Imprimatur Z. Isham R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. Ã Sacris 1685. AN ANSWER TO SOME PAPERS Lately Printed concerning the AUTHORITY OF THE Catholick Church In MATTERS of FAITH and the REFORMATION of the CHURCH of ENGLAND LONDON Printed for Ric. Chiswel at the Rose and Crown in S t Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVI AN Advertisement IF the Papers here answered had not been so publickly dispersed through the Nation a due Respect to the Name they bear would have kept the Author from publishing any Answer to them But because they may now fall into many hands who without some assistance may not readily resolve some difficulties started by them He thought it not unbecoming his duty to God and the King to give a clearer light to the Things contained in them And it can be no reflection on the Authority of a Prince for a private Subject to examine a piece of Coyn as to its just value though it bears His Image and Superscription upon it In matters that concern Faith and Salvation we must prove all things and hold fast that which is good AN ANSWER TO THE First Paper IF all men could believe as they pleased I should not have fail'd of satisfaction in this First Paper the Design of it being to put an end to Particular Disputes to which I am so little a Friend that I could have been glad to have found as much reason in it to convince as I saw there was a fair appearance to deceive But there is a Law in our Minds distinct from that of our Inclinations and out of a just and due regard to That we must examine the most plausible Writings though back'd with the greatest Authority before we yield our Assent unto them If particular Controversies about Matters of Faith could be ended by a Principle as visible as that the Scripture is in Print all men of sence would soon give over Disputing for none who dare believe what they see can call that in Question But what if the Church whose Authority it is said they must submit to will not allow them to believe what they see How then can this be a sufficient reason to perswade them to believe the Church because it is as visible as that the Scripture is in Print unless we must only use our senses to find out the Church and renounce them assoon as we have done it Which is a very bad requital of them and no great Honour to the Church which requires it But with all due submission it is no more visible that the Roman Church is the Catholick Church than it is that a part is the whole and the most corrupt part that one Church which Christ hath here upon Earth It is agreed among all Christians That Christ can have but one Church upon Earth as there is but one Lord one Faith one Baptism And this is that Church we profess to believe in the two Creeds But if those who made those Creeds for our direction had intended the Roman Catholick Church why was it not so expressed How came it to pass that such a limitation of the sense of Christs Catholick Church to the Roman should never be put to Persons to be Baptized in any Age of the Church For I do not find in the Office of Baptism even in the Roman Church that it is required that they believe the Roman Catholick Church or that they deny the validity of Baptism out of the Communion of the Roman Church From whence it is to me as visible as that the Scripture is in Print that the Church of Rome it self doth not believe that it is the one Catholick Church mentioned in the two Creeds For then it must void all Baptism out of its Communion which it hath never yet done And as long as Baptism doth enter Persons into the Catholick Church it is impossible that all who have the true form of Baptism though out of the Communion of the Roman Church should be Members of the Catholick Church and yet the Communion of the Roman and Catholick be all one as it must be if the Roman Church be the Catholick and Apostolick Church professed in the Creeds If we had been so happy to have lived in those Blessed Times when the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul it had been no difficulty to have shewed that one visible Church which Christ had here upon Earth But they must be great strangers to the History of the Church who have not heard of the early and great Divisions in the Communion of it And there was a remarkable difference in the Nature of those Schisms which happened in the Church which being not considered hath been the occasion of great misaplication of the sayings of the Antients about the One Catholick Church Some did so break off Communion with other parts of the Catholick Church as to challenge that Title wholly to themselves as was evident in the case of the Novatians and Donatists for they rebaptiz'd all that embraced their Communion Others were cast out of Communion upon particular differences which were not supposed to be of such a nature as to make them no members of the Catholick Church So the Bishops of Rome excommunicated the Bishops of Asia for not keeping Easter when They did and the Bishops both of Asia and Africa for not allowing the Baptism of Hereticks But is it reasonable to suppose that upon these Differences they shut out all those Holy Bishops and Martyrs from the possibility of Salvation by excluding them from their Communion If not then there may be different Communions among Christians which may still continue Parts of the Catholick Church and consequently no one Member of such a Division ought to assume to it self the Title and Authority of the One Catholick Church But if any One Part doth so though never so great and conspicuos it is guilty of the same Presumption with the Novatians and Donatists and is as much