be so many slanders.
1. HIs tenth Section begins with a continued confident decree, which cannot be resisted, that I must be a pleader for such a weak Conscience as makes a man think he ought not to communicate with the Church, though the truth be on the Churches side. And when to his former suggesting of this, I had confronted my expresse words to the contrary, that such an one is in many respects criminous, and particularly in this, that he communicates not— His reply is, that he did not forbid me to speak contradictions. *P. 62.A little while since, when it served his turn, he could ask whether it were any wrong to them to affirm that Doctor H. and his friends will not speak contradictions] and here the only Reply to plain words is, that he will not forbid me to speak contradictions, which is in effect to give me leave to give him the lye in his former affirmation.
2. But I shall not make use of his liberality, which his resolvednesse to say somewhat hath extorted from him, but view the Grounds of his conclusion, that I have contradicted my self, my four (as he phansies) contributions to his Windmill; Of which all that I need say is, that the three first are pure negatives, 1. That I alleadge nothing that will not serve others, give no distinctive sign of the goodnesse of mine above others, 2. that I praetend no rigorous evidences for our disobedience, 3. that I leave no grounds rationally to convince a man in error (to all which I answer, that I was not obliged to doe any thing toward any of these at that time, i. e. to handle impertinently what no way belonged to me to consider, and the same account serves for my omission of answering his two pages, charged on me p. 95.) and the fourth cited from Chap. 4. Par. 9. (when there is no such place in my book) is, my position of the error in some cases on the Churches side] which how it shall found my pleading for those that refuse to communicate with the Church, when the Church is in the right, is a secret as yet unveiled, it being visible enough, that they may bring full testimony of some truths, and to deserve therein to be believed, who are found to fail in others, and so deserve it not.
3. Accordingly the authority we allow our present Church in affirming any thing of faith, is that which it borrowes from the grounds of her affirming, and may, one would think, be competible with fallibility, when the Pope himself hath the Authority of Supreme Pastor still allowed him by S. W. after that Mr. White hath wholly divested him of his Infallibility.
4. What followes of the Infallibity of the Apostles and of the Church in testifying what the Ap…stles from Christ had delivered to them, I referre to be compared with what was said in my Answer to Schisme Disarm. n. 7. and 12. of that Sect. 3. and shall only note that among the Apostolical Doctrines*P. 98. he mentions Peters being chief of the Apostles, and the Pope his Successor, which being contradicted by other Romanists, as hath been shewed, is yet, if it were granted, so farre short of the praetended Ʋniversal Pastorship derived from Christ, (on which his whole cause depends, as appeared in his grounds) that it might, in a limited sense of Primacy, so as to found at Rome the chief Patriarchate, be acknowledged by us, and so all the rest that he hath there taken the pains to deduce about universal delivery or Oral Tradition (understanding it of that of the Primitive Church) without his reaping the least advantage to his cause by it.
5. For as to the†P. 98. first praetended weaknesse, I answer, that the Church, which in some things (sufficiently attested to come from Christ) is certain of their truth and her faith, may on that g…ound justly oblige others to belief, though she be not, nor praetend to be infallible in all other things. And therefore there is a wide difference betwixt infallibility in teaching attested truths, and absolute or Ʋniversal Infallibility, for that extends to those things that are not thus attested.
