Anger and Malice and Indignation For Disputes alas continue not because Truth is not visible but because Men will not submit their Sence to Grace but strain it in stead of ending Disputes to keep them up and render invisible the most visible things in the World In our present Case if His Majesty in stead of as visible had said the Church is more visible than Scripture He would have had a very great Man to take His part For which do's the Answerer think is the more visible of the two the thing which is seen or that by which it is seen And he knows who said I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Catholic Church had moved me And this is in truth the Case of every Body But evidently S. Augustin's Eyes as good as they were did not see the Scripture but by the Catholic that is the Roman Catholic Church For that the Answerer knows was the Catholic Church with which he communicated Then he gives a Reason why Disputing would cease viz. Because none who dare believe what they see can call Scriptures being in Print in question which by making nothing visible which can be called in question makes it not visible that Scripture is in Print For he knows the far greatest part of Mankind all Infidels and Mahumetans do actually call Scripture in question at this day he knows many Christians have questioned divers Parts of it heretofore and He himself still questions some as visibly in Print as any of the rest But to question whether the Book in Print be Scripture is manifestly to question whether Scripture be in Print And so in one breath he says it is in the next it is not visible that Scripture is in Print But we will not fall out about Matters which import not But goes he on what if the Church whose Authority it is said they must submit to will not allow them to believe what they see Why then that Church if he take Believing strictly agrees with all Mankind For as every body knows that Faith is of things not seen none can allow we properly believe 〈◊〉 we see But if he take the Word largely I know of no Church which allows not People to believe all they see I do indeed know of one which would be glad People would not believe they see what they see not nor by thier Senses can see An Eye may see the Colour of a thing and an Ear hear the Sound it makes c. but what this coloured or sounding thing is often needs more than the Senses to discover For the What of a thing is not the Object of any Sense How then says he can this be a sufficient Reason to persuade them to believe the Church because it is as visible as that the Scripture is in Print I am sorry that to know our Duty is not with him sufficient reason to do it We all know by the Evangelist that Christ left Commission to teach all Nations and by the Apostle that there are Pastors and Doctors appointed to build us up into the Vnity of Faith and prevent our being Circumvented by Errour And whatever he do's I take it to be my Duty to learn of those who are appointed and have Commission from Christ to teach when 't is visible who they are His following conceit of using and renouncing our Senses and indeed all hitherto said might have very well been spar'd For there is nothing yet which relates to our Business If he thinks Kings and their Writings are not above Sporting the Matter I am sure is The substance of what he says when he thinks to pass in earnest is 1. That a Part is not the Whole and the Roman he takes to be only a part of the Catholic Church 2. That Roman Catholic is an Expression found neither in the Creeds nor Office of Baptism even at present 3. That the Roman do's not her self believe she is the Catholic Church of the Creeds because she admits the validity of Baptism administred out of her Communion And lastly That there may be different Communions of Christians which may still continue parts of the Catholic Church for instance the Holy Bishops and Martyrs who he says were Excommunicated heretofore in Asia and Afric and the Eastern Christians at this Day For his first Riddle of a Part and Whole we may thank his Inadvertence The Paper do's not say that the Roman is the Catholic Church but that the Roman Catholic is the one Church of Christ. As Roman alone may signify the Diocess under the immediate Government of the Bishop of Rome which never did nor can more pretend to be the Catholic Church than the Church of Laodicea or Ephesus or any other particular Church the Paper by joyning Catholic to it shews it speaks of her and all joyn'd in Communion with her and all who believe as her Communion believes whether they be joyn'd in External Communion or no. For it is apparent by his Majesties talking all along of matters of Faith and no where of any thing else that he minded nothing but Faith and considered the Church with respect only to Faith Now I beseech him is this Roman Catholic ever the less visibly the one Church of Christ because a Part is not a Whole Of what will he make that Whole but of all the Parts And do's not Catholic signify all the Parts Or is it the less Catholic is any part taken out because the particular Roman is put in By the way because He often mentions the Roman Church without adding Catholic let me here to avoid Repetitions declare once for all That I shall understand him of the Roman Catholic wherever the Circumstances of the place determine not the Sense to the particular Church of Rome For he means not I suppose to talk of one Church while His Majesty talks of another