Imprimatur Z. Isham R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. Ã Sacris 1685. AN ANSWER TO SOME PAPERS Lately Printed concerning the AUTHORITY OF THE Catholick Church In MATTERS of FAITH and the REFORMATION of the CHURCH of ENGLAND LONDON Printed for Ric. Chiswel at the Rose and Crown in S t Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVI AN Advertisement IF the Papers here answered had not been so publickly dispersed through the Nation a due Respect to the Name they bear would have kept the Author from publishing any Answer to them But because they may now fall into many hands who without some assistance may not readily resolve some difficulties started by them He thought it not unbecoming his duty to God and the King to give a clearer light to the Things contained in them And it can be no reflection on the Authority of a Prince for a private Subject to examine a piece of Coyn as to its just value though it bears His Image and Superscription upon it In matters that concern Faith and Salvation we must prove all things and hold fast that which is good AN ANSWER TO THE First Paper IF all men could believe as they pleased I should not have fail'd of satisfaction in this First Paper the Design of it being to put an end to Particular Disputes to which I am so little a Friend that I could have been glad to have found as much reason in it to convince as I saw there was a fair appearance to deceive But there is a Law in our Minds distinct from that of our Inclinations and out of a just and due regard to That we must examine the most plausible Writings though back'd with the greatest Authority before we yield our Assent unto them If particular Controversies about Matters of Faith could be ended by a Principle as visible as that the Scripture is in Print all men of sence would soon give over Disputing for none who dare believe what they see can call that in Question But what if the Church whose Authority it is said they must submit to will not allow them to believe what they see How then can this be a sufficient reason to perswade them to believe the Church because it is as visible as that the Scripture is in Print unless we must only use our senses to find out the Church and renounce them assoon as we have done it Which is a very bad requital of them and no great Honour to the Church which requires it But with all due submission it is no more visible that the Roman Church is the Catholick Church than it is that a part is the whole and the most corrupt part that one Church which Christ hath here upon Earth It is agreed among all Christians That Christ can have but one Church upon Earth as there is but one Lord one Faith one Baptism And this is that Church we profess to believe in the two Creeds But if those who made those Creeds for our direction had intended the Roman Catholick Church why was it not so expressed How came it to pass that such a limitation of the sense of Christs Catholick Church to the Roman should never be put to Persons to be Baptized in any Age of the Church For I do not find in the Office of Baptism even in the Roman Church that it is required that they believe the Roman Catholick Church or that they deny the validity of Baptism out of the Communion of the Roman Church From whence it is to me as visible as that the Scripture is in Print that the Church of Rome it self doth not believe that it is the one Catholick Church mentioned in the two Creeds For then it must void all Baptism out of its Communion which it hath never yet done And as long as Baptism doth enter Persons into the Catholick Church it is impossible that all who have the true form of Baptism though out of the Communion of the Roman Church should be Members of the Catholick Church and yet the Communion of the Roman and Catholick be all one as it must be if the Roman Church be the Catholick and Apostolick Church professed in the Creeds If we had been so happy to have lived in those Blessed Times when the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul it had been no difficulty to have shewed that one visible Church which Christ had here upon Earth But they must be great strangers to the History of the Church who have not heard of the early and great Divisions in the Communion of it And there was a remarkable difference in the Nature of those Schisms which happened in the Church which being not considered hath been the occasion of great misaplication of the sayings of the Antients about the One Catholick Church Some did so break off Communion with other parts of the Catholick Church as to challenge that Title wholly to themselves as was evident in the case of the Novatians and Donatists for they rebaptiz'd all that embraced their Communion Others were cast out of Communion upon particular differences which were not supposed to be of such a nature as to make them no members of the Catholick Church So the Bishops of Rome excommunicated the Bishops of Asia for not keeping Easter when They did and the Bishops both of Asia and Africa for not allowing the Baptism of Hereticks But is it reasonable to suppose that upon these Differences they shut out all those Holy Bishops and Martyrs from the possibility of Salvation by excluding them from their Communion If not then there may be different Communions