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 Gentlewoman's Capacity.  
By HENRY DODWELL M. A. and sometimes Fellow of Trinity College near DUBLIN.  
LONDON: Printed for Benj. Took. MDCLXXXVIII.   

A PREFACE.  
IT is of no further concernment to acquaint the Public 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 tendered 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 show 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 show from sound Principles, that the Church of England is able to defend her Reformation from the Errors of the Romanists, and to clear herself, as far as She is charged with that Breach of Communion which followed thereupon, without giving any advantage to the Non-Conformists to justify either their first Separation from Us, or their Eternal Subdivisions from one another. Nor was I willing to engage a Person in the Gentlewoman's 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 easy 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 herself.  
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 Judgement 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 Judgement may as well qualify 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 intermeddling 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 easy 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 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 itself 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 entire Prospect of them in the natural Order wherein they lie, 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 concerned) so also more satisfactory to a Person in the Gentlewoman's condition. And in the whole I am so little conscious of any design of displeasing any to whom Truth itself might not prove displeasing, as that if any Adversary shall think it worth his time to Answer what I have said, I am not myself 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 Catholic, 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 United in One? 22  
Q. 5. Why the Church of England doth not hold up to Confession, Fasting-days, Holy Oil, which we ourselves commend? 26  
Q. 6. Why was Reformation done by Act of Parliament? 29    

AN ANSWER TO SIX QUERIES, etc.  

Q. 1. Whether any one going from the Church of ENGLAND, and dying a Roman Catholic, 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 
* Vid. Consid. of Pros. Concern.  Church which oblige them to do mischief (as those concerning the Pope's Supremacy over Princes in Temporals, and concerning their Duty of prosecuting Heretics) The 
† For the Jesuits, see the Provinc. Lett. and the Moral Theolog. of the Jesuits; and for the rest of that Communion, the Jesuits defence of themselves by way of recrimination against others.  looseness 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 Anathematising all that deny them, the condemning Dissenters as guiity of Heresy and Schism (at lest what they call Material) the inserting several of their controverted Doctrines into their Liturgies, so that they who cannot believe them, cannot veraciously join 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 Catholics) never owned, nay some of them doubted of, or contradicted, such conditions of Communion; in sum, their unreasonable grounds of dividing Catholic 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 Catholic 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 canonised 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 reform, 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 itself, cannot possibly be reform. 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 reform, many of them may justify a Separation, and most of them may do it when all hopes of Reformation are professedly opposed; Catholic 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 Catholic 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 signify a more express approbation of the Terms of it; and because more explicit recantation of our Doctrines are required even from Laic Revolters, than from such as are born in it.  
3. Because the Resignation of Judgement is expected more entire from Women and Laics than from skilful Persons (who may in some cases be allowed the Liberty of their own Judgement even by the Principles of that Communion) so that Persons in the Gentlewoman's 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 implicit Repentance of Sins unknown as well as known.  
Now of these two ways whereby an Error damnative of its own Nature may be hindered 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 Gentlewoman's 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, Inquire 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 rendering their Error Invincible, must be the supposed Invincibleness of those Prejudices which may hinder a wellmeaning Person, acting conscientiously, from acting rationally. Which must be either,  

