Anger and Malice and Indignation For Disputes alas continue not because Truth is not visible but because Men will not submit their Sence to Grace but strain it in stead of ending Disputes to keep them up and render invisible the most visible things in the World In our present Case if His Majesty in stead of as visible had said the Church is more visible than Scripture He would have had a very great Man to take His part For which do's the Answerer think is the more visible of the two the thing which is seen or that by which it is seen And he knows who said I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Catholic Church had moved me And this is in truth the Case of every Body But evidently S. Augustin's Eyes as good as they were did not see the Scripture but by the Catholic that is the Roman Catholic Church For that the Answerer knows was the Catholic Church with which he communicated Then he gives a Reason why Disputing would cease viz. Because none who dare believe what they see can call Scriptures being in Print in question which by making nothing visible which can be called in question makes it not visible that Scripture is in Print For he knows the far greatest part of Mankind all Infidels and Mahumetans do actually call Scripture in question at this day he knows many Christians have questioned divers Parts of it heretofore and He himself still questions some as visibly in Print as any of the rest But to question whether the Book in Print be Scripture is manifestly to question whether Scripture be in Print And so in one breath he says it is in the next it is not visible that Scripture is in Print But we will not fall out about Matters which import not But goes he on what if the Church whose Authority it is said they must submit to will not allow them to believe what they see Why then that Church if he take Believing strictly agrees with all Mankind For as every body knows that Faith is of things not seen none can allow we properly believe 〈◊〉 we see But if he take the Word largely I know of no Church which allows not People to believe all they see I do indeed know of one which would be glad People would not believe they see what they see not nor by thier Senses can see An Eye may see the Colour of a thing and an Ear hear the Sound it makes c. but what this coloured or sounding thing is often needs more than the Senses to discover For the What of a thing is not the Object of any Sense How then says he can this be a sufficient Reason to persuade them to believe the Church because it is as visible as that the Scripture is in Print I am sorry that to know our Duty is not with him sufficient reason to do it We all know by the Evangelist that Christ left Commission to teach all Nations and by the Apostle that there are Pastors and Doctors appointed to build us up into the Vnity of Faith and prevent our being Circumvented by Errour And whatever he do's I take it to be my Duty to learn of those who are appointed and have Commission from Christ to teach when 't is visible who they are His following conceit of using and renouncing our Senses and indeed all hitherto said might have very well been spar'd For there is nothing yet which relates to our Business If he thinks Kings and their Writings are not above Sporting the Matter I am sure is The substance of what he says when he thinks to pass in earnest is 1. That a Part is not the Whole and the Roman he takes to be only a part of the Catholic Church 2. That Roman Catholic is an Expression found neither in the Creeds nor Office of Baptism even at present 3. That the Roman do's not her self believe she is the Catholic Church of the Creeds because she admits the validity of Baptism administred out of her Communion And lastly That there may be different Communions of Christians which may still continue parts of the Catholic Church for instance the Holy Bishops and Martyrs who he says were Excommunicated heretofore in Asia and Afric and the Eastern Christians at this Day For his first Riddle of a Part and Whole we may thank his Inadvertence The Paper do's not say that the Roman is the Catholic Church but that the Roman Catholic is the one Church of Christ. As Roman alone may signify the Diocess under the immediate Government of the Bishop of Rome which never did nor can more pretend to be the Catholic Church than the Church of Laodicea or Ephesus or any other particular Church the Paper by joyning Catholic to it shews it speaks of her and all joyn'd in Communion with her and all who believe as her Communion believes whether they be joyn'd in External Communion or no. For it is apparent by his Majesties talking all along of matters of Faith and no where of any thing else that he minded nothing but Faith and considered the Church with respect only to Faith Now I beseech him is this Roman Catholic ever the less visibly the one Church of Christ because a Part is not a Whole Of what will he make that Whole but of all the Parts And do's not Catholic signify all the Parts Or is it the less Catholic is any part taken out because the particular Roman is put in By the way because He often mentions the Roman Church without adding Catholic let me here to avoid Repetitions declare once for all That I shall understand him of the Roman Catholic wherever the Circumstances of the place determine not the Sense to the particular Church of Rome For he means not I suppose to talk of one Church while His Majesty talks of another Upon the Second Head he asks If those who made the Creeds for our direction had intended the Roman Catholic Church why was it not so expressed He might have answered himself For he knows as well as I that the Reason was because Language always changes with Times As there were no such Dreams of the Roman Church when the Creeds were made as now it had been a very superfluous and a very unaccountable piece of Care to have said Roman in a Word by it self which was already said by the Word Catholic and so by all the World understood Now there are who will have her some a corrupt Part of the Catholic Church some none at all who have a mind to let People know they take her for a Part and a sound and the principal Part and yet would save Words have light on a thrifty way of saying all in short by Roman-Catholic He says besides That this Limitation as he calls it of the Sense of Christ's Catholic Church to the Roman was never put to Persons to be Baptiz'd in any Age of the Church And That he finds
