Trinity Colledge near DVBLIN LONDON Printed for Benj. Tooke and are to be sold at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard 1676. THE CONTENTS Q. 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 39 Q. 3. Where was the Church of England before Luther's time 48 Q. 4. Why all the Reformed Churches are not United in One 81 Q. 5. Why the Church of England doth not hold up to Confession Fasting-days Holy Oyl which we our Selves commend 94 Q. 6. Why was Reformation done by Act of Parliament 110 ERRATA P. 34 l. 13 before vet add may p. 42. l 13. after office add of p. 58. l. 10. even for when p. 92 l. 2. shews p. 115. l. 8. for its r. his 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 a-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 familiar 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 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
it were impartially Enquired into there would not be greater and better attested Miracles for Invocation of Saints among the Romanists than for the Invocation of Daemons among the Pagans 4. That the same Arguments used by the Scriptures and Primitive Christians against the Heathen Idolatries are applyed by the Protestants to the Image-worship among the Papists now and the same Answers given by the Papists now were then also insisted on by the Pagans 5. That as these are very shrew'd Suspicions of the dangerousness of this Worship so this danger is ventured on without the least necessity there being undeniable Security from the Primitive Records and Revelations of Christianity that God is pleased to accept such Prayers as are addressed to him through the Intercession of Christ alone so that there can be no necessity of having also recourse unto the Saints 6. That Image-worship is not countenanced by as much as any Venerable Authority of truly Primitive Christianity and that the Second Nicaene Council that introduced it was put to very disingenuous Shifts of counterfeit Authorities for it 7. That whatever may be thought of the Worship designed by the Roman Church yet even Mr. Thorndike himself with whose Authority our Adversaries principally urge us in this Dispute does not deny that Idolatry is practiced by the Ignoranter Persons of that Communion which the Gentlewoman may justly fear lest it should prove her own Case 8. That the Roman Church her self cannot be altogether excused from the Idolatry of her Ignorant Communicants seeing she puts unnecessary Scandals in Ignorant Persons way and is guilty of encouraging their Ignorance and Carelessness of Judging in matters of Religion 9. That the Practice of that Communion is generaâ—ly worse and grosser than their Principles as the Gentlewoman may inform her self of in that impartial account which is given of them by Sir Edwyn Sandys in his Speculum Europae which yet is observed and countenanced by their most Eminent Guides so that such as She cannot secure themselves from the danger of it 10. That the Romish Church is by so much the more culpable in this Particular because She has not been content only to countenance and encourage a Practice in so great danger of proving Idolatrous so needless in it self so destitute of all Authority either of Scripture or the Primitive Catholick Church which yet does so extremely stand in need of Authority but She has also imposed it as a Condition of her own Communion which She calls Catholick so that they who are willing to Believe and Practice all that was Believed and Practised in the Primitive Church must now be Anathematized and condemned for Hereticks for refusing to Believe or Practice any more or to condemn those as Hereticks who do refuse it Q. 3. Where was the Church of England before Luthers time THE design of asking this Question is certainly to make our Confession of Novelty in such Cases wherein our Adversaries presume our Novelty so notorious as that we our Selves cannot deny it an Argument against Us yet they themselves are concerned in some Cases to deny its cogency For even they cannot deny that the deprivation of the Laity of the use of the Cup for Example has been lately introduced into their Church by a publick Law If therefore it may appear that our Church is Antient as to all intents and purposes wherein Antiquity may be available but that the Church of Rome is not so and that in the sense wherein the Church of England has begun since Luther there is no reason to expect that She should have been Antienter and that the Justice of her Cause does not require it and that the Antiquity upon these Suppositions confessedly allowed to the Church of Rome is no Argument for the Justice of her Cause these things I think will contain a fully satisfactory Answer to the Gentlewomans Question I shall not at present engage on an accurate Discussion of these Heads but shall only suggest such short Observations as may let her see how unreasonable our Adversaries confidence is in this Argument wherein they do so usually triumph Therefore 1. Antiquity is indeed necessary to be pleaded for Doctrines such especially as are pretended to belong to the Catholick Faith and which are urged as Conditions of Communion This is the Case wherein it is urged by Tertullian and Vincentius Lirinensis in their very rational Discourses on this Argument And for this I think we may challenge the Church of Rome her self to instance in one positive Doctrine imposed by us which She her self thinks not Ancient I am sure the Controversie is so stated commonly that we are blamed not for Believing any thing antient or necessary which is not but for not believing some things which She believes to be so And if She her self believe all our Positives and withal believes that nothing is so to be believed but what is Antient it will clearly follow that She cannot in consistency with her own interests deny the Antiquity of our Positive Doctrines But for the other Doctrines superadded by them and denied by us which are indeed the true occasion of the present Divisions of Communion we charge them with Innovation and are very confident that they will never be able to prove them to the satisfaction of any Impartial Person either from clear Scripture or from genuine Antiquity of the first and purest Ages which are the way wherein we are willing to undertake the proof of our positive Doctrines Nay their greatest Champions decline the tryal and complain of the defectiveness and obscurity of the Primitive Christian Writers which they would not have reason to do if they