Brief Account of One Suggestion of the Romanist, Chapter 5 · Section 5
SECT. V.
Answer to his eleventh Section. Power without Infallibility. Captious exceptions. Distinguishing without torturing. A Church sufficiently assisted, nay actually in the truth, nay infallibly ascertain'd of that truth, yet in additionals fallible. Naturally fallible. S W's inferences how causelesse. The Church is not supernaturally infallible. Yet the failing not in the supernatural principle. A fallible Christian Church more certain of her Faith, then Jewes, &c. Difference between Faith cui non subest dubium, & cui non potest subesse falsum. Assent, and that not passionate, without belief of infallibility. Believing so farre as not to disbelieve. S. W's mistaken triumphs. The Churches infallibility in some things. Her fallibility in others competible with making decisions. Of inferiors acquiescing only.
1. HIs 11th Section proceeds to a large review of the discourse concerning Mr. Knots concession, which being a meer digression both of the Cath. Gentl. and the Disarmer at the first (as appeared Reply Ch. 11. Sect. 3 n. 4. 5.) it must now be much more such, it being visible, that how pertinent soever it is to the Controversie of Schisme, to consider the praetended Infallibility of their Church, yet 1. I had before that of Schisme written a large Treatise of dispute with Mr. Holland upon that subject of Infallibility, which I was not therefore to repeat again, 2. with that part of my discourse which only considered Mr. Knots concession, that it was lawfull to separate or continue in separation from the Church of Christ, in case we could not without lying be permitted to communicate with it] 'tis as evident this hath no immediate connexion, and so must be look'd on as a digression.
2. This might passe for full answer to the whole Section, being a competent reason, why I should no longer insist on that which was at first a meer digression. However 'tis answer to what he saith in return to my (as he calls them) 2. first Trifles.
3. To the third I answer, that a Church which is fallible, may upon praevailing reasons verily believe that to be true, which yet she knowes not by any of her own sensations, and giving her children those reasons, which induce her belief, may reasonably also oblige them to believe in like manner; at least not so to disbelieve, as to teach the contrary to what she so reasonably believes. But still this believing somewhat on reasonable motives, is neither knowing this, nor beleiving her self infallible in all other things; Much more was said on this head, in that Section of the Reply, n. 13. to 20. to which I referre the Reader.
4. As for the 4th I slipt not the point, nor leapt from believing to obeying, but thought fit to illustrate a pari, that a Church might teach, and require belief, as well as a Lawgiver command, and expect obedience, without being either of them infallible. The case I still think to be the same, for as on the one side the fallible teacher may propose errors, so the fallible Lawgiver may command sins, and the danger is as great to the Subjects in practising one, as believing the other, and God hath not placed us out of the reach of either of these temptations, nor is it necessary he should, as long as he leaves us rules, Scripture and Tradition, and reason, to try the one by, as his own commands and prohibitions, to examine the other. And then where is the affected insincerity, that S. W. so loudly objects in this place? Besides, the Church having an authority to make Lawes, as well as teach Doctrines, to set forth Canons, as Articles, what crime was it, in stating the Churches power, to advert to each of these? this I there did, to the one n. 16. to the other n. 17, 18, 19. Certainly S. W's cause is a severe Mistresse, if it require him to make up whole Volumes of such cap…ious exceptions, as these.
5. Next, the distinguishing of ambiguous words, and bringing his proposition into open light, is to him the same cruelty, as cutting off his eyelids, and setting him just against the Sun; he expresses his impatience of it (and what is that but an hatred of the light, and he knowes the Original of that) by his complaint of being*P. 109. drawn and quartered with unheard of tortures.] But the more he complains, the more reason there is to use him to this kinde of exercise, that by general ambiguous affirmations he may neither deceive others, nor himself.
6. After this, he proceeds to the arraigning of these words of mine, Reply p. 15. that a particular Church that is in the right in all matters of Faith, and hath before it Scripture and Tradition, and skill in all those knowledges which are usefull to fetch out the true meaning of the Scriptures, and ability to inquire into the antient path, and compare her self with all other considerable parts of the Ʋniversal Church, and then is diligent and faithfull to make use of all these succours, and in uprightnesse of hear… seeks the truth and applies it self to God in humble ardent continual prayer for his guidance to lead into all truth, This Church is yet fallible, may affirm and teach false, i. e. this is naturally possible that it may, but it is not strongly probable that it will, as long as it is thus assisted and disposed to make use of these assistances and means of true defining.] These are my words at length, which he means to paradigmatize, and therefore†P. 110. calls for all my friends special attention. And I do so too, and his friends also shall be allowed room at the audience.