cause of the Schisms which happen thereupon in the Church as they were For a long time before the Reformation there had been great and considerable breaches between the Eastern and Western Churches insomuch that they did renounce each other Communion And in these Differences four Patriarchal Churches joined together against the fifth viz. that of the Bishop of Rome But the Eastern Patriarchs sinking in their Power by the horrible Invasion of the Enemies of the Christian Faith and the Bishops of Rome advancing themselves to so much Authority by the advantages they took from the kindness of some Princes and the Weakness of others They would hear of no other terms of accommodation with the Eastern Churches but by an intire submission to the Pope as Head of the Catholick Church Which all the Churches of the East refused however different among themselves and to this day look on the Pope's Supremacy as an Innovation in the Church and Usurpation on the Rights of the other Patriarchs and Bishops In all
those Churches the Two Creeds are professed true Baptism administred and an undoubted Succession of Bishops from the Apostles How then come They to be excluded from being Parts of the One Catholick and Apostolick Church And if they be not excluded how can the Roman Church assume to it self that glorious Title So that it seems to me as visible as that the Scripture is in Print that the Roman Church neither is nor can be that One Church which Christ left upon Earth And this Principle being removed which ought to be taken for granted since it can never be proved we must unavoidably enter into the Ocean of Particular Disputes And I know no reason any can have to be so afraid of it since we have so sure a Compass as the Holy Scripture to direct our passage But the reason of avoiding particular Disputes is because the evidence is too clear in them that the Church of Rome hath notoriously deviated from this infallible Rule And it is as impossible for a Church which hath erred to be Infallible as for a Church really Infallible to err But if a Church pretend to prove her Infallibility by Texts which are not so clear as those which prove her to have actually erred then we have greater reason to recede from her Errors than to be deceived with such a fallible pretence to Infallibility Well! But it is not left to every phantastical mans head to believe as he pleases but to the Church And is it indeed left to the Church to believe as it pleases But the meaning I suppose is that those who reject the the Authority of the Roman Catholick Church do leave every man to believe according to his own fancy Certainly those of the Church of England cannot be liable to any imputaion of this Nature For our Church receives the three Creeds and embraces the four General Councils and professes to hold nothing contrary to any Universal Tradition of the Church from the Apostles times And we have often offered to put the Controversies between Us and the Church of Rome upon that issue And do not those rather believe as they please who believe the Roman Church to be the Catholick Church without any colour from Scriptures Antiquity or Reason Do not those believe as they please who can believe against the most convincing evidence of their own senses Do not those believe as they please who can reconcile the lawfulness of the Worship of Images with Gods forbidding it the Communion in one kind with Christ's Institution and the praying in an unknown Tongue with the 14 Ch. of the first Epistle to the Corinthians But all these and many other Absurdities may go down by vertue of the Churches Authority to whom it is said Christ left the Power upon Earth to govern us in matters of Faith We do not deny that the Church hath Authority of declaring matters of Faith or else it never could have condemn'd the Antient Heresies But then we must consider the difference between the Universal Church in a General and free Council declaring the sense of Scripture in Articles of Faith generally received in the Christian Church from the Apostles Times as was done when the Nicene Creed was made and a Faction in the Church assuming to it self the Title of Catholick and proceeding by other rules than the first Councils did and imposing new Opinions and Practices as things necessary to the Communion of the Catholick Church And this is the true Point in difference between us and those of the Roman Church about the Churches Authority in matters of Faith since the Council of Trent For we think we have very great reason to complain when a Party in the Church the most corrupt and obnoxious takes upon it self to define many new Doctrines as necessary Points of Faith which have neither Scripture nor Universal Tradition for them It were a very irrational thing we are told to make Laws for a Country and leave it to the Inhabitants to be Interpreters and Iudges of those Laws for then every Man will be his own Iudge and by consequence no such thing as either Right or Wrong But is it not as irrational to allow an Usurper to interpret the Laws to his own advantage against the just Title of the Prince and the true Interest of the People And if it be not Reasonable for any private Person to be his own Iudge why should a publick Invader be so But we hope it will be allowed to the Loyal Inhabitants of a Country so far to interpret the Laws as to be able to understand the Duty they owe to their King and to justifie his Right against all the Pretences of Usurpers And this is as much as we plead for in this case Can we therefore suppose That God Almighty would leave us at those uncertainties as to give us a Rule to go by and leave every