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 not excuse the Censured Person for continuing out of her Communion when the Communion may be recovered by any Submission how inconvenient and harsh soever if it be not sinful yet that is the very Case here that we are not only wrongfully Excommunicated but the terms proposed for our restitution to Communion would be directly sinful as has been shewn before Whence it Vid. Q. I. Sect. 1. will follow that we are excusable not only in suffering our Selves to be cast out of their Communion but also in continuing out of it But because this is not our whole Case who do not only abstain from their Communion but set up a Communion of our own and maintain an Ecclesiastical Body Politick distinct from theirs our defence herein will depend on the Justice of the Ecclesiastical Power of those Persons who govern our Ecclesiastical Assemblies And therefore 2. All our concernment for Antiquity here will be that our Bishops derived their power from such as derived theirs with a power of communicating it in a continual Succession from the Apostles And this we do acknowledg true concerning the Popish Bishops themselves and do derive the validity of our Orders from the Antiquity of theirs without any more prejudice to our Cause than the Primitive Catholicks did suffer by acknowledging the validity of Baptism administred by Hereticks For the Succession of their Pastors is very reconcilable with a supposed Innovation in their Doctrines and certainly themselves cannot deny that it is so whilst they charge the Orientals with Heresie whom yet they cannot deny to have always maintained as uninterrupted a Succession of Bishops as themselves especially considering that the Innovations we charge them with of adding false and new Articles of Faith not of denying the old ones do not in the least interrupt or invalidate their Succession This therefore being supposed that the first Bishops of our English Reformation received their power from such as had derived theirs by an uninterrupted Succession from the Apostles it will follow that they were valid Bishops and if so had the power of keeping Church-Assemblies and exercising Jurisdiction in them both for the Government of their present Charges and communicating their power to succeeding Generations For nothing of this is pretended to exceed the power of a valid Bishop The charge of Heresie it self cannot hinder the validity of their Orders either received or communicated though it may indeed in the Judgment of them who believe them so render them obnoxious to Canonical Incapacities of executing them and to Legal Degradations not from the Character but from the actual Jurisdiction properly belonging to their Office But to such Canonical Incapacities and Degradations they will not deny even validly-Ordained Persons themselves to be obnoxious and therefore cannot make that an Argument against the validity of our Orders And yet even this Charge of Heresie against our Bishops is not here to be Judged by the pretences of our Adversaries but by the merit of the Cause and therefore is not to be taken for granted till it be proved That therefore which is indeed new in the Church of England is that though her Positive Doctrines and Orders be Ancient yet the Profession of her Negatives and the open Assertion of her Liberty from the Encroachments of the Roman Court and all her other Practices grounded on these Principles were not avowed by her Ecclesiastical Governours for several Centuries before the Reformation And in Answer hereunto I shall insist on the Heads already intimated Therefore 1. There was no reason to expect that her opposition to these Errors should have been Ancienter though we should suppose the Errors themselves to have been so For there was no reason to expect that Errors should have been discovered for some Ages before the Reformation when there was so great a want of that kind of Grammatical and Historical Learning which is only fit to qualifie a Person to Judg of Ecclesiastical Tradition at least they were not likely to have been discovered by such a number as had been requisite to maintain an open opposition And if the Errors had been discovered yet it was not easie to expect success in holding out against the Court of Rome which was then so very powerful and there was no reason to expect such attempts from Prudent Persons where there was no probability of success And there was yet least reason of all to expect this opposition from Bishops then when no Bishops were made without the Popes consent which he was not likely to give to such as were likely to oppose him when after they were made they were obliged to be true to Him by express Oaths as well as by their Interests of peaceable continuance or hopes of future preferment when at least it was impossible to resist their Fellow Bishops the generality of whom were in all likelihood swayed by these Prejudices when they had seen mighty Princes themselves worsted in those Contests and the extreme Severity of that Court against Dissenters when lastly differing from the Church of Rome in any thing was counted Heresie and Heresie was prosecuted with the extremest Infamy which must needs weaken the Authority of those Opposers with others as well as other Penalties of the Canon Law. Nor 2. Does the Justice of our Cause require a greater Antiquity for our Negatives For 1. Our Negatives are not pretended to be of perpetual obligation but only for preventing the malignity of the contrary Affirmative Articles to which they are opposed And therefore there is no reason to expect Formal Negatives opposed to Additional Articles from the beginning before the Additional Articles themselves were thought of nor to expect a Reformation of Abuses before there were Abuses to be Reformed seeing that in course of Nature these Negatives presuppose the contrary Affirmatives as a pretence of Reformation must also presuppose Abuses And therefore the pretence of the greater Antiquity of our Adversaries Errors and Abuses is so far from prejudicing the reputation of our Negatives and Reformation as that it is indeed the best Argument of their Justice and Seasonableness For such Negatives as these and such a Reformation must needs have been unwarrantable if there had not been before Errors fit to be denied and Abuses fit to be reformed Nor 2. Is it any Prejudice to the Justice of our Cause that these Errors were not opposed with formal Negatives as soon as they appeared For such Errors as these were usually first received as the Opinions of private Persons before they were countenanced by Authority and whilst they proceeded no further there was not that mischief in them nor consequently that obligation to oppose
