than that of our own Iudgments As if it pinched there His Majesty talks of those who do not believe as the Church of England do's for this reason because they are taught by a Church from which there is no Appeal that is who have not that Motive for their Judgments which he took for the only truly reasonable Motive And while he is speaking of Motives the Answerer falls a talking of Judgments The difficulty is not whether Judgment affords Security A Judgment grounded on true Reason can no more change than Reason but whether there be any security in those Judgments which are made on unsecure Motives Or if you will what Security there is in that Judgment which the Answerer offers for Security 'T is as in Land The Security is good where the Title is unquestionable but if that be doubtful there is no Money to be borrow'd on the Land And he will have us take for Security the Judgment of which we are not satisfy'd that it is it self secure Once again His Majesty thought Church-security the only Security in this Matter And it rests with the Answerer to shew that Protestants either have this or other true Security to shew what other Foundation and Pillar of Truth there is besides the Church how it can be a Foundation without Infallibility and People have reason to trust their Souls to what may deceive them In short what good account they can give of the Hope which is in them who learn the Faith by which they think to please God otherwise than from those whom he appointed to teach it Till he do this as obscurely as his Majesty speaks People will see they have nothing to trust to for their Salvation but Fancy nor the Church of England for their company But He dares appeal to the World whether They have not made it appear that it is not Fancy but Iudgment which hath made them firm to the Church of England Dares he in earnest put it to the Catholic World any more than we to the Protestant To what purpose these great words when he knows before-hand nothing will nor can come of them It had been a great deal more to purpose since Fancy and Judgment in this place signifie a rational or not rational Persuasion to have shew'd that they truly have Reason who are firm to the Church of England and that They are indeed firm For that Firmness may as well be pretended as Reason for itâ—â— and they may desire to pass for firm to Her 〈◊〉 make her not firm to her self But for big 〈◊〉 none are better at it than Cowards out of Gun-shot Might it not asks he on as well have been said That the Pâ—â—â—â— tants of the Church of England adhered to the Crowâ— in the Times of Rebellion out of 〈◊〉 and not out of Iudgment His Zeal for the Church of England is wondrouâ— unlucky As no body thought of detracting from the just Praises of the Church of England and every body must acknowledge her Doctrine in this Point is very Orthodox and her Practice in the Times of Rebellion conformable to it there was no need to mention this matter And yet he will by all means bring it in against himself Many he knows did desert her and her Doctrine in this Point at that time so many that the Rebellion peradventure was indebted for its Success to those Deserters For had not the ill-affected Rabble been countenanc'd and headed by Men who had perhaps all their Life before conform'd to the Church of England the Rebellion either would not have been at all or not so unfortunately prosperous Now as it is plain that if those who deserted had ever adhered to her with a persuasion that they were oblig'd to believe what she â— aught They could not have deserted her in this Point who always taught Loyalty This very Case proves what the King asserts That till they do so there is no security of their adhering to her For they may desert her in any other Point of Christ's Doctrine as well as they did in this and for ought appears will when they meet with the same Interest or whatever Motive They had to desert her then In the last place He tries to turn the Argument â— pon the Church of Rome to which he asks why any adhere but because it is agreeable to their Iudgment so to do This Actor went off the Stage but now and needed not return so soon with 〈…〉 a Part. For what do's he mean by Adheringâ—â— Believing I suppose that the Church of 〈…〉 right For he talks not sure of acting 〈…〉 conformity to our inward 〈…〉 but Hypocrites do in all their Actions 〈…〉 he mean it of the inward Persuasion to ask why They adhere but because they judge they ought is in other words Why do they adhere but because they adhere For their Judgment is their Adhesion To 〈…〉 People adhere to a Church with every body 〈◊〉 signifies What Reason or Motive have they 〈…〉 adhering To which Question with respect to the â— oman Catholic Church the Answer in the words of the Paragraph is That People are of her as 't is the true Church from whence there can be no Appeal or because she is the Church which Christ has now on Earth with whom his Doctrine was deposited and from whom only it can be learn'd In the words or St. Austin I am kept