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
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
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
openly in our own Defence Nor 3. Is it necessary to expect that there should have been an open opposition of them even as soon as countenanced by Authority For if even in the reproof of the miscarriages of private Persons Christianity obliges us to proceed with all possible candor and modesty we are certainly much rather obliged to proceed so in dealing with Persons of Authority We should give them time to reflect and we should bear with any Personal inconveniences that are not directly sinful rather than occasion those disturbances which are usually to be expected from a publick opposition of them Nor is this forbearance more agreable to reason than to the sentiments of those Ages who were generally possessed with an excessive veneration for Authority especially Ecclesiastical so that there is reason to believe that they would bear with such Errors as long as the Abuses were tolerable however otherwise inconvenient 4. Therefore that which makes these Errors intolerable to private Persons in dealing with Authority for of such I speak is the imposing and urging them as Conditions of Communion And this might have been shewn to have been late not before their Errors were defined and imposed in their Councils And therefore it was but lately that any publick opposition was to be expected even from them who were in their Consciences perswaded that our Adversaries Doctrines were Erroneous And 5. When they were thus imposed yet even then private Persons were concerned in Conscience as well as Prudence to forbear an open opposition when there were no hopes of doing good nay too probable fears of prejudicing their Cause by it for the future when upon their opposition they must have expected to have been condemned when being condemned they were to be cast out of Communion when being Excommunicated for such a Cause others would have been deterred by their Example and their credit must have been impaired by the Infamy incurred by the Canon-Law then in force and their very condemnation would for the future mightily prejudice Mens minds against the like attempts when none could revive the like true Doctrine without the dis-repute of being supposed to revive an anciently-condemned Heresy and when there were no hopes of being able to preserve themselves in opposite Assemblies without Bishops to Head them without whom they could not maintain a Succession of Priests nor consequently of Sacraments and the like employments and advantages of Ecclesiastical Assemblies and when no Bishops were likely to countenance such a design whilst they were held in such captivity to the Court of Rome by Oaths as well as their other Worldly Interests and when no Persons of a free ingenuous temper were likely to attain the honour of Episcopacy These Reasons with a very easie Application may suffice to shew that in an ordinary way there was no reason to expect the Reformation sooner than it was And that there was no necessity sufficient to oblige God to interpose to raise Men up to it Extraordinarily will appear if it be considered 6. That it is not every necessity of the Church that can oblige God to use such Extraordinary means but only such a necessity as must have destroyed a Church from the Earth that is such a Society of Men wherein Salvation might be attained by the ordinary Prescriptions of the Gospel Now the prevalency of these Errors does not oblige us to acknowledge that such a Church as this must have failed even in those Ages wherein these Errors are supposed to have prevailed for some Centuries before the Reformation For 1. Though the Occidental Church had failed yet Christ might have had such a Church among the several Communions of the Orientals And I know no greater inconvenience in this regard in admitting the faileur of the Occidental church than what our Adversaries themselves are obnoxious to in admitting the like defection in the Oriental 2. The prevailing of these Errors does not oblige us to deny an ordinary possibility of Salvation according to the Prescriptions of the Gospel even in the Church of Rome it self in those Centuries before the Reformation For 1. We do not deny all Necessaries to Salvation even according to the ordinary Prescriptions of the Gospel to have been taught even then in the Church of Rome The Errors we charge them with are not of Defect but Adding to the Original Articles of Faith And therefore 2. If it may appear that the sin of Adding to the Faith was not to such as were no farther accessary to it than by continuing in the Communion of such as were really guilty of it so imputable ordinarily as to hinder the Salvation of such as were not otherwise wanting to themselves in their own Endeavours or at least not in such a degree as to oblige God to interpose in an Extraordinary way for its Ordinary prevention this will be sufficient to shew that supposing those Errors so dangerous as we do indeed suppose them yet God was not obliged to raise up and maintain a Communion in opposition to them for preventing the failing of such a Church as I have spoken of even in these Western Parts And that this was so may appear from these Considerations 1. That that skill in Ecclesiastical Learning by which our first Reformers were enabled to discover these Errors was generally wanting in the Ages before the Reformation which might make their mistakes then much more pardonable than now 2. That the great mischief of these Errors is not so much the believing