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
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
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
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 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
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
what is amiss without the compulsion of their Subjects which can never be expected from such as pretend to be Infallible 5. If Abuses of this Nature be conceived a sufficient Reason for leaving a Communion wherein we are already much more are they sufficient for hindring our access to another wherein as yet we are not So that this same Reason if it should make her desert the Communion of the Church of England would also hinder her joyning in that of Rome in which the most Judicious and Candid Persons of that Communion will acknowledge Abuses of the like nature 2. As far as these Omissions are countenanced by our Church there is reason for it I say as far as they are countenanced by our Church and therefore the reason I shall give for such Omissions shall be as they are considered under that Notion 1. Therefore for Fasting Days I think they are imposed with the same design of Religion in our Church as in that of Rome for that account of Jejunium Cecilianum which is given by some is not taken for the true sense of our Church by her most genuine Sons and that our Church is conceived to have as much Authority to oblige her Subjects in Impositions of that Nature so that I cannot look on this disuse prevailing in Practice as countenanced by our Church If the Gentlewoman be so zealously concerned for them I am sure She may Practice them in our Communion as well as in that of Rome as several others do 2. Confession even to a Priest in order to his Advice and Absolution our Church I think owns as much as that of Rome though we do not make it a Sacrament nor make it absolutely necessary in an ordinary way for the remission of every particular Sin that it be particularly confessed That the Practice of it is at present discontinued our Church I think is not the Cause That She has not interposed her Authority to continue it might have been excused 1. Because the thing is only of Ecclesiastical Right For the ancientest obligation to confess Sins though scandalous in their own nature yet not become notorious though that differed much from the Confession which is now used in the Roman Church was first introduced after the Persecution by Decius and that in opposition to the Novatians as Socrates affirms and this was also afterwards taken awav by Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople who ordered every one to be left to his own Conscience in that matter for which other Bishops were so far from censuring him that they followed him in it almost in all places as the same Historian tells us and that omission was vehemently pleaded for by St. Chrysostome and obtained for no small time in the Greek Church whatsoever it did in other places Whence it follows that She has power in discretion to determine concerning its actual practice what She thinks fit 2. Farther this being supposed that it was in our Churches power not to Impose it that She did act prudently in not Imposing it but rather recommending it to the Liberty of private Devotions will appear if it be considered that if She had imposed it She must necessarily have excluded all such frâ—â— her Communion as had not been satisfied with it and it had not been Prudent to have excluded Persons from her Communion for Indifferent things avoidable by her when She was complaining of the like Tyranny In the Church of Rome especially considering that it was also likely that the number was great of those who were so dissatisfied with it However if the Gentlewoman be desirous to Practice it for her own Edification I believe She may be furnished with Persons fitted for it in the Church of England 3. As for the use of Holy Oyl in any of the pretended Sacraments we do not so far condemn it as to refuse Communion with other Churches that use it nay we our Selves retain it as a decent Ceremony of Consecration in the Coronations of our Princes Only we again conceive it 1. A matter indifferent in it self and not Essential to those Offices because of the differences in the Church concerning it 2. This being supposed our Church does no way conceive it Prudent to continue it both because it was the design of the Reformation to reduce the Sacraments to their Primitive Simplicity that so Persons might ComCommunicate in them on the same free terms as then and because the Errors of those who made them Essential to the Mysteries were of great Consequence and very fit to be so discountenanced by a discontinuance of the Practice it self If by the Holy Oyl here mentioned be meant particularly their Sacrament of Extreme Unction â— Our Adversaries cannot prove a Sacramental Unction for the first Centuries A Miraculous one they may but seeing themselves confess the ordinary Use of the Miracle to have ceased there is no necessary reason obliging our Church to continue the external Ceremony This is at least sufficient to shew that it is in the Churches power to continue it or not Which being supposed I add 2. That even in regard of the benefit expected by it whether of Bodily recovery or remission of sins or Spiritual strength against the Agony of Death the Gentlewoman nor any other Subject of our Church can suffer no loss by our Church's discontinuance of it For all these things are as certainly attainable by the means continued in our Church from Unquestionable Apostolical Tradition as the Prayers and Absolution of the Priest and the blessed Sacrament as they could by the Unction it self so that I cannot