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
to require to the xxxix Articles but also Positively to believe them not only as Truths but also as matters of Faith 6. That this Positive Belief of their Church's Definitions exteriorly professed in joyning in their Offices and in abstaining from the Communion even of Peaceable Dissenters and censuring them as Hereticks cannot veraciously nor consequently without Sin be performed without an Internal Assent 7. That this Internal Assent cannot safely be given without a satisfactory conviction of the Truth of the Propositions so assented to 8. And therefore that such an Assent may be given to Propositions defined by their Church only on account of her Authority it is requisite that her Authority be such a Medium as may assure us of the Truth of those Propositions 9. This Assurance if it be nor according to the Doctrine of their greatest Pretenders to Reason Mathematical yet must at least for matters of Faith and such these Definitions are by themselves esteemed be Moral that is such as may exclude all Probability if not all Possibility of Doubting whether they be True 10. That Authority which upon its own account may be an Argument to convince us of the Truth of her Definitions must not be such as must depend on the use of Means both 1. because that will leave a Liberty for such as are competent Judges of them to have recourse from such Authority to the Means themselves on which such her Credibility will depend which the Romanists will by no means permit And 2. because the Means are by themselves acknowledged frequently Fallible and the Infallibility only affixed to the Conclusions 11. That Authority which may assure us of the Truth of its Definitions independently on the Means must needs be Infallible in its Judgment Which though some few late Authors have endeavoured to avoid yet the Generality of them have found themselves in pursuance of the former Principles obliged to assert it 12. This Infallibility of Judgment surpassing the use of Ordinary Means must needs be Supernatural and Extraordinary and therefore as to the light by which it judges it must be assisted by new Revelations though it be conversant about no newly-Revealed Objects 13. This Infallibility is by them challenged to themselves by virtue of those Promises of the Spirit in the Scriptures which themselves confess to belong only to the Catholick Ch. not to any one particular Denomination of Christians 14. That therefore their Title to this Infallibility must according to their own Principles be resolved into those Proofs whereby they make out their Title of being the Catholick Church 15. They themselves do not nor cannot pretend to be the Catholick Ch. diffusive that is that all the Regular legal original Successors to the Apostles in all Apostolical Sees most of which they cannot deny to have been in the Oriental parts have ever submitted to their Authority or are united to them in external visible Communion Nay they have condemned a much greater number of Apostolical Sees than they have among themselves 16. That therefore the Notion of Catholick to which they may with any colour pretend must be so limited as that it may agree to a Party of Christians in opposition to others 17. That though it may indeed be true admitting an Appeal to the Primitive records that a particular Church may hold all that which was originally taught by the Catholick Church diffusive without any novel abusive Impositions that may oblige any Conscientious Persons to keep off from her Communion and so by accident may deserve the name of Catholick as that name distinguishes from other Christian Societies of Hereticks and Schismaticks Yet speaking of such an Authority as they own in the Roman Church which may prescribe against such Appeals so that its own only sense is to be presumed to be the Sense of the Catholick Church without particular convincing Evidences of the concurrence of all in the Primitive Ages with them this plainly requires that this Notion of Catholick be certainly fixed and fixed to a particular Judicatory and this Antecedently to a tryal by the Primitive Records For this prescribing against an Appeal so rational as to the nature of the thing must plainly imply an obliging Jurisdiction Antecedently to and therefore Independently on that tryal And Jurisdiction can signifie nothing unless the Judicatory to whom it belongs be also notorious and notorious also Antecedently to the same tryal So that in this way of proceeding it must necessarily be supposed that one certain part of the Catholick Church can never cease to be Catholick nor to have a Jurisdiction over the Catholick Church diffusive 18. These things cannot be ascertained to a particular Church so as to prescribe against the now-mentioned way of trying it without maintaining the Notion of a Catholick Church Virtual That is we cannot be assured that a particular Church must necessarily be Catholick Antecedently to the tryal of its Catholicism by a recourse to the Primitive Records but by being first assured that that particular Church shall never fail of being Catholick it self and that all other particular Churches must approve of their Catholicism by their conformity to that which can never be otherwise So that on these terms the knowledge of that one Church and what is maintained by her will be virtually a knowledge of the Catholick Church diffusive and what ought to be maintained by them Which things put altogether do plainly make up that which our Adversaries mean when they speak of a Catholick Church virtual 19. This Notion of a Catholick Church virtual which may agree to one part of the Catholick Church diffusive in contradistinction to all others must imply such a Principle of Unity to which all the rest are obliged though that one part only do actually adhere to it 20. This Principle of Unity must not only be a Principle of Order but of Influence For it is only by virtue of this Influence of this one Church over all others that we can conclude that all others are obliged to be like it and it is only on this obligation of all other Churches to be like her that her Title to the name of the Catholick Church Virtual is adaequately grounded 21. This Principle of Unity must be in the Governours of such a particular Church For our Adversaries will not have the Promises of the Spirit made to the People but to their Governours So that the People can have no further Right in them but on condition of adhering to their Governours who therefore must be the first Principle of Unity 22. This Principle of Unity must not depend on the Authority of the Church diffusive Otherwise that same Authority of the Church diffusive might recall it in which Case the adhering to it would not prove a certain Note of Catholicism 23. To apply therefore all this to the Romanists their whole pretence of being the Catholick Church is adaequately grounded in that Notion of a Catholick Church virtual whereby they confine
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
