of Rome of whom they were once a part at Liberty betook themselves to the Examination of the Popes Supremacy and other Articles of the Council of Trent by Scriptures Fathers and Councils but could find nothing in any of them to make out that Supremacy or any Article now in dispute But still the King's Questions pressed upon them who shall be Judge Is not this a President for all Rebellion either in Church or State They have neither Scripture Tradition Councils nor Fathers but what they had from the Roman Church and at the first Breach they were in number very Inconsiderable and yet by a strange Presumption they pretend to have a clearer Sight into those Principles than that Church who gave them their very Being in Christianity I believe were this Gentleman to argue against those Sects that have spawn'd from the Church of England he would not suffer a pride so intollerable as to prefer their own sense in Scriptures or the Rule of Faith before that Church that gave them the Rule Well but having finished this inquiry What did they do He goes on thus Articles of Religion were drawn up wherein the Sense of our Church was delivered agreable to Scripture and Antiquity not the private sense of particular Men. If they be Articles of Religion then they are Articles of Faith if so they must come by Divine Revelation either by the way of Holy Scripture Tradition or otherwise Now I beseech him to declare in which of these principles are all or any of these negative Articles contained as no praying to Saints no Purgatory no reverencing of Images no Transubstantiation and the like with which the nine and thirty Articles are stuft Clearly this is a new Creed which neither the Eastern nor Western Churches did ever profess to hold Nor will it avail to reply that nothing of praying to Saints Purgatory or the like is to be found in the Scriptures or Antiquity which notwithstanding is a manifest illusion for if they be Articles of Religion or of Faith he must bring positive Texts to assert them by which all persons should be obliged to believe them and so to Sacrifice their Lives for them if occasion should be otherwise the Creed-makers will be lookt upon as Cheats and their new Creeds as the deluding Fancies of particular Men. As to the advantages of the Clergy in the Church of Rome I must needs confess they are very considerable and therefore not likely to be lost by any Reformation in Religion since if an Angel from Heaven should bring it they are caution'd not to receive him But that the Clergy should be against and Princes for the Church of Rome is as surprizing as that a Clergy may be byast and a Prince unbyast a Blessing so signally fallen from Heaven upon the Prince who now reigns and his blessed Brother that no advantage under Heaven can be thought so powerful as to have byast them in their Choice THE SECOND Royal Paper VINDICATED HIS late Majesty out of Paternal commiseration and his Princely care for the safety of this Nation breaks out into this complaint It is a sad thing to consider what a world of Heresies are crept into this Nation And this Assailant is much concerned that no distinction should be made between the Religion establish'd by Law and the Parties disowned by it and dissenting from it As if an establishment of a Religion by Law could protect it from being an Heresie or as if Error fix'd by a Law were not more to be pityed than what is vagrant and unsetled He need not trouble himself to vindicate other Sects from Heresie against the four or six General Councils let him defend his own and his work is done But how comes the Church of England to bear the blame of so many Heresies The reason is obvious to any one who reflects upon the breach she made from the Church of Rome and by that example opened a Gate for all Heresies to enter nay the truth is she is a fruitful Womb of Heresies of which Time has and will still deliver her for by throwing the Rule of Obedience and Government over-board the Presbyterians revolted from her from them the Anabaptists the Quakers and how many links more there will or may be God alone can tell since 't is not in the power of that Church but by the Sword to suppress them which if she should use against them nothing would be more unreasonable than to persecute them for adhering too closely to a Rule or Example which she first gave them To his Question How came the Church of Rome to have this power of defining or declaring what 's Heresie I answer By the same way the Church had power in her General Councils to make Creeds and Anathmatize Hereticks and as the Church then did not make any new Articles of Faith when she defined that the Son was Consubstantial to the Father and that Christ had two Wills and one Person so the Church of Rome in her definitions never pretends to make new Articles of Faith but to declare the old ones When the King had pronounced That every Man thinks himself as competent a Judge of Scripture as the Apostles themselves He answers by a Counter-questio Does every one amongst us pretend to an infallible Spirit Yes for by this Gentleman's Position no Man of them will believe but what he sees or understands in the Scriptures and in what they see or understand he conceives they cannot be deceived consequently their Spirit is infallible To use a Man's understanding about Scripture is not to be Judge of Scripture For a Man that so uses his understanding as to submit it to the Tradition of the Church makes the Church the Judge and not himself And whoever uses his understanding in opposition to the Churches Tradition makes himself judge indeed but not to his Salvation We says he own the Authority of Guides in the Church and a due submission to them What 's this Is that submission so due that Heaven will be lost without it If so his Church is as competent a Judge as the Apostles for that is the only punishment due to those who hear not them if otherwise the submission is ad pompam and in the sense of the King every Man thinks himself as competent a Judge of Scripture as the very Apostles themselves The King gives here a Reason for his foregoing Assertion and the sum of it is that the Church of England dares not press her Authority upon other Sects in giving the sense of Scriptures for fear they should confound her for having cast off the Authority of that Church of which she was once a Member and to whom she was equally bound to submit To this he replys That the Church of England pretends to no Infallibility but this is to disguise the Royal Coin for the King abstracts from all Infallibility and his Argument is as forceable without it as with it for if the Sectaries can
as out of the Roman Church Is it come to this that Marcionists Ebionites Arians Nestorians Eutichians Donatists Novatians and the scumm of Heretics because rightly baptised shall be reputed Members of the Catholic Church This had been great news in the days of St. Austin who in his forty eighth Epistle makes this profession to Donatus You are with us in Baptism in the Creed in the rest of our Lord's Sacraments but in the Catholic Church you are not And St. Hierom against the Luciferans No Heretical Congregation can be called a Church of Christ. For though Baptism be the Gate by which whoever enters the Church must pass yet there is no Man though baptized if an Heretic can remain there His next Paragraph is made up by comparing the Church in her Infancy with her self in her fuller growth and from that different State he would conclude that in her beginnings 't was easy to find out that one visible Church by reason of the strait union of the Faithful in the Bonds of Faith and Charity when the Multitude of them who believed were of one Heart and of one Soul but not so in after Ages when the Concussion of the whole State of the Church by so many fractions and divisions in her Communion had so obscured her that they rendred her difficult to be discerned This is the sum of his discourse in gross which I answer by detail after the ascention of Christ there was no time wherein there was not divisions in the Church for even in those good days of the Apostles there went out from them either by Schism Heresy or Apostacy many heads of Factions who grew into Bodies and drew after them considerable Parties such as the Ebionits the Nicholaits the Marcionists and many more whereof some had been Jewish others had been Gentile