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
cannot be Part of a Division to presume His account too of the breach betwixt the East and the West is I think very wide of the mark He would have the Popes Supremacy bear the blame of all which if my Memory fail me not was not so much as made a Pretence till near Two hundred Years after the Schism began nor any where more acknowledged than in Greece nor by any body more than by him who began the Schism When I read the Story I apprehended the cause of that breach was National Feuds heightned into violent hatred by several Accidents which chopt unluckily in and the malitious Ambition of Men who found their private Accounts in the Public Calamity Indeed I think they denied the Popes Supremacy at last as all who will continue in Schism at long run must because to acknowledge and not regard it is self condemnation Otherwise their Quarrel was to the Latin Church or perhaps more truly Nation not the Supremacy of which they speak so inconstantly that I am persuaded it would break no squares even now if they could be brought on any terms to agree with Men whom they hate I would be more diligent in this Matter if it concern'd our Question But as they are parts of His Majesties Roman Catholic Church if they believe as she do's and are not if they do not and it is equal whether they do or no I leave them to Gods Mercy and return from straying thus far into our Road again This Principle being remov'd which ought he says be taken for granted since it can never be prov'd By the way he do's not sure mean this for a bob to the King as if he took his Principle viz. That the Church is as visible as Scripture for granted because he knew not how to prove it Whether the Person to whom he directed his Paper were satisfy'd before hand of this Point by their former Discourses or needed no Arguments to see a visible thing or however it were the Answerer may perceive by the Paper that his Majesty thought it not to his purpose to press the Visibility of the Church but only submission to it and means not I suppose to tell the King he knew not his own Design or how to pursue it His part is to answer what is said and not instruct the King what should have been said He must therefore mean that it ought to be taken for granted that he has remov'd that Principle which is just Lend me your Hand Neighbour to remove my Block I cannot stir it my self Alas it is very visible he has done nothing towards removing it But he is in the right to play sure Who have a flaw in their Title do well to get a Grant By his saying it can never be prov'd he has I guess a mind to tempt somebody to prove over again what has been prov'd a hundred and a hundred times already But as much as his positiveness tempts me to be doing and as easie as I think it to be done I beg his Pardon at present Parrying is my business not Thrusting now Whatever he mean I do not think that what he concludes would follow even tho' the Principle which he dislikes were removed The Principle is That the Roman Catholic is the One Church which Christ has here upon Earth and the Conclusion is That we must unavoidably enter into the Ocean of particular Disputes Why so I pray him Why will not another Catholic Church serve turn If he will needs have it granted that the Roman Catholic is not the One Church of Christ 't is but shewing us the other Catholic which is Roman or not Roman imports not But believing the Doctrine of Christ imports as much as Salvation is worth and the Commission which Christ gave to teach it the World is now in force and shall be as long as there is a World Let him but direct us to the Men who have it in this Age that we who live in this Age may learn it of them let him but tell us which is the One not Roman Catholic Church which Christ has here upon Earth and it will do our business every jot as well as the Roman Catholic and as much save us from being plunged into the Ocean of particular Disputes Otherwise to tell us the Roman Catholic is not that Church and not tell us which is is as much as to tell us that Christ has none upon Earth For evidently She or some other must be that Church if there be any at all But let him not send us to a Church whereof the several Parts agree not in one Faith Besides that we should never understand how such a Church let it be never so Universal could be One and make account Christ taught One determinate Doctrine not the 1 and the No both it would be otherwise useless For if This Part teach one Faith and the Next another we should not know which to believe and in all likelihood believe neither But he knows no Reason any can have to be so afraid of the Ocean of particular Disputes since we have so sure a Compass as the Holy Scripture to direct our Passage I am sure there can be no Reason to venture to Sea when we are already safe in our Port The Holy Scripture assures us that the Church is the Foundation and Pillar of Truth and Truth is plainly the Port to which his Compass should direct us But pray what Compass can be sure where the Needle is not suffer'd freely to play Wrangling is Iron to this Needle and turns it to all Points It will indeed direct the humble and docile and the sincere who first know that no Prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation and we see it will by the Third Paper But it is not for the bold and self-conceited Disputers If any will be contentious we have no such custom nor the Church of God is what the Scripture it self says to them To contend with them at Scripture Tertullian tells us is good for nothing but to turn the Brain or the Stomach and that we ought not to try it this way because the Issue will be uncertain or but little certain or none Alas this Gentleman with the security he promises errs all this while not knowing the Scriptures nor so much as the End for which they were made He would do well to remember what St. Austin says to him in Words directed to another If you will not have me believe Catholics you are quite out to think to draw me to you by Scripture because it was for their sakes that I believed Scripture You would indeed if you could evidently prove your Doctrine by Scripture invalidate the Authority of Catholics who bid me not believe you And when you have done neither shall I believe the Scripture which I had believed upon their Credit and so what you alledge out of it will be of no force with me If you find it
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
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
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
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
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
therefore wish'd People in stead of floating uncertainly up and down in the Ocean of Disputes to take Port in that one Church which Christ has upon Earth and to which Power was given to govern us in Matters of Faith and a promise of perpetual assistance Which Church he says is vibsily the Roman Catholic The Answerer flatly denies the Roman Catholic to be the one Church of Christ for Reasons ever since St. Cyprians Days condemn'd by all Christians and never minds that he denies two terms the same with a third to be the same between themselves For Church of Christ and Catholic Church are the same both signifying all the particular Churches which believe the Doctrine of Christ. Again Roman Catholic is the same too with Catholic for both signifie likewise all the same Churches with the Roman for one of the number which the Answerer acknowledges she is Catholic says All and who says All says Roman if she be one And who says Roman Catholic says those very All neither more nor less And yet the Answerer can fancy a difference For the rest he gives no direct Answer that I remember to any one Question yet hovers so about it that one must keep his thoughts very attentive not to have them diverted quite another way As for Certainty or Uncertainty they are Matters which he seems not to mind Not but that he talks of a sure Compass and Infallible Rule but he never tells us whether or how a Man shall be sure that he do's indeed steer by that Compass or is guided by that Rule Those great sounds vanish into Conscience at last and that Conscience may be right or wrong for any care he takes as perhaps he thinks it equal whether the one or the other The King desired People should have sure hold and shews them where they may He is only solicitous to keep them from fastning there and leaves them to find another if they can of themselves or be content if they will without any If he have a Pique to the Roman Catholic he may shew them another Catholic Church or if a Church be needless on what they may rest securely without a Church If on Scripture he may shew them how they may safely stake their Souls that they do not mistake it If on Conscience how they may securely trust it Let People be but safe and I ask no more But as there is after all but one way to Heaven the King shews it and he imputes deceit to him for his pains and then sets up for the faithful Friend himself who will neither let them go that way nor shew them that there is any other And thus it stands between them It is for the Reader to consider which of the two gives him better Counsel and where he can find better Security than what His Majesty offers or whether Security be needless One would think is not like to take up much Consideration in our Country whether in a concern of infinite more value than all the Money which troubles so many Lawyers and Scriveners one should deal without looking after Security And yet by whatever charm it happens there needs a great deal of Grace to make People sensible in this Case of what in all others they are but too much their greatest concerns God of his Mercy grant it to all who ask it and to all who by not asking it shew they more need it A DEFENCE OF THE Third Paper I Dare appeal to all unprejudic'd Readers and especially to those who have any sense of Piety whether upon perusal of the Paper written by Her late Highness the Duchess they have not found in it somewhat which touch'd them to the very Soul whether they did not plainly and perfectly discern in it the Spirit of Meekness Devotion and Sincerity which animates the whole Discourse and whether the Reader be not satisfied that she who writ it has open'd her Heart without disguise so as not to leave a Scruple that she was not in earnest I am sure I can say for my own particular that when I read it first in Manuscript I could not but consider it as a Discourse