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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 And particularly he confesses that Mr. Chillingworth's Arguments against it had to him appeared unanswerable 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 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
sufficient to Justifie their Cause For 1. This Antiquity is not Primitive but only of some later Ignorant Ages And the Unreasonableness of presuming Doctrines to have been Primitive only because they were actually found embraced by the Church in later Ages and of Prescribing on that account against a new Examination of them by immediate recourse to the Originals might have been shewn from the Fathers as well as from the Protestants 2. The Antiquity of those Notions of theirs whereby they confine the Catholick Church to that part of it in the Roman Communion which might have been proved Fundamental to all their other Doctrines as they are made Articles of Faith and Conditions of Communion is contradicted by the Oriental Churches generally who are as ancient and of as Unquestionable a Succession as the Church of Rome her self and as ancient in teaching the contrary 3. The utmost Antiquity which we allow for their unwarrantable Doctrines is not so great as must be acknowledged by all that will Judge candidly for several which on all sides are acknowledged to be Heretical I do not only mean those of the Arians but also of those great Bodies of the Oriental Historians and Euâ—ychians continuing to this day divided from the Roman Church especially if they be really guilty of those Heresies which are charged on them and they must by Romanists be held guilty of some for Justifying their own Practice of condemning them 4. Some of their present Decrees particularly those concerning the admission of the Apocryphal Books into the Canon and receiving Unwritten Traditions with Equal Reverence with the Written Word of God I doubt are not more anciently imposed as Conditions of Catholick Communion than the Council of Trent it self which was since Luther And both of these are very considerable and especially the later is very Fundamental to many of their other Decrees Q. 4. Why all the Reformed Churches are not Vnited in One I Presume the design of this Question is not so much a Curiosity to be Informed either of the Politick Reasons which in the Course of Second Causes might have an Influence on those Divisions which were occasioned by the Reformation or of those that might move God to permit Second Causes to act according to their Natural Inclination without the Interposition of any Extraordinary restraint but only to lay hold on that Advantage from our acknowledged Divisions which they may seem to afford to the Prejudice of our common Cause I shall therefore at present onâ—y propose such things to the Gentlewomans Consideration as may let her understand the weakness of this Argument how Popular soever when they conclude us either mistaken our Selves or at least unfit to Guide others in the General Reformation because we are not all agreed in all the Particulars To this purpose it will be at present sufficient to insist on two things 1. That there is no reason why the Romanists should upbraid Us with this Argument and that it is their Interest as well as ours to Answer it 2. That the Argument it self is of no force as it is used by them against us 1. There is no Reason why the Romanists should upbraid Us with this Argument and they as well as we are obliged to Answer it For 1. This very Argument was by the Primitive Heathens made use of against Christianity in General as it is now against Us and our Adversaries would do well to consider whether the same Answers pleadable by themselves now in behalf of those Christians and actually pleaded by the Apologists then be not as pleadable for Us now Nay this multitude of Sects in Christianity is even now the great Argument of Irreligious Persons against the Truth of Religion and I cannot believe that any Piously disposed Person among them can be pleased to allow the Argument to be of any force in either Case rather than want an Argument against Us. Yet I believe they will never be able to shew any Disparity 2. If they speak not of Dividing Principles but of actual Divisions they as well as we have such among themselves They have Divisions betwixt the Irish Remonstrants and Anti-Remonstrants Molinists and Jansenists as well as Thomists and Scotists and Jesuites some of which Parties are Divided as well in Communion as in Opinions If they say that these Divisions are not the faults of their Opinions but the particular perversity of Persons who will not stick to those Principles which might keep them United when their Interest inclines them otherwise the same will be pretended by every Dividing Party If they think it Injurious that their whole Communion should be charged with the misdemeanors of Persons condemned by it We all of Us plead the same for there is no Party that does not condemn all others in those things wherein they Divide from themselves 3. If they think our Differences concerning the Particulars we would have Reformed an Argument that the whole design of a Reformation is in it self Suspicious and Uncertain let them consider what themselves do or can say when they are in the like way of Arguing urged by Us with the several Opinions concerning the Seat of Infallibility whence our Authors conclude the Uncertainty of the thing it self It might easily have been shewn upon this and the like Occasions how they do and are obliged to acknowledge the Unreasonableness of this way of Arguing But the designed Brevity of my present Employment only permits me to point at the Heads of what might be said not to enlarge on the Particulars 4. It might have been shewn that these Differences among them concerning the Judge of Controversies tend Naturally and by due Rational Consequence to the dissolution of their Communion a Charge which we think cannot be proved against that which we believe the Right Communion 2. Therefore to shew directly the weakness of this Argument Let it be considered 1. That whatever Differences they upbraid us with yet they can never prove that they follow by any Natural and Rational Consequence from the General Principles of the Reformation though possibly they may indeed have been occasioned by that Liberty of Spirit which was absolutely requisite for undertaking a design of such a Nature as it must on all sides be acknowledged possible that things really good may notwithstanding prove occasions of Evil. And how very Unjust and Unreasonable it is to charge Personal Faults upon Designs that is in this Case the faults of Reformers upon the Reformation all even the Romanists themselves will acknowledge in Cases wherein they are dis-interessed 2. That this being Supposed all that they can conclude from these Divisions of the Reformers is only that no one Communion of the Reformers has that advantage over the rest as that Antecedently to all Enquiry into the merit of the Cause its Word is fit to be trusted as a Guide in Controversies to assure any of its own Truth and of the Error of all differing from it This if the Gentlewoman