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
which Christianity obliges me and that it may be false by the same Judgments being grounded on my fallible Authority For by judging it fallible I judge it may deceive me that is that what it recommends to me for true may be false At which rate he is the only good Christian who contradicts himself When the Answerer shall make out that such things can be we may hope to see his Church Authority without Infallibility Till then he will permit us to be persuaded that Infallibility is the true Argument which he confesses has not been us'd against Sectaries If it be true that the Church of England cannot pretend to this Argument which if she did Sectaries he says might justly turn it against her it is so much the worse and the Kings Discourse is indeed levelled against her But I see no such matter Why may not she if she please pretend to her share in the Infallibility of the Whole by remaining as I think her best Advocates plead she do's a part of the Whole Because says he tho' Church Authority be asserted infallibility is deny'd in her Articles Where I beseech him for I cannot find infallibility deny'd save to particular Churches whereof any one undoubtedly may forfeit her pretence to Infallibility by changing her former Faith and so ceasing to be a Member of the Body to which it was promised But this is her concern not mine Iâ— it be so with her she may thank those against whom the Kings Discourse is truly levell'd those who have pull'd this Argument out of her Hands and reduc'd her to have nothing to urge against Sectaries but the sinfulness and folly of their Separation as if she could take it ill of other folks that they separate from her if she be brought to separate from other folks Or as if there were any sin or folly in Peoples desiring to make their Salvation sure and when they cannot find security in a Fallible Authority seeking it elsewhere There follows that the Church of England as â— is calâ—â— d. This as ' t is call'd makes him teachy and he would fain know what she wants to make her as good a Church as any in the Christian World she that wants neither Faith if the Câ— eed contain it nor Sacraments nor Succession of Bâ—â—â— ps nor a Liâ—â—â—â— Never so little Indulgence for a King would 〈◊〉 suffered him to speak as he thought fit especâ—â—â—â— when he had apply'd the Word which offends the Answerer to the Church of Rome too For he 〈◊〉 of the Roman the Church which is 〈◊〉 the Râ—â—â— Catholic But if the Answerers Zeal for the Church of England be so very nice it might have been employ'd much more 〈…〉 something material for her than in picking a needless Quarrel If the Church of England really be not what she is call'd it is long of her self and the influence she suffers those to have who will needs possess the World that she sets up Separately for her self with a different Faith from that of the great Body As the Whole is but One Church made up of as many Members as there are particular Churches which profess the same Faith it is unintelligible how there can be a particular Church otherwise than by being a Member of this Body If the Answerer have a mind to shew she is a Church he should shew she is a Member and believes as the rest not alledge for her things common to as very Heretics as ever were in the World For how many of them receiv'd the Creed had Sacraments Succession of Bishops and Liturgies Not to touch the rest in which for all the Answerers confidence there are difficulties more than he or any Man will be able to clear Is it not palpable that Christians are as much oblig'd to believe every thing which Christ taught when 't is known he taught it as what is contain'd in the Creed And is it not as certainly known he taught much more as that he taught what is there contain'd Is it not palpable that she her self believes more I for my part understand not the Zeal of talking as if she quitted her only sure hold to stand upon Ground which will certainly founder under her and upon which arrant Heretics are forc'd to stand because they have no better But this again is her concern Our business is with the remaining part of the Paragraph which says that she would have it thought that she is the judge in matters Spiritual yet dares not say positively there is no appeal from her His Answer dilated with several Examples is That They are ture Judges from whom there lies an Appeal Still catching at Words and saying nothing to the Thing His Majesty was solicitous of freeing the Nation from the Heresies crept in and convincing the Sects by Arguments to which there could be no return Till the Church of England can determine Spiritual as a Judge do's Temporal Differences by a final Sentence conclusive to the Parties He thought so great a Benefit could not be expected from her The Answerer with his Zeal never thinks of shewing which way she can conclude any body but as if the Name of a thing were All tells us There are true Judges who nevertheless cannot conclude the Parties which come before them Why His Majesty and every body else knew this without needing to trouble his Rhetorâ— and Erudition for the Matter But what are those Judges to our purpose What Benefit shall we get by them And how much the nearer will our Differences be to an end If there were no other in the World Suits would be endless in a Nation and Controversies in a Church as I pray God there be not who desire no better In short His Majesty talks of Judges from whom there lies no Appeal He of Judges from whom there do's and gives us this for a satisfactory Answer He might peradventure have made something a better shew by saying That His Majesty by expecting the Church of England should judge without Appeal expects more than can be had from a particular Church because Appeals must needs lie from all such But every particular Church may judge as the rest of the Body do and it is to our purpose all one to judge without Appeal and to judge as they judge from whom there is none For that Judgment is without Appeal tho' not purely in vertue of the Authority of the particular Church So the Church of England may judge without Appeal and if she do not may thank those who will not let her His Majesty goes on proving what he had said For either they must say that They are Infallible which they cannot pretend to that is otherwise than by giving the right-hand of Fellowship to those who are or confess that what they decide in Matters of Conscience is no farther to be followed than it agrees with every Mans private Iudgment If Christ did leave a Church here upon Earth and We were all once of that Church
