of her Champions out of meer condescension to Protestants have fought them with their own weapons in which way of combating the Church is not engaged the judgment of the victory must be from the arbitration not of any private Man but of the Learned World The king's next position is That it is not left to every phantastical Man's head to believe as he pleases but to the Church Beware here of counterfeit Coin 't was out but he called it in again and replies The Church of England cannot be liable to any imputation of this nature for our Church receives the three Creeds embraces the four General Councils and professes to hold nothing contrary to any universal Tradition of the Church from the Apostles time Had he been pleased to have given in security for the Church of England that notwithstanding this glorious profession she could never err against the Creeds nor the four Councils nor universal Tradition he had well merited of that Church For we do not charge her for not professing these things at least upon a pinch but for erring against her own profession and deserting that Church to which all these Authorities bear testimony and of which her Progenitors and first Reformers had been Members and from whose hands she received whatsoever she had either of Scripture Creeds Councils or Tradition consequently whose judgment she was bound to follow for the Eastern Churches even by the profession of Protestants being lapsed into Heresies there was then no visible Church in Being but such as was in Communion with the Church of Rome which never went out of any elder than her self and out of whom the Church of England sprang It seems he would have the Controversie betwixt us put upon this issue that is the three Creeds four Councils and Tradition But who shall be Umpire the instructing or instructed Party This discourse in the mouth of a Protestant against Presbyterian Anabaptist or Quaker would be sound though at the same time a self-condemnation in the Church of England The rest of this Paragraph is made up of voluntary assumptions without proof and which are already answered as to the main only I cannot let slip this concession we do not deny that the Church hath Authority of declaring matters of Faith but this must be the universal Church in a General and free Council as when the Nicene Creed was made not when a party in the Church the most corrupt takes upon it self to define many now Doctrines This plea if it be good justifies the Arians and condemns the Nicene Fathers vindicates the Eutichians Nestorians and Donatists and confounds all General Councils for there is nothing of this but was as fully charged against them by the Heretics of those days The following Paragraph is adulterated Coin for whereas the King by the inhabitants of a Country means Subjects instituting the comparison betwixt them and their Lawful Judges of the same Country he stretches those words to signifie the People of one Society and Judges of another The King's discourse is home and to the purpose God would not leave us at those uncertainties as to give us a Rule to go by and leave every Man to be his own Judge He answers We cannot reasonably suppose God should give us a Rule not capable of being understood by those to whom it was given to save their Souls As if there were no way to render a Man capable of understanding Scripture to the saving of his Soul but to leave him to be his own Judge Is there no Church No Pastors to instruct him He that is blind or dim-sighted and will not use a Guide merits to fall Not to be wilfully mistaken in matters of Faith and not to be damn'd is of one and the same consequence The knowledge of good and evil truth and falshood I confess in some sense is to Man's conscience of the same concern but he that willingly shuns light and gropes for either of them in the dark is an Enemy to his Soul and equally culpable There follows We do not leave every MÃ n to be his own Judge any farther then concerns his own Salvation which depends upon his particular care and sincerity But if the judgment of his own Salvation be in his own hands I think he is made his own Judge of the Rule And notwithstanding all his care and sincerity though they should protect him from the Artifices of foreign Seducers which is not possible but by accident without an inerrable Guide yet the corruption of his own heart may be his own most powerful Seducer and God if he will hath provided a guide even against that As to his refuge to the Ancient Creeds of how little concern it is may appear by this that if I should allow they followed exactly what they pretend to embrace which I never can yet if he denies it to be in the power of the Church to make new decisions of Faith upon any new exigence of Heresie or the like the sequel will be that every Man is left to be his own Judge To the question started by the King Whether it be not the same thing to follow our own phansie or to interpret Scripture by it His reply is That if we allowed no Creeds no Fathers no Councils there might have been some colour for such a question And is that colour vanish'd I believe not for if those Creeds those Fathers and Councils have no infallible Authority to oblige the Church of England why should not the King's question be still in force For neither is that Church obliged to follow those Rights which may deceive it nor is there any rational Authority in the Church of England to force any of her Members to embrace them But the truth is that Church neither stands to Creeds Fathers or Councils otherwise she had never deserted her Mother Church who ever regarded those Authorities as Oracles infallible and sent from Heaven to direct us and to whom she owes whatever is Sacred of that nature To his first question of the Church of Rome assuming to it self