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 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 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 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 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 § 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 have been defined against us only by the Western Councils 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 Judicatory of Christendom as many and as great and every way as considerable Churches as themselves § 18. 2. But if such Western Councils 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 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 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 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 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
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 Supposiâ—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 § 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 A positive ACCOUNT OF THE Fundamental Controversie On which Depend all other Disputes betwixt the Romanists and the other Communions of Christendom with a short discovery of the little evidence they have on the Roman side in this Controversie BY the Fundamental Controversie I mean that on which the particular Controversies do depend and wherein what is maintained by the Ch. of Rome does so nearly concern her that the whole subsistence as a distinct Communion must adaequately depend on the Truth or Falshood of it And her Assertion herein is that Fundamental Principle the confutation of which is alone sufficient for convicting her of the guilt of that Separation of Communion which has been caused by her unwarrantable Impositions in the particular Disputes and for excusing all others who have permitted themselves to be excluded from her Communion rather than they would profess the belief of Errors which was required as a Condition of their Communion So that the Confutation of this Fundamental Principle does virtually and consequentially contain a resolution of all other particular Controversies debated between us For finding out this Fundamental Principle I suppose 1. That the first Formal Separation I will not yet say Schism for that implies a fault in it which is to appear from what follows was made by the Romanists at least as to us in England with whom they communicated in the same Publick Offices till they separated themselves upon the prohibition of Pius V. 2. That this Formal Separation without sufficient positive grounds for it though there were no sufficient convictive grounds to the contrary is the Sin of Formal Schism which is as properly incurred if the Separation be unnecessary as if it be unreasonable if it be without as if it be against reason 3. This being supposed for our Justification who were on y passive in the Separation it is not requisite that we confute their pretences but it is abundantly sufficient that the proofs produced by them are not directly conclusive to their purpose 4. This purely-negative way of proceeding that they want sufficient ground to justifie their Practice being alone sufficient for our purgation the proof that the grounds of their separating from us were sufficient which is their positive Assertion will be incumbent on our Adversaries and we cannot be obliged to disprove them 5. This obligation to Prove is incumbent on them not only as they are the first Separaters which may only concern us of the English Communion but also as the Imposers of their own Sentiments on others as Conditions of Catholick Communion Which will also relate to forreign Protestants who were driven from their Communion being not suffered to continue in it but on such Conditions 6. Our Adversaries being thus obliged to give a Positive account of their own proceedings they have no way to justifie themselves but by vindicating that on which themselves lay the stress of their Separation so that if they fail here no other proof will be sufficient for proving the necessity of it which was noted to be meant by the Fundamental Principle Here therefore two things will be necessary to be shewn 1. what this is on which they lay this stress 2. that it is no way justifiable For the First it is clear 1. That the particular Propositions debated betwixt us are not by themselves thought necessary to our Salvation necessitate medii so as that our Ignorance or disbelief of them should deprive us of some necessary Truth without which we cannot be saved For they themselves excuse such as did disbelieve them as we do before the definition of their Church 2. That even supposing we were erroneous in things not thus necessary yet this were not sufficient to justifie their Separation or Imposition on intrinsick accounts that is an Error of so small importance as to the value of the thing could not in that regard of its intrinsick value excuse either their Separation from us because we hold it or their so rigorous Imposition of their own sentiments on us concerning it 3. That as there is no Intrinsick Necessity of the Truth of the Propositions for our Salvation so neither 1. is there that Extrinsick Evidence of their being revealed by the Apostles that must necessarily argue in him that should deny them an Irreverence and Obstinacy against the Divine Veracity on which their Credibility depends This also appears from their excusing the Errors of the Antients who if they had had such Evidence in their times could not have been inculpably Erroneous Which they take up from what S. Augustine had said to that purpose in his Disputes with the Donatists concerning the Case of St. Cyprian whom he therefore makes more excusable in the same Error of Rebaptizing Hereticks than the Donatists because he lived before but they after the Nicene decision of that whole Dispute Nor 2. do themselves pretend that any Error which may not be presumed obstinately persisted in is sufficient to justifie a Separation from the Communion of Persons so Erroneous 4. Hence it follows that seeing neither the Intrinsick Necessity of the Propositions themselves nor their Extrinsick Evidence Antecedently to the definition of the Church are on their own Principles sufficient to justifie the Severity of their proceedings against us The only thing they have more to alledge for it must be our Disobedience in disbelieving those Propositions notwithstanding the Authority which their Church has given them by her Definition 5. That the Obedience required to these Propositions is not only not to make Parties and Divisions in the Church against them such as our Church is generally thought