extremely moving plain without Artifice and discovering the Piety of the Soul from which it flow'd Truth has a Language to it self which 't is impossible for Hypocrisie to imitate Dissimulation could never write so warmly nor with so much life What less than the Spirit of Primitive Christianity could have dictated her Words The loss of Friends of worldly Honours and Esteem the Defamation of ill Tongues and the Reproach of the Cross all these though not without the struglings of Flesh and Blood were surmounted by her as if the Saying of our Saviour were always sounding in her Ears What will it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his Soul I think I have amplified nothing in relation either to this Pious Lady or her Discourse I am sure I need not And now let any unbias'd and indifferent Reader compare the Spirit of the Answerer with hers Do's there not manifestly appear in him a quite different Character Need the Reader be inform'd that he is disingenuous soul-mouth'd and shuffling and that not being able to answer plain Matter of Fact he endeavours to evade it by Suppositions Circumstances and Conjectures like a cunning Barreter of Law who is to manage a sinking Cause the Dishonesty of which he cannot otherwise support than by defaming his Adversary Her only Business is to satisfie her Friends of the inward Workings of her Soul in order to her Conversion and by what Methods she quitted the Religion in which she was educated He on the contrary is not satisfied unless he question the Integrity of her Proceedings and the Truth of her plain Relation even so far as to blast what in him lies her Blessed Memory with the imputation of Forgery and Deceit as if she had given a false Account not only of the Passages in her Soul and the Agonies of a troubl'd Conscience only known to God and to her self but also of the Discourses which she had with others concerning those Disquiets Every where the Lie is to be cast upon her either directly in the Words of the Bishop of Winchester which he 〈◊〉 or indirectly in his own in which his spiteful Deligence is most remarkable In his Answer to the two former Papers there seems to have been some restraint upon the virulence of his Genius though even there he has manifestly past the Bounds of Decency and Respect But so soon as he has got loose from disputing with Crown'd Heads he shews himself in his pure Naturals and is as busie in raking up the Ashes of their next Relations as if they were no more of kin to the Crown than the New Church of England is to the Old Reformation of their Great-Grandfathers But God forbid that I should think the whole Episcopal Clergy of this Nation to be of his Latitudinarian Stamp many of them
from the establish'd Doctrine of it In the next place he is sensible how nice and tender a thing it is to meddle in a Matter wherein the Memory of so Great a Lady is concern'd Here he is sensible once for all for after this one Civility you hear no more of his Good Manners to the end of the Chapter but the Honour of the Church of England so wholly takes up his thoughts that he forgets the Respect which is due to her Sex her Quality her Memory her Relations and confutes her as coursly as the Parson did Bellarmine He go's on to inform us how hard a Task he has undertaken in answering these Papers wherein such Circumstances are mention'd as cannot fully be clear'd the Parties themselves having been many years dead yet he shall endeavour to keep within due Bounds c. These due Bounds either are or ought to be Respect to the Great Lady and Caution in regard of Circumstances which I hope he will not put upon his Readers for Arguments the Parties being dead so long ago But let the Reader here take notice that in this very Place he is clapping his Cups together and shuffling his Balls from Hand to Hand to lay the Foundation of his Jugling and to prepare the way for all the Tricks which he is to play hereafter For the Parties being dead long since that is the Duchess in the first place not being alive to justifie the several Conferences which she had with the Bishops not they in the second to answer as in the sight of God whether she had such Discourse with them the Field is open for him as he vainly imagines by laying Circumstances of Time and Place together and racking her own Paper till it seemingly speaks against her to render it suspected to his good Friends the Rabble that she has falsified the whole Matter Well we shall see what he builds upon this Foundation Let him speak for himself The way of her Satisfaction was very extraordinary for towards the Conclusion she confesses she was not able nor would she enter into Disputes with any body Commend me to him for a Man of quick dispatch At the first dash he is bringing the two Ends of her Paper together for he says Towards the Conclusion she confesses 'T was well search'd of him however to hunt counter and run to the End of her Discourse for the Beginning of his own He will lose no Advantages I warrant him Press that home Doctor She modestly owns that she was neither able nor willing to enter into Disputes therefore she had no other way to satisfie her self When the whole drift of this Pious and sincere Discourse is to inform her Friends of the Methods by which God Almighty