Imprimatur Z. Isham R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. Ã Sacris 1685. AN ANSWER TO SOME PAPERS Lately Printed concerning the AUTHORITY OF THE Catholick Church In MATTERS of FAITH and the REFORMATION of the CHURCH of ENGLAND LONDON Printed for Ric. Chiswel at the Rose and Crown in S t Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVI AN Advertisement IF the Papers here answered had not been so publickly dispersed through the Nation a due Respect to the Name they bear would have kept the Author from publishing any Answer to them But because they may now fall into many hands who without some assistance may not readily resolve some difficulties started by them He thought it not unbecoming his duty to God and the King to give a clearer light to the Things contained in them And it can be no reflection on the Authority of a Prince for a private Subject to examine a piece of Coyn as to its just value though it bears His Image and Superscription upon it In matters that concern Faith and Salvation we must prove all things and hold fast that which is good AN ANSWER TO THE First Paper IF all men could believe as they pleased I should not have fail'd of satisfaction in this First Paper the Design of it being to put an end to Particular Disputes to which I am so little a Friend that I could have been glad to have found as much reason in it to convince as I saw there was a fair appearance to deceive But there is a Law in our Minds distinct from that of our Inclinations and out of a just and due regard to That we must examine the most plausible Writings though back'd with the greatest Authority before we yield our Assent unto them If particular Controversies about Matters of Faith could be ended by a Principle as visible as that the Scripture is in Print all men of sence would soon give over Disputing for none who dare believe what they see can call that in Question But what if the Church whose Authority it is said they must submit to will not allow them to believe what they see How then can this be a sufficient reason to perswade them to believe the Church because it is as visible as that the Scripture is in Print unless we must only use our senses to find out the Church and renounce them assoon as we have done it Which is a very bad requital of them and no great Honour to the Church which requires it But with all due submission it is no more visible that the Roman Church is the Catholick Church than it is that a part is the whole and the most corrupt part that one Church which Christ hath here upon Earth It is agreed among all Christians That Christ can have but one Church upon Earth as there is but one Lord one Faith one Baptism And this is that Church we profess to believe in the two Creeds But if those who made those Creeds for our direction had intended the Roman Catholick Church why was it not so expressed How came it to pass that such a limitation of the sense of Christs Catholick Church to the Roman should never be put to Persons to be Baptized in any Age of the Church For I do not find in the Office of Baptism even in the Roman Church that it is required that they believe the Roman Catholick Church or that they deny the validity of Baptism out of the Communion of the Roman Church From whence it is to me as visible as that the Scripture is in Print that the Church of Rome it self doth not believe that it is the one Catholick Church mentioned in the two Creeds For then it must void all Baptism out of its Communion which it hath never yet done And as long as Baptism doth enter Persons into the Catholick Church it is impossible that all who have the true form of Baptism though out of the Communion of the Roman Church should be Members of the Catholick Church and yet the Communion of the Roman and Catholick be all one as it must be if the Roman Church be the Catholick and Apostolick Church professed in the Creeds If we had been so happy to have lived in those Blessed Times when the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul it had been no difficulty to have shewed that one visible Church which Christ had here upon Earth But they must be great strangers to the History of the Church who have not heard of the early and great Divisions in the Communion of it And there was a remarkable difference in the Nature of those Schisms which happened in the Church which being not considered hath been the occasion of great misaplication of the sayings of the Antients about the One Catholick Church Some did so break off Communion with other parts of the Catholick Church as to challenge that Title wholly to themselves as was evident in the case of the Novatians and Donatists for they rebaptiz'd all that embraced their Communion Others were cast out of Communion upon particular differences which were not supposed to be of such a nature as to make them no members of the Catholick Church So the Bishops of Rome excommunicated the Bishops of Asia for not keeping Easter when They did and the Bishops both of Asia and Africa for not allowing the Baptism of Hereticks But is it reasonable to suppose that upon these Differences they shut out all those Holy Bishops and Martyrs from the possibility of Salvation by excluding them from their Communion If not then there may be different Communions among Christians which may still continue Parts of the Catholick Church and consequently no one Member of such a Division ought to assume to it self the Title and Authority of the One Catholick Church But if any One Part doth so though never so great and conspicuos it is guilty of the same Presumption with the Novatians and Donatists and is as much cause of the Schisms which happen thereupon in the Church as they were For a long time before the Reformation there had been great and considerable breaches between the Eastern and Western Churches insomuch that they did renounce each other Communion And in these Differences four Patriarchal Churches joined together against the fifth viz. that of the Bishop of Rome But the Eastern Patriarchs sinking in their Power by the horrible Invasion of the Enemies of the Christian Faith and the Bishops of Rome advancing themselves to so much Authority by the advantages they took from the kindness of some Princes and the Weakness of others They would hear of no other terms of accommodation with the Eastern Churches but by an intire submission to the Pope as Head of the Catholick Church Which all the Churches of the East refused however different among themselves and to this day look on the Pope's Supremacy as an Innovation in the Church and Usurpation on the Rights of the other Patriarchs and Bishops In all