Upon the Second Head he asks If those who made the Creeds for our direction had intended the Roman Catholic Church why was it not so expressed He might have answered himself For he knows as well as I that the Reason was because Language always changes with Times As there were no such Dreams of the Roman Church when the Creeds were made as now it had been a very superfluous and a very unaccountable piece of Care to have said Roman in a Word by it self which was already said by the Word Catholic and so by all the World understood Now there are who will have her some a corrupt Part of the Catholic Church some none at all who have a mind to let People know they take her for a Part and a sound and the principal Part and yet would save Words have light on a thrifty way of saying all in short by Roman-Catholic He says besides That this Limitation as he calls it of the Sense of Christ's Catholic Church to the Roman was never put to Persons to be Baptiz'd in any Age of the Church And That he finds
not in the Office of Baptism that it is required that they believe the Roman Catholic Church As if the Roman Baptism by requiring belief of the Catholic did not require belief of the Roman Catholic Church If he think in earnest that it do's not let him present a Man to this Baptism who professes not to believe the Roman Catholic Church and try whether his professing to believe the Catholic Church will obtain it He reflects not that the Limitation which is in this Expression Roman Catholic Church comes not from Roman but from Church That Word indeed always limits the Expression to those who believe and sometimes to those who practise the Doctrine of Christ. Roman neither makes nor marrs as to Limitation but owns the Romans for such Christians Taking in those whom Injustice would keep out is it seems Limitation in his Language As it griev'd him in likelihood that this Expression as visible as that the Scripture is in Print should be applied to the Roman Catholic Church he had a mind to retort it upon her but very unluckily chuses to do it in an Assertion contrary to the sense of all the World besides himself and by an Argument contrary to the sense of the whole Church not excepting his own He says then in his third Head That it is to him equally visible that the Church of Rome it self do's not believe that it is the one Catholic Church mentioned in the two Creeds and this every body but he plainly sees it do's And proves it by this Argument Because if it did it must void all Baptism out of its Communion which it hath never yet done when 't is plain that all the Church agrees it ought not to be voided This he very well knows is a Plea over-ruled by the whole Church many Ages ago and which I little expected he would have borrow'd from Men who he says were excommunicated because they made and stood to it especially whâ—â—â— he I think condemns it himself For he excludes the Donatists I suppose and Novatians from the Catholic Church because they re-baptized When he bethinks himself he will not sure have the Church heretofore not believe her self the Catholic Church because she would not void Baptism with the Re-baptizers nor exclude the English from the Caâ— holic Church because she voids it not The truth is to say in one breath That the Donatists were not Catholics because they Re-baptized and in the next That Roman Catholics cannot believe themselves Catholics because they do not is a cross piece of Business and much too hard for me As far as I can understand the very Reason he gives why they should not is one Reason why they should believe themselves the Catholic Church For in not voiding the Baptism of Heretics they do as the Primitive Catholic Church did And had I made such an Argument for a Friend I am afraid he would have thought I plaid booty The Answerer nevertheless strives to make it good by this Discourse As long as Baptism doth enter Persons into the Catholic Church it is impossible that all who have the true Form of Baptism though out of the Communion of the Roman Church should be Members of the Catholic Church and yet the Communion of the Roman and Catholic be all one as it must be if the Roman Church be the Catholic and Apostolic Church professed in the Creeds This if I understand it is in short Persons Baptized out of the Roman Communion are Members of the Catholic but not of the Roman Catholic Church and therefore the Catholic and Roman Catholic are not the same Churches He was not I perceive aware that he supposes what he should prove and when he has done proves it by means of that Supposition For he could not make a Member of the Catholic not to be a Member of the Roman Catholic unless he suppose that those are two different Churches And this is the very Point in Dispute which he should prove and which he puts for proved in his Conclusion But we are all subject to oversights I wonder more how it could scape him that the Baptized Persons he speaks of are as much Members of both Churches as of either I speak in his Language as if they were different Churches that his Argument may go on Those Persons are not truly Members either of the Catholic or Roman Catholic Church but as far as Baptism makes Members they are altogether as much Members of the Roman Catholic as of the Catholic And He if he will recollect himself knows very well that both Points have been long since determin'd and that by the whole Catholic Church The old Contest about Rebaptisation puts