thought them clear on their side These things therefore being thus supposed That no Doctrines ought to be imposed but what are Ancient That ours are so by our Adversaries own Confession and that our Adversaries Doctrines are not so and that in Judging this the private Judgments of particular Persons are to be trusted as the measures of their own private Practice as it is plain that those Discourses of Tertullian and Vincentius Lirinensis are principally designed for the satisfaction of particular Persons which had been impertinent if the Churches Judgment had been thought Credible in her own Case as a Judge of Controversies besides that even now this Argument from Antiquity is made use of for convincing such as are supposed unsatisfied with her Authority and therefore to whom that Authority can be no Argument which Liberty of private Judgment is then especially most fit to be indulged when the distance is so remote as it is now when no Church has now those Advantages for conveying down Apostolical Tradition in a Historical way as She had then These things I say being thus supposed it will follow that we are wrongfully Excommunicated and therefore that we have no reason to fear that their Censures should be confirmed by God And though I confess every Error in the Cause of the Churches Censures will
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 acknowledge Abuses of the like nature 2. As far as these Omissions are countenanced 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 Cecilianum 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 ordinary 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 though scandalous in their own nature yet not become notorious though 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 awav 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. Chrysostome 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 concerning 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 frâ—â— 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 ComCommunicate 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 be meant particularly their Sacrament of Extreme Unction â— Our Adversaries cannot prove a Sacramental Unction 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 Unction 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 engageing on the Dispute concerning 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 Customes 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
Liber cui Titulus Two Discourses against the Romanists c. Authore H. Dodwell IMPRIMATUR Geo. Hooper R mo D n◠Archiepiscopo Cantuar. à Sacris Domest Junui 8. 1676. TWO SHORT DISCOURSES Against the ROMANISTS 1. An Account of the Fundamental Principle of Popery and of the insufficiency of the Proofs which they have for it 2. An Answer to Six Queries proposed to a Gentlewoman of the Church of England by an Emissary of the Church of Rome By HENRY DODWELL M. A. and sometimes Fellow of Trinity Colledge near DVBLIN LONDON Printed for Benj Tooke and are to be sold at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard 1676. AN ACCOUNT OF THE Fundamental Principle OF POPERY As it is a Distinct Communion AND Of the insufficiency of the Proofs which they have for it WITH A PREFACE concerning the Vsefulness of this Undertaking By HENRY DODWELL LONDON Printed for Benjamin Tooke 1676. A PREFACE Concerning the USEFULNESS Of the following HYPOTHESIS § 1. THough I cannot undertake for what is mine in the management of the following Discourse yet as to the design for which I am wholly beholden to the Goodness of my Cause and the intrinsick reasonableness of the Evidences which prove it good I think I may without Immodesty affirm that if it hold it must be of universal use with them of the Roman Communion use I § 2. For 1. it must be of great use for the Laity and the Vulgar who either have not the Abilities or cannot spare the time which would be requisite for Enquiring into the particular Disputes to have the Controversies reduced into a narrow compass And especially if these few things to which they are reduced may suffice for securing the Duty incumbent on such Persons as well as if the Enquiry had been more minute and when withal the Evidence on which their Resolution depends is suited to the capacity of that sort of persons Now all these things are provided for by the following Hypothesis § 3. All the Disputes between us are reduced to this one of the Popes Supremacy over the Catholick Church diffusive As for our Differences in Other Particulars it is here proved that if we be not mistaken in This themselves either cannot charge us with Errour or not with any Errour of that consequence as may excuse them either for Separating from our Communion or for that rigorous Imposing their own Opinions which are contrary to it § 4. And this does indeed effectually secure the Duty of Ordinary Laicks in this whole affair For the Obligation incumbent at least on such Persons who are not by their particular Calling obliged to Enquire can only be to know so much as may secure their Christian Practice and that is sufficiently secured by due adhering to that Communion where they may reasonably expect the performance of those Divine Promises which are conveyed in the use of the Sacraments and the other Ordinary Means of Grace so that the main concernment of such Persons is this to know where such a Communion is to be had Now the solving of this Question appears from the Principles here laid down sufficient to decide the whole Dispute concerning the true Communion If it should prove true that the Pope has this Authority over the Catholick Church diffusive it would follow that his particular Church must be the Catholick Church virtual and so must have a Title to all those Promises made to the Catholick Church in the Scriptures thus much at least will follow even according to their Hypothesis who do not pretend that these Promises reach so high as Infallibility and therefore that they were obliged to submit to Active Obedience to all Lawful Impositions and Passive even in Unlawful ones so that in all Cases it would be Unlawful to joyn with any other Communion in opposition to it And on the other side if it prove false it will plainly follow that it is unlawful either for those who are already in that Communion to continue in it seeing they cannot continue in it without being accessary to the Divisions of Christendom by abetting a Tyrannical Power over it or for others to desert their own Communion to