more for matters of Faith than really was so as the mischievous Consequence of doing so the Divisions of the Church necessarily following hereupon the condemning of good Catholicks for Hereticks and Schismaticks and excluding them from Communion and hereby making the peace of Christendome impossible on any just and tolerable terms and Abuses impossible to be Reformed Which was not so imputable in those Ages when there was no visible Communion to be condemned by joyning with that of Rome for as for the even unjust Excommunication of particular Persons Providence is not so concerned as to interpose Extraordinarily for their prevention This I say on Supposition that the Waldenses and Albigenses c. were such as our Adversaries represent them If they were ootherwise then among them there was a Succession for so long of Churches holding our Doctrines before Luther 3. The Prudential Reasons now given might then generally excuse private Persons and all such as were not accessary to the guilt of introducing those Errors who were much the greater Part and it is only for the greater Part that Providence is necessarily concerned from the guilt of not publickly Reforming them Yet even they are not so Excusable now when the power of the Pope is so much decryed and there are so many Churches and Church-Governours under whose Protection they may put themselves and with whose Communion they may joyn in opposition to them 3. The Antiquity allowed to their Errors on this Supposition is not
themselves unavoidably reduced to this choice whether they will embrace these Doctrines rather than forbear their Communion or whether they will keep off from their Communion rather than own these Schismatical Doctrines Nor will it be hard to judge how they would be likely to determine in such a Case For if their aversation to these Doctrines be greater than their kindness to particular Opinions or Practices of the Roman Communion as I have already shewn that it is reasonable to believe that it is frequently the Case of Persons not yet Proselyted by them they must necessarily think themselves obliged on these terms to continue where they are § 15. 2. And the same things proportionably applyed may serve to shew the usefulness of this Hypothesis for gaining several moderate Persons of the Romanists themselves They who call the Doctrine of the Popes Infallibility Archi-Heretical and confess themselves unable in this Principle to defend their Church against us when they shall find that the Fundamental Principle of their own as a distinct Communion is this confessedly indefensible Archi-Heretical Doctrine that without this they cannot justifie either their Separation or their Impositions they cannot think it safe in Conscience to continue any longer divided from us § 16. The same thing is also applicable to that other Doctrine which prevails with several very considerable Parties of the Roman Communion That the Supreme Judge of Controversies on Earth is either the diffusive Catholick Church or a Council that is truly Free and General and accordingly received as such by the Catholick Church diffusive and that that alone is the seat of Infallibility They who are of this Judgment if the following Hypothesis hold true must necessarily be obliged to change their Communion on two accounts 1. That they cannot make out their own Title to their being the Catholick Church in this sense nor can they consequently prove that many of our Doctrines which they condemn as Heretical have ever been Canonically condemned by this Judge of Controversies This will hinder them from abstaining from our Communion for them And 2. that on these Principles the Doctrines of the Popes Monarchy and Infallibility must be Heretical This will oblige them to abstain from the Communion of those who maintain them § 17. 1. They cannot make out their Title to their own being the Catholick Church in this sense For evidently they are not the Catholick Church diffusive many considerable parts whereof are not in Communion with them And therefore all the Plea they can make to the Authority or Infallibility of the Catholick Church must be grounded on the Notion of a Catholick Church Virtual which Notion they must needs disclaim in asserting the Power of the diffusive Catholick or its Lawful Representative over all particular Churches These things I conceive so clear from the Doctrine here delivered as that I cannot think my self obliged to say any more concerning them at present Hence it will follow that all those particular Doctrines which have been defined against us only by the Western Councils without the Suffrages of the Eastern Bishops or the reception even of all the Western Churches themselves must fail of that pretence to Infallibility which is here even from their own Principles proved necessary to justifie their Separation from us on that account And when these are deducted there will remain but few instances of Doctrines disputed between us if any which themselves can pretend to have been defined by the united Suffrages of all Eastern and Western Bishops and unanimously received in the particular Dioceses Nor can they on these terms give any account why they condemn and exclude from their interest in the common Judicatory of Christendom as many and as great and every way as considerable Churches as themselves § 18. 