Christians but all of them went out from the Body of the Church so that notwithstanding the Multitude of those who believed were of one Heart and Soul yet there were many who fell from their Belief I shall now take leave to ask whether the Church in the throng of these Divisions was easily visible or no He grants it was how then came it to pass that in after Ages she became so obscure and as it were invisible He replies by Divisions but if in both States of the Church there were divisions how happens it that the Cause remaining the same should not work the same Effect Was there any Mark Rule or Standard by which the Church was known amidst her first Divisions which afterwards disappeared If not the Church may be equally visible in both her States now if at the rise of any Heresie the Apostles and after them the Apostolick Men used all means to suppress it either by Preaching Catechizing writing against it and meeting in full Assemblies for the Comdemnation of it by stigmatizing both the Heresy and its Author cutting him off from the Body of the Church if I say by these means the infant Church was rendred as visible as a Town scituate on a Mountain or a Light upon a Candlestick then the same Methods continuing in the Church of after times do evidently evince that she was and now is as visible as ever and that there was a just Performance of this in every Age is made out by the records of all times where the time the place the Origin the Author of every Heresie the vigorous opposition that was made against it the Fathers that writ against it the Pastors that Preach'd it down the Councils that condemned it the Laws of Princes made against it are all so exactly noted that all the actions and motions of the Church in every Age were as visible as those of the first and best of times As to the remarkable difference he mentions in the nature of Schisms which happened in the Church and gave occasion of great misapplications and sayings of the Antients about the one Catholic Church I do not believe it material to observe it for let the Schism or Heresie be of what nature soever since the Church in a general Council is the last tribunal in all such Causes whoever separates or goes out from her is to be reputed as an Heathen or a Publican but because his way of writing merits that nothing be slighted I shall march with him through the following Passages Some did so break off Communion with other Parts of the Catholic Church as to challenge that Title wholly to themselves as was evident in the case of the Novations and Donatists If the Novatians and Donatists did break off Communion with other parts only of the Catholic Church I desire to know where the whole Church was at that time For unless he ranges these Hereticks in the Catholic Church and so reputes them parts of it the breach was from the whole not from parts as a rotten Branch is separated from the Trunck or the whole Tree Well how was the Breach By Challenging the Title of the Catholic Church wholly to themselves as was Evident for they re-baptized all that embraced their Communion not to insist upon other Enormities of these Novatians and Donatists by what means were these Monsters crushed were they not the same that were used in the first Ages did not the Pastors watch over their Flock to preserve it from the contagion did not St. Austin and other Fathers sharpen their Pens against them did not the Church by her Councils cut them off as rotten Limbs from her Body If nothing of this can be concealed then clearly she was as visible as ever The next instance is from the Bishops of Rome excommunicating the Bishops of Asia for not keeping Easter when they did and the Bishops both of Asia and Africa for not allowing the Baptism of Heretics This Breach I confess is of a different Nature from the former for here the whole Church was not by any of her Councils yet engaged but the contest was betwixt Parts tho' some more Eminent than others and in which 't is possible some transports of Passion might interyene Irenaeus 't is true expostulates with the Bishop of Rome not that he wanted Authority but that he exercised it with too much Severity over the Bishops of Asia upon a Subject he thought not to be of so great Moment The truth is both these customs had long obtain'd the one in the Western and the other in the Eastern Church and nothing less then a general Council did set a Period to the Dispute A Council was called the decision was made for the Bishop of Rome and Peace was restored to the whole Church can any Man at this time of day say that the Church was not as visible as ever the controversy betwixt Cornelius and Stephen Bishops of Rome on the one side and St. Cyprian with the Affrican Bishops of the other was much of the same Nature nothing was yet defin'd by a general Council Right stood for the Bishops of Rome the Council determined the
as any for it confounds Phancy and Tradition whereas the one is publick to the whole World and the other is private His next Paragraph adulterates the Royal Coin for when the King demands to know where the power of deciding matters of Faith is given to every particular person the sense is clear for the question cannot be meant otherwise than in relation to himself But he extends it so as if every one was to give Laws to another's Faith and this without any ground is made the first Member of the division But he adds If by deciding matters of Faith no more be meant but every Man 's being satisfied of the reasons why he believes one thing to be true and not another that belongs to every Man as he is bound to take care of his Soul So that by his reply every Man whose Soul is dear to him may and ought to discuss and dispute every Article of his Faith and bring it to the Test of his own reason and so the Omnipotence of a God revealing and the Authority of a Church declaring what is revealed weighs not with him until reason be satisfy'd and the understanding becomes a measure of all revealed Truths Whereas in truth Authority is the correlative of Believing and Reason of Knowledge And though we make use of our reason to find out that Authority which ought to sway us as a blind Man serves himself with his reason to find out his Guide yet after that 't is Authority not Reason that moves us and the previous motives inducing us to embrace the Authority of the Church from whence we have Scriptures and all other inscrutable Mysteries are much more visible and resplendent than for any other Article of our Faith The King goes on Christ left power in his Church even to forgive sins c. He replys But where then was the Roman Catholic Church Undoubtedly where now it is one and the same from whence all other pretended Churches went out she never departing from any Church that was elder than her self If she had I doubt not but her Eagle-ey'd adversaries would long er'e this have brought to light the Fathers the Councils or whatever else stood in opposition against her and since they never did nor can their plea against her is common to all whoever opposed the true Church In a good Sense therefore she alone remains Heir general to the Apostles as to those gifts which were not personal but given by Christ for the necessary support and government of her self which is to continue untill the consummation of Time And though he seems surprised that God should keep Man more from Error than from Sin Yet if he recalls but to mind that some of the Prophets were led into truths by the holy Spirit and were great Sinners at the same time and that all the Prophets though infallible in delivering such truths as God put into their mouths yet were obnoxious to sin the miraculous surprize will cease and the reason why infallibility is necessary and not impeccability is manifest because without the first the Church could not subsist for if once she makes Shipwrack of her Faith she is no more a Church an effect not so proper to sin And whereas he demands Would any have believed the Apostles infallible if they had known them to have been persons of ill lives I answer yes for either by Miracles wrought in confirmation of their Infallibility or any other way they could have an assurance of it As to any concession that the Church may err in deposing Princes if he means she may err in the decision of Truth or definition of Faith about it he is purely beholding to himself for that concession not