Man to be his own Iudge And can we resonably suppose That God Almighty should give as a Rule not capable of being understood by those to whom it was given in order to the great End of it viz. the saving of their Souls For this was the main end of the Rule to direct us in the way to Heaven and not meerly to determine Controversies The Staff which a Man uses may serve to measure things by but the principal design is to walk with it So it is with the Holy Scripture if Controversies arise It is fit to examine and compare them with this Infallible Rule but when that is done to help us in our way to Heaven is that which it was chiefly intended for And no Man can think it of equal consequence to him not to be mistaken and not to be damned In matters of Good and Evil every mans Conscience is his immediate Judge and why not in matters of Truth and Falshood Unless we suppose mens involuntary mistakes to be more dangerous than their wilful sins But after all We do not leave every Man to be his own Iudge any further than it concerns his own Salvation which depends upon his particular Care and Sincerity For to prevent any dangerous Mistakes by the Artifice of Seducers we do allow the Assistance of those Spiritual Guides which God hath appointed in his Church for the better insturcting and governing private Persons We embrace the Ancient Creeds as a summary comprehension of the Articles of Faith and think no Man ought to follow his own particular Fancy against Doctrines so universally received in the Christian Church from the Apostles Times I do ask any Ingenuous Man whether it be not the same thing to follow our own Fancy or to interpret Scripture by it If we allowed no Creeds no Fathers no Councils there might have been some colour for such a Question But do we permit Men to interpret Scripture according to their own Fancy who live in a Church which owns the Doctrine of the Primitive Church more frankly and ingenuously than any Church in the World
Church to give Testimony to a matter of Fact and another to assume the Power of making Books Canonical which were not so This latter no Church in the World hath and therefore can never lose it The former is only Matter of Testimony and all parts of the Church are concerned in it and it depends as other Matters of Fact do on the Skill and Fidelity of the Reporters And by what Autority Men separate themselves from that Church What Church The Catholick and Apostolick We own no Separation from that but we are dis-joyned from the Communion of the Roman Church that we may keep up the stricter Union with the truly Catholick and Apostolick Church And this is no Separating our selves but being cast out by an Usurping Faction in the Church because we would not submit to the unreasonable Conditions of Communion imposed by it the chief whereof is owning all the Usurpation which hath by degrees been brought into it To make this plain by an Example Suppose a prosperous Usurper in this Kingdom had gained a considerable Interest in it and challenged a Title to the whole and therefore required of all the Kings Subjects within his Power to own him to be Rightful King Upon this many of them are forced to withdraw because they will not own his Title Is this an act of Rebellion and not rather of true Loyalty Schism in the Church is like Rebellion in the State The Pope declares himself Head of the Catholick Church and hath formed himself a kind of Spiritual Kingdom in the West although the other parts of the Christian World declare against it as an Usurpation However he goes on and makes the owning his Power a necessary Condition of being of his Communion This many of the Western Parts as well as Eastern disown and reject and therefore are excluded Communion with that Church whereof he is owned to be the Head The Question now is Who gives the Occasion to this Separation whether the Pope by requiring the owning his Usurpation or We by declaring against it Now if the Conditions he requires be unjust and unreasonable if his Autority he challenges over the Catholick Church be a meer Usurpation for which we have not only the Consent of the other Parts of the Christian World but of Scripture and the Ancient Church then we are not to be condemned for such a Separation which was unavoidable if we would not comply with the Pope's Usurpation And upon this Foot the Controversie about Schism stands between Us and the Church of Rome The only Pretence I ever heard of was because the Church hath fail'd in wresting and interpreting the Scripture contrary to the true sense and meaning of it and that they have imposed Articles of Faith upon us which are not to be warranted by Gods Word I do desire to know who is to be Iudge of that whether the whole Church the Succession whereof hath continued to this day without interruption or particular Men who have raised Schisms for their own advantage The whole force of this Paragraph depends upon a Supposition which is taken for granted but will never be yielded by Us and we are sure can never be proved by those of the Church of Rome viz. That in the new imposed Articles the whole Church in a continued Succession hath been of the same judgment with them and only some few Particular Men in these last Ages have opposed them Whereas the great thing we insist upon next to the Holy Scripture is that they can never prove the Points in diference by an Universal Tradition from the Apostles Times either as to the Papal Supremacy or the other Articles defined by the Council of Trent VVe do not take upon our selves to contradict the Universal sense of the Christian Church from the Apostles Times in any one Point But