2. But if such Western Councils as are in this point defended by our Adversaries of this Faction must indeed be admitted for the Supreme visible Judicatories and consequently as intitled to that Infallibility which is by them ascribed to this Supreme Judicatory I cannot conceive how they can avoid thinking themselves obliged in Conscience to separate from the Communion of them who ascribe this Infallibility to the Pope and his Conclave For there is nothing that can be said to justifie their Separation from us but will as strongly prove them obliged to separate from their own Brethren of that Perswasion For these Councils have taken upon them to decide the Controversie concerning the Supremacy by declaring this Power to be in the Church diffusive and themselves to be Lawful Representatives of that Church and consequently that all Ecclesiastical Power the Papacy it self being also expresly mentioned was subject to them For can they think that Propositions neither Necessary as to their matter nor Evident as to their Proof can oblige Subjects to their Belief under pain of incurring the Censure of Heresy only on account of their being defined by their Supreme Judge of Controversies And is there any thing that themselves can pretend to have been more expresly defined by that Judge than this is If they will think to evade this Argument by pretending that this Doctrine of the Power of their Judge of Controversies is not so properly de fide it self as a Principle antecedent to the belief of all Particulars that are so yet this can derogate nothing from their obligation to separate from the Communion of Dissenters concerning it For can they think themselves obliged to Separate for the denyal of one particular defined by that Authority And is there not incomparably more reason they should do so for the denyal of the Authority it self Is not the Authority it self more Fundamental than the particulars can be which on these Principles derive their whole Credibility from it And must it not be much more heinous to destroy the Credit of all possible Particulars which on these Principles is included in the Judge of Controversies than to refuse an actual Assent to any one Particular And as it hence appears that the matter of these Differences among themselves is more momentous and more obliging to a Separation than themselves can pretend those to be wherein they differ from us so I may add farther that the Separation which ought in Conscience to follow hereupon must be equally irreconcileable For will it not come to the same Event whether we utterly disown a visible Judge of Controversies or whether we indeed own one but own such a one as that our Adversaries cannot think themselves obliged to stand to his decision In both Cases there is equally acknowledged a Liberty of Appeal from all Power that is acknowledged by the Adversary And that Power which must decide Controversies against an Adversary who does not think himself obliged as much as in Conscience to submit to such a Decision must do it either by force or Arbitration which are Remedies as allowable by our Principles as by those of our Adversaries Nay in this Case
they cannot plead even that pretence of Canonical Punctuality at least so long to forbear separating from the Communion even of acknowledged Hereticks till their Cause were declared to be Heresy by their competent Judge For they who believe these Councils to have been the Supreme Judicatories must consequently conceive themselves obliged to believe that their Superiority over the Pope has been defined by a Canonical Authority and they who do so can have nothing left to excuse them for forbearing an actual Separation And as it thus appears that they must hold themselves obliged to abstain from the Communion of those Persons who professedly and expresly own this Doctrine of the Popes Monarchy So when they shall find that this Monarchy is indeed the Fundamental Principle of the whole Roman Communion as distinct from others they must by the same Principles think themselves obliged to abstain from the Communion of that whole Church not only of those who do expresly defend that Monarchy but also of others though in terms denying it as long as they keep to that Communion which cannot be kept without consequentially defending it It is in vain to think to weaken the Authority of the Decision of those Councils because it was in a matter concerning their own Interest For besides that this will give Us a plain advantage against any Authority whereby they can pretend that we are Canonically censured They themselves are sensible on other occasions that this is inseparably the Right of the Supreme Judicatory to Judge even in matters of its own Interest seeing there lies no Appeal from it even in such Cases to any other Judicatory that might Judge more impartially concerning them And they who think the Supreme Judicatory Infallible must think themselves also obliged not only to a Canonical Acquiescence for Peace's sake but also to an Internal Assent and Approbation of the Justice of such a Decree even out of Conscience This I conceive at least sufficient to prove in this Case of persons not proselyted as well as in the former of persons already of that Communion that they who do more firmly adhere to this Doctrine of the Superiority of the Catholick Church diffusive must think themselves obliged to separate from their communion when they are convinced of the inconsistency of this Doctrine with it The only difference is that this firmer adherence to this Doctrine may more ordinarily and easily be expected from Persons not yet Proselyted than from those who are prejudiced in favour of the contrary by their Education in that Communion These are those Dividing Principles intimated in the following Answer to the Queries proposed to the Gentlewoman though I was unwilling on that occasion to