A PREFACE Concerning the USEFULNESS Of the following HYPOTHESIS.
§. 1. THough I cannot undertake for what is mine in the management of the following Discourse; yet as to the design (for which I am wholly beholden to the [Page] Goodness of my Cause, and the intrinsick reasonableness of the Evidences which prove it good) I think I may, without Immodesty, affirm that, if it hold, it must be of universal use with them of the Roman Communion.
use I §. 2. For 1. it must be of great use for the Laity and the Vulgar, who either have not the Abilities, or cannot spare the time, which would be requisite for Enquiring into the particular Disputes, to have the Controversies reduced into a narrow compass. And especially if these few things, to which they are reduced, may suffice for securing the Duty incumbent on such Persons as well as if the Enquiry had been more minute; and when withal the Evidence, [Page] on which their Resolution depends, is suited to the capacity of that sort of persons. Now all these things are provided for by the following Hypothesis.
§. 3. All the Disputes between us are reduced to this one of the Popes Supremacy over the Catholick Church diffusive. As for our Differences in Other Particulars, it is here proved, that, if we be not mistaken in This, themselves either cannot charge us with Errour, or not with any Errour of that consequence as may excuse them, either for Separating from our Communion, or for that rigorous Imposing their own Opinions which are contrary to it.
§. 4. And this does indeed effectually [Page] secure the Duty of Ordinary Laicks in this whole affair. For the Obligation incumbent at least on such Persons who are not, by their particular Calling, obliged to Enquire, can only be to know so much as may secure their Christian Practice; and that is sufficiently secured by due adhering to that Communion where they may reasonably expect the performance of those Divine Promises which are conveyed in the use of the Sacraments, and the other Ordinary Means of Grace, so that the main concernment of such Persons is this, to know where such a Communion is to be had. Now the solving of this Question appears from the Principles here laid down, sufficient to decide the whole Dispute concerning the true Communion. [Page] If it should prove true that the Pope has this Authority over the Catholick Church diffusive, it would follow that his particular Church must be the Catholick Church virtual, and so must have a Title to all those Promises made to the Catholick Church in the Scriptures (thus much at least will follow, even according to their Hypothesis who do not pretend that these Promises reach so high as Infallibility) and therefore that they were obliged to submit to Active Obedience, to all Lawful Impositions, and Passive even in Unlawful ones, so that in all Cases it would be Unlawful to joyn with any other Communion in opposition to it. And on the other side, if it prove false, it will plainly follow that it is unlawful, [Page] either for those who are already in that Communion to continue in it, seeing they cannot continue in it without being accessary to the Divisions of Christendom by abetting a Tyrannical Power over it; or for others to desert their own Communion to come to the Roman, which cannot on those Principles, be done with any such pretence of Necessity as may excuse their Separation from being Schismatical.
§. 5. The Evidence also into which this Dispute is ultimately resolved, must needs be such as must be suitable to the meanest capacity that is capable of acting prudently in this great affair (and certainly every one is in Interest, as well as Duty, obliged to make use of his utmost. Prudence in a matter wherein his greatest Interests are so [Page] nearly concerned) For the meanest Prudence that is, will require that where they cannot choose their way, there at least they should choose their Guide. And it is only the Authority of the Pope as a Principle of Unity, and of the Church adhering to him as a Guide in Controversies, of which this Hypothesis allows them a Liberty to judge, in order to their own private satisfaction. And as the matter is such, concerning which the meanest Prudence, that can deserve the name of Prudence, is obliged to judge, so the Evidence is such as every one must be capable of judging who is capable of being Prudently and Rationally a Christian. For the very Truth of Christianity it self, in reference to us in this Age, must be proved by Historical Testimonies [Page] of the Miracles by which it was attested from the beginning; and the Canon of the Scripture must be proved by the Testimonies of those by whom the Scriptures were delivered. And it is the same Historical Testimony, whether of express Scripture, or of express Tradition, to which they are here referred for the proof of this Supremacy of the Pope: and the Subject concerning which this Testimony was to be given, could not but have had so general an influence on their Practice (if they had acknowledged any dependence on this Supremacy) as that it must have been as notorious to them who gave it, as those Miracles, or that Canon; and therefore their Testimony must have been as Credible in one Case as in the other.
[Page]§. 6. Besides that the Negative Argument (which I here make use of) is much less Questionable than the Affirmative. That is, there is much more reason to doubt of a pretended Tradition, if it be not expresly mentioned in the Primitive Authors, (and doubting is sufficient for my purpose, to overthrow the Credit of that which pretends to be an Article of Faith) than to believe a thing to have descended from the Apostles, because those Authors pretend it did so. For in their Affirmations they many times deliver what they think on their own Conjectural Reasonings, wherein they are as Fallible as others. But what they have not mentioned, if it be not allowed to conclude that they knew [Page] it not, and that therefore there was then no Historical Evidence for it, seeing that could not have escaped their knowledge; yet thus much at least will follow that we cannot be satisfied that they had any such Evidence, which is enough to render it doubtful to us whether it were an Apostolical Tradition. Now that they did not mention this Supremacy, I do not desire the Ignorant to take the bare word of our Authors; but I am content that they trust their own Judgments concerning the passages produced, as far as they are capable of judging them; or where they find themselves unable, that there they acquiesce in the Confessions of candid, learned Men, though of our Adversaries Communion. Which is no more than what they [Page] themselves count Prudent in the like Cases, when they occurr in the management of their secular affairs.