come to the Roman which cannot on those Principles be done with any such pretence of Necessity as may excuse their Separation from being Schismatical § 5. The Evidence also into which this Dispute is ultimately resolved must needs be such as must be suitable to the meanest capacity that is capable of acting prudently in this great affair and certainly every one is in Interest as well as Duty obliged to make use of his utmost Prudence in a matter wherein his greatest Interests are so nearly concerned For the meanest Prudence that is will require that where they cannot choose their way there at least they should choose their Guide And it is only the Authority of the Pope as a Principle of Unity and of the Church adhering to him as a Guide in Controversies of which this Hypothesis allows them a Liberty to judge in order to their own private satisfaction And as the matter is such concerning which the meanest Prudence that can deserve the name of Prudence is obliged to judge so the Evidence is such as every one must be capable of judging who is capable of being Prudently and Rationally a Christian. For the very Truth of Christianity it self in reference to us in this Age must be proved by Historical Testimonies of the Miracles by which it was attested from the beginning and the Canon of the Scripture must be proved by the Testimonies of those by whom the Scriptures were delivered And it is the same Historical Testimony whether of express Scripture or of express Tradition to which they are here referred for the proof of this Supremacy of the Pope and the Subject concerning which this Testimony was to be given could not but have had so general an influence on their Practice if they had acknowledged any dependence on this Supremacy as that it must have been as notorious to them who gave it as those Miracles or that Canon and therefore their Testimony must have been as Credible in one Case as in the other § 6. Besides that the Negative Argument which I here make use of is much less Questionable than the Affirmative That is there is much more reason to doubt of a pretended Tradition if it be not expresly mentioned in the Primitive Authors and doubting is sufficient for my purpose to overthrow the Credit of that which pretends to be an Article of Faith than to believe a thing to have descended from the Apostles because those Authors pretend it did so For in their Affirmations they many times deliver what they think on their own Conjectural Reasonings wherein they are as Fallible as others But what they have not mentioned if it be not allowed to conclude that they knew it not and that therefore there was then no Historical Evidence for it seeing that could not have escaped their knowledge
my purpose and convince the Laick who trusts them of the insecurity of their whole Communion For he must thus be obliged to grant both the Premisses of the Argument by which I have here proved it unsecure The Major is this Infallibility as appropriated to the Roman Communion by their Title to their being virtually Catholick that is by their adhering to the Papacy as a Principle of Catholick Unity in the sense above explained is the Fundamental Principle of that whole Communion as distinct from others This he must believe on the Authority of the Popes themselves who have declared for it and of the Jesuites and the rest of the high Papalins The Minor this But this Authority of the Papacy on which the Title of that whole Communion to Infallibility is grounded is false and improbable This he must also for the same reason believe on the Authority of all those who defend the Supremacy of General Councils or of the diffusive Catholick Church So that in this way of judging by Authorities which is agreeable to the Genius and Principles and Arguments of that Church against us in other like Cases the Laity at least must be obliged to distrust their whole Communion as Fundamentally grounded on an unwarrantable Principle But of these and other like matters perhaps a larger account may be given on future occasions A positive ACCOUNT OF THE Fundamental Controversie On which Depend all other Disputes betwixt the Romanists and the other Communions of Christendom with a short discovery of the little evidence they have on the Roman side in this Controversie BY the Fundamental Controversie I mean that on which the particular Controversies do depend and wherein what is maintained by the Ch. of Rome does so nearly concern her that the whole subsistence as a distinct Communion must adaequately depend on the Truth or Falshood of it And her Assertion herein is that Fundamental Principle the confutation of which is alone sufficient for convicting her of the guilt of that Separation of Communion which has been caused by her unwarrantable Impositions in the particular Disputes and for excusing all others who have permitted themselves to be excluded from her Communion rather than they would profess the belief of Errors which was required as a Condition of their Communion So that the Confutation of this Fundamental Principle does virtually and consequentially contain a resolution of all other particular Controversies debated between us For finding out this Fundamental Principle I suppose 1. That the first Formal Separation I will not yet say Schism for that implies a fault in it which is to appear from what follows was made by the Romanists at least as to us in England with whom they communicated in the same Publick Offices till they separated themselves upon the prohibition of Pius V. 2. That this Formal Separation without sufficient positive grounds for it though there were no sufficient convictive grounds to the contrary is the Sin of Formal Schism which is as properly incurred if the Separation be unnecessary as if it be unreasonable if it be without as if it be against reason 3. This being supposed for our Justification who were on y passive in the Separation it is not requisite that we confute their pretences but it is abundantly sufficient that the proofs produced by them are not directly conclusive to their purpose 4. This purely-negative way of proceeding that they want sufficient ground to justifie their Practice being alone sufficient for our purgation the proof that the grounds of their separating from us were sufficient which is their positive Assertion will be incumbent on our Adversaries and we cannot be obliged to disprove them 5. This obligation to Prove is incumbent on them not only as they are the first Separaters which