to the King or any else I know of who only engage for her inerrability in delivering what she received from Christ and his Apostles by an uninterrupted Tradition and in conformity to this Rule the Church of Rome with all those in Communion with her the rest either by Heresie or Apostacy being divided from her was judge even of the Scripture it self what was Canonical what not or else it had been impossible for the Church of England to have known any thing of Truth concerning that Point there being no other Church to inform her but what had forfeited her Credit by manifest Heresie and that owned by the Church of England this is a vindication of the King against three of his Paragraphs The King having put the question by what Authority Men separate themselves from that Church He replies that they have not separated themselves from the Catholick and Apostolick Church but are disjoyned from the Roman Church that we may keep up the Stricter Vnion with the truly Catholick and Apostolick Church But if the English Church reputes it self a Member of the Chatholick Church because she professes to stand to the three Creeds and four first general Councils then certainly the Arians Nestorians Eutichians and the Eastern Churches above-mentioned cannot be parts of the Catholick Apostolick Church because they hold not the Apostolick Doctrine contain'd in those Creeds and Councils But besides those Churches there were no other in Being at the time of Separation but those Churches which were in communion with the Church of Rome consequently the Church of England going out from them separated her self from the Catholick Apostolick Church and therefore unless he can prove the Church of Rome to have deserted any other elder Church than her self by Usurpation or otherwise his Story of an Usurper will be but a Shift and may authorise all Rebellion either in Church or State The last Paragraph is since Protestants do charge the Church of Rome with Imposition of new Articles of Faith the King desires to know who is to be judg of that whether the whole Church the Succession whereof hath continued to this Day without Interruption or particular Men who have raised Schisms to their own Advantage The Roman Church having been in Possession of all those Truths now questioned by the Men of the Church of England nothing can be more unreasonable than to devest her of her just Possession and to require her to fall a proving whereas this ought to be the Province of those who under the Pretence of Innovation revolted from her For either they must make good their charge or else by all Laws they stand condemned and she remains justified Wherefore since at the time of separation she owned the Papal Supremacy and other Articles to have descended to her by an universal Tradition whoever questions the Title must convince her of that pretended Usurpation and then as it is well observed by the King who shall be judg in that case To have answered the Royal Paper this Method he should have minded which in disputes of another Nature I doubt not but he would have Practised However after his challenging the Church to prove her Possession he proceeds to declare that the Protestants being now by falling from the Church
the great work of our Salvation ought to depend upon such a Sandy Foundation as this Upon this Proposal of the king's he runs out into an airy Excursion against the Church of Rome under a pretence of a new Faith hatch'd in the Council of Trent which being an assertion as voluntary as 't is Sandy it leaves the Church unattack't and still standing upon a Rock But I appeal says he to any ingenious Man whether he doth not as much build upon his own Judgment who chooseth the Church as he who chooseth the Scripture for his Rule The answer is easy for certainly a Man hath more reason to rely upon his own Judgment in finding out the Church than the Scripture since the one is a Noon-day Light and may be discovered by every one the other is in the dark and so might continue if not discovered by the Light of the Church He advances for the Church can never be a Rule without the Scriptures but the Scriptures may without the Church It seems this Gentleman has forgot there was a Church before the Scriptures were written and consequently a Rule nay some Ages passed before a Collection of the Books of Scripture was made and owned by the Catholic Church for certainly the Apostles and Apostolick Men did not when they went to convert the World by Preaching bring about Waggons laden with Bibles to every Parish and even in St. Irenaeus his time there were many barbarous Nations Converted that could neither Write nor Read the Church then was the only Rule without the Scripture but without light from the Church there could be no certainty of Scripture either as to the Book it self or to the Copy or the Translation or Sence of it He pushes farther it is no such easy matter to find the Churches Infallibillity in the Scripture I answer there is no absolute necessity of finding it in the Scripture since the Church was found out before the new Testament was in Being and if God's special good Providence had not given us the Scriptures to our great Comfort yet the Church notwithstanding would have still been visible to the World's End and therefore when we cite those texts of Scripture about Christ's being with his Church to the end of the World about the Power to forgive Sins about God's Labourers Husbandry and the like t is only ad abundantiam and to shew the advantages the Church hath over her Enemies even at their own Weapons But in his opinion these Texts of Scripture do as effectually prove the infallibility of the Church of England as of the Church of Rome But I beseech him how can a Church but of yesterday and whose Negative Articles of Faith were lately Coined dure from Christ to the World's end The last thing the King charges upon those who resist the truth and will not submit to this Church is that they draw their arguments from implications and far fetch'd interpretation at the same time that they deny plain and positive words which is so great a disingenuity that 't is not almost to be thought that they can believe themselves This I perceive touches to the quick but truth though she cuts must still be amiable Is it says the Answerer to deny truth to argue from implications and to deny plain and positive words of Scripture to say we must not worship Images we must make God alone the Object of holy Worship I reply it is for nothing of this is to be found in Scripture and if the word Image had been in the Commandments as it is not the Original signifying a graven thing yet it would be an implication or far-fetch'd interpretation because it is singled out and snatch't from the context which gives life to the words importing Divine Worship Nor is it any where expressed That God alone is the Object of holy Worship Though it may be deduced thence that worship to holy things is refer'd to God alone as the only final Object of all such Worship Again to say that Christ's Institution of the Eucharist in both kinds is a Command to the Lay-people to receive it in both kinds is an implication confounding Institution with a Command which are very different For Matrimony was Instituted by God yet I know no Man by virtue of the Institution commanded to Marry Lastly The discourse of St. Paul touching the understanding of our Prayers meddles not with the publick or settled Liturgy of the Church as may be evinced from the Chapter it self So that for any of those Examples there is neither plain nor positive words of Scripture on their side Let us now change sides and see how it squares with the Catholic Party They affirm Bread to be changed into the Body of Christ because of these plain and positive words This is my Body this is true because the words are so plain that they import no implication of Impossibility or Absurdity a Rule observed by the Fathers in the understanding of Scriptures literally but against this there lyes an Objection That it is as plain and positive in Scripture that God has Eyes Ears Hands and Feet My reply is That there is an Implication of Impossibility which appears not in the plain Sense of these words This is my Body He presses to know the difference betwixt these two Propositions A Rock is Christ and This is my Body I answer That had it been thus Bread is my Body there