perceive how a devout Person need to be concerned for the want of it on the terms now mentioned Especially considering 3. That in the way it is Administred among them to Persons past hopes of recovery and usually past sense of their own condition it cannot be conceived in any rational way capable of Edifying the Devotion of the Person concerned and no other way is suitable to the Dispensation of the Gospel And supposing it no Sacrament there is no reason imaginable why the Prayers of the Assistants for such a Person may not be as acceptable to God without the observation of this external Ceremony as with it And as upon these concessions its Continuance must needs appear unnecessary so 4. It would be inexpedient to countenance the Errors consequent to the Opinion of its being a Sacrament which are of so weighty a concernment by continuance of a Custom which may so easily be spared These things may suffice at present for satisfying the Gentlewoman of her little concernment for it without engageing on the Dispute concerning its lawfulness Now this Fundamental Principle of our Churches Proceedings in these and the like Particulars concerning the power of the Church for Innovating from Ancient Customes not only by Adding new ones but Abrogating old ones might have been proved not only from the Principles but from several Practices of the Roman Church her self Q. 6. Why was
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
their direction be such as may not only excuse their mistakes but secure them of the Truth itself I say these things being considered there will be reason to believe that however fallible such general Presumptions may be in their own nature yet that God in his Goodness has so ordered the matter in affairs of this nature as that those who are guided by these Presumptions may by the use of them be secured of the Truth it self in these particulars As for the Method observed in this Discourse it is such as I conceived most clear and comprehensive in few words and yet withal most accurate and satisfactory to a doubting Person For any one may be much more secure of a Consequence when he is first secured of all its Principles and he can much better judge of them when he has an intire prospect of them in the natural order wherein they lye and wherein they are necessary for the deduction of such a Consequence Yet I have neither deduced my Principles too remotely but as near as I could find them clear and indisputable nor have insisted on the proof of those that were clear any further than I conceived it necessary to do so from the actual Disputes concerning the Consequence And I have been careful rather to prove than to confute which I conceived to be a course as less Invidious to Adversaries who should find themselves no further concerned than as the consequences of positive Truths might make them concern'd so also more satisfactory to a Person in the Gentlewomans condition And in the whole I am so little conscious of any design of displeasing any to whom Truth it self might not prove displeasing as that if any Adversary shall think it worth his time to Answer what I have said I am not my self affraid of provocation from any thing which he can say in following my Precedent AN ANSWER TO Six Queries c. Q. 1 Whether any one going from the Church of England and dying a Roman Catholick can be saved I. IF by the words can be saved be meant a possibility in regard of the means we then deny it For we hold that such Errors are maintained in that Communion as are in their own nature destructive of Salvation Such are 1. The Doctrines even of their Church which oblige them to do mischief as those concerning the Popes Supremacy over Princes in Temporals and concerning their Duty of prosecuting Hereticks The loosness of their Casuistical Divinity countenanced by such Authorities of Casuists as must needs influence such Persons as act conformably to the Principles of that Communion and their generally allowing a greater Liberty to such persons as are desirous to reconcile their Vices with their hopes of Eternity by their licentious applications of those two Distinctions of Precepts and Counsels and of Mortal and Venial Sins whereby they make most Duties Counsels and most Sins only Venial Which danger is the more considerable to an Ignorant Person who for want of skill of her own must in Prudence and by the Principles of that Communion be obliged to trust such un-secure Guides 2. Not to mention the ill influence of several of their Doctrines on the Lives of such as own them the very imposing them as matters of Faith the Excommunicating and Anathematizing all that deny them the condemning Dissenters as guilty of Heresy and Schism at least what they call Material the inserting several of their controverted Doctrines into their Liturgies so that they who cannot believe them cannot veraciously joyn with them in their Devotions are Innovations from the liberty allowed in the Primitive Church wherein many whom all own for excellent Persons and good Catholicks never owned nay some of them doubted of or contradied such Conditions of Communion in sum their unreasonable grounds of dividing Catholick Communion and their Uncharitableness to Dissenters are Errors dangerous to the Salvation of the Person owning and abetting them For all will own even the Romanists themselves that the Crime of breaking Catholick Communion where it is justly imputed is destructive of Salvation 3. Several Abuses of that Church I say of the Church not only of particular Persons in it are so gross as that several of the most eminent and candid men of their own Communion have owned them for such such as Prayer in an unknown Tongue denying the Chalice to the Laity Fabulous Saints and Stories