A DEFENCE OF THE PAPERS Written by the Late KING Of Blessed Memory AND Duchess of York AGAINST The ANSWER made to Them By Command LONDON Printed by H. Hills Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chappel 1686. PREFACE T IS acknowledg'd that Sovereign Princes when They enter into the Lists of Disputation may be answer'd as well as Private Men for then they Command not but only Argue speak their Opinion and Instruct. The Answerer is not therefore blam'd for appearing on the contrary Side to our late Sovereign of Blessed Memory whose Papers were for that Reason made Public that every man might have the liberty of considering them and of making a free and upright Iudgment concerning them Accordingly it hath pleas'd Almighty God by means of them to open the Vnderstanding and direct the Will of many sober and well-meaning Readers in the knowledge of his only True Church and the desire of being united to it The great Success of them as it is manifest to the World so in all probability hath occasion'd the Answer by one who calls himself a Son of the Church of England and who gives it as the Reason of the publishing his Pamphlet That the Papers thus dispers'd in Print may fall into many Hands who without some Assistance may not readily resolve some Difficulties started by them Vpon which Consideration this Author thought it not unbecoming his Duty to God and the King to give a clearer Light to the Things contained in them Which not long after he explains in relation at least to the First Paper wherein he could have been glad to have found as much Reason to convince as there was a fair Appearance to deceive Now whether the King intended to deceive his People or that the Deceit might be occasion'd by His Writings I leave our Author to expound But in general to clear Difficulties and discover a Cousenage I freely grant not to be unbecoming of our Duty An Answer then may be made even to a King but the Manner of Answering is likewise to be consider'd And surely there is somewhat more of Respect to be given to a Sovereign Prince than to a common or private Disputant especially if the Answerer be his Subject The Cardinal of Peronne tho' a Forreigner has observ'd this Decency in the Controversie manag'd betwixt our King JAMES the First and him Luther on the other side has made a German Quarrel with HENRY the Eighth without allowing Him so much as the Name of King but in the beginning of his Answer calling Him barely by His Christn'd Name and using Him afterward as familiarly and scurrilously as if Martyn and Harry had been two Sophisters set up to wrangle in the Schools at their two confronting Desks After the same manner and not without a convenient share of Impudence has Milton treated King CHARLES the First but he had cast off the Yoke of Dominion before he answer'd and of a Subject was become a Rebel To speak evil of Dignities is not much recommended to us in the Holy Scriptures and whether he be Catholic or Protestant Tros Rutulusve fuat who manages a Dispute in this manner neither Church ought to be over-proud of such a Champion Now whether our Answerer has follow'd the Example of Peronne or whether he has not some little tincture of Luther's Mannerliness and the Civility of Milton let the impartial Readers of his Pamphlet nay let even all modest and dutiful Protestants be Iudges I name not here the Passages which are either disrespectful in relation to the Late King or to the Present nor the Pedantique Cavils nor the private Scoffs which have render'd our Author justly odious to the sober Men even of his own Party But if he will look upon this as a bare Accusation without Proof I shall endeavour to make it good upon his Summons In the mean time tho' as he alledges it be no Reflection on the Authority of a Prince for a private Subject to examine a Piece of Coin as to its just Value notwithstanding that it bears his Image and Superscription on it yet the Answerer ought to be cautious of decrying that Coin among his Fellow-Subjects unless he can fully prove it to be Counterfeit But he might have made a more proper and less invidious Similitude by comparing the King's Paper to a Medal rather than to Coin'd Money It bears the Figure of one Monarch and is Distributed to the People by another 'T is a Largess not impos'd on any Man it may either be taken or refus'd But both those Actions ought to be accompanied with Respect the Metal and the Weight may be examin'd without phillipping it up into the Air for the Image the Superscription and the Donor ought all to secure it from Contempt To conclude If the Answerer thinks it not unbecoming his Duty to God and the King to give a clearer Light to the Things contain'd in those Papers I know it not to be unbecoming mine to defend the Honour of both our Princes and the Truth of that Religion profess'd by them which has descended without interruption from our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles even to us In so doing I hope I shall discover the foul Dealing of this Author who has obscur'd as much as he is able the Native Lustre of those Papers and recommended by a false Light his own sophisticated Ware part of which may certainly deserve the clearest Light which can be given it by the Hands of the Vnder-Sheriff or of somebody whom I will not name A DEFENCE OF THE PAPERS Written by The late KING of Blessed Memory and Duchess of York AGAINST The Answer made to Them A Defence of the First Paper AS I think the Answerer may with as little need of Apology become the Antagonist as I the Champion of a King and Princess and that the cowardise of delaying Time suits ill with the Presumption of entring into such a Quarrel I shall lose none in scanning the Preliminary Discourses of my Adversary or making any for my self His Majesty says in his first Lines That it is as visible as that the Scripture is in Print that none can be the One Church which Christ has here on Earth but that which is called the Roman Catholic Church and that there is no need to enter into the Ocean of Particular Disputes when the main and in truth only Question is Where that Church is The Answerer who had a mind to flourish before he offered to pass says first That if particular Controversies could be ended by a Principle as visible as that the Scripture is in Print all Men of sence would soon give over Disputing And what if they did The sooner the better I should think For Christians sure might without any harm become unanimous in their Sentiments all of one Heart and one Soul again and lay Disputing aside As truly I believe they would if the Apostle could prevail with them to lay aside all