use II §. 7. Nor is it only thus Convenient, but it is almost Necessary, in dealing with our Adversaries, to begin, at least, with this Fundamental Principle. For till they be convinced of the Fallibility of their Guide, all the Reasons produced against them are only taken for Temptations and tryals of the stedfastness of their Implicite Faith. And, in affairs of this nature, they are taught to distrust their own Judgment (nay, in matters of Faith the most Learned Clergy are taught to do so, as they are considered in their private capacity, as well as the more ignorant Laity) and they are further [Page] taught that, in such matters, their Faith is by so much the more excellent and meritorious, by how much more it captivates their Understandings; and that this captivating of their Understandings implies a denial of their own Judgments when different from that of their Superiors. Now upon these terms it is impossible to deal with them by particular Reasonings. For the utmost that can be expected from the clearest Reasonings, is, that their private Judgments may be convinced by them. But if, when this is done, they distrust their own Judgments, nay, think themselves obliged to deny their own Judgments in complyance with that of their Superiors, nay, take it to be the greater glory of their Faith [Page] to deny the greater and more powerful Convictions; it will then follow that, by how much more Conscientiously they Act according to their own Principles, by so much the less capable they must be of this kind of Reasoning. It must needs be in vain to urge them with such Reasons, by which they will not be tryed, though they should indeed prove convictive, and that to their own Understandings.
§. 8. Nor indeed is it rational to expect that they should be otherwise disposed, pursuant to their Principles. For all Prudent Considerers of things will confess, that one direct proof that a thing is actually True, is more considerable than many Probabilities [Page] to the contrary. Especially if the direct proof be of it self stronger than any contrary Objection; as indeed no Objection can be so sufficient to prove any Proposition false, as the Infallibility of the Proponent is to prove it true. Which must the rather hold, considering that they take the judgment of their Judge of Controversies for an adaequately-infallible Proof; never remembring that, though indeed the Spirit of God be Infallible, yet, the Arguments whereby they prove their Judge of Controversies so assisted by that Spirit as to partake of its Infallibility, that is, so assisted, as that their Judge of Controversies shall Infallibly follow the Infallible Guidance of the Spirit (otherwise themselves cannot pretend that all assistance of the Spirit must infer [Page] Infallibility, unless they will grant that every good Christian is Infallible, because they cannot deny that he is so assisted) I say, these Arguments are only Moral, and such as may, in many Cases, be exceeded by Arguments taken from the nature of the thing; and that the Consequence must follow the weaker part; so that still their Faith can be no more than morally certain, though their Judge of Controversies were granted to be Infallible in regard of his assistance.
§. 9. Yet even so, it should be remembred on our part, that no Arguments were fit to be admitted against the sense of an infallible Judge, but such as might exceed those whereby their Judg of Controversies seems to them to be proved Infallible; which would cut off many of those Arguments [Page] which are used in the particular Disputes. But beginning at their First Principle, it is easie to shew that they are obliged to take our Arguments into serious consideration, and to determine according as they judge Reasonable in their private Judgments. For the Judge of Controversies cannot, in reason, oblige them to captivate their Understandings to it self, till it be proved. And the Arguments here used are Antecedent to that Proof. And when upon examination of the Credentials of the Judge of Controversies, their proof of such a Judge shall be found insufficient, they will then, and not till then, have reason to trust their private Judgments in the particular Disputes. And then, and only then, the particular [Page] Disputes may be likely to obtain an equal hearing from such of them as are truly Conscientious.
use III §. 10. Besides, if this Hypothesis hold true, it will be very useful both to retain several in the Reformed Communion, and to bring several others over from the Roman, who are already by their Principles disposed for the Reformation.
1. There may be several, who, in the particular Disputes, may probably incline to the Roman side, and yet have an abhorrence for the Roman rigour in those principal ones concerning Infallibility, and the Popes Supremacy. These, if they may be perswaded that they may be admitted to that Communion [Page] without professing the Belief of those Principles to which we are as yet to suppose them so very averse, may be tempted to think it lawful to joyn themselves in Communion with them. This seems plainly to have been Mr. Cressy's Case, whose entrance into that Communion was very much facilitated by the account of Infallibility given him by Dr. Veron, Exom. (Second Edition) Sect. 1. Ch. 19. §. 4. p. 74. Sect. 2. Ch. 21. §. 3. p. 188. Append. Ch. 5. §. 2. p. 516. See Verons Lat. Answ. to Q. Gener. 8. p. 561. at the end of the Exom. whereby he was perswaded that it was only a School-term, not used in the Decrees of any received Councils, no nor any way expresly defined, and that the use of it would not be exacted from him by their Church [Page] as a Condition of her Communion. For he acknowledges he had formerly believed that this main ground of the Roman Religion (so he calls it) namely the Infallibility of that Church was as demonstratively confutable as any absurdity in Mathematicks. Exom. Sect. 1. Chap. 16. §. 3. p. 58. And particularly he confesses that Mr. Chillingworth's Arguments against it had to him appeared unanswerable;Sect. 2. Ch. 21. §. 4. p. 190. Sect. 2. Ch. 3. p. 90. and that his Book alone had the principal influence on him to shut up his entrance into Catholick Unity. But it is here proved that whatsoever may be thought of the Word (concerning which more may be said than was observed by Mr. Cressy's [Page] Friends, but that it is unnecessary to say it on this occasion) yet the Thing must necessarily be maintained by them on the same Principles by which they have presumed to censure the Reformation, and in that very sense wherein our Arguments are so conclusive against it. It is very strange to me, and seems disagreeable, I will not say to that Candor, but that accurateness, which was observed by him in that Enquiry, that he could pretend that it was the Word Infallibility against which Mr. Chillingworth's Arguments had been so successful, or that he could satisfie himself with that pretence in a matter of that importance. Indeed, if his Arguments had been Grammatical, there might have been some colour for [Page] pretending that advantage was taken from the ambiguity of the Word to pick out the most Invidious sense among those many other more favourable ones of which it was capable; but being Notional and taken from the nature of the Thing, they must necessarily be levelled against it in some certain signification. And it had been easie to have shewn that they do as clearly overthrow the Infallibility of Judgment in a Creature in the use of Fallible Means (which is the sense which I have here proved the Romanists obliged to maintain) though their Infallibility were derived from the Divine assistance; as if it were derived from their own Nature, as that of God is, which is the sense which Mr. Cressy would make to [Page] be only concerned in these Arguments. It might easily have been also shewn that Mr. Cressy himself grants the very sense of the word here defined, and cannot deny but that it is very properly and naturally signified by it; nay that, by his own Principles, the Churches not using it in her Canons can be no Argument that she ever intended to leave private Persons at their liberty to use it, or forbear it, as they pleased. Whence it were easie further to infer, not only that it must needs be intolerable for private persons to deny it, but also that it must be justly Suspicious as much as to wave it (since it has been used,) though on pretence of another sense applicable to it, but never intended by them who brought it into the Roman Church, though at first they might [Page] have forborn the introducing of it. And if it be not free to Subjects, either to deny or forbear it, what room can be left for their Indulgence so much celebrated in this particular? Nay, what Indulgence could it be, if they might indeed be excused from the Word, as long as they are obliged to maintain the Thing; I say obliged, by doing that which cannot possibly be defended without supposing it? Certainly they cannot think but that Actions are as significative as Words in reference to God and their own Consciences.
