The Disarmers Dexterities Examined, Chapter 7 · Section 2
SECT. II.
The Apostles depositum. Grounds of belief, Our State fallible as peccable. Regal power differs from Sacerdotal. Peters Primacy what it signifi…s. Whether given him by Christ. Primacy of jurisdiction never without Dignity of place.
WHat I said in the second place concerning the acts of Apostolical providence for the preserving unity in the faith: and 1. their resolving on some few heads (of efficacy to the planting of Christian life) to be deposited in every Church, hath somwhat perplext S. W. for 1. saith he, Dr. H. is suddenly become a plain Papist (and if he be, I must only wonder how a Romanist can finde in his heart to write in confutation of him any longer) but then 2. he fears very very much that Mr. H. in this his doctrine, neither goes to Church, nor stayes at home] (and this very fright of his, the factor or stationer hath put in his bill of fare for a notable piece of wit, a special service) But to give him full satisfaction, I have written an intire tract on this sub ect, and given him the summe of my belief in this matter, what that depositum was that the Apostles thus deposited in all Churches, the several articles of the Apostolick faith or Creed, and if the Church of Rome would keep close to that depositum, and not corrupt by increasing of it, coine no more articles, than they had from the Apostles mint, there is not a more promising way of return to that unity, from which Ch…istian professors long have swerved; and that the Church of Rome will not yield to this, is absolutely a breach of the Canon of Ephesus, to which I have spoken at large in the reply Ch. 8. Sect. 2. and shall thither referr the Reader for what might be added in this matter.
But he proposes in this matter a subtle Quere, whether these Churches, in which these heads of such speci…l efficacy were deposited, were infallible, or no?] I answer briefly, that every of those Churches single, and particularly the Church of Rome was no farther infallible, than they should actually adhere to this depositum intrusted to them. If they swerved from it, by addition or substraction, they so far failed of their trust. And that they might, any one of them so fail, I have no reason of doubting, who see so many visible demonstrations à posteriori of many of those Churches failing thus. But that all of them should uniformly without ever consulting of it, agree to impose upon posterity somewhat else, instead of that Apostolical depositum, I think not any more probable than that so many Atomes should casually yet orderly concur to make this Universe. But on the contrary, I think the universal consent, and attestation of all the Apostolick plantations, so forcible an argument to induce belief, that the Apostles did really deposit these Doctrines in all Churches, that any prudent man may safely venture his life or his soule on the truth of it, and resolve it as impossible to be otherwise, as that he and a multitude of other men should be deceived in that which they affirm from their own sensations.
Much more might be here said, but this is all that is necessary to be answered to that question. For as to his answer to my addition, that if we hold these doctrines deposited in the Church as zealously as the Romanist, we must hold them as of faith, and that the depository is so truly as it cannot deceive us.] I reply, tis sufficient to hold it of faith, and upon prudential grounds of resolving, that all the world of Christian Apostolical Churches would never concurr wilfully, and gainlessly to deceive, not that any one or more of them single cannot possibly have been first misled themselves, and then mislead others. And therefore when I said those few heads were asserted by us as zealously as by any Romanist, my speech belonged to sincerity of belief induced thus as I now express, and to the degree of that sincerity; and if I that pretend not the same motive to induce my faith, as the Romanist pretends, have yet the same faith that the Romanist hath, and will adventure as high a stake, practice what Christ commands as confidently upon this faith, not built on the belief of their Churches infallibility, as the Romanist doth upon his supposed infallible ground, my faith will still be as much (if not more properly) faith as his, and I doubt not as secure of its acceptation and reward in heaven. And then sure I am as far from the sceptick school of Academicks, as the firmest, and most undoubted faith can secure me to be. For though I willingly grant, that mans wit cannot invent a better way to preserue unity of faith, than belief of their Churches infallibility would be, yet I, that for all fundamental truths of Christ, thus derived to me by undoubted tradition, am so richly provided for, and must not for all other particulars invent or carve for my selfe, but sit down satisfied with that portion which God hath thought fit for me, and cannot beleeve all that I would have; (my fancies, or my wishes) ought in reason for all these, to content my selfe with such means, as God hath afforded me; and till I discern by some infallible argument, that there is some man or society of men, which hath the never ceasing priviledge from God of being infallible, never goe about to deceive my self into a groundless confidence, or perswasion of a present utopian infallibility. I know it agrees with Gods good providence to leave me in a peccable, and I cannot resist, must not repine if he hath left me for some things in a fallible state, and only support my self with my diligence and my prayers, that I fall not willingly into fault, or mistake, sin or error.
What next follows upon my second way of preserving unity in faith, is lightly varied from the questions and answers in the Cath. Gent. and was punctually answered in the Reply, Chap. 8. Sect. 1.
As for his great care of providing a place for the King among the Bishops (which next follows in his playsome mood) it shall be seriously examined, whensoever he findes in any of my Papers, either that the King is by me stiled head of the Church, as he will feign me to call him, or that he, whose office it is to be Supreme Governour over Bishops even in Ecclesiastical causes, and to order the external affairs of the Church, hath the censures of the Church, or the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments, and so of admitting into, and excluding from the Church committed to him. If he knew not the difference of the Regal and Sacerdotal, the coercive and directive power, he may learn it more seasonably of those, which have written ex instituto on that subject, than expect a new treatise of it from me here, loco non suo, who have a task of a competent wearisomness already before me.