enlarge further concerning them use IV § 19. A fourth Use of this Hypothesis is for the direction of Peacemakers to let them see what it is that renders our reconciliation impossible and which if it be not first accommodated must render all their endeavours in particular Questions unsuccessful and therefore against which they ought more earnestly to strive by how much they are more zealous for Catholick Peace The way hitherto attempted has been to endeavour to reconcile our particular differences This has been either by clearing their respective Churches from all those things for which they have not expresly declared and of which express Professions are not exacted from Persons to be reconciled unto them by how great Authority soever of their particular Communicants they have been countenanced or maintained This way has been taken on their side by Mr. Veron c. and on ours by Bishop Montague Or where the Churches have declared themselves there by allowing the greatest Latitude of Exposition and putting the most favourable Sense on their Decrees of which they are capable Thus Grotius has dealt with the Council of Trent and S. Clara with our English Articles The design of all the endeavours of this kind has been to reconcile the Churches without any yielding on either side I confess I think the number of Controversies may be exceedingly diminished by this way of proceeding which must needs be very acceptable to any who is more a Lover of the Catholick Church's Peace than of Disputation Many of the Tenets on both sides that are very invidiously represented by Adversaries will on a closer examination appear to be either mistakes of the Writers meanings or Opinions of particular Writers or senses of the Church's Decrees which were never designed by the Church that made them and consequently unnecessary to be assented to in order to a reconciliation But when all is done they will fall very short of reconciling the different Communions For though all their particular Decrees even concerning Faith were made tolerable by these means 1 yet that were not sufficient to prove their Communion Lawful and 2 yet there can be no hopes of reconciling all particular Decrees by these means but some will still remain which will make their Communion intolerable to them of the other side § 20. 1. Though all their particular Decrees of Faith might by these means be made tolerable yet that were not sufficient to prove their Communion lawful For neither is there any security that that sense of their Decrees which might be taken for tolerable would in Practice prove such as would be admitted by Governours so as that they on the other side might on their owning of that sense be received to their Communion No though it were countenanced by Doctors of never so eminent note nay by the Ecclesiasticks who should receive them For still their Church ought to be admitted to be the most Authentick Expositer of her own meaning And I do not doubt but several of their Proselytes who should go over to them on account of many of these moderate Explications would find themselves mistaken in many things as soon as their Church had any obligation to explain her self concerning them And though the Church might not think it worth her interposition to do it upon the reconciliation of every particular Proselyte yet She must certainly think her self obliged to it in order to the reconciliation of the whole Communions Then many of these palliations would certainly be found so repugnant to her design and so destitute of any plausible appearance as though She had been willing to yield in earnest in instances wherein She might not seem to do so and that is the utmost condescension that can in reason be expected from a Church which pretends to be Infallible at least while She pretends to be so yet they would not afford them even so as much as a Salvo for their reputation Nay though all her present Decrees of Faith had appeared tolerable and appeared so in that very sense wherein She really understood them yet even this would not suffice for a solid reconciliation of Communion as long as the same Authority by which these other Decrees had been defined is still owned to be Infallible For still the next General
to require to the xxxix Articles but also Positively to believe them not only as Truths but also as matters of Faith 6. That this Positive Belief of their Church's Definitions exteriorly professed in joyning in their Offices and in abstaining from the Communion even of Peaceable Dissenters and censuring them as Hereticks cannot veraciously nor consequently without Sin be performed without an Internal Assent 7. That this Internal Assent cannot safely be given without a satisfactory conviction of the Truth of the Propositions so assented to 8. And therefore that such an Assent may be given to Propositions defined by their Church only on account of her Authority it is requisite that her Authority be such a Medium as may assure us of the Truth of those Propositions 9. This Assurance if it be nor according to the Doctrine of their greatest Pretenders to Reason Mathematical yet must at least for matters of Faith and such these Definitions are by themselves esteemed be Moral that is such as may exclude all Probability if not all Possibility of Doubting whether they be True 10. That Authority which upon its own account may be an Argument to convince us of the Truth of her Definitions must not be such as must depend on the use of Means both 1. because that will leave a Liberty for such as are competent Judges of them to have recourse from such Authority to the Means