still continued in the best approved Ecclesiastical Offices Martyrs canonized for bad Causes conducing to the greatness of the Roman See as Beckes for Example Yet by the Principles of that Communion pretending to Infallibility it is impossible that any Abuse in defence of which their Church is engaged as She is here should ever be reformed because it is impossible that a Church so pretending to be Infallible should ever grant any such thing to be an Abuse And many more Abuses are by the moderate Persons of their Communion owned in the Court of Rome which yet by the power allowed to the Court over their Church by the general consent of the Church it self cannot possibly be reformed Seeing therefore that the Church of Rome does thus oppose all possible Reformation of Abuses of this nature and seeing that whilst these Abuses are not reformed many of them may justifie a Separation and most of them may do it when all hopes of Reformation are professedly opposed Catholick Peace on such terms as may not only lawfully but commendably be yielded will be impossible And the abetting of such a Party as makes Catholick Peace on just terms impossible must needs be an Error destructive of Salvation This is a mischief unavoidably consequent to mistakes in a Society pretending to be Infallible As these Errors are thus of their own nature destructive of Salvation so going over to that Communion from another does naturally involve the Person doing so in the actual guilt of the Errors themselves 1. Because Communicating according to all does involve the Persons Communicating in the guilt of such Errors at least as are imposed as conditions of the Communion as these are in the Church of Rome This needs not to be proved against the Romanists who insist on it against Us as much as We do against them 2. This must especially hold in such as revolt from our Church to theirs both because such an embracing of their Communion is more an Argument of choice and designed preference in such as leave others to come to it than in such as are born in it and consequently must signifie a more express approbation of the terms of it and because more explicite recantations of our Doctrines are required even from Laick Revolters than from such as are born in it 3. Because the Resignation of Judgment is expected more intire from Women and Laicks than from skilful Persons who may in some Cases be allowed the liberty of their own Judgments even by the Principles of that Communion so that Persons in the Gentlewomans condition may
Because if she must not trust her own Judgment but rely on Authority it would be most Just as well as most Prudent to trust the Authority of her own Party whom She has experienced than her Adversaries whom She has not and therefore it could not be reasonable to trust Adversaries contradicting the eminent Guides of her own Party 4. Because at least the Authority of Adversaries cannot be presumed in Reason so great with a Person not yet of their Communion as to oblige her to believe on their account what She her self thinks Irrational Nay rather whilst it is questioned how far their Authority is to be trusted as it ought in reason to be considered before a change and whilst the private Judgment of the Person is trusted as none else can be in this debate what in her own judgment seems unreasonable would rather render the Authority suspected if it should recommend it than be it self believed for the Authority Especially considering 5. that to such a one as is not yet perswaded of the Credibility of their Authority this would afford a very prudent Argument for suspicion of their Integrity when they should urge her to the belief of such things whose Truth they would not allow her liberty to examine by her own private Judgment Not the 2. for 1. It is hard to conceive a Person educated in the true Church so ignorant of the advantages of her own way as to be Invincibly perswaded by those of the contrary which upon a compleat comparison are by the Supposals laid down in the beginning of this Discourse so very disproportionable to them and which may appear so by the Judgment of all who are concerned to judge concerning them 2. The fallacy of trusting such partial Representations is so easily discovered by the most ordinary Experience and Prudence in human affairs and so universally acknowledged in all other ordinary occurrences as that it can hardly impose on any who proceeds with that Caution which all acknowledge requisite in changes of great and dangerous consequence as all confess those of Religion to be 3. Though a less advantage on one side above the other might suffice where the Person were not pre-engaged in either yet all confess the disturbance of a change and the danger of venturing on an unexperienced way so considerable as that they are not to be attempted on barely Equal terms which is a further warning for the Gentlewoman to be wary who is tempted to change from the Principles of her Education 4. Supposing the Person were so Ignorant as not to discern the advantages of her own Communion above any other by her own observation yet in that Case it is on all sides held Prudent to hear on both sides what can be said by them who are skilful which if She understand and be able to judge of by her self She must then by the Supposals now mentioned see the advantage of her own side but if She does not and so be necessitated even in the choice of her Communion to rely on the conduct of a Guide it must in that Case be much more Prudent to trust a Guide whom She has experienced than one whom She has not Not the 3. for 1. That Favour which is wholly derived from the inclination of the Affections must needs be due to that side wherein the Person is already engaged both in