sufficient to Justifie their Cause For 1. This Antiquity is not Primitive but only of some later Ignorant Ages And the Unreasonableness of presuming Doctrines to have been Primitive only because they were actually found embraced by the Church in later Ages and of Prescribing on that account against a new Examination of them by immediate recourse to the Originals might have been shewn from the Fathers as well as from the Protestants 2. The Antiquity of those Notions of theirs whereby they confine the Catholick Church to that part of it in the Roman Communion which might have been proved Fundamental to all their other Doctrines as they are made Articles of Faith and Conditions of Communion is contradicted by the Oriental Churches generally who are as ancient and of as Unquestionable a Succession as the Church of Rome her self and as ancient in teaching the contrary 3. The utmost Antiquity which we allow for their unwarrantable Doctrines is not so great as must be acknowledged by all that will Judge candidly for several which on all sides are acknowledged to be Heretical I do not only mean those of the Arians but also of those great Bodies of the Oriental Historians and Euâ—ychians continuing to this day divided from the Roman Church especially if they be really guilty of those Heresies which are charged on them and they must by Romanists be held guilty of some for Justifying their own Practice of condemning them 4. Some of their present Decrees particularly those concerning the admission of the Apocryphal Books into the Canon and receiving Unwritten Traditions with Equal Reverence with the Written Word of God I doubt are not more anciently imposed as Conditions of Catholick Communion than the Council of Trent it self which was since Luther And both of these are very considerable and especially the later is very Fundamental to many of their other Decrees Q. 4. Why all the Reformed Churches are not Vnited in One I Presume the design of this Question is not so much a Curiosity to be Informed either of the Politick Reasons which in the Course of Second Causes might have an Influence on those Divisions which were occasioned by the Reformation or of those that might move God to permit Second Causes to act according to their Natural Inclination without the Interposition of any Extraordinary restraint but only to lay hold on that Advantage from our acknowledged Divisions which they may seem to afford to the Prejudice of our common Cause I shall therefore at present onâ—y propose such things to the Gentlewomans Consideration as may let her understand the weakness of this Argument how Popular soever when they conclude us either mistaken our Selves or at least unfit to Guide others in the General Reformation because we are not all agreed in all the Particulars To this purpose it will be at present sufficient to insist on two things 1. That there is no reason why the Romanists should upbraid Us with this Argument and that it is their Interest as well as ours to Answer it 2. That the Argument it self is of no force as it is used by them against us 1. There is no Reason why the Romanists should upbraid Us with this Argument and they as well as we are obliged to Answer it For 1. This very Argument was by the Primitive Heathens made use of against Christianity in General as it is now against Us and our Adversaries would do well to consider whether the same Answers pleadable by themselves now in behalf of those Christians and actually pleaded by the Apologists then be not as pleadable for Us now Nay this multitude of Sects in Christianity is even now the great Argument of Irreligious Persons against the Truth of Religion and I cannot believe that any Piously disposed Person among them can be pleased to allow the Argument to be of any force in either Case rather than want an Argument against Us. Yet I believe they will never be able to shew any Disparity 2. If they speak not of Dividing Principles but of actual Divisions they as well as we have such among themselves They have Divisions betwixt the Irish Remonstrants and Anti-Remonstrants Molinists and Jansenists as well as Thomists and Scotists and Jesuites some of which Parties are Divided as well in Communion as in Opinions If they say that these Divisions are not the faults of their Opinions but the particular perversity of Persons who will not stick to those Principles which might keep them United when their Interest inclines them otherwise the same will be pretended by every Dividing Party If they think it Injurious that their whole Communion should be charged with the misdemeanors of Persons condemned by it We all of Us plead the same for there is no Party that does not condemn all others in those things wherein they Divide from themselves 3. If they think our Differences concerning the Particulars we would have Reformed an Argument that the whole design of a Reformation is in it self Suspicious and Uncertain let them consider what themselves do or can say when they are in the like way of Arguing urged by Us with the several Opinions concerning the Seat of Infallibility whence our Authors conclude the Uncertainty of the thing it self It might easily have been shewn upon this and the like