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
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
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
knows that without Faith it is impossible to please him But whether do's he mean to lead us All hitherto seems quite out of the way to our Question For what has the chief end for which a Rule was made to do with whether it will guide us certainly or no Hiâ— refusing to Answer is in truth confessing that Scripture after all is not the Rule of Controversiâ— s. For they are not ended till one side or other be certain But let us go no farther than we needs must In Matters of Good and Evil every Man's Conscience he says is his immediate Iudge and why not in Matters of Truth and Falshood Vnless we suppose Mens involuntary Mistakes to be more dangerous than their wilful Sins How Are we before we were aware come to Conscience at last and all his Magnificent Talk his Evident his Sure and his Infallible his Care in examining and comparing for nothing but to establish this Maxim Do every one what seems good in his own Eyes and believe what seems true Is this the clearer light he will give to the things contain'd in His Majesty's Papers and the loss of such a Liberty the great danger they run of being deceiv'd with their fair appearance whom he will secure with his safe Instructions of trusâ— ing their Conscience both for Good and for True Doctrine or not Doctrine of Christ is no such idle Circumstance sure that hitting or missing is equal so the Conscience be strait and the Mistake involuntary By the way I see not how this involuntary can thrust in here For who forces any Body to mistake or take the deceitful ways which lead them to it But to say nothing to that matter and but little to his Plea of Conscience as copious as the Theme is I only ask what Conscience can do more than secure a Man from being judg'd for sinning against his Conscience But if it lead him to do ill things or embrace a wrong Faith what can he answer for the Sin of having that Conscience Reason certainly never â— ramed such a Conscience and there is nothing besides which could frame it but Passion that is Affections wrong set or in plain English very wilful Sin Shall he who has this to answer for be safe because he has nothing to answer for the Sin against Conscience As if that were the only Sin to be accounted for in the next World For the rest This to say the truth is an Answer For Uncertainty do's not prove that Scripture is not the Rule if it be no matter whether we be uncertain or no nor indeed whether there be a Rule or Faith For if Conscience will carry those to Heaven who believe wrong Faith I think may be spared and a Rule for it But as it is an Answer which I believe would not have taken with His late Majesty because he had too much Experience of the bad Effâ— cts of mistaken Conscience to think it would 〈◊〉 at the Tribunal of God more than it did at His I am confident it will take as little with the Reader At least I will venture it without more words For I mâ— an not to stay at a new Apology of his 〈…〉 of England as unseasonable as the â— ormâ— r 〈◊〉 something were objected to her and as little 〈◊〉 At the rate he talks one woul◠〈…〉 do's what he undertakes She do's not 〈◊〉 every Man to â— e his own Iudge For this he 〈…〉 in what concerns his own Salvation that is in all Faith for Faith concerns Salvation Who believes not every body who believes Scripture knows shall be damned Then his Seducers with their dangerous Mistakes as such there are it seems for all his Conscience-security And his Spiritual Guides with their assistance would make work till Doomsday Nor can Quarrels about them be ended till those about Faith be settled For till then who shall know which is the Guide and which the Seducer As Christ appointed no body to teach other Doctrine than he taught They are plainly no Guides of his appointing who do The Ancient Creeds too are brought in again as if they would be serviceable to the Church of England and no Liberty of Conscience allow'd to judge against them or any Doctrines as universally receiv'd as if any part of universal Christian Doctrine were lost and all had not been always as universally retain'd as the Creeds But I have my Answer and will be going In the next Section the King asks Whether it be not the same thing to follow our own Fancy or to interpret Scripture by it And he answers There might be some colour for such a Question if They did not do so and so Pray what colour has he â— or such a Reply Might not the King have colour to say what he thought fit to be said to him to whom he spoke whether there be or be not colour to say the same to the Church of England He wâ—â— t not to her nor were His Writings publish'd with any relation to her but to satisfie the Curiosity of those who desir'd to see them and could not come by written Copies and to assure them they were His. In stead of concerning her where she is not concern'd let him if he please answer the Question and tell us whether it be or be not the same to follow 〈◊〉 own Fancy or interpret Scripture by it Till he say I or Nâ— all besides is leaving the Work â— ut out for us to cut out new of our own which twenty to one we shall never make up For which Reason I will pray him to keep his many Questions tâ— ll the Dispute be between the two Churches and I appear for the Church of Rome Till then he cannot rationally expect an Answer from me He perhaps may be able to manage two Disputes at a time or think the best way to end one is to begin another I think it too much for me to defend a King and a Church at once And so much good may his pleasant Fancies do him about a Rule and its Interpretation which he talks as if he would have belong to those who do not know the Sense of it about the Intention of Almighty God as if we knew not what he intended and did make the Pillar and Ground of Truth about reforming Disorders which he makes unreformable even in Commonwealths where the Supreme Judge has the ill luck to be principally accus'd about Oaths as if any were taken to defend an unjust Authority or could bind tho' they were about a Iudge of Tradition as if a Man who sees Pictures in one Church and none in another needed a Judge to pronounce to him that those Churches practise differently His Vsurpers and all shall do what he would have them for me I wish in stead of all this he would have minded his Business but mean however to mind mine What he replies to the next Section shews more like an Answer than any thing said yet I