§. 11. So also for the other point concerning the Popes Supremacy, it is an usual Artifice whereby many others are seduced, that they are perswaded that they may take the same Liberty that the French [Page] take, in Questioning the Popes Monarchical Power. But, from the Principles here laid down, it plainly appears that the Liberty taken by them is rather connived at by the Roman Court on politick Considerations, than approved or allowed by the Roman Communion, as consistent with their Principles. The like might have been shewn concerning several other Consequential Doctrines which facilitate the seducing of Proselytes; as that of the Distinction between the Church and Court of Rome, and the possibility of Reforming the Abuses of the Court by the Power of the Church, &c.
[Page]§. 12. Now in Persons who have not been inured to those Prejudices of Education, and that great Credulity which are insensibly infused into Persons bred in that Communion (which must be supposed to be the Case of them who are not as yet Proselyted to it) these general Principles of Infallibility and the Popes Supremacy are like to meet with the most difficult reception. For to such who have had experience of the difficulty of things by their own tryal of them, and who are not averse to any pains that may appear requisite for the satisfaction of their Consciences; it is so far from being likely to appear that it is an Act of Christian Vertue to avoid Evidence, or to suppress [Page] their Convictions, when different from the Sense of those few interessed Persons who are plainly possessed of the Government of that whole Communion, as that (till their Infallibility be first proved) it is not likely to pass for an Act of common honesty. Nay, their expecting such unreasonable Concessions from them at first, would, to such Persons, be a very just reason of suspecting them, when they should find themselves treated by them at the same rate as they might expect to be by the most professed Deceivers. For what more likely Art could any Deceiver use, than to perswade those, whom he had a mind to seduce, to trust in him without and against their own Convictions? Nor is it likely that they who have no other inducement [Page] than the intrinsick reasonableness of its proof should be perswaded to believe it as easily as they who have been inured to it by Prejudices of their Education. Nor is there that violence offered to their Faculties in following a weak and doubtful Proof in one particular instance, as in renouncing their clearest Convictions Universally, in all matters to be defined by their Judge of Controversies. And therefore it is very possible for Persons favourable to the sense of the Romanists in many of the particular Disputes, still to be very averse to their pretences to Infallibility; and this not (as it is usually said by our Adversaries) only out of a haughtiness and unwillingness to yield, but on rational and truly-Conscientious accounts.
[Page]§. 13. Nor is the other Doctrine concerning the Monarchical Power of the Pope less unacceptable to Persons of another Communion before they are brought over to the Roman. I will not mention how much the consequence of believing such a Doctrine may impose upon their Liberty, because that will not by our Adversaries be thought a Conscientious Disswasive from it. Though certainly it be very allowable to stand upon their own Rights, till they be convinced out of them by a greater Evidence than would suffice for Concessions of less importance; which is sufficient for my present design. That which I had rather insist on at present, is, the indesensibleness▪ of the abuses of the [Page] Court of Rome, which are so gross and provoking, as that generally they are the last things to which Revolters are reconciled; and usually, when they are so, it is only on pretence that that Church is not concerned for them. But, by this Monarchical Power of the Pope, the power of Reforming them is ascribed Only to him whose Interest it is they never be Reformed; and so to destroy all hopes of Reformation. Which is a consideration that, if seriously thought of, would certainly startle many of those who are brought over to them on accounts truly Conscientious, being seduced to it by such false pretences.
[Page]§. 14. For when it shall appear to this sort of Persons (as I have endeavoured to make it appear by the following Hypothesis) that their joyning in that Communion must necessarily imply their approbation of these Unacceptable Doctrines; they must find themselves unavoidably reduced to this choice, whether they will embrace these Doctrines rather than forbear their Communion, or whether they will keep off from their Communion rather than own these Schismatical Doctrines. Nor will it be hard to judge how they would be likely to determine in such a Case. For if their aversation to these Doctrines be greater than their kindness to particular Opinions or Practices of the Roman Communion (as I have already shewn that it is reasonable [Page] to believe that it is frequently the Case of Persons not yet Proselyted by them) they must necessarily think themselves obliged on these terms to continue where they are.