in the Bosom of the Catholic Church by the consens of People and Nations by an Authority begun by Miracles 〈◊〉 by Hope increas'd by Charity 〈◊〉 by Antiquity by a Succession of Bishops from St. Peter to whom 〈…〉 〈…〉 where Catholics meet none of them have the 〈…〉 him to their Congregations The Answerer will tell us when he thinks sit what Answer he thinks proper to be made for other Churches In the mean time let us reslect what he has answer'd to the Paragraph He has told us That there is no Security greater than that of our Judgments That theirs is Judgment not Fancy and particularly was so in the times of Rebellion And that they Judge in the Church of 〈◊〉 too What is all this to the Paragraph which says in short That because Protestants have no firm Motive for their adhering to the Church of England they cannot be firm to her Do's he make it appear their Motive is firm Or how They will be firm without one This little is all there was before him is their Judgment solidly grounded or is it not the only and whole business What need was there to talk of Judgment in common when the Question is of their Judgment in this Particular Or what serves it for but to make a shew and fill up a Page There may be as much Security in the Judgment as there will and Protestants be never the better unless there be Security in their Judgment They will I hope since their Souls are at stake consider what 〈◊〉 do to venture them where those who write
things Whether it be easie or no to find the Churches Infallibility in the Scripture has been answered by Her Royal Highness and I will not presume to answer where she has especially when the Question has no relation to our Business In the last place who has found the Churches Infallibility has yet says the Answerer a harder Point to get over viz. How the Promises relating to the Church in general came to be appropriated to the Church of Rome By the way the Promises of which he talks are they not in Scripture and no harder to be found there by another than by him How comes the Churches Infallibility to be easily found there in this Period which was not easie to find in the last For who has found the Promise has founâ— Infallibility as certainly as that the Promises of Christ never fail But why are we not all agreed now That there are Promises of Infallibility made to the Church in general he agrees and doubts not I suppose but that those Promises are made good I suppose too he will allow that the Church in General and the General Church are all one and that the General and the Catholic Church are but two Names for the same thing And so we are arriv'd at Infallibility in the Catholic Church Yes but it must not be appropriated to the Church of Rome Why it shall not if that will content him We ask no more than what he allows That the Catholic Church be Infallible and the Church of Rome with all her faults one of the many Churches which make it up To allow so much is to allow the Roman Catholic Church is Infallible For Roman Catholic is nothing but the Catholic with the Roman in What remains then but to take the Infallibility promis'd to this Catholic Church for the Foundation of our Salvation inquire and believe what she teaches and leave off disputing For they are undoubtedly firmly grounded who build on the Promises of God It is true the Answerer has not all this while answered the Question For he says not whether Salvation ought to depend on a Sandy Foundation or whether the private Judgment be a Sandy Foundation But he has done much better by instructing People the Catholic Church is Infallible and shall for me keep his Thoughts of that Matter to himself since he has no mind to reveal them People I hope will profit by his Instructions and for their own sakes chuse Infallible rather than Fallible Security for their Souls now they know where 't is to be had There follow several lines in his Majesties Paper which are not transcrib'd by the Answerer because they are he says as effectual for the Church of England as Rome And truly I am of his mind that the Church of England has her share in those favours as much as any particular Church if she be as they are incorporated into the General For neither do they claim otherwise nor can the Favours granted by God to the Faithful be imagined extended to the not-faithful It is for this Reason I have always thought them no Friends of hers who make her of a dâ— fferent Faith from all or indeed any part of the Catholic Church that is no part her self For evidently there is no pretending to the Priviledges of a Body but by being a Member nor pretending to be of the Body of Faithful but by Faith And pray consider says the King on the other side that those who resist the Truth and will not submit to his Church draw their Arguments from Implications and far fetch'd Interpretations at the same time that they deny plain and positive words which is so great a disingenuity that 't is not almost to be thought that they can believe themselves Here are two particulars