the true Reason of the proceeding of the Church of England was this VVhile the Popes Authority was here received and obeyed there was no liberty of searching into abuses or the ways of Reforming them But when Men were encouraged to look into the Scripture and Fathers and Councils they soon found the state of things in the Church extreamly altered from what they ought to have been or had been in the Primitive Church But they saw no possibility of Redress as long as the Popes Autority was so absolute and inviolable This therefore in the first place they set themselves to the accurate Examination of and the Result was that they could find it neither in the Scriptures nor Fathers nor Councils nor owned by the Eastern Churches And therefore they concluded it ought to be laid aside as an Usurpation Our Church being by this means set free even with the consent of Those who joyned with the Church of Rome in other things a greater liberty was then used in examining particular Doctrines and Practices which had crept into the Church by degrees when Ignorance and Barbarism prevail'd and having finish'd this enquiry Articles of Religion were drawn up wherein the sense of our Church was delivered agreeable to Scripture and Antiquity though different from the Modern Church of Rome and these Articles are not the private sense of particular Men but the Publick Standard whereby the World may judge what we believe and practise and therefore these are the sense of our Church and not the opinions or fancies of particular Men. And those who call the retrenching the Popes exorbitant Power by the name of Schism must by parity of reason call the casting off an Usurper Rebellion But certainly those who consider the mighty advantages and priviledges of the Clergy in the Church of Rome can never reasonably suspect any of that Order should hope to better themselves by the Reformation And if we judge of Mens actings by their Interest one of the most surprising considerations at this day is that the Clergy should be against and Princes for the Church of Rome AN ANSWER TO THE Second Paper IT is a sad thing to consider what a world of Heresies are crept into this Nation But is it not a strange thing to consider that no distinction is here put between the Religion by Law established and the Parties disowned by it and dissenting from it And yet many of these though justly liable to the charge of Schism embrace no Heresies against the Four or Six first General Councils But if the Dissenters were guilty of never so many Heresies how comes the Church of England to bear the blame of them when the weakning its Power and Authority was the occasion of such an overflowing of Schisms and Heresies among us And it is indeed a sad thing to consider how many Ways and Means have been used by all Parties to introduce and keep up Schisms and Divisions amongst us and then how the Church of England is blamed for not being able to suppress them But if all Doctrines opposite to the Church of Rome be accounted Heresies then we desire to be informed
how the Church of Rome came to have this Power of defining Heretical Doctrines or how any Doctrine comes to be Heresie by being contrary to its definitions For Heresie is an obstinate opposing some necessary Article of Faith It must therefore be proved that what the Church of Rome declares doth thereby become a necessary Article of Faith or it is very unreasonable to lay the imputation of Heresie upon us And this can never be maintained without proving that the Church of Rome hath a Power to make Doctrines not necessary before to become necessary by her Definition which is the same thing with making New Articles of Faith But these can never be proved to be such by Universal Tradition which the Church of Rome pretends for all her Articles of Faith Every Man thinks himself as competent a Iudge of Scripture as the very Apostles themselves Doth Every Man among us pretend to an infallible Spirit And yet Every Man owns that the Apostles had it But what is meant by being a Iudge of Scripture If no more be understood then that every Man must use his understanding about it I hope this is no Crime nor Heresie The Scripture must be believed in order to Salvation and therefore it must be understood for how can a Man believe what he understands not the sense or meaning of If he must understand the sense he must be Iudge of the sense so that every Man who is bound to believe the Scripture in order to his Salvation must be Judge of the sense of the Scripture so far as concerns his Salvation But if by being a Iudge of the Scripture be meant giving such a judgment as obliges others to submit to it then among us no particular Man doth pretend to be a competent Iudge of Scripture so as to bind others to rely upon his Authority in expounding Scripture We own the Authority of Guides in the Church and a due submission to them but we do not allow them to be as competent Iudges of Scripture as the very Apostles And 't is no wonder 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 This is directly level'd against the Church of England which is hereby charged with Insincerity or Weakness in dealing with the Dissenters But we must consider the meaning of this charge It is no wonder it should be so i. e. That every Man should think himself as competent a Iudge of Scripture as the very Apostles because the Church of England dares not use the true Arguments against the Sects Whence it appears that this true Argument is the Churches infallible Authority and the Obligation of all Members of the Church to submit their judgments intirely thereto I confess that if the Church of