1. Opinions conceived obligatory in Conscience, hindering 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 wellmeaning Conscientious Person, because it may indeed be Prudent in some Cases, and it is not easy 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 persuade 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 persuade such as they esteem Heretics of the unlawfulness of intermeddling 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 persuade them of the Truth of these Doctrines so prejudicial to their own interests in these Circumstances; yet the Person tempted would need no other Argument to confute them than their attempts to Proselyte her at the same time when they should teach her that it were unlawful to hearken to any Reasons, or to venture her own Judgement concerning them, if contrary to what at present she believed to be true.  
3. Because if she must not trust her own Judgement, but rely on Authority, it would be most Just, as well as most Prudent, to trust the Authority of her own Party whom She has experienced, rather than her Adversaries whom She has not; and therefore it could not be reasonable to trust Adversaries contradicting the eminent Guides of her own Party.  
4. Because, at least, the Authority of Adversaries cannot be presumed in Reason so great, with a Person not yet of their Communion, as to oblige her to believe, on their account, what She herself thinks Irrational: Nay, rather whilst it is questioned how far their Authority is to be trusted (as it ought, in reason, to be considered before a change) and whilst the private Judgement of the Person is trusted (as none else can be) in this debate; what in her own judgement seems unreasonable, would rather render the Authority suspected if it should recommend it, than be itself believed for the Authority.   
Especially considering 5. that to such a one as is not yet persuaded of the Credibility of their Authority, this would afford a very prudent Argument for suspicion of their Integrity, when they should urge her to the belief of such things whose Truth they would not allow her liberty to examine by her own private Judgement.  
Not the 2. for  
1. It is hard to conceive a Person educated in the true Church so ignorant of the advantages of her own way, as to be Invincibly persuaded by those of the contrary, which upon a complete comparison are (by the Supposals laid down in the beginning of 
Vid. II. 1. 2.  this Discourse) so very disproportionable to them, and which may appear so by the Judgement of all who are concerned to judge concerning them.  
2. The fallacy of trusting such partial Representations is so easily discovered by the most ordinary Experience and Prudence in human affairs, and so universally acknowledged in all other ordinary occurrences, as that it can hardly impose on any who proceeds with that Caution which all acknowledge requisite in changes of great and dangerous consequence, as all confess those of Religion to be.  
3. Though a less advantage on one side above the other might suffice, where the Person were not pre-engaged in either; yet all confess the disturbance of a change, and the danger of venturing on an unexperienced way, so considerable, as that they are not to be attempted on barely Equal terms; which is a further warning for the Gentlewoman to be wary, who is tempted to change from the Principles of her Education.  
4. Supposing the Person were so Ignorant as not to discern the advantages of her own Communion above any other by her own observation, yet in that Case, it is on all sides held Prudent to hear on both sides what can be said by them who are skilful: which if She understand, and be able to judge of by herself, She must then (by the Supposals now mentioned) see the advantage of her own side; but if She does not, and so be necessitated, even in the choice of her Communion, to rely on the conduct of a Guide, it must in that Case be much more Prudent to trust a Guide whom She has experienced, than one whom She has not.  
Not the 3. for  
1. That Favour which is wholly derived from the inclination of the Affections must needs be due to that side wherein the Person is already engaged: both in Justice, as all generous Persons conceive themselves obliged in all Cases capable of favour, to be favourable to their old Friends rather than others; and in Prudence, because by this means the disturbance of a change is best prevented.  
2. If any Favour may be upon reasonable and wellmeaning accounts extended to one Cause above others: Either because the trial of its Truth is easier, or because its Truth (if it may be proved) may be conceived subservient to better purposes; as Mr. Cressy confesses himself favourable to the Arguments produced 
Exomolog. Sect. 2. Ch. 16. Sect. 2. P. 162. Ed. 2.  for a Judge of Controversies, because the decision of that Controversy alone would prevent the trouble of Enquiring into the rest: yet even so (if this Favour be taken up and managed as it ought to be by a virtuous wellmeaning Person) it will not render the mistake of a change Invincible. For,  

1. This Favour (as far as it is justifiable by reason) is to be had for the Religion wherein the Person had been educated, and of which She is actually possessed, upon the same rational accounts whereby that other Favour is conceived justifiable, and in as high a degree of obligation; both as we are better able to judge of what we know already, than we can be presumed to be of a strange Religion; and as we can be more confident in the practice of a Religion we have always maintained, than we can in that which must suppose us convicted of having been formerly greatly mistaken.  
2. This Favour, as far as it may be conceived Prudent and Rational, can only take place there where all other things are supposed Equal, which cannot be supposed in the true way.  
3. This Favour ought not to hinder the Person from an Enquiry into the contrary Cause, unless the Evidence produced be very certainly convictive, which also cannot be supposed in the way we are speaking of.  
4. This way of Favourable Presumption being the only way by which the generality of the Vulgar are capable to Judge, and there being in the true way inducements for all sorts of People; therefore it must be said that if this way be managed impartially, that is, if all the Presumptions on both sides be considered, this must bring them to the Truth.   
Hence it follows, by the Principles of all Parties, that the Error of a Revolter can hardly be presumed Invincible, and consequently not wholly Excusable. So that for Judging concerning the Salvability of particular Persons, it only remains to be enquired further, Whether they be capable of such a degree of Vincible Ignorance as may be expiable by a General Repentance, and the performance of all other Conditions of the Gospel in an Erroneous Communion? And the Resolution of this depends on these Inquiries:  