had been none for then both Propositions would have imply'd an Impossibility But the words being This is my Body the words are plain as to their Sense that they inferr neither Impossibility nor Absurdity since by these omnipotent words the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ which neither is impossible to God nor absurd to do and therefore in those places where Christ is said to be Bread 't is always with some Emphasis as the Bread of Life this Bread or the Bread which clearly imports an Analogy The Conclusion of this Royal Paper is That if the Civil Magistrate pleases he may turn the Protestant Church either to Presbytery or Independency or indeed to what he pleases for this was the way of our pretended Reformation in England and by the same Rule c. This he tells the King is an unkind requital to the Church of England for her Zeal in asserting his Majesties power against a foreign Jurisdiction But Truth methinks when uttered with design of publick good ought never to be taken unkindly especially from the Pen of a King and if it seems an ill requital I am sure it is a worse complement to palliate one Errour with another The King's reason is to the purpose for as our Princes lately notwithstanding all Laws Divine and Humane did by their Regal Power cancel a Religion which came into this Nation with Christianity and was Established by more strong and forcing Laws than ever gave Being or Preservation to the Church of England For besides a thousand years Prescription and the
A REPLY TO THE ANSWER Made upon the Three Royal PAPERS Published by Authority LONDON Printed for Matthew Turner at the Lamb in High-Holborn MDCLXXXVI THE PREFACE ENtring upon the Answer to the Three Royal Papers whereof the two first were of CHARLES the Second of ever blessed memory and the last of her Royal Highness the Dutchess of York I met with a Gentleman of so frank a Temper that could his Will bribe his Understanding and he believe as he pleased he tells us he had not fail'd of that Satisfaction in the KINGS first Paper of which for the want of Reason to convince him he was now disappointed This condescending Humour is a fair step made to the Inquest by a second Examen of those excellent Truths illustrated by the pregnant Pens and Sense of those Royal Converts Royal Papers I confess as to their Value may be examined as well as Royal Coin even by a private Subject But as the Royal Stamp in Coin may under that fair Pretence by a private Subject be counterfeited clipt or otherwise disguised so Royal Papers especially of Controversy are no less obnoxious to the same Fate and in this they only differ that no such Alteration in the KING'S Coin can be made by a private Subject but he is look't upon as an ill Man and acting with an ill Design Whereas in the KING' 's Controversial Papers the change either of Sense or Word may be made and that by a well-designing Person from misunderstanding inadvertency or other inculpable Surprize Now as to this Gentleman to determine any thing would be a piece of Injustice for I am ignorant both of his Merits and his Person What Mist hath overcast his sight I know not but if he please to look back by a new Survey on the three Papers he may still see in them Reason and Truth so well fixed that to any thing yet opposed they stand unconcerned and as they bear in their Front the Royal Names and Superscription so their Weight will render them immoveable THE FIRST Royal Paper VINDICATED FOrgers and Clippers of Royal Coin seek their safety in places of all the most obscure and Disguisers and Clippers of Royal Sense hide themselves in the shades of Equivocation the King availing himself in his first Paper upon this supposed Concession That Christ can have but one Church here upon Earth makes this other step and I believe that it is as Visible as that Scripture is in print that none can be that Church but that which is called the Roman Catholic Church Now if the King may be allowed to be the best expounder of his own words and if the whole and sole design of this first Paper be to evince this truth That all Controversial Points of Faith either about holy Scripture or other subjects do fall under the judgment and decision of the Church as is manifest it is then the import of the King's words must be thus that whatever motives render it visible that a Book in print is Scripture that is the Word of God the same or other motives are as powerful to render this other truth as visible That none can be that Church but that which is called the Roman Catholic Church This is the genuine Sense of the King and to this the Examinant of the Royal Papers gives this answer If particular Controuersies about matters of Faith could be ended by a principle as visible as that Scripture is in print all Men of Sense would soon give over Disputing for none who dare believe what they see can call that in question Not to contest with him about the impropriety of the phrase to believe what one sees Luther was a bold Man and yet in the phrase of this Gentleman did not dare to believe what he saw for the Epistle of St. James was in print before his Eyes he perused it and yet cast it out of the Canon of Scripture Catholics and Protestants are both Men of Sense they have the Books of Machabees and others in print they see them they handle them the Catholic gives them their place in the Canon the Protestants do not only question them but seem resolv'd to dispute that point to the end clearly then this principle that the Scripture is in print is not so unquestionable or indisputable as the Gentleman pretends and his miscarriage rests in this That the visibility which in the sense of the King springs from the motives inducing to believe that such or such a Book in print is the holy Scripture he assigns to a bare print of the Book But what if the Church whose Authority 't is said they must submit to will not allow them to believe what they see My first reply is That here is a confusion of Notions for belief is properly of things that are not seen as the Apostle describes it argumentum non apparentium and hath Authority for motive whereas sight or seeing is an inspection into the thing seen and creates a knowledge of it Secondly not to recede from his mode of Speech I am a stranger to such a Church and think it impossible to impose upon any Man a command not to believe what he sees For though it may and doth often fall out that a Man believes what he sees not yet in true Philosophy it can never happen that a Man may not believe what he sees and therefore such a command is ranged amongst the impossibles I well know where his scruple is and what he would be at 't is the Adorable Mystery of the conversion of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of our Redeemer where he hopes to evince this assertion but in vain for what is seen are only the forms shapes and figures of Bread and Wine and that we believe to be there consequently the Church lays upon us no command not to believe what we see For instance I will press upon him the two noted passages of holy Scripture the first is of two Angels appearing to Lot and conversing with him in the figure and shapes of Men the second is of the Holy Ghosts descent in the form of a Dove with all let us suppose that God had revealed to Lot this truth that what he did see were not Men but Angels in Mens Shape as he did to the Apostles that what appeared was not a Dove but the Holy Ghost in the Shape of a Dove I now put this question to him was this Revelation a Command upon Lot or the Apostles not to believe what they did see I believe his Answer will be Negative for if there were neither Men nor Dove neither could be seen If then God at any time should reveal to us by his Church that what is in the Holy Sacrament is not Bread nor Wine but the Body and Blood of Christ under those Shapes and Forms why must this revelation be deemed a Command not to believe what we see or where lies the Disparity Evidently then there neither is nor
