which Christianity obliges me and that it may be false by the same Judgments being grounded on my fallible Authority For by judging it fallible I judge it may deceive me that is that what it recommends to me for true may be false At which rate he is the only good Christian who contradicts himself When the Answerer shall make out that such things can be we may hope to see his Church Authority without Infallibility Till then he will permit us to be persuaded that Infallibility is the true Argument which he confesses has not been us'd against Sectaries If it be true that the Church of England cannot pretend to this Argument which if she did Sectaries he says might justly turn it against her it is so much the worse and the Kings Discourse is indeed levelled against her But I see no such matter Why may not she if she please pretend to her share in the Infallibility of the Whole by remaining as I think her best Advocates plead she do's a part of the Whole Because says he tho' Church Authority be asserted infallibility is deny'd in her Articles Where I beseech him for I cannot find infallibility deny'd save to particular Churches whereof any one undoubtedly may forfeit her pretence to Infallibility by changing her former Faith and so ceasing to be a Member of the Body to which it was promised But this is her concern not mine Iâ— it be so with her she may thank those against whom the Kings Discourse is truly levell'd those who have pull'd this Argument out of her Hands and reduc'd her to have nothing to urge against Sectaries but the sinfulness and folly of their Separation as if she could take it ill of other folks that they separate from her if she be brought to separate from other folks Or as if there were any sin or folly in Peoples desiring to make their Salvation sure and when they cannot find security in a Fallible Authority seeking it elsewhere There follows that the Church of England as â— is calâ—â— d. This as ' t is call'd makes him teachy and he would fain know what she wants to make her as good a Church as any in the Christian World she that wants neither Faith if the Câ— eed contain it nor Sacraments nor Succession of Bâ—â—â— ps nor a Liâ—â—â—â— Never so little Indulgence for a King would 〈◊〉 suffered him to speak as he thought fit especâ—â—â—â— when he had apply'd the Word which offends the Answerer to the Church of Rome too For he 〈◊〉 of the Roman the Church which is 〈◊〉 the Râ—â—â— Catholic But if the Answerers Zeal for the Church of England be so very nice it might have been employ'd much more 〈…〉 something material for her than in picking a needless Quarrel If the Church of England really be not what she is call'd it is long of her self and the influence she suffers those to have who will needs possess the World that she sets up Separately for her self with a different Faith from that of the great Body As the Whole is but One Church made up of as many Members as there are particular Churches which profess the same Faith it is unintelligible how there can be a particular Church otherwise than by being a Member of this Body If the Answerer have a mind to shew she is a Church he should shew she is a Member and believes as the rest not alledge for her things common to as very Heretics as ever were in the World For how many of them receiv'd the Creed had Sacraments Succession of Bishops and Liturgies Not to touch the rest in which for all the Answerers confidence there are difficulties more than he or any Man will be able to clear Is it not palpable that Christians are as much oblig'd to believe every thing which Christ taught when 't is known he taught it as what is contain'd in the Creed And is it not as certainly known he taught much more as that he taught what is there contain'd Is it not palpable that she her self believes more I for my part understand not the Zeal of talking as if she quitted her only sure hold to stand upon Ground which will certainly founder under her and upon which arrant Heretics are forc'd to stand because they have no better But this again is her concern Our business is with the remaining part of the Paragraph which says that she would have it thought that she is the judge in matters Spiritual yet dares not say positively there is no appeal from her His Answer dilated with several Examples is That They are ture Judges from whom there lies an Appeal Still catching at Words and saying nothing to the Thing His Majesty was solicitous of freeing the Nation from the Heresies crept in and convincing the Sects by Arguments to which there could be no return Till the Church of England can determine Spiritual as a Judge do's Temporal Differences by a final Sentence conclusive to the Parties He thought so great a Benefit could not be expected from her The Answerer with his Zeal never thinks of shewing which way she can conclude any body but as if the Name of a thing were All tells us There are true Judges who nevertheless cannot conclude the Parties which come before them Why His Majesty and every body else knew this without needing to trouble his Rhetorâ— and Erudition for the Matter But what are those Judges to our purpose What Benefit shall we get by them And how much the nearer will our Differences be to an end If there were no other in the World Suits would be endless in a Nation and Controversies in a Church as I pray God there be not who desire no better In short His Majesty talks of Judges from whom there lies no Appeal He of Judges from whom there do's and gives us this for a satisfactory Answer He might peradventure have made something a better shew by saying That His Majesty by expecting the Church of England should judge without Appeal expects more than can be had from a particular Church because Appeals must needs lie from all such But every particular Church may judge as the rest of the Body do and it is to our purpose all one to judge without Appeal and to judge as they judge from whom there is none For that Judgment is without Appeal tho' not purely in vertue of the Authority of the particular Church So the Church of England may judge without Appeal and if she do not may thank those who will not let her His Majesty goes on proving what he had said For either they must say that They are Infallible which they cannot pretend to that is otherwise than by giving the right-hand of Fellowship to those who are or confess that what they decide in Matters of Conscience is no farther to be followed than it agrees with every Mans private Iudgment If Christ did leave a Church here upon Earth and We were all once of that Church
I see no great cause he has to wonder that Princes and the Clergy should be of different minds in Matters of Religion He knows the Case has happened heretofore and that there had been no change of Religion in England if the whole Body of the Clergy and their Advice had been regarded But not to pry into Mens Hearts to see what Interest sways them This is certain that those Princes who prefer their Eternal before their Temporal Interest when they are for the Church of Rome 〈◊〉 good example And I cannot conclude better 〈…〉 praying God to give every body the Grace to follow it and in behalf of Princes thanking him 〈◊〉 minding his Reader that they are not all drawn 〈…〉 of Rome by Interest A DEFENCE OF THE Second Paper THE first Paragraph as the Answerer has handled it concerns the Church of England more than me If She when the King talks of Heresies and Heresies crept in think her self oblig'd by the Answerers thinking presently of her or when she is brought in by his turning immediately to justifie the Dissenters and that by an Argument alledged formerly in her behalf with something more favour to them too than her â— for he allows Them Six Councils and but Four to Herâ— I have nothing to do with it They are Matters between themselves Are there Heresies in England or are there not Is it a sad thing there should or is it not These are the Questions at present and 't will be time enough to talk of the Church of England and Dissenters when they are answered What Power the Church of Rome has to define Heretiâ—â—â— Doctrines will keep cold too For 't is not ask'd How Heresies come to be or are known to be Hereâ—â—◠〈…〉 That 〈◊〉 should lay the stress of his Answer on a 〈◊〉 This Expression as competent as the 〈◊〉 is bâ— t an ordinary way of saying very compeâ—â—â—â— As when we say This Man is as strong as Samâ—◠〈◊〉 as wise as Solomon we mean no more 〈◊〉 that they are very strong and wise And he can 〈◊〉 that Not just so competent as the Apostles is an 〈◊〉 to Whether Competent or no and to 〈◊〉 at a Word fit matter in a Dispute with a King 〈…〉 us see The Apostles for what concerned 〈◊〉 could do no more with their Infallible 〈◊〉 than judge for themselves and act in order 〈…〉 Salvation according to that Judgment And 〈…〉 the Answerer contends is the right of every 〈◊〉 Why then every body is in rigour as competent 〈…〉 for himself as the Apostles And he 〈◊〉 to 〈…〉 His Majesty affirmed by 〈…〉 himself â— or His Majesty only said ther understand nor mean to inquire It concerns those Guides and it is not for me to thrust my self into the Concerns of other Folks And 't is no wonder says the third Paragraph it should be so since that Part of the Nation which looks most like a Church dares not bring the true Arguments against the other Sects for fear they should be turned against themselves and confuted by their own Arguments To this he says first That it is directly level'd against the Church of England As if an Arrow were the sharper or blunter for the Mark at which it is aim'd Let him tell us whether the Assertion be true or not true and talk of Levelling when Levelling is in question He is out even in that too For the Paragraph is in truth levell'd