may only concern us of the English Communion but also as the Imposers of their own Sentiments on others as Conditions of Catholick Communion Which will also relate to forreign Protestants who were driven from their Communion being not suffered to continue in it but on such Conditions 6. Our Adversaries being thus obliged to give a Positive account of their own proceedings they have no way to justifie themselves but by vindicating that on which themselves lay the stress of their Separation so that if they fail here no other proof will be sufficient for proving the necessity of it which was noted to be meant by the Fundamental Principle Here therefore two things will be necessary to be shewn 1. what this is on which they lay this stress 2. that it is no way justifiable For the First it is clear 1. That the particular Propositions debated betwixt us are not by themselves thought necessary to our Salvation necessitate medii so as that our Ignorance or disbelief of them should deprive us of some necessary Truth without which we cannot be saved For they themselves excuse such as did disbelieve them as we do before the definition of their Church 2. That even supposing we were erroneous in things not thus necessary yet this were not sufficient to justifie their Separation or Imposition on intrinsick accounts that is an Error of so small importance as to the value of the thing could not in that regard of its intrinsick value excuse either their Separation from us because we hold it or their so rigorous Imposition of their own sentiments on us concerning it 3. That as there is no Intrinsick Necessity of the Truth of the Propositions for our Salvation so neither 1. is there that Extrinsick Evidence of their being revealed by the Apostles that must necessarily argue in him that should deny them an Irreverence and Obstinacy against the Divine Veracity on which their Credibility depends This also appears from their excusing the Errors of the Antients who if they had had such Evidence in their times could not have been inculpably Erroneous Which they take up from what S. Augustine had said to that purpose in his Disputes with the Donatists concerning the Case of St. Cyprian whom he therefore makes more excusable in the same Error of Rebaptizing Hereticks than the Donatists because he lived before but they after the Nicene decision of that whole Dispute Nor 2. do themselves pretend that any Error which may not be presumed obstinately persisted in is sufficient to justifie a Separation from the Communion of Persons so Erroneous 4. Hence it follows that seeing neither the Intrinsick Necessity of the Propositions themselves nor their Extrinsick Evidence Antecedently to the definition of the Church are on their own Principles sufficient to justifie the Severity of their proceedings against us The only thing they have more to alledge for it must be our Disobedience in disbelieving those Propositions notwithstanding the Authority which their Church has given them by her Definition 5. That the Obedience required to these Propositions is not only not to make Parties and Divisions in the Church against them such as our Church is generally thought
it to that Multitude of Christians who are united under a visible Monarchical Head as a Principle of their Unity to which Jure Divino all are bound to be obedient 24. This Monarchical Head to which they pretend a nearer interest than others is the Papacy The Summary Seeing therefore that nothing else can excuse their new Impositions but the Authority by which they are Imposed And Seeing that no Authority can be sufficient for their purpose to oblige their Subjects internally to believe what is neither Necessary as to its matter nor Evident as to its proof Antecedently to the Definition of such an Authority but one that must be Infallible Seeing that they who do not in terms pretend the Popes Infallibility necessary and they who do so already own what I would prove that all must own according to their Principles can make no Plea to Infallibility but from those Promises of the Spirit which themselves confess to have been primarily made to the Catholick Church and therefore though an Infallibility even in Judgment were granted to belong to the Catholick Church yet that can signifie nothing to our Adversaries purpose till they can prove themselves to be that Catholick Church to which alone those Promises confessedly belong Seeing evidently they are not the Catholick Church diffusive and can therefore only pretend to the Title of their being the Catholick Church virtual Seeing this Notion of the Catholick Church Virtual must necessarily imply such a Principle of Unity to which all the Catholick Church diffusive is obliged to adhere as to a certain Standard of their Catholicism and this Principle of Unity to which they can lay claim above other Christian Societies is only the Papacy and the Papacy as a Principle of Unity must be a Principle not of Order only but of Influence and that independently on the Judgment of the Catholick Church diffusive All these things being considered together It will plainly follow that if this influential independent power of the Papacy cannot be proved all their pretences to Infallibility or even to any Authority for deciding these Controversies between us must fall to the ground and consequently all their particular Decisions depending on them will neither be valid in Law nor obliging in Conscience which will leave their Separation and Impositions destitute of any pretence that may excuse them from being Schismatical This is therefore the Fundamental Principle on which all their Authority in defining all other particular Doctrines must originally depend And to shew that this Principle is insufficiently proved will alone be enough to invalidate all their other Definitions Secondly Therefore to shew the insufficiency of their proof of it This Proof must either be α from Tradition And for this it is observable that I. This Notion of the Catholick Church Virtual if it had been True must have been originally delivered by the unanimous consent of the Catholick Church diffusive We cannot judge otherwise unless we suppose a great defect either of the Apostles in not teaching or of the Church in not preserving the memorial of such a Fundamental Principle of their Unity II. This Topick of Tradition delivered down by the Catholick Church diffusive is the only proper one for the Church who pretends to this Authority to prove it by And till it be proved