can be any such Command and by consequence no Injury is offered to our Senses no reproach to the Church His next offer is at a Clip to the Royal Stamp and because he says 't is with Submission I presume it to be unadvised for whereas the Kings Paper runs thus that none can be that Church but that which is called the Roman-Catholic Church he snips off I know not how this word Catholic and so restrains the Kings meaning to the particular Church or Diocess of Rome this must be confessed not to be the best way of examining the King's Coin for tho' by this term Roman sometimes all Churches in Communion with the Church of Rome be signify'd yet by the Parallel made betwixt the whole and the part he is convinced not to have meant so To requite then his Parallel 't is as visible that the word Roman is not Roman-Catholic as that one word is not two as to the Corruption with which in general Terms he aspersed the Roman Church since 't is as invisible as the Proofs he brings to justify the Charge I shall pass it by After it was settled That Christ can have but one Church upon Earth and that this is that Church we profess to believe in the two Creeds He thus subsumes But if those who made those Creeds for our Direction had intended the Roman-Catholic Church why was it not so expressed how came it to pass that such a Limitation of the Sense of Christ's Catholic Church to the Roman should never be put to persons to be baptized in any Age of the Church My first Answer shall be ad hominem by retorfion If the Apostles intended we should believe that Christ was Consubstantial to his Father or that Hereticks were not to be re-baptized why did they not insert it into their Creeds If the Apostles and Nicene Fathers after them intended we should believe the duality of Wills and unity of Persons in Christ how did it escape both their Creeds I believe we shall jump upon the same Solution which is that none of these Doctrines were questioned in those days no Hereticks had opposed them and therefore there was no need of decision this being the Province of General Councils in framing their Creeds Let 's see if this will square to my purpose Catholic and Roman-Catholic-Church in the Language of Antiquity was one and the same thing saving when the particular Church or Diocess of Rome was expressed which being so and the point never call'd in question in the first and best days of the Church when those Creeds were to be published what great surprize is it that the word Roman should not be comprized in any of their Creeds Or that it was not enter'd into the ancient Formulary or Ceremonies of Baptism so venerable to after ages and of which they have ever been most tenacious I have engaged Antiquity for the Roman-Catholic side let 's see whether she will stand by me and let Tertullian lead the Van who well understood the Language both of his own and the foregoing Age. Speak then Tertullian what thou knowest of Marcion's pecunary Oblation in Rome to the Roman Church Marcion says he gave his money to the Catholic Church which was rejected when he fell into Heresie Tertul. contra Marcion lib. 4. cap. 4. See how easily it dropt from his Pen to stile the Roman Church the Catholic Church What 's now the sense of St. Cyprian the mouth of the African Church to Antonianus You writ that I should send a Copy of the Letters to Cornelius Bishop of Rome to the end that he might understand that you communicate with him that is to say with the Catholic Church Cypr. lib. 4. epist. 2. And if it be the same to communicate with the Pope as it is with the Catholic Church then clearly the Roman and Catholic Church are one and the same St. Ambrose in his Funeral Oration upon his Brother Satyrus relates this passage of Satyrus that coming into a City polluted with Heresie he demands of the Bishop of the place whether he was in Communion with the Catholic Bishop that is with the Church of Rome St. Ambros. Orat. funeb So that in the phrase of that time communion with the Catholic Church and Church of Rome nothing differ'd John of Constantinople to Hormisda Pope writes thus We promise hereafter not to recite in the Sacred Mysteries the names of those who have separated themselves from the Catholic Church that is to say who agree not fully with the See Apostolic Tom. 3. Concil Edit Binii inter Epist. Hormisdae By this we may see the stile of old times Nay it was so familiar to use promiscuously the word Roman for Catholic that the very Arians as the Protestants now do called the Catholics by the name of Romanists Victor of Utica brings in Jocundus an Arian thus arguing with King Theodorick If thou put Armogastus to death the Romanists will proclaim him a Martyr Victor Utic lib. 2. de persec Vandal And Gregory of Tours recounts of an Arian King who seeing a miracle wrought by a Catholic concludes that this was a device of the Romanists Since therefore in the vulgar Speech and Records of old days Roman and Catholic are Synonima the King had much reason to declare That none could be that Church but that which is called the Roman-Catholic-Church And a rational account is given why the word Roman was not expressed in the two Creeds nor in the Ritual of Baptism From the Church of Rome's not denying the validity of Baptism to those who are out of her Communion he urges thus 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 she is the one Catholic Church mentioned in the Creeds This is very pleasant it is a fixed principle that there is but one Church Catholic and the Church of Rome by a thousand Declarations takes it upon her self to be that one Church and yet it must be as Visible to this Gentleman as that the Scripture is in print that the Church of Rome doth not believe her self to be that ōne Catholic Church mention'd in the two Creeds what can he offer to justifie so strange a Paradox For then says he it must void all Baptism out of its communion which it hath never yet done But what greater necessity is there for the Church of Rome to void Baptism given out of her Communion then for the Catholic Church Or if the Catholic Church doth not make it void what can oblige the Church of Rome to do it The Reply is That Baptism enters persons into the Catholic Church who though they be out of the Communion of the Roman Church yet having the true form of Baptism are Members of the Catholic Church But I beseech him if Baptism enters Men into the Catholic Church doth not Heresie Apostacy or Insidelity cast them out of the Catholic Church as well
point and the whole Church came to an acquiescence Had this Gentleman been chosen advocate for the Catholic Church I know not how he could have render'd her more visible He proceeds but is it reasonable to suppose that upon these differences they shut out all those holy Bishops and Martyrs from the possibility of Salvation by excluding them from their Communion How far the heat of these disputes might have carried the Parties engaged or whether either or neither party was free from blame I shall not determine but this is a certain Maxime both in Church and State that a submission either active or passive is due to all Lawful Powers though the command be unjust and 't is the known principle of St. Austin with the Ancients that no cause can be given to separate from the whole Church either by Heresie or Schism now in this contest here was no separation from the whole Church by either of the Parties but a perfect submission to her Decrees when delivered by the mouth of her General Assembly so that here was not different Communions amongst Christians but only different sentiments in matters as yet undecided by the Church with which it consisted that both parties were members of the Catholic Church and consequently no one member of the contesting parties as this Gentleman well observes ought to assume to its self the Title and Authority of the one Catholic Church But when Sentence was passed by a General Council the dissenting party if any remained was cut off as a rotten Member from the Body of the Catholic Church and then the contest is no more betwixt party and party but betwixt a rebellious party and the whole Church to whom the stile of that one Catholic Church is justly due she being the whole as the Trunk of the Tree is the whole compared to any Limb and the Novatians and Donatists her putrified Members Amongst other calamities which have sprung from original corruption 't is not the least that being our selves Criminals we have an itch to find out confederates as if their number rendered us Innocent This assailant of the Royal Papers to justifie the late separation of the Protestants from the Roman Catholic Church brings upon the Stage the Eastern Churches cut off and separated from her Communion And adds that the Bishops of