not against the Church of England but her Misfortune It is an Expression of Compassion not Reproach that she has been overaw'd from using the true Arguments against Sectaries Then he answers That if there can be no Authority in a Church without Infallibility or no Obligation to submit to Authority without it then the Church of England doth not use the best Arguments against Sectaries But if there be no ground for Infallibility as if his won Goodness were not Ground enough for God to give it to a Nature which needs it and his Word not Ground enough to believe he has given it then for ought he can see the Church of England hath wisely disown'd the Pretence of Infallibility and made use of the best Arguments against Sectaries from a just Authority and the Sinfulness and Folly of the Sectaries refusing to submit to it I take for granted he speaks of Authority to guide Souls to Heaven such as was in the Primitive Church when the Civil Laws were all against her And pray him if he please to instruct us how such Authority can be in a Church without Infalâ—â— bility We see no body will believe a Man who after he has told his Story should add It may be all falâ— e for any thing he knows nor lend his Money upon a Promise to be repaid which the Borrower declares before-hand he knows not whether he can keep or no. And we are persuaded there should be better Security for our Souls than for our Money or unconcerning Opinions To say a Church is fallible is to say she may be deceiv'd and if she may be deceiv'd her self They may be deceiv'd who follow her Wherefore to tell us that such a Church has notwithstanding Authority to guide us and that we ought submit to it is to tell us we ought be led by a Guide who cannot answer he knows the way we should go and venture eternal Happiness or Misery on a Security which he who gives tells us plainly before-hand may fail us Pray let us consider Christians every body knows are oblig'd to lose all things their Goods their Liberty their Lives rather than their Faith Can it be reasonable to do this for a Faith of which they are conscious to themselves that it may be false for any thing they know And do's not his own Heart tell him who knows nothing of it but by the Relation of a fallible Relator that it may be false for ought he can tell Wherefore to make the Faith of Christians depend on a fallible Authority is to make Christianity with its obliging Duties the most unreasonable thing in Nature What do I say unreasonable It is to make it absolutely impossible For can I be a Christian without believing Is not Belief a judgment that the thing is true which I believe Can I have such a Judgment without a cause able to produce it And is a fallible Authority able to make me judge more than that the thing is fallibly true When Christianity therefore obliges me to believe the thing absolutely true it there be nothing to make me believe but a fallible Authority it obliges me to an Effect without a Cause that is to a downright impossibility And indeed to flat Contradiction For as a thing cannot possibly be true and not true at once to judge it is true is to judge it cannot at the same time be false But I must of necessity judge both if I judge upon a Motive which I know is fallible That it is true by the Judgment to
Anger and Malice and Indignation For Disputes alas continue not because Truth is not visible but because Men will not submit their Sence to Grace but strain it in stead of ending Disputes to keep them up and render invisible the most visible things in the World In our present Case if His Majesty in stead of as visible had said the Church is more visible than Scripture He would have had a very great Man to take His part For which do's the Answerer think is the more visible of the two the thing which is seen or that by which it is seen And he knows who said I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Catholic Church had moved me And this is in truth the Case of every Body But evidently S. Augustin's Eyes as good as they were did not see the Scripture but by the Catholic that is the Roman Catholic Church For that the Answerer knows was the Catholic Church with which he communicated Then he gives a Reason why Disputing would cease viz. Because none who dare believe what they see can call Scriptures being in Print in question which by making nothing visible which can be called in question makes it not visible that Scripture is in Print For he knows the far greatest part of Mankind all Infidels and Mahumetans do actually call Scripture in question at this day he knows many Christians have questioned divers Parts of it heretofore and He himself still questions some as visibly in Print as any of the rest But to question whether the Book in Print be Scripture is manifestly to question whether Scripture be in Print And so in one breath he says it is in the next it is not visible that Scripture is in Print But we will not fall out about Matters which import not But goes he on what if the Church whose Authority it is said they must submit to will not allow them to believe what they see Why then that Church if he take Believing strictly agrees with all Mankind For as every body knows that Faith is of things not seen none can allow we properly believe 〈◊〉 we see But if he take the Word largely I know of no Church which allows not People to believe all they see I do indeed know of one which would be glad People would not believe they see what they see not nor by thier Senses can see An Eye may see the Colour of a thing and an Ear hear the Sound it makes c. but what this coloured or sounding thing is often needs more than the Senses to discover For the What of a thing is not the Object of any Sense How then says he can this be a sufficient Reason to persuade them to believe the Church because it is as visible as that the Scripture is in Print I am sorry that to know our Duty is not with him sufficient reason to do it We all know by the Evangelist that Christ left Commission to teach all Nations and by the Apostle that there are Pastors and Doctors appointed to build us up into the Vnity of Faith and prevent our being Circumvented by Errour And whatever he do's I take it to be my Duty to learn of those who are appointed and have Commission from Christ to teach when 't is visible who they are His following conceit of using and renouncing our Senses and indeed all hitherto said might have very well been spar'd For there is nothing yet which relates to our Business If he thinks Kings and their Writings are not above Sporting the Matter I am sure is The substance of what he says when he thinks to pass in earnest is 1. That a Part is not the Whole and the Roman he takes to be only a part of the Catholic Church 2. That Roman Catholic is an Expression found neither in the Creeds nor Office of Baptism even at present 3. That the Roman do's not her self believe she is the Catholic Church of the Creeds because she admits the validity of Baptism administred out of her Communion And lastly That there may be different Communions of Christians which may still continue parts of the Catholic Church for instance the Holy Bishops and Martyrs who he says were Excommunicated heretofore in Asia and Afric and the Eastern Christians at this Day For his first Riddle of a Part and Whole we may thank his Inadvertence The Paper do's not say that the Roman is the Catholic Church but that the Roman Catholic is the one Church of Christ. As Roman alone may signify the Diocess under the immediate Government of the Bishop of Rome which never did nor can more pretend to be the Catholic Church than the Church of Laodicea or Ephesus or any other particular Church the Paper by joyning Catholic to it shews it speaks of her and all joyn'd in Communion with her and all who believe as her Communion believes whether they be joyn'd in External Communion or no. For it is apparent by his Majesties talking all along of matters of Faith and no where of any thing else that he minded nothing but Faith and considered the Church with respect only to Faith Now I beseech him is this Roman Catholic ever the less visibly the one Church of Christ because a Part is not a Whole Of what will he make that Whole but of all the Parts And do's not Catholic signify all the Parts Or is it the less Catholic is any part taken out because the particular Roman is put in By the way because He often mentions the Roman Church without adding Catholic let me here to avoid Repetitions declare once for all That I shall understand him of the Roman Catholic wherever the Circumstances of the place determine not the Sense to the particular Church of Rome For he means not I suppose to talk of one Church while His Majesty talks of another Upon the Second Head he asks If those who made the Creeds for our direction had intended the Roman Catholic Church why was it not so expressed He might have answered himself For he knows as well as I that the Reason was because Language always changes with Times As there were no such Dreams of the Roman Church when the Creeds were made as now it had been a very superfluous and a very unaccountable piece of Care to have said Roman in a Word by it self which was already said by the Word Catholic and so by all the World understood Now there are who will have her some a corrupt Part of the Catholic Church some none at all who have a mind to let People know they take her for a Part and a sound and the principal Part and yet would save Words have light on a thrifty way of saying all in short by Roman-Catholic He says besides That this Limitation as he calls it of the Sense of Christ's Catholic Church to the Roman was never put to Persons to be Baptiz'd in any Age of the Church And That he finds