the sole power of giving the sense of the Scripture I answer she gives no sense but what she received from former Tradition of the foregoing Church and consequently makes not any Rule to her self but follows that Apostolical Tradition which God hath given her as the best interpreter of holy Scriptures To his second question the answer is the same The third question stands upon a false bottom for it supposes the Pope to be the sole interpreter of Scripture whereas neither he nor the Church do pretend to any other way but by Tradition The fourth question is also grounded upon Errour as if the publick disorders which happen in the Church were not to be reformed by General Councils The fifth question is also built upon Sand for it pretends that the Papal Authority is to be debated in Councils whereas no General Council did ever dispute it The sixth question is as strange
as out of the Roman Church Is it come to this that Marcionists Ebionites Arians Nestorians Eutichians Donatists Novatians and the scumm of Heretics because rightly baptised shall be reputed Members of the Catholic Church This had been great news in the days of St. Austin who in his forty eighth Epistle makes this profession to Donatus You are with us in Baptism in the Creed in the rest of our Lord's Sacraments but in the Catholic Church you are not And St. Hierom against the Luciferans No Heretical Congregation can be called a Church of Christ. For though Baptism be the Gate by which whoever enters the Church must pass yet there is no Man though baptized if an Heretic can remain there His next Paragraph is made up by comparing the Church in her Infancy with her self in her fuller growth and from that different State he would conclude that in her beginnings 't was easy to find out that one visible Church by reason of the strait union of the Faithful in the Bonds of Faith and Charity when the Multitude of them who believed were of one Heart and of one Soul but not so in after Ages when the Concussion of the whole State of the Church by so many fractions and divisions in her Communion had so obscured her that they rendred her difficult to be discerned This is the sum of his discourse in gross which I answer by detail after the ascention of Christ there was no time wherein there was not divisions in the Church for even in those good days of the Apostles there went out from them either by Schism Heresy or Apostacy many heads of Factions who grew into Bodies and drew after them considerable Parties such as the Ebionits the Nicholaits the Marcionists and many more whereof some had been Jewish others had been Gentile Christians but all of them went out from the Body of the Church so that notwithstanding the Multitude of those who believed were of one Heart and Soul yet there were many who fell from their Belief I shall now take leave to ask whether the Church in the throng of these Divisions was easily visible or no He grants it was how then came it to pass that in after Ages she became so obscure and as it were invisible He replies by Divisions but if in both States of the Church there were divisions how happens it that the Cause remaining the same should not work the same Effect Was there any Mark Rule or Standard by which the Church was known amidst her first Divisions which afterwards disappeared If not the Church may be equally visible in both her States now if at the rise of any Heresie the Apostles and after them the Apostolick Men used all means to suppress it either by Preaching Catechizing writing against it and meeting in full Assemblies for the Comdemnation of it by stigmatizing both the Heresy and its Author cutting him off from the Body of the Church if I say by these means the infant Church was rendred as visible as a Town scituate on a Mountain or a Light upon a Candlestick then the same Methods continuing in the Church of after times do evidently evince that she was and now is as visible as ever and that there was a just Performance of this in every Age is made out by the records of all times where the time the place the Origin the Author of every Heresie the vigorous opposition that was made against it the Fathers that writ against it the Pastors that Preach'd it down the Councils that condemned it the Laws of Princes made against it are all so exactly noted that all the actions and motions of the Church in every Age were as visible as those of the first and best of times As to the remarkable difference he mentions in the nature of Schisms which happened in the Church and gave occasion of great misapplications and sayings of the Antients about the one Catholic Church I do not believe it material to observe it for let the Schism or Heresie be of what nature soever since the Church in a general Council is the last tribunal in all such Causes whoever separates or goes out from her is to be reputed as an Heathen or a Publican but because his way of writing merits that nothing be slighted I shall march with him through the following Passages Some did so break off Communion with other Parts of the Catholic Church as to challenge that Title wholly to themselves as was evident in the case of the Novations and Donatists If the Novatians and Donatists did break off Communion with other parts only of the Catholic Church I desire to know where the whole Church was at that time For unless he ranges these Hereticks in the Catholic Church and so reputes them parts of it the breach was from the whole not from parts as a rotten Branch is separated from the Trunck or the whole Tree Well how was the Breach By Challenging the Title of the Catholic Church wholly to themselves as was Evident for they re-baptized all that embraced their Communion not to insist upon other Enormities of these Novatians and Donatists by what means were these