7. And that neither may be misguided by him, I must require them to remember 1. that the Church, whereof I there speak, is expressely a particular Church, 2. that that particular Church is supposed to be in the right in all matters of Faith, I shall now adde, that it may have had those infallibly testified by those that had them from the Apostles, and so is thus farre infallibly in the right, as long as she adhaeres to that which she hath thus received. 3. that though 'tis possible she may, as other particular Churches have, fall from the true infallible faith, yet I spake not of that, but of her fallibility in other decisions, which were not de fide. 4. that by naturally fallible] I meant that effect of humane frailty incident to our corrupt and infirm nature, which, when it is afforded sufficient, but not irresistible grace, is for all that grace, and the most diligent use of means, subject still, and lyable to surprizes, and other effects of infirmity. But then 5. these surprises are not strongly probable, as long as it is thus assi…ted, and disposed to make use of assistances. And therefore lastly, when at any time such a particular Church thus provided and assisted, falls into any error of Doctrine though not of faith (I exemplifie in the Church of Rome defining things which the Apostles never defined, temporary pains of souls now in Purgatory, benefit of Indulgences to those that are now in those temporary pains, &c.) it is by not adhaering to these Rules, which she hath before her, Scripture and Apostolical Tradition; and if she doth not make right use of them, this certainly is either a crime; or a failing, a crime, if she wilfully, or through praevailing passion betray those succours which God or reason offers, a failng, if through surprize only she be insnared, and drawn into that error, verily thinking it a truth; The former is a mortal sin, the latter pardonable by the foreign of the Gospel, But still both of them certain evidences of more than fallibility in her that thus falls.
8. This clear explication of the case proposed will be sure to supersede all S. W's crafts, and silence his out-cries in this matter, and rebound the absurd affirmations on the accuser. For 1. how can it follow hence (what he is resolved to conclude) that it is still aequally probable that it does erre? Could any thing be more cautiously praevented, than my words praevented this, when I only said, it is naturally possible that it may, but not strongly probable that it will erre.
9. Secondly, can it follow from thence, what he again inferres, that the faith of that Church and all that adhaere to it, hang in aequal scales whether it be true or no] when for all matters of faith my supposition then was, that it was in the truth, and my addition now is (very reconcileable with that) that it may have had these so infallibly testified, that in teaching these it shall be infallible, though not in every thing else, which is no part of the faith. Is the faith of that Church which is in the truth in all matters of faith (without adding that it is also infallibly ascertain'd of that truth) in aequal scales whether it be true or no?
10. Thirdly, can I be blamed for saying no more than that it is naturally fallible? Certainly the fallibility that is in this case, flowes from the principle of natural weaknesse or corruption. And if he will now ask, as he doth, Whether it be or be not supernaturally impossible she should erre? I answer it is not supernaturally impossible, i. e. the gracious supernatural assistance which is afforded, doth not irresistibly raise that particular Church above possibility of sailing in any point. The grace may be neglected, and not made use of at all, and then it will fail criminously, or it may not be made use of with such perfect persevering diligence, as to exclude all effects of surprise and frailty, and then again it fails, though not so criminously, but according to our humane measures of Ast opere in longo fas est obrepere somnum. and so still he sees a just reason, why after, reckoning up supernatural means of confirming her against erring, I yet concluded, that she is naturally fallible, because still it is from the failing in nature, and not from any defect in the supernatural principle, that she at any time fails. Such important solid grounds as these, and no other S. W. constantly hath for all his most contumelious ovations.
11. Apply what hath here been said, to his next Paragraph about the Churches knowledge whether it erre or not, and you have prevented all that can crave answer on that subject. For how can the defining a particular Church fallible in superstructures, though therein it so define, as not to doubt of the truth of her definings, (when withall at the same time it is supposed true, yea infallibly ascertain'd and rooted in all the branches of the Faith) be the making the Church no certainer of her faith, than Jewes, Turks and Heathens are of theirs? Is all that the Jewes, &c. believe, superstructures, or are they infallibly ascertain'd of their Fundamentals? The like holds of all the passionate Opinionators, haereticks, &c.
12. Lastly for his profound quaestion, why if there may subesse falsum, may there not subesse dubium, or why should they not be bound to doubt of it?] I answer that wherever there may subesse falsum, there may subesse dubium, but it doth not follow that what may be, is, or ought to be; I supposed the Church, of which I speak; not to doubt of the truth of a point, which she defined, and therefore that she rationally defined it; And then of that Church that was supposed not to doubt, at the same time to suggest that she may doubt, is to no more purpose, then to suggest that she may doe that which she doth not; And to think her obliged to doubt, when by a concurrence of motives and reasons she is morally obliged not to doubt, is to suggest contradicti…ns. And this is still all that S. W's prime, hopefullest arts arrive to.
