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
Laicks than from skilful Persons who may in some cases be allowed the Liberty of their own Judgment even by the Principles of that Communion so that Persons in the Gentlewomans condition may by this means come to be Responsible not only for the dangerous Doctrines of their whole Church but also for the Personal Errors of their Priests and particular Confessors both as they are by the Principles of that Communion allowed to be the Authentical Proponents of the Doctrines of their Church to unlearned Persons who are not themselves qualified for judging concerning them as their Church is of the Doctrines of Christ to the Learned and as the same Rules of Prudence oblige them as strongly to trust their particular Priests for Opinions as they do their Church for Doctrines of Faith where they are still presumed as uncapable of judging themselves II. If by this possibility of Salvation mentioned in the Question be meant only a possibility of the EVENT notwithstanding the dangerousness of the condition of Persons of that Communion upon account of their being of it then the Resolution will depend on this How far Errors of their own nature damnative may not prove actually destructive to the Salvation of the particular Erroneous Person on account of the Ignorance and Vnvoluntariness with which the Person comes to be engaged in such Errors For on these accounts it may be conceived that the Errors may either not be imputed to her at all or be imputed in sollow a degree as to become pardonable by the general Stipulations and promises of the Gospel for the pardoning of Sins of Inadvertency and humane frailty which are supposed expiable by a general Care of fulfilling the conditions of the Evangelical Covenant together with a general implicite Repentance of Sins unknown as well as known Now of these two ways whereby an Error damnative of its own Nature may be hindred from proving actually damnative in the Event to the Erroneous Person it is only an Invincible Ignorance that is such as can be remedied by no means that are in the power of the Person who is supposed Erroneous that can hinder all Imputation of her Error to her and only such a degree of Vincible Ignorance can suffice for extenuating the Imputation so far as to render it pardonable in the way now mentioned that is very hardly avoidable by the Person considering the frailty to which her condition in this Life is obnoxious So that for judging concerning the Condition of Revolters which is the Gentlewomans case the Enquiry will be what degree of Ignorance they are capable of that may make their Errors Involuntary that is How far such as they are may be capable of being Ignorant of their Duty to adhere to ours as the true Communion And for discerning this these following Particulars would be fit to be considered 1. That we are all agreed Romanists as well as Protestants that all sorts of Persons Ignorant as well as Learned are obliged to adhere to the true Communion whatever that is in contradistinction to others at least under pain of losing the Ordinary means of Salvation and consequently that comfortable satisfaction of the security of their own condition which they who enjoy the Ordinary means of Salvation must needs be more capable of than they who are necessitated to repose their whole confidence in Gods Extraordinary Mercies 2. That all Persons being thus obliged by God to embrace the true Communion the Inducements to it must be supposed sufficient for the conviction of all and consequently suited to the capacities of all who are thus concerned to receive Conviction 3. Therefore the Reasons being thus supposed sufficient for the conviction of all there can be no pretence of Invincible Ignorance for any but such as are Ignorant of those Reasons which cannot be supposed to be the case of Revolters Hence it follows at least that if Revolters act rationally that is Enquire what it is they leave and why and accordingly follow their Convictions as they ought before their Change they cannot be supposed capable of Invincible Ignorance So that the only imaginable pretence for rendring their Error Invincible must be the supposed Invincibleness of those Prejudices which may hinder a well-meaning Person acting conscientiously from acting rationally Which must be either 1. Opinions conceived obligatory in Conscience hindring the Persons embracing them from Enquiry or following their own Convictions of which kind many instances may be produced which are favoured by the Casuists of the Roman Church Or 2. Precipitation in passing Sentence on a partial Evidence resolving on some particular advantage of one Cause without considering its disadvantages or the advantages of the contrary Cause which might possibly overweigh it if impartially considered Or 3. An undiscernible favour to one Cause more than another whereby we wish it rather true in regard of its greater compliance with some particular Interest or Affection which may be thought Innocent at least if not commendable which may the more likely prejudice a well-meaning Conscientious Person because it may indeed be Prudent in some Cases and it is not easie for a Person acted by it to