among Christians which may still continue Parts of the Catholick Church and consequently no one Member of such a Division ought to assume to it self the Title and Authority of the One Catholick Church But if any One Part doth so though never so great and conspicuos it is guilty of the same Presumption with the Novatians and Donatists and is as much cause of the Schisms which happen thereupon in the Church as they were For a long time before the Reformation there had been great and considerable breaches between the Eastern and Western Churches insomuch that they did renounce each other Communion And in these Differences four Patriarchal Churches joined together against the fifth viz. that of the Bishop of Rome But the Eastern Patriarchs sinking in their Power by the horrible Invasion of the Enemies of the Christian Faith and the Bishops of Rome advancing themselves to so much Authority by the advantages they took from the kindness of some Princes and the Weakness of others They would hear of no other terms of accommodation with the Eastern Churches but by an intire submission to the Pope as Head of the Catholick Church Which all the Churches of the East refused however different among themselves and to this day look on the Pope's Supremacy as an Innovation in the Church and Usurpation on the Rights of the other Patriarchs and Bishops In all
those Churches the Two Creeds are professed true Baptism administred and an undoubted Succession of Bishops from the Apostles How then come They to be excluded from being Parts of the One Catholick and Apostolick Church And if they be not excluded how can the Roman Church assume to it self that glorious Title So that it seems to me as visible as that the Scripture is in Print that the Roman Church neither is nor can be that One Church which Christ left upon Earth And this Principle being removed which ought to be taken for granted since it can never be proved we must unavoidably enter into the Ocean of Particular Disputes And I know no reason any can have to be so afraid of it since we have so sure a Compass as the Holy Scripture to direct our passage But the reason of avoiding particular Disputes is because the evidence is too clear in them that the Church of Rome hath notoriously deviated from this infallible Rule And it is as impossible for a Church which hath erred to be Infallible as for a Church really Infallible to err But if a Church pretend to prove her Infallibility by Texts which are not so clear as those which prove her to have actually erred then we have greater reason to recede from her Errors than to be deceived with such a fallible pretence to Infallibility Well! But it is not left to every phantastical mans head to believe as he pleases but to the Church And is it indeed left to the Church to believe as it pleases But the meaning I suppose is that those who reject the the Authority of the Roman Catholick Church do leave every man to believe according to his own fancy Certainly those of the Church of England cannot be liable to any imputaion of this Nature For our Church receives the three Creeds and embraces the four General Councils and professes to hold nothing contrary to any Universal Tradition of the Church from the Apostles times And we have often offered to put the Controversies between Us and the Church of Rome upon that issue And do not those rather believe as they please who believe the Roman Church to be the Catholick Church without any colour from Scriptures Antiquity or Reason Do not those believe as they please who can believe against the most convincing evidence of their own senses Do not those believe as they please who can reconcile the lawfulness of the Worship of Images with Gods forbidding it the Communion in one kind with Christ's Institution and the praying in an unknown Tongue with the 14 Ch. of the first Epistle to the Corinthians But all these and many other Absurdities may go down by vertue of the Churches Authority to whom it is said Christ left the Power upon Earth to govern us in matters of Faith We do not deny that the Church hath Authority of declaring matters of Faith or else it never could have condemn'd the Antient Heresies But then we must consider the difference between the Universal Church in a General and free Council declaring the sense of Scripture in Articles of Faith generally received in the Christian Church from the Apostles Times as was done when the Nicene Creed was made and a Faction in the Church assuming to it self the Title of Catholick and proceeding by other rules than the first Councils did and imposing new Opinions and Practices as things necessary to the Communion of the Catholick Church And this is the true Point in difference between us and those of the Roman Church about the Churches Authority in matters of Faith since the Council of Trent For we think we have very great reason to complain when a Party in the Church the most corrupt and obnoxious takes upon it self to define many new Doctrines as necessary Points of Faith which have neither Scripture nor Universal Tradition for them It were a very irrational thing we are told to make Laws for a Country and leave it to the Inhabitants to be Interpreters and Iudges of those Laws for then every Man will be his own Iudge and by consequence