Monsters crushed were they not the same that were used in the first Ages did not the Pastors watch over their Flock to preserve it from the contagion did not St. Austin and other Fathers sharpen their Pens against them did not the Church by her Councils cut them off as rotten Limbs from her Body If nothing of this can be concealed then clearly she was as visible as ever The next instance is from the Bishops of Rome excommunicating 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 Heretics This Breach I confess is of a different Nature from the former for here the whole Church was not by any of her Councils yet engaged but the contest was betwixt Parts tho' some more Eminent than others and in which 't is possible some transports of Passion might interyene Irenaeus 't is true expostulates with the Bishop of Rome not that he wanted Authority but that he exercised it with too much Severity over the Bishops of Asia upon a Subject he thought not to be of so great Moment The truth is both these customs had long obtain'd the one in the Western and the other in the Eastern Church and nothing less then a general Council did set a Period to the Dispute A Council was called the decision was made for the Bishop of Rome and Peace was restored to the whole Church can any Man at this time of day say that the Church was not as visible as ever the controversy betwixt Cornelius and Stephen Bishops of Rome on the one side and St. Cyprian with the Affrican Bishops of the other was much of the same Nature nothing was yet defin'd by a general Council Right stood for the Bishops of Rome the Council determined the
as any for it confounds Phancy and Tradition whereas the one is publick to the whole World and the other is private His next Paragraph adulterates the Royal Coin for when the King demands to know where the power of deciding matters of Faith is given to every particular person the sense is clear for the question cannot be meant otherwise than in relation to himself But he extends it so as if every one was to give Laws to another's Faith and this without any ground is made the first Member of the division But he adds If by deciding matters of Faith no more be meant but every Man 's being satisfied of the reasons why he believes one thing to be true and not another that belongs to every Man as he is bound to take care of his Soul So that by his reply every Man whose Soul is dear to him may and ought to discuss and dispute every Article of his Faith and bring it to the Test of his own reason and so the Omnipotence of a God revealing and the Authority of a Church declaring what is revealed weighs not with him until reason be satisfy'd and the understanding becomes a measure of all revealed Truths Whereas in truth Authority is the correlative of Believing and Reason of Knowledge And though we make use of our reason to find out that Authority which ought to sway us as a blind Man serves himself with his reason to find out his Guide yet after that 't is Authority not Reason that moves us and the previous motives inducing us to embrace the Authority of the Church from whence we have Scriptures and all other inscrutable Mysteries are much more visible and resplendent than for any other Article of our Faith The King goes on Christ left power in his Church even to forgive sins c. He replys But where then was the Roman Catholic Church Undoubtedly where now it is one and the same from whence all other pretended Churches went out she never departing from any Church that was elder than her self If she had I doubt not but her Eagle-ey'd adversaries would long er'e this have brought to light the Fathers the Councils or whatever else stood in opposition against her and since they never did nor can their plea against her is common to all whoever opposed the true Church In a good Sense therefore she alone remains Heir general to the Apostles as to those gifts which were not personal but given by Christ for the necessary support and government of her self which is to continue untill the consummation of Time And though he seems surprised that God should keep Man more from Error than from Sin Yet if he recalls but to mind that some of the Prophets were led into truths by the holy Spirit and were great Sinners at the same time and that all the Prophets though infallible in delivering such truths as God put into their mouths yet were obnoxious to sin the miraculous surprize will cease and the reason why infallibility is necessary and not impeccability is manifest because without the first the Church could not subsist for if once she makes Shipwrack of her Faith she is no more a Church an effect not so proper to sin And whereas he demands Would any have believed the Apostles infallible if they had known them to have been persons of ill lives I answer yes for either by Miracles wrought in confirmation of their Infallibility or any other way they could have an assurance of it As to any concession that the Church may err in deposing Princes if he means she may err in the decision of Truth or definition of Faith about it he is purely beholding to himself for that concession not to the King or any else I know of who only engage for her inerrability in delivering what she received from Christ and his Apostles by an uninterrupted Tradition and in conformity to this Rule the Church of Rome with all those in Communion with her the rest either by Heresie or Apostacy being divided from her was judge even of the Scripture it self what was Canonical what not or else it had been impossible for the Church of England to have known any thing of Truth concerning that Point there being no other Church to inform her but what had forfeited her Credit by manifest Heresie and that owned by the Church of England this is a vindication of the King