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 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 abstein 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 acknowledge 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 alwaies 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 Heresy 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-Ordeined Persons themselves to be obnoxious and therefore cannot make that an Argument against the validity of our Orders And yet when this Charge of Heresy 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 fâ—r 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 Governors 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 Judge 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 likelyhood 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 Heresy and Heresy 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 denyed 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 them as when at length they came to be so countenanced For the Errors of Private Persons whilst they are no more are not conceived so to oblige us to be of their mind as that our silence should in any Prudence be expounded as an Argument of our consent and consequently cannot be such a provocation to us to oppose them
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
Liber cui Titulus Two Discourses against the Romanists c. Authore H. Dodwell IMPRIMATUR Geo. Hooper R mo D n◠Archiepiscopo Cantuar. à Sacris Domest Junui 8. 1676. TWO SHORT DISCOURSES Against the ROMANISTS 1. An Account of the Fundamental Principle of Popery and of the insufficiency of the Proofs which they have for it 2. An Answer to Six Queries proposed to a Gentlewoman of the Church of England by an Emissary of the Church of Rome By HENRY DODWELL M. A. and sometimes Fellow of Trinity Colledge near DVBLIN LONDON Printed for Benj Tooke and are to be sold at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard 1676. AN ACCOUNT OF THE Fundamental Principle OF POPERY As it is a Distinct Communion AND Of the insufficiency of the Proofs which they have for it WITH A PREFACE concerning the Vsefulness of this Undertaking By HENRY DODWELL LONDON Printed for Benjamin Tooke 1676. A PREFACE Concerning the USEFULNESS Of the following HYPOTHESIS § 1. THough I cannot undertake for what is mine in the management of the following Discourse yet as to the design for which I am wholly beholden to the Goodness of my Cause and the intrinsick reasonableness of the Evidences which prove it good I think I may without Immodesty affirm that if it hold it must be of universal use with them of the Roman Communion use I § 2. For 1. it must be of great use for the Laity and the Vulgar who either have not the Abilities or cannot spare the time which would be requisite for Enquiring into the particular Disputes to have the Controversies reduced into a narrow compass And especially if these few things to which they are reduced may suffice for securing the Duty incumbent on such Persons as well as if the Enquiry had been more minute and when withal the Evidence on which their Resolution depends is suited to the capacity of that sort of persons Now all these things are provided for by the following Hypothesis § 3. All the Disputes between us are reduced to this one of the Popes Supremacy over the Catholick Church diffusive As for our Differences in Other Particulars it is here proved that if we be not mistaken in This themselves either cannot charge us with Errour or not with any Errour of that consequence as may excuse them either for Separating from our Communion or for that rigorous Imposing their own Opinions which are contrary to it § 4. And this does indeed effectually secure the Duty of Ordinary Laicks in this whole affair For the Obligation incumbent at least on such Persons who are not by their particular Calling obliged to Enquire can only be to know so much as may secure their Christian Practice and that is sufficiently secured by due adhering to that Communion where they may reasonably expect the performance of those Divine Promises which are conveyed in the use of the Sacraments and the other Ordinary Means of Grace so that the main concernment of such Persons is this to know where such a Communion is to be had Now the solving of this Question appears from the Principles here laid down sufficient to decide the whole Dispute concerning the true Communion If it should prove true that the Pope has this Authority over the Catholick Church diffusive it would follow that his particular Church must be the Catholick Church virtual and so must have a Title to all those Promises made to the Catholick Church in the Scriptures thus much at least will follow even according to their Hypothesis who do not pretend that these Promises reach so high as Infallibility and therefore that they were obliged to submit to Active Obedience to all Lawful Impositions and Passive even in Unlawful ones so that in all Cases it would be Unlawful to joyn with any other Communion in opposition to it And on the other side if it prove false it will plainly follow that it is unlawful either for those who are already in that Communion to continue in it seeing they cannot continue in it without being accessary to the Divisions of Christendom by abetting a Tyrannical Power over it or for others to desert their own Communion to come to the Roman which cannot on those Principles be done with any such pretence of Necessity as may excuse their Separation from being Schismatical § 5. The Evidence also into which this Dispute is ultimately resolved must needs be such as must be suitable to the meanest capacity that is capable of acting prudently in this great affair and certainly every one is in Interest as well as Duty obliged to make use of his utmost Prudence in a matter wherein his greatest Interests are so nearly concerned For the meanest Prudence that is will require that where they cannot choose their way there at least they should choose their Guide And it is only the Authority of the Pope as a Principle of Unity and of the Church adhering to him as a Guide in Controversies of which this Hypothesis allows them a Liberty to judge in order to their own private satisfaction And as the matter is such concerning which the meanest Prudence that can deserve the name of Prudence is obliged to judge so the Evidence is such as every one must be capable of judging who is capable of being Prudently and Rationally a Christian. For the very Truth of Christianity it self in reference to us in this Age must be proved by Historical Testimonies of the Miracles by which it was attested from the beginning and the Canon of the Scripture must be proved by the Testimonies of those by whom the Scriptures were delivered And it is the same Historical Testimony whether of express Scripture or of express Tradition to which they are here referred for the proof of this Supremacy of the Pope and the Subject concerning which this Testimony was to be given could not but have had so general an influence on their Practice if they had acknowledged any dependence on this Supremacy as that it must have been as notorious to them who gave it as those Miracles or that Canon and therefore their Testimony must have been as Credible in one Case as in the other § 6. Besides that the Negative Argument which I here make use of is much less Questionable than the Affirmative That is there is much more reason to doubt of a pretended Tradition if it be not expresly mentioned in the Primitive Authors and doubting is sufficient for my purpose to overthrow the Credit of that which pretends to be an Article of Faith than to believe a thing to have descended from the Apostles because those Authors pretend it did so For in their Affirmations they many times deliver what they think on their own Conjectural Reasonings wherein they are as Fallible as others But what they have not mentioned if it be not allowed to conclude that they knew it not and that therefore there was then no Historical Evidence for it seeing that could not have escaped their knowledge