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
it to that Multitude of Christians who are united under a visible Monarchical Head as a Principle of their Unity to which Jure Divino all are bound to be obedient 24. This Monarchical Head to which they pretend a nearer interest than others is the Papacy The Summary Seeing therefore that nothing else can excuse their new Impositions but the Authority by which they are Imposed And Seeing that no Authority can be sufficient for their purpose to oblige their Subjects internally to believe what is neither Necessary as to its matter nor Evident as to its proof Antecedently to the Definition of such an Authority but one that must be Infallible Seeing that they who do not in terms pretend the Popes Infallibility necessary and they who do so already own what I would prove that all must own according to their Principles can make no Plea to Infallibility but from those Promises of the Spirit which themselves confess to have been primarily made to the Catholick Church and therefore though an Infallibility even in Judgment were granted to belong to the Catholick Church yet that can signifie nothing to our Adversaries purpose till they can prove themselves to be that Catholick Church to which alone those Promises confessedly belong Seeing evidently they are not the Catholick Church diffusive and can therefore only pretend to the Title of their being the Catholick Church virtual Seeing this Notion of the Catholick Church Virtual must necessarily imply such a Principle of Unity to which all the Catholick Church diffusive is obliged to adhere as to a certain Standard of their Catholicism and this Principle of Unity to which they can lay claim above other Christian Societies is only the Papacy and the Papacy as a Principle of Unity must be a Principle not of Order only but of Influence and that independently on the Judgment of the Catholick Church diffusive All these things being considered together It will plainly follow that if this influential independent power of the Papacy cannot be proved all their pretences to Infallibility or even to any Authority for deciding these Controversies between us must fall to the ground and consequently all their particular Decisions depending on them will neither be valid in Law nor obliging in Conscience which will leave their Separation and Impositions destitute of any pretence that may excuse them from being Schismatical This is therefore the Fundamental Principle on which all their Authority in defining all other particular Doctrines must originally depend And to shew that this Principle is insufficiently proved will alone be enough to invalidate all their other Definitions Secondly Therefore to shew the insufficiency of their proof of it This Proof must either be α from Tradition And for this it is observable that I. This Notion of the Catholick Church Virtual if it had been True must have been originally delivered by the unanimous consent of the Catholick Church diffusive We cannot judge otherwise unless we suppose a great defect either of the Apostles in not teaching or of the Church in not preserving the memorial of such a Fundamental Principle of their Unity II. This Topick of Tradition delivered down by the Catholick Church diffusive is the only proper one for the Church who pretends to this Authority to prove it by And till it be proved and proved to the judgment of particular Subjects there is no reason that She should expect that they should think themselves obliged in Conscience to submit to her Authority For Authority can be no rational Motive to them to distrust their own Judgments till it self be first proved and acknowledged And therefore if it do not appear and appear to us from this Topick we can have no reason to believe it III. This Notion of the Catholick Church Virtual does not appear to have been ever delivered as the sense of the Catholick Church diffusive 1. Not of that Catholick Church diffusive which was extant in the beginning of the Reformation For then 1. The Greeks and most of the Eastern Christians professedly oppose it 2. Many of the Western Christians themselves especially of the French and Germans did not believe it 3. The Western Church it self Representative in four by them reputed General Councils of Pisa Constance Siena and Basile did not own the Popes Supremacy as a Principle of Catholick Unity but expresly by their Canons declared themselves to be his Superiors and treated him as being wholly subject to their Authority This was not long before the Reformation and what they did had not then been repealed by any Authority comparable to theirs 2. Not of the Catholick diffusive Church in antienter times 1. Not of the Greeks ever since their Schism as the Latines call it under Photius 2. Before that time even whilst they were united with the Latines the Popes Supremacy was disowned by them in that famous 28. Canon of Chalcedon which equalled the Bishop of Constantinople with him of Rome and owned only an Ecclesiastical