§. 15. 2. And the same things proportionably applyed may serve to shew the usefulness of this Hypothesis for gaining several moderate Persons of the Romanists themselves. They who call the Doctrine of the Popes Infallibility Archi-Heretical, White's Tab. Suffrag. and confess themselves unable, in this Principle, to defend their Church against us; when they shall find that the Fundamental Principle of their own, as a distinct, Communion, is this confessedly indefensible Archi-Heretical Doctrine & that without this they cannot justifie [Page] either their Separation or their Impositions, they cannot think it safe in Conscience to continue any longer divided from us.
§. 16. The same thing is also applicable to that other Doctrine which prevails with several very considerable Parties of the Roman Communion, That the Supreme Judge of Controversies on Earth is either the diffusive Catholick Church, or a Council that is truly Free and General, and accordingly received as such by the Catholick Church diffusive, and that that alone is the seat of Infallibility. They who are of this Judgment, if the following Hypothesis hold true, must necessarily be obliged to [Page] change their Communion on two accounts.
- 1. That they cannot make out their own Title to their being the Catholick Church in this sense, nor can they consequently prove that many of our Doctrines, which they condemn as Heretical, have ever been Canonically condemned by this Judge of Controversies. This will hinder them from abstaining from our Communion for them.
- And 2. that, on these Principles, the Doctrines of the Popes Monarchy and Infallibility must be Heretical. This will oblige them to abstain from the Communion of those who maintain them.
[Page]§. 17. 1. They cannot make out their Title to their own being the Catholick Church in this sense. For evidently they are not the Catholick Church diffusive, many considerable parts whereof are not in Communion with them. And therefore all the Plea they can make to the Authority or Infallibility of the Catholick Church must be grounded on the Notion of a Catholick Church Virtual, which Notion they must needs disclaim in asserting the Power of the diffusive Catholick or its Lawful Representative over all particular Churches. These things I conceive so clear from the Doctrine here delivered, as that I cannot think my self obliged to say any more concerning them at present. Hence it will follow, that all those particular Doctrines, which [Page] have been defined against us only by the Western Councils, As the Florentine Council, &c. without the Suffrages of the Eastern Bishops, or the reception even of all the Western Churches themselves, must fail of that pretence to Infallibility which is here even from their own Principles proved necessary to justifie their Separation from us on that account. And when these are deducted, there will remain but few instances of Doctrines disputed between us, if any, which themselves can pretend to have been defined by the united Suffrages of all Eastern and Western Bishops, and unanimously received in the particular Dioceses. Nor can they, on these terms, give any account why they condemn and exclude from their interest in the common [Page] Judicatory of Christendom as many, and as great, and every way as considerable, Churches as themselves.
§. 18. 2. But if such Western Councils, As of Constance, &c. as are in this point defended by our Adversaries of this Faction, must indeed be admitted for the Supreme visible Judicatories, and consequently as intitled to that Infallibility which is by them ascribed to this Supreme Judicatory; I cannot conceive how they can avoid thinking themselves obliged in Conscience to separate from the Communion of them who ascribe this Infallibility to the Pope and his Conclave. For there is nothing that can be said to justifie their Separation from us, but will [Page] as strongly prove them obliged to separate from their own Brethren of that Perswasion. For these Councils have taken upon them to decide the Controversie concerning the Supremacy, by declaring this Power to be in the Church diffusive, and themselves to be Lawful Representatives of that Church; and consequently that all Ecclesiastical Power, the Papacy it self being also expresly mentioned, was subject to them. For can they think that Propositions, neither Necessary, as to their matter, nor Evident, as to their Proof, can oblige Subjects to their Belief under pain of incurring the Censure of Heresy, only on account of their being defined by their Supreme Judge of Controversies? And is there any thing that themselves [Page] can pretend to have been more expresly defined by that Judge, than this is? If they will think to evade this Argument, by pretending that this Doctrine of the Power of their Judge of Controversies is not so properly de fide it self, as a Principle antecedent to the belief of all Particulars that are so; yet this can derogate nothing from their obligation to separate from the Communion of Dissenters concerning it. For can they think themselves obliged to Separate for the denyal of one particular defined by that Authority? And is there not incomparably more reason they should do so for the denyal of the Authority it self? Is not the Authority it self more Fundamental than the particulars can be which, on these Principles, derive [Page] their whole Credibility from it? And must it not be much more heinous to destroy the Credit of all possible Particulars, which, on these Principles, is included in the Judge of Controversies, than to refuse an actual Assent to any one Particular? And as it hence appears, that the matter of these Differences among themselves is more momentous, and more obliging to a Separation, than themselves can pretend those to be wherein they differ from us; so I may add farther, that the Separation, which ought in Conscience to follow hereupon, must be equally irreconcileable. For will it not come to the same Event, whether we utterly disown a visible Judge of Controversies, or whether we indeed own one, but own such a one [Page] as that our Adversaries cannot think themselves obliged to stand to his decision? In both Cases there is equally acknowledged a Liberty of Appeal from all Power that is acknowledged by the Adversary. And that Power which must decide Controversies against an Adversary who does not think himself obliged (as much as in Conscience) to submit to such a Decision, must do it either by force or Arbitration, which are Remedies as allowable by our Principles, as by those of our Adversaries. Nay, in this Case they cannot plead even that pretence of Canonical Punctuality, at least so long to forbear separating from the Communion even of acknowledged Hereticks, till their Cause were declared to be Heresy by [Page] their competent Judge. For they who believe these Councils to have been the Supreme Judicatories, must consequently conceive themselves obliged to believe that their Superiority over the Pope has been defined by a Canonical Authority; and they who do so, can have nothing left to excuse them for forbearing an actual Separation. And as it thus appears that they must hold themselves obliged to abstain from the Communion of those Persons who professedly and expresly own this Doctrine of the Popes Monarchy: So when they shall find that this Monarchy is indeed the Fundamental Principle of the whole Roman Communion, as distinct from others; they must, by the same Principles, think themselves [Page] obliged to abstain from the Communion of that whole Church, not only of those who do expresly defend that Monarchy, but also of others, though in terms denying it, as long as they keep to that