no such thing as either Right or Wrong But is it not as irrational to allow an Usurper to interpret the Laws to his own advantage against the just Title of the Prince and the true Interest of the People And if it be not Reasonable for any private Person to be his own Iudge why should a publick Invader be so But we hope it will be allowed to the Loyal Inhabitants of a Country so far to interpret the Laws as to be able to understand the Duty they owe to their King and to justifie his Right against all the Pretences of Usurpers And this is as much as we plead for in this case Can we therefore suppose That God Almighty would leave us at those uncertainties as to give us a Rule to go by and leave every Man to be his own Iudge And can we resonably suppose That God Almighty should give as a Rule not capable of being understood by those to whom it was given in order to the great End of it viz. the saving of their Souls For this was the main end of the Rule to direct us in the way to Heaven and not meerly to determine Controversies The Staff which a Man uses may serve to measure things by but the principal design is to walk with it So it is with the Holy Scripture if Controversies arise It is fit to examine and compare them with this Infallible Rule but when that is done to help us in our way to Heaven is that which it was chiefly intended for And no Man can think it of equal consequence to him not to be mistaken and not to be damned In matters of Good and Evil every mans Conscience is his immediate Judge and why not in matters of Truth and Falshood Unless we suppose mens involuntary mistakes to be more dangerous than their wilful sins But after all We do not leave every Man to be his own Iudge any further than it concerns his own Salvation which depends upon his particular Care and Sincerity For to prevent any dangerous Mistakes by the Artifice of Seducers we do allow the Assistance of those Spiritual Guides which God hath appointed in his Church for the better insturcting and governing private Persons We embrace the Ancient Creeds as a summary comprehension of the Articles of Faith and think no Man ought to follow his own particular Fancy against Doctrines so universally received in the Christian Church from the Apostles Times I do ask any Ingenuous Man whether it be not the same thing to follow our own Fancy or to interpret Scripture by it If we allowed no Creeds no Fathers no Councils there might have been some colour for such a Question But do we permit Men to interpret Scripture according to their own Fancy who live in a Church which owns the Doctrine of the Primitive Church more frankly and ingenuously than any Church in the World
Church to give Testimony to a matter of Fact and another to assume the Power of making Books Canonical which were not so This latter no Church in the World hath and therefore can never lose it The former is only Matter of Testimony and all parts of the Church are concerned in it and it depends as other Matters of Fact do on the Skill and Fidelity of the Reporters And by what Autority Men separate themselves from that Church What Church The Catholick and Apostolick We own no Separation from that but we are dis-joyned from the Communion of the Roman Church that we may keep up the stricter Union with the truly Catholick and Apostolick Church And this is no Separating our selves but being cast out by an Usurping Faction in the Church because we would not submit to the unreasonable Conditions of Communion imposed by it the chief whereof is owning all the Usurpation which hath by degrees been brought into it To make this plain by an Example Suppose a prosperous Usurper in this Kingdom had gained a considerable Interest in it and challenged a Title to the whole and therefore required of all the Kings Subjects within his Power to own him to be Rightful King Upon this many of them are forced to withdraw because they will not own his Title Is this an act of Rebellion and not rather of true Loyalty Schism in the Church is like Rebellion in the State The Pope declares himself Head of the Catholick Church and hath formed himself a kind of Spiritual Kingdom in the West although the other parts of the Christian World declare against it as an Usurpation However he goes on and makes the owning his Power a necessary Condition of being of his Communion This many of the Western Parts as well as Eastern disown and reject and therefore are excluded Communion with that Church whereof he is owned to be the Head The Question now is Who gives the Occasion to this Separation whether the Pope by requiring the owning his Usurpation or We by declaring against it Now if the Conditions he requires be unjust and unreasonable if his Autority he challenges over the Catholick Church be a meer Usurpation for which we have not only the Consent of the other Parts of the Christian World but of Scripture and the Ancient Church then we are not to be condemned for such a Separation which was unavoidable if we would not comply with the Pope's Usurpation And upon this Foot the Controversie about Schism stands between Us and the Church of Rome The only Pretence I ever heard of was because the Church hath fail'd in wresting and interpreting the Scripture contrary to the true sense and meaning of it and that they have