mentioned drawing Arguments from Implications and denying plain words In answer to the first out of the whole heap of Controversies the Answerer chuses Three in which they have he says plain and positive words on their side Now it had been altogether as easie and as short to have produc'd those plain and positive words if there had been any as to have past his word that there are such Besides that People love to see with their own Eyes and plain things may easily be seen He is a Party and even Supreme Powers according to him must not judge in their own Cause It rests then with him to shew where the Scripture says No of what the Roman Catholic Church says I or contrariwise For this is what People understand by plain and positive and all besides is Implication And by the favour of his Confidence I affirm to him that who argue against the Roman Catholic Church out of Scripture argue always from Implications tho' it be more than needs to justifie His Majesties Assertion For if they draw their Arguments from Implications at any time they draw Arguments from Implications In answer to the Second he pitches upon a point wherein he acknowledges the words of Scripture seem plain and positive on our side and their Sense to be from Implications and far-fetch'd Interpretations and alledges what he has to say why notwithstanding they are not plain and positive As if there were any other way of denying plain Words of Scripture but by denying them to be plain No Christian has the confidence to deny what Scripture plainly teaches but who has no mind to believe what it teaches denies that it teaches contrary to him and for a Pretence to deny That raises some Mist or other to obscure the Clearness of every Text alledg'd against him The Answerer then is far enough from shewing that they do not deny plain Words of Scripture by pretending that they are not plain not did not could His Majesty mean they denied them otherwise who knew very well that there is no other way to do it and that no Words are so plain but who will make it his business may find something to say against them This which the Answerer alledges was far from a Secret to Him In short the Answerer would have them cleared from arguing from Implications by saying they have in three Points plain Words which he thought it needless to produce and from denying plain Words by denying that they are plain And this is all his Answer What he says of Implications in the Pope's Bulls might if he could shew the Church of Rome builds her Faith on those Implications be an Argument against her but none for himself For Paul is not a just the less a Thief because Peter is caught stealing too But some in the Church of Rome argue from Implications upon which they do not build their Faith therefore others may build their Faith upon Implications seems to me but an odd Argument The King's Conclusion is Is there any other Foundation of the Protestant Church but that if the Civil Magistrate please he may call such of the Clergy as he thinks fit for his turn at that time and turn
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
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
cannot be Part of a Division to presume His account too of the breach betwixt the East and the West is I think very wide of the mark He would have the Popes Supremacy bear the blame of all which if my Memory fail me not was not so much as made a Pretence till near Two hundred Years after the Schism began nor any where more acknowledged than in Greece nor by any body more than by him who began the Schism When I read the Story I apprehended the cause of that breach was National Feuds heightned into violent hatred by several Accidents which chopt unluckily in and the malitious Ambition of Men who found their private Accounts in the Public Calamity Indeed I think they denied the Popes Supremacy at last as all who will continue in Schism at long run must because to acknowledge and not regard it is self condemnation Otherwise their Quarrel was to the Latin Church or perhaps more truly Nation not the Supremacy of which they speak so inconstantly that I am persuaded it would break no squares even now if they could be brought on any terms to agree with Men whom they hate I would be more diligent in this Matter if it concern'd our Question But as they are parts of His Majesties Roman Catholic Church if they believe as she do's and are not if they do not and it is equal whether they do or no I leave them to Gods Mercy and return from straying thus far into our Road again This Principle being remov'd which ought he says be taken for granted since it can never be prov'd By the way he do's not sure mean this for a bob to the King as if he took his Principle viz. That the Church is as visible as Scripture for granted because he knew not how to prove it Whether the Person to whom he directed his Paper were satisfy'd before hand of this Point by their former Discourses or needed no Arguments to see a visible thing or however it were the Answerer