besides without setting up any private Spirit against it or the present Roman Church to be the Interpreter of it And now I hope I may have leave to ask some Questions of any ingenuous Man as whether it be not the same thing for the Church of Rome to make the Rule as to assume to it self the fole Power of giving the sense of it For what can a Rule signifie without the sense And if this were the intention of Almighty God had it not been as necessary to have told us to whom he had given the Power of Interpreting the Rule as to have given the Rule it self Whether it be reasonable for the Church of Rome to interpret those Texts wherein this Power of Interpreting is to be contained For this is to make it Iudge in its own Cause which was thought an Absurdity before And whether it be not as mischievous to allow a Prosperous Usurper the Power of interpreting Laws according to his own Interest as any private Person according to his own Fancy Whether it be possible to reform Disorders in the Church when the Person principally accused is Supream Judge Whether those can be indifferent Judges in Councils who before-hand take an Oath to defend that Authority which is to be Debated Whether Tradition be not as uncertain a Rule as Fancy when Men judge of Tradition according to their Fancy I would have any Man shew me where the Power of deciding matters of Faith is given to every particular Man If by deciding Matters of Faith be understood the determining them in such a manner as to oblige others I do not know where it is given to every particular Man nor how it should be For then every particular Man would have a Power over every particular Man and there would want a new Decision whose should take place But if by deciding Matters of Faith no more be meant but every mans 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 and must give an account both to God and Man of the Reason of his Faith And what can be meant in Scripture by Proving all things and holding fast that which is good 1 Thess. 5. 21. By trying the Spirits whether they be of God 1 John 4. 1. By judging of themselves what is right Luke 12. 57. unless God had given to Mankind a Faculty of discerning truth and falshood in Matters of Faith But if every Man hath not such a Power how comes he to be satisfied about the Churches Autority Is not that a Matter of Faith And where ever any Person will shew me that every Man hath a Power to determine his Faith in that matter I 'le undertake to shew him the rest Christ left his Power to his Church even to forgive Sins in Heaven and left his Spirit with them which they exercised after his Resurrection But where then was the Roman-Catholick Church And how can it be hence inferred That these Powers are now in the Church of Rome exclusive to all others unless it be made appear that it was Heir-General to all the Apostles I suppose it will be granted that the Apostles had some gifts of the Spirit which the Church of Rome will not in Modesty pretend to such as the Gift of Tongues the Spirit of Discerning Prophesie Miraculous Cures and Punishments Now here lyes the difficulty to shew what part of the Promise of the Infallible Spirit for the ordinary Power of the Keys relates not to this matter was to expire with the Apostles and what was to be continued to the Church in all Ages A Promise of Divine Assistance is denied by none but Pelagians But how far that extends is the Question In the Souls of good Men it is so as to keep them in the way to Heaven but not to prevent any lapse into sin and it were worth our knowing where God hath ever promised to keep any Men more from Error than from Sin Doth he hate one more than the other Is one more disagreeing to the Christian Doctrine than the other How came then so much to be said for the keeping Men from Error when at the same time they confess they may not only commit great sins but err very dangerously in the most Solemn manner in what relates to the Doctrine of Manners Would any have believed the Apostles Infallible if they had known them to be Persons of ill Lives or that they had notoriously erred in some Rules of great Consequence to the Welfare of Mankind Now all this is freely yielded as to the Pretence of Infallibility in the Church of Rome It is granted that the Guides of that Church have been very bad Men and that in Councils they have frequently erred about the Deposing Power being only a Matter of Practice and not of Faith Whether it be so or not I now dispute not but it is granted that notwithstanding this Infallible Spirit the Roman Church may grosly err in a matter of mighty Consequence to the Peace of Christendom and yet it cannot err in decreeing the least Matters of Faith As for Instance it can by no means err about the seven Sacraments or the Intention of the Priest about them but it may err about Deposing Princes and Absolving Subjects from their Allegiance Which in easier terms is They can never err about their own Interest but they may about any other whatsoever I pass over the next Paragraph the sense being imperfect and what is material about the Creeds hath been spoken to already That which next deserves Consideration is That the Church was the Iudge even of the Scripture it self many years after the Apostles which Books were Canonical and which were not We have a distinction among us of Iudges of the Law and Iudges of the Fact The One declare what the Law is the Fact being supposed the Other gives judgment upon the Fact as it appears before them Now in this Case about the Canonical Books the Church is not judge of the Law For they are not to declare whether a Book appearing to be Canonical ought by it to be received for Canonical which is taken for granted among all Christians but all they have to do is to give Judgment upon the Matter of Fact i. e. whether it appear upon sufficient Evidence to have been a Book written by Divine Inspiration And the Church of Rome hath no particular Priviledge in this matter but gives its Judgment as other parts of the Christian World do And if it takes upon it to judge contrary to the general sense of the Christian Church we are not to be concluded by it but an Appeal lyes to a greater Tribunal of the Universal Church And if they had this Power then I desire to know how they came to lose it Who are meant by They And what is understood by this Power It is one thing for a Part of the