it past Dispute that they were not truly Members of any Part of the Catholic Church For the Contest was How they should be made Members Whether by a new Baptism or only by Imposition of Hands Both Sides therefore that is the whole Church agreed That they were not Members of the Church till one way or other they were receiv'd into it And to think they did not agree in this is to make very wise Men of them Men who fell out with one another even to Excommunication if we will believe the Answerer how those should be brought into the Church who were in already Again That they were nevertheless as much Members of the Catholic Church tho' baptised out of its Communion and so of the Roman tho' baptised out of the Roman Communion as Baptism could make them he knows too was carried against the Re-baptisers by the rest of the Church in whose Judgment the whole Church ever since has acquiesced And he stands single against that Judgment when he thinks a Man baptised out of the Roman Communion is not a Member of the Roman Communion as much as Baptism makes a Member and as much as if he were baptised in her Communion In truth there is nothing to dispute of but Words When he says that Baptism enters the Baptised into the Catholic Church if he mean that those who are duly baptised by Men who are out of the Communion of the Catholic Church need no other Baptism to be brought into the Catholic Church he says very true and no more than what the whole Church has long since said before him Neither do they need any other Baptism to be brought into the Roman And if he will have this called an entry and the Baptised called Members with all my heart For I think it time lost to quarrel about the Names of things when we know what they signifie But if he mean that their Baptism so enters them that they need nothing more to be what every body understands by Members Men who believe and profess the Faith of the Catholic Church he contradicts every Member of the Catholic Church and every Man in the World For all Men see they do not profess that Faith but the Heresies of their Baptisers and all Christians know they need notwithstanding their
Baptism to be receiv'd into the Church and that there goes Faith as well as Baptism to a Member of the Body of Faithful And as Faith signifies an Assent to the Doctrine of Christ the Answerer sure will not say that they have Faith who far from assenting contradict the Doctrine of Christ and so make the Church a Congregation no longer of Faithful but of Faithful and not Faithful There is more ado about the last Head and nothing all the while to the Question The substance is That some have been cast out of Communion upon particular Differences which were not supposed to be of such a nature as to make them no Members of the Catholic Church That therefore there may be different Communions among Christians which may still continue Parts of the Catholic Church And that consequently no one Member of such a Division ought to assume to it self the Title and Authority of the One Catholic Church And what is all this even supposing it all true to the Question of the Paper Whether the Roman Catholic be the One Catholic Church of the Creeds Suppose his divided Christians do continue Parts still of the Catholic Whole cannot the Roman Catholic therefore be that Whole Suppose no one Member of the Division ought to assume to it self the Title and Authority of the One Catholic Church ought not therefore both and all the Members to assume it What is or can there be to assume it besides Or would he not have it assumed at all but the Name of Catholic Church banish'd out of the World by every such Division which happens in it His Majesty as I observ'd before included in the Roman Catholic Church of which He speaks all Christians whom a different Faith excluded not and said that this Church or these All are the One Catholic Church of the Creeds The Answerer to shew they are not tells us That among these All there may be Divisions notwithstanding which they may remain Parts still of the Catholic Church Why if they remain Parts of the Catholic Church they are of the number of the All who make it up and remain Parts of His Majesty's Roman Catholic Church which takes All in Is that Church ever the less Catholic by having never so many Members Or ever the less One because divided Christians believe as she do's For if they do not She and They both cannot be Members of one Catholic Church and the Answerer must needs exclude either Her or Them For it being as palpable Nonsence that one Church can be with more than one Faith as that one Man can be with more than one Soul the Churches which make up the Catholic Apostolic One Church can have but one Faith among them All And who knows the Faith of any one knows the Faith of all the rest Now since the Answerer with his Compliment of Corrupt Faith which as Compliments often are is Nonsence too makes the Roman Catholic a Part at least of the one Catholic Whole all the other Parts must believe as she do's or cannot themselves be Parts And so his Reason why All those who believe as she do's are not the Catholic Church is because All believe as she do's notwithstanding some Divisions As it is not to our purpose I inquire not whether his divided Christians do indeed by continuing the same Faith properly continue parts of the Catholic Church a Question which belongs to the propriety of Language nor how far so much Title to the Church avails to