to 〈◊〉 the Promise of Assistance was made should 〈◊〉 know what it means none in the Roman Catholâ—â— Church ever understood it would always preserve even those who by their Functions are Church-Guides from Errour any more than Sin save when they perform the Office of Church-Guides or expected more than that They should not Authoritatively declare that to be Christ's Doctrine which 〈◊〉 not or that not to be which is Since it is undeniably certain that our Church-Guides have never made any such Declaration in stead of profiting by their Pains we stand wondring what Protestants mean by repeating so often a Tale which has nothing in it Whoever errs among us Church-Guide or not Church-Guide errs on his own Head and not misguided now or at any time by the Church or her Gnides And so long it is as wildly unreasonable to impute those Errours to the Church or any but the erring Particulars as to bring Peter in guilty for the Faults of Paul 〈…〉 imperâ— ect as half-periods use to be but who read the whole will I believe understand it perfectly enough and if he had no mind to speak to this part of it he might have said so without imputing to it an Imperfection of his own making by severing it from its fellows As imperfect as it is I find by it that the Power of which his Majesty speaks was the Power of deciding Matters of Faith and so that when he talks of the Giâ— t of Tongues and the like he talks of what his Majesty did not It informs us too that as great Prerogatives as the Apostles had above other Men subsequent Councils took upon them to make Creeds as well as they Creeds which declare they will undoubtedly perish eternally who believe not entirely what they contain And so might have put us in mind that those who do as much in latter Ages have Precedents for what They do Matters which it seems he takes no delight to speak of As it had been something rugged to have said this Part for all it was left out deserv'd no consideration he smoothly passes to that which next do's And that is That the Church was the Iudge even of Scripâ—â— re it self many Years after the Apostles which Books were Canonical and which were not To which he replys That there is a Iudge of Law and a Iudge of Fact and that the Church Iudges of Fact 〈◊〉 Law Let him call it how he pleases if the Church Judges whether a Book be Canonical or no the Church is the Judge of that Matter and the King said true and 't is but so much erudition lost to Dispute by what name Her Judgment shall go He says besides that The Church of Rome hath no 〈◊〉 priviledge in this Matter but gives its Iudgment as other parts of the Christian World do 〈◊〉 if the Clause he answers spoke of any 〈◊〉 Church or Priviledge It says the Church that 〈◊〉 the whole made up of the Roman and the 〈◊〉 whose same Faith intitles them to the same Appâ— llâ—tion was the Judge of Scripture which Books were Canonical and which were not One may percâ—â— ve the Answerer thinks this is true and he mâ— ght 〈◊〉 said what he thought in two words But he thought fit to spin it out into a Section and 〈◊〉 the Matter so that one Member of his Division is not included in the Matter divided he alone knows why And if They had this Power then I desire to know says his Majesty next how They came to lose it And the Answerer desires to know who are meant by They and what is understood by This Power He had not the Paper by him sure when he askt these Questions For it is there as plain as words can make it that by They is meant the Church and by this Power the Power of deciding Matters of Faith exercised in making Creeds and judging of Canonical Booâ—â— Then he falls to his Dâ— stinctions again and tells us It is one thing for a part of the Church to give Testimony to a matter of Fact and another to assume the Power of making Books Canonical which were not so Pieces of Learning which he may if he please keep in reserve till he have to do with some body who talks of a Part of the Church or making Booâ—â— Canonical which were not By the way he means I suppose making Books not written by 〈◊〉 Iâ—spiration to be written by Divine Inspiration For if he mean making it appear and 〈…〉 and with obligation of 〈◊〉 that a Book of which it is doubted whether it were 〈◊〉 that truly Catholic and Apostolic Church 〈◊〉 which by separting from the Roman they keep 〈◊〉 their stricter Union and with which the Roman 〈◊〉 none For sure he do's not talk of a strict Union with nothing Let him tell us in what Countrâ—â—â— the Men live that People may go to them and learâ— of them what their Faith is and see whether it 〈◊〉 be all one with that of the Answerer and his 〈◊〉 and have something more than his word 〈…〉 stricter Union which he says is between 〈◊〉 What He and those who take his part do 〈◊〉 separating of themselves he tells us but being 〈◊〉 out by an Vsurping Faction in the Church and 〈◊〉 the Conditions of Communion impos'd by tâ— at Fâ—ction and requir'd by him who is own'd â— or Heaâ— of that Church are unjust and unreasonable and 〈◊〉 Authority â— e challenges a meer Vsurpation and tâ— at They are not to be condemn'd for such a Separation which was unavoidable Why unavoidable I beseecâ— him even supposing Usurpation and whatever 〈◊〉 would have Cannot they who are let â— t he 〈◊〉 so unjustly separated from the Communion avoiâ— being separated from the Faith of a Church if they please Is there any Church or Power on Earth which could hinder them from believing 〈◊〉 they were out of Communion what they did 〈◊〉 they were in it Which if 〈◊〉 had done Excommunication it self had not 〈◊〉 them from the Church of which these Papers speak 〈…〉 〈…〉 their voluntary Change of Faith And that Change indeed casts them unavoidably out because to be of the same Faith with a Church and of a 〈◊〉 Faith from her is inconsistent Other casting 〈◊〉 by which he means I suppose Excommunication there is none that I know 'T is true there is a general Excommunication of those who haâ— e chang'd their Faith into Heresie And some are particularly named but not a word of the Church of England or any relating to England but the Wickliâ— ists If any of his We be included in it 't is because they have voluntarily thrust themselves in by embracing the Anathematiz'd Heresies And yet he with his Flourishes and big Talk would have their casting off the Church pass for the Churches casting them out and their voluntary Act be call'd a being cast unavoidably out Cross Language in my Opinion and a very sorry Justification of Separation But