England did pretend to this against the Sectaries they might justly turn it against her because in our Articles though the Churches Authority be asserted yet Infallibility is denyed If there can be no Authority in a Church without Infallibility or there can be 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 if the Church which hath most pretended to it hath been most grosly deceived if the Heads of that Church have been not barely suspected of Heresie but one of them stands condemned for it in Three General Councils own'd by that Church then for all that I can see the Church of England hath wisely disowned 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 The Church of England as 't is called would fain have it thought That they are the Iudges in matters Spiritual yet dare not say positively there is no Appeal from them Is not the Church of England really what it is called I would fain know what it wants to make it as good a Church as any in the Christian World It wants neither Faith if the Creed contain it nor Sacraments and those entire nor Succession of Bishops as certain as Rome it self nor a Liturgy more agreeing to Primitive Worship then is any where else to be found Why then the Church of England as 't is called Well! But what is this Church now blamed for They pretend to be Iudges in matters Spiritual and yet dare not say there is no appeal from them How then Are there no true Judges but such as there lies no Appeal from There lies an Appeal from any Judges in the Kings Courts to the Court of Parliament are They not therefore true Judges in Westminster-Hall There lay an Appeal from Bishops to Metropolitans from them to Patriarchs from Patriarchs to General Councils according to the Antient Polity of the Church Were there therefore no true Judges but General Councils What follows relating to the Churches Authority and every Mans following his own judgment hath been answered already I proceed therefore to what further concerns this matter of Appeal What Country can subsist in Quiet where there is not a Supreme Iudge from whence there can be no Appeal The natural consequence from hence appears to be that every National Church ought to have the Supream Power within it self But how come Appeals to a foreign Jurisdiction to tend to the Peace and Quiet of a Church They have been always complained of in the best Ages of the Church and by the best Men such as S. Cyprian and S. Augustine and the whole African Churches The worst Men began them and the worst Church encouraged them without regard to the Peace of the Christian Church so it increased its own Grandeur by them We have had these hundred Years past the sad effects of denying to the Church that Power in matters Spiritual without an Appeal And our Ancestors for many hundred Years last past found the intolerable Inconveniencies of an Appeal to foreign Jurisdiction Whereby the Nation was exhausted Justice obstructed the Clergy oppressed and the Kings Prerogative greatly diminished But these were slight things in Comparison to what we have felt these hundred Years past for want of it Have not the Kings Courts been open for matters of Law and Justice which have been fill'd with Men of as great Abilities and Integrity since the Reformation as ever they were before Hath not the Appeal to the King in his High Court of Chancery been as much for the King and People as ever the Appeal was to the Court of Rome Have not all the Neighbour Princes been forced for the preserving their own Dignity to set Bounds and Limits to Appeals to Rome and to Orders or Bulls that come from thence How then comes the want of such an Appeal to be thought to produce such sad effects here All
Object of Holy Worship We must give the Eucharist in both kinds according to Christ's express Institution We must understand our Prayers when St. Paul's words are so clear about it So far at least we have plain and positive Words of Scripture on our side And for Implications and far fetch'd Interpretations commend me to the Pope's Bulls especially when they have a mind to prove their Authority from Scripture which they can do from In the beginning to the end of the Apocalypse But that which seems to be aimed at here is This is my Body wherein the words seem to be plain and positive on their side and our sense to be from Implications or far-fetched Interpretations To which I Answer That there are Expressions in Scripture as plain and positive as this which none think themselves bound to understand in their literal sense For then we must all believe that God hath Eyes and Ears a Face Hands and Feet as firmly as that the Bread was then turned into Christ's Body when he spake those words And I would know whether the Christian Church rejecting the Doctrine of Those who made God to be like to Man was not chargeable with the same resisting the Truth and denying plain and positive Words of Scripture as we are And yet I hope the Christian Church did then believe it self Suppose any should assert That the Rock in the Wilderness was really changed into Christ's Body would not he have the very same Things to say against those who denied it For are not the Words as plain and as positive That Rock was Christ But Sacramental Expressions by the consent of the Christian Church and the very Neture of the Things are of a different sense from Logical Propositions And if this had been intended in the plain and literal sense St. Paul would never have as plainly and positively called it Bread after Consecration nor the Cup be said to be the New Testament in his Blood The Conclusion is Is there any other Foundation of the Protestant Church but