1. Whether the Erroneous Communion (the Roman for Example) embrace the Doctrine of Repentance so entirely, according to the Conditions required of it in the Gospel, as that the Repentance performed in it may be presumed such as God will accept?  
2. What degree of Vincible Ignorance is expiable by a General Repentance? For it is certain that all is not.  
3. Whether a Revolter from our Communion be capable of that degree of Vincible Ignorance which is so expiable?   
The exact Discussion of these things is too large to be insisted on at present, and therefore I shall only make application to the design of the Question. I shall therefore show that what Possibility of Salvation soever we may allow to Persons of the Roman Communion, yet it is no prudent ground to encourage one who is not already of it, to revolt to it. To this purpose I desire it may be considered,  
1. That all the grounds we pretend to have for our Charity, are rather Negative than Positive: rather our unsatisfiedness with those Arguments which pretend to prove them actually damned, than any Positive Convictions that any of them are actually saved.  
2. That our Charitable Presumptions are principally grounded on things impossible to be known by Us, such as are the uncovenanted Mercies of God, and the possibility of Sincerity, and even particular Explicite Repentance of the Error in the Person; so that it is very easy for Us to be mistaken in our Charity, and we professedly choose it as a mistake (if it should prove one) more pardonable than Censoriousness.  
3. That the Case, concerning which we Judge Charitably, is so very rare and extraordinary, as that no particular Erroneous Person can be very confident that it is her own: Nay, when we say, that their Errors are of their own Nature destructive of Salvation, and that God has not interposed any General Ordinary means for preventing their proving actually damnative in the Event, it will thence follow that there are very just fears concerning the generality of their Communion, and consequently many odds to one of the miscarriage of each particular Person, which the Gentlewoman may do well to think of seriously.  
4. That the degree of Penitence which shall be accepted by God in a particular Case, upon account of his uncovenanted Mercy, is very hard, if not impossible, to be known by the Person concerned; so that even they who shall enjoy the benefit of it in the other World, yet may want the comfort of it in this; and therefore can ground no confidence in any Practice undertaken on that Supposition.  
5. That this Security is very much more hazardous, and more difficult to be Judged of, in Case of Vincible, than of Invincible Ignorance, which has been proved to be generally the condition of Persons concerned in this Enquiry.  
6. That it is certainly more difficult in the Case of Revolters, than of such who have had their Education in the Roman Communion.  
These things I conceive sufficient to show that our acknowledgement in this affair can afford no security for a Revolt, to a Person who seriously believes Us, and is desirous to be Guided by Us. But if we be considered as Adversaries, and consequently our Authority be considered only as cogent against ourselves, especially when taken in conjunction with other things, as they usually argue the Security of a change from our Singularity in Asserting the Salvability of our own Communion, and our Agreement even with the Romanists in owning the Salvability of theirs; whence they conclude it safer for an Ignorant Person to venture her Practice in that way, in the safety whereof we are all agreed, than in that wherein we are singular: In Answer hereunto I shall, at present, only propose these things to the Gentlewoman's Consideration:  
1. That the unreasonableness of this Argument has been sufficiently shown by others; particularly She may consult Bishop Taylor's Letter, and the Dean of Canterbury's Sermon, which 
On 1 Cor. III. 15.  are in English, and are short and easy to be understood by her.  
2. That the Supposition itself is false here. For they of the Roman Communion do as fully own the Possibility of the Salvation of particular Persons in our Communion, as we do in theirs, both as to the Principles whence it is deduced, (touching Invincible Ignorance) which are granted as well by them as by Us, and even in express Confessions, when they are pleased to speak their minds freely; of which I must needs say, they are in Policy more cautious, for fear of giving Us any encouragement to continue in our own Communion. If She doubt of this, She may, if She please, consult of our English Authors (for in dealing with her I would not willingly quote any others) Mr. Richworth Dialog. 1. §. 7. pag. 38. Ed. Paris, 1648. Mr. Cressy Exomolog. Sect. 2. Chap. 50. §. 11. pag. 396. Knot in Charity Maintained, Part I. Chap. I. §. 3, 4. compared with Mr. Chillingworth's Answer, Ib. §. 3, 4.  
3. That this Candour of ours, when compared with their reservedness in speaking their minds in this Case, is an Argument of our Ingenuity and fair dealing more than theirs, which is a considerable Argument of trust to an Ignorant Person, who finds herself obliged to trust the Authority of one of Us.   