discern when it is not But it is hard to conceive how any of these mistakes can be Invincible in Revolters Not the 1. for 1. There can be no reason to take up such Opinions so gratuitously which are so Prejudicial to all Reasoning in general 2. There can be no reason to take them for granted as first Principles without Enquiry by which means very absurd Propositions may be taken up by very rational Persons where it is known that many skilful and as far as can be judged Conscientious Persons do not only question but deny them 3. Revolters from us cannot as much as pretend any Prejudices of Education to excuse such mistakes seeing that among Us they find them utterly discountenanced And as they have thus neither Reason nor among Us Authority that may induce them to the belief of those Doctrines So neither 4. Can the Authority of our Adversaries be any probable inducement to perswade Revolters to the belief of these irrational Doctrines 1. Because the Romanists themselves are sensible of the absurdity of these Doctrines and their unserviceableness to their own Interests when they have to deal with Persons whom they desire to seduce so that they are not likely to recommend such Doctrines to such Persons as Credible on account of their own Authority For if they should offer to perswade such as they esteem Hereticks of the unlawfulness of intermedling in Religious Disputes or following their own Convictions in them it would be the means to make it impossible to Proselyte such to their own Party 2. If they should be so imprudent as to perswade them of the Truth of these Doctrines so prejudicial to their own interests in these Circumstances yet the Person tempted would need no other Argument to confute them than their attempts to Proselyte her at the same time
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
AN ANSWER TO Six Queries PROPOSED To a Gentlewoman of the Church of ENGLAND by an Emissary of the Church of ROME fitted to a Gentlewomans Capacity By HENRY DODWELL M. A. and sometimes Fellow of Trinity Colledge near DVBLIN LONDON Printed for Benj. Took MDCLXXXVIII A PREFACE IT is of no further concernment to acquaint the Publick with the occasion of penning these Papers than as the occasion might have an influence on the Design and as it may be very useful to inform the Reader of the Design that he may the better know what to expect in the Performance He may therefore be pleased to understand that the following Queries were tendred to a Gentlewoman of the Communion of the Church of England by a Romanist who had a design of seducing her and that they were answered by another hand but on such Principles or in such a way of management as that it did not give her the desired satisfaction This gave occasion to some that were concerned for her to shew the Paper to some others in order to the inviting them to undertake it in a way that might be likely to prove more successful By this means of Communication it came at length to my hands from a Person who first desired my Opinion concerning it and then with some earnestness importuned me to commit my thoughts to writing Pursuant therefore to this occasion my Design was in the first place to shew from sound Principles that the Church of England is able to defend her Reformation from the Errors of the Romanists and to clear her self as far as She is charged with that Breach of Communion which followed thereupon without giving any advantage to the Non-Conformists to justifie either their first Separation from Vs or their Eternal Subdivisions from one another Nor was I willing to engage a Person in the Gentlewomans condition in any Controversies that might be spared without Injury to the merit of the Cause or to debate even such as could not so be spared by such Arguments as might exceed her opportunities of Enquiring or her capacity of Judging so as to oblige her to depend on the conduct of others more Inquisitive and Judicious But I have either waved Authorities where I could debate the Case by Arguments less liable to Dispute and better suited to the understanding of a Gentlewoman or where I have been necessitated to insist on them I have endeavoured to make out their Credibility by such Presumptions as are easie to be understood and samiliar in parallel Cases and generally granted as most Prudent whenever unskilful Persons find themselves obliged to acquiesce in the conduct of Persons more skilful and judicious than themselves And I have purposely avoided all Citations of Authors even where necessary but such as were to be had even in English and therefore might be consulted by the Gentlewoman her self I confess those other Reasonings fit for Scholars as they are more subtle so they are withal more solid and conclusive But withal I consider 1. That those things wherein Scholars have the advantage of unlearned Persons are principally such wherein Reading is absolutely necessary for their Historical conveyance to us It is certainly impossible for any to know what Doctrines were maintained in the Apostles times and consequently what Doctrines are true where they are supposed capable of no other Evidence of their being true but because they were so maintained without insight into the