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
would have any Man shew me says the King where the Power of deciding Matters of Faith is given to every particular Man He distinguishes and says The Power of Deciding so as to oblige others is not given to every particular Man the Power of Deciding so as to satisfie the particular Decider is Denial is a fair Answer and this seems to deny what His Majesty says and yet in truth says nothing to it Deciding of particular Men being our own Iudges following our own Fancy or private Spirit believing as we please and the like Expressions signifie all the same And the King as Men use to do who mind Sense more than Words and have Language at will takes now one now another as they come in His way As it could not scape an â— ye less piercing than His that he judges every jot as much who believes upon the Authority of the Church as he who believes upon his own Fancy of Scripture and that every Assent is a Judgment and so the Assent of Faith as well as the rest it cannot be imagin'd that He would have Men not judge at all But He meant as all the World means by those Phrases that they should not judge unreasonably For as they are blamed who will be their own Judges and no body blames another for doing well and Judging is of it self a good thing an Exercise of a Faculty planted in us by God there is nothing to be blamed but the ill use of that Faculty by suffering Passion to 〈◊〉 it which should only be guided by Reason That Men 〈◊〉 mean thus by those Expressions we see by the 〈◊〉 to which they apply them He who being 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 or Conceit of 〈…〉 〈…〉 the Advice of his unpassionate and 〈…〉 or he who has no skill in Physic or 〈…〉 will commence and prosecute Suits 〈…〉 against the Advice of able Lawyers and Doctors is said to be his own Judge He is not who understanding Jewels or Pictures buys them at his own Rate tho' never so many of less 〈◊〉 than himself persuade him to the contrary 〈…〉 is said to be his Judge Now the King 〈◊〉 because Christ taught his Apostles and 〈◊〉 who with those that believ'd his Doctrine 〈…〉 Preaching and their Successors through 〈…〉 are called the Church that he could not 〈◊〉 reasonably who would pretend to find out that Doctrine by his own Wit or Study or any 〈◊〉 but by learning it of the Church which 〈…〉 at first from Christ and preserv'd it ever 〈◊〉 And this unreasonable Judgment made on their own Heads or Fancy against the Judgment of those whose Profession it is His several Expressions strike at The Answerer reflected not on the meaning of them but would persuade us That to say particular Men must be satisfied of the Reasons why they believe is an Answer to the Question Whether there be indeed any Reasons why they should believe besides the Authority of the Church To go forward Christ says his Maâ—â— sty left his Power to his Church even to forgive Sins in Heaven and left his Spirit with them which they exerâ—â—â—â— d after his Resurruction He answers as if he were at 〈◊〉 purposes where then was the Roman 〈…〉 What has where was she to do 〈…〉 left to her 'T is a strange Quâ— stion 〈◊〉 and he I believe the first who ever ask'd where a Church was before she was The Roman was a part of the Catholic as soon as she was a Church till then she was where all the Churches 〈◊〉 the World besides were except that of â— ierusalem and where the Church of â— ierusalem too was before Christ was born in the order of Providenâ—â— But how can it be hence inferr'd that these Powerâ— are now in the Church of Rome 〈◊〉 Roman Cathâ—â—â—â— Church I suppose he means exclusive to all others unless it be made appear that it was Heir-General to all the Apostles As if there needed Logic to infer that Powers left for the Salvation of Mankind remain in being as long as there remains a Manâ—â—â—â— to be saved or Powers left to the Church of Christ are in the Church of Christ and those exclâ— ded from the Powers who are not inclâ— ded â— n the Church or to make appear She is Heir-General to all the Apostles who as visibly as that the Sâ— ripture is in Print is the One Churâ— h 〈…〉 he could be content to be 〈…〉 Point but since his Majesty 〈…〉 purpose to do more than barely mention it I 〈◊〉 it not to mine to stray from the Papers I 〈◊〉 In the process of his Discourse he would 〈◊〉 the ordinary Power of the Keys out of the 〈◊〉 and shall with all my heart so he remove it not out of the Church For since it was with the 〈◊〉 given only to her I do not see what 〈…〉 Title there can be to it but 〈…〉 Her He is by his good favour 〈…〉 removing Miraculous Power out of the 〈…〉 God who slights not the Roman 〈…〉 so much as he continues 〈…〉 her And would he be content to 〈…〉 〈◊〉 on Miracles I would be content to undertake the Proof But alas I fear there needs a Miracle to make People willing that Differences of Religion should have any Issue He would have it question'd What part of the Promise of the Infallible Spirit was to expire with the Apostles what to be continued to the Church in all Ages And how fâ— r that Promise extends Strange Questions for Christians to dispute after they have been answer'd by Christ himself When Christ has extended the Assistance of that Spirit