I see no great cause he has to wonder that Princes and the Clergy should be of different minds in Matters of Religion He knows the Case has happened heretofore and that there had been no change of Religion in England if the whole Body of the Clergy and their Advice had been regarded But not to pry into Mens Hearts to see what Interest sways them This is certain that those Princes who prefer their Eternal before their Temporal Interest when they are for the Church of Rome 〈◊〉 good example And I cannot conclude better 〈…〉 praying God to give every body the Grace to follow it and in behalf of Princes thanking him 〈◊〉 minding his Reader that they are not all drawn 〈…〉 of Rome by Interest A DEFENCE OF THE Second Paper THE first Paragraph as the Answerer has handled it concerns the Church of England more than me If She when the King talks of Heresies and Heresies crept in think her self oblig'd by the Answerers thinking presently of her or when she is brought in by his turning immediately to justifie the Dissenters and that by an Argument alledged formerly in her behalf with something more favour to them too than her â— for he allows Them Six Councils and but Four to Herâ— I have nothing to do with it They are Matters between themselves Are there Heresies in England or are there not Is it a sad thing there should or is it not These are the Questions at present and 't will be time enough to talk of the Church of England and Dissenters when they are answered What Power the Church of Rome has to define Heretiâ—â—â— Doctrines will keep cold too For 't is not ask'd How Heresies come to be or are known to be Hereâ—â—◠〈…〉 That 〈◊〉 should lay the stress of his Answer on a 〈◊〉 This Expression as competent as the 〈◊〉 is bâ— t an ordinary way of saying very compeâ—â—â—â— As when we say This Man is as strong as Samâ—◠〈◊〉 as wise as Solomon we mean no more 〈◊〉 that they are very strong and wise And he can 〈◊〉 that Not just so competent as the Apostles is an 〈◊〉 to Whether Competent or no and to 〈◊〉 at a Word fit matter in a Dispute with a King 〈…〉 us see The Apostles for what concerned 〈◊〉 could do no more with their Infallible 〈◊〉 than judge for themselves and act in order 〈…〉 Salvation according to that Judgment And 〈…〉 the Answerer contends is the right of every 〈◊〉 Why then every body is in rigour as competent 〈…〉 for himself as the Apostles And he 〈◊〉 to 〈…〉 His Majesty affirmed by 〈…〉 himself â— or His Majesty only said ther understand nor mean to inquire It concerns those Guides and it is not for me to thrust my self into the Concerns of other Folks And 't is no wonder says the third Paragraph it should be so since that Part of the Nation which looks most like a Church dares not bring the true Arguments against the other Sects for fear they should be turned against themselves and confuted by their own Arguments To this he says first That it is directly level'd against the Church of England As if an Arrow were the sharper or blunter for the Mark at which it is aim'd Let him tell us whether the Assertion be true or not true and talk of Levelling when Levelling is in question He is out even in that too For the Paragraph is in truth levell'd not against the Church of England but her Misfortune It is an Expression of Compassion not Reproach that she has been overaw'd from using the true Arguments against Sectaries Then he answers That if there can be no Authority in a Church without Infallibility or no Obligation to submit to Authority without it then the Church of England doth not use the best Arguments against Sectaries But if there be no ground for Infallibility as if his won Goodness were not Ground enough for God to give it to a Nature which needs it and his Word not Ground enough to believe he has given it then for ought he can see the Church of England hath wisely disown'd the Pretence of Infallibility and made use of the best Arguments against Sectaries from a just Authority and the Sinfulness and Folly of the Sectaries refusing to submit to it I take for granted he speaks of Authority to guide Souls to Heaven such as was in the Primitive Church when the Civil Laws were all against her And pray him if he please to instruct us how such Authority can be in a Church without Infalâ—â— bility We see no body will believe a Man who after he has told his Story should add It may be all falâ— e for any thing he knows nor lend his Money upon a Promise to be repaid which the Borrower declares before-hand he knows not whether he can keep or no. And we are persuaded there should be better Security for our Souls than for our Money or unconcerning Opinions To say a Church is fallible is to say she may be deceiv'd and if she may be deceiv'd her self They may be deceiv'd who follow her Wherefore to tell us that such a Church has notwithstanding Authority to guide us and that we ought submit to it is to tell us we ought be led by a Guide who cannot answer he knows the way we should go and venture eternal Happiness or Misery on a Security which he who gives tells us plainly before-hand may fail us Pray let us consider Christians every body knows are oblig'd to lose all things their Goods their Liberty their Lives rather than their Faith Can it be reasonable to do this for a Faith of which they are conscious to themselves that it may be false for any thing they know And do's not his own Heart tell him who knows nothing of it but by the Relation of a fallible Relator that it may be false for ought he can tell Wherefore to make the Faith of Christians depend on a fallible Authority is to make Christianity with its obliging Duties the most unreasonable thing in Nature What do I say unreasonable It is to make it absolutely impossible For can I be a Christian without believing Is not Belief a judgment that the thing is true which I believe Can I have such a Judgment without a cause able to produce it And is a fallible Authority able to make me judge more than that the thing is fallibly true When Christianity therefore obliges me to believe the thing absolutely true it there be nothing to make me believe but a fallible Authority it obliges me to an Effect without a Cause that is to a downright impossibility And indeed to flat Contradiction For as a thing cannot possibly be true and not true at once to judge it is true is to judge it cannot at the same time be false But I must of necessity judge both if I judge upon a Motive which I know is fallible That it is true by the Judgment to