6. In his second charge of weaknesse, he requires me to manifest that all men may fall at once into any one self same kinde of sin, And till I can do so, I must still be chid for not apprehending any but Saints and Angels and God to be impeccable] But 1. I discern not that necessity to be incumbent on me; Those are peccable, or subject, lyable to sin (which is all I said) that doe not fall at once into one self-same kinde of sin. 2. My advantage depending not on the proving this kinde of peccability to belong to all men at once, but only to the Church in the Romanists notion of it, i. e. to the present Church of Rome, however assembled or represented for the teaching or delivering any Doctrine, as a Doctrine of Faith, 'tis most evident, that as great a number of men, as they amount to, have fallen at once into one self-same kinde of sin, I instance in the Idol-worship of the Heathens, into which there is no quaestion, more nations and numbers of men, than those which constitute the Roman Communion, have in many the same ages been ingulfed. But then 3. neither was it my concernment to evidence that all that make up the Roman Communion of any age, should thus be peccable, 'twas to my praetensions sufficient, that so great a part of an assembly of such, as might define an error conciliarly, i. e. the major part of a Roman Councel, be it that of Trent, or any other, might consent in commanding a vice, be it the worshiping Images, or the like. And none of his offers of demonstration can have any appearance of force against this kinde of universal peccability. For to this there wants not such an universal conspiration as he talks of, in all men to cut their own throats to morrow. 'Tis sufficient if a few being themselves in an error practical, use means, which praevail, to seduce, within the space of the sitting of a Councel, a major part of those that are praesent, to consent to the inacting of a Law for it. Or 'tis sufficient, if a false Doctrine in any thing practical, do by degrees get such an head, that it defie, and discredit all Opposers. And so in like manner for fallibility, it is not needfull to our praetensions, that all and every member of the Church of God should conspire so to mistake or delude, as to tell any damnable and palpable lye, (though as great a number of men and farre greater than those which make up the Roman Communion, may certainly thus mistake, witnesse the Mahomedanes in believing that their Mahomes was the Paraclete promised by Christ) 'Tis sufficient, if either that which is true, but no part of the Faith once delivered, or that which hath not so much as truth in it, should by several steps and stages of progresse get ground, and at length praevail with a prevailing part of them which met at the Councel of Trent, &c. for then that which was never delivered by the Apostles as de fide, shall be advanced to that praesumption, and by that means propagate it self to all that acknowledge that Councel. And in this case that they which thus define a new article de fide, or they that teach it their children as 'tis defined, shall professe that it is true, and that it was taught them by their ancestors, perhaps that 'twas delivered down from the Apostles themselves, is no miracle of miracles, no stupendious prodigy, parallel, as S. W. suggests, to natures failing in the propagation of an intire species▪ but that which is ordinarily and regularly consequent to those few mens having received, and its being their interest to propagate that Doctrine, which by their diligence proves so successefull in gaining Proselytes, and suffrages to its commencing an article. This answers all that he charges under the style of Third and Fourth weaknesse also.
7. To his fifth charged weakness, the answer is unquestionable, that I that speak of separating from an erroneous or but fallible Church, adding that only Saints and Angels and God have the priviledge of impeccable and infallible, could have no respect to the Church of the Apostles times, who were so farre distant from mine, that I could not with any shew of reason speak of them. And though if he asked of men doing their offices on earth, I could not pertinently answer of Saints in heaven, yet when the quaestion was of mens now separating from any Church on earth, and he instanced in the Church of the Apostles, I might fitly say, as I did, that they are, and, at the time whereof I spoke, were in heaven, and therefore I could not be thought to speak of them. To this I adde, that when two answers were given, his objection to the first took no notice of the second, which satisfied (as it was designed to doe) what is now objected to the first.
8. And when in his sixth he objects to that second answer, that it grants his instance to be true, my reply is, that it is contrary to no words of mine, nor interest of ours, that it should be so far true as I granted, viz. that they the Apostles should be infallible by vertue of Christs promise, and Spirit, in the founding of a Church, and delivering all his truth to it, For how can that come home, or be appliable to the praetended Infallibility of their present Church, any farther than that really accords with the Doctrine of the Apostles; and so farre we acknowledge it infallible. And therefore if this be all, that the Romanist, as he saith, demands or professes that some men on earth, i. e. that once were there (meaning the Apostles of Christ, of whom only we there speak) may be infallible in some things, to wit, in things necessary for the salvation of mankinde, we shall certainly agree, and I should hope never fall out again, if he would be consistent to himself, which he cannot be, when he will assert the same Infallibility to belong to his praesent Church, for sure that is not the proper interpretatation of the word [Apostles]
9. This gives answer to his three next accusations of weaknesse, 7. 8. and 9th, yea and to his 10th also, if it be remembred that some of those things which he praetends his Church infallibly to teach, as the Popes Ʋniversal Pastorship, &c. are no more branches of the Faith truely so called, delivered from the Apostles, than is the squaring of a circle, or whatsoever else he shall please playsomely to instance in, and in such it is (and not in the matter of competition betwixt the Goose Pye and Shoulder of Mutton) that I quaestion their Churches Infallibility.
10. And then if it were granted, as in his 11th he demands, that their Depository or Church cannot mistake in delivering needfull points (as I affirm not that they doe, and though I cannot define of their powers, yet I cannot but think it a strange though never so just a degree of Desertion, and withdrawing of abused and long provoked Grace, if ever they should come to erre in those few, which they have under all their corruptions thus long continued to believe) yet it would still remain that they might erre in delivering those for needfull, which are not, and that is all that we ever affirm of their Fallibility.
