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 we 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 afraid of Provocation from any thing which he can say in following my Precedent THE CONTENTS Qu. 1. WHether any one going from the Church of England and dying a Roman Catholick can be saved Page 1. Q. 2. Whether they be Idolaters or No 11. Q. 3. Where was the Church of England before Luther's time 14 Q. 4. Why all the Reformed Churches are not Vnited in One 22 Q. 5. Why the Church of England doth not hold up to Confession Fasting-days Holy Oyl which we our Selves commend 26 Q. 6. Why was Reformation done by Act of Parliament 29 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 af Salvation Such are 1. The Doctrines even of their * Vid. Consid of Pros Concern 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 †For the Jesuites see the Provinc Lett. and the Moral Theolog. of the Jesuites and for the rest of that Communion the Jesuites defence of themselves by way of recrimination against others 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 unsecure 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 guiity of Heresie 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 contradicted such conditions of Communion in sum their unreasonable grounds of dividing Catholick Communion and their Vncharitableness 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 Becket 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 recantation 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
Blessings to Us and our Prayers to Him and that he will permit none but good Spirits to presentiate themselves at their Images 3. That if Miracles pretended to be done at such Invocations be urged as Arguments that God is pleased with them this was pretended by the Heathens too And it may be if it were impartially Enquired into there would not be greater and better attested Miracles for Invocation of Saints among the Romanists than for the Invocation of Daemons among the Pagans 4. That the same Arguments used by the Scriptures and Primitive Christians against the Heathen Idolatries are applied by the Protestants to the Image-worship among the Papists now and the same Answers given by the Papists now were then also insisted on by the Pagans 5. That as these are very shrewd Suspicions of the dangerousness of this Worship so this danger is ventured on without the least necessity there being undeniable Security from the Primitive Records and Revelations of Christianity that God is pleased to accept such Prayers as are addressed to him through the Intercession of Christ alone so that there can be no necessity of having also recourse unto the Saints 6. That Image-worship is not countenanced by as much as any Venerable Authority of truly Primitive Christianity and that the Second Nicaene Council that introduced it was put to very disingenuous Shifts of counterfeit Authorities for it 7. That whatever may be thought of the Worship designed by the Roman Church yet even Mr. Thorndike himself with whose Authority our Adversaries principally urge us in this Dispute does not deny that Idolatry is practiced by the Ignoranter Persons of that Communion which the Gentlewoman may justly fear lest it should prove her own Case 8. That the Roman Church her self cannot be altogether excused from the Idolatry of her Ignorant Communicants seeing she puts unnecessary Scandals in Ignorant persons way and is guilty of encouraging their Ignorance and Carelesness of Judging in matters of Religion 9. That the Practice of that Communion is generally worse and grosser than their Principles as the Gentlewoman may inform her self of in that impartial account which is given of them by Sir Edwyn Sandys in his Speculum Europae which yet is observed and countenanced by their most Eminent Guides so that such as She cannot secure themselves from the danger of it 10. That the Romish Church is by so much the more culpable in this Particular because She has not been content only to countenance and encourage a Practice in so great danger of proving Idolatrous so needless in it self so destitute of all Authority either of Scripture or the Primitive Catholick Church which yet does so extremely stand in need of Authority but She has also imposed it as a Condition of her own Communion which She calls Catholick so that they who are willing to Believe and Practice all that was Believed and Practised in the Primitive Church must now be Anathematized and condemned for Hereticks for refusing to Believe or Practice any more or to condemn those as Hereticks who do refuse it Q. 3. Where was the Church of England before Luther's time THE design of asking this Question is certainly to make our Confession of Novelty in such Cases wherein our Adversaries presume our Novelty so notorious as that we our Selves cannot deny it an Argument against Us yet they themselves are concerned in some Cases to deny its cogency For even they cannot deny that the deprivation of the Laity of the use of the Cup for Example has been lately introduced into their Church by a publick Law. If therefore it may appear that our Church is Ancient as to all intents and purposes wherein Antiquity may be available but that the Church of Rome is not so and that in the sense wherein the Church of England has begun since Luther there is no reason to expect that She should have been Ancienter and that the Justice of her Cause does not require it and that the Antiquity upon these Suppositions confessedly