Occasions how they do and are obliged to acknowledge the Unreasonableness of this way of Arguing But the designed Brevity of my present Employment only permits me to point at the Heads of what might be said not to enlarge on the Particulars 4. It might have been shewn that these Differences among them concerning the Judge of Controversies tend Naturally and by due Rational Consequence to the dissolution of their Communion a Charge which we think cannot be proved against that which we believe the Right Communion 2. Therefore to shew directly the weakness of this Argument Let it be considered 1. That whatever Differences they upbraid us with yet they can never prove that they follow by any Natural and Rational Consequence from the General Principles of the Reformation though possibly they may indeed have been occasioned by that Liberty of Spirit which was absolutely requisite for undertaking a design of such a Nature as it must on all sides be acknowledged possible that things really good may notwithstanding prove occasions of Evil. And how very Unjust and Unreasonable it is to charge Personal Faults upon Designs that is in this Case the faults of Reformers upon the Reformation all even the Romanists themselves will acknowledge in Cases wherein they are dis-interessed 2. That this being Supposed all that they can conclude from these Divisions of the Reformers is only that no one Communion of the Reformers has that advantage over the rest as that Antecedently to all Enquiry into the merit of the Cause its Word is fit to be trusted as a Guide in Controversies to assure any of its own Truth and of the Error of all differing from it This if the Gentlewoman
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
strange to me and seems disagreeable I will not say to that Candor but that accurateness which was observed by him in that Enquiry that he could pretend that it was the Word Infallibility against which Mr. Chillingworth's Arguments had been so successful or that he could satisfie himself with that pretence in a matter of that importance Indeed if his Arguments had been Grammatical there might have been some colour for pretending that advantage was taken from the ambiguity of the Word to pick out the most Invidious sense among those many other more favourable ones of which it was capable but being Notional and taken from the nature of the Thing they must necessarily be levelled against it in some certain signification And it had been easie to have shewn that they do as clearly overthrow the Infallibility of Judgment in a Creature in the use of Fallible Means which is the sense which I have here proved the Romanists obliged to maintain though their Infallibility were derived from the Divine assistance as if it were derived from their own Nature as that of God is which is the sense which Mr. Cressy would make to be only concerned in these Arguments It might easily have been also shewn that Mr. Cressy himself grants the very sense of the word here defined and cannot deny but that it is very properly and naturally signified by it nay that by his own Principles the Churches not using it in her Canons can be no Argument that she ever intended to leave private Persons at their liberty to use it or forbear it as they pleased Whence it were easie further to infer not only that it must needs be intolerable for private persons to deny it but also that it must be justly Suspicious as much as to wave it since it has been used though on pretence of another sense applicable to it but never intended by them who brought it into the Roman Church though at first they might have forborn the introducing of it And if it be not free to Subjects either to deny or forbear it what room can be left for their Indulgence so much celebrated in this particular Nay what Indulgence could it be if they might indeed be excused from the Word as long as they are obliged to maintain the Thing I say obliged by doing that which cannot possibly be defended without supposing it Certainly they cannot think but that Actions are as significative as Words in reference to God and their own Consciences § 11. So also for the other point concerning the Popes Supremacy it is an usual Artifice whereby many others are seduced that they are perswaded that they may take the same Liberty that the French take in Questioning the Popes Monarchical Power But from the Principles here laid down it plainly appears that the Liberty taken by them is rather connived at by the Roman Court on politick Considerations than approved or allowed by the Roman Communion as consistent with their Principles The like might have been shewn concerning several other Consequential Doctrines which facilitate the seducing of Proselytes as that of the Distinction between the Church and Court of Rome and the possibility of Reforming the Abuses of the Court by the Power of the Church c. § 12. Now in Persons who have not been inured to those Prejudices of Education and that great Credulity which are insensibly infused into Persons bred in that Communion which must be supposed to be the Case of them who are not as yet Proselyted to it these general Principles of Infallibility and the Popes Supremacy are like to