Justice as all generous Persons conceive themselves obliged in all Cases capable of favour to be favourable to their old Friends rather than others and in Prudence because by this means the disturbance of a change is best prevented 2. If any Favour may be upon reasonable and well-meaning accounts extended to one Cause above others Either because the tryal of its Truth is easier or because its Truth if it may be proved may be conceived subservient to better purposes as Mr. Cressy confesses himself favourable to the Arguments produced for a Judge of Controversies because the decision of that Controversie alone would prevent the trouble of Enquiring into the rest yet even so if this Favour be taken up and managed as it ought to be by a vertuous well-meaning Person it will not render the mistake of a change Invincible For 1. This Favour as far as it is justifiable by reason is to be had for the Religion wherein the Person had been educated and of which She is actually possessed upon the same rational accounts whereby that other Favour is conceived justifiable and in as high a degree of obligation both as we are better able to judge of what we know already than we can be presumed to be of a strange Religion and as we can be more confident in the practice of a Religion we have alwaies maintained than we can in that which must suppose us convicted of having been formerly greatly mistaken 2. This Favour as far as it may ybe conceived Prudent and Rational can only take place there where all other things are supposed Equal which cannot be supposed in the true way 3. This Favour ought not to hinder the Person from an Enquiry into the contrary Cause unless the Evidence produced be very certainly convictive which also cannot be supposed in the way we are speaking of 4. This way of Favourable Presumption being the only way by which the generality of the Vulgar are capable to Judge and there being in the true way inducements for all sorts of People therefore it must be said that if this way be managed impartially that is if all the Presumptions on both sides be considered this must bring them to the Truth Hence it follows by the Principles of all Parties that the Error of a Revolter can hardly be presumed Invincible and consequently not wholly Excusable So that for Judging concerning the Salvability of particular Persons it only remains to be enquired further Whether they be capable of such a degree of Vincible Ignorance as may be expiable by a General Repentance and the performance of all other Conditions of the Gospel in an Erroneous Communion And the Resolution of this depends on these Enquiries 1. Whether the Erroneous Communion the Roman for Example embrace the Doctrine of Repentance so intirely according to the Conditions required of it in the Gospel as that the Repentance performed in it may be presumed such as God will accept 2. What degree of Vincible Ignorance is expiable by a General Repentance For it is certain that all is not 3. Whether a Revolter from our Communion be capable of that degree of Vincible Ignorance which is so expiable The exact Discussion of these things is too large to be insisted on at present and therefore I shall only make application to the design of the Question I shall therefore shew that what Possibility of Salvation soever we may allow to Persons of the Roman Communion yet it is no prudent ground to encourage one who is not already of it to revolt to it To this purpose I desire it may be
considered 1. That all the grounds we pretend to have for our Charity are rather Negative than Positive rather our unsatisfiedness with those Arguments which pretend to prove them actually damned than any Positive Convictions that any of them are actually saved 2. That our Charitable Presumptions are principally grounded on things impossible to be known by Us such as are the uncovenanted Mercies of God and the possibility of Sincerity and even particular Explicite Repentance of the Error in the Person so that it is very easie for Us to be mistaken in our Charity and we professedly chuse it as a mistake if it should prove one more pardonable than Censoriousness 3. That the Case concerning which we Judge Charitably is so very rare and extraordinary as that no particular Erroneous Person can be very confident that it is her own Nay when we say that their Errors are of their own Nature destructive of Salvation and that God has not interposed any General Ordinary means for preventing their proving actually damnative in the Event it will thence follow that there are very just fears concerning the generality of their Communion and consequently many odds to one of the miscarriage of each particular Person which the Gentlewoman may do well to think of seriously 4. That the degree of Penitence which shall be accepted by God in a particular Case upon account of his uncovenanted Mercy is very hard if not impossible to be known by the Person concerned so that even they who shall enjoy the benefit of it in the other World yet want the comfort of it in this and therefore can ground no confidence in any Practice undertaken on that Supposition 5. That this Security is very much more hazardous and more difficult to be Judged of in Case of Vincible than of Invincible Ignorance which has been proved to be generally the condition of Persons concerned in this Enquiry 6. That it is certainly more difficult in the Case of Revolters than of such who have had their Education in the Roman Communion These things I conceive sufficient to shew that our acknowledgment in this affair can afford no security for a Revolt to a Person who seriously believes Us and is desirous to be Guided by Us. But if we be considered as Adversaries and consequently our Authority be considered