Baptism to be receiv'd into the Church and that there goes Faith as well as Baptism to a Member of the Body of Faithful And as Faith signifies an Assent to the Doctrine of Christ the Answerer sure will not say that they have Faith who far from assenting contradict the Doctrine of Christ and so make the Church a Congregation no longer of Faithful but of Faithful and not Faithful There is more ado about the last Head and nothing all the while to the Question The substance is That some have been 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 Catholic Church That therefore there may be different Communions among Christians which may still continue Parts of the Catholic Church And that consequently no one Member of such a Division ought to assume to it self the Title and Authority of the One Catholic Church And what is all this even supposing it all true to the Question of the Paper Whether the Roman Catholic be the One Catholic Church of the Creeds Suppose his divided Christians do continue Parts still of the Catholic Whole cannot the Roman Catholic therefore be that Whole Suppose no one Member of the Division ought to assume to it self the Title and Authority of the One Catholic Church ought not therefore both and all the Members to assume it What is or can there be to assume it besides Or would he not have it assumed at all but the Name of Catholic Church banish'd out of the World by every such Division which happens in it His Majesty as I observ'd before included in the Roman Catholic Church of which He speaks all Christians whom a different Faith excluded not and said that this Church or these All are the One Catholic Church of the Creeds The Answerer to shew they are not tells us That among these All there may be Divisions notwithstanding which they may remain Parts still of the Catholic Church Why if they remain Parts of the Catholic Church they are of the number of the All who make it up and remain Parts of His Majesty's Roman Catholic Church which takes All in Is that Church ever the less Catholic by having never so many Members Or ever the less One because divided Christians believe as she do's For if they do not She and They both cannot be Members of one Catholic Church and the Answerer must needs exclude either Her or Them For it being as palpable Nonsence that one Church can be with more than one Faith as that one Man can be with more than one Soul the Churches which make up the Catholic Apostolic One Church can have but one Faith among them All And who knows the Faith of any one knows the Faith of all the rest Now since the Answerer with his Compliment of Corrupt Faith which as Compliments often are is Nonsence too makes the Roman Catholic a Part at least of the one Catholic Whole all the other Parts must believe as she do's or cannot themselves be Parts And so his Reason why All those who believe as she do's are not the Catholic Church is because All believe as she do's notwithstanding some Divisions As it is not to our purpose I inquire not whether his divided Christians do indeed by continuing the same Faith properly continue parts of the Catholic Church a Question which belongs to the propriety of Language nor how far so much Title to the Church avails to their Salvation Since Divisions especially of long continuance seem hardly consistent with Charity and Charity is as necessary to Salvation as Faith I pray God of his Mercy to preserve me from ever being divided whether I be said to belong still to the Church or no and make them sensible of their condition who are Neither will I examine how 't is with the Eastern Christians at this Day or was with those of Afric and Asia whom he makes Excommunicated heretofore by the Bishops of Rome a Point of which if he have a mind to Dispute he may chuse his Man among those who deny it Whether the Roman Catholic comprehending all of the same Faith with her be the one Catholic Apostolic Church of the Creeds is our Question not who they are who have the same Faith And that this Roman Catholic Church is the One Church which Christ has on Earth or that he has none on Earth is as visible as that Scripture is in Print or any thing more visible if any thing can be For if it be not we must look for Christ's Church either among Infidels who believe not in Christ at all or Heretics who believe not his Doctrine And there I for my part despair to find it The truth is I suspect by his talking that he would be content People should think that the one Catholic Church of the Creeds requir'd not any one Faith but were made up of as many Men as own Christ whatever they believe of his Doctrine Except perhaps those who Rebaptise and those who assume the Title of the Catholic Church By which means the notion of Catholic would be well enough provided for but One and Church left to shift for themselves But he do's not directly say it and 't is not fair to put my suspitions to his account Divers other Passages there are in his Discourse which relish not with me He by saying the Visible Church might have been easily shewn in the first Blessed Times insinuates she is less visible now or rather invisible for visible things may be easily seen at all times And I conceive the same marks which shew'd her then will with as little difficulty shew her now Christians were then admonish'd to mind those who abide in the Doctrine of Christ who come and bring not that Doctrine and to contend for the Faith once delivered to the Saints And we have but to do so still Again I comprehend not how his unheeded and yet remarkable difference between People cast out of Communion viz. That some did and some did not challenge the Title of the Catholic Church was the cause of any great misapplication It sounds as if he would have that Title never rightly apply'd but to those who do not challenge it in likelihood because they have no pretence to it But I less understand how it comes to be Presumption and a cause of Schisms in one part of a Division to assume it It is not well intelligible when there is a Division how more than one part can bear it For the Language of the World has always preserv'd that Title to one Part and given the name of Sect or part cut off to the other And it is more unintelligible how it should be Presumption in that one Part to take what all the World gives and that Presumption be the cause of Schisms which happen'd and of necessity always must happen before the Presumption For till there be Schism that is Division there
manifest for you I shall neither believe Catholics nor you Here I will stop For truly after so much said of this Subject and so long Experience of his sure Compass I grieve too much to dispute it farther when I observe that neither Reason nor Experience will do and fear there are who more desire the Ocean of Controversies should never be past than truly think it will be past this way But he is merry whatever I be For sure he is in jest when he talks of clear Evidence of Scripture against us and the Church of Romes notoriously deviating from it Under the Face he sets on this Matter there is nothing in the World but that he has the Art to make the Words of Scripture bear a Sense of his own or Friends invention no great matter to brag on Alas no not so much as for Learning For even the Unlearned he knows have Wit enough to pervert the Scriptures to their own Perdition And because the Church of Rome has no mind his Word should be past upon her for God's Word he runs away with it with a sure Compass and clear Evidence and the infallible Rule Words which as big as they sound signifie nothing but the Whimsies of possibly a single possibly an unlearned Man but yet who will needs be wiser than the Church To take upon us to understand the meaning of the Books of Divine Mysteries otherwise than by learning it of their Interpreters when no Trade the most trivial and easie is learnt without a Master and condemn what we understand not as we do when we will not embrace that Meaning is not to mince his Words rash Pride in the Opinion of S. Austin But to go on the Answerer knows very well that the meaning of his Majesties next Paragraph is not what his Question would put upon it and yet he must needs suppose it has another as if he did him Grace His Majesty asks no Grace of him but to put the Period entire It is not left to every Phantastical Mans Head to believe as he pleases but to the Church to whom Christ left the Power on Earth where I think the Compositor has left out a Comma to govern us in matters of Faith who made the Creeds for our direction and then to understand English But he will needs suppose the meaning is that those who reject the Authority of the Roman Catholic Church do leave every Man to believe according to his own Fancy Still he takes it not right Not but that rejecting that Authority infers setting up private Fancy But as inconsequent as it is there are who for all their rejecting that greater Authority are severe enough in requiring punctual obedience to their own little or no Authority and this too visibly for his Majesty to say they do not His words I conceive cannot fairly be suppos'd to extend farther than they were directed to a single Person in all likelihood who had the honour of his Confidence and whom he thought fit to put in mind That it is not left to every Phantastical Mans Head to believe as he pleases What has the Answerer to say to this is it true or is it not true Certainly says he those of the Church of England cannot be liable to any Imputation of this Nature And who can tell by this whether he say I or no or what kind of Answer that should be which says neither or what it serves for but to do the Church of England the same good Office which they do themselves who when Vice is ridicul'd on the Stage fall out