imposed Articles of Faith upon us which are not to be warranted by Gods Word I do desire to know who is to be Iudge of that whether the whole Church the Succession whereof hath continued to this day without interruption or particular Men who have raised Schisms for their own advantage The whole force of this Paragraph depends upon a Supposition which is taken for granted but will never be yielded by Us and we are sure can never be proved by those of the Church of Rome viz. That in the new imposed Articles the whole Church in a continued Succession hath been of the same judgment with them and only some few Particular Men in these last Ages have opposed them Whereas the great thing we insist upon next to the Holy Scripture is that they can never prove the Points in diference by an Universal Tradition from the Apostles Times either as to the Papal Supremacy or the other Articles defined by the Council of Trent VVe do not take upon our selves to contradict the Universal sense of the Christian Church from the Apostles Times in any one Point But the true Reason of the proceeding of the Church of England was this VVhile the Popes Authority was here received and obeyed there was no liberty of searching into abuses or the ways of Reforming them But when Men were encouraged to look into the Scripture and Fathers and Councils they soon found the state of things in the Church extreamly altered from what they ought to have been or had been in the Primitive Church But they saw no possibility of Redress as long as the Popes Autority was so absolute and inviolable This therefore in the first place they set themselves to the accurate Examination of and the Result was that they could find it neither in the Scriptures nor Fathers nor Councils nor owned by the Eastern Churches And therefore they concluded it ought to be laid aside as an Usurpation Our Church being by this means set free even with the consent of Those who joyned with the Church of Rome in other things a greater liberty was then used in examining particular Doctrines and Practices which had crept into the Church by degrees when Ignorance and Barbarism prevail'd and having finish'd this enquiry Articles of Religion were drawn up wherein the sense of our Church was delivered agreeable to Scripture and Antiquity though different from the Modern Church of Rome and these Articles are not the private sense of particular Men but the Publick Standard whereby the World may judge what we believe and practise and therefore these are the sense of our Church and not the opinions or fancies of particular Men. And those who call the retrenching the Popes exorbitant Power by the name of Schism must by parity of reason call the casting off an Usurper Rebellion But certainly those who consider the mighty advantages and priviledges of the Clergy in the Church of Rome can never reasonably suspect any of that Order should hope to better themselves by the Reformation And if we judge of Mens actings by their Interest one of the most surprising considerations at this day is that the Clergy should be against and Princes for the Church of Rome AN ANSWER TO THE Second Paper IT is a sad thing to consider what a world of Heresies are crept into this Nation But is it not a strange thing to consider that no distinction is here put between the Religion by Law established and the Parties disowned by it and dissenting from it And yet many of these though justly liable to the charge of Schism embrace no Heresies against the Four or Six first General Councils But if the Dissenters were guilty of never so many Heresies how comes the Church of England to bear the blame of them when the weakning its Power and Authority was the occasion of such an overflowing of Schisms and Heresies among us And it is indeed a sad thing to consider how many Ways and Means have been used by all Parties to introduce and keep up Schisms and Divisions amongst us and then how the Church of England is blamed for not being able to suppress them But if all Doctrines opposite to the Church of Rome be accounted Heresies then we desire to be informed
wavering in Religion and that he had acquainted her Highness with it the Lent before the Date of this Paper and was so much concerned at it that he obtained a Promise from her That if any Writing were put into her Hands by those of the the Church of Rome that she would send it either to him or to the then Bishop of Oxford whom he left in Attendance upon her After which he saith She was many Days with him at Farnham in all which time she spake not one word to him of any Doubt she had about her Religion And yet this Paper bears Date Aug. 20. that Year wherein she declares her self changed in her Religion So that it is evident she did not make use of the ordinary Means for her own Satisfaction at least as to those Bishops who had known her longest But she saith That she spoke severally to two of the best Bishops we have in England who both told her there were many things in the Roman Church which it were much to be wished we had kept As Confession which was no doubt commanded of God that Praying for the Dead was one of the Ancient Things in Christianity that for their parts they did it daily though they would not own it And afterwards pressing one of them very much upon