Communion which cannot be kept without consequentially defending it. It is in vain to think to weaken the Authority of the Decision of those Councils, because it was in a matter concerning their own Interest. For besides that this will give Us a plain advantage against any Authority whereby they can pretend that we are Canonically censured; They themselves are sensible, on other occasions, that this is inseparably the Right of the Supreme Judicatory, to Judge even in matters of its own Interest; seeing there lies [Page] no Appeal from it, even in such Cases, to any other Judicatory that might Judge more impartially concerning them. And they who think the Supreme Judicatory Infallible, must think themselves also obliged, not only to a Canonical Acquiescence for Peace's sake, but also to an Internal Assent and Approbation of the Justice of such a Decree, even out of Conscience. This I conceive at least sufficient to prove, in this Case of persons not proselyted, as well as in the former of persons already of that Communion, that they who do more firmly adhere to this Doctrine of the Superiority of the Catholick Church diffusive, must think themselves obliged to separate from their communion when they are convinced of the inconsistency of this Doctrine with it. The only difference is that [Page] this firmer adherence to this Doctrine may more ordinarily and easily be expected from Persons not yet Proselyted, than from those who are prejudiced in favour of the contrary by their Education in that Communion. These are those Dividing Principles intimated in the following Answer to the Queries proposed to the Gentlewoman, Answ. to Q. 4. pag. 86. though I was unwilling on that occasion to enlarge further concerning them.
use IV §. 19. A fourth Use of this Hypothesis is for the direction of Peacemakers, to let them see what it is that renders our reconciliation impossible; and which, if it be not first accommodated, must render all their endeavours in [Page] particular Questions unsuccessful; and therefore against which they ought more earnestly to strive by how much they are more zealous for Catholick Peace. The way hitherto attempted has been to endeavour to reconcile our particular differences. This has been, either by clearing their respective Churches from all those things for which they have not expresly declared, and of which express Professions are not exacted from Persons to be reconciled unto them, by how great Authority soever of their particular Communicants they have been countenanced or maintained. This way has been taken on their side by Mr. Veron, &c. and on ours by Bishop Montague. Or where the Churches have declared themselves, there [Page] by allowing the greatest Latitude of Exposition, and putting the most favourable Sense on their Decrees of which they are capable. Thus Grotius has dealt with the Council of Trent, and S. Clara with our English Articles. The design of all the endeavours of this kind has been to reconcile the Churches without any yielding on either side. I confess I think the number of Controversies may be exceedingly diminished by this way of proceeding, which must needs be very acceptable to any, who is more a Lover of the Catholick Church's Peace than of Disputation. Many of the Tenets on both sides, that are very invidiously represented by Adversaries, will, on a closer examination, appear to be either mistakes [Page] of the Writers meanings, or Opinions of particular Writers, or senses of the Church's Decrees which were never designed by the Church that made them; and consequently unnecessary to be assented to in order to a reconciliation. But when all is done, they will fall very short of reconciling the different Communions. For though all their particular Decrees, even concerning Faith, were made tolerable by these means, (1) yet that were not sufficient to prove their Communion Lawful; and (2) yet there can be no hopes of reconciling all particular Decrees by these means, but some will still remain which will make their Communion intolerable to them of the other side.
[Page]§. 20. 1. Though all their particular Decrees of Faith might, by these means, be made tolerable; yet that were not sufficient to prove their Communion lawful. For neither is there any security that that sense of their Decrees, which might be taken for tolerable, would in Practice prove such as would be admitted by Governours; so as that they on the other side might, on their owning of that sense, be received to their Communion. No, though it were countenanced by Doctors of never so eminent note, nay, by the Ecclesiasticks who should receive them. For still their Church ought to be admitted to be the most Authentick Expositer of her own meaning. [Page] And I do not doubt but several of their Proselytes, who should go over to them on account of many of these moderate Explications, would find themselves mistaken in many things as soon as their Church had any obligation to explain her self concerning them. And though the Church might not think it worth her interposition to do it upon the reconciliation of every particular Proselyte, yet She must certainly think her self obliged to it in order to the reconciliation of the whole Communions. Then many of these palliations would certainly be found so repugnant to her design▪ and so destitute of any plausible appearance, as though She had been willing to yield in earnest in instances wherein She might not seem to do so (and that is the utmost [Page] condescension that can in reason be expected from a Church which pretends to be Infallible, at least while She pretends to be so) yet they would not afford them even so, as much as a Salvo for their reputation. Nay, though all her present Decrees of Faith had appeared tolerable, and appeared so in that very sense wherein She really understood them; yet even this would not suffice for a solid reconciliation of Communion, as long as the same Authority, by which these other Decrees had been defined, is still owned to be Infallible. For still the next General Council (in the sense wherein they give that Title to such as are not truly Occidental) may define new Articles never yet defined, or at least declare such Propositions to be so, which, as [Page] yet while they are not defined, may very innocently be disbelieved. And then, as they, who even now believe what has been defined hitherto, not for the intrinsick Probability of the things defined; but for the Authori [...]y whereby they are defined, must find themselves obliged, by the same Principles, to receive such new Definitions of the same Authority; So we, who even now disbelieve them, on account of the unsatisfactoriness of their intrinsick Proofs, and for the contrary Proofs produced against them, and who do not believe the Authority of their Proponent a sufficient Argument to countervail these intrinsick confutations, must still continue to disbelieve them, even when they shall be so defined; which will then oblige us again to divide as great a [Page] distance as ever. Nor is this to be looked on as a Case unlikely to happen, considering that there are already many very suspicious Doctrines so universally received, as that their Learned men confidently tell us that some of them are ferè de fide, and doubt of others whether they be not already altogether so. Where it is observable that the grounds of their judging so, are, either the expressness of those Decrees of their Church which are already made concerning them, or the Universality of their reception, or the stress which is laid upon them, which, in all likelyhood, would prevail with such a General Council, if it had been assembled, to give their Suffrages for them.