Rome would hear of no other terms of accommodation with the Eastern Church but by an intire submission as head of the Catholic Church which all the Churches of the East refus'd however different amongst themselves and to this day look on the Popes Supremacy as an innovation in the Church How well skill'd he is in the History of the Eastern Churches I shall not dispute But sure all is not Game that rises and I doubt the account given him is made up of false Musters This is certain the Eastern Churches were divided from the Roman-Catholic Church that is from all Churches in Communion with the Church of Rome by such Doctrines as are inconsistent even with the Church of England which professes to hold whatever was decreed by the first four general Councils and this breach of union continues with their descendents to this day The Egyptians Ethiopians and Abissines are by Sect Eutichians holding but one Nature Will and Operation in Christ and are condemned by the fourth general Council that is of Chalcedon with these side part of the Armenians the Jacobites Georgians and Cophties The Christians under the Turk and Persians in Asia are Nestorians branded by the General Council of Ephesus for maintaining two persons in Christ. The Grecians with the Muscovites and Russians by the Athanasian Creed so Sacred to the Church of England are excluded even from Salvation for refusing to believe the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son As to the first division of the Greek Church the true cause was from the contest betwixt Ignatius true Patriarch of Constantinople and Photius the intruder with the first stood the Pope and the Emperor with the last and in the end to make the breach the wider the procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son was denyed and so it rests till this day now that the Pope's Supremacy was and is look'd on as an innovation by any of these Churches I doubt is a story not so well grounded as this Gentleman could wish And if my Authors deceive me not some of these as the Egyptians and Ethiopians have often made overtures to the Pope for Peace and Communion owning him Supream Head of the Church provided only they might not be obliged to renounce Eutiches and Dioscorus After these fundamental Errours of Faith against the Holy Ghost and the person of Jesus Christ he put this question how then came they to be excluded from being parts of the one Catholic and Apostolic Church Since in all those Churches the two Creeds are professed true Baptism administred A Man would have thought that such blasphemies against the Divinity and Humanity of Christ had been cause enough to have Unchurched any number of Men but since he seems to opine that the denyal of the two first Creeds can do the work why should not the refusal of a third Creed or if the emergencies of new started Doctrines made it necessary a fourth and fifth Creed be as prevalent Is the power of the Church Catholic in deciding Faith less then it was in making the second Creed Again is it not as possible for Men who profess a Creed to err even against that Creed as it is for Men professing a Rule to deviate from that Rule Wherefore it being evident that nothing of all this hath been wanting to fill up the measure of Heresie in those Eastern Churches they cannot be reputed parts of the one Catholic and Apostolic Church consequently the Roman Church and the Churches in Communion with her must be that one Church or there was or is none upon Earth This principle then that the Roman Church is that one Catholic and Apostolic Church being as visible as was asserted by the king to enter into the Ocean of particular disputes would be to enter into the maze of everlasting jarring Pregnant evidence of this truth is had from the pretended Reformation of this last Age where the innumerable Sects that have swarm'd from the first Reformers in the divided World steering their course as they fancy by the Compass of Holy Scripture a president given them by their Leaders have improved controversie to that degree that 't is impossible by that method to reclaim them the Scholar still in that out-doing his Master And whereas it is believed by this Gentleman That the Church of Rome hath notoriously deviated from this infallible rule Scripture sensed by fancy for neither he concerns himself for Tradition nor Exposition of the Fathers and therefore is not willing to put her self upon that issue I answer that the Church of Rome cannot deviate from a rule she never professed to follow And if some
of her Champions out of meer condescension to Protestants have fought them with their own weapons in which way of combating the Church is not engaged the judgment of the victory must be from the arbitration not of any private Man but of the Learned World The king's next position is That it is not left to every phantastical Man's head to believe as he pleases but to the Church Beware here of counterfeit Coin 't was out but he called it in again and replies The Church of England cannot be liable to any imputation of this nature for our Church receives the three Creeds embraces the four General Councils and professes to hold nothing contrary to any universal Tradition of the Church from the Apostles time Had he been pleased to have given in security for the Church of England that notwithstanding this glorious profession she could never err against the Creeds nor the four Councils nor universal Tradition he had well merited of that Church For we do not charge her for not professing these things at least upon a pinch but for erring against her own profession and deserting that Church to which all these Authorities bear testimony and of which her Progenitors and first Reformers had been Members and from whose hands she received whatsoever she had either of Scripture Creeds Councils or Tradition consequently whose judgment she was bound to follow for the Eastern Churches even by the profession of Protestants being lapsed into Heresies there was then no visible Church in Being but such as was in Communion with the Church of Rome which never went out of any elder than her self and out of whom the Church of England sprang It seems he would have the Controversie betwixt us put upon this issue that is the three Creeds four Councils and Tradition But who shall be Umpire the instructing or instructed Party This discourse in the mouth of a Protestant against Presbyterian Anabaptist or Quaker would be sound though at the same time a self-condemnation in the Church of England The rest of this Paragraph is made up of voluntary assumptions without proof and which are already answered as to the main only I cannot let slip this concession we do not deny that the Church hath Authority of declaring matters of Faith but this must be the universal Church in a General and free Council as when the Nicene Creed was made not when a party in the Church the most corrupt takes upon it self to define many now Doctrines This plea if it be good justifies the Arians and condemns the Nicene Fathers vindicates the Eutichians Nestorians and Donatists and confounds all General Councils for there is nothing of this but was as fully charged against them by the Heretics of those days The following Paragraph is adulterated Coin for whereas the King by the inhabitants of a Country means Subjects instituting the comparison betwixt them and their Lawful Judges of the same Country he stretches those words to signifie the People of one Society and Judges of another The King's discourse is home and to the purpose God would not leave us at those uncertainties as to give us a Rule to go by and leave every Man to be his own Judge He answers We cannot reasonably suppose God should give us a Rule not capable of being understood by those to whom it was given to save their Souls As if there were no way to render a Man capable of understanding Scripture to the saving of his Soul but to leave him to be his own Judge Is there no Church No Pastors to instruct him He that is blind or dim-sighted and will not use a Guide merits to fall Not to be wilfully mistaken in matters of Faith and not to be damn'd is of one and the same consequence The knowledge of good and evil truth and falshood I confess in some sense is to Man's conscience of the same concern but he that willingly shuns light and gropes for either of them in the dark is an Enemy