Right in both of them for the dignity of their Cities which as I have already warned will not suffice for our Adversaries purpose that I may not now mention the Canon of Constantinople so expounded by the Fathers of Chalcedon in place and maintained by the Greek Emperors It was also disowned by the Council of Antioch against Julius Disowned by the African Fathers by whom the only Plea the Popes had from the Council of Nice was found to be a forgery 3. Not of the Catholick diffusive Church in those Primitive times while the Christians lived under Heathen Emperours For 1. The Romanists themselves are unwilling to be tryed by them unless we will allow them to quote from the Decretal Epistles c. which Learned Men among themselves do confess to be suspicious or manifest Forgeries 2. Aeneas Sylvius who was afterwards Pope Pius II. acknowledged that before the Council of Nice little respect was had to the Bishop of Rome above others 3. It appears by the freedom wherewith Pope Stephen was resisted by St. Cyprian and Pope Victor by the Asiatick Bishops and by St. Irenaeus And 4. By the Canon of Carthage under St. Cyprian which declared that no Bishop was subject to another but that every one was Supreme in his own charge under God not now to mention other passages in him to the same 5. By the weakness of the Testimonies alledged to this purpose the Presidency in the Region of the Romans in Ignatius the powerful Principality in St. Irenaeus the Pontificatus Maximus Ironically derided by Tertullian and the one Bishop and one See in St. Cyprian c. β For the Scriptures themselves do not seem very confident of them without the Expositions of the Fathers AN ANSWER TO Six Queries Proposed to a Gentlewoman of the Church of ENGLAND by an Emissary of the Church of ROME fitted to a Gentlewomans capacity By HENRY DODWELL M. A. and sometimes Fellow of
Liber cui Titulus Two Discourses against the Romanists c. Authore H. Dodwell IMPRIMATUR Geo. Hooper R mo D n◠Archiepiscopo Cantuar. à Sacris Domest Junui 8. 1676. TWO SHORT DISCOURSES Against the ROMANISTS 1. An Account of the Fundamental Principle of Popery and of the insufficiency of the Proofs which they have for it 2. An Answer to Six Queries proposed to a Gentlewoman of the Church of England by an Emissary of the Church of Rome By HENRY DODWELL M. A. and sometimes Fellow of Trinity Colledge near DVBLIN LONDON Printed for Benj Tooke and are to be sold at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard 1676. AN ACCOUNT OF THE Fundamental Principle OF POPERY As it is a Distinct Communion AND Of the insufficiency of the Proofs which they have for it WITH A PREFACE concerning the Vsefulness of this Undertaking By HENRY DODWELL LONDON Printed for Benjamin Tooke 1676. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 § 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 it not and that therefore there was then no Historical Evidence for it seeing that could not have escaped their knowledge
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 § 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 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 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 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 Authoriâ—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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
it were impartially Enquired into there would not be greater and better attested Miracles for Invocation of Saints among the Romanists than for the Invocation of Daemons among the Pagans 4. That the same Arguments used by the Scriptures and Primitive Christians against the Heathen Idolatries are applyed by the Protestants to the Image-worship among the Papists now and the same Answers given by the Papists now were then also insisted on by the Pagans 5. That as these are very shrew'd Suspicions of the dangerousness of this Worship so this danger is ventured on without the least necessity there being undeniable Security from the Primitive Records and Revelations of Christianity that God is pleased to accept such Prayers as are addressed to him through the Intercession of Christ alone so that there can be no necessity of having also recourse unto the Saints 6. That Image-worship is not countenanced by as much as any Venerable Authority of truly Primitive Christianity and that the Second Nicaene Council that introduced it was put to very disingenuous Shifts of counterfeit Authorities for it 7. That whatever may be thought of the Worship designed by the Roman Church yet even Mr. Thorndike himself with whose Authority our Adversaries principally urge us in this Dispute does not deny that Idolatry is practiced by the Ignoranter Persons of that Communion which the Gentlewoman may justly fear lest it should prove her own Case 8. That the Roman Church her self cannot be altogether excused from the Idolatry of her Ignorant Communicants seeing she puts unnecessary Scandals in Ignorant Persons way and is guilty of encouraging their Ignorance and Carelessness of Judging in matters of Religion 9. That the Practice of that Communion is generaâ—ly worse and grosser than their Principles as the Gentlewoman may inform her self of in that impartial account which is given of them by Sir Edwyn Sandys in his Speculum Europae which yet is observed and countenanced by their most Eminent Guides so that such as She cannot secure themselves from the danger of it 10. That the Romish Church is by so much the more culpable in this Particular because She has not been content only to countenance and encourage a Practice in so great danger of proving Idolatrous so needless in it self so destitute of all Authority either of Scripture or the Primitive Catholick Church which yet does so extremely stand in need of Authority but She has also imposed it as a Condition