which tends to that end and none can be sufficient against it But why may not others set up for the Change as to other Opinions upon the same Grounds as well as this Great Person does as to the Change from our Church to the Church of Rome And we have no Pretenders to Enthusiasm among us but do as solemnly ascribe the Blessing wholly to Almighty God and look on it as the Effect of such Prayers as she made to him in France and Flanders But I wonder a Person who owed her Change so wholly to Almighty God should need the Direction of an Infallible Church since the utmost they can pretend to is no more than to have such an Immediat Conduct and the least that can be meant by it is that she had no Assistance from any other Persons Which may not exclude her own Endeavours but supposing them to be employed and an Account to be here given of them yet there is no Connexion between any of the Premisses and the Conclusion she drew from them and therefore it must be Immediate Impulse or some concealed Motive which determin'd her Choice The Conclusion was That she would never have changed if she could have saved her Soul otherwise If this were true she had good Reason for her Change if it were not true she had none as it is most certain it was not Now let us examine how she came to this Conclusion and I will suppose it to have been just in the Method she sets it down in First she saith She never had any Scruples till the November before and then they began upon reading Dr. Heylin's History of the Reformation which was commended to her as a Book to settle her and there she found such abominable Sacriledg upon Henry the 8th's Divorce King Edward's Minority and Queen Elizabeth's Succession that she could not believe the Holy Ghost could ever be in such Counsels This was none of the best Advices given to such a Person to read Dr. Heylin's History for her Satisfaction For there are two distinct Parts in the History of our Reformation the one Ecclesiastical the other Political the former was built on Scripture and Antiquity and the Rights of particular Churches the other on such Maxims which are common to Statesmen at all Times and in all Churches who labour to turn all Revolutions and Changes to their own Advantage And it is strange to me that a Person of so great Understanding should not distinguish these two Whether Hen. 8. were a good Man or not Whether the D. of Somerset raised his Estate out of the Church Lands doth not concern our present Enquiry which is Whether there was not sufficient Cause for a Reformation in the Church And if there was Whether our Church had not sufficient Authority to reform it self And if so Whether the Proceedings of our Reformation were not Justifiable by the Rules of Scripture and the Ancient Church These were the proper Points for her to have considered and not the particular Faults of Princes or the Miscarriages of Ministers of State Were not the Vices of Alexander the 6th and many other Heads of the Church of Rome for a whole Age together by the Confession of their own greatest Writers as great at least as those of Henry the 8th And were these not thought sufficient to keep her from the Church of Rome and yet the others were sufficient to make her think of leaving our Church But Henry the Eighth's Church was in Truth the Church of Rome under a Political Head much as the Church of Sicily is under the King of Spain All the difference is Henry the 8th took it as his own Right the King of Spain pretends to have it from the Pope by such Concessions which the Popes deny And suppose the King of Spain's Pretence were unlawful to that Jurisdiction which he challengeth in the Kingdom of Sicily were this a sufficient Ground to justify the thoughts of Separation from the Church of Rome But the Duke of Somerset raised his Estate out of Church-Lands and so did many Courtiers in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth Are there not Miscarriages of the like nature in the Church of Rome What is the Popes making great Estates out of the Church-Lands for their Nephews to be Princes and Dukes a thing not unheard of in our Age. And is it not so much worse to be done by the Head of the Church These she confesses were but Scruples but such as occasioned her examining the Points in difference by the Holy Scripture Now 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 But it seems contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome she found some things so easy there that she wondered she had been so long without finding them out And what were these No less than the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament the Infallibility of the Church Confession and Praying for the Dead These were great Discoveries to be made so easily considering how those of the Church of Rome who have been most vers'd in these Matters have found it so difficult to make them out from thence 1. As to the Real Presence as it is in the Dispute between us and the Church of Rome it implies the Real and Substantial Change of the Elements into the Body and Blood of Christ. But where do our Saviour's words in calling the Sacrament his Body and Blood imply any such thing The wisest Persons of the Church of Rome have confessed that the bare words of our Saviour can never prove it but there needs the Authority of the Church to interpret them in that sense How then could she so easily find out that which their most Learned Men could not But there is nothing goes so far in such Discoveries as a willing Mind 2. As to Confession No doubt the Word is often used in Scripture and therefore easily found But the Question between us is not about the Usefulness or Advantage of Confession in particular Cases but the Necessity of it in all Cases in order to Remission of Sins And I can hardly believe any Bishop of our Church would ever say to her that Confession in this sense was ever commanded by God For then he must be damned himself if he did not confess every known Sin to a Priest But some general Expressions might be used that Confession of Sin was commanded by God Confess your Sins one to another But here is nothing of a particular Confession to a Priest necessary in order to Forgiveness of Sin 3. As to praying for the Dead It is hard to find any place of Scripture which seems to have any tendency that way unless it be with respect to the Day of Iudgment and that very doubtfully But how came this Great Person to think it not possible to be saved in our Church unless we prayed for the Dead How