against three of his Paragraphs The King having put the question by what Authority Men separate themselves from that Church He replies that they have not separated themselves from the Catholick and Apostolick Church but are disjoyned from the Roman Church that we may keep up the Stricter Vnion with the truly Catholick and Apostolick Church But if the English Church reputes it self a Member of the Chatholick Church because she professes to stand to the three Creeds and four first general Councils then certainly the Arians Nestorians Eutichians and the Eastern Churches above-mentioned cannot be parts of the Catholick Apostolick Church because they hold not the Apostolick Doctrine contain'd in those Creeds and Councils But besides those Churches there were no other in Being at the time of Separation but those Churches which were in communion with the Church of Rome consequently the Church of England going out from them separated her self from the Catholick Apostolick Church and therefore unless he can prove the Church of Rome to have deserted any other elder Church than her self by Usurpation or otherwise his Story of an Usurper will be but a Shift and may authorise all Rebellion either in Church or State The last Paragraph is since Protestants do charge the Church of Rome with Imposition of new Articles of Faith the King desires to know who is to be judg of that whether the whole Church the Succession whereof hath continued to this Day without Interruption or particular Men who have raised Schisms to their own Advantage The Roman Church having been in Possession of all those Truths now questioned by the Men of the Church of England nothing can be more unreasonable than to devest her of her just Possession and to require her to fall a proving whereas this ought to be the Province of those who under the Pretence of Innovation revolted from her For either they must make good their charge or else by all Laws they stand condemned and she remains justified Wherefore since at the time of separation she owned the Papal Supremacy and other Articles to have descended to her by an universal Tradition whoever questions the Title must convince her of that pretended Usurpation and then as it is well observed by the King who shall be judg in that case To have answered the Royal Paper this Method he should have minded which in disputes of another Nature I doubt not but he would have Practised However after his challenging the Church to prove her Possession he proceeds to declare that the Protestants being now by falling from the Church
A REPLY TO THE ANSWER Made upon the Three Royal PAPERS Published by Authority LONDON Printed for Matthew Turner at the Lamb in High-Holborn MDCLXXXVI THE PREFACE ENtring upon the Answer to the Three Royal Papers whereof the two first were of CHARLES the Second of ever blessed memory and the last of her Royal Highness the Dutchess of York I met with a Gentleman of so frank a Temper that could his Will bribe his Understanding and he believe as he pleased he tells us he had not fail'd of that Satisfaction in the KINGS first Paper of which for the want of Reason to convince him he was now disappointed This condescending Humour is a fair step made to the Inquest by a second Examen of those excellent Truths illustrated by the pregnant Pens and Sense of those Royal Converts Royal Papers I confess as to their Value may be examined as well as Royal Coin even by a private Subject But as the Royal Stamp in Coin may under that fair Pretence by a private Subject be counterfeited clipt or otherwise disguised so Royal Papers especially of Controversy are no less obnoxious to the same Fate and in this they only differ that no such Alteration in the KING'S Coin can be made by a private Subject but he is look't upon as an ill Man and acting with an ill Design Whereas in the KING' 's Controversial Papers the change either of Sense or Word may be made and that by a well-designing Person from misunderstanding inadvertency or other inculpable Surprize Now as to this Gentleman to determine any thing would be a piece of Injustice for I am ignorant both of his Merits and his Person What Mist hath overcast his sight I know not but if he please to look back by a new Survey on the three Papers he may still see in them Reason and Truth so well fixed that to any thing yet opposed they stand unconcerned and as they bear in their Front the Royal Names and Superscription so their Weight will render them immoveable THE FIRST Royal Paper VINDICATED FOrgers and Clippers of Royal Coin seek their safety in places of all the most obscure and Disguisers and Clippers of Royal Sense hide themselves in the shades of Equivocation the King availing himself in his first Paper upon this supposed Concession That Christ can have but one Church here upon Earth makes this other step and I believe that it is as Visible as that Scripture is in print that none can be that Church but that which is called the Roman Catholic Church Now if the King may be allowed to be the best expounder of his own words and if the whole and sole design of this first Paper be to evince this truth That all Controversial Points of Faith either about holy Scripture or other subjects do fall under the judgment and decision of the Church as is manifest it is then the import of the King's words must be thus that whatever motives render it visible that a Book in print is Scripture that is the Word of God the same or other motives are as powerful to render this other truth as visible That none can be that Church but that which is called the Roman Catholic Church This is the genuine Sense of the King and to this the Examinant of the Royal Papers gives this answer If particular Controuersies about matters of Faith could be ended by a principle as visible