not in the Office of Baptism that it is required that they believe the Roman Catholic Church As if the Roman Baptism by requiring belief of the Catholic did not require belief of the Roman Catholic Church If he think in earnest that it do's not let him present a Man to this Baptism who professes not to believe the Roman Catholic Church and try whether his professing to believe the Catholic Church will obtain it He reflects not that the Limitation which is in this Expression Roman Catholic Church comes not from Roman but from Church That Word indeed always limits the Expression to those who believe and sometimes to those who practise the Doctrine of Christ. Roman neither makes nor marrs as to Limitation but owns the Romans for such Christians Taking in those whom Injustice would keep out is it seems Limitation in his Language As it griev'd him in likelihood that this Expression as visible as that the Scripture is in Print should be applied to the Roman Catholic Church he had a mind to retort it upon her but very unluckily chuses to do it in an Assertion contrary to the sense of all the World besides himself and by an Argument contrary to the sense of the whole Church not excepting his own He says then in his third Head That it is to him equally visible that the Church of Rome it self do's not believe that it is the one Catholic Church mentioned in the two Creeds and this every body but he plainly sees it do's And proves it by this Argument Because if it did it must void all Baptism out of its Communion which it hath never yet done when 't is plain that all the Church agrees it ought not to be voided This he very well knows is a Plea over-ruled by the whole Church many Ages ago and which I little expected he would have borrow'd from Men who he says were excommunicated because they made and stood to it especially whâ—â—â— he I think condemns it himself For he excludes the Donatists I suppose and Novatians from the Catholic Church because they re-baptized When he bethinks himself he will not sure have the Church heretofore not believe her self the Catholic Church because she would not void Baptism with the Re-baptizers nor exclude the English from the Caâ— holic Church because she voids it not The truth is to say in one breath That the Donatists were not Catholics because they Re-baptized and in the next That Roman Catholics cannot believe themselves Catholics because they do not is a cross piece of Business and much too hard for me As far as I can understand the very Reason he gives why they should not is one Reason why they should believe themselves the Catholic Church For in not voiding the Baptism of Heretics they do as the Primitive Catholic Church did And had I made such an Argument for a Friend I am afraid he would have thought I plaid booty The Answerer nevertheless strives to make it good by this Discourse As long as Baptism doth enter Persons into the Catholic Church it is impossible that all who have the true Form of Baptism though out of the Communion of the Roman Church should be Members of the Catholic Church and yet the Communion of the Roman and Catholic be all one as it must be if the Roman Church be the Catholic and Apostolic Church professed in the Creeds This if I understand it is in short Persons Baptized out of the Roman Communion are Members of the Catholic but not of the Roman Catholic Church and therefore the Catholic and Roman Catholic are not the same Churches He was not I perceive aware that he supposes what he should prove and when he has done proves it by means of that Supposition For he could not make a Member of the Catholic not to be a Member of the Roman Catholic unless he suppose that those are two different Churches And this is the very Point in Dispute which he should prove and which he puts for proved in his Conclusion But we are all subject to oversights I wonder more how it could scape him that the Baptized Persons he speaks of are as much Members of both Churches as of either I speak in his Language as if they were different Churches that his Argument may go on Those Persons are not truly Members either of the Catholic or Roman Catholic Church but as far as Baptism makes Members they are altogether as much Members of the Roman Catholic as of the Catholic And He if he will recollect himself knows very well that both Points have been long since determin'd and that by the whole Catholic Church The old Contest about Rebaptisation puts it past Dispute that they were not truly Members of any Part of the Catholic Church For the Contest was How they should be made Members Whether by a new Baptism or only by Imposition of Hands Both Sides therefore that is the whole Church agreed That they were not Members of the Church till one way or other they were receiv'd into it And to think they did not agree in this is to make very wise Men of them Men who fell out with one another even to Excommunication if we will believe the Answerer how those should be brought into the Church who were in already Again That they were nevertheless as much Members of the Catholic Church tho' baptised out of its Communion and so of the Roman tho' baptised out of the Roman Communion as Baptism could make them he knows too was carried against the Re-baptisers by the rest of the Church in whose Judgment the whole Church ever since has acquiesced And he stands single against that Judgment when he thinks a Man baptised out of the Roman Communion is not a Member of the Roman Communion as much as Baptism makes a Member and as much as if he were baptised in her Communion In truth there is nothing to dispute of but Words When he says that Baptism enters the Baptised into the Catholic Church if he mean that those who are duly baptised by Men who are out of the Communion of the Catholic Church need no other Baptism to be brought into the Catholic Church he says very true and no more than what the whole Church has long since said before him Neither do they need any other Baptism to be brought into the Roman And if he will have this called an entry and the Baptised called Members with all my heart For I think it time lost to quarrel about the Names of things when we know what they signifie But if he mean that their Baptism so enters them that they need nothing more to be what every body understands by Members Men who believe and profess the Faith of the Catholic Church he contradicts every Member of the Catholic Church and every Man in the World For all Men see they do not profess that Faith but the Heresies of their Baptisers and all Christians know they need notwithstanding their