themselves on which such her Credibility will depend which the Romanists will by no means permit And 2. because the Means are by themselves acknowledged frequently Fallible and the Infallibility only affixed to the Conclusions 11. That Authority which may assure us of the Truth of its Definitions independently on the Means must needs be Infallible in its Judgment Which though some few late Authors have endeavoured to avoid yet the Generality of them have found themselves in pursuance of the former Principles obliged to assert it 12. This Infallibility of Judgment surpassing the use of Ordinary Means must needs be Supernatural and Extraordinary and therefore as to the light by which it judges it must be assisted by new Revelations though it be conversant about no newly-Revealed Objects 13. This Infallibility is by them challenged to themselves by virtue of those Promises of the Spirit in the Scriptures which themselves confess to belong only to the Catholick Ch. not to any one particular Denomination of Christians 14. That therefore their Title to this Infallibility must according to their own Principles be resolved into those Proofs whereby they make out their Title of being the Catholick Church 15. They themselves do not nor cannot pretend to be the Catholick Ch. diffusive that is that all the Regular legal original Successors to the Apostles in all Apostolical Sees most of which they cannot deny to have been in the Oriental parts have ever submitted to their Authority or are united to them in external visible Communion Nay they have condemned a much greater number of Apostolical Sees than they have among themselves 16. That therefore the Notion of Catholick to which they may with any colour pretend must be so limited as that it may agree to a Party of Christians in opposition to others 17. That though it may indeed be true admitting an Appeal to the Primitive records that a particular Church may hold all that which was originally taught by the Catholick Church diffusive without any novel abusive Impositions that may oblige any Conscientious Persons to keep off from her Communion and so by accident may deserve the name of Catholick as that name distinguishes from other Christian Societies of Hereticks and Schismaticks Yet speaking of such an Authority as they own in the Roman Church which may prescribe against such Appeals so that its own only sense is to be presumed to be the Sense of the Catholick Church without particular convincing Evidences of the concurrence of all in the Primitive Ages with them this plainly requires that this Notion of Catholick be certainly fixed and fixed to a particular Judicatory and this Antecedently to a tryal by the Primitive Records For this prescribing against an Appeal so rational as to the nature of the thing must plainly imply an obliging Jurisdiction Antecedently to and therefore Independently on that tryal And Jurisdiction can signifie nothing unless the Judicatory to whom it belongs be also notorious and notorious also Antecedently to the same tryal So that in this way of proceeding it must necessarily be supposed that one certain part of the Catholick Church can never cease to be Catholick nor to have a Jurisdiction over the Catholick Church diffusive 18. These things cannot be ascertained to a particular Church so as to prescribe against the now-mentioned way of trying it without maintaining the Notion of a Catholick Church Virtual That is we cannot be assured that a particular Church must necessarily be Catholick Antecedently to the tryal of its Catholicism by a recourse to the Primitive Records but by being first assured that that particular Church shall never fail of being Catholick it self and that all other particular Churches must approve of their Catholicism by their conformity to that which can never be otherwise So that on these terms the knowledge of that one Church and what is maintained by her will be virtually a knowledge of the Catholick Church diffusive and what ought to be maintained by them Which things put altogether do plainly make up that which our Adversaries mean when they speak of a Catholick Church virtual 19. This Notion of a Catholick Church virtual which may agree to one part of the Catholick Church diffusive in contradistinction to all others must imply such a Principle of Unity to which all the rest are obliged though that one part only do actually adhere to it 20. This Principle of Unity must not only be a Principle of Order but of Influence For it is only by virtue of this Influence of this one Church over all others that we can conclude that all others are obliged to be like it and it is only on this obligation of all other Churches to be like her that her Title to the name of the Catholick Church Virtual is adaequately grounded 21. This Principle of Unity must be in the Governours of such a particular Church For our Adversaries will not have the Promises of the Spirit made to the People but to their Governours So that the People can have no further Right in them but on condition of adhering to their Governours who therefore must be the first Principle of Unity 22. This Principle of Unity must not depend on the Authority of the Church diffusive Otherwise that same Authority of the Church diffusive might recall it in which Case the adhering to it would not prove a certain Note of Catholicism 23. To apply therefore all this to the Romanists their whole pretence of being the Catholick Church is adaequately grounded in that Notion of a Catholick Church virtual whereby they confine
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.