§. 21. 2. But though a reconciliation [Page] of the Particulars hitherto defined might have been more available for a solid Peace, than it hence appears likely that it would be, yet even this is not Practicable by all the means of Reconciliation that have as yet been thought of. Some things have been defined in both Communions with such a design upon Dissenters, as that no mollifying Arts of Interpretation can prevail with any unprejudiced Person to believe that the Senses really intended by them are reconcileable. Nor indeed have the Romanists any reason to expect that we should agree with them in all the Particulars defined by them, whilst we do not agree with them in ackowledging the Credibility of their Judge of Controversies. For, Antecedently [Page] to their being defined, they confess many of them so obscure as that they may pardonably be disbelieved and opposed. And how can any wise man expect that all Men should be of one mind in so many instances of such a nature? And yet even one unlawful Condition of Communion is alone sufficient to make their Communion unlawful, and the Churches irreconcileable.
§ 22. Now that there are somethings for which their Church her self is unavoidably concerned wherein we have all the reason, that can be desired, to expect that She should yield to us in order to the accommodation of our differences, I▪ think I might confidently Appeal to as many Learned Men, [Page] though of our Adversaries Communion, as have had as well the Courage to speak their thoughts, as the Candor to follow their own Convictions. The Testimonies of many of them, to this purpose, are already so well known, as that I believe it will not be expected that I should exceed my present designed brevity by producing them. This therefore being supposed, it will plainly follow that no solid Peace can be expected with those of that Communion without some Concessions on their side; and therefore that which inevitably hardens them against all Concessions must consequently ruine all hopes of a lasting Reconciliation. Now this is done by their Doctrine of Infallibility, and their own Title to it. [Page] This is it that makes them presume to define such things as themselves confess to be inevident Antecedently to their own defining them. This makes it impossible for them (as long as they pretend to it) to submit those things as much as to a review, in this Age of Knowledge, which were at first defined in Ages of very great Ignorance. This hinders them from yielding to the clearest Convictions to the contrary, or from acknowledging them even where they cannot chuse but yield to them. This keeps them from reforming any of those Errors, of which we have reason to believe themselves so sensible (since the great modern improvements of Ecclesiastical Learning) as that they would not have introduced them, if they had [Page] not found them already admitted, and thought themselves obliged not to desert them, nor to believe any Evidence sufficient to prove them blame-worthy, when they had once found them so admitted. And therefore it will concern all hearty well-wishers to Catholick Peace, to lay out their Zeal and Industry principally to discredit this one Doctrine which is so extremely pernicious to it.
§. 23. And in order hereunto I have endeavoured to make it appear, that the challenge of Infallibility to their whole Communion is truly grounded on a Principle disclaimed by considerable numbers of their Communicants; that is, the Popes absolute and unaccountable Monarchy over the Catholick [Page] Church. Whence it will follow, that, though Infallibility did indeed belong to the Supreme Representative of the Catholick Church diffusive, yet they can lay no claim to it who deny his Papal Monarchy. And therefore they who believe these Promises of Infallibility to have been originally made only to the Catholick Church diffusive, and withal deny this absolute Monarchy of the Pope, cannot lay any better claim to this Infallibility than any other part of the Catholick Church diffusive that is as great and as considerable as themselves. But themselves confess Churches no less ample for extent (and indeed more considerable for the multitude of Apostolical Sees) than their own, to be so far [Page] from being Infallible, as that they believe them actually mistaken, even in matters of Faith, and that for several Centuries together before the Reformation. And therefore all the Authority which they can challenge on these Principles is only a Canonical one, such as is due to particular Provincial or National or Patriarchal districts, which are, on all sides, acknowledged to be Fallible. Which will not only concern the Council of Trent, but also all other Councils that are only Occidental.