Here follows now a speciall piece of art, on occasion of my allowing a Primacy of order or dignity among Primates or Patriarks, proportionable to the foreign in Scripture, and agreeable to what is by the ancient Canons allowed the Bishop of Rome, [If so saith he, then for any thing you know it may be a Primacy of jurisdiction, and it stands only upon the certainty of yours and our interpretation of Scripture, whether it signifie such a Primacy or no.] I answer 1. that a [may be] no way concludes that it is, a thousand things may be, or might have been, if God had pleased, of which no one ever was or shall be, and I willingly grant S. Peters Primacy of jurisdiction over all the Apostles, to be one of that number. 2. my not knowing, or having no certainty of interpreting Scripture, can have nothing to doe in this matter, with the grounds which S. W. can produce to inferr from Scripture what he affirms, and the solidity and irrefragable force of those grounds, are the only considerable in this business, and he that is, and acknowledges himself fallible, may yet by the right use of those means which God affords him, discern the truth, when they that use not those means, but rely on their feigned priviledge of inerrableness, do by regular consequence from this presumption, swerve and faile in judging of truth, and interpreting Scripture. And so these are too weak Topicks to conclude a matter of such importance to the whole Church, as is this of Peters, and from thence the Popes Supremacy, and universality of jurisdiction.
But S. W. hath yet a more efficacious Topick, at least ad hominem, which will conclude it impossible to be otherwise, (neither could it be any other, saith he) if any hold may be taken from his words. For, saith he, S. Peter, as you grant, and as the words foreign Simon the first of the Apostles, plainly evidence, had some kinde of Primacy then given him, and if it were then given him, he then had it, i. e. in our Saviours life time. But you told us Ch. 4. Sect. 14. that S. John had the dignity of place, which is the same with Primacy of order, before all others in Christs life time, even before S. Peter himself, the Primacy then, which S. Peter had in Christs life time, must be some other Primacy, and what Primacy could this be, but the Primacy of jurisdiction.
I answer 1. to the question in the conclusion, by telling him what Primacy it was that Peter had at this time, when the Scripture saith foreign, It was Primacy both of years and discipleship, he was the ancientest man, as Hier…me told us even now, at least the ancientest of them which had any spec…al remark of Christs favour on them, of the three, foreign, as*foreign l. 5. Clemens calls him and the two sons of Zebedec, and the anci…ntest disciple of Ch…t: not the first that was called, that appears to be Philip, but the first that so obeyed his call, as constantly to adhere to him. And this having nothing of jurisdiction over all his fellow disciples annext to it, on the one side, only the dignity of spe…king first, or being spoken to, and answering in the person of all, and yet being very reconcileable with all that I said of John, ch. 4. Sect. 14. viz. that he had the … vour of Christ, and the dignity of place before S. Peter himself in Christs life, leaning on his brest, having the foreign (for the yonger man and the later disciple might by Christs favour, have that) there remains no force in this argument against my pretensions. But then 2. what is by the disputer assumed, both as granted by me, and plainly evidenced by the words, First Simon, viz. that some Primacy was given Peter] may have some ambiguity in it, and therefore must be cleared, before I can either grant it to be true, or disclaim the granting it. If by [given] he mean no more then I have already said, that he had it by that savour of Christ, which was specially afforded to three of them, of whom he was the antientest, both in respect of years and discipleship, then I freely grant it, and am no more incommodated by it, than just now I appeared to be. But if by [given] he mean any farther particular donation of Christs to him, then this Primacy no way appears to have been thus given him. For whatsoever is by the Romanists supposable to be given him, upon tu es Petrus, cannot be applied to this, the title of foreign being mentioned by the Evangelist, before that part of the story, which sets down Christ's delivering those words to him. And for any other donation precedaneous to that, 1. the Scripture mentions none, and 2. tis not conceiveable there should be any, or indeed such force in that, when all the time of Christs life John had the foreign, the dignity of place next Christ. For though that dignity of place may be (and was in Iohn) without any superiority of power or jurisdiction, yet the Superiority or Primacy of jurisdiction is never to be found in any without the foreign or priority of place: and therefore I say, it is not imaginable (when the Scripture is silent) that any such Primacy of jurisdiction should at, or before the time of the [first Simon] belong to S. Peter by Christs donation, and yet the dignity of place remain to S. Iohn by Christs indulgence. And so much for the argument ad hominem, which doubtless made him promise of doing him special service, but hath much failed his expectation.
But this great advantage must not be lost so, if it be good for nothing el…e, yet it may be so disguised and brought out a second time in other dress or garnish, that it may serve very well for a quelque chose in the bill of fare, and so indeed it is improved in the next onset; and from our Saviours making Peter the first, there must needs be some better thing bestowed on him, saith he, than a dry Presidency, or an obliging all the Apostles under pain of damnation to make a leg to S. Peter] I answer, it now appears what the designe was in the former urging of the argument, to shufflle in the giving of the Primacy to him. But that art being now discovered, and no donation of Christs being discernible to be included, or intimated in this title of S. Peters, the puff-past may have served to furnish the table, but hath not fed any of the guests: and so we hauehave done with that Paragraph.