only as cogent against our Selves especially when taken in conjunction with other things as they usually argue the Security of a change from our Singularity in Asserting the Salvability of our own Communion and our Agreement even with the Romanists in owning the Salvability of theirs whence they conclude it safer for an Ignorant Person to venture her Practice in that way in the safety whereof we are all agreed than in that wherein we are singular In Answer hereunto I shall at present only propose these things to the Gentlewomans Consideration 1. That the unreasonableness of this Argument has been sufficiently shown by others particularly She may consult Bishop Taylor 's Letter and the Dean of Canterbury's Sermon which are in English and are short and easie to be understood by her 2. That the Supposition it self is false here For they of the Roman Communion do as fully own the Possibility of the Salvation of particular Persons in our Communion as we do in theirs both as to the Principles whence it is deduced touching Invincible Ignorance which are granted as well by them as by Us and even in express Confessions when they are pleased to speak their minds freely of which I must needs say they are in Policy more cautious for fear of giving Us any encouragement to continue in our own Communion If She doubt of this She may if She please consult of our English Authors for in dealing with her I would not willingly quote any others Mr. Richworth Dialog 1. § 7. pag. 38. Ed. Paris 1648. Mr. Cressy Exomolog Sect. 2. Ch. 50. § 11. pag. 396. Knot in Charity Maintained Part I. Chap. 1. § 3 4. compared with Mr. Chillingworths Answ. ib. § 3 4. 3. That this Candor of ours when compared with their reservedness in speaking their minds in this Case is an Argument of our Ingenuity and fair dealing more than theirs which is a considerable Argument of trust to an Ignorant Person who finds her self obliged to trust the Authority of one of Us. Q. 2. Whether they be Idolaters or No I Must confess that I think the true Notion of Idolatry more difficult than is commonly conceived and to my Understanding not yet sufficiently explained Nor am I willing on this occasion to engage on that Dispute both because it would be too tedious and because I think most of the mistakes already entertained concerning it to have been occasioned by its having been stated in Disputes with a design on some particular Adversaries Not intending therefore to determine positively Whether the practices required by their Church as Conditions of her Communion be necessarily Idolatrous I shall only at present recommend these things to a Person in the Gentlewomans Condition whom I suppose not so capable of examining the particular merit of the Cause and therefore it will be the most Prudent course for such a one to Judge by general Presumptions 1. That their Notions concerning the Saints are exactly the same with those of the later Heathens of the Primitive times concerning their Daemons then worshipped who yet were as certainly guilty of Idolatry if the concurrent sense of Primitive Christianity may be believed as those accused of it in the Old Testament concerning whose sense we want those Records which might so fully inform us For it might have easily been shewn that those Daemons were confessed to be of an inferior Order and not to require that supreme degree of Worship proper to the Supreme Being nay that they thought them deputed by the Supreme Being it self to convey his influences to Us and our Prayers to Him 2. That if the Heathens notwithstanding that their Devotions were designed for good Daemons were yet deluded by Evil ones who were by God permitted to interpose in their stead because they paid that Relative respect to Persons whom he had not declared it his pleasure to have so worshipped and before Images where they had no security from any promise of God that none but good Daemons should presentiate themselves How can the Romanists be secure that they are not the same way deluded seeing they have as little Security from God's Word which is the only competent means from whence they can in this Case have Security that it is his pleasure that they should be publickly Invocated and that he has given them the Office conveying his Blessings to Us and our Prayers to Him and that he will permit none but good Spirits to presentiate themselves at their Images 3. That if Miracles pretended to be done at such Invocations be urged as Arguments that God is pleased with them this was pretended by the Heathens too And it may be if
openly in our own Defence Nor 3. Is it necessary to expect that there should have been an open opposition of them even as soon as countenanced by Authority For if even in the reproof of the miscarriages of private Persons Christianity obliges us to proceed with all possible candor and modesty we are certainly much rather obliged to proceed so in dealing with Persons of Authority We should give them time to reflect and we should bear with any Personal inconveniences that are not directly sinful rather than occasion those disturbances which are usually to be expected from a publick opposition of them Nor is this forbearance more agreable to reason than to the sentiments of those Ages who were generally possessed with an excessive veneration for Authority especially Ecclesiastical so that there is reason to believe that they would bear with such Errors as long as the Abuses were tolerable however otherwise inconvenient 4. Therefore that which makes these Errors intolerable to private Persons in dealing with Authority for of such I speak is the imposing and urging them as Conditions of Communion And this might have been shewn to have been late not before their Errors were defined