necessary by the exigences of the Communities for which they are intrusted And if in any Case this may be allowed to be Expedient there can be no reason to doubt but that it is so here The thing is of that importance as that upon it depends the Reconciliation of the Divided Parties of Christendome which are neither likely to be subdued by the Power of any one nor possible to be reconciled without Concessions on some if not on all sides by Churches as well as by private Persons and it cannot appear on which side the Concession is fit to be made unless all submit to a tryal and resolve upon tryal to yield to what they shall judge reasonable Besides there is a particular Reason why the Church should reserve an open Ear for all things that can be urged for her information in matters of Faith Not only in regard that the things are such as do not derive their Lawfulness or Unlawfulness from her Authority but are what they are either True or False Antecedently to it so that her Authority as it cannot change the Nature of the things in themselves so neither can it alter their obligation in reference to the Consciences of those who are otherwise perswaded Nor that She must be Responsible to God how little soever She be so to her Subjects if She betray her trust in the Faith once delivered to her and thereupon drive out of her Communion Persons who ought to have been encouraged to continue it and break off from the Communion of other Churches with whom She ought to have maintained a correspondence But also because her whole Authority depends on it For if She be Erroneous in Fundamentals especially if her Error be by way of Defect in them She is uncapable of being a Christian Church and consequently uncapable of Ecclesiastical Authority So that as She tenders her whole Authority in other things She is obliged to use all diligence to secure her self from Error in these and it must be her best Policy to do so Nay the greatest Human Authorities that are and who are most Critical in insisting on these Punctualities of Policy in maintaining what they have once determined yet think it no disparagement to them to condescend to a review and to change their Judgments upon better Information And since the retriving of that sort of Learning which is requisite for clearing Apostolical Tradition which came in with the Reformation of Religion the Church of Rome her self is much better informed and better qualified for Judging than She was in those obscurer Ages wherein She first defined them § 25. Supposing therefore that She were thus disposed to come to a review it plainly follows further that the whole force of her new Decrees upon this review must be resolved into the merit of the Cause For when her Judgment has once been acknowledged Fallible there can then remain no further pretence of any greater Certainty in her Conclusions than in the Premises from whence they were deduced by her And from hence it would be very reasonable to expect 1. that She would not upon this new review define what She should believe insufficiently proved Antecedently to her Definition This being applyed to particulars would cut off very many of her newly introduced Articles which her most eminent Champions confess inevident Antecedently to her defining them And we might expect the number of Articles which would be reduced upon this way of Tryal the more considerable if 2. all those counterfeit Miracles and Revelations and all those counterfeit Authors and Authorities were waved which at the defining of these Articles were generally believed genuine but are since as generally acknowledged to have been Forgeries All those Doctrines which upon such Testimonies as these were taken for Apostolical must lose their Credit of being so as soon as these Testimonies shall be convicted of incompetency for assuring us what was Apostolical Especally 3. if none but the earliest Writers be trusted as indeed none else are competent for conveying Apostolical Tradition to us And 4. if they were wary in this kind to impose no Doctrines as Conditions of their Communion but such as might appear even to themselves very Necessary and very Evident If the defalcations were made which we have reason to believe would be made even by themselves upon the Suppositions now mentioned I do not see any reason to despair of so much Liberty to be allowed by them as would suffice to reconcile our Communions And this I believe will be an information very useful and very acceptable to all hearty desires of the Peace of Christendom that is indeed to all truly-Christian Spirits use V § 26. A fifth Use of this Hypothesis is that it will serve for a Scheme of Principles to justifie the Reformation for which some of our modern Adversaries have been so very importunate Nor do I pretend hereby to supersede the Endeavours of that admirable Person who has already undertaken them His Principles do excellently well shew that as to the Resolution of our Faith in those Particulars which are truly of an Apostolical Original and wherein we do agree with the Romanists themselves we can sufficiently prove them derived from the Apostles by competent Testimonies of the several Ages through which they must have passed without being any ways beholden to an Infallible Judge of Controversies Nay that such an Infallible Judge is indeed a Means improper for such an End as requiring many such things for its proof to us who must be supposed to live at a distance from the time of its Original Institution as are every way at least as liable to Dispute as the Controversies to be determined by it So that hence it appears that we may be Christians nay and Catholicks too that is that we may believe as many Articles as at first were imposed as necessary to be believed without the least obligation of being Romanists that is of believing all their superinduced Novel Doctrines And this is of excellent use against them in the whole Dispute concerning the Resolution of Faith where they pretend that the Books of the Scriptures themselves and the Sense of those Books and consequently all the Articles which are proved from those Senses cannot be proved Credible to Us without the Authority of their Judge of Controversies and therefore that as we follow this Authority in these things so we ought to follow it in all other things equally recommended by it which must therefore be equally Credible with them This Consequence will indeed hold with them concerning whom the Supposition is true and therefore it cannot be strange that the Romanists who profess to believe our common Articles on the Credit of this Authority should look on those whom they call Hereticks as choosers in Religion and as self condemned in refusing to believe other things as credible and credible on the same Principles with those they do believe they still supposing that they whom they call
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
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 Unvoluntariness 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 so low 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 waies 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 contra-distinction 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 muft 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 over-weigh 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 complyance 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 when they should teach her that it were unlawful to hearken to any Reasons or to venture her own Judgment concerning them if contrary to what at present she believed to be true 3.