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
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
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