11. This therefore is answer to his twelfth charge also, which will not permit me to hold what profess'dly I doe, because he is of the same minde with me. My weaknesse, if we will believe him, is, that I unawares recurre to their Rule of Faith.] But 1. Can there be any truth in that? do I recurre to their Fundamental of Fundamentals, their profess'd sole Rule, Oral Tradition, and Infallibility of their present Church? Is there no difference between the Church of Rome of this age, and the Ʋniversal Primitive, which had the advantage of seeing and knowing, and infallibly testifying what was done by the Apostles in their presence, being foreign and foreign, which St. Luke c. 1.2. mentions as a considerable circumstance in testifiers, to give infallible authority to their testimonies. 2. With what colour of reason doth he suggest that what I doe, I do unawares? when he dislikes what I doe, and thinks, or is pleased to style it falsifying, then, to be sure, it is my willfull, and deliberate action; But if I say that, from which he doth not (because he cannot with safety to his own dear Phaenomena) dissent, then forsooth I must have said it unawares and never mean to stand to it] I shall stand to it, as farre as my reason ingages me, but not so farre as S. W's groundlesse application would extend it. I shall stand to it as farre as the whole Church shall joyntly testifie their own sensations, that they heard or saw this, or that, so the Primitive Church heard what the Apostles taught, and saw the Epistles subscribed by their hands, and received by messengers of indubitable faith from them; And thus their Testimonies safely conveighed to us are now our Grounds of faith; But I shall not stand to it so, as to believe all those things to have come down from the Apostles (particularly the Doctrine of the Ʋniversal Pastorship) which S W. tells us did come down, and hath no reason of his affirmation, but the knack, or foreign demonstration of Rushworths Dialogues, which few of his own party, by his own confession, beside himself, apprehend to have any the least weight in it, and which hath already been considered, and allowed its utmost force, and been found to build on that as confess'd, which is most denyed by us, and in every view of it found to be nothing worth. Which I referre him to review in its proper place, And to his present question. Why if the Tradition of the Primitive Church be infallible, the succeeding Church should not injoy the same priviledge] the Answer at present is sufficient, that the succeeding Church is Infallible also in testifying their own sensations (which was all that was affirmed of the Primitive) that so the second age infallibly testified the Canon of Scripture to have been delivered them by the former, as delivered them by the Apostles, and so also the Fundamentals of Faith contained in the Crede. But to bring in all the Roman Additionals under this parity of Reason, requires, as Vincentius tells us (not only the present testimony of some part of the Church, fortified by some praetended maxim, which hath also been proved to have no force with them, but) the consentient testifications of the whole Church in all and every age, which when S. W. shall proetend to, he shall have more regard from us, than as yet his abortive demonstration which concludes of all ages from one, i. e. of an universal from a particular, can expect from us.
12. The 13th imputed weaknesse is no other but my affirming what he himself affirms, For when I said the Church is not considered as a society of Believers endowed with an inerrable priviledge, but as a number of witnesses—it was none of my concernments to have it imagined, that they did not first believe themselves ere they conspired to deliver it to their Children for true, All that I had to interpose was but only this, that the truth of the points is not founded on their (infallible) judgements, but depends solely on the Doctrine of Christ, testifyed by those that could not but know, that it came from him. Which when he acknowledges to be most certainly true, 'tis strange it should be a weaknesse in me to say it, believing it also on his very grounds here mentioned (though not on his elsewhere adored Fundamental and only Ground of faith, the Oral Tradition of the present Church) that points of faith are truths revealed by God, not productions of mens heads] which sure he learn'd from some of our wordish Testimonies, Faith cometh by hearing, and the like.
13. What he addes to my neither saying I nor no to the quaestion of the Protestants being infallible in witn…ssing that twenty years agoe there were Bishops in England] and his tragical exclamations and ovations consequent, is most perfectly the Image of the old S.W. For my expresse words in that 14. Par. by him cited, are, [that they doe or probably can mistake in a thing of that nature visible before their eyes, I believe not.] Which what is it but my affirmation, that I believe them infallible in such matters, all that is meant by Infallibility in testifying, being this, that there can be no probable reason to doubt of the truth of his testification, and not that there is any natural impossibility that he should mistake, for thus we know deceptions even of sight are possible; And he that cannot be supposed fallible in a thing of his own sight, and therefore is a competent witnesse in that, may yet be more than fallible in other things; which as it was the only reason of the answer given him in that 14 Par. so it shew'd sufficiently the no advantage he gain'd to his cause, by this kinde of Infallibility. And so much for the multiplyed slanders, in which are founded the concluding boasts and triumphs of his 10th Section.