the other Points he told her That if he had been bred a Catholick he would not change his Religion but that being of another Church wherein he was sure were all things necessary to Salvation he thought it very ill to give that Scandal as to leave that Church wherein he received his Baptism Which Discourses she said did but add more to the desire she had to be a Catholick This I confess seems to be to the purpose if there were not some Circumstances and Expressions very much mistaken in the Representation of it But yet suppose the utmost to be allow'd there could be no Argument from hence drawn for leaving the Communion of our Church if this Bishop's Authority or Example did signify any thing with her For supposing he did say That if he had been bred in the Communion of the Church of Rome he would not change his Religion Yet he added That being of another Church wherein were all things necessary to Salvation he thought it very ill to give that Scandal as to leave that Church wherein he had received his Baptism Now why should not the last words have greater force to have kept her in the Communion of our Church than the former to have drawn her from it For why should any Person forsake the Communion of our Church unless it appears necessary to Salvation so to do And yet this yielding Bishop did affirm that all things necessary to Salvation were certainly in our Church and that it was an ill thing to leave it How could this add to her desire of leaving our Church unless there were some other Motive to draw her thither and then such small Inducements would serve to inflame such a Desire But it is evident from her own words afterwards that these Concessions of the Bishop could have no Influence upon her for she declares and calls God to witness that she would never have changed her Religion if she had thought it possible to save her Soul otherwise Now what could the Bishop's words signify towards her Turning when he declares just contrary viz. not only that it was possible for her to be saved without turning but that he was sure we had all things necessary to Salvation and that it was a very ill thing to leave our Church There must therefore have been some more secret Reason which encreased her Desire to be a Catholick after these Discourses unless the Advantage were taken from the Bishop's calling the Church of Rome the Catholick Religion If he had been bred a Catholick he would not have chang'd his Religion But if we take these words so strictly he must have contradicted himself for how could he he sure we had all things necessary to Salvation if we were out of the Catholick Church Was a Bishop of our Church and one of the best Bishops of our Church as she said so weak as to yield That he was sure all things necessary to Salvation were to be had out of the Communion of the Catholick Church But again there is an inconsistency in his saying That he thought it very ill to leave our Church which no Man of common sense would have said if he had believed the Roman Church to be the Catholick exclusive of all others that do not join in Communion with it The utmost then that can be made of all this is That there was a certain Bishop of this Church who held both Churches to be so far Parts of the Catholick Church that there was no necessity of going from one Church to another But if he asserted that he must overthrow the necessity of the Reformation and consequently not believe our Articles and Homiles and so could not be any true Member of the Church of England But the late Bishop of Winchester hath made a shorter Answer to all this For he first doubts Whether there ever were any such Bishops who made such Answers And afterwards he affirms That he believes there never was in Rerum Naturâ such a Discourse as is pretended to have been between this Great Person and two of the most Learned Bishops of England But God be thanked the Cause of our Church doth not depend upon the singular Opinion of one or two Bishops in it wherein they appareently recede from the establish'd Doctrine of it And I am sure those of the Church of Rome take it ill from us to be charged with the Opinion of Particular Divines against the known Sentiments of their Church Therefore supposing the Matter of Fact true it ought not to have moved her to any Inclination to leave the Church of England But after all She protests in the Presence of Almighty God that no Person Man or Woman directly or indirectly ever said any thing to her since she came into England or used the least Endeavour to make her change her Religion and that it is a Blessing she wholly ows to Almighty God So that the Bishops are acquitted from having any hand in it by her own words and as far as we can understand her meaning she thought her self converted by immediate Divine Illumination We had thought the pretence to a private Spirit had not been at this time allowed in the Church of Rome But I observe that many things are allowed to bring Persons to the Church of Rome which they will not permit in those who go from it As the use of Reason in the Choice of a Church the Judgment of Sense and here that which they would severely condemn in others as a Private Spirit or Enthusiasm will pass well enough if it doth but lead one to their Communion Any Motive or Method is good enough