with the Actors or Poet and will needs be the Fools of the Play But if he will be 〈◊〉 needless Apologies why must he needs make one fifty times worse than the attempt to make it All Heretics since the first Four General Councils may say the very same which he says for the Church of England and all before them the Equivalent Arius himself could say I receive the Apostles Creed and why should more be requir'd of me when that has hitherto been thought sufficient for all Christians Moreover I embrace all former Councils but think I have very great reason to complain that a Party in the Church the most corrupt and obnoxious assuming the Title of a General and Free Council takes upon it self to define new Doctrine which has neither universal Tradition divers heretofore and all the Orthodox that is my Abetters being on my side and so plainly no Scripture that because they could find none there they were fain to Coyn a new Word for their new Faith Macedonius Nestorius and Eutiches might have said as much of the Creeds and Councils before them and all Heretics since of the Creeds and Councils alledg'd by the Answerer and all complain of the Villanous Factions call'd General Councils He has plainly justify'd them all if it be a justification of a Doctrine that it is not found condemned in Councils held before it was broach'd For the Doctrine of none of them was condemn'd by any former Council nor indeed well could For as Councils seldom meddle with more than the exigence for which they were call'd requires it is not to be expected that more Faith should be found in their Creeds or Acts than was Controverted when they sat Wherefore unless one will fancy that every part of Christs Doctrine was denied so early or that no body since can deny some part which was not denied then it is as wild as unseasonable to plead in behalf of a Doctrine now that it was not condemn'd by the first Four General Councils or Three Creeds where there was no occasion to mention it And yet he thinks this an Apology fit to be made for the Church of England Truly I have long thought and there are of her Members who know my Thoughts that she has ill luck when she has much better things to say for her self to have such things as these said for her things which fit the greatest Enemies she has every jot as well as her self and which I therefore wonder not when I see alledg'd by them as Pleas for her For They have reason when They will not be brought to Her to bring Her to Them if they can But to see them produc'd by those who will be even unseasonably zealous for her is a Riddle with which it is not for me to meddle What he adds of holding nothing contrary to any universal Tradition of the Church from the Apostles Times and putting it upon that Issue for professing and offering as he expresses it is no great matter unless they do what they profess and offer is indeed to purpose and spoken like a Friend of the Church of England and a Lover of Peace And I hea◠tily wish and as earnestly as I can pray to Almighty God that this Trial may be brought speedily on which I can safely undertake shall neither be declin'd nor delay'd by the Church of Rome Then he passes on
to 〈◊〉 the Promise of Assistance was made should 〈◊〉 know what it means none in the Roman Catholâ—â— Church ever understood it would always preserve even those who by their Functions are Church-Guides from Errour any more than Sin save when they perform the Office of Church-Guides or expected more than that They should not Authoritatively declare that to be Christ's Doctrine which 〈◊〉 not or that not to be which is Since it is undeniably certain that our Church-Guides have never made any such Declaration in stead of profiting by their Pains we stand wondring what Protestants mean by repeating so often a Tale which has nothing in it Whoever errs among us Church-Guide or not Church-Guide errs on his own Head and not misguided now or at any time by the Church or her Gnides And so long it is as wildly unreasonable to impute those Errours to the Church or any but the erring Particulars as to bring Peter in guilty for the Faults of Paul 〈…〉 imperâ— ect as half-periods use to be but who read the whole will I believe understand it perfectly enough and if he had no mind to speak to this part of it he might have said so without imputing to it an Imperfection of his own making by severing it from its fellows As imperfect as it is I find by it that the Power of which his Majesty speaks was the Power of deciding Matters of Faith and so that when he talks of the Giâ— t of Tongues and the like he talks of what his Majesty did not It informs us too that as great Prerogatives as the Apostles had above other Men subsequent Councils took upon them to make Creeds as well as they Creeds which declare they will undoubtedly perish eternally who believe not entirely what they contain And so might have put us in mind that those who do as much in latter Ages have Precedents for what They do Matters which it seems he takes no delight to speak of As it had been something rugged to have said this Part for all it was left out deserv'd no consideration he smoothly passes to that which next do's And that is That the Church was the Iudge even of Scripâ—â— re it self many Years after the Apostles which Books were Canonical and which were not To which he replys That there is a Iudge of Law and a Iudge of Fact and that the Church Iudges of Fact 〈◊〉 Law Let him call it how he pleases if the Church Judges whether a Book be Canonical or no the Church is the Judge of that Matter and the King said true and 't is but so much erudition lost to Dispute by what name Her Judgment shall go He says besides that The Church of Rome hath no 〈◊〉 priviledge in this Matter but gives its Iudgment as other parts of the Christian World do 〈◊〉 if the Clause he answers spoke of any 〈◊〉 Church or Priviledge It says the Church that 〈◊〉 the whole made up of the Roman and the 〈◊〉 whose same Faith intitles them to the same Appâ— llâ—tion was the Judge of Scripture which Books were Canonical and which were not One may percâ—â— ve the Answerer thinks this is true and he mâ— ght 〈◊〉 said what he thought in two words But he thought fit to spin it out into a Section and 〈◊〉 the Matter so that one Member of his Division is not included in the Matter divided he alone knows why And if They had this Power then I desire to know says his Majesty next how They came to lose it And the Answerer desires to know who are meant by They and what is understood by This Power He had not the Paper by him sure when he askt these Questions For it is there as plain as words can make it that by They is meant the Church and by this Power the Power of deciding Matters of Faith exercised in making Creeds and judging of Canonical Booâ—â— Then he falls to his Dâ— stinctions again and tells us It is one thing for a part of the Church to give Testimony to a matter of Fact and another to assume the Power of making Books Canonical which were not so Pieces of Learning which he may if he please keep in reserve till he have to do with some body who talks of a Part of the Church or making Booâ—â— Canonical which were not By the way he means I suppose making Books not written by 〈◊〉 Iâ—spiration to be written by Divine Inspiration For if he mean making it appear and 〈…〉 and with obligation of 〈◊〉 that a Book of which it is doubted whether it were 〈◊〉 that truly Catholic and Apostolic Church 〈◊〉 which by separting from the Roman they keep 〈◊〉 their stricter Union and with which the Roman 〈◊〉 none For sure he do's not talk of a strict Union with nothing Let him tell us in what Countrâ—â—â— the Men live that People may go to them and learâ— of them what their Faith is and see whether it 〈◊〉 be all one with that of the Answerer and his 〈◊〉 and have something more than his word 〈…〉 stricter Union which he says is between 〈◊〉 What He and those who take his part do 〈◊〉 separating of themselves he tells us but being 〈◊〉 out by an Vsurping Faction in the Church and 〈◊〉 the Conditions of Communion impos'd by tâ— at Fâ—ction and requir'd by him who is own'd â— or Heaâ— of that Church are unjust and unreasonable and 〈◊〉 Authority â— e challenges a meer Vsurpation and tâ— at They are not to be condemn'd for such a Separation which was unavoidable Why unavoidable I beseecâ— him even supposing Usurpation and whatever 〈◊〉 would have Cannot they who are let â— t he 〈◊〉 so unjustly separated from the Communion avoiâ— being separated from the Faith of a Church if they please Is there any Church or Power on Earth which could hinder them from believing 〈◊〉 they were out of Communion what they did 〈◊〉 they were in it Which if 〈◊〉 had done Excommunication it self had not 〈◊〉 them from the Church of which these Papers speak 〈…〉 〈…〉 their voluntary Change of Faith And that Change indeed casts them unavoidably out because to be of the same Faith with a Church and of a 〈◊〉 Faith from her is inconsistent Other casting 〈◊〉 by which he means I suppose Excommunication there is none that I know 'T is true there is a general Excommunication of those who haâ— e chang'd their Faith into Heresie And some are particularly named but not a word of the Church of England or any relating to England but the Wickliâ— ists If any of his We be included in it 't is because they have voluntarily thrust themselves in by embracing the Anathematiz'd Heresies And yet he with his Flourishes and big Talk would have their casting off the Church pass for the Churches casting them out and their voluntary Act be call'd a being cast unavoidably out Cross Language in my Opinion and a very sorry Justification of Separation But