and imposed in their Councils And therefore it was but lately that any publick opposition was to be expected even from them who were in their Consciences perswaded that our Adversaries Doctrines were Erroneous And 5. When they were thus imposed yet even then private Persons were concerned in Conscience as well as Prudence to forbear an open opposition when there were no hopes of doing good nay too probable fears of prejudicing their Cause by it for the future when upon their opposition they must have expected to have been condemned when being condemned they were to be cast out of Communion when being Excommunicated for such a Cause others would have been deterred by their Example and their credit must have been impaired by the Infamy incurred by the Canon-Law then in force and their very condemnation would for the future mightily prejudice Mens minds against the like attempts when none could revive the like true Doctrine without the dis-repute of being supposed to revive an anciently-condemned Heresy and when there were no hopes of being able to preserve themselves in opposite Assemblies without Bishops to Head them without whom they could not maintain a Succession of Priests nor consequently of Sacraments and the like employments and advantages of Ecclesiastical Assemblies and when no Bishops were likely to countenance such a design whilst they were held in such captivity to the Court of Rome by Oaths as well as their other Worldly Interests and when no Persons of a free ingenuous temper were likely to attain the honour of Episcopacy These Reasons with a very easie Application may suffice to shew that in an ordinary way there was no reason to expect the Reformation sooner than it was And that there was no necessity sufficient to oblige God to interpose to raise Men up to it Extraordinarily will appear if it be considered 6. That it is not every necessity of the Church that can oblige God to use such Extraordinary means but only such a necessity as must have destroyed a Church from the Earth that is such a Society of Men wherein Salvation might be attained by the ordinary Prescriptions of the Gospel Now the prevalency of these Errors does not oblige us to acknowledge that such a Church as this must have failed even in those Ages wherein these Errors are supposed to have prevailed for some Centuries before the Reformation For 1. Though the Occidental Church had failed yet Christ might have had such a Church among the several Communions of the Orientals And I know no greater inconvenience in this regard in admitting the faileur of the Occidental church than what our Adversaries themselves are obnoxious to in admitting the like defection in the Oriental 2. The prevailing of these Errors does not oblige us to deny an ordinary possibility of Salvation according to the Prescriptions of the Gospel even in the Church of Rome it self in those Centuries before the Reformation For 1. We do not deny all Necessaries to Salvation even according to the ordinary Prescriptions of the Gospel to have been taught even then in the Church of Rome The Errors we charge them with are not of Defect but Adding to the Original Articles of Faith And therefore 2. If it may appear that the sin of Adding to the Faith was not to such as were no farther accessary to it than by continuing in the Communion of such as were really guilty of it so imputable ordinarily as to hinder the Salvation of such as were not otherwise wanting to themselves in their own Endeavours or at least not in such a degree as to oblige God to interpose in an Extraordinary way for its Ordinary prevention this will be sufficient to shew that supposing those Errors so dangerous as we do indeed suppose them yet God was not obliged to raise up and maintain a Communion in opposition to them for preventing the failing of such a Church as I have spoken of even in these Western Parts And that this was so may appear from these Considerations 1. That that skill in Ecclesiastical Learning by which our first Reformers were enabled to discover these Errors was generally wanting in the Ages before the Reformation which might make their mistakes then much more pardonable than now 2. That the great mischief of these Errors is not so much the believing more for matters of Faith than really was so as the mischievous Consequence of doing so the Divisions of the Church necessarily following hereupon the condemning of good Catholicks for Hereticks and Schismaticks and excluding them from Communion and hereby making the peace of Christendome impossible on any just and tolerable terms and Abuses impossible to be Reformed Which was not so imputable in those Ages when there was no visible Communion to be condemned by joyning with that of Rome for as for the even unjust Excommunication of particular Persons Providence is not so concerned as to interpose Extraordinarily for their prevention This I say on Supposition that the Waldenses and Albigenses c. were such as our Adversaries represent them If they were ootherwise then among them there was a Succession for so long of Churches holding our Doctrines before Luther 3. The Prudential Reasons now given might then generally excuse private Persons and all such as were not accessary to the guilt of introducing those Errors who were much the greater Part and it is only for the greater Part that Providence is necessarily concerned from the guilt of not publickly Reforming them Yet even they are not so Excusable now when the power of the Pope is so much decryed and there are so many Churches and Church-Governours under whose Protection they may put themselves and with whose Communion they may joyn in opposition to them 3. The Antiquity allowed to their Errors on this Supposition is not