than that of our own Iudgments As if it pinched there His Majesty talks of those who do not believe as the Church of England do's for this reason because they are taught by a Church from which there is no Appeal that is who have not that Motive for their Judgments which he took for the only truly reasonable Motive And while he is speaking of Motives the Answerer falls a talking of Judgments The difficulty is not whether Judgment affords Security A Judgment grounded on true Reason can no more change than Reason but whether there be any security in those Judgments which are made on unsecure Motives Or if you will what Security there is in that Judgment which the Answerer offers for Security 'T is as in Land The Security is good where the Title is unquestionable but if that be doubtful there is no Money to be borrow'd on the Land And he will have us take for Security the Judgment of which we are not satisfy'd that it is it self secure Once again His Majesty thought Church-security the only Security in this Matter And it rests with the Answerer to shew that Protestants either have this or other true Security to shew what other Foundation and Pillar of Truth there is besides the Church how it can be a Foundation without Infallibility and People have reason to trust their Souls to what may deceive them In short what good account they can give of the Hope which is in them who learn the Faith by which they think to please God otherwise than from those whom he appointed to teach it Till he do this as obscurely as his Majesty speaks People will see they have nothing to trust to for their Salvation but Fancy nor the Church of England for their company But He dares appeal to the World whether They have not made it appear that it is not Fancy but Iudgment which hath made them firm to the Church of England Dares he in earnest put it to the Catholic World any more than we to the Protestant To what purpose these great words when he knows before-hand nothing will nor can come of them It had been a great deal more to purpose since Fancy and Judgment in this place signifie a rational or not rational Persuasion to have shew'd that they truly have Reason who are firm to the Church of England and that They are indeed firm For that Firmness may as well be pretended as Reason for itâ—â— and they may desire to pass for firm to Her 〈◊〉 make her not firm to her self But for big 〈◊〉 none are better at it than Cowards out of Gun-shot Might it not asks he on as well have been said That the Pâ—â—â—â— tants of the Church of England adhered to the Crowâ— in the Times of Rebellion out of 〈◊〉 and not out of Iudgment His Zeal for the Church of England is wondrouâ— unlucky As no body thought of detracting from the just Praises of the Church of England and every body must acknowledge her Doctrine in this Point is very Orthodox and her Practice in the Times of Rebellion conformable to it there was no need to mention this matter And yet he will by all means bring it in against himself Many he knows did desert her and her Doctrine in this Point at that time so many that the Rebellion peradventure was indebted for its Success to those Deserters For had not the ill-affected Rabble been countenanc'd and headed by Men who had perhaps all their Life before conform'd to the Church of England the Rebellion either would not have been at all or not so unfortunately prosperous Now as it is plain that if those who deserted had ever adhered to her with a persuasion that they were oblig'd to believe what she â— aught They could not have deserted her in this Point who always taught Loyalty This very Case proves what the King asserts That till they do so there is no security of their adhering to her For they may desert her in any other Point of Christ's Doctrine as well as they did in this and for ought appears will when they meet with the same Interest or whatever Motive They had to desert her then In the last place He tries to turn the Argument â— pon the Church of Rome to which he asks why any adhere but because it is agreeable to their Iudgment so to do This Actor went off the Stage but now and needed not return so soon with 〈…〉 a Part. For what do's he mean by Adheringâ—â— Believing I suppose that the Church of 〈…〉 right For he talks not sure of acting 〈…〉 conformity to our inward 〈…〉 but Hypocrites do in all their Actions 〈…〉 he mean it of the inward Persuasion to ask why They adhere but because they judge they ought is in other words Why do they adhere but because they adhere For their Judgment is their Adhesion To 〈…〉 People adhere to a Church with every body 〈◊〉 signifies What Reason or Motive have they 〈…〉 adhering To which Question with respect to the â— oman Catholic Church the Answer in the words of the Paragraph is That People are of her as 't is the true Church from whence there can be no Appeal or because she is the Church which Christ has now on Earth with whom his Doctrine was deposited and from whom only it can be learn'd In the words or St. Austin I am kept in the Bosom of the Catholic Church by the consens of People and Nations by an Authority begun by Miracles 〈◊〉 by Hope increas'd by Charity 〈◊〉 by Antiquity by a Succession of Bishops from St. Peter to whom 〈…〉 〈…〉 where Catholics meet none of them have the 〈…〉 him to their Congregations The Answerer will tell us when he thinks sit what Answer he thinks proper to be made for other Churches In the mean time let us reslect what he has answer'd to the Paragraph He has told us That there is no Security greater than that of our Judgments That theirs is Judgment not Fancy and particularly was so in the times of Rebellion And that they Judge in the Church of 〈◊〉 too What is all this to the Paragraph which says in short That because Protestants have no firm Motive for their adhering to the Church of England they cannot be firm to her Do's he make it appear their Motive is firm Or how They will be firm without one This little is all there was before him is their Judgment solidly grounded or is it not the only and whole business What need was there to talk of Judgment in common when the Question is of their Judgment in this Particular Or what serves it for but to make a shew and fill up a Page There may be as much Security in the Judgment as there will and Protestants be never the better unless there be Security in their Judgment They will I hope since their Souls are at stake consider what 〈◊〉 do to venture them where those who write
〈…〉 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
