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.