to All his Doctrine and All Time for us to ask which part of that Assistance shall cease or to 〈◊〉 is to ask Which is the Part of Christ's Promise which he will not perform Neither indeed are these Questions with his Distinction between Sin and Errour and subtle Speculations upon it for any thing but to bring in Deposing Doctrine a Comâ— on-place bang'd in every Book of late It is a Theme than which as much as it is 〈◊〉 upon I do not think a worse can be taken 〈◊〉 an Invective against Infallible Assistance pick aâ— d chuse through the whole Bundle When I conâ—â—â— er what has past and reflect there wanted neither Power nor Propension in Men and nevertheless that the Persuasions about Deposing were never settled as those in other Matters which displease the Answerer what he takes for an Argument against Infallible â—â—â—â— tance I take for a strong Argument for it For 〈◊〉 else could be the Cause of that Effect but that 〈◊〉 Power even of willing Men was directed by an 〈◊〉 Assistance of the Divine Spirit He may 〈…〉 shew he pleases with the Errours of 〈◊〉 who will not reflect they never exercis'd the Power of Church-Guidâ—â— upon 〈◊〉 Errours or in his Language so as to 〈…〉 which yet he knows very well no Council of 〈◊〉 he had in his eye ever did As the Church
not in the Office of Baptism that it is required that they believe the Roman Catholic Church As if the Roman Baptism by requiring belief of the Catholic did not require belief of the Roman Catholic Church If he think in earnest that it do's not let him present a Man to this Baptism who professes not to believe the Roman Catholic Church and try whether his professing to believe the Catholic Church will obtain it He reflects not that the Limitation which is in this Expression Roman Catholic Church comes not from Roman but from Church That Word indeed always limits the Expression to those who believe and sometimes to those who practise the Doctrine of Christ. Roman neither makes nor marrs as to Limitation but owns the Romans for such Christians Taking in those whom Injustice would keep out is it seems Limitation in his Language As it griev'd him in likelihood that this Expression as visible as that the Scripture is in Print should be applied to the Roman Catholic Church he had a mind to retort it upon her but very unluckily chuses to do it in an Assertion contrary to the sense of all the World besides himself and by an Argument contrary to the sense of the whole Church not excepting his own He says then in his third Head That it is to him equally visible that the Church of Rome it self do's not believe that it is the one Catholic Church mentioned in the two Creeds and this every body but he plainly sees it do's And proves it by this Argument Because if it did it must void all Baptism out of its Communion which it hath never yet done when 't is plain that all the Church agrees it ought not to be voided This he very well knows is a Plea over-ruled by the whole Church many Ages ago and which I little expected he would have borrow'd from Men who he says were excommunicated because they made and stood to it especially whâ—â—â— he I think condemns it himself For he excludes the Donatists I suppose and Novatians from the Catholic Church because they re-baptized When he bethinks himself he will not sure have the Church heretofore not believe her self the Catholic Church because she would not void Baptism with the Re-baptizers nor exclude the English from the Caâ— holic Church because she voids it not The truth is to say in one breath That the Donatists were not Catholics because they Re-baptized and in the next That Roman Catholics cannot believe themselves Catholics because they do not is a cross piece of Business and much too hard for me As far as I can understand the very Reason he gives why they should not is one Reason why they should believe themselves the Catholic Church For in not voiding the Baptism of Heretics they do as the Primitive Catholic Church did And had I made such an Argument for a Friend I am afraid he would have thought I plaid booty The Answerer nevertheless strives to make it good by this Discourse As long as Baptism doth enter Persons into the Catholic 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 Catholic Church and yet the Communion of the Roman and Catholic be all one as it must be if the Roman Church be the Catholic and Apostolic Church professed in the Creeds This if I understand it is in short Persons Baptized out of the Roman Communion are Members of the Catholic but not of the Roman Catholic Church and therefore the Catholic and Roman Catholic are not the same Churches He was not I perceive aware that he supposes what he should prove and when he has done proves it by means of that Supposition For he could not make a Member of the Catholic not to be a Member of the Roman Catholic unless he suppose that those are two different Churches And this is the very Point in Dispute which he should prove and which he puts for proved in his Conclusion But we are all subject to oversights I wonder more how it could scape him that the Baptized Persons he speaks of are as much Members of both Churches as of either I speak in his Language as if they were different