as that Scripture is in print all Men of Sense would soon give over Disputing for none who dare believe what they see can call that in question Not to contest with him about the impropriety of the phrase to believe what one sees Luther was a bold Man and yet in the phrase of this Gentleman did not dare to believe what he saw for the Epistle of St. James was in print before his Eyes he perused it and yet cast it out of the Canon of Scripture Catholics and Protestants are both Men of Sense they have the Books of Machabees and others in print they see them they handle them the Catholic gives them their place in the Canon the Protestants do not only question them but seem resolv'd to dispute that point to the end clearly then this principle that the Scripture is in print is not so unquestionable or indisputable as the Gentleman pretends and his miscarriage rests in this That the visibility which in the sense of the King springs from the motives inducing to believe that such or such a Book in print is the holy Scripture he assigns to a bare print of the Book But what if the Church whose Authority 't is said they must submit to will not allow them to believe what they see My first reply is That here is a confusion of Notions for belief is properly of things that are not seen as the Apostle describes it argumentum non apparentium and hath Authority for motive whereas sight or seeing is an inspection into the thing seen and creates a knowledge of it Secondly not to recede from his mode of Speech I am a stranger to such a Church and think it impossible to impose upon any Man a command not to believe what he sees For though it may and doth often fall out that a Man believes what he sees not yet in true Philosophy it can never happen that a Man may not believe what he sees and therefore such a command is ranged amongst the impossibles I well know where his scruple is and what he would be at 't is the Adorable Mystery of the conversion of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of our Redeemer where he hopes to evince this assertion but in vain for what is seen are only the forms shapes and figures of Bread and Wine and that we believe to be there consequently the Church lays upon us no command not to believe what we see For instance I will press upon him the two noted passages of holy Scripture the first is of two Angels appearing to Lot and conversing with him in the figure and shapes of Men the second is of the Holy Ghosts descent in the form of a Dove with all let us suppose that God had revealed to Lot this truth that what he did see were not Men but Angels in Mens Shape as he did to the Apostles that what appeared was not a Dove but the Holy Ghost in the Shape of a Dove I now put this question to him was this Revelation a Command upon Lot or the Apostles not to believe what they did see I believe his Answer will be Negative for if there were neither Men nor Dove neither could be seen If then God at any time should reveal to us by his Church that what is in the Holy Sacrament is not Bread nor Wine but the Body and Blood of Christ under those Shapes and Forms why must this revelation be deemed a Command not to believe what we see or where lies the Disparity Evidently then there neither is nor
point and the whole Church came to an acquiescence Had this Gentleman been chosen advocate for the Catholic Church I know not how he could have render'd her more visible He proceeds 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 How far the heat of these disputes might have carried the Parties engaged or whether either or neither party was free from blame I shall not determine but this is a certain Maxime both in Church and State that a submission either active or passive is due to all Lawful Powers though the command be unjust and 't is the known principle of St. Austin with the Ancients that no cause can be given to separate from the whole Church either by Heresie or Schism now in this contest here was no separation from the whole Church by either of the Parties but a perfect submission to her Decrees when delivered by the mouth of her General Assembly so that here was not different Communions amongst Christians but only different sentiments in matters as yet undecided by the Church with which it consisted that both parties were members of the Catholic Church and consequently no one member of the contesting parties as this Gentleman well observes ought to assume to its self the Title and Authority of the one Catholic Church But when Sentence was passed by a General Council the dissenting party if any remained was cut off as a rotten Member from the Body of the Catholic Church and then the contest is no more betwixt party and party but betwixt a rebellious party and the whole Church to whom the stile of that one Catholic Church is justly due she being the whole as the Trunk of the Tree is the whole compared to any Limb and the Novatians and Donatists her putrified Members Amongst other calamities which have sprung from original corruption 't is not the least that being our selves Criminals we have an itch to find out confederates as if their number rendered us Innocent This assailant of the Royal Papers to justifie the late separation of the Protestants from the Roman Catholic Church brings upon the Stage the Eastern Churches cut off and separated from her Communion And adds that the Bishops of Rome would hear of no other terms of accommodation with the Eastern Church but by an intire submission as head of the Catholic Church which all the Churches of the East refus'd however different amongst themselves and to this day look on the Popes Supremacy as an innovation in the Church How well skill'd he is in the History of the Eastern Churches I shall not dispute But sure all is not Game that