meet with the most difficult reception For to such who have had experience of the difficulty of things by their own tryal of them and who are not averse to any pains that may appear requisite for the satisfaction of their Consciences it is so far from being likely to appear that it is an Act of Christian Vertue to avoid Evidence or to suppress their Convictions when different from the Sense of those few interessed Persons who are plainly possessed of the Government of that whole Communion as that till their Infallibility be first proved it is not likely to pass for an Act of common honesty Nay their expecting such unreasonable Concessions from them at first would to such Persons be a very just reason of suspecting them when they should find themselves treated by them at the same rate as they might expect to be by the most professed Deceivers For what more likely Art could any Deceiver use than to perswade those whom he had a mind to seduce to trust in him without and against their own Convictions Nor is it likely that they who have no other inducement than the intrinsick reasonableness of its proof should be perswaded to believe it as easily as they who have been inured to it by Prejudices of their Education Nor is there that violence offered to their Faculties in following a weak and doubtful Proof in one particular instance as in renouncing their clearest Convictions Universally in all matters to be defined by their Judge of Controversies And therefore it is very possible for Persons favourable to the sense of the Romanists in many of the particular Disputes still to be very averse to their pretences to Infallibility and this not as it is usually said by our Adversaries only out of a haughtiness and unwillingness to yield but on rational and truly-Conscientious accounts § 13. Nor is the other Doctrine concerning the Monarchical Power of the Pope less unacceptable to Persons of another Communion before they are brought over to the Roman I will not mention how much the consequence of believing such a Doctrine may impose upon their Liberty because that will not by our Adversaries be thought a Conscientious Disswasive from it Though certainly it be very allowable to stand upon their own Rights till they be convinced out of them by a greater Evidence than would suffice for Concessions of less importance which is sufficient for my present design That which I had rather insist on at present is the indesensibleness of the abuses of the Court of Rome which are so gross and provoking as that generally they are the last things to which Revolters are reconciled and usually when they are so it is only on pretence that that Church is not concerned for them But by this Monarchical Power of the Pope the power of Reforming them is ascribed Only to him whose Interest it is they never be Reformed and so to destroy all hopes of Reformation Which is a consideration that if seriously thought of would certainly startle many of those who are brought over to them on accounts truly Conscientious being seduced to it by such false pretences § 14. For when it shall appear to this sort of Persons as I have endeavoured to make it appear by the following Hypothesis that their joyning in that Communion must necessarily imply their approbation of these Unacceptable Doctrines they must find
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
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
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.
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
will observe She will find that their Arguments from this and the like Topicks only aim at For because they challenge such a Priviledge themselves they fancy Us to do so to and that our design is not to overthrow a Judge of Controversies but only to translate that Title from the Pope to Luther or some others of our eminent Reformers which is far from our design But this difference in Opinion does not in the least prove but that upon a particular Enquiry into the merit of the Cause one Party may be found to have the advantage of the other which is all that we pretend to 3. That this difference of the several Parties of the Reformation in other things is rather a very strong Presumption for an Ignorant Person who must conduct her self by Presumptions that there is great reason for those things wherein they are all agreed and indeed is a greater Argument for the Credibility of the Reformation in general than for that of the Roman Communion For to a dis-interessed Person the Agreement of those is a more valuable Argument for the Truth of what they say who seem most of all acted by the merit of the things and least of all influenced by the Opinions and Authorities of a few and there can hardly be conceived a more considerable Argument of their freedom in Judgment than their actual difference in other things What therefore the Protestants are agreed in seems more likely to be the real sense of all that are so agreed upon an Impartial Enquiry whereas the Romanists are generally Influenced by a few of the Court of Rome to whom the rest do generally conceive themselves obliged in Conscience to conform And this advantage of the differences of Protestants for recommending