Churches that his Argument may go on Those Persons are not truly Members either of the Catholic or Roman Catholic Church but as far as Baptism makes Members they are altogether as much Members of the Roman Catholic as of the Catholic And He if he will recollect himself knows very well that both Points have been long since determin'd and that by the whole Catholic Church The old Contest about Rebaptisation puts it past Dispute that they were not truly Members of any Part of the Catholic Church For the Contest was How they should be made Members Whether by a new Baptism or only by Imposition of Hands Both Sides therefore that is the whole Church agreed That they were not Members of the Church till one way or other they were receiv'd into it And to think they did not agree in this is to make very wise Men of them Men who fell out with one another even to Excommunication if we will believe the Answerer how those should be brought into the Church who were in already Again That they were nevertheless as much Members of the Catholic Church tho' baptised out of its Communion and so of the Roman tho' baptised out of the Roman Communion as Baptism could make them he knows too was carried against the Re-baptisers by the rest of the Church in whose Judgment the whole Church ever since has acquiesced And he stands single against that Judgment when he thinks a Man baptised out of the Roman Communion is not a Member of the Roman Communion as much as Baptism makes a Member and as much as if he were baptised in her Communion In truth there is nothing to dispute of but Words When he says that Baptism enters the Baptised into the Catholic Church if he mean that those who are duly baptised by Men who are out of the Communion of the Catholic Church need no other Baptism to be brought into the Catholic Church he says very true and no more than what the whole Church has long since said before him Neither do they need any other Baptism to be brought into the Roman And if he will have this called an entry and the Baptised called Members with all my heart For I think it time lost to quarrel about the Names of things when we know what they signifie But if he mean that their Baptism so enters them that they need nothing more to be what every body understands by Members Men who believe and profess the Faith of the Catholic Church he contradicts every Member of the Catholic Church and every Man in the World For all Men see they do not profess that Faith but the Heresies of their Baptisers and all Christians know they need notwithstanding their
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
〈…〉 are not able to shew they have any 〈◊〉 It is enough to my purpose to have 〈◊〉 that his Majesty asks for a secure Motive and 〈…〉 no Answer 〈…〉 to see by his Objections against 〈…〉 what he takes for Fancy and 〈…〉 According to him They 〈…〉 and They Iudge who to be sure of a right 〈…〉 â—â—â—â—â—rences in Religion look out for a Fallible Iudge and hazard their Salvation on what may deceive them They Fancy who are for an Vnwritten Word They Iudge who think the Word of God is made by Writing Giving Honour to God by the Worship of Images is Fancy and Iudgment that giving Honour to God is not giving Honour to God For giving Honour any way is plainly giving Honour Mediators of Intercession besides the Mediator of Redemption are Fancy and so to think because only one could Redeem us no body besides can Pray for us is Iudgment The Doctrine of Concomitancy Fancy and true Christian Iudgment that the Body and Blood of Christ can nâ—â—â— e sepâ— rated and he die again A Substantial change in the Eâ—â—ments Fancy and right Iudgment that the Apostles did not understand what Christ said to them or not instruct the Church as they believ'd themselves So 't is with his last instance of Pargatory and all the rest Our Judgment is the Judgment of the Church from which there is no Appeal and it rests with the Answerer to shew how any other Judgment can be more than meer Fancâ—â— or 〈◊〉 to dispatch the next Paragraph under one Men are giddy or settled as they are guided or not 〈◊〉 by Reason and he should shew 〈◊〉 Reason besides can settle them 〈…〉 I desire to know therefore says His Majesty of every serious Considerer of these things whether the great Work of our Salvation ought to depend on such a sandy Foundation as this That is says the Answerer the Private Iudgment Can a Man expect there should be any Answer to this but that our Salvation ought or ought not depend on Sand or that the Foundation of Private Judgment is or is not Sandy And yet the Answerer makes a shift to spin out a Paragraph without one word of either I says he have seriously considered this matter and must declare That I â— ind no Christian Church built on a more sandy Foundation than that which pretends to be settled on a Rock as to part of her Faith If that Church build on Sand too she will I suppose hear on 't in due time At present he who considers so much might consider that he is not ask'd what he has considered or what he has found but whether any Church That if he will among the rest ought to build on Sand and whether Private Judgment be more than Sand Plain I or No if it please him first and then a l' autre