what has he in reserve I see what he alledges to justifie his confident Reproach of Vsurpation The Sacred Head of the Church on whom he cries out for an Usurper has shew'd by his reiterated Approbation of the Bishop of Meaux Book that he is content with that Submission and Obedience which the Holy Councils and Fathers have always â— aught the Faithful Pray with what propriety of Language or what Sense do's he call challenging of so much Usurpation What Scripture or Ancient Châ— rch or Part of the Christian World 〈◊〉 with him that 't is so not excepting the 〈◊〉 of England her self For there is more reason to take the Expositor's word who speaks in her 〈◊〉 than his for the Sense of the Church of England And from him I learn it sticks not at 〈◊〉 Point since she will be content to yield the Pope that Authority which the Ancient Councilâ— of the Primitive Church have acknowledged and 〈…〉 Fathers have always taught the Faithful to 〈…〉 And She I suppose would not yield to 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—pation nor the â— xpositor for her But pray for what is this Harangue â— pon Uâ—â—â— pation and a Spiritual Kingdom 〈…〉 would know how People come to separate from the 〈◊〉 that is vary from the Common â— aith of 〈◊〉 And the Answerer tells him There is an Usâ— rper set up in the West Why suppose there be mâ— st Pâ—â—ple therefore needs believe otherwise than they 〈◊〉 before needs believe there is no Change 〈◊〉 â—â—â—stance no Purgatory no more than two Sacraments and the rest This Western Usurpation has no Iâ—fluence upon the East to make the Christians there change their Faith Why cannot the Reforâ— ation believe of these Points as they believe and as 〈◊〉 Christians besides themselves ever have and 〈◊〉 do So all Differences would be reduc'd to a singâ— e Point and that if we may believe the Exposâ— tâ— r either no Difference or easily reconcileable But tâ— go about to make us believe we must needs differ about a hundred things and can by no means 〈◊〉 it lawful to pray to a Saint or set up an Image as long as a certain Man takes more than câ— mes to â— is share shews the Answerer was either in a very â— leasant Humour or hard put to it for something 〈◊〉 say I have follow'd him 〈…〉 my way To return again 〈…〉 do Men separate from 〈…〉 Church says the Question We own no Separation from that but are disjoyn'd from the Roman says the Answerer Since that Church is nothing but the Roman and the rest united in the same Faith as a Man's Body is nothing but the several Members animated by the same Soul and no Part can be cut off from any of the Members no Part of a Finger for example from the Finger without being cut off from the whole Body This is in truth to say We are not separated we are only disjoyned or We are not separated but separated But to let this pass and not stray further after him into the many Questions which his Reply would start As Whether there be any Catholic besides the Roman Catholic Church Whether there can be Reason for being disjoyn'd from any Part of it Whether Disjoyning and Union be not â— lat Contradiction since Disjoyning signifies a different Faith and Union the same And the like in which whatever concern his We have I do not believe he has Authority from the Church of England to concern her All these things apart I observe the Answerer do's here as elsewhere appears himself and leaves his Answer behind For who they are that separate and what they own and from what part they profess to be dis-joyn'd is nothing to what Authority they have to separate from the whole who do The Kings Quâ— stion is a step to an end of Controversies For let People once know that they whoever they be are in a deplorable condition who live separated from the one Church of Christ upon Earth those among them who haâ— e any care of their Souls will bethink themselves and be glad to find â— er out and by piecing with her if they be broken off help to make that One the only Church on Earth and all Christians of a mind again And I wish the Answerer had gone that one step without staggering It had been a safe step for every body who is sure he do's not separate For it takes off no weight from any Reason by which he can shew that he do's not But I am afraid the youngest Man in Christendom shall never live to see one step made towards an end of differences in Religion at least if the Answerer were inclin'd that way he might me thinks without boggling have frankly own'd there is or there is not Authority to separate The last Paragraph asks when pretences are made of separating from the Church Who shall judge of them the whole Church or particular Men He answers That the whole force of this Paragraph dependâ— upon a Supposition which is taken for granted but will never be yielded by Them and they are sure can never be prov'd by the Church of Rome Let the Paragraph and its force depend on what it will 〈◊〉 not have answered a plain Question plainly and told us whether the Judgment of pretences do or do not belong to the Church and if not to whom elseâ— He pretends here that things are taken for granted 〈◊〉 one side which can never be prov'd and will 〈◊〉 be yielded by the other Let him tell us if he please before he proceed who shall judge of thus much Who pronounce whether those of the Châ— rch 〈◊〉 Rome can prove or no and before whom they 〈◊〉 when it comes to their turn produce their 〈◊〉 Who likewise whether the other side ougâ— t to yield 〈…〉 why he drives all to the Judgment of a particular Church unless he think all saâ— e there and the Judgment of that Church not to be submitted to any farther Judgment Which if he do he plainly thinks there is no Judge between Churches whatever may be betwixt Churches and particular Men. This indeed is a full Answer and which takes the Question quite away For it can no longer be ask'd who is the Judge if there be none at all But he do's not explain himself and 't is not for me to make him say more than he do's This I see that either this is his Answer or he gives none For there is nothing besides but what pretences they make and who made them and upon what account All which is nothing to who is the Iudge of them His Usurper is a strange importunate fellow to thrust in so often where he has nothing to do and I have no more to say to him At the last consideration I am as much surpriz'd as the Answerer For I thought no Interest should have been remembred in our Case but One what it avails a Man to gain the whole World and lose his Soul
How and by what Authority did we separate from that Church If the Power of Interpreting Scripture be in every Mans Brain what need have we of a Church or Church-men To what purpose then did our Saviour after He had given his Apostles Power to bind and loose in Heaven and Earth add to it That He would be with them even to the end of the World These Words were not spoken Parabolically or by way of Figure Christ was then ascending into his Glory and left his Power with his Church even to the end of the World All this the Answerer leaves out what relates to the Churches Authority and every Mans following his own Iudgment having he says been answered already I wish he had told us where For tho' I remember some Speech of Persons who separate from the Church and of their Pretences I cannot call one Word to mind of the Authority by which they separated If this be the Answer he means he compliments His Majesty's Papers For to insist upon it is to consess he has none He said too and that too often to be forgotten That every Man is to judge for himself tho' not for others What need then of a Church or Church men says His Majesty when every body is provided without them It seems he thinks they are indeed needless but had no mind to say so He takes the matter of Appeals more to heart in which he takes occasion to proceed from these words What Country can subsist in peace or quiet where there is not a Supreme Iudge from whence there can be no Appeal From whence the natural Consequence he says appears to be That every National Church ought to have the Supreme Power within it self In the Comparison here made a National to the Whole Church is as a Shire to a Kingdom And a very natural and very consistent Consequence it is That every Sheriff should be a King But how come Appeals to a Forreign Iurisdiction to tend to the Peace and Quiet of a Church He would peradventure if one should press him be hard enough put to it to make Sense of his Forreign Jurisdiction in our Case For how can any thing be Forreign but by not belonging to that Aggregate whether Civil or Spiritual in respect whereof they are said to be Forreigners Forreign I think comes from Foris and signifies out So that unless the ultimate Jurisdiction of the Church be out of the Church it seems as hard to understand how it can be Forreign to any part of the Church as how a Native of any part of England can be a Forreigner in England The several Nations which make the Church are Forreigners to one another in respect of the several Temporal Bodies which they compose too but Fellow-Citizens All in respect of the Ecclesiastical But let this pass and the Answerer if he please inform us how the Appeals of which we talk can be made but to what he calls Forreign Jurisdiction The King aim'd at an end of Differences in Religion and as he thought every one ought believe as the Catholic Church believes which Christ has here on Earth calls their Agreement in Faith a Decision and knowing or searching what it is an Appeal As no Particular can be the Catholic Church let him make it intelligible who can how the Faith of a Church compos'd of many Nations can be known without knowing the Faith of the Nations which compose it that is of those Churches which he calls Forreign It is therefore so far from hard to comprehend how Appeals to Forreigners tend to the Peace and Quiet of a