their Credibility in other things above that of their Adversaries to the Trust of an Ignorant Person will appear the more remarkable if it be considered 4. That they are not only agreed in general in the fitness of a Reformation but also in most of the Particulars to be Reformed Indeed if they were only agreed in general that it were fit a Reformation should be but agreed in no Particulars it might seem too probable a Suspicion that it was not Truth but Faction and the disturbance of the Publick that was their common design But that is far from being the Case here 5. The Divisions of the Protestants in Doctrine are not so irreconcileable as they may seem The Harmony of Confessions shew them agreed in the Principal As for the others it is plain that our Church of England does not think them worth contending for whilst She admits the several Parties into her Communion and if other Protestants think otherwise yet She is not Responsible for them because She is not of their mind The most pernicious Principles of all which most Naturally tend to Division and which make the differences resulting from them most impossible to be reconciled are the differences concerning Church Government and in that our Church has Innovated nothing that should cause any breach even from the Roman much less from any other part of the Catholick Church And most of their other Differences are no longer Irreconcileable than the Persons are likely to continue averse to Reconciliation but these Differences about Church-Government are so derived from the nature of the Things as that they may Cause Division among Persons otherwise well-meaning and of a Peaceable Disposition 6. This Argument from the Divisions of Protestants is principally proper for such as are not actually engaged in any particular Communion of them and even to them ought to have no more force than that of a Prudent Presumption till the Person so Presuming might have leasure to examine Particulars But that seems not to be the Gentlewomans Case whom I suppose to have been hitherto educated in the Church of England and to have had sufficient opportunities of Informing her self concerning us For such a one it would sure be sufficient that our Church is no way guilty of these Divisions whatsoever may be the Case of other Protestants Q. 5. Why the Church of England doth not hold up to Confession Fasting-days Holy Oyl which we our Selves commend IT is a mistake that the Questionist does suppose Us to commend Holy Oyl However we think all the Instances here mentioned lawful and indifferent and so to be as obnoxious to the Prudence of particular Church-Governors as other things of that nature are by all acknowledged to be and we shall conceive our Selves secure of the Gentlewomans Communion if She will not alter till our Adversaries prove them necessary Antecedently to Church Authority which is more than they will as much as pretend to at least concerning some of them These things therefore being thus supposed I shall propose two things to the Gentlewomans Consideration 1. That supposing We were to blame in omitting them yet this were no ground for Her to leave our Communion 2. That as far as they are not imposed by our Church there was reason for their not imposing them 1. Supposing that we were indeed to blame in omitting these Ecclesiastical Observances yet this would be no sufficient ground to excuse the Gentlewoman for leaving our Communion For 1. No Indifferent thing how imprudent or inexpedient soever and that is the highest Charge that the Churches mistake in a matter of this nature is chargeable withal as long as the Object is supposed of its own nature Indifferent as long as it is not sinful and certainly it can be no Sin to submit for Peace's sake to an imprudent Constitution can excuse a departure from a Communion that is in other regards allowable 2. Whatever a Separation on this account might be in others yet it is less excusable in Subjects who are no way Responsible for as much as the Imprudences of such Constitutions and who are certainly bound to bear with all tolerable frailties of their lawful Governours and who are not indeed so well qualified for Judging concerning them as neither being so well skilled in Politicks generally nor being made acquainted with the secret Reasons of such Constitutions which might make that which without them might seem strange appear highly commendable when considered with them 3. The Gentlewomans Sex and possibly her particular Condition may not have those Advantages which many others though Subjects also have for Judging concerning them These Arguments are so agreeable to the Principles of our Adversaries themselves as that they frequently make use of them for retaining Persons in their own Communion Which the Gentlewoman may be pleased to take notice of if any of her Tempters should Question them here where they are disserviceable to their Interests But farther 4. Abuses in Governours acknowledging themselves Fallible though they be supposed indeed to be Abuses are much more tolerable than in those who do not seeing there may be hopes that Governours acknowledging themselves Fallible my in time be better informed and may then themselves reform