Then he tells us That no understanding Man builds upon his own Iudgment He takes I suppose the Advice of his Friends in Compliment For after all he is to be his own Judge But is his Judgment and their Advice and what you will besides the Judgment of the Church without Appeal a Foundation to build upon There is the Knot which the Answerer should now untie But no Man of understanding can believe without his Judgment Sure enough nor no Man of not-understanding neither for his Belief is his Judgment But I am cloy'd with this Dish What Stand there is to set it upon is now the Question I appeal says the Answerer to any ingenuous Man whether he doth not as much build upon his own Iudgment who chuseth the Church as he that chuseth Scripture for his Rule Every ingenuous Man who reads these Papers will tell him that to build upon ones own Judgment is the same with following ones own Fancy being ones own Iudge and what other Terms a Master of English in all Senses used to express in variety of Phrases Iudging unreasonably Let the Answerer in stead of telling us what we all know as well as he That every one Judges who Judges tell 's what we do not know what Reason they have to chuse the Scripture not the Church for their Rule He that chuseth the Church hath many more Difficulties to conquer than the other hath How so For this sounds like a Paradox Those many more Difficulties to my thinking must be conquer'd before one can come at Scripture For unless we first chuse the Church for a Rule to find out Scripture by whom alone St. Austin has told us we know it there will be no assurance of Scripture for us to chuse And then in the choice of the Church there is but one thing to mind and that no difficulty neither where or which the Church is When that is settled a Man has no more to do but believe as he is taught and live as he believes Who thinks he has conquer'd the difficulties about the Letter of Scripture as which Books belong to the Canon which not which is a right Translation or Reading which wrong and whatever falls in his way has at least as many remaining as he has past and which if he find not insuperable he is I believe the more beholding to his Will For I know not how to have any Opinion of his Iudgment who only because such words will bear his Sense as they will it may be twenty others all abetted by Men of Name ventures his Soul upon 't that his is just the Sense meant by the Holy Ghost But let us hear his Reason For the Church can never be a Rule without the Scriptures but the Scriptures may without the Church that is without Faithful For a Congregation of them is a Church Will he persuade us there were no Faithful in the World before Moses No Christians before the New Testament which was written by Christians and no part of it till several Years after the Resurrection Do's not St. Irenaeus inform us that more than one Nation had the Doctrine of Christ and no Scriptures And will he make us believe that all these were Faithful without any Rule for their Faith and that the Church depends on Writing which if it should be lost in the World there would be an end of the Church Again of what and to whom should Scripture be a Rule if there were no Faith nor Faithful Paradoxes a part and the attempt to unriddle one by another let the Answerer tell us if he please whether our Salvation ought to stand upon Sand and to deal plainly whether he think that they who stand whether on the Church or Scripture do not build both on Sand For by saying nothing for Scripture and yet making it worse on the Churches side one would guess he is of Opinion there is no steadiness in either And it would be well to speak plain that People may leave off dealing where there is no Security and troubling themselves no longer with the uncertainties of Religion turn their Thoughts to more solid
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
therefore wish'd People in stead of floating uncertainly up and down in the Ocean of Disputes to take Port in that one Church which Christ has upon Earth and to which Power was given to govern us in Matters of Faith and a promise of perpetual assistance Which Church he says is vibsily the Roman Catholic The Answerer flatly denies the Roman Catholic to be the one Church of Christ for Reasons ever since St. Cyprians Days condemn'd by all Christians and never minds that he denies two terms the same with a third to be the same between themselves For Church of Christ and Catholic Church are the same both signifying all the particular Churches which believe the Doctrine of Christ. Again Roman Catholic is the same too with Catholic for both signifie likewise all the same Churches with the Roman for one of the number which the Answerer acknowledges she is Catholic says All and who says All says Roman if she be one And who says Roman Catholic says those very All neither more nor less And yet the Answerer can fancy a difference For the rest he gives no direct Answer that I remember to any one Question yet hovers so about it that one must keep his thoughts very attentive not to have them diverted quite another way As for Certainty or Uncertainty they are Matters which he seems not to mind Not but that he talks of a sure Compass and