of her own Communion which She calls Catholick so that they who are willing to Believe and Practice all that was Believed and Practised in the Primitive Church must now be Anathematized and condemned for Hereticks for refusing to Believe or Practice any more or to condemn those as Hereticks who do refuse it Q. 3. Where was the Church of England before Luthers time THE design of asking this Question is certainly to make our Confession of Novelty in such Cases wherein our Adversaries presume our Novelty so notorious as that we our Selves cannot deny it an Argument against Us yet they themselves are concerned in some Cases to deny its cogency For even they cannot deny that the deprivation of the Laity of the use of the Cup for Example has been lately introduced into their Church by a publick Law If therefore it may appear that our Church is Antient as to all intents and purposes wherein Antiquity may be available but that the Church of Rome is not so and that in the sense wherein the Church of England has begun since Luther there is no reason to expect that She should have been Antienter and that the Justice of her Cause does not require it and that the Antiquity upon these Suppositions confessedly allowed to the Church of Rome is no Argument for the Justice of her Cause these things I think will contain a fully satisfactory Answer to the Gentlewomans Question I shall not at present engage on an accurate Discussion of these Heads but shall only suggest such short Observations as may let her see how unreasonable our Adversaries confidence is in this Argument wherein they do so usually triumph Therefore 1. Antiquity is indeed necessary to be pleaded for Doctrines such especially as are pretended to belong to the Catholick Faith and which are urged as Conditions of Communion This is the Case wherein it is urged by Tertullian and Vincentius Lirinensis in their very rational Discourses on this Argument And for this I think we may challenge the Church of Rome her self to instance in one positive Doctrine imposed by us which She her self thinks not Ancient I am sure the Controversie is so stated commonly that we are blamed not for Believing any thing antient or necessary which is not but for not believing some things which She believes to be so And if She her self believe all our Positives and withal believes that nothing is so to be believed but what is Antient it will clearly follow that She cannot in consistency with her own interests deny the Antiquity of our Positive Doctrines But for the other Doctrines superadded by them and denied by us which are indeed the true occasion of the present Divisions of Communion we charge them with Innovation and are very confident that they will never be able to prove them to the satisfaction of any Impartial Person either from clear Scripture or from genuine Antiquity of the first and purest Ages which are the way wherein we are willing to undertake the proof of our positive Doctrines Nay their greatest Champions decline the tryal and complain of the defectiveness and obscurity of the Primitive Christian Writers which they would not have reason to do if they thought them clear on their side These things therefore being thus supposed That no Doctrines ought to be imposed but what are Ancient That ours are so by our Adversaries own Confession and that our Adversaries Doctrines are not so and that in Judging this the private Judgments of particular Persons are to be trusted as the measures of their own private Practice as it is plain that those Discourses of Tertullian and Vincentius Lirinensis are principally designed for the satisfaction of particular Persons which had been impertinent if the Churches Judgment had been thought Credible in her own Case as a Judge of Controversies besides that even now this Argument from Antiquity is made use of for convincing such as are supposed unsatisfied with her Authority and therefore to whom that Authority can be no Argument which Liberty of private Judgment is then especially most fit to be indulged when the distance is so remote as it is now when no Church has now those Advantages for conveying down Apostolical Tradition in a Historical way as She had then These things I say being thus supposed it will follow that we are wrongfully Excommunicated and therefore that we have no reason to fear that their Censures should be confirmed by God And though I confess every Error in the Cause of the Churches Censures will
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
Reformation done by Act of Parliament REformation may be considered two wayes Either 1. As preached and imposed under pain of Spiritual Censures and of Exclusion from the Communion of the Church and a deprivation of all the Priviledges consequent to that Communion And this is certainly the Right of the Church and was accordingly practiced by the Church in our English Reformation 2. As Enacted as a Law of the Land and consequently as urged the same way as other Laws are under temporal Penalties and external Coercion and encouraged by temporal Advantages And this is undoubtedly the Right of the Secular power And this was all in which the Secular power did concern it self in the Reformation What I can further foresee in favour of our Adversaries is that 1. The Secular Power ought in Conscience to be herein advised by the Ecclesiasticks and 2. That though external obedience may be paid to the mistaken Decrees of the Secular power following the mistaken part of the Ecclesiasticks yet the Obligation in Conscience and Right of such Decrees must be derived from the Justice of the Churches proceedings in advising the Magistrate so that no Act of the Magistrate can make amends for any Essential defect in the proceedings of the Church But the only Effect of the Magistrates concurrence in that Case is that what is