that if the Civil Magistrate pleases he may call such of the Clergy as he thinks fit for his turn at that time and turn the Church either to Presbytery or Independency or indeed what he pleases This was the way of our pretended Reformation here in England And by the same Rule and Authority it may be altered into as many Shapes and Forms as there are Fancies in Mens Heads This looks like a very unkind Requital to the Church of England for her Zeal in asserting the Magistrate's Power against a Foreign Jurisdiction to infer from thence that the Magistrate may change the Religion here which way he pleases But although we attribute the Supream Iurisdiction to the King yet we do not question but there are inviolable Rights of the Church which ought to be preserved against the Fancies of some and the Usurpations of others We do by no means make our Religion mutable according to the Magistrate's pleasure For the Rule of our Religion is unalterable being the Holy Scripture but the Exercise of it is under the regulation of the Laws of the Land And as we have cause to be thankful to God when Kings are Nursing Fathers to our Church so we shall never cease to pray for their continuing so and that in all things we may behave our selves towards them as becomes good Christians and Loyal Subjects AN ANSWER TO THE Third Paper THE Third Paper is said to be written by a Great Lady for the satisfaction of her Friends as to the Reasons of Her leaving the Communion of the Church of England and making her self a Member of the Roman Catholick Church If she had written nothing concerning it none could have been a competent Judg of those Reasons or Motives she had for it but her self but since she was pleased to write this Paper to satisfy her Friends and it is thought fit to be published for general Satisfaction all Readers have a right to judg of the strength of them and those of the Church of England an Obligation to vindicate the Honour of it so far as it may be thought to suffer by them I am sensible how nice and tender a thing it is to meddle in a Matter wherein the Memory of so Great a Lady is so nearly concern'd and wherein such Circumstances are mentioned which cannot fully be cleared the Parties themselves having been many Years dead But I shall endeavour to keep within due bounds and consider this Paper with respect to the main Design of it and take notice of other Particulars so far as they are subservient to it The way of her Satisfaction must needs appear very extraordinary for towards the Conclusion she confesses She was not able nor would she enter into Disputes with any Body Now where the Difference between the two Churches lies wholly in Matters of Dispute how any one could be truly satisfied as to the Grounds of leaving one Church and going to the other without entring into matter of Dispute with any body is hard to understand If Persons be resolved before-hand what to do and therefore will hear nothing said against it there is no such way as to declare they will enter into no Dispute about it But what Satisfaction is to be had in this manner of proceeding How could one bred up in the Church of England and so well instructed in the Doctrines of it ever satisfy her self in forsaking the Communion of it without enquiring into and comparing the Doctrines and Practices of both Churches It is possible for Persons of Learning who will take the pains of examining things themselves to do that without entring into Disputes with any Body but this was not to be presumed of a Person of her Condition For many things must fall in her way which she could neither have the leisure to examine nor the Capacity to judg of without the Assistance of such who have made it their business to search into them Had she no Divines of the Church of England about her to have proposed her Scruples to None able and willing to give her their utmost Assistance in a Matter of such Importance before she took up a Resolution of forsaking our Church This cannot be imagined considering not only her great Quality but that just esteem they had for her whilst she continued so zealous and devout in the Communion of our Church But we have more than this to say One of the Bishops who had nearest Relation to her for many Years and who owns in Print That he bred her up in the Principles of the Church of England was both able and willing to have removed any Doubts and Scruples with respect to our Church if she would have been pleased to have communicated them to him And however she endeavoured to conceal her Scruples he tells her in his Letter to her which he since printed for his own vindication That he had heard much Discourse concerning her
which tends to that end and none can be sufficient against it But why may not others set up for the Change as to other Opinions upon the same Grounds as well as this Great Person does as to the Change from our Church to the Church of Rome And we have no Pretenders to Enthusiasm among us but do as solemnly ascribe the Blessing wholly to Almighty God and look on it as the Effect of such Prayers as she made to him in France and Flanders But I wonder a Person who owed her Change so wholly to Almighty God should need the Direction of an Infallible Church since the utmost they can pretend to is no more than to have such an Immediat Conduct and the least that can be meant by it is that she had no Assistance from any other Persons Which may not exclude her own Endeavours but supposing them to be employed and an Account to be here given of them yet there is no Connexion between any of the Premisses and the Conclusion she drew from them and therefore it must be