and proved to the judgment of particular Subjects there is no reason that She should expect that they should think themselves obliged in Conscience to submit to her Authority For Authority can be no rational Motive to them to distrust their own Judgments till it self be first proved and acknowledged And therefore if it do not appear and appear to us from this Topick we can have no reason to believe it III. This Notion of the Catholick Church Virtual does not appear to have been ever delivered as the sense of the Catholick Church diffusive 1. Not of that Catholick Church diffusive which was extant in the beginning of the Reformation For then 1. The Greeks and most of the Eastern Christians professedly oppose it 2. Many of the Western Christians themselves especially of the French and Germans did not believe it 3. The Western Church it self Representative in four by them reputed General Councils of Pisa Constance Siena and Basile did not own the Popes Supremacy as a Principle of Catholick Unity but expresly by their Canons declared themselves to be his Superiors and treated him as being wholly subject to their Authority This was not long before the Reformation and what they did had not then been repealed by any Authority comparable to theirs 2. Not of the Catholick diffusive Church in antienter times 1. Not of the Greeks ever since their Schism as the Latines call it under Photius 2. Before that time even whilst they were united with the Latines the Popes Supremacy was disowned by them in that famous 28. Canon of Chalcedon which equalled the Bishop of Constantinople with him of Rome and owned only an Ecclesiastical Right in both of them for the dignity of their Cities which as I have already warned will not suffice for our Adversaries purpose that I may not now mention the Canon of Constantinople so expounded by the Fathers of Chalcedon in place and maintained by the Greek Emperors It was also disowned by the Council of Antioch against Julius Disowned by the African Fathers by whom the only Plea the Popes had from the Council of Nice was found to be a forgery 3. Not of the Catholick diffusive Church in those Primitive times while the Christians lived under Heathen Emperours For 1. The Romanists themselves are unwilling to be tryed by them unless we will allow them to quote from the Decretal Epistles c. which Learned Men among themselves do confess to be suspicious or manifest Forgeries 2. Aeneas Sylvius who was afterwards Pope Pius II. acknowledged that before the Council of Nice little respect was had to the Bishop of Rome above others 3. It appears by the freedom wherewith Pope Stephen was resisted by St. Cyprian and Pope Victor by the Asiatick Bishops and by St. Irenaeus And 4. By the Canon of Carthage under St. Cyprian which declared that no Bishop was subject to another but that every one was Supreme in his own charge under God not now to mention other passages in him to the same 5. By the weakness of the Testimonies alledged to this purpose the Presidency in the Region of the Romans in Ignatius the powerful Principality in St. Irenaeus the Pontificatus Maximus Ironically derided by Tertullian and the one Bishop and one See in St. Cyprian c. β For the Scriptures themselves do not seem very confident of them without the Expositions of the Fathers 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
their direction be such as may not only excuse their mistakes but secure them of the Truth itself I say these things being considered there will be reason to believe that however fallible such general Presumptions may be in their own nature yet that God in his Goodness has so ordered the matter in affairs of this nature as that those who are guided by these Presumptions may by the use of them be secured of the Truth it self in these particulars As for the Method observed in this Discourse it is such as I conceived most clear and comprehensive in few words and yet withal most accurate and satisfactory to a doubting Person For any one may be much more secure of a Consequence when he is first secured of all its Principles and he can much better judge of them when he has an intire prospect of them in the natural order wherein they lye and wherein they are necessary for the deduction of such a Consequence Yet I have neither deduced my Principles too remotely but as near as I could find them clear and indisputable nor have insisted on the proof of those that were clear any further than I conceived it necessary to do so from the actual Disputes concerning the Consequence And I have been careful rather to prove than to confute which I conceived to be a course as less Invidious to Adversaries who should find themselves no further concerned than as the consequences of positive Truths might make them concern'd so also more satisfactory to a Person in the Gentlewomans condition And in the whole I am so little conscious of any design of displeasing any to whom Truth it self might not prove displeasing as that if any Adversary shall think it worth his time to Answer what I have said I am not my self affraid of provocation from any thing which he can say in following my Precedent AN ANSWER TO Six Queries c. Q. 1 Whether any one going from the Church of England and dying a Roman Catholick can be saved I. IF by the words can be saved be meant a possibility in regard of the means we then deny it For we hold that such Errors are maintained in that Communion as are in their own nature destructive of Salvation Such are 1. The Doctrines even of their Church which oblige them to do mischief as those concerning the Popes Supremacy over Princes in Temporals and concerning their Duty of prosecuting Hereticks The loosness of their Casuistical Divinity countenanced by such Authorities of Casuists as must needs influence such Persons as act conformably to the Principles of that Communion and their generally allowing a greater Liberty to such persons as are desirous to reconcile their Vices with their hopes of Eternity by their licentious applications of those two Distinctions of Precepts and Counsels and of Mortal and Venial Sins whereby they make most Duties Counsels and most Sins only Venial Which danger is the more considerable to an Ignorant Person who for want of skill of her own must in Prudence and by the Principles of that Communion be obliged to trust such un-secure Guides 2. Not to mention the ill influence of several of their Doctrines on the Lives of such as own them the very imposing them as matters