13. By the way, how doth it appear that falshood in things wherein the faith is concerned (of which only I speak in that place) is Falshood in things concerning aeternity? Can no man, that differs from the Church of Rome (and so must by the Romanist be thought to believe Falshoods) concerning Purgatory, &c. (wherein sure the Romanists fai…h is concerned) be saved? Let Mr. Whites book of the state of souls be advised with in this point. Meanwhile that it is passion that makes a Church, that hath not infallibility in all things, give assent in any thing, is one of the grand maxims of S. W's Rushworthian Divinity, which the Reader that hath full leisure, may combate with, if he please, but I have many greater ingagements before me, though for ought I yet see, all Homogeneous.
P. 113.14. Such is his next discourse, which will needs have me total…y destroy belief, because in some sorts of things I think it reasonable, that a consent be by private men given to the Church in that which is proposed as most probable] This is the passage he cites, and upon it asks, Are they bound to believe the Church, when they have probability to the contrary? I answer, I spake of probability on the Churches side, not on the contrary, and so have no obligation to go farther out of my way, to consider his unseasonable quaestions; Yet I told him of a thing called a bare yielding to the judgement of superiors; and that may take place in his proposed case; and exemplifie yielding without a perswasion of infallibility.
P. 114.15. Next, his faculties improve upon his hands by using, for * he hath sprung a piece of Atheisme in the Shell, and from my speaking of a weak sort of belief in some weak persons, unable to search the Churches probable grounds (and that for some additional Doctrines only, as the whole discourse manifested) and from my defining that (not all their faith simply) to be a believing so farre as not to disbelieve, he musters up a bedroll of absurdities. The first will give you a perfect judgement of all the rest, being exactly homogeneous, If, saith he, the measure of that belief to which the Church can oblige the ruder sort, be only to believe so farre as not to disbelieve, then in reality she can oblige them to believe nothing at all] But who ever imagined this the measure of that belief indefinitely (for that is in effect of all that belief, to which the Church can oblige them) to believe only so farre? How came the [only] into that period? or how [the measure of that belief to which the Church can oblige] 'Tis visible, out of S. W's creative Optick, and then let him answer for the ill consequences. I have oft assured him of my acknowledgement, that the Church hath infallible grounds for all matters of Faith, in those therefore she may reasonably oblige to more than not disbelieving, But of those I was not bound to (nor did I) speak in that place. Who could have thought that S. W's whole Army of hopefull triumphs, ready to be counted by the poll, would ever have vanish'd out of his hands so suddenly?
16. His descant on the two*P. 115. propositions bears proportion with the former misunderstandings, and by the praemised explication is competently seen through. An obligation to an infallible assent is or ought to be relative to some kinde of infallible authority; Such there hath been, and is in the Church, of two sorts, one founded in Christs promised special presence and assistance to the Apostles, who thereby became infallible in preaching the faith, the other founded in a sufficient testification of the Apostles Doctrine in all necessary things, whether by their writings which Ʋniversal Tradition hath conveighed to us infallibly, or by word of mouth as universally attested by the Churches of their Plantations to be received from them; And in these also both the universal, and every particular Church, that adhaeres to, and forsakes no part of their depositum, is infallibly assured, and may infallibly teach, and require an infallible belief or consent, i. e. in all the matters of Apostolical Faith, the Articles of the Crede, preach'd to all (and exacting belief from all) by the Apostles, into which consequently all are baptized. But for many other lesser things, the same particular Church which is infallible in these, may not only be fallible, but sometimes actually erre, and yet retain an authority to make definitions, form Articles for her subjects (the fewer she makes, I suppose, the better) and require an acquiescence at least from all to such her determinations.
17. In this sort of lesser things wherein the Church is fallible, and yet according to her best and soberest judgement makes decisions, how vain and ungrounded is S.W's supposition? 1. That the subject is certain that that is false, which his fallible Church proposes to him, 2. that it is a point of faith which concerns salvation not to erre in (what two suppositions could have been more contrary to the case set, and which alone was spoken of in that place?) And how farre from truth his suggestion, that a speculative p…int cannot be decided authoritatively, if the inferior be bound to acquiesce only? Is there no obedience in submitting, and not disquieting the peace of the Church, when I cannot assent? What if the next Councel of Romanists should define the Pope Infallible in his definitions, might not Mr. White call back his Tabulae suffragiales, and never divulge again that that were an Archibaeretical Doctrine, and live quietly in the Roman Communion? Or may he not now live in obedience to that Church, without believing a Purgatory of praesent Temporary flames? And if what I adde of an absolute infallible belief to none but an absolutely infallible Church] be the granting, as he saith, the very point, affirming as much, as my adversary can reasonably demand, I wonder what reason he hath to complain; The fewer truths I finde come from him, the lesse forward I shall be to deny him my concurrence in any thing where I may safely afford it him, desiring to have as much peace as is possible with every man, and not as many contentions.
19. His rarity of the whole and half apple shewes his faculty in making of Contumelious parallels, and that it seems, must serve his turn, instead of speaking or attending to plain truth. And thus much for his 11th Section.