their Salvation Since Divisions especially of long continuance seem hardly consistent with Charity and Charity is as necessary to Salvation as Faith I pray God of his Mercy to preserve me from ever being divided whether I be said to belong still to the Church or no and make them sensible of their condition who are Neither will I examine how 't is with the Eastern Christians at this Day or was with those of Afric and Asia whom he makes Excommunicated heretofore by the Bishops of Rome a Point of which if he have a mind to Dispute he may chuse his Man among those who deny it Whether the Roman Catholic comprehending all of the same Faith with her be the one Catholic Apostolic Church of the Creeds is our Question not who they are who have the same Faith And that this Roman Catholic Church is the One Church which Christ has on Earth or that he has none on Earth is as visible as that Scripture is in Print or any thing more visible if any thing can be For if it be not we must look for Christ's Church either among Infidels who believe not in Christ at all or Heretics who believe not his Doctrine And there I for my part despair to find it The truth is I suspect by his talking that he would be content People should think that the one Catholic Church of the Creeds requir'd not any one Faith but were made up of as many Men as own Christ whatever they believe of his Doctrine Except perhaps those who Rebaptise and those who assume the Title of the Catholic Church By which means the notion of Catholic would be well enough provided for but One and Church left to shift for themselves But he do's not directly say it and 't is not fair to put my suspitions to his account Divers other Passages there are in his Discourse which relish not with me He by saying the Visible Church might have been easily shewn in the first Blessed Times insinuates she is less visible now or rather invisible for visible things may be easily seen at all times And I conceive the same marks which shew'd her then will with as little difficulty shew her now Christians were then admonish'd to mind those who abide in the Doctrine of Christ who come and bring not that Doctrine and to contend for the Faith once delivered to the Saints And we have but to do so still Again I comprehend not how his unheeded and yet remarkable difference between People cast out of Communion viz. That some did and some did not challenge the Title of the Catholic Church was the cause of any great misapplication It sounds as if he would have that Title never rightly apply'd but to those who do not challenge it in likelihood because they have no pretence to it But I less understand how it comes to be Presumption and a cause of Schisms in one part of a Division to assume it It is not well intelligible when there is a Division how more than one part can bear it For the Language of the World has always preserv'd that Title to one Part and given the name of Sect or part cut off to the other And it is more unintelligible how it should be Presumption in that one Part to take what all the World gives and that Presumption be the cause of Schisms which happen'd and of necessity always must happen before the Presumption For till there be Schism that is Division there
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
knows that without Faith it is impossible to please him But whether do's he mean to lead us All hitherto seems quite out of the way to our Question For what has the chief end for which a Rule was made to do with whether it will guide us certainly or no Hiâ— refusing to Answer is in truth confessing that Scripture after all is not the Rule of Controversiâ— s. For they are not ended till one side or other be certain But let us go no farther than we needs must In Matters of Good and Evil every Man's Conscience he says is his immediate Iudge and why not in Matters of Truth and Falshood Vnless we suppose Mens involuntary Mistakes to be more dangerous than their wilful Sins How Are we before we were aware come to Conscience at last and all his Magnificent Talk his Evident his Sure and his Infallible his Care in examining and comparing for nothing but to establish this Maxim Do every one what seems good in his own Eyes and believe what seems true Is this the clearer light he will give to the things contain'd in His Majesty's Papers and the loss of such a Liberty the great danger they run of being deceiv'd with their fair appearance whom he will secure with his safe Instructions of trusâ— ing their Conscience both for Good and for True Doctrine or not Doctrine of Christ is no such idle Circumstance sure that hitting or missing is equal so the Conscience be strait and the Mistake involuntary By the way I see not how this involuntary can thrust in here For who forces any Body to mistake or take the deceitful ways which lead them to it But to say nothing to that matter and but little to his Plea of Conscience as copious as the Theme is I only ask what Conscience can do more than secure a Man from being judg'd for sinning against his Conscience But if it lead him to do ill things or embrace a wrong Faith what can he answer for the Sin of having that Conscience Reason certainly never â— ramed such a Conscience and there is nothing besides which could frame it but Passion that is Affections wrong set or in plain English very wilful Sin Shall he who has this to answer for be safe because he has nothing to answer for the Sin against Conscience