rises and I doubt the account given him is made up of false Musters This is certain the Eastern Churches were divided from the Roman-Catholic Church that is from all Churches in Communion with the Church of Rome by such Doctrines as are inconsistent even with the Church of England which professes to hold whatever was decreed by the first four general Councils and this breach of union continues with their descendents to this day The Egyptians Ethiopians and Abissines are by Sect Eutichians holding but one Nature Will and Operation in Christ and are condemned by the fourth general Council that is of Chalcedon with these side part of the Armenians the Jacobites Georgians and Cophties The Christians under the Turk and Persians in Asia are Nestorians branded by the General Council of Ephesus for maintaining two persons in Christ. The Grecians with the Muscovites and Russians by the Athanasian Creed so Sacred to the Church of England are excluded even from Salvation for refusing to believe the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son As to the first division of the Greek Church the true cause was from the contest betwixt Ignatius true Patriarch of Constantinople and Photius the intruder with the first stood the Pope and the Emperor with the last and in the end to make the breach the wider the procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son was denyed and so it rests till this day now that the Pope's Supremacy was and is look'd on as an innovation by any of these Churches I doubt is a story not so well grounded as this Gentleman could wish And if my Authors deceive me not some of these as the Egyptians and Ethiopians have often made overtures to the Pope for Peace and Communion owning him Supream Head of the Church provided only they might not be obliged to renounce Eutiches and Dioscorus After these fundamental Errours of Faith against the Holy Ghost and the person of Jesus Christ he put this question how then came they to be excluded from being parts of the one Catholic and Apostolic Church Since in all those Churches the two Creeds are professed true Baptism administred A Man would have thought that such blasphemies against the Divinity and Humanity of Christ had been cause enough to have Unchurched any number of Men but since he seems to opine that the denyal of the two first Creeds can do the work why should not the refusal of a third Creed or if the emergencies of new started Doctrines made it necessary a fourth and fifth Creed be as prevalent Is the power of the Church Catholic in deciding Faith less then it was in making the second Creed Again is it not as possible for Men who profess a Creed to err even against that Creed as it is for Men professing a Rule to deviate from that Rule Wherefore it being evident that nothing of all this hath been wanting to fill up the measure of Heresie in those Eastern Churches they cannot be reputed parts of the one Catholic and Apostolic Church consequently the Roman Church and the Churches in Communion with her must be that one Church or there was or is none upon Earth This principle then that the Roman Church is that one Catholic and Apostolic Church being as visible as was asserted by the king to enter into the Ocean of particular disputes would be to enter into the maze of everlasting jarring Pregnant evidence of this truth is had from the pretended Reformation of this last Age where the innumerable Sects that have swarm'd from the first Reformers in the divided World steering their course as they fancy by the Compass of Holy Scripture a president given them by their Leaders have improved controversie to that degree that 't is impossible by that method to reclaim them the Scholar still in that out-doing his Master And whereas it is believed by this Gentleman That the Church of Rome hath notoriously deviated from this infallible rule Scripture sensed by fancy for neither he concerns himself for Tradition nor Exposition of the Fathers and therefore is not willing to put her self upon that issue I answer that the Church of Rome cannot deviate from a rule she never professed to follow And if some
of Rome of whom they were once a part at Liberty betook themselves to the Examination of the Popes Supremacy and other Articles of the Council of Trent by Scriptures Fathers and Councils but could find nothing in any of them to make out that Supremacy or any Article now in dispute But still the King's Questions pressed upon them who shall be Judge Is not this a President for all Rebellion either in Church or State They have neither Scripture Tradition Councils nor Fathers but what they had from the Roman Church and at the first Breach they were in number very Inconsiderable and yet by a strange Presumption they pretend to have a clearer Sight into those Principles than that Church who gave them their very Being in Christianity I believe were this Gentleman to argue against those Sects that have spawn'd from the Church of England he would not suffer a pride so intollerable as to prefer their own sense in Scriptures or the Rule of Faith before that Church that gave them the Rule Well but having finished this inquiry What did they do He goes on thus Articles of Religion were drawn up wherein the Sense of our Church was delivered agreable to Scripture and Antiquity not the private sense of particular Men. If they be Articles of Religion then they are Articles of Faith if so they must come by Divine Revelation either by the way of Holy Scripture Tradition or otherwise Now I beseech him to declare in which of these principles are all or any of these negative Articles contained as no praying to Saints no Purgatory no reverencing of Images no Transubstantiation and the like with which the nine and thirty Articles are stuft Clearly this is