things Whether it be easie or no to find the Churches Infallibility in the Scripture has been answered by Her Royal Highness and I will not presume to answer where she has especially when the Question has no relation to our Business In the last place who has found the Churches Infallibility has yet says the Answerer a harder Point to get over viz. How the Promises relating to the Church in general came to be appropriated to the Church of Rome By the way the Promises of which he talks are they not in Scripture and no harder to be found there by another than by him How comes the Churches Infallibility to be easily found there in this Period which was not easie to find in the last For who has found the Promise has founâ— Infallibility as certainly as that the Promises of Christ never fail But why are we not all agreed now That there are Promises of Infallibility made to the Church in general he agrees and doubts not I suppose but that those Promises are made good I suppose too he will allow that the Church in General and the General Church are all one and that the General and the Catholic Church are but two Names for the same thing And so we are arriv'd at Infallibility in the Catholic Church Yes but it must not be appropriated to the Church of Rome Why it shall not if that will content him We ask no more than what he allows That the Catholic Church be Infallible and the Church of Rome with all her faults one of the many Churches which make it up To allow so much is to allow the Roman Catholic Church is Infallible For Roman Catholic is nothing but the Catholic with the Roman in What remains then but to take the Infallibility promis'd to this Catholic Church for the Foundation of our Salvation inquire and believe what she teaches and leave off disputing For they are undoubtedly firmly grounded who build on the Promises of God It is true the Answerer has not all this while answered the Question For he says not whether Salvation ought to depend on a Sandy Foundation or whether the private Judgment be a Sandy Foundation But he has done much better by instructing People the Catholic Church is Infallible and shall for me keep his Thoughts of that Matter to himself since he has no mind to reveal them People I hope will profit by his Instructions and for their own sakes chuse Infallible rather than Fallible Security for their Souls now they know where 't is to be had There follow several lines in his Majesties Paper which are not transcrib'd by the Answerer because they are he says as effectual for the Church of England as Rome And truly I am of his mind that the Church of England has her share in those favours as much as any particular Church if she be as they are incorporated into the General For neither do they claim otherwise nor can the Favours granted by God to the Faithful be imagined extended to the not-faithful It is for this Reason I have always thought them no Friends of hers who make her of a dâ— fferent Faith from all or indeed any part of the Catholic Church that is no part her self For evidently there is no pretending to the Priviledges of a Body but by being a Member nor pretending to be of the Body of Faithful but by Faith And pray consider says the King on the other side that those who resist the Truth and will not submit to his Church draw their Arguments from Implications and far fetch'd Interpretations 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 Here are two particulars mentioned drawing Arguments from Implications and denying plain words In answer to the first out of the whole heap of Controversies the Answerer chuses Three in which they have he says plain and positive words on their side Now it had been altogether as easie and as short to have produc'd those plain and positive words if there had been any as to have past his word that there are such Besides that People love to see with their own Eyes and plain things may easily be seen He is a Party and even Supreme Powers according to him must not judge in their own Cause It rests then with him to shew where the Scripture says No of what the Roman Catholic Church says I or contrariwise For this is what People understand by plain and positive and all besides is Implication And by the favour of his Confidence I affirm to him that who argue against the Roman Catholic Church out of Scripture argue always from Implications tho' it be more than needs to justifie His Majesties Assertion For if they draw their Arguments from Implications at any time they draw Arguments from Implications In answer to the Second he pitches upon a point wherein he acknowledges the words of Scripture seem plain and positive on our side and their Sense to be from Implications and far-fetch'd Interpretations and alledges what he has to say why notwithstanding they are not plain and positive As if there were any other way of denying plain Words of Scripture but by denying them to be plain No Christian has the confidence to deny what Scripture plainly teaches but who has no mind to believe what it teaches denies that it teaches contrary to him and for a Pretence to deny That raises some Mist or other to obscure the Clearness of every Text alledg'd against him The Answerer then is far enough from shewing that they do not deny plain Words of Scripture by pretending that they are not plain not did not could His Majesty mean they denied them otherwise who knew very well that there is no other way to do it and that no Words are so plain but who will make it his business may find something to say against them This which the Answerer alledges was far from a Secret to Him In short the Answerer would have them cleared from arguing from Implications by saying they have in three Points plain Words which he thought it needless to produce and from denying plain Words by denying that they are plain And this is all his Answer What he says of Implications in the Pope's Bulls might if he could shew the Church of Rome builds her Faith on those Implications be an Argument against her but none for himself For Paul is not a just the less a Thief because Peter is caught stealing too But some in the Church of Rome argue from Implications upon which they do not build their Faith therefore others may build their Faith upon Implications seems to me but an odd Argument The King's Conclusion is Is there any other Foundation of the Protestant Church but that if the Civil Magistrate please he may call such of the Clergy as he thinks fit for his turn at that time and turn