As if that were the only Sin to be accounted for in the next World For the rest This to say the truth is an Answer For Uncertainty do's not prove that Scripture is not the Rule if it be no matter whether we be uncertain or no nor indeed whether there be a Rule or Faith For if Conscience will carry those to Heaven who believe wrong Faith I think may be spared and a Rule for it But as it is an Answer which I believe would not have taken with His late Majesty because he had too much Experience of the bad Effâ— cts of mistaken Conscience to think it would 〈◊〉 at the Tribunal of God more than it did at His I am confident it will take as little with the Reader At least I will venture it without more words For I mâ— an not to stay at a new Apology of his 〈…〉 of England as unseasonable as the â— ormâ— r 〈◊〉 something were objected to her and as little 〈◊〉 At the rate he talks one woul◠〈…〉 do's what he undertakes She do's not 〈◊〉 every Man to â— e his own Iudge For this he 〈…〉 in what concerns his own Salvation that is in all Faith for Faith concerns Salvation Who believes not every body who believes Scripture knows shall be damned Then his Seducers with their dangerous Mistakes as such there are it seems for all his Conscience-security And his Spiritual Guides with their assistance would make work till Doomsday Nor can Quarrels about them be ended till those about Faith be settled For till then who shall know which is the Guide and which the Seducer As Christ appointed no body to teach other Doctrine than he taught They are plainly no Guides of his appointing who do The Ancient Creeds too are brought in again as if they would be serviceable to the Church of England and no Liberty of Conscience allow'd to judge against them or any Doctrines as universally receiv'd as if any part of universal Christian Doctrine were lost and all had not been always as universally retain'd as the Creeds But I have my Answer and will be going In the next Section the King asks Whether it be not the same thing to follow our own Fancy or to interpret Scripture by it And he answers There might be some colour for such a Question if They did not do so and so Pray what colour has he â— or such a Reply Might not the King have colour to say what he thought fit to be said to him to whom he spoke whether there be or be not colour to say the same to the Church of England He wâ—â— t not to her nor were His Writings publish'd with any relation to her but to satisfie the Curiosity of those who desir'd to see them and could not come by written Copies and to assure them they were His. In stead of concerning her where she is not concern'd let him if he please answer the Question and tell us whether it be or be not the same to follow 〈◊〉 own Fancy or interpret Scripture by it Till he say I or Nâ— all besides is leaving the Work â— ut out for us to cut out new of our own which twenty to one we shall never make up For which Reason I will pray him to keep his many Questions tâ— ll the Dispute be between the two Churches and I appear for the Church of Rome Till then he cannot rationally expect an Answer from me He perhaps may be able to manage two Disputes at a time or think the best way to end one is to begin another I think it too much for me to defend a King and a Church at once And so much good may his pleasant Fancies do him about a Rule and its Interpretation which he talks as if he would have belong to those who do not know the Sense of it about the Intention of Almighty God as if we knew not what he intended and did make the Pillar and Ground of Truth about reforming Disorders which he makes unreformable even in Commonwealths where the Supreme Judge has the ill luck to be principally accus'd about Oaths as if any were taken to defend an unjust Authority or could bind tho' they were about a Iudge of Tradition as if a Man who sees Pictures in one Church and none in another needed a Judge to pronounce to him that those Churches practise differently His Vsurpers and all shall do what he would have them for me I wish in stead of all this he would have minded his Business but mean however to mind mine What he replies to the next Section shews more like an Answer than any thing said yet I
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
A DEFENCE OF THE PAPERS Written by the Late KING Of Blessed Memory AND Duchess of York AGAINST The ANSWER made to Them By Command LONDON Printed by H. Hills Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chappel 1686. PREFACE T IS acknowledg'd that Sovereign Princes when They enter into the Lists of Disputation may be answer'd as well as Private Men for then they Command not but only Argue speak their Opinion and Instruct. The Answerer is not therefore blam'd for appearing on the contrary Side to our late Sovereign of Blessed Memory whose Papers were for that Reason made Public that every man might have the liberty of considering them and of making a free and upright Iudgment concerning them Accordingly it hath pleas'd Almighty God by means of them to open the Vnderstanding and direct the Will of many sober and well-meaning Readers in the knowledge of his only True Church and the desire of being united to it The great Success of them as it is manifest to the World so in all probability hath occasion'd the Answer by one who calls himself a Son of the Church of England and who gives it as the Reason of the publishing his Pamphlet That the Papers thus dispers'd