a new Creed which neither the Eastern nor Western Churches did ever profess to hold Nor will it avail to reply that nothing of praying to Saints Purgatory or the like is to be found in the Scriptures or Antiquity which notwithstanding is a manifest illusion for if they be Articles of Religion or of Faith he must bring positive Texts to assert them by which all persons should be obliged to believe them and so to Sacrifice their Lives for them if occasion should be otherwise the Creed-makers will be lookt upon as Cheats and their new Creeds as the deluding Fancies of particular Men. As to the advantages of the Clergy in the Church of Rome I must needs confess they are very considerable and therefore not likely to be lost by any Reformation in Religion since if an Angel from Heaven should bring it they are caution'd not to receive him But that the Clergy should be against and Princes for the Church of Rome is as surprizing as that a Clergy may be byast and a Prince unbyast a Blessing so signally fallen from Heaven upon the Prince who now reigns and his blessed Brother that no advantage under Heaven can be thought so powerful as to have byast them in their Choice THE SECOND Royal Paper VINDICATED HIS late Majesty out of Paternal commiseration and his Princely care for the safety of this Nation breaks out into this complaint It is a sad thing to consider what a world of Heresies are crept into this Nation And this Assailant is much concerned that no distinction should be made between the Religion establish'd by Law and the Parties disowned by it and dissenting from it As if an establishment of a Religion by Law could protect it from being an Heresie or as if Error fix'd by a Law were not more to be pityed than what is vagrant and unsetled He need not trouble himself to vindicate other Sects from Heresie against the four or six General Councils let him defend his own and his work is done But how comes the Church of England to bear the blame of so many Heresies The reason is obvious to any one who reflects upon the breach she made from the Church of Rome and by that example opened a Gate for all Heresies to enter nay the truth is she is a fruitful Womb of Heresies of which Time has and will still deliver her for by throwing the Rule of Obedience and Government over-board the Presbyterians revolted from her from them the Anabaptists the Quakers and how many links more there will or may be God alone can tell since 't is not in the power of that Church but by the Sword to suppress them which if she should use against them nothing would be more unreasonable than to persecute them for adhering too closely to a Rule or Example which she first gave them To his Question How came the Church of Rome to have this power of defining or declaring what 's Heresie I answer By the same way the Church had power in her General Councils to make Creeds and Anathmatize Hereticks and as the Church then did not make any new Articles of Faith when she defined that the Son was Consubstantial to the Father and that Christ had two Wills and one Person so the Church of Rome in her definitions never pretends to make new Articles of Faith but to declare the old ones When the King had pronounced That every Man thinks himself as competent a Judge of Scripture as the Apostles themselves He answers by a Counter-questio Does every one amongst us pretend to an infallible Spirit Yes for by this Gentleman's Position no Man of them will believe but what he sees or understands in the Scriptures and in what they see or understand he conceives they cannot be deceived consequently their Spirit is infallible To use a Man's understanding about Scripture is not to be Judge of Scripture For a Man that so uses his understanding as to submit it to the Tradition of the Church makes the Church the Judge and not himself And whoever uses his understanding in opposition to the Churches Tradition makes himself judge indeed but not to his Salvation We says he own the Authority of Guides in the Church and a due submission to them What 's this Is that submission so due that Heaven will be lost without it If so his Church is as competent a Judge as the Apostles for that is the only punishment due to those who hear not them if otherwise the submission is ad pompam and in the sense of the King every Man thinks himself as competent a Judge of Scripture as the very Apostles themselves The King gives here a Reason for his foregoing Assertion and the sum of it is that the Church of England dares not press her Authority upon other Sects in giving the sense of Scriptures for fear they should confound her for having cast off the Authority of that Church of which she was once a Member and to whom she was equally bound to submit To this he replys That the Church of England pretends to no Infallibility but this is to disguise the Royal Coin for the King abstracts from all Infallibility and his Argument is as forceable without it as with it for if the Sectaries can