brought her into his Church her Paper being a plain and short History of her Conversion The Answerer is of Opinion there is nothing to be done no satisfaction to be had in Matters of Religion without Dispute that 's his only Receipt his Nostrum for attaining a true belief But Doctors differ in this Point For another Witty Gentleman of his Church desir'd no other Epitaph upon his Tomb than this Here lies the Author of this Sentence Disputandi pruritus scabies Ecclesiae The itch of Disputation is the Scab or Tetter of the Church Now if the Learned avail themselves so little of Dispute that it is as rare as a Prodigie for one of them to convince another what shall become of the Ignorant when they are to deal with those fencers of Divinity Who can hit them in Tierce and Quart at pleasure while they are ignorant how to stand upon their guard And yet such poor People have Souls to save as precious in the sight of God as the grim Logicians Must they be damned unless they can make a regular approach to Heaven in Mood and Figure Is there no entring there without a Sillogism or Ergoteering it with a nego concedo distinguo The best on 't is Our Saviours Disciples were but poor Fishermen and we read but of one of his Apostles who was bred up at the Feet of Gamaliel I would beseech our Answerer to consider whether he has argued upon his own Principles in affirming that none can be satisfied as to the grounds of leaving one Church and going to the other without entring into Dispute Has he not allow'd that every Man is to Interpret the Scripture for himself in reference to his own Salvation With what Face then can he positively say That this Lady who had not only read the Scriptures but found them in her Judgment plainly to decide the great Controversie betwixt Catholics and Protestants might not leave his Church and enter into that of Christ by Interpreting this is my Body in the Litteral and Obvious meaning If from a Catholic she had become a Protestant by expounding those Words in a Figurative Sense he would have applauded her for not discerning the Lords Body and said she was in the right to interpret for her self But she it seems must be an exception to his General Rule and not have that priviledge allow'd her which he dare not deny to any Sectary of the Nonconformists The Phanatics think the Scripture is clear in all Matters of Salvation and if so what need say they of those Spiritual Directours Even the Pillars of the Church by Law establish'd from their own Concessions are found to be but broken Staffs For after all their undertaking to heal a wounded Conscience when the Arrows of the Almighty are stuck into it they leave their Proselytes finally to the Scripture as our Physicians when they have emptied the Pockets of their Patients without curing them send them at last to Tunbridge Waters or the Air of Montpelliers But if Persons be resolv'd before hand what to do says our Answerer there is no such way as to declare they will not enter into Dispute Here he would make us believe that she swallow'd a new Religion without chewing it because she Disputed not I have shew'd already what is the common fate of Disputation But had she no other way of satisfying her Conscience as he immediately infers she had not If he were not obstinately blind or rather had not an intention to blind his Reader he might have observ'd the Methods and Gradations of her change and that tho' she Disputed not yet she Discoursed which is entring into Matter of Dispute with some of the ablest of the English Clergy even with him particularly who was left by the Bishop of Winchester to be her Spiritual Directour by which it plainly appears notwithstanding all the jugglings and glosses of our Answerer that the better part even of his own Prescription was put in practice by her though without effect as to her satisfaction Why then do's he ask so many idle Questions Had she no Divines of the Church of England about her none able and willing to afford her their utmost assistance when she takes care to
against his Conscience in changing who had declar'd That he would not have chang'd in case he had been bred a Catholic And the Reason he gives is made of the same yielding Metal viz. That he had his Baptism in the Protestant Church for that Argument in it self is of no weight since the Right Reverend well knew that the Baptism even of Heretics is good so that if he had been Christn'd in the Lutheran the Abyssine or the Russian Church he must for that reason have continu'd in it But he timerously pleads his fear of giving Scandal which is as I said no Justification of himself no Dissuasive to Her but only a mean interessed Apology for his not changing As for his intimating That all things necessary to Salvation were to be had in the Church of England let any reasonable Man be Judge whether he could possibly have said less in defence of himself for continuing in it For this only shew'd that he thought Salvation was to be had in both Churches as even this Author himself is forc'd to confess afterwards in these words The utmost that can be made of this is That a certain Bishop of our Church who in the mean time has prov'd himself an uncertain one held both Churches so far Parts of the Catholic Church that there was no necessity of