National Church that when that Peace is disturbed by Dissentions in Matters of Religion it is absolutely impossible to resettle it without them We says the King in the Period before which the Answerer I know not why puts after have had these hundred years past the sad Effects of denying to the Church that Power in Matters Spiritual without an Appeal And our Ancestors says the Answerer for many hundred years last past found the intollerable Inconveniences of an Appeal to Forreign Iurisdiction Which after he has a little dilated by reckoning up the Particulars he tauntingly adds But these were slight things in comparison to what we have felt these hundred years for want of it This Taunt is unexpected and by his good favour might have been spared for more Reasons than one For what Do's he in earnest think that the Incoveniences he has thought of and may think of hereafter hold comparison with the Inconvenience of Heresie Are not all temporal Concerns let them be what they will slight things in respect of the eternal Ruine of so many as Heresie has swallow'd up in Perdition Will he compare the gain of the whole World to the loss even of a single Soul For the rest 't is strange a Man should toss a Word so long and never mind what it means The King us'd the Word Appeal with respect to the Allegory in which he speaks The Answerer will needs understand it in the Law-sense and talks all the while of another matter For the Impoverishment the Obstruction of Justice and what else he mentions are Consequences all of Legal Trials betwixt Plaintiff and Defendant according to the Methods of Courts In which where-ever those Courts be Princes can and when they see fit do preserve their own Prerogatives from diminution and their Subjects from Oppression without shocking their Religion There is nothing of all this in the Appeals of which the King speaks no feeing of Lawyers nor need to travel from home Who will but step to St. Iames's and see what they do and hear what they say has appeal'd as much as the King desir'd he should To his Conclusion That it is a very self-denying Humour for those to be most sensible of the want of Appeals who would really suffer the most by them I shall say no more than that it is very unreasonable because no body dreams of such Appeals as he understands and I wish that no body may think worse of it and of him and other Folks for it Can there be any Iustice done says the next Paragraph where the Offenders are their own Iudges and equal Interpreters of the Law with those that are appointed to administer Iustice He cross interrogates and asks Whether there be any likelihood Iustice should be better done in another Country by another Authority and proceeding by such Rules which in the last resort are but the arbitrary Will of a Stranger I have already observ'd That another Country and another Authority is unâ— ntelligible where all are Countrymen and arbitrary Rules are altogether as unintelligible where the Law is â— ixt and known At present I pray him to tell us how he answers the Question Can Iustice be done Or which is the same Is there a Judge without Appeal signifies he knows Can Controversies be ended And he knows the Answer is They can or They cannot And yet he will
than that of our own Iudgments As if it pinched there His Majesty talks of those who do not believe as the Church of England do's for this reason because they are taught by a Church from which there is no Appeal that is who have not that Motive for their Judgments which he took for the only truly reasonable Motive And while he is speaking of Motives the Answerer falls a talking of Judgments The difficulty is not whether Judgment affords Security A Judgment grounded on true Reason can no more change than Reason but whether there be any security in those Judgments which are made on unsecure Motives Or if you will what Security there is in that Judgment which the Answerer offers for Security 'T is as in Land The Security is good where the Title is unquestionable but if that be doubtful there is no Money to be borrow'd on the Land And he will have us take for Security the Judgment of which we are not satisfy'd that it is it self secure Once again His Majesty thought Church-security the only Security in this Matter And it rests with the Answerer to shew that Protestants either have this or other true Security to shew what other Foundation and Pillar of Truth there is besides the Church how it can be a Foundation without Infallibility and People have reason to trust their Souls to what may deceive them In short what good account they can give of the Hope which is in them who learn the Faith by which they think to please God otherwise than from those whom he appointed to teach it Till he do this as obscurely as his Majesty speaks People will see they have nothing to trust to for their Salvation but Fancy nor the Church of England for their company But He dares appeal to the World whether They have not made it appear that it is not Fancy but Iudgment which hath made them firm to the Church of England Dares he in earnest put it to the Catholic World any more than we to the Protestant To what purpose these great words when he knows before-hand nothing will nor can come of them It had been a great deal more to purpose since Fancy and Judgment in this place signifie a rational or not rational Persuasion to have shew'd that they truly have Reason who are firm to the Church of England and that They are indeed firm For that Firmness may as well be pretended as Reason for itâ—â— and they may desire to pass for firm to Her 〈◊〉 make her not firm to her self But for big 〈◊〉 none are better at it than Cowards out of Gun-shot Might it not asks he on as well have been said That the Pâ—â—â—â— tants of the Church of England adhered to the Crowâ— in the Times of Rebellion out of 〈◊〉 and not out of Iudgment His Zeal for the Church of England is wondrouâ— unlucky As no body thought of detracting from the just Praises of the Church of England and every body must acknowledge her Doctrine in this Point is very Orthodox and her Practice in the Times of Rebellion conformable to it there was no need to mention this matter And yet he will by all means bring it in against himself Many he knows did desert her and her Doctrine in this Point at that time so many that the Rebellion peradventure was indebted for its Success to those Deserters For had not the ill-affected Rabble been countenanc'd and headed by Men who had perhaps all their Life before conform'd to the Church of England the Rebellion either would not have been at all or not so unfortunately prosperous Now as it is plain that if those who deserted had ever adhered to her with a persuasion that they were oblig'd to believe what she â— aught They could not have deserted her in this Point who always taught Loyalty This very Case proves what the King asserts That till they do so there is no security of their adhering to her For they may desert her in any other Point of Christ's Doctrine as well as they did in this and for ought appears will when they meet with the same Interest or whatever Motive They had to desert her then In the last place He tries to turn the Argument â— pon the Church of Rome to which he asks why any adhere but because it is agreeable to their Iudgment so to do This Actor went off the Stage but now and needed not return so soon with 〈…〉 a Part. For what do's he mean by Adheringâ—â— Believing I suppose that the Church of 〈…〉 right For he talks not sure of acting 〈…〉 conformity to our inward 〈…〉 but Hypocrites do in all their Actions 〈…〉 he mean it of the inward Persuasion to ask why They adhere but because they judge they ought is in other words Why do they adhere but because they adhere For their Judgment is their Adhesion To 〈…〉 People adhere to a Church with every body 〈◊〉 signifies What Reason or Motive have they 〈…〉 adhering To which Question with respect to the â— oman Catholic Church the Answer in the words of the Paragraph is That People are of her as 't is the true Church from whence there can be no Appeal or because she is the Church which Christ has now on Earth with whom his Doctrine was deposited and from whom only it can be learn'd In the words or St. Austin I am kept in the Bosom of the Catholic Church by the consens of People and Nations by an Authority begun by Miracles 〈◊〉 by Hope increas'd by Charity 〈◊〉 by Antiquity by a Succession of Bishops from St. Peter to whom 〈…〉 〈…〉 where Catholics meet none of them have the 〈…〉 him to their Congregations The Answerer will tell us when he thinks sit what Answer he thinks proper to be made for other Churches In the mean time let us reslect what he has answer'd to the Paragraph He has told us That there is no Security greater than that of our Judgments That theirs is Judgment not Fancy and particularly was so in the times of Rebellion And that they Judge in the Church of 〈◊〉 too What is all this to the Paragraph which says in short That because Protestants have no firm Motive for their adhering to the Church of England they cannot be firm to her Do's he make it appear their Motive is firm Or how They will be firm without one This little is all there was before him is their Judgment solidly grounded or is it not the only and whole business What need was there to talk of Judgment in common when the Question is of their Judgment in this Particular Or what serves it for but to make a shew and fill up a Page There may be as much Security in the Judgment as there will and Protestants be never the better unless there be Security in their Judgment They will I hope since their Souls are at stake consider what 〈◊〉 do to venture them where those who write