allowed to the Church of Rome is no Argument for the Justice of her Cause these things I think will contain a fully satisfactory Answer to the Gentlewoamns Question I shall not at present engage on an accurate Discussion of these Heads but shall only suggest such short Observations as may let her see how unreasonable our Adversaries confidence is in this Argument wherein they do so usually triumph Therefore 1. Antiquity is indeed necessary to be pleaded for Doctrines such especially as are pretended to belong to the Catholick Faith and which are urged as Conditions of Communion This is the Case wherein it is urged by Tertullian and Vincentius Lirinensis in their very rational Discourses on this Argument And for this I think we may challenge the Church of Rome her self to instance in one positive Doctrine imposed by us which She her self thinks not Ancient I am sure the Controversie is so stated commonly that we are blamed not for Believing any thing ancient or necessary which is not but for not believing some things which She believes to be so And if She her self believe all our Positives and withal believes that nothing is so to be believed but what is Ancient it will clearly follow that She cannot in consistency with her own interests deny the Antiquity of our Positive Doctrines But for the other Doctrines superadded by them and denied by us which are indeed the true occasion of the present Divisions of Communion we charge them with Innovation and are very confident that they will never be able to prove them to the satisfaction of any Impartial Person either from clear Scripture or from genuine Antiquity of the first and purest Ages which are the way wherein we are willing to undertake the proof of our positive Doctrines Nay their greatest Champions decline the trial and complain of the defectiveness and obscurity of the Primitive Christian Writers which they would not have reason to do if they thought them clear on their side These things therefore being thus supposed That no Doctrines ought to be imposed but what are Ancient That ours are so by our Adversaries own Confession and that our Adversaries Doctrines are not so and that in Judging this the private Judgments of particular Persons are to be trusted as the measures of their own private Practice as it is plain that those Discourses of Tertullian and Vincentius Lirinensis are principally designed for the satisfaction of particular Persons which had been impertinent if the Churches Judgment had been thought Credible in her own Case as a Judg of Controversies besides that even now this Argument from Antiquity is made use of for convincing such as are supposed unsatisfied with her Authority and therefore to whom that Authority can be no Argument which Liberty of Private Judgment is then especially most fit to be indulged when the distance is so remote as it is now when no Church has now those Advantages for conveying down Apostolical
publickly Reforming them Yet even they are not so Excusable now when the power of the Pope is so much decried 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 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 Judg 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 Eutychians 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 Apoeryphal Books into the Canon and receiving Vnwritten 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 latter 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 only 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 Vs 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 Vnited 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 acknowledg 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 Judg 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 acknowledg in Cases wherein they are disinteressed 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 will observe she will find that their Arguments from this and the like Topicks only aim at For because they challenge such a Priviledg themselves they fancy Us to do so too and that our design is not to overthrow a Judg 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 shews 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 Irreconcilable 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 leisure 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-Governours 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
its lawfulness Now this Fundamental Principle of our Churches Proceedings in these and the like Particulars concerning the power of the Church for Innovating from Ancient Customs not only by Adding new ones but Abrogating old ones might have been proved not only from the Principles but from several Practices of the Roman Church her self Q. 6. Why was Reformation done by Act of Parliament REformation may be considered two ways Either 1. As Preached and Imposed under pain of Spiritual Censures and of Exclusion from the Communion of the Church and a deprivation of all the Priviledges consequent to that Communion And this is certainly the Right of the Church and was accordingly practiced by the Church in our English Reformation 2. As Enacted as a Law of the Land and consequently as urged the same way as other Laws are under Temporal Penalties and External Coercion and encouraged by Temporal Advantages And this is undoubtedly the Right of the Secular Power And this was all in which the Secular Power did concern it self in the Reformation What I can further foresee in favour of our Adversaries is that 