of Faith the Excommunicating and Anathematizing all that deny them the condemning Dissenters as guilty of Heresy and Schism at least what they call Material the inserting several of their controverted Doctrines into their Liturgies so that they who cannot believe them cannot veraciously joyn with them in their Devotions are Innovations from the liberty allowed in the Primitive Church wherein many whom all own for excellent Persons and good Catholicks never owned nay some of them doubted of or contradied such Conditions of Communion in sum their unreasonable grounds of dividing Catholick Communion and their Uncharitableness to Dissenters are Errors dangerous to the Salvation of the Person owning and abetting them For all will own even the Romanists themselves that the Crime of breaking Catholick Communion where it is justly imputed is destructive of Salvation 3. Several Abuses of that Church I say of the Church not only of particular Persons in it are so gross as that several of the most eminent and candid men of their own Communion have owned them for such such as Prayer in an unknown Tongue denying the Chalice to the Laity Fabulous Saints and Stories still continued in the best approved Ecclesiastical Offices Martyrs canonized for bad Causes conducing to the greatness of the Roman See as Beckes for Example Yet by the Principles of that Communion pretending to Infallibility it is impossible that any Abuse in defence of which their Church is engaged as She is here should ever be reformed because it is impossible that a Church so pretending to be Infallible should ever grant any such thing to be an Abuse And many more Abuses are by the moderate Persons of their Communion owned in the Court of Rome which yet by the power allowed to the Court over their Church by the general consent of the Church it self cannot possibly be reformed Seeing therefore that the Church of Rome does thus oppose all possible Reformation of Abuses of this nature and seeing that whilst these Abuses are not reformed many of them may justifie a Separation and most of them may do it when all hopes of Reformation are professedly opposed Catholick Peace on such terms as may not only lawfully but commendably be yielded will be impossible And the abetting of such a Party as makes Catholick Peace on just terms impossible must needs be an Error destructive of Salvation This is a mischief unavoidably consequent to mistakes in a Society pretending to be Infallible As these Errors are thus of their own nature destructive of Salvation so going over to that Communion from another does naturally involve the Person doing so in the actual guilt of the Errors themselves 1. Because Communicating according to all does involve the Persons Communicating in the guilt of such Errors at least as are imposed as conditions of the Communion as these are in the Church of Rome This needs not to be proved against the Romanists who insist on it against Us as much as We do against them 2. This must especially hold in such as revolt from our Church to theirs both because such an embracing of their Communion is more an Argument of choice and designed preference in such as leave others to come to it than in such as are born in it and consequently must signifie a more express approbation of the terms of it and because more explicite recantations of our Doctrines are required even from Laick Revolters than from such as are born in it 3. Because the Resignation of Judgment is expected more intire from Women and Laicks than from skilful Persons who may in some Cases be allowed the liberty of their own Judgments even by the Principles of that Communion so that Persons in the Gentlewomans condition may
not excuse the Censured Person for continuing out of her Communion when the Communion may be recovered by any Submission how inconvenient and harsh soever if it be not sinful yet that is the very Case here that we are not only wrongfully Excommunicated but the terms proposed for our restitution to Communion would be directly sinful as has been shewn before Whence it will follow that we are excusable not only in suffering our Selves to be cast out of their Communion but also in continuing out of it But because this is not our whole Case who do not only abstein from their Communion but set up a Communion of our own and maintain an Ecclesiastical Body Politick distinct from theirs our defence herein will depend on the Justice of the Ecclesiastical power of those Persons who govern our Ecclesiastical Assemblies And therefore 2. All our concernment for Antiquity here will be that our Bishops derived their power from such as derived theirs with a power of communicating it in a continual Succession from the Apostles And this we do acknowledge true concerning the Popish Bishops themselves and do derive the validity of our Orders from the Antiquity of theirs without any more prejudice to our Cause than the Primitive Catholicks did suffer by acknowledging the validity of Baptism administred by Hereticks For the Succession of their Pastors is very reconcilable with a supposed Innovation in their Doctrines and certainly themselves cannot deny that it is so whilst they charge the Orientals with Heresie whom yet they cannot deny to have alwaies maintained as uninterrupted a Succession of Bishops as themselves especially considering that the Innovations we charge them with of adding false and new Articles of Faith not of denying the old ones do not in the least interrupt or invalidate their Succession This therefore being supposed that the first Bishops of our English Reformation received their power from such as had derived theirs by an uninterrupted succession from the Apostles it will follow that they were valid Bishops and if so had the power of keeping Church-Assemblies and exercising Jurisdiction in them both for the Government of their present Charges and communicating their power to succeeding Generations For nothing of this is pretended to exceed the power of a valid Bishop The charge of Heresy it self cannot hinder the validity of their Orders either received or communicated though it may indeed in the Judgment of them who believe them so render them obnoxious to Canonical Incapacities of executing them and to Legal Degradations not from the Character but from the actual Jurisdiction properly belonging to their Office But to such Canonical Incapacities and Degradations they will not deny even validly-Ordeined Persons themselves to be obnoxious and therefore