the Church either to Presbytery or Independency or indeed what he pleases This was the way of our Pretended Reformation here in England And by the same Rule and Authority it may be alter'd into as many Shapes and Forms as there are Fancies in Mens Heads This says the Answerer looks like a very unkind Requital to the Church of England for her Zeal in asserting the Magistrates Power against a Forreign Iurisdiction to infer from thence That the Magistrate may change the Religion here which may be pleases I need not observe that this is no Answer because I suppose it was not meant for one It seems rather a kind of Complaint to my thinking very unreasonable For he is a great deal more justly to be complain'd of who takes a concerning Truth unkindly then he who speaks it Religion I think should not depend on Compliments and I pray God preserve me from the Kindness which not to fail in the Punctilio's of nice Civility forbears to tell me what may be useful to my Salvation Again Zeal against Forreign Jurisdiction very well might and much more according to knowledge actually did appear in England without any alteration in Religion a thing to which I am persuaded neither Magistrate not Church have reason to think themselves beholding because it was the Gap at which the Heresies crept in of which His Magesty complains and which not long since ruin'd Both. Neither is any inference made from that Zeal but a plain Question ask'd to which a plain Answer would much better become the Part he now acts and shew much more Zeal to Truth and to the Church of England than talking of her Zeal unseasonably But although we attribute the Supreme Iurisdiction to the King yet we do not question but there are inviolable Rights of the Church which ought to be preserv'd against the Fancies of some and Vsurpations of others Rights and Fancies and Usurpations Pray let him keep these things till their time come and tell us at present why the Protestant Church may not be alter'd as it was made by the Authority of the Magistrate and Concurrence of such of the Clergy as are for his turn This if he have forgot it is the Question For the Rights of the Church his Care will be more seasonable when he has settled the Foundation We do by no means make our Religion mutable according to the Magistrates Pleasure But only according to the Pleasure of other Folks perhaps If it be immutable let us see the immutable Foundation which makes it so and have some Reason to think it so There it sticks Barely to say it is immutable costs nothing nor was there ever so great a Criminal who could not say Not guilty For the Rule of our Religion is unalterable being the Holy Scripture Not to turn our present Question into a Dispute about the Rule of Faith I pray him to make it appear that the Holy Scripture is such a Foundation as makes the Protestant Church unalterable The Letter of Scripture is common to all who bare the name of Christians and may be as much a Foundation to every as to any one The Sense is not a Foundation of Religion but Religion it self As Protestants build Protestancy upon Scripture the Presbyterians build Presbytery the Independents Independency and every one his own Religion Their several Religions are nothing but their several Expositions of the same words Why now is this Foundation more unalterable in respect of the Protestant Church than any other It sustain'd a Catholic Building heretofore It sustains a Protestant now Why may not the same Hands which removed the Catholic and set up the Protestant in its place remove the Protestant and set up the Presbyterian the Independent Building or what you will this is the Question to which a Body would have expected an Answer from an Answerer But he in stead of thinking of that Matter gives us for an unalterable Foundation of Protestant Religion a Foundation upon which all the Alterations of Religion which are and perhaps ever have been pretend to stand as much as the Protestant But the exercise of Religion is under the Regulation of the Laws of the Land Must the Laws which regulate the Exercise of Religion be obey'd not only for Wrath but for Conscience or must they not If they must People are oblig'd to exercise a new Religion as often as the Laws appoint a new Exercise For they cannot exercise one Religion and be of another And then they are oblig'd in Conscience to alter their Religion as the Laws alter from Protestant to Presbyterian or Independent or as the Law pleases If such Laws are not to be obey'd that the exercise of Religion is under the Regulation of the Laws signifies that People may be punish'd for not doing what in Conscience they are not oblig'd to do So Christianity is under the Regulation of Pagan or Turkish Laws and every weaker Man under the Regulation of a stronger which to may Ears sounds odly But take it which way you will the Case is equal If there be an Obligation from the Laws there may be an Obligation to the Presbyterian or Independent Exercise and Religion when the Law pleases And if there be none Presbytery indeed and Independency cannot be impos'd upon our Consciences by Law but they may be as much settled as Protestancy is now For all are under the same Regulation with the same either Obligation or not Obligation from that Regulation He concludes with a Prayer with which it is as with Scripture Take it right and 't is a good Prayer but yet they may joyn in it who will be Good Christians and Loyal Subjects no longer than their King is a Nursing Father to their Church But now he is parting from His Majesty it will not be amiss to reflect how it stands between them His Majesty as he had perhaps more reason than other Men was deeply sensible of the sad effects of Differences in Religion which he saw must needs last till an effectual course be taken to compose them Wrangling about particular Points that is turning Religion into Ergotery He had reason to think would never do it For there never came so bad a Cause into Westminster-Hall nor ever will into the Church for which no Argument can be made As long as Men have Tongues they will never want something to say which 't is but dressing up in handsome Language and it may take with those who distinguish not the Plausible from the Solid The bare name of an Answer is enough to make a shew and keep up the Reputation of not being overcome and so much is Victory to one side In short Men die and Disputes live and all that comes of them is what was long since observ'd There is no end of writing many Books He saw besides that it agrees not with the Goodness of God and His care of Man to leave us at uncertainties which without Infallibility he saw unavoidable And
Retail that it might not be thought she us'd the ordinary Means One thing I had omitted which was that the Bishop affirms in his letter to her Highness that she had made him a Promise in case any Writing were put into her Hand by those of the Roman Church she would send it either to him or the Bishop of Oxford Why do's our Author put down that Promise thus at large If he means any thing more by it besides a Justification of his Bishop for having done his part which signifies just nothing he would tacitely insinuate that she broke he Word by not sending any such Writing to him If so he is at his Legerdemain again He would have it thought she kept not her Promise but do's not positively affirm it But since it is manfsest by the order of time in her Paper that she neither sent for any Priest nor conferr'd with any Learn'd Catholic till after she had done with the two Bishops it may and ought to be suppos'd that she receiv'd no Writings from any of that Religion for if she had she would certainly have mention'd them If then the Bishop of Winchester would insinuate that she had such Papers which she sent not to him according to her Engagement I may at least answer with my Author That the Lady was dead long before the Bishop publish'd his Letter so that the Circumstances therein mention'd cannot be so fully clear'd But to return to our Answerer He has brought us at length to the several Discourses which her Highness had with the two Bishops his Grace of Canterbury and the Bishop of Worcester and since he has thought fit to put all that concern'd this Matter into one long Paragraph quoted from the Duchess I must follow his Example These are her Words After this I spoke severally to two of the best Bishops we have in England who both told me there were many things in the Roman Church which it were very much to be wish'd 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 tho' they would not own it And afterwards pressing one of them very much upon the other Points he told me That if he had been bred a Catholic 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 had receiv'd his Baptism All these Discourses did but add more to the desire I had to be a Catholic and gave me the most terrible Agonies in the world c This he confesses seems to be to the purpose And where he confesses the least Advantage on our side the Reader may swear there is somewhat more than ordinary in the matter But he retrenches immediately and kicks down the Pail by adding this Restriction If there were not some Circumstances and Expressions very much mistaken in the Representation of it Yet in the next Line again as if he were asham'd of his own fearfulness he is for making a bold Sally and putting all to the push For supposing the utmost to be allow'd says he there could be no Argument from hence drawn for leaving the Communion of our Church But he restrains that too with this Caution If the Bishops Authority and Example did signifie any thing with her Thus from yielding at first he comes to modifie his Concession and from thence to strike out magnanimously But then he retreats again with another if 'T is a sign he is uneasie