inform the World that she had such Divines that she imparted her Scruples and after all remain'd unsatisfied with their Answers Persons of Learning indeed he says may possibly be satisfied without entring into Disputes of Matters which she had neither the leisure to examine nor the capacity to judge of Then as I said before the Kingdom of Heaven is chiefly if not only for the Wise and Learned of this World though our Saviour was not of this Judgment But is not every Man to be satisfied pro modulo suo according to the measure of his own Understanding Can an ignorant Person enter into the Knowledge of the Mysteries of our Faith when even the most Learned cannot understand them Can the Answerer himself unriddle the secrets of the Incarnation fadom the undivided Trinity Or the Consubstantiality of the Eternal Son with all his Readings and Examinations From whence comes it then that he believes them since neither the Scripture is plain about them nor the Wit of Man can comprehend them As for her comparing the Doctrines of both Churches no question she did it to the best of her Ability for if he will believe her in any thing she both read the Scriptures and conferr'd with the most Learned Protestants before she had any Discourses with a Catholic Priest But if she had not as he rudely says the capacity of judging in deep Controversies 't is very probable she might want that of understanding the instructions of her Guides For if I may similize in my turn a dull fellow might ask the meaning of a Problem in Euclide from the Bishop of Salisbury without being ever the better for his Learned Solution of it So then her Capacity will break no squares at least from the Doctrine of the English Church and the Presbyterians put them both together as they now stand united for either the Scriptures are clear and then a mean Capacity will serve to understand them or though they are never so obscure yet the upshot of all is that every Man is to Interpret for himself What farther quarrel he can have against the Lady in this particular I know not unless it be upon the Bishop of Winchesters account namely That she refus'd to advise with him and admitted the two others to a Conference and what reason she had for so doing if I were as penetrating as my Author I should undertake to demonstrate by the Infallible Evidence of Circumstances and Inferences but since the parties are dead and so long since I will not give my own Opinion why she refus'd him and of what Principles she might possibly have thought him At present I will not trouble my self farther with that Prelate of rich Memory whom I warrant you our Author would not commend so much for his great Abilities and willingness to resolve the Ladies doubts if he had not some Journey-work for him to do hereafter neither will I meddle much with the long Impertinent Story of his Letter to the Duchess and her silence at Farnham where she would not consult him in any of her doubts Whatever great matters are made of these by our Answerer she had a very sufficient reason for not asking his Advice as will instantly be made appear but now our Author is at another of his dodging tricks comparing Times and Dates of Letters the Bishops bearing Date the Twenty fourth of Ianuary that very Year in which she chang'd but that he may not puzzle himself too much in reckoning I will unriddle the Matter of Fact to him which I have from a most Authentic Hand the Duke and Duchess were at Farnham in the beginning of September where they continued about three Days in the Year 1670. Her Highnesses Paper bears Date the Twentieth of August 1670. by which it is manifest that it was written twelve or fourteen Days before her visit to the Bishop Now where I beseech your is the wonder that she spoke nothing to him concerning any points of a Religion in which she was already satisfied Wou'd any Man ask another what 's a Clock after he had been just looking upon a Sun-dial So that all his aggravations dwindle at length into this poor inference that it is evident she did not make use of the ordinary means for her own Satisfaction at least mark how he mollifies for fear of being trap'd as to those Bishops who had known her longest Now this is so pitiful that is requires no Answer for it amounts to no more than that she lik'd not the Bishop and therefore from the begining conceal'd her Scruples from him and she chang'd her Religion the same Year tho' before he writ to her because she was satisfied of another but do's it follow from hence as he infers that in the mean while she did not use the ordinary means for her satisfaction supposing she had lik'd the other two Bishops as little as she did him had she no other ordinary means but by those two or even by any other Bishops Satisfied to be sure she was or she had not chang'd and if the means had been wholly extraordinary from the Inspirations of Gods Holy Spirit only she had thereby receiv'd the greater favour but not omitting to give God thanks for his Supernatural Assistance she us'd also the ordinary means It appears that her first Emotions were from her observing the Devotions of the Catholics in France and Flanders and this is no news to any Traveller ask even our Protestant Gentlemen at their return from Catholic Countries and they cannot but confess that the Exercises of their Devotion their Mortifications their Austerities their Humility their Charity and in short all the ways of good living are practis'd there in a for greater measure than they are in England But these are the Vertues from which we are blessedly reform'd by the Example and Precept of that Lean Mortified Apostle St. Martin Luther Her first Scruples were rais'd in her by reading Doctor Heylins History of the Reformation and what she found in it we shall see hereafter it appears that History had given her some new apprehensions and to satisfie them she consider'd of the Matters in difference betwixt the Catholics and Protestants and so considered them as to examine them the best she could by Scripture which she found to speak clearly for the Catholics and she upon our Authors Principles was Judge of this after which she spoke with two of the best Bishops in England and their doubtful or rather favourable Answers did but add more to the desire she had to be a Catholic All these ordinary ways she took before she could persuade her self to send for a Priest whose endeavours it pleas'd the Almighty so to bless that she was reconcil'd to his Church and her troubled Conscience was immediately at rest I have been forc'd to recapitulate these things and to give them the Reader at one view for our Answerer is so cunning at this Trade that he shews them only in Parcels and by