already performed without Heresy or Schism in the Church may be by that means settled in such a particular Commonwealth without Schism or Sedition in the State And therefore seeing they suppose that at the Reformation the greater number of the Bishops then being were overawed and deprived of the Liberty of their Votes by the Secular Magistrate and it is the nature of all Societies to be swayed by the greater Part therefore they may think it unreasonable to ascribe the Reformation to the Church of England but only to a Schismatical part of it so that the Magistrate having attempted this Reformation without warrant from the Church they think they do well to call our Reformation it self Parliamentary To this therefore I Reply 1. That the use we make of this Topick of the Magistrates concurrence is indeed no other than to clear our Reformation from being Seditious which is ordinarily charged on Us by our Adversaries and much more ordinarily on the forreign Protestants 2. That for clearing the very proceedings of the Magistracy from being Heretical or Schismatical to the Conscience of the Magistracy it self it is sufficient that the Magistracy gave its Assistance and Protection to no other Church but such as at least according to the genuine Dictate of their Conscience was neither Heretical nor Schismatical But this Justification of the private Conscience of the Magistracy is I confess a thing we are at present not so necessarily concerned for and therefore 3. We grant farther that for satisfying our own Consciences of the Justice of these proceedings of the Magistracy it is requisitethat we be satisfied that they were Advised by that part of the Clergy whose Advice we conceive they ought to have followed So that if this may appear in the Case we are speaking of this and this alone will be a sufficient Vindication of the Magistrates proceedings to the Consciences of its Subjects 4. Therefore the Determination of the Justice of the Advice followed by the Magistrate may be resolved two wayes Either from the merit of the Cause or from the Legal Authority and Right the Persons may be presumed to have to be consulted on such occasions As for the former it is in the present Case the principal Dispute Whether the Reformation undertaken by the Magistrate was right or not and therefore very unfit to be relyed on as a Presumption to prove the Magistrates proceedings Irregular The later therefore only is proper to be insisted on here And it consists of two charges That by the Laws of the Land the Magistrate ought to have been advised by the Bishops then possessed of the several Sees and That in advising with the Clergy whoever they were he ought to have allowed them the Liberty of speaking their minds and to have been swayed by the greater part These things are conceâ—ved so necessary as that the Magistrate not observing them may be presumed to act as no way influenced by the Clergy Which is the Reason why they call our Reformation wherein they suppose them not observed Parliamentary 1. Therefore as to the Legal Right of the Popish Clergy to advise the Secular Magistrate two things may be Replyed 1. That this Legal Right may be forfeited by the Persons by their Personal misdemeanors and of this forfeiture the Secular Magistrate himself is the proper Judge and that this was exactly the Popish Bishops Case at that time 2. That the consideration of this Legal Right is of no use for satisfying the Consciences of their Subjects which yet is the only use that is seasonable for this occasion 2. As for the Canonical freedom to be allowed them in advising and the obligation of the Magistrate to follow the advice of the greater part These Canonical Rights can only satisfie the Consciences of their own Communion but cannot be pretended necessary to be observed where there are different Communions For 1. The Romanists themselves never allow that freedom to Persons out of their Communion as was plain in the Council of Trent and still appears on all occasions 2. Especially in particular National Churches as ours was they themselves will not deny that the greater part may prove Heretical and therefore likely to prevail by Plurality of Votes in which Case themselves would notwithstanding think it unequal for the Magistrate to be swayed by them 3. This has alwaies been the Practice of the Church and the Catholick Emperors never to allow any Canonical Right to the Assemblies and Censures of Hereticks as Athanasius was restored first by Maximinus Bishop of Triers then by Pope Julius after that by Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem and at last by the Emperour Jovinian without any Canonical revocation of the Synods that had condemned him Many Instances of the like Nature might be given 4. The Popish Clergy had given the first Precedent of this Liberty themselves in refusing to admit of the Canonical Appeal of the Protestants from the Pope to a free General Council FINIS 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 Exom Sect. 1. Chap. 16. §. 3. p. 58. Sect. 2. Ch. 21. §. 4. p. 190. Sect. 2. Ch. 3. p. 90. White 's Tab. Suffrag As the Florentine Council c. As of Constance c. Answ. to Q. 4. pag. 86. Dr. Stillingfleet Suppositions (a) (a) Feb. 25. 1569. Propositions a a Prop. 1. 2 3 4. b b Prop. 6. c c Prop. 1 2. d d Prop. 3. e e Prop. 7.8 9 10 11 12. f f Prop. 13. g g Prop. 14. h h Prop. 15. i i Prop. 16.17 18. k k Prop. 19. l l Prop. 21 23 24 m m Prop. 20. n n Prop. 22. * * Prop. 22. Ep. 188. ad Mart. Mayer Ep. 72. ad Stephfratr * * Vid Consid. of Pres. Concern ††For the Jesuites see the Provine Letâ— and the Moral Theolog. of the Jesuites and for the rest of that Communion the Jesuites defence of themselves by way of recremination against others Vid. II. 1 2. Exomolog Sect. 2. Ch. 16. §. 2. P. 162. Ed. 2. On 1 Cor. III. 15. Vid. Q. I. §. I.