in Print may fall into many Hands who without some Assistance may not readily resolve some Difficulties started by them Vpon which Consideration this Author thought it not unbecoming his Duty to God and the King to give a clearer Light to the Things contained in them Which not long after he explains in relation at least to the First Paper wherein he could have been glad to have found as much Reason to convince as there was a fair Appearance to deceive Now whether the King intended to deceive his People or that the Deceit might be occasion'd by His Writings I leave our Author to expound But in general to clear Difficulties and discover a Cousenage I freely grant not to be unbecoming of our Duty An Answer then may be made even to a King but the Manner of Answering is likewise to be consider'd And surely there is somewhat more of Respect to be given to a Sovereign Prince than to a common or private Disputant especially if the Answerer be his Subject The Cardinal of Peronne tho' a Forreigner has observ'd this Decency in the Controversie manag'd betwixt our King JAMES the First and him Luther on the other side has made a German Quarrel with HENRY the Eighth without allowing Him so much as the Name of King but in the beginning of his Answer calling Him barely by His Christn'd Name and using Him afterward as familiarly and scurrilously as if Martyn and Harry had been two Sophisters set up to wrangle in the Schools at their two confronting Desks After the same manner and not without a convenient share of Impudence has Milton treated King CHARLES the First but he had cast off the Yoke of Dominion before he answer'd and of a Subject was become a Rebel To speak evil of Dignities is not much recommended to us in the Holy Scriptures and whether he be Catholic or Protestant Tros Rutulusve fuat who manages a Dispute in this manner neither Church ought to be over-proud of such a Champion Now whether our Answerer has follow'd the Example of Peronne or whether he has not some little tincture of Luther's Mannerliness and the Civility of Milton let the impartial Readers of his Pamphlet nay let even all modest and dutiful Protestants be Iudges I name not here the Passages which are either disrespectful in relation to the Late King or to the Present nor the Pedantique Cavils nor the private Scoffs which have render'd our Author justly odious to the sober Men even of his own Party But if he will look upon this as a bare Accusation without Proof I shall endeavour to make it good upon his Summons In the mean time tho' as he alledges it be no Reflection on the Authority of a Prince for a private Subject to examine a Piece of Coin as to its just Value notwithstanding that it bears his Image and Superscription on it yet the Answerer ought to be cautious of decrying that Coin among his Fellow-Subjects unless he can fully prove it to be Counterfeit But he might have made a more proper and less invidious Similitude by comparing the King's Paper to a Medal rather than to Coin'd Money It bears the Figure of one Monarch and is Distributed to the People by another 'T is a Largess not impos'd on any Man it may either be taken or refus'd But both those Actions ought to be accompanied with Respect the Metal and the Weight may be examin'd without phillipping it up into the Air for the Image the Superscription and the Donor ought all to secure it from Contempt To conclude If the Answerer thinks it not unbecoming his Duty to God and the King to give a clearer Light to the Things contain'd in those Papers I know it not to be unbecoming mine to defend the Honour of both our Princes and the Truth of that Religion profess'd by them which has descended without interruption from our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles even to us In so doing I hope I shall discover the foul Dealing of this Author who has obscur'd as much as he is able the Native Lustre of those Papers and recommended by a false Light his own sophisticated Ware part of which may certainly deserve the clearest Light which can be given it by the Hands of the Vnder-Sheriff or of somebody whom I will not name A DEFENCE OF THE PAPERS Written by The late KING of Blessed Memory and Duchess of York AGAINST The Answer made to Them A Defence of the First Paper AS I think the Answerer may with as little need of Apology become the Antagonist as I the Champion of a King and Princess and that the cowardise of delaying Time suits ill with the Presumption of entring into such a Quarrel I shall lose none in scanning the Preliminary Discourses of my Adversary or making any for my self His Majesty says in his first Lines That it is as visible as that the Scripture is in Print that none can be the One Church which Christ has here on Earth but that which is called the Roman Catholic Church and that there is no need to enter into the Ocean of Particular Disputes when the main and in truth only Question is Where that Church is The Answerer who had a mind to flourish before he offered to pass says first That if particular Controversies could be ended by a Principle as visible as that the Scripture is in Print all Men of sence would soon give over Disputing And what if they did The sooner the better I should think For Christians sure might without any harm become unanimous in their Sentiments all of one Heart and one Soul again and lay Disputing aside As truly I believe they would if the Apostle could prevail with them to lay aside all