§. 24. Now this Concession alone, that they are Fallible, would, at least, be sufficient to shew that they could not think it unlawful to review their own Decrees, and either to correct or repeal them, as they [Page] should Judge it reasonable upon that review. And though indeed it is not for the Interest of the Publick that Governours should be too easie in rescinding their own Acts, and especially at the motion of such an challenge it as a Duty from them to rescind them, and when it cannot be done without an acknowledgment of their having been formerly mistaken; yet it is withal as little for that Interest, that they should wholly devest themselves of the Power of actually Practising it, when it shall appear necessary by the exigences of the Communities for which they are intrusted. And, if, in any Case, this may be allowed to be Expedient, there can be no reason to doubt but that it is so here. The thing is of [Page] that importance, as that upon it depends the Reconciliation of the Divided Parties of Christendome, which are neither likely to be subdued by the Power of any one, nor possible to be reconciled without Concessions on some, if not on all, sides, by Churches, as well as by private Persons, and it cannot appear on which side the Concession is fit to be made, unless all submit to a tryal, and resolve, upon tryal, to yield to what they shall judge reasonable. Besides, there is a particular Reason why the Church should reserve an open Ear for all things that can be urged for her information in matters of Faith. Not only in regard that the things are such as do not derive their Lawfulness or Unlawfulness from her Authority, [Page] but are what they are, either True or False, Antecedently to it; so that her Authority, as it cannot change the Nature of the things in themselves, so neither can it alter their obligation in reference to the Consciences of those who are otherwise perswaded: Nor that She must be Responsible to God, how little soever She be so to her Subjects, if She betray her trust in the Faith once delivered to her; and thereupon drive out of her Communion Persons, who ought to have been encouraged to continue it, and break off from the Communion of other Churches with whom She ought to have maintained a correspondence: But also because her whole Authority depends on it. For if She be Erroneous in Fundamentals, especially if her Error [Page] be by way of Defect in them, She is uncapable of being a Christian Church, and consequently uncapable of Ecclesiastical Authority. So that, as She tenders her whole Authority in other things, She is obliged to use all diligence to secure her self from Error in these, and it must be her best Policy to do so. Nay, the greatest Human Authorities that are, and who are most Critical in insisting on these Punctualities of Policy in maintaining what they have once determined, yet think it no disparagement to them to condescend to a review, and to change their Judgments, upon better Information. And since the retriving of that sort of Learning, which is requisite for clearing Apostolical Tradition, which [Page] came in with the Reformation of Religion, the Church of Rome her self is much better informed, and better qualified for Judging, than She was in those obscurer Ages wherein She first defined them.
§. 25. Supposing therefore that She were thus disposed to come to a review, it plainly follows further, that the whole force of her new Decrees upon this review, must be resolved into the merit of the Cause. For when her Judgment has once been acknowledged Fallible, there can then remain no further pretence of any greater Certainty in her Conclusions, than in the Premises from whence they were deduced by her. And from hence it would be very reasonable [Page] to expect 1. that She would not upon this new review define what She should believe insufficiently proved Antecedently to her Definition. This being applyed to particulars, would cut off very many of her newly introduced Articles which her most eminent Champions confess inevident Antecedently to her defining them. And we might expect the number of Articles, which would be reduced upon this way of Tryal, the more considerable, if 2. all those counterfeit Miracles and Revelations, and all those counterfeit Authors and Authorities were waved, which at the defining of these Articles were generally believed genuine, but are since as generally acknowledged to have been Forgeries. All those Doctrines which, [Page] upon such Testimonies as these, were taken for Apostolical, must lose their Credit of being so as soon as these Testimonies shall be convicted of incompetency for assuring us what was Apostolical. Especally 3. if none but the earliest Writers be trusted, as indeed none else are competent, for conveying Apostolical Tradition to us. And 4. if they were wary in this kind to impose no Doctrines as Conditions of their Communion, but such as might appear even to themselves very Necessary and very Evident: If the defalcations were made which we have reason to believe would be made, even by themselves, upon the Suppositions now mentioned, I do not see any reason to despair of so much Liberty to be allowed by them as would suffice to [Page] reconcile our Communions. And this I believe will be an information very useful, and very acceptable to all hearty desires of the Peace of Christendom, that is indeed, to all truly-Christian Spirits.
use V §. 26. A fifth Use of this Hypothesis is, that it will serve for a Scheme of Principles to justifie the Reformation, for which some of our modern Adversaries have been so very importunate. Nor do I pretend hereby to supersede the Endeavours of that admirable Person who has already undertaken them.Dr. Stillingfleet. His Principles do excellently well shew that, as to the Resolution of our Faith in those Particulars which are truly of an Apostolical Original, and wherein [Page] we do agree with the Romanists themselves, we can sufficiently prove them derived from the Apostles by competent Testimonies of the several Ages through which they must have passed, without being any ways beholden to an Infallible Judge of Controversies. Nay that such an Infallible Judge is indeed a Means improper for such an End; as requiring many such things for its proof, to us, who must be supposed to live▪ at a distance from the time of its Original Institution, as are every way, at least, as liable to Dispute as the Controversies to be determined by it. So that hence it appears that we may be Christians, nay and Catholicks too, that is, that we may believe as many Articles as at first were imposed as necessary to be believed, without the least obligation [Page] of being Romanists, that is, of believing all their superinduced Novel Doctrines. And this is of excellent use against them in the whole Dispute concerning the Resolution of Faith, where they pretend that the Books of the Scriptures themselves, and the Sense of those Books, and consequently all the Articles which are proved from those Senses, cannot be proved Credible to Us without the Authority of their Judge of Controversies; and therefore that as we follow this Authority in these things, so we ought to follow it in all other things equally recommended by it, which must therefore be equally Credible with them. This Consequence will indeed hold with them concerning whom the Supposition is true; and therefore it cannot be strange that [Page] the Romanists, who profess to believe our common Articles on the Credit of this Authority, should look on those whom they call Hereticks as choosers in Religion, and as self condemned, in refusing to believe other things as credible, and credible on the same Principles with those they do believe, they still supposing that they, whom they call Hereticks, believe the common Articles on the same Principles on which themselves believe them. But from the Principles of that excellent Person it plainly appears, that the Supposi [...]ion is not true concerning Us; and that as we profess we do not, so there is nothing that can in Reason oblige us to believe even our common Articles on the Authority of their, or any other pretended Infallible Judge of Controversies.