Q. 2. Whether they he Idolaters, or No?  
I Must confess that I think the true Notion of Idolatry more difficult than is commonly conceived, and to my Understanding not yet sufficiently explained. Nor am I willing on this occasion to engage on that Dispute, both because it would be too tedious, and because I think most of the mistakes already entertained concerning it to have been occasioned by its having been stated in Disputes with a design on some particular Adversaries. Not intending therefore to determine positively, Whether the Practices required by their Church as Conditions of her Communion be necessarily Idolatrous? I shall only, at present, recommend these things to a Person in the Gentlewoman's Condition, whom I suppose not so capable of examining the particular merit of the Cause, and therefore it will be the most Prudent course for such a one to Judge by general Presumptions.  
1. That their Notions concerning the Saints are exactly the same with those of the later Heathens of the Primitive times concerning their Daemons then worshipped; who yet were as certainly guilty of Idolatry (if the concurrent sense of Primitive Christianity may be believed) as those accused of it in the Old Testament, concerning whose sense we want those Records which might so fully inform us. For it might have easily been shown, that those Daemons were confessed to be of an inferior Order, and not to require that supreme degree of Worship proper to the Supreme Being; nay, that they thought them deputed by the Supreme Being itself to convey his influences to Us, and our Prayers to Him.  
2. That if the Heathens (notwithstanding that their Devotions were designed for good Daemons) were yet deluded by Evil ones, who were by God permitted to interpose in their stead, because they paid that Relative respect to Persons whom he had not declared it his pleasure to have so worshipped, and before Images where they had no security from any promise of God, that none but good Daemons should presentiate themselves; How can the Romanists be secure that they are not the same way deluded, seeing they have as little Security from God's Word (which is the only competent means from whence they can in this Case have Security) that it is his pleasure that they should be publicly Invocated, and that he has given them the Office of conveying his 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 practised 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 herself 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 generally worse and grosser than their Principles (as the Gentlewoman may inform herself of, in that impartial account which is given of them by Sir Edwin 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 itself, so destitute of all Authority, either of Scripture or the Primitive Catholic 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 Catholic) so that they who are willing to Believe and Practise all that was Believed and Practised in the Primitive Church, must now be Anathematised and condemned for Heretics for refusing to Believe or Practise any more, or to condemn those as Heretics who do refuse it.   