to his Soul and equally culpable There follows We do not leave every MÃ n to be his own Judge any farther then concerns his own Salvation which depends upon his particular care and sincerity But if the judgment of his own Salvation be in his own hands I think he is made his own Judge of the Rule And notwithstanding all his care and sincerity though they should protect him from the Artifices of foreign Seducers which is not possible but by accident without an inerrable Guide yet the corruption of his own heart may be his own most powerful Seducer and God if he will hath provided a guide even against that As to his refuge to the Ancient Creeds of how little concern it is may appear by this that if I should allow they followed exactly what they pretend to embrace which I never can yet if he denies it to be in the power of the Church to make new decisions of Faith upon any new exigence of Heresie or the like the sequel will be that every Man is left to be his own Judge To the question started by the King Whether it be not the same thing to follow our own phansie or to interpret Scripture by it His reply is That if we allowed no Creeds no Fathers no Councils there might have been some colour for such a question And is that colour vanish'd I believe not for if those Creeds those Fathers and Councils have no infallible Authority to oblige the Church of England why should not the King's question be still in force For neither is that Church obliged to follow those Rights which may deceive it nor is there any rational Authority in the Church of England to force any of her Members to embrace them But the truth is that Church neither stands to Creeds Fathers or Councils otherwise she had never deserted her Mother Church who ever regarded those Authorities as Oracles infallible and sent from Heaven to direct us and to whom she owes whatever is Sacred of that nature To his first question of the Church of Rome assuming to it self the sole power of giving the sense of the Scripture I answer she gives no sense but what she received from former Tradition of the foregoing Church and consequently makes not any Rule to her self but follows that Apostolical Tradition which God hath given her as the best interpreter of holy Scriptures To his second question the answer is the same The third question stands upon a false bottom for it supposes the Pope to be the sole interpreter of Scripture whereas neither he nor the Church do pretend to any other way but by Tradition The fourth question is also grounded upon Errour as if the publick disorders which happen in the Church were not to be reformed by General Councils The fifth question is also built upon Sand for it pretends that the Papal Authority is to be debated in Councils whereas no General Council did ever dispute it The sixth question is as strange
so she either out of some disgust or for reasons best known to her self did not so well relish the advice given her by the Bishop of Winchester Had she no Body else to consult If she had there is no reason to charge her with the not using ordinary means unless this Gentleman has a Revelation for it After this he cites the following discourse of her Royal Highness That she spoke severally to two of the best Bishops we have in England who both told her there were many things in the Roman Church which it were much to be wished we had kept as Confession which was no doubt commanded of God That praying for the dead was one of the ancient things in Christianity That for their parts they did it daily though they would not own it And afterwards pressing one of them very much upon the other point he told her that if he had been breed up a Catholic he would not change his Religion but that being of another Church wherein be was sure were all things necessary to Salvation he thought it very ill to give that Scandal as to leave that Church wherein he received his Baptism Which discourse she said did but add more to the desire she had to be a Catholic By this long Text 't is clear that her Royal Highness had made many steps towards the Catholic Religion and that the Conference she had with these Bishops did but add fuel to the flame that was within her for such is the result of her last words did but add more to the desire she had to be a Catholic This being so her Highness and the two Bishops were now upon different terms as Party and Party she making advantage of their Concessions as of Truths coming out of the mouth of the Enemies to the Religion she either actually professed or was inclinable to and they notwithstanding those Concessions keeping their own ground So that it was not the Authority or Example of these Bishops that prevailed with her but Truth forced from an Enemy which for that reason convinced her the more Since therefore this Gentleman allows of the Concessions 't is unreasonable to put this question Why should not the last words have greater force to have kept her in our Church than the former to have drawn her from it Because 't is easier for a Catholic to believe a Protestant speaking against himself in matters of Religion than for himself Ex ore tuo te judico is an Argument invincible against a Man's self The Concessions then being admitted both by the Catholic party and these two Bishops she had reason to believe them as to the Concessions but not in that wherein the Catholics and they differ'd which was That all things necessary to Salvation are certainly in the Protestant Church and that it was ill to leave it The next two Paragraphs concern not her Royal Highness For whether the two Bishops did let fall words inconsistent with their own Religion or not her work was done she not being obliged to reconcile them to their own Religion But the late Bishop of Winchester instead of untying has cut the knot a sunder For says he he first doubts whether there ever were such Bishops who made such answers and then he affirms That he believes there never was in rerum natura such a discourse as is pretended What pity 't is the Bishop of Winchester should be a person of so small a faith as not to give credit to so great a Lady in a concern wherein 't was no advantage to her to tell a Lye and if she had was by all the Laws Divine and Humane bound to restitution for the wrong she did them Non dimittitur peccatum nisi restituatur ablatum Or if he doubted whether there were ever any such Paper we have now the Royal word of a King for it attesting it to be hers Matters being thus we do not charge upon the Church of England the single Opinion of one or two Bishops but 't is reason to believe that a Lady thirsting after truth might defer much to persons of so eminent a rank in that Church This Gentleman I perceive is very studious very industrious to find a Lady in Errour and hopes she may contradict her self thus then She protests in the presence of Almighty God that no person Man or Woman directly or indirectly ever said any thing to her since she came into England or used the least endeavour to make her change her Religion and that it is a blessing she wholly owes to Almighty God So that the Bishops are acquitted from having any hand in it by her own words But I beseech him did she or any else charge upon these Bishops that they said any thing to her or used any endeavours to make her change her Religion How oft doth it happen that the speaker of words may utter them for one design and the hearer make use of them for another though then the Bishops did not say any thing to her with endeavour to make her change her Religion yet their words may have added much to the change of her Religion He proceeds And as far as we can understand her meaning she thought her self Converted by immediate Divine Illumination This construction of her words so tickled his fancy that it made him sport upon the Church of Rome's private Spirit for a long time But for my part if he has done laughing I can understand nothing of this immediate Divine Illumination from her words For God who disposes of all things strongly and sweetly has infinite methods to convert Souls to himself without immediate Illumination by so unexpected a concourse of second Causes so well tempered and knit together by his wisdom that a conversion of a Soul may and will follow thence she not knowing how and consequently as 't is the sole work of the Almighty so that blessing she wholly owes to him What this Gentleman understands by a private Spirit I know not but be it what it will 't is therefore vitious because it is inconsistent with those publick Methods and Rules God has left to govern his Church by which whether the Protestants when they went out from the Roman Church did not desert by following an Ignis Fatuus of their own in their singular interpretation of holy Scripture against the known Sense of their Mother Church is the subject of another dispute or rather indeed 't is put out of all dispute that they then did unless they can shew that the constant Tradition and Practice of the Primitive Church interpreted Scripture as they then did in all the Points they reform'd in which they know is impossible Her Royal Highness declares that she would never have changed if she thought she could have saved her Soul otherwise and he answers 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 I cannot perswade my self