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
will observe She will find that their Arguments from this and the like Topicks only aim at For because they challenge such a Priviledge themselves they fancy Us to do so to and that our design is not to overthrow a Judge of Controversies but only to translate that Title from the Pope to Luther or some others of our eminent Reformers which is far from our design But this difference in Opinion does not in the least prove but that upon a particular Enquiry into the merit of the Cause one Party may be found to have the advantage of the other which is all that we pretend to 3. That this difference of the several Parties of the Reformation in other things is rather a very strong Presumption for an Ignorant Person who must conduct her self by Presumptions that there is great reason for those things wherein they are all agreed and indeed is a greater Argument for the Credibility of the Reformation in general than for that of the Roman Communion For to a dis-interessed Person the Agreement of those is a more valuable Argument for the Truth of what they say who seem most of all acted by the merit of the things and least of all influenced by the Opinions and Authorities of a few and there can hardly be conceived a more considerable Argument of their freedom in Judgment than their actual difference in other things What therefore the Protestants are agreed in seems more likely to be the real sense of all that are so agreed upon an Impartial Enquiry whereas the Romanists are generally Influenced by a few of the Court of Rome to whom the rest do generally conceive themselves obliged in Conscience to conform And this advantage of the differences of Protestants for recommending their Credibility in other things above that of their Adversaries to the Trust of an Ignorant Person will appear the more remarkable if it be considered 4. That they are not only agreed in general in the fitness of a Reformation but also in most of the Particulars to be Reformed Indeed if they were only agreed in general that it were fit a Reformation should be but agreed in no Particulars it might seem too probable a Suspicion that it was not Truth but Faction and the disturbance of the Publick that was their common design But that is far from being the Case here 5. The Divisions of the Protestants in Doctrine are not so irreconcileable as they may seem The Harmony of Confessions shew them agreed in the Principal As for the others it is plain that our Church of England does not think them worth contending for whilst She admits the several Parties into her Communion and if other Protestants think otherwise yet She is not Responsible for them because She is not of their mind The most pernicious Principles of all which most Naturally tend to Division and which make the differences resulting from them most impossible to be reconciled are the differences concerning Church Government and in that our Church has Innovated nothing that should cause any breach even from the Roman much less from any other part of the Catholick Church And most of their other Differences are no longer Irreconcileable than the Persons are likely to continue averse to Reconciliation but these Differences about Church-Government are so derived from the nature of the Things as that they may Cause Division among Persons otherwise well-meaning and of a Peaceable Disposition 6. This Argument from the Divisions of Protestants is principally proper for such as are not actually engaged in any particular Communion of them and even to them ought to have no more force than that of a Prudent Presumption till the Person so Presuming might have leasure to examine Particulars But that seems not to be the Gentlewomans Case whom I suppose to have been hitherto educated in the Church of England and to have had sufficient opportunities of Informing her self concerning us For such a one it would sure be sufficient that our Church is no way guilty of these Divisions whatsoever may be the Case of other Protestants Q. 5. Why the Church of England doth not hold up to Confession Fasting-days Holy Oyl which we our Selves commend IT is a mistake that the Questionist does suppose Us to commend Holy Oyl However we think all the Instances here mentioned lawful and indifferent and so to be as obnoxious to the Prudence of particular Church-Governors as other things of that nature are by all acknowledged to be and we shall conceive our Selves secure of the Gentlewomans Communion if She will not alter till our Adversaries prove them necessary Antecedently to Church Authority which is more than they will as much as pretend to at least concerning some of them These things therefore being thus supposed I shall propose two things to the Gentlewomans Consideration 1. That supposing We were to blame in omitting them yet this were no ground for Her to leave our Communion 2. That as far as they are not imposed by our Church there was reason for their not imposing them 1. Supposing that we were indeed to blame in omitting these Ecclesiastical Observances yet this would be no sufficient ground to excuse the Gentlewoman for leaving our Communion For 1. No Indifferent thing how imprudent or inexpedient soever and that is the highest Charge that the Churches mistake in a matter of this nature is chargeable withal as long as the Object is supposed of its own nature Indifferent as long as it is not sinful and certainly it can be no Sin to submit for Peace's sake to an imprudent Constitution can excuse a departure from a Communion that is in other regards allowable 2. Whatever a Separation on this account might be in others yet it is less excusable in Subjects who are no way Responsible for as much as the Imprudences of such Constitutions and who are certainly bound to bear with all tolerable frailties of their lawful Governours and who are not indeed so well qualified for Judging concerning them as neither being so well skilled in Politicks generally nor being made acquainted with the secret Reasons of such Constitutions which might make that which without them might seem strange appear highly commendable when considered with them 3. The Gentlewomans Sex and possibly her particular Condition may not have those Advantages which many others though Subjects also have for Judging concerning them These Arguments are so agreeable to the Principles of our Adversaries themselves as that they frequently make use of them for retaining Persons in their own Communion Which the Gentlewoman may be pleased to take notice of if any of her Tempters should Question them here where they are disserviceable to their Interests But farther 4. Abuses in Governours acknowledging themselves Fallible though they be supposed indeed to be Abuses are much more tolerable than in those who do not seeing there may be hopes that Governours acknowledging themselves Fallible my in time be better informed and may then themselves reform
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