several Histories and Authors of the intermediate Ages through which they are to be deduced But for other things whose evidence of their being true does not depend on such a conveyance the Reason of the thing is a sufficient Evidence and of this every equally rational Person how little soever he be conversant in Authors is an equally competent Judge And of this kind are many of the things here mentioned on which the stress of the cause depends The prudent Reader will easily discern which they are without my instancing And 2. even in those things which depend on Positive Revelation and wherein the only means of our Assurance of them is Historical Tradition though it be indeed true that Persons of little Reading cannot so competently assure themselves of the Writings and Opinions of former Ages without the assistance of others more conversant in those Studies Yet since it is not the way of Prudent rational Persons therefore to conclude a thing to have been revealed by the Apostles because such Authors tell us that it was so much less because such Authors maintained it as their own Opinion but first to assure themselves of such things on which the Credibility of such Authors in such matters may be made clear to us and then of those Expressions from whence they conclude such Authors to have given Testimony to such a thing as an Apostolical Tradition It is plain that the Judgment of these things depends wholly on the Reason of the things themselves And therefore where Learned Men are agreed as to their accounts of the Authors and their Expressions and where the only remaining Dispute is Whether such undoubted Works of such Authors be competent for the conveyance of a Tradition and whether such Expressions considered in all their Circumstances come home to the Controversies at present debated these are things whereof common Prudence and a cultivated natural Judgment may as well qualifie Men to pass a Censure as the greatest Reading imaginable And this seems to me the best way in affairs of this nature to wave such things as were disputed among Learned Men concerning their Historical Informations and only to found my reasonings on their unanimous Concessions And most of the Controversies betwixt Us and the Romanists are of that nature as to be capable of this way of management Now this way of not intermedling in the Disputes of Learned men but only proceeding on their unquestioned Concessions is as most solid and satisfactory to the most accurate Learned men themselves so most prudent and easie for those who are unlearned And 3. even as to those other things wherein I have indeed proceeded on popular Presumptions yet considering that these are the only Reasons which God has fitted to the capacities of the greatest part of Mankind and that God is in his Goodness concerned to give them Reasons sufficient for their direction and that the Nature of the Things themselves is of importance to his Government and that it is therefore requisite that their directions be such as may not only excuse their mistakes but secure them of the Truth it self 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 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
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 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 agreeable 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 disrepute of being supposed to revive an anciently-condemned Heresie 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 acknowledg 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 Christendom 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 otherwise 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 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
them here where they are disserviceable to their Interests But farther 4. Abuses in Governours acknowledging themselves Fallible tho 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 may in time be better informed and may then themselves reform what is amiss without the compulsion of their Subjects which can never be expected from such as pretend to be Infallible 5. If Abuses of this Nature be conceived a sufficient Reason for leaving a Communion wherein we are already much more are they sufficient for hindring our access to another wherein as yet we are not So that this same Reason if it should make her desert the Communion of the Church of England would also hinder her joyning in that of Rome in which the most Judicious and Candid Persons of that Communion will acknowledg Abuses of the like nature 2. As far as these Omissions are countenanceed by our Church there is reason for it I say as far as they are countenanced by our Church and therefore the reason I shall give for such Omissions shall be as they are considered under that Notion 1. Therefore for Fasting Days I think they are imposed with the same design of Religion in our Church as in that of Rome for that account of Jejunium Ceoilianum which is given by some is not taken for the true sense of our Church by her most genuine Sons and that our Church is conceived to have as much Authority to oblige her Subjects in Impositions of that Nature so that I cannot look on this disuse prevailing in