when he tosses and turns so often in a Breath and that he is diffident of his Cause when he shifts his Plea 'T is evident that the Duchess laid a great stress on these Concessions and well she might for what a startle would it give to a doubting Soul which already had taken the Alarm to hear two Bishops whereof one was Primate of All England renouncing and condemning two of the establish'd Articles of their Church But 't is well known that those two Prelates were not nor if they were now living would be the only Clergy-men of the Church of England who are of opinion they have over-reform'd themselves in casting off Prayers for the Dead and consequently the Doctrine of a Third Place But these are Church of England Men of the old stamp betwixt whom and the Faction of this Answerer there is just as much difference as betwixt a true Episcopal Man and a Latitudinarian and this latter in plain terms is no otherwise different from a Presbyterian then by whatsoever Titles and Dignities he is distinguish'd So that our Answerer was much in the right to skip over the first half of this Paragraph without answering in this place and to gallop to the last Sentence of it which begins with Bishop Blandford's saying That if he had been bred in the communion of the Roman Church he would not change his Religion Whither as in Duty bound I follow him To over-ballance the weight of these Concessions our Author would have us think that the subsequent Words of the Bishop ought to have had greater force to have kept her in the Communion of the Protestant Church than the former to have drawn her from it for the Bishop comes off with this Excuse 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 receiv'd his Baptism First take notice That the Duchess says the Bishop was pressed by her very much before he made the Concession That if he had been bred a Catholic he would not have chang'd which shews that a Truth was forc'd out of him which he would willingly have conceal'd For both in regard to his own Credit and the retaining of so Great a Person in his Church it was not his Interest to have yielded that a Catholic might be saved at least on as easie Terms as Protestant But he goes farther when he confesses That if he had been bred a Catholic he would not have alter'd his Religion For therein he seems even to regret his being bred a Protestant at least he yields that all things necessary to Salvation were in the Roman Catholic Church for otherwise had he been educated in it he ought in conscience to have chang'd which he owns he would not have done Now this is manifestly more than what he said for the Church of England for his following Words are rather an Excuse for his Continuance in his Church than Argument to dissuade her Highness from turning Catholic He thought it very ill to give that Scandal to leave the Church wherein he was Baptiz'd Now the Word Scandal plainly relates to his own Person and signifies no more than that he was asham'd to change For it was impossible for him to think he should sin
to turn round a mans Hat and to strike him on the Face but the advantage is the greater in a lusty Blow But the Handle by which our Answerer would have the Reformation taken is not by the Causes and Effects the Means and Management and indeed the whole Series of History these are nothing to concern his present Enquiry though they rais'd such Scruples in the Duchess and will do in any other conscientious Reader he will have the Reformation consider'd his own way that is in the Political part of it and the Ecclesiastical Now the Political part if you observe him he gives for gone at the first dash It was grounded he says on such Maxims as are common to Statesmen at all Times and in all Churches who labour to turn all Revolutions and Changes to their own Advantage That is 't is common for Statesmen to be Atheists at the bottom To be seemingly of that Religion which is most for their Interest To crush and ruine that from which they have no future prospect of Advantage and to joyn with its most inveterate Enemies without consideration of their King's Interest and this was the Case of the Duke of Somerset All which together amounts to this That 't is no matter by what Means a Reformation be compass'd by what Instruments it be brought to pass or with what Design though all these be never so ungodly 't is enough if the Reformation it self be made by the Legislative Power of the Land The matter of Fact then is given up only 't is fac'd with Recriminations That Alexander the Sixth for example was as wicked a Pope as King Henry was a King As if any Catholic deny'd that God Almighty for Causes best known to his Divine Wisdom has not sometimes permitted impious Men to sit in that supream Seat and even to intrude into it by unlawful Means That Alexander the Sixth was one of the worst of Men I freely grant which is more then I can in Conscience say of Henry the Eighth who had great and Kingly Vertues mingled with his Vices That the Duke of Somerset rais'd his Estate out of Church Lands our Author excuses no other ways than by retorting that Popes are accustom'd to do the like in consideration of their Nephews whom they would greaten But though 't is a wicked thing for a Pope to mispend the Church Revenues on his Relations 't is to be consider'd he is a Secular Prince and may as lawfully give out of his Temporal Incomes what he pleases to his Favourite as another Prince to his But as our Author charges this Miscarriage home upon some late Popes of the former and the present Age so I hope he will exempt his present Holiness from that Note No Common Father of God's Church from St. Peter even to him having ever been more bountiful in expending his Revenues for the Defence of Christendom or less interessed in respect of his Relations whom he has neither greatn'd nor so much as suffer'd to enter into the least Administration of the Government But after all what have these Examples to do with this Ladies Conversion Why our Author pretends that these bad Popes and their ill Proceedings ought as reasonably to have hindred the Duchess from entring into the Catholic Church as the like Proceedings under Henry the Eighth Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth might move her Highness to leave the Protestant The Subject in hand was the Pretended Reformation The Duchess observ'd the scandalous and abominable Effects of it that an inordinate Lust was one principal Cause of the Separation that the Reformation it self was begun by worldly Interests in the Duke of Somerset and carried on by the Ambition of Queen Elizabeth Have the Examples produc'd by our Author on the contrary side any thing to do with a Reformation Suppose in the first place that she had never read nor heard any of those things concerning Pope Alexander or the advancing of Nephews by profusion of the Church-Treasure the first is very possible and she might interpret candidly the latter But make the worst of it on the one side there was only a Male-administration of a settled Government from which no State either Spiritual or Temporal can always be exempt on the other side here is a total Subversion of the Old Church in England and the setting up a New a changing of receiv'd Doctrines and the Direction of God's Holy Spirit pretended for the Change so that she might reasonably judge that the Holy Ghost had little to do with the Practices of ill Popes without thinking the worse of the Establish'd Faith but she could never see a new one erected on the Foundations of Lust Sacrilege and Usurpation without great Scruples whether the Spirit of God were assisting in those Councils As for his Method of Enquiry Whether there was not a sufficient Cause for the Reformation in the Church Whether the Church of England had not sufficient Authority to reform it self and Whether the Proceedings of the Reformation were not justifiable by the Rules of Scripture and the Ancient Church I may safely joyn Issue with him upon all three Points and conclude in the Negative That there was no sufficient Cause to reform the Church in Matters of Faith because there neither were nor can be any such Errours embrac'd and own'd by it The Church of England has no Authority of Reforming her self because the Doctrine of Christ cannot be reformed nor a National Synod lawfully make any Definitions in Matters of Faith contrary to the Judgment of the Church Universal of the present Age shewn in her Public Liturgies that Judgment being equivalent to that of a General Council of the present Age. And for the third Point The Proceedings of the Reformation were not justifiable by the Rule of Scripture according to the right Interpretation of it by the Fathers and Councils which are the true Judges of it nor consequently by the Rules of the Ancient Church But Calvin's Excuse must be your last Refuge Nos discessionem a toto mundo facere coacti sumus We are compell'd to forsake the Communion or to separate from all the Churches of the World These says our Author She confesses were but Scruples According to his mannerly way of arguing with the King I might ask him These what Do's he mean these Scruples were but Scruples For the Word these begins a Paragraph But I am asham'd of playing the Pedant as he has done I suppose he means these Passages of Heylyn only rais'd some Scruples in her which occasion'd her to examine the Points in difference by the Holy Scripture And now says he she was in the right way for Satisfaction provided she made use of the best Helps and Means for understanding it and took in the Assistance of her Spiritual Guides That she did take in those Guides is manifest by her own Papers though both of them the more the Pity did but help to mislead her into the Enemies Country But