Laicks than from skilful Persons who may in some cases be allowed the Liberty of their own Judgment even by the Principles of that Communion so that Persons in the Gentlewomans condition may by this means come to be Responsible not only for the dangerous Doctrines of their whole Church but also for the Personal Errors of their Priests and particular Confessors both as they are by the Principles of that Communion allowed to be the Authentical Proponents of the Doctrines of their Church to unlearned Persons who are not themselves qualified for judging concerning them as their Church is of the Doctrines of Christ to the Learned and as the same Rules of Prudence oblige them as strongly to trust their particular Priests for Opinions as they do their Church for Doctrines of Faith where they are still presumed as uncapable of judging themselves II. If by this possibility of Salvation mentioned in the Question be meant only a possibility of the EVENT notwithstanding the dangerousness of the condition of Persons of that Communion upon account of their being of it then the Resolution will depend on this How far Errors of their own nature damnative may not prove actually destructive to the Salvation of the particular Erroneous Person on account of the Ignorance and Vnvoluntariness with which the Person comes to be engaged in such Errors For on these accounts it may be conceived that the Errors may either not be imputed to her at all or be imputed in sollow a degree as to become pardonable by the general Stipulations and promises of the Gospel for the pardoning of Sins of Inadvertency and humane frailty which are supposed expiable by a general Care of fulfilling the conditions of the Evangelical Covenant together with a general implicite Repentance of Sins unknown as well as known Now of these two ways whereby an Error damnative of its own Nature may be hindred from proving actually damnative in the Event to the Erroneous Person it is only an Invincible Ignorance that is such as can be remedied by no means that are in the power of the Person who is supposed Erroneous that can hinder all Imputation of her Error to her and only such a degree of Vincible Ignorance can suffice for extenuating the Imputation so far as to render it pardonable in the way now mentioned that is very hardly avoidable by the Person considering the frailty to which her condition in this Life is obnoxious So that for judging concerning the Condition of Revolters which is the Gentlewomans case the Enquiry will be what degree of Ignorance they are capable of that may make their Errors Involuntary that is How far such as they are may be capable of being Ignorant of their Duty to adhere to ours as the true Communion And for discerning this these following Particulars would be fit to be considered 1. That we are all agreed Romanists as well as Protestants that all sorts of Persons Ignorant as well as Learned are obliged to adhere to the true Communion whatever that is in contradistinction to others at least under pain of losing the Ordinary means of Salvation and consequently that comfortable satisfaction of the security of their own condition which they who enjoy the Ordinary means of Salvation must needs be more capable of than they who are necessitated to repose their whole confidence in Gods Extraordinary Mercies 2. That all Persons being thus obliged by God to embrace the true Communion the Inducements to it must be supposed sufficient for the conviction of all and consequently suited to the capacities of all who are thus concerned to receive Conviction 3. Therefore the Reasons being thus supposed sufficient for the conviction of all there can be no pretence of Invincible Ignorance for any but such as are Ignorant of those Reasons which cannot be supposed to be the case of Revolters Hence it follows at least that if Revolters act rationally that is Enquire what it is they leave and why and accordingly follow their Convictions as they ought before their Change they cannot be supposed capable of Invincible Ignorance So that the only imaginable pretence for rendring their Error Invincible must be the supposed Invincibleness of those Prejudices which may hinder a well-meaning Person acting conscientiously from acting rationally Which must be either 1. Opinions conceived obligatory in Conscience hindring the Persons embracing them from Enquiry or following their own Convictions of which kind many instances may be produced which are favoured by the Casuists of the Roman Church Or 2. Precipitation in passing Sentence on a partial Evidence resolving on some particular advantage of one Cause without considering its disadvantages or the advantages of the contrary Cause which might possibly overweigh it if impartially considered Or 3. An undiscernible favour to one Cause more than another whereby we wish it rather true in regard of its greater compliance with some particular Interest or Affection which may be thought Innocent at least if not commendable which may the more likely prejudice a well-meaning Conscientious Person because it may indeed be Prudent in some Cases and it is not easie for a Person acted by it to discern when it is not But it is hard to conceive how any of these mistakes can be Invincible in Revolters Not the 1. for 1. There can be no reason to take up such Opinions so gratuitously which are so Prejudicial to all Reasoning in general 2. There can be no reason to take them for granted as first Principles without Enquiry by which means very absurd Propositions may be taken up by very rational Persons where it is known that many skilful and as far as can be judged Conscientious Persons do not only question but deny them 3. Revolters from us cannot as much as pretend any Prejudices of Education to excuse such mistakes seeing that among Us they find them utterly discountenanced And as they have thus neither Reason nor among Us Authority that may induce them to the belief of those Doctrines So neither 4. Can the Authority of our Adversaries be any probable inducement to perswade Revolters to the belief of these irrational Doctrines 1. Because the Romanists themselves are sensible of the absurdity of these Doctrines and their unserviceableness to their own Interests when they have to deal with Persons whom they desire to seduce so that they are not likely to recommend such Doctrines to such Persons as Credible on account of their own Authority For if they should offer to perswade such as they esteem Hereticks of the unlawfulness of intermedling in Religious Disputes or following their own Convictions in them it would be the means to make it impossible to Proselyte such to their own Party 2. If they should be so imprudent as to perswade them of the Truth of these Doctrines so prejudicial to their own interests in these Circumstances yet the Person tempted would need no other Argument to confute them than their attempts to Proselyte her at the same time
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 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 applied 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 shrewd 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 Carelesness of Judging in matters of Religion 9. That the Practice of that Communion is generally 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 Luther's 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 Ancient 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 Ancienter 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 Gentlewoamns 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 ancient 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 Ancient 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 trial 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 Judg 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