Infallible Rule but he never tells us whether or how a Man shall be sure that he do's indeed steer by that Compass or is guided by that Rule Those great sounds vanish into Conscience at last and that Conscience may be right or wrong for any care he takes as perhaps he thinks it equal whether the one or the other The King desired People should have sure hold and shews them where they may He is only solicitous to keep them from fastning there and leaves them to find another if they can of themselves or be content if they will without any If he have a Pique to the Roman Catholic he may shew them another Catholic Church or if a Church be needless on what they may rest securely without a Church If on Scripture he may shew them how they may safely stake their Souls that they do not mistake it If on Conscience how they may securely trust it Let People be but safe and I ask no more But as there is after all but one way to Heaven the King shews it and he imputes deceit to him for his pains and then sets up for the faithful Friend himself who will neither let them go that way nor shew them that there is any other And thus it stands between them It is for the Reader to consider which of the two gives him better Counsel and where he can find better Security than what His Majesty offers or whether Security be needless One would think is not like to take up much Consideration in our Country whether in a concern of infinite more value than all the Money which troubles so many Lawyers and Scriveners one should deal without looking after Security And yet by whatever charm it happens there needs a great deal of Grace to make People sensible in this Case of what in all others they are but too much their greatest concerns God of his Mercy grant it to all who ask it and to all who by not asking it shew they more need it A DEFENCE OF THE Third Paper I Dare appeal to all unprejudic'd Readers and especially to those who have any sense of Piety whether upon perusal of the Paper written by Her late Highness the Duchess they have not found in it somewhat which touch'd them to the very Soul whether they did not plainly and perfectly discern in it the Spirit of Meekness Devotion and Sincerity which animates the whole Discourse and whether the Reader be not satisfied that she who writ it has open'd her Heart without disguise so as not to leave a Scruple that she was not in earnest I am sure I can say for my own particular that when I read it first in Manuscript I could not but consider it as a Discourse extremely moving plain without Artifice and discovering the Piety of the Soul from which it flow'd Truth has a Language to it self which 't is impossible for Hypocrisie to imitate Dissimulation could never write so warmly nor with so much life What less than the Spirit of Primitive Christianity could have dictated her Words The loss of Friends of worldly Honours and Esteem the Defamation of ill Tongues and the Reproach of the Cross all these though not without the struglings of Flesh and Blood were surmounted by her as if the Saying of our Saviour were always sounding in her Ears What will it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his Soul I think I have amplified nothing in relation either to this Pious Lady or her Discourse I am sure I need not And now let any unbias'd and indifferent Reader compare the Spirit of the Answerer with hers Do's there not manifestly appear in him a quite different Character Need the Reader be inform'd that he is disingenuous soul-mouth'd and shuffling and that not being able to answer plain Matter of Fact he endeavours to evade it by Suppositions Circumstances and Conjectures like a cunning Barreter of Law who is to manage a sinking Cause the Dishonesty of which he cannot otherwise support than by defaming his Adversary Her only Business is to satisfie her Friends of the inward Workings of her Soul in order to her Conversion and by what Methods she quitted the Religion in which she was educated He on the contrary is not satisfied unless he question the Integrity of her Proceedings and the Truth of her plain Relation even so far as to blast what in him lies her Blessed Memory with the imputation of Forgery and Deceit as if she had given a false Account not only of the Passages in her Soul and the Agonies of a troubl'd Conscience only known to God and to her self but also of the Discourses which she had with others concerning those Disquiets Every where the Lie is to be cast upon her either directly in the Words of the Bishop of Winchester which he 〈◊〉 or indirectly in his own in which his spiteful Deligence is most remarkable In his Answer to the two former Papers there seems to have been some restraint upon the virulence of his Genius though even there he has manifestly past the Bounds of Decency and Respect But so soon as he has got loose from disputing with Crown'd Heads he shews himself in his pure Naturals and is as busie in raking up the Ashes of their next Relations as if they were no more of kin to the Crown than the New Church of England is to the Old Reformation of their Great-Grandfathers But God forbid that I should think the whole Episcopal Clergy of this Nation to be of his Latitudinarian Stamp many of them