Q. 3. Where was the Church of England before Luther's time.  
THE design of ask this Question is certainly to make our Confession of Novelty (in such Cases wherein our Adversaries presume our Novelty so notorious as that we ourselves 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 public 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 Catholic 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 herself to instance in one positive Doctrine imposed by us which She herself thinks not Ancient. I am sure the Controversy 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 herself 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 Judgements 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 Church's Judgement 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 Judgement 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 Church's Censures will 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 shown before. Whence it 
Vid. Q. I. Sect. 1.  will follow that we are excusable, not only in suffering ourselves 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 abstain from their Communion, but set up a Communion of our own, and maintain an Ecclesiastical Body Politic 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 Catholics did suffer by acknowledging the validity of Baptism administered by Heretics. 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 Heresy, whom yet they cannot deny to have always 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 itself cannot hinder the validity of their Orders either received or communicated; though it may indeed, in the Judgement 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-Ordained Persons themselves to be obnoxious, and therefore cannot make that an Argument against the validity of our Orders. And yet even 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 for 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 qualify 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 easy 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 Pope's 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 likelihood, 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 Reform, 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 denied, and Abuses fit to be reform. 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 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 candour 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 public 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 shown to have been late, not before their Errors were defined and imposed in their Councils. And therefore it was but lately that any public opposition was to be expected, even from them who were in their Consciences persuaded 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 men's minds against the like attempts, when none could revive the like true Doctrine without the disrepute of being supposed to revive an anciently-condemned Heresy; and when there were no hopes of being able to preserve themselves in opposite Assemblies without Bishops to Head them, without whom they could not maintain a Succession of Priests, nor consequently of Sacraments, and the like employments and advantages of Ecclesiastical Assemblies; and when no Bishops were likely to countenance such a design, whilst they were held in such captivity to the Court of Rome by Oaths as well as their other Worldly Interests, and when no Persons of a free ingenuous temper were likely to attain the honour of Episcopacy.   
These Reasons, with a very easy Application, may suffice to show that in an ordinary way there was no reason to expect the Reformation sooner than it was. And that there was no necessity sufficient to oblige God to interpose to raise Men up to it Extraordinarily, will appear if it be considered,  

6. That it is not every necessity of the Church that can oblige God to use such Extraordinary means, but only such a necessity as must have destroyed a Church from the Earth, that is, such a Society of Men wherein Salvation might be attained by the ordinary Prescriptions of the Gospel. Now the prevalency of these Errors does not oblige us to acknowledge that such a Church as this must have failed even in those Ages wherein these Errors are supposed to have prevailed for some Centuries before the Reformation: For, 

1. Though the Occidental Church had failed, yet Christ might have had such a Church among the several Communions of the Orientals. And I know no greater inconvenience, in this regard, in admitting the faileur of the Occidental Church, than what our Adversaries themselves are obnoxious to, in admitting the like defection in the Oriental.  
2. The prevailing of these Errors does not oblige us to deny an ordinary possibility of Salvation according to the Prescriptions of the Gospel, even in the Church of Rome itself 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 show 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 Catholics for Heretics and Schismatics, and excluding them from Communion, and hereby making the Peace of Christendom impossible on any just and tolerable terms, and Abuses impossible to be Reform. Which was not so imputable in those Ages when there was no visible Communion to be condemned by joining 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, etc. 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 publicly 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-governors, under whose Protection they may put themselves, and with whose Communion they may join, in opposition to them.         
3. The Antiquity allowed to their Errors on this Supposition is not sufficient to justify 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 shown from the Fathers as well as from the Protestants.  
2. The Antiquity of those Notions of theirs, whereby they confine the Catholic 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 herself, and as ancient in teaching the contrary.  
3. The utmost Antiquity which we allow for their unwarrantable Doctrines, is not so great as must be acknowledged (by all that will Judge candidly) for several, which on all sides are acknowledged to be Heretical, I do not only mean those of the Arians, but also of those great Bodies of the Oriental Historians and 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 Unwritten Traditions with Equal Reverence with the Written Word of God) I doubt are not more anciently imposed, as Conditions of Catholic Communion, than the Council of Trent itself, 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 United in One?  
I Presume the design of this Question is not so much a Curiosity to be informed, either of the Politic 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 Gentlewoman's Consideration, as may let her understand the weakness of this Argument (how Popular soever) when they conclude us either mistaken ourselves, 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 itself is of no force as it is used by them against us.  

1. There is no Reason why the Romanists should upbraid Us with this Argument, and they, as well as we, are obliged to Answer it. For,   
1. This very Argument was by the Primitive Heathens made use of against Christianity in General, as it is now against Us; and our Adversaries would do well to consider, whether the same Answers pleadable by themselves now in behalf of those Christians, and actually pleaded by the Apologists then, be not as pleadable for Us now. Nay, this multitude of Sects in Christianity is even now the great Argument of Irreligious Persons against the Truth of Religion; and I cannot believe that any Piously disposed Person among them, can be pleased to allow the Argument to be of any force in either Case, rather than want an Argument against Us. Yet I believe they will never be able to show 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 Jesuits, some of which Parties are Divided as well in Communion as in Opinions. If they say that these Divisions are not the faults of their Opinions, but the particular perversity of Persons, who will not stick to those Principles which might keep them United, when their Interest inclines them otherwise: the same will be pretended by every Dividing Party. If they think it Injurious that their whole Communion should be charged with the misdemeanours 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 Reform, an Argument that the whole design of a Reformation is in itself 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 itself. It might easily have been shown, upon this and the like Occasions, how they do, and are obliged to, acknowledge the Unreasonableness of this way of Arguing. But the designed Brevity of my present Employment only permits me to point at the Heads of what might be said, not to enlarge on the Particulars.  
4. It might have been shown that these Differences among them concerning the Judge of Controversies, tend Naturally, and by due Rational Consequence, to the dissolution of their Communion, a Charge which we think cannot be proved against that which we believe the Right Communion.  