[Page]§. 27. But the Principles here advanced do not so much concern the Articles wherein we are agreed, as those wherein we differ, and therefore will more immediately reach the Popish Communion as Popish, and the Protestant as properly so called, that is, as protesting against their Errors, and against the Uncanonical courses taken by them for Imposing their Errors; and for the suppressing of all opposition to the contrary. Here it is first proved that, it being our part only to Assert our own Liberty from their Additional Articles, they are obliged to prove, not we to disprove, their Impositions. Then, because the first Principles of their Impositions are not agreed on by themselves, but expresly denied by several Persons in their Communion, therefore I [Page] have proceeded to enquire after them, by knowing what it is that they are obliged by necessary consequence to maintain on account of their being of that Communion; so that by finding these we have all their particular Doctrines reduced to their first Principles. And the discovery of the weakness of the proofs producible for these (upon the former Supposition that they are obliged to prove them) is as clear a Discovery of the Justice of the Reformation, from the first Principles as the nature of the thing will bear.
use VI §. 28. A sixth and last Usefulness of this Hypothesis above others is, that it is capable of a more easie proof, and a proof more likely to prevail ad homines. For the several Parties among our Adversaries will not only grant us [Page] each of the Premises, but undertake to prove them for us; and an indifferent Person will not be beholden to either of them for the Conclusion. That he cannot be true to the Principles of their Communion (or, (to use their language) that he can be no sound thorough Catholick) who does not hold Infallibility, and that confined to that part of the Church which is in their Communion on account of their being virtually Catholick, the Jesuites, and other high Papalins will affirm, and it is that for which they contend. To them therefore I shall refer all those of that Communion, who shall doubt of the cogency of the proofs here produced, for further satisfaction. I could heartily wish that the odium of this reference might make them decline the Service; and [Page] should take it for a highly commendable condescension, if such as they, who have devoted themselves to the Service of the Catholick Church, could be perswaded to declare their dislike of Principles so pernicious to Catholick Peace. But I fear it is a favour too great to be expected from them. If any therefore doubt of the other Premiss, viz. the indefensibleness of this challenge to Infallibility, and of this Notion of a Catholick Church virtual, on which that challenge must be grounded, he may be pleased to consult those of their Writers who defend the Supremacy of General Councils, or rather of the Catholick Church diffusive. So that this way of proceeding will be most sutable for all sorts of Adversaries. If they read it with a desire of satisfaction, they [Page] will find that more easie when they shall consider that it proceeds only on that which themselves do partly grant true already, so that there will only one Premiss remain concerning which they can desire further satisfaction. If they read it with a design of confutation, they will also find that more difficult when they shall remember that they cannot undertake it without engaging a very considerable Party among themselves in the defence of these Fundamental Principles of their whole Communion.
§. 28. Many great and considerable improvements might have been also made of this difference of their Authors in matters of so great importance to their common Interests, which may hereafter be more fully enlarged on as themselves [Page] shall administer a further occasion for it. This will shew how little reason they have to boast of their Unity when it thus appears that they are so little agreed in these Principles of their Unity. So that, as it has already appeared that their difference herein must in reason oblige them to separate in their Communion, if they act conformably to their Principles, so nothing but a provocation like that which was given to Luther and Henry the Eighth, can be wanting to them who deny this Monarchy of the Pope, to make them do as they did, viz. actually to divide their Communion as their Principles already oblige them. This will also let them see how little advantage their Laity is like to have above ours in judging of the Controversies which [Page] divide our Communions. They would have them take the Judge of Controversies's word for the Particulars. That may be when they have found him. But when there are different Pretenders (as there are here, the Pope, the Council, and the Church diffusive) how shall they judge who has the justest Claim? Must they judge of the reasons, at least of Credibility? That is it that we would have them do, and for which we are blamed as putting them upon a task too difficult for them, or encouraging them to entertain too good an Opinion of their own abilities. Must they take the Pope's word in the Case? But he is yet only a Party; and, till the Motives of Credibility be tryed, can have no advantage above others his Competitors. And then, [Page] why may not They be trusted also? If they be all trusted, their Pretensions being so inconsistent, the Laick, who trusts them, must still be lest as irresolute as ever. Must they therefore follow the judgment of their most Credible Divines concerning it? But that will again be as hard a task as the former, to be able, in so great apparent Equality, to distinguish who are the most Credible; especially abstracting from the merit of the Cause. And what advantage the favourers of the Papacy have in numbers, that the others have in disinteressedness, which will go very far in recommending the Credibility of an Authority in such a Case as this is. Besides the greatest Authority of Divines will not by themselves be allowed for any more than a probable, [Page] and therefore a very fallible, inducement. But how much more so, when there are other Divines as eminent as themselves of another Judgment? And even Infallibility it self, if it be received on a Fallible recommendation, will still amount to no higher than a Fallible Proof; which even themselves cannot judge sufficient for their purpose in such a Case as this is. If both Pretenders and Divines be trusted on both sides as far as their Pretensions are not inconsistent with each other, this will effectually serve my purpose, and convince the Laick, who trusts them, of the insecurity of their whole Communion. For he must thus be obliged to grant both the Premisses of the Argument by which I have here proved it unsecure. The Major is this,
[Page] Infallibility, as appropriated to the Roman Communion by their Title to their being virtually Catholick, that is, by their adhering to the Papacy as a Principle of Catholick Unity in the sense above explained, is the Fundamental Principle of that whole Communion as distinct from others:
This he must believe on the Authority of the Popes themselves who have declared for it, and of the Jesuites, and the rest of the high Papalins. The Minor this:
But this Authority of the Papacy (on which the Title of that whole Communion to Infallibility is grounded) is false and improbable.
[Page]This he must also for the same reason believe on the Authority of all those who defend the Supremacy of General Councils, or of the diffusive Catholick Church. So that in this way of judging by Authorities (which is agreeable to the Genius and Principles and Arguments of that Church against us in other like Cases) the Laity, at least, must be obliged to distrust their whole Communion, as Fundamentally grounded on an unwarrantable Principle. But of these and other like matters, perhaps a larger account may be given on future occasions.