that this Gentleman would force his Modesty to such a Degree as to give the Lye to a Lady of her transcendent Quality especially who had been so well bred up in the Principles of the Church of England I shall rather favour him with this Construction that tho' she thought what she said was true yet in reality it was not But how came she to make this Declaration she tells us she never had any scruple till the November before and then they began upon reading Doctor Heylin's History of the Reformation which was commended to her as a Book to settle her and there she found such abominable Sacriledge upon Henry the Eighth's Divorce King Edward's Minority and Queen Elizabeth's Succession that she could not believe the Holy Ghost could ever be in such Councills And because Doctor Heylin's History wrought her Conversion he seems to be displeased at the Author of that Advice but I must needs dissent from him for it being a History of the Reformation it wasmore fit to put that into her hands to settle her in her Religion if the Reformation had been from God being within her Sphere than any Book of Controversy wherein she might have been plunged into difficulties insuperable the Objection oftentimes out-weighing the Solution And tho' in the History of Reformation he tells us there are two distinct parts The one built on Scripture and Antiquity the other upon Maxims of State yet the one being visible and the other invisible had she been a Person of greater Understanding than she was how could she possibly discern both what he requires to have been the Subject of her Consideration was so far beyond her Reach that more Speculative Persons than her Condition would permit her to be come short of that Performance and therefore no better way could be than to be conversant with such Objects or motives as were of her own size One of which was that where the Foundations of a Pretended Reformation were Sacriledge Rapine and Lust She could not believe the Holy Ghost could ever be in such Councills He replies thus were not the Vices of Alexander the Sixth and of many other Popes as great at least as those of Henry the Eighth Be it so and suppose them greater therefore neither she nor any Body else in Prudence can believe that God ever chose Alexander the Sixth or such as he points at by vitiously acting to be the Reformers of his Church or to give Being to a Reformation As to the Invasion upon the Rights and Lands of the Church he replies to by Retaliation Are there not Miscarriages of the like Nature in the Church of Rome It may be so but if by such Miscarriages one should think to reform the Church I shall as freely declare with this great Lady that I cannot believe the Holy Ghost can ever be in such Councils From her scruples which the reading of Dr. Heylin's History of the Reformation had put into her mind she came to the Examen of points in difference by the Holy Scriptures where it seems says he contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome she found some things so easie that she wondered she had been so long without finding them out That some things may easily be met with in Holy Scripture makes not against the Doctrine of the Church of Rome nay standing to the bare Letter without the assistance of Tradition experience has made it manifest that her Champions have fought against all sorts of Enemies with that success even at their own weapon that partiality it self cannot deny her the Victory Nor is it any great wonder that a Lady of her great endowments being but yet a seeker of Truth and not acquainted with the Catholic Rules of Expounding Scriptures and having no other interest but her Soul's safety should easily find what she did not formerly when she thought her self secure and was not concern'd nay what great Doctors do pass slightly over when thousands of lesser Talents than she have done the like What discoveries then hath she made First of the Real Presence then of the Infallibility of Confession and praying for the Dead As to the Real Presence importing a Real and Substantial change of the Elements into the Body and Blood of Christ. He demands In what words of Christ is it to be found I answer in these This is my Body And whereas he adds That the wisest Persons of the Church of Rome have confessed that the bare words of our Saviour can never prove it I answer 'T is hard for him to determine who are the wisest but he knows well that they generally teach that those words cannot be verify'd without that change Confession of Sins as ever commanded is no harder to meet withal than confess your sins to one another And if the Apostles and in them their Successors had power to forgive and retain sins there must be an Obligation in others to confess them otherwise that power had been useless Praying for the Dead is also frequently grounded upon Scripture and though her Royal Highness seems to have been somewhat confirmed in the belief of it by the concession of the two Bishops yet she no where affirm'd that to be the sole Motive to change her Religion but only that it added more to her desire of being a Catholic The Places usually cited for the Infallibility of the Church he would perswade us may as well be apply'd to other Churches as to the Roman but because I have already proved the Roman to be that one Catholic Church I shall supersede from any further trouble at the present From Christ's promise of being with the Church to the end of the World and she now believing no other Church to be that Church but that which is called the Roman she makes this inference That our Saviour would not permit the Church to give the Laity the Communion in one kind if it were not lawful so to do This Illation is evident for otherwise he would not be with his Church to the end of the world From this excellentDiscourse of her Royal Highness 't is an invincible Truth that all the force of Sense and Reason do center in this conclusion that she did not think it possible to save her Soul otherwise than in the Roman Church and by her Paper the world may see the pregnant Power of Truth which forced those two great Lights of England's Church to a private concession of what in publick they were unwilling to own Magna est veritas prâ—valebit FINIS A Catalogue of Books Sold by Matthew Turner at the Lamb in High-Holbourn ACTS of the Clergy of France The second Edition To which is added a necessary advice how to read Books of Controversie Quarto A Discourse of the necessity of Church Guides Quarto The Guide in Controversies Four Parts Quarto A True Narrative of the pretended Popish Plot with Figures A Papist Mis-represented and Represented Quarto Why are you a Catholic And Why are you a Protestant Quarto Bishop Condom's Discourse of Universal History Octavo Digitus Dei against Nullifidians Octavo The MASS Triumphing Octavo The MASS Vindicated Octavo Veron's Rule of Faith Octavo Bishop Condom's Exposition of Catholic Doctrine Twelves His Treatise of Communion in both Species Twelves The Touch-stone of the Reformed Gospel Twelves Turbervil's Manual of Controversies Twelves Abridgment of Christian Doctrine Eighteens Vane's Lost Sheep Return'd home Twelves Counsels of Wisdom or the Maxims of Solomon Twelves The Catechism of Penance Eighteens Four Maxims of Eternity Eighteens Christian Thoughts for every Day Twentyfours St. Francis de Sales Introduction to a Devout Life Twelves Thomas of Kempis Following of Christ. In Twelves and Twentyfours THE END