2. Therefore, to show directly the weakness of this Argument, Let it be considered,   
1. That whatever Differences they upbraid us with, yet they can never prove that they follow by any Natural and Rational Consequence from the General Principles of the Reformation, though possibly they may indeed have been occasioned by that Liberty of Spirit which was absolutely requisite for undertaking a design of such a Nature; as it must on all sides be acknowledged possible that things really good may notwithstanding prove occasions of Evil. And how very Unjust and Unreasonable it is to charge Personal Faults upon Designs (that is in this Case the faults of Reformers upon the Reformation) all, even the Romanists themselves, will acknowledge, in Cases wherein they are disinteressed.  
2. That, this being Supposed, all that they can conclude from these Divisions of the Reformers, is only, that no one Communion of the Reformers has that advantage over the rest as that, Antecedently to all Enquiry into the merit of the Cause, its Word is fit to be trusted as a Guide in Controversies, to assure any of its own Truth, and of the Error of all differing from it. This, if the Gentlewoman will observe, she will find that their Arguments from this and the like Topics, only aim at. For because they challenge such a Privilege themselves, they fancy Us to do so too; 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 herself 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 disinteressed 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 Judgement, 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 Reform. 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 Public, 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 irreconcilable as they may seem. The Harmony of Confessions shows 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 Catholic 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 aught 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 Gentlewoman's Case whom I suppose to have been hitherto educated in the Church of England, and to have had sufficient opportunities of Informing herself 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 Oil, which we ourselves commend?  
IT is a mistake that the Questionist does suppose Us to commend Holy Oil.  
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 ourselves secure of the Gentlewoman's 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 Gentlewoman's 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 Governors, and who are not indeed so well qualified for Judging concerning them, as neither being so well skilled in Politics 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 Gentlewoman's 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 Tempter's should Question them here, where they are disserviceable to their Interests. But farther,  
4. Abuses in Governors 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 Governors, 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 hindering 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 joining 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 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 Practise 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, 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 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 Church's 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 Practise 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 Oil 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 ourselves retain it as a decent Ceremony of Consecration in the Coronations of our Princes. Only we again conceive it,  

1. A matter indifferent in itself, 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 itself.   
If by the Holy Oil here mentioned, he meant particularly their Sacrament of Extreme Unction, 1. 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 show that it is in the Church's 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 itself; 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 Administered 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 its lawfulness.  
Now this Fundamental Principle of our Churches Proceed 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 herself.   

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 Privileges consequent to that Communion. And this is certainly the Right of the Church, and was accordingly practised 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 itself 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 ecclesiastics: and, 2. That though external obedience may be paid to the mistaken Decrees of the Secular Power following the mistaken part of the ecclesiastics, yet the Obligation (in Conscience and Right) of such Decrees must be derived from the Justice of the Churches proceed in advising the Magistrate; so that no Act of the Magistrate can make amends for any Essential defect in the proceed 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 itself 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 proceed of the Magistracy from being Heretical or Schismatical, to the Conscience of the Magistracy itself, 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 proceed 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 proceed 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 relied on as a Presumption to prove the Magistrates proceed 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 misdemeanours, and of this forfeiture the Secular Magistrate himself is the proper Judge; and that this was exactly the Popishs' Bishop's 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 satisfy 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 Catholic Emperors, never to allow any Canonical Right to the Assemblies and Censures of Heretics, 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.