going from one Church to another That which he calls the utmost we can make of it is in truth the least which the Bishop's Words will naturally bear and I may safely put the Cause upon this Issue Whether such a Discourse might not reasonably add more to the desire she had to be a Catholic Let us hear now what he has to answer and I will reply briefly because I have taken away the Strength of his Argument already First He says in effect That the Bishops Authority and Example ought to have prevail'd with her on the one side more than his Concessions on the other I reply Not his Authority because he spoke more for the Church of Rome than against it Nor his Example for he gave her no encouragement to follow it by saying That if he had been bred a Catholic he would not have chang'd His Example of Praying daily for the Dead shew'd his Opinion at the bottom but his not publicly owning that he did so has prov'd him little better than a Black Bishop who was enter'd privately into the White ones Walk Our Author asks in the second place Why any Person should forsake the Communion of the Protestant Church wherein the Bishop affirm'd were all things necessary to Salvation And I enquire How she could be bound to believe him since Confession and Prayers for the Dead are wanting in it one of which he had before acknowledg'd to be commanded of God the other to be one of the ancient things in Christianity Thirdly He urges That the Bishop had told her it was an ill thing to leave the Church of England And I reply That the Answerer has falsified his Words The Bishop only thought it very ill to give that Scandal as to leave the Church wherein he was Baptiz'd First he spoke of himself only not of her Mark that Fallacy And then he said not It was ill to leave the Church but very ill to give that Scandal as to leave the Church relating again to his own particular Fourthly He says 'T is evident that the Bishops Concessions could have no influence upon her tho' she positively says those Discourses in which were those Concessions did but add more to the desire she had to be a Catholic This is full upon the Vizor but the Dead are to take all things patiently Well! How if he can convince her of Falsity from her own Words Why then he will carry his Argument as well as his Good Manners to the height and how broad soever the Word may be which he has slily given her yet he will tell you That Freedom ought to be permitted him as sustaining the Honour of the Church of England His Argument is this She declares afterwards That she would not have chang'd if she had thought it possible otherwise to have saved her Soul But the Bishop had told her That all things necessary for Salvation were in the English Church Therefore the Bishop contributed nothing to her Change So the Miter be safe in its Reputation no matter what becomes of the Ducal Coronet Now I can be very well content that the Bishop should have no part in the Honour of her Conversion for 't is plain that he desir'd it not and why should he do good against his will I wish my Author would have furnish'd me with an Argument to have brought him wholly off but I will bring him on his way as far as by the help of the Answerer's Scarf I can fairly drag him I say therefore That tho' her Highness chang'd not her Belief upon the Concessions of the Bishop yet his Concessions were an occasion of her farther Scruples in order to her Change For she says they added to the desire she had to be a Catholic The Bishop did indeed tell her That all things necessary to Salvation were in the English Church but tell me Sir I beseech you was that all he told her By your favour you have left out the better half of what he said for he told her also That if he had been bred a Catholic he would not have chang'd And she had reason to believe what he said to the advantage of a Church of which he was no Member as being sure he would say no more than scanty Truth And he acknowledges into the Bargain That Confession was commanded of God and that Praying for the Dead was one of the ancient things in Christianity What a shameful way of arguing is this to make a general Negative Conclusion from half the Premises Or in other Words to maintain that the Bishops Concessions could have no influence upon her because they had not the greatest influence And you in a manner confess it before you were aware in the close of your Argument where you say There must therefore have been some more secret Reason which increas'd her desire to be a Catholic after these Discourses Now some more secret Reason do's not hinder the Bishops Concessions from being one nay it argues that they were one of the Reasons though not the most prevalent because there was one more secret You have now contradicted your self so plainly that you have wholly justified the Duchess and the broad Word without naming it is fairly brought back to your own door After this our Answerer do's but piddle and play at small Game as if her Highness might possibly take encouragement from the Bishop's calling the Church of Rome the Catholic Religion But she was too much in earnest to lay hold upon a Word Neither is more advantage to be taken from his calling the Church of Rome the Catholic Religion than we receive disadvantage from the playing upon