with truth cast it in the Teeth of the Church of England that she disobey'd her Mother Church whether she were Infallible or not the Church of England can never justly charge them with any disobedience to her But some Heads of the Roman Church have been not barely suspected of Heresie for one of them stands condemned for it in three General Councils But what 's this to the King's Reason who in neither of his Papers as I can see defends any Man from the possibility of falling into Heresie Not to multiply Disputes nor to recede from the King's Papers I shall not dive deeper into the Question Whether the Church of England be a true Church or no since the King did not Yet I could reply to this brisk Gentleman as St. Austin by me already cited did to the Donatists That all that he has raked together if it should be allowed to be in the Church of England yet something would be wanting to make her a true Church Well then what is the Church of England charged with 'T is thus says the King She would fain have it thought that they are Judges in matters spiritual yet dare not say positively there is no Appeal from them His Reply is from a Parity Betwixt Inferiour and Superiour Courts where both are truly Judges yet there lyes an Appeal from an Inferiour to a Superiour Court and he instances in Courts both Spiritual and Temporal But the Parity is very lame for the Church of England supposes her self nor inferiour to any other Church nor will she submit to any others Dictamen as things stand consequently as things stand she is the last Tribunal of Spiritual Doctrine In the next Paragraph the King argues thus What Country can subsist in quiet where there is not a Supreme Judge from whence there can be no Appeal From hence this Gentleman infers that every National Church ought to have the Supreme Power within its self This is no good Illation unless it be in reference to the Church of England which will have no such Superiour to it for the King speaks of a Country over which there is no Jurisdiction out of its self consequently there must be in that Country a Supreme Judge in all Temporal Causes but one Church which is subordinate to another Church and owns her self but a Member of an universal Church in Being cannot be said to be the last Tribunal from whence there can be no Appeal The rest of this Paragraph is a running division upon certain Abuses complain'd of by some Saints which because they may happen in the best of Ages and to the best of Men without prejudice to the lawful Authority of the Church I pass them by and shall make my Observation upon the next Paragraph that whereas the King's Expostulation is We have had these Hundred Years past the sad Effects of denying to the Church that Power in matters Spiritual without Appeal By which Expression as also by the antecedent and consequent Discourses is meant an Appeal to the Universal Church in matters Spiritual as Interpretation of Scripture Delivery of Doctrine Decisions of Faith c. He applies the Context against Personal Appeals to the Pope and then declaims against abuses of those Appeals of which both our own and neighbour Princes have complained and have been forced for the preserving of their own Dignity to set Bounds and Limits to Appeal to Rome But admit the king had intended Appeals to Rome does not this Gentleman by this reply That Princes have limited or bounded these Appeals to Rome own that Princes have believed that Appeals do of Right belong to Rome provided that Power be not abused And if the King himself was likely to suffer the most by them the more was his Integrity in preferring his Conscience before his Interest This Paragraph then is a Counterfeit of the Royal Stamp and so is the next by which the king is also misrepresented for which Reason I shall make no remark upon it Here begins the Kings application of his former Discourse by which this Gentleman may see his Error This is our Case here in England in matters Spiritual for the Protestants are not of the Church of England as it is the true Church from whence there can be no Appeal but because the Discipline of that Church is conformable at the present to their fancies c. He returns thus What Security can be greater than that of our Judgments For he will not have it to be Fancy I Answer That to submit our Judgments to that of the Catholic Church which God has appointed to direct us is the greatest Security we can have and in competition with this all is but Fancy And since he appeals to the whole World whether we have not made it appear that 't is not Fancy but Judgment which hath made us firm to the Church of England He is already cast by as many Votes as there are Men out of the Church of England Their adherence to the Crown of which he speaks is so principal a part of the Church of England as it is established by Law that without it that Church cannot subsist but when the Fancy shall move to change that Religion into Presbytery or any thing else Loyalty is out of Doors Now against those of the Church of Rome the Argument will not have that force for they and their Ancestors ever professing that Church to be their Infallible Mistress and that upon such Motives that nothing would be found more powerful their Judgment is fix't upon such a Basis that for want of it all other Churches which own themselves Fallible that is both apt to deceive and be deceived are but in a Tottering state What follows in this Paragraph is a Recrimination barely censuring without proving some Tenets of the Catholic Church as pure Fancy The Thread of the king's Discourse being still the same He concludes So that according to this Doctrine there is no other Church nor Interpreter of Scripture but which lies in every mans giddy Brain By which he may be assured the king calls that only a giddy Brain which stands in opposition to the great Authority of the Church interpreting Scripture But says the Answerer Let mens Brains be as giddy as they are said to be they are the best Faculties they can make use of for the understanding of Scriptures or any thing else Undoubtedly they are with that Assistance of an infallible Church which God has given them since many things to be understood there are out of the reach of Man's private Reason which he makes use of to find out his Guide being as visible as a City upon a Hill or a Light on a Candlestick and then submits to her Interpretation of Scriptures so that the infallible Church lies not in every Man 's giddy Brain but is as visible as the Sun Upon the winding up of this Discourse the king desires to know of every Serious Considerer of these things whether