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
the Word of Roman Catholic Next for want of a Quarrel he is falling on his late dear Friend the Bishop Was he says our Answerer so weak to mean the Word Catholic in the strictest sense he must then have contradicted himself there was an inconsistency in his Words and so forth From the inconsistency of the Bishop's Words in this and other Places our Answerer perhaps would make a secret Inference That he never said them and obliquely draw the Duchess into the Statute of Coining So that the two Spiritual Hectors may make a Sham-duel of it for ought we know For 't is a common trick with Robbers to clash their Swords together in the dark to draw Company together and then some third Person pays for it Take it in this manner and then the Argument against her Highness will stand thus The Sayings which she relates are inconsistent and therefore she must not be believ'd though she affirms she heard them Why do not as many as have Ears hear inconsistent things said every day and must every body needs lie who reports them again That Inconsistency of the Words is in truth an Argument that the things were said For what bids fairer for adding to the desire she had of being a Catholic and of giving her the terrible Agonies she felt But after all if the Answerer's Quarrel be in earnest with the Bishop 't is pity they should fall out for such a Trifle As weak as the Bishop was and as strong as our Answerer makes his Inconsistencies appear I dare answer for him he meant nothing less than to convert her You do ill therefore to play the Bully with a peaceable Old Gentleman who only desir'd to possess his Conscience and his Bishopric in peace without offence to any Man either of the Catholic Church or that of England But if he held that both Churches were so far Parts of the Catholic that there was no necessity of going from one Church to another to be sav'd if he asserted that you say he must overthrow the Necessity of your Reformation and then down go's his Belief of your Homilies and Articles Thirty nine at a Tip and consequently he could be no true Member of the Church of England And now what can I do more for the poor Bishop For most certainly he did imply thus much in saying That if he had been bred a Catholic he would not change his Religion Therefore Take him Topham there 's no help but he must be turn'd out of the Church of England even so long after he has been dead In the mean time let us a little examine this Proposition Our Answerer affirms That he cannot be a true Member of the Church of England who asserts both Churches to be so far Parts of the Catholic Church that there is no necessity of going from one Church to another to be sav'd If this be true then to be a Member of the Church of England one must assert That either both Churches are not Parts of the Catholic or That they are so Parts that there is a necessity of going from one to another Of these two the first is not for the Honour of one of the Churches and the second is direct Nonsence A Necessity of Change consists not with their being both Parts for Parts constitute one Whole and leave not one and another to go to or from There is no Church in France or Italy to which a Spanish Catholic can go but what he left in Spain nor can he leave his own by going to either of them He may be under other Governours in the same Church but let him go wheresoever he shall please he cannot be of another so long as he remains a Catholic In short Necessity of Change makes it absolutely impossible for both Churches to be Parts of the Catholic and forces the Church of England to maintain either that she is a Part and the Roman Catholic none or else that 't is no matter whether she be a Part or no to which I wish they may not with the Pretence of Zeal for her Honour desire to drive her who have nothing better to say in their own behalf But though our Answerer has laid one Bishop slat I warrant you he has another in reserve For now the Bishop of Winchester who as I said formerly was not commended so much for nothing is brought back in Triumph from his Palace of Farnham to make a short end of the Dispute At first he doubts whether ever there were any such Bishops who made such Answers and then affirms that he believes there never was in rerum naturâ such a Discourse as is pretended to have been betwixt this Great Person and two of the most Learned Bishops in England This is downright indeed for our Answerer to do him Justice has often collaterally accus'd the Duchess for her good Invention at making Stories but here is plain English upon the Point What pity is it in the mean time that my Lord of Winton gives not so much as one single Reason either for his Doubt or his contrary Belief So that having only his Lordship's Opinion and her Highness's Affirmation before me I might say with at least as much Good Manners as that Prelate That I believe as little of his pretended Letter sent to the Duchess so long after her Decease as he do's of her pretended Discourse with the two Bishops In the mean time what use would my Gentleman here make of his Lordships doubts his belief or his affirmation Are the Embers too hot for him that he uses the Bishops Foot to pull out the Chesnut Suppose our Prelate had believ'd there were no Antiphodes is this a time of Day to give him credit But I wonder the less why our Author attributes so much to his ipse dixit upon all occasions for the whole body of his Answer to this Paper is in effect a Transcript from the Bishops Preface He purloyns his Arguments without altering sometime so much as the property of his words He has quoted him five times only in the Margent and ought to have quoted him in almost every line of his Pamphlet In short if the Master had not eaten the Man saving Reverence could not have vomited But it is easie to be seen through all the grimaces of that Bishop that he found himself aggriev'd he has not thought on when her Highness spoke of the two best or most Learned Bishops of England and that his Opinion was not consulted when indeed he had offer'd it though unask'd I know his Defender will reply That his Lordship has modestly disclaim'd any such Pretence to Learning in his Preface where he says No I am not I know I am not I am sure I am not the most Learned Bishop See how he mounts in his Expressions at three several Bounds 'T is true all these Asseverations like his three Nolo's needed not for any reasonable Man who had read his Works would have taken his
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