Immediate Impulse or some concealed Motive which determin'd her Choice The Conclusion was That she would never have changed if she could have saved her Soul otherwise If this were true she had good Reason for her Change if it were not true she had none as it is most certain it was not Now let us examine how she came to this Conclusion and I will suppose it to have been just in the Method she sets it down in First she saith She never had any Scruples till the November before and then they began upon reading Dr. Heylin's History of the Reformation which was commended to her as a Book to settle her and there she found such abominable Sacriledg upon Henry the 8th's Divorce King Edward's Minority and Queen Elizabeth's Succession that she could not believe the Holy Ghost could ever be in such Counsels This was none of the best Advices given to such a Person to read Dr. Heylin's History for her Satisfaction For there are two distinct Parts in the History of our Reformation the one Ecclesiastical the other Political the former was built on Scripture and Antiquity and the Rights of particular Churches the other on such Maxims which are common to Statesmen at all Times and in all Churches who labour to turn all Revolutions and Changes to their own Advantage And it is strange to me that a Person of so great Understanding should not distinguish these two Whether Hen. 8. were a good Man or not Whether the D. of Somerset raised his Estate out of the Church Lands doth not concern our present Enquiry which is Whether there was not sufficient Cause for a Reformation in the Church And if there was Whether our Church had not sufficient Authority to reform it self And if so Whether the Proceedings of our Reformation were not Justifiable by the Rules of Scripture and the Ancient Church These were the proper Points for her to have considered and not the particular Faults of Princes or the Miscarriages of Ministers of State Were not the Vices of Alexander the 6th and many other Heads of the Church of Rome for a whole Age together by the Confession of their own greatest Writers as great at least as those of Henry the 8th And were these not thought sufficient to keep her from the Church of Rome and yet the others were sufficient to make her think of leaving our Church But Henry the Eighth's Church was in Truth the Church of Rome under a Political Head much as the Church of Sicily is under the King of Spain All the difference is Henry the 8th took it as his own Right the King of Spain pretends to have it from the Pope by such Concessions which the Popes deny And suppose the King of Spain's Pretence were unlawful to that Jurisdiction which he challengeth in the Kingdom of Sicily were this a sufficient Ground to justify the thoughts of Separation from the Church of Rome But the Duke of Somerset raised his Estate out of Church-Lands and so did many Courtiers in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth Are there not Miscarriages of the like nature in the Church of Rome What is the Popes making great Estates out of the Church-Lands for their Nephews to be Princes and Dukes a thing not unheard of in our Age. And is it not so much worse to be done by the Head of the Church These she confesses were but Scruples but such as occasioned her examining the Points in difference by the Holy Scripture Now she was in the right way for Satisfaction provided she made use of the best Helps and Means for understanding it and took in the Assistance of her Spiritual Guides But it seems contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome she found some things so easy there that she wondered she had been so long without finding them out And what were these No less than the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament the Infallibility of the Church Confession and Praying for the Dead These were great Discoveries to be made so easily considering how those of the Church of Rome who have been most vers'd in these Matters have found it so difficult to make them out from thence 1. As to the Real Presence as it is in the Dispute between us and the Church of Rome it implies the Real and Substantial Change of the Elements into the Body and Blood of Christ. But where do our Saviour's words in calling the Sacrament his Body and Blood imply any such thing The wisest Persons of the Church of Rome have confessed that the bare words of our Saviour can never prove it but there needs the Authority of the Church to interpret them in that sense How then could she so easily find out that which their most Learned Men could not But there is nothing goes so far in such Discoveries as a willing Mind 2. As to Confession No doubt the Word is often used in Scripture and therefore easily found But the Question between us is not about the Usefulness or Advantage of Confession in particular Cases but the Necessity of it in all Cases in order to Remission of Sins And I can hardly believe any Bishop of our Church would ever say to her that Confession in this sense was ever commanded by God For then he must be damned himself if he did not confess every known Sin to a Priest But some general Expressions might be used that Confession of Sin was commanded by God Confess your Sins one to another But here is nothing of a particular Confession to a Priest necessary in order to Forgiveness of Sin 3. As to praying for the Dead It is hard to find any place of Scripture which seems to have any tendency that way unless it be with respect to the Day of Iudgment and that very doubtfully But how came this Great Person to think it not possible to be saved in our Church unless we prayed for the Dead How