cannot make that an Argument against the validity of our Orders And yet when this Charge of Heresy against our Bishops is not here to be Judged by the pretences of our Adversaries but by the merit of the Cause and therefore is not to be taken fâ—r granted till it be proved That therefore which is indeed new in the Church of England is That though her Positive Doctrines and Orders be Ancient yet the Profession of her Negatives and the open Assertion of her Liberty from the Encroachments of the Roman Court and all her other Practices grounded on these Principles were not avowed by her Ecclesiastical Governors for several Centuries before the Reformation And in Answer hereunto I shall insist on the heads already intimated Therefore 1. There was no reason to expect that her opposition to these Errors should have been Ancienter though we should suppose the Errors themselves to have been so For there was no reason to expect that Errors should have been discovered for some Ages before the Reformation when there was so great a want of that kind of Grammatical and Historical Learning which is only fit to qualifie a Person to Judge of Ecclesiastical Tradition at least they were not likely to have been discovered by such a number as had been requisite to maintain an open opposition And if the Errors had been discovered yet it was not easie to expect success in holding out against the Court of Rome which was then so very powerful and there was no reason to expect such attempts from Prudent Persons where there was no probability of success And there was yet least reason of all to expect this opposition from Bishops then when no Bishops were made without the Popes consent which he was not likely to give to such as were likely to oppose him when after they were made they were obliged to be true to Him by express Oaths as well as by their Interests of peaceable continuance or hopes of future preferment when at least it was impossible to resist their Fellow-Bishops the generality of whom were in all likelyhood swayed by these Prejudices when they had seen mighty Princes themselves worsted in those Contests and the extreme Severity of that Court against Dissenters when lastly differing from the Church of Rome in any thing was counted Heresy and Heresy was prosecuted with the extremest Infamy which must needs weaken the Authority of those Opposers with others as well as other Penalties of the Canon-Law Nor 2. Does the Justice of our Cause require a greater Antiquity for our Negatives For 1. Our Negatives are not pretended to be of perpetual obligation but only for preventing the malignity of the contrary Affirmative Articles to which they are opposed And therefore there is no reason to expect Formal Negatives opposed to Additional Articles from the beginning before the Additional Articles themselves were thought of nor to expect a Reformation of Abuses before there were Abuses to be Reformed seeing that in course of Nature these Negatives presuppose the contrary Affirmatives as a pretence of Reformation must also presuppose Abuses And therefore the pretence of the greater Antiquity of our Adversaries Errors and Abuses is so far from prejudicing the reputation of our Negatives and Reformation as that it is indeed the best Argument of their Justice and Seasonableness For such Negatives as these and such a Reformation must needs have been unwarrantable if there had not been before Errors fit to be denyed and Abuses fit to be reformed Nor 2. Is it any Prejudice to the Justice of our Cause that these Errors were not opposed with formal Negatives as soon as they appeared For such Errors as these were usually first received as the Opinions of private Persons before they were countenanced by Authority and whilst they proceeded no further there was not that mischief in them nor consequently that obligation to oppose them as when at length they came to be so countenanced For the Errors of Private Persons whilst they are no more are not conceived so to oblige us to be of their mind as that our silence should in any Prudence be expounded as an Argument of our consent and consequently cannot be such a provocation to us to oppose them
will observe She will find that their Arguments from this and the like Topicks only aim at For because they challenge such a Priviledge themselves they fancy Us to do so to and that our design is not to overthrow a Judge of Controversies but only to translate that Title from the Pope to Luther or some others of our eminent Reformers which is far from our design But this difference in Opinion does not in the least prove but that upon a particular Enquiry into the merit of the Cause one Party may be found to have the advantage of the other which is all that we pretend to 3. That this difference of the several Parties of the Reformation in other things is rather a very strong Presumption for an Ignorant Person who must conduct her self by Presumptions that there is great reason for those things wherein they are all agreed and indeed is a greater Argument for the Credibility of the Reformation in general than for that of the Roman Communion For to a dis-interessed Person the Agreement of those is a more valuable Argument for the Truth of what they say who seem most of all acted by the merit of the things and least of all influenced by the Opinions and Authorities of a few and there can hardly be conceived a more considerable Argument of their freedom in Judgment than their actual difference in other things What therefore the Protestants are agreed in seems more likely to be the real sense of all that are so agreed upon an Impartial Enquiry whereas the Romanists are generally Influenced by a few of the Court of Rome to whom the rest do generally conceive themselves obliged in Conscience to conform And this advantage of the differences of Protestants for recommending their Credibility in other things above that of their Adversaries to the Trust of an Ignorant Person will appear the more remarkable if it be considered 4. That they are not only agreed in general in the fitness of a Reformation but also in most of the Particulars to be Reformed Indeed if they were only agreed in general that it were fit a Reformation should be but agreed in no Particulars it might seem too probable a Suspicion that it was not Truth but Faction and the disturbance of the Publick that was their common design But that is far from being the Case here 5. The Divisions of the Protestants in Doctrine are not so irreconcileable