1. The Secular Power ought in Conscience to be herein advised by the Ecclesiasticks and 2. That though external obedience may be paid to the mistaken Decrees of the Secular Power following the mistaken part of the Ecclesiasticks yet the Obligation in Conscience and Right of such Decrees must be derived from the Justice of the Churches proceedings in advising the Magistrate so that no Act of the Magistrate can make amends for any Essential defect in the proceedings of the Church But the only Effect of the Magistrates concurrence in that Case is that what is already performed without Heresie or Schism in the Church may be by that means setled in such a particular Commonwealth without Schism or Sedition in the State. And therefore seeing they suppose that at the Reformation the greater number of the Bishops then being were overawed and deprived of the Liberty of their Votes by the Secular Magistrate and it is the nature of all Societies to be swayed by the greater Part therefore they may think it unreasonable to ascribe the Reformation to the Church of England but only to a Schismatical part of it so that the Magistrate having attempted this Reformation without warrant from the Church they think they do well to call our Reformation it self Parliamentary To this therefore I Reply 1. That the use we make of this Topick of the Magistrates concurrence is indeed no other than to clear our Reformation from being Seditious which is ordinarily charged on Us by our Adversaries and much more ordinarily on the Foreign Protestants 2. That for clearing the very proceedings of the Magistracy from being Heretical or Schismatical to the Conscience of the Magistracy it self it is sufficient that the Magistracy gave its Assistance and Protection to no other Church but such as at least according to the genuine Dictate of their Conscience was neither Heretical nor Schismatical But this Justification of the private Conscience of the Magistracy is I confess a thing we are at present not so necessarily concerned for and therefore 3. We grant farther that for satisfying our own Consciences of the Justice of these proceedings of the Magistracy it is requisite that we be satisfied that they were Advised by that part of the Clergy whose Advice we conceive they ought to have followed So that if this may appear in the Case we are speaking of this and this alone will be a sufficient Vindication of the Magistrates proceedings to the Consciences of his Subjects 4. Therefore the Determination of the Justice of the Advice followed by the Magistrate may be resolved two ways Either from the merit of the Cause or from the Legal Authority and Right the Persons may be presumed to have to be consulted on such occasions As for the former it is in the present Case the principal Dispute Whether the Reformation undertaken by the Magistrate was right or not and therefore very unfit to be relyed on as a Presumption to prove the Magistrates proceedings Irregular The later therefore only is proper to be insisted on here And it consists of two charges That by the Laws of the Land the Magistrate ought to have been advised by the Bishops then possessed of the several Sees and That in advising with the Clergy whoever they were he ought to have allowed them the Liberty of speaking their minds and to have been swayed by the greater part These things are conceived so necessary as that the Magistrate not observing them may be presumed to act as no way influenced by the Clergy Which is the Reason why they call our Reformation wherein they suppose them not observed Parliamentary 1. Therefore as to the Legal Right of the Popish Clergy to advise the Secular Magistrate two things may be Replied 1. That this Legal Right may be forfeited by the Persons by their Personal misdemeanors and of this forfeiture the Secular Magistrate himself is the proper Judg and that this was exactly the Popishs Bishops Case at that time 2. That the consideration of this Legal Right is of no use for satisfying the Consciences of their Subjects which yet is the only use that is seasonable for this occasion 2. As for the Canonical freedom to be allowed them in advising and the obligation of the Magistrate to follow the advice of the greater part These Canonical Rights can only satisfie the Consciences of their own Communion but cannot be pretended necessary to be observed where there are different Communions For 1. The Romanists themselves never allow that freedom to Persons out of their Communion as was plain in the Council of Trent and still appears on all occasions 2. Especially in particular National Churches as ours was they themselves will not deny that the greater part may prove Heretical and therefore likely to prevail by Plurality of Votes in which Case themselves would notwithstanding think it unequal for the Magistrate to be swayed by them 3. This has always been the Practice of the Church and the Catholick Emperors never to allow any Canonical Right to the Assemblies and Censures of Hereticks as Athanasius was restored first by Maximinus Bishop of Triers then by Pope Julius after that by Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem and at last by the Emperor Jovinian without any Canonical revocation of the Synods that had condemned him Many Instances of the like Nature might be given 4. The Popish Clergy had given the first Precedent of this Liberty themselves in refusing to admit of the Canonical Appeal of the Protestants from the Pope to a free General Council FINIS