Practice as countenanced by our Church If the Gentlewoman be so zealously concerned for them I am sure She may Practice them in our Communion as well as in that of Rome as several others do 2. Confession even to a Priest in order to his Advice and Absolution our Church I think owns as much as that of Rome though we do not make it a Sacrament nor make it absolutely necessary in an ordinaey way for the remission of every particular Sin that it be particularly confessed That the Practice of it is at present discontinued our Church I think is not the Cause That She has not interposed her Authority to continue it might have been excused 1. Because the thing is only of Ecclesiastical Right For the ancientest obligation to confess Sins tho scandalous in their own nature yet not become notorious tho that differed much from the Confession which is now used in the Roman Church was first introduced after the Persecution by Decius and that in opposition to the Novatians as Socrates affirms and this was also afterwards taken away by Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople who ordered every one to be left to his own Conscience in that matter for which other Bishops were so far from censuring him that they followed him in it almost in all places as the same Historian tells us and that omission was vehemently pleaded for by St. Chrysostom and obtained for no small time in the Greek Church whatsoever it did in other places Whence it follows that She has power in discretion to determine concernining its actual practice what She thinks fit 2. Farther this being supposed that it was in our Churches power not to Impose it that She did act prudently in not Imposing it but rather recommending it to the Liberty of private Devotions will appear if it be considered that if She had imposed it She must necessarily have excluded all such from her Communion as had not been satisfied with it and it had not been Prudent to have excluded Persons from her Communion for Indifferent things avoidable by her when She was complaining of the like Tyranny in the Church of Rome especially considering that it was also likely that the number was great of those who were so dissatisfied with it However if the Gentlewoman be desirous to Practice it for her own Edification I believe She may be furnished with Persons fitted for it in the Church of England 3. As for the use of Holy Oyl in any of the pretended Sacraments we do not so far condemn it as to refuse Communion with other Churches that use it nay we our Selves retain it as a decent Ceremony of Consecration in the Coronations of our Princes Only we again conceive it 1. A matter indifferent in it self and not Essential to those Offices because of the differences in the Church concerning it 2. This being supposed our Church does no way conceive it Prudent to continue it both because it was the design of the Reformation to reduce the Sacraments to their Primitive Simplicity that so Persons might Communicate in them on the same free terms as then and because the Errors of those who made them Essential to the Mysteries were of great Consequence and very fit to be so discountenanced by a discontinuance of the Practice it self If by the Holy Oyl here mentioned he meant particularly their Sacrament of Extreme Vnction 1. Our Adversaries cannot prove a Sacramental Vnction for the first Centuries A Miraculous one they may but seeing themselves confess the ordinary Use of the Miracle to have ceased there is no necessary reason obliging our Church to continue the external Ceremony This is at least sufficient to shew that it is in the Churches power to continue it or not Which being supposed I add 2. That even in regard of the benefit expected by it whether of Bodily recovery or remission of sins or Spiritual strength against the Agony of Death the Gentlewoman nor any other Subject of our Church can suffer no loss by our Church's discontinuance of it For all these things are as certainly attainable by the means continued in our Church from Unquestionable Apostolical Tradition as the Prayers and Absolution of the Priest and the Blessed Sacrament as they could by the Vnction it self so that I cannot perceive how a devout Person need to be concerned for the want of it on the terms now mentioned Especially considering 3. That in the way it is Administred among them to Persons past hopes of recovery and usually past sense of their own condition it cannot be conceived in any rational way capable of Edifying the Devotion of the Person concerned and no other way is suitable to the Dispensation of the Gospel And supposing it no Sacrament there is no reason imaginable why the Prayers of the Assistants for such a Person may not be as acceptable to God without the observation of this external Ceremony as with it And as upon these concessions its Continuance must needs appear unnecessary so 4. It would be inexpedient to countenance the Errors consequent to the Opinion of its being a Sacrament which are of so weighty a concernment by continuance of a Custom which may so easily be spared These things may suffice at present for satisfying the Gentlewoman of her little concernment for it without engaging on the Dispute concerning