as they may seem The Harmony of Confessions shew them agreed in the Principal As for the others it is plain that our Church of England does not think them worth contending for whilst She admits the several Parties into her Communion and if other Protestants think otherwise yet She is not Responsible for them because She is not of their mind The most pernicious Principles of all which most Naturally tend to Division and which make the differences resulting from them most impossible to be reconciled are the differences concerning Church Government and in that our Church has Innovated nothing that should cause any breach even from the Roman much less from any other part of the Catholick Church And most of their other Differences are no longer Irreconcileable than the Persons are likely to continue averse to Reconciliation but these Differences about Church-Government are so derived from the nature of the Things as that they may Cause Division among Persons otherwise well-meaning and of a Peaceable Disposition 6. This Argument from the Divisions of Protestants is principally proper for such as are not actually engaged in any particular Communion of them and even to them ought to have no more force than that of a Prudent Presumption till the Person so Presuming might have leasure to examine Particulars But that seems not to be the Gentlewomans Case whom I suppose to have been hitherto educated in the Church of England and to have had sufficient opportunities of Informing her self concerning us For such a one it would sure be sufficient that our Church is no way guilty of these Divisions whatsoever may be the Case of other Protestants Q. 5. Why the Church of England doth not hold up to Confession Fasting-days Holy Oyl which we our Selves commend IT is a mistake that the Questionist does suppose Us to commend Holy Oyl However we think all the Instances here mentioned lawful and indifferent and so to be as obnoxious to the Prudence of particular Church-Governors as other things of that nature are by all acknowledged to be and we shall conceive our Selves secure of the Gentlewomans Communion if She will not alter till our Adversaries prove them necessary Antecedently to Church Authority which is more than they will as much as pretend to at least concerning some of them These things therefore being thus supposed I shall propose two things to the Gentlewomans Consideration 1. That supposing We were to blame in omitting them yet this were no ground for Her to leave our Communion 2. That as far as they are not imposed by our Church there was reason for their not imposing them 1. Supposing that we were indeed to blame in omitting these Ecclesiastical Observances yet this would be no sufficient ground to excuse the Gentlewoman for leaving our Communion For 1. No Indifferent thing how imprudent or inexpedient soever and that is the highest Charge that the Churches mistake in a matter of this nature is chargeable withal as long as the Object is supposed of its own nature Indifferent as long as it is not sinful and certainly it can be no Sin to submit for Peace's sake to an imprudent Constitution can excuse a departure from a Communion that is in other regards allowable 2. Whatever a Separation on this account might be in others yet it is less excusable in Subjects who are no way Responsible for as much as the Imprudences of such Constitutions and who are certainly bound to bear with all tolerable frailties of their lawful Governours and who are not indeed so well qualified for Judging concerning them as neither being so well skilled in Politicks generally nor being made acquainted with the secret Reasons of such Constitutions which might make that which without them might seem strange appear highly commendable when considered with them 3. The Gentlewomans Sex and possibly her particular Condition may not have those Advantages which many others though Subjects also have for Judging concerning them These Arguments are so agreeable to the Principles of our Adversaries themselves as that they frequently make use of them for retaining Persons in their own Communion Which the Gentlewoman may be pleased to take notice of if any of her Tempters should Question them here where they are disserviceable to their Interests But farther 4. Abuses in Governours acknowledging themselves Fallible though they be supposed indeed to be Abuses are much more tolerable than in those who do not seeing there may be hopes that Governours acknowledging themselves Fallible my in time be better informed and may then themselves reform
Reformation done by Act of Parliament REformation may be considered two wayes 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 Heresy or Schism in the Church may be by that means settled 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 forreign 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 requisitethat 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 its Subjects 4. Therefore the Determination of the Justice of the Advice followed by the Magistrate may be resolved two wayes 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 conceâ—ved 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 Replyed 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 Judge and that this was exactly the Popish 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 alwaies 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 Emperour 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 Exom Second Edition Sect. 1. Ch. 19. §. 4. p. 74. Sect. 2. Ch. 21. §. 3. p. 188. Append. Ch. 5. §. 2. p. 516. See Verons Lat. Answ. to Q. Gener. 8. p. 561. at the end of the Exom Exom Sect. 1. Chap. 16. §. 3. p. 58. Sect. 2. Ch. 21. §. 4. p. 190. Sect. 2. Ch. 3. p. 90. White 's Tab. Suffrag As the Florentine Council c. As of Constance c. Answ. to Q. 4. pag. 86. Dr. Stillingfleet Suppositions (a) (a) Feb. 25. 1569. Propositions a a Prop. 1. 2 3 4. b b Prop. 6. c c Prop. 1 2. d d Prop. 3. e e Prop. 7.8 9 10 11 12. f f Prop. 13. g g Prop. 14. h h Prop. 15. i i Prop. 16.17 18. k k Prop. 19. l l Prop. 21 23 24 m m Prop. 20. n n Prop. 22. * * Prop. 22. Ep. 188. ad Mart. Mayer Ep. 72. ad Stephfratr * * Vid Consid. of Pres. Concern ††For the Jesuites see the Provine Letâ— and the Moral Theolog. of the Jesuites and for the rest of that Communion the Jesuites defence of themselves by way of recremination against others Vid. II. 1 2. Exomolog Sect. 2. Ch. 16. §. 2. P. 162. Ed. 2. On 1 Cor. III. 15. Vid. Q. I. §. I.