may perceive by the Paper that his Majesty thought it not to his purpose to press the Visibility of the Church but only submission to it and means not I suppose to tell the King he knew not his own Design or how to pursue it His part is to answer what is said and not instruct the King what should have been said He must therefore mean that it ought to be taken for granted that he has remov'd that Principle which is just Lend me your Hand Neighbour to remove my Block I cannot stir it my self Alas it is very visible he has done nothing towards removing it But he is in the right to play sure Who have a flaw in their Title do well to get a Grant By his saying it can never be prov'd he has I guess a mind to tempt somebody to prove over again what has been prov'd a hundred and a hundred times already But as much as his positiveness tempts me to be doing and as easie as I think it to be done I beg his Pardon at present Parrying is my business not Thrusting now Whatever he mean I do not think that what he concludes would follow even tho' the Principle which he dislikes were removed The Principle is That the Roman Catholic is the One Church which Christ has here upon Earth and the Conclusion is That we must unavoidably enter into the Ocean of particular Disputes Why so I pray him Why will not another Catholic Church serve turn If he will needs have it granted that the Roman Catholic is not the One Church of Christ 't is but shewing us the other Catholic which is Roman or not Roman imports not But believing the Doctrine of Christ imports as much as Salvation is worth and the Commission which Christ gave to teach it the World is now in force and shall be as long as there is a World Let him but direct us to the Men who have it in this Age that we who live in this Age may learn it of them let him but tell us which is the One not Roman Catholic Church which Christ has here upon Earth and it will do our business every jot as well as the Roman Catholic and as much save us from being plunged into the Ocean of particular Disputes Otherwise to tell us the Roman Catholic is not that Church and not tell us which is is as much as to tell us that Christ has none upon Earth For evidently She or some other must be that Church if there be any at all But let him not send us to a Church whereof the several Parts agree not in one Faith Besides that we should never understand how such a Church let it be never so Universal could be One and make account Christ taught One determinate Doctrine not the 1 and the No both it would be otherwise useless For if This Part teach one Faith and the Next another we should not know which to believe and in all likelihood believe neither But he knows no Reason any can have to be so afraid of the Ocean of particular Disputes since we have so sure a Compass as the Holy Scripture to direct our Passage I am sure there can be no Reason to venture to Sea when we are already safe in our Port The Holy Scripture assures us that the Church is the Foundation and Pillar of Truth and Truth is plainly the Port to which his Compass should direct us But pray what Compass can be sure where the Needle is not suffer'd freely to play Wrangling is Iron to this Needle and turns it to all Points It will indeed direct the humble and docile and the sincere who first know that no Prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation and we see it will by the Third Paper But it is not for the bold and self-conceited Disputers If any will be contentious we have no such custom nor the Church of God is what the Scripture it self says to them To contend with them at Scripture Tertullian tells us is good for nothing but to turn the Brain or the Stomach and that we ought not to try it this way because the Issue will be uncertain or but little certain or none Alas this Gentleman with the security he promises errs all this while not knowing the Scriptures nor so much as the End for which they were made He would do well to remember what St. Austin says to him in Words directed to another If you will not have me believe Catholics you are quite out to think to draw me to you by Scripture because it was for their sakes that I believed Scripture You would indeed if you could evidently prove your Doctrine by Scripture invalidate the Authority of Catholics who bid me not believe you And when you have done neither shall I believe the Scripture which I had believed upon their Credit and so what you alledge out of it will be of no force with me If you find it
I see no great cause he has to wonder that Princes and the Clergy should be of different minds in Matters of Religion He knows the Case has happened heretofore and that there had been no change of Religion in England if the whole Body of the Clergy and their Advice had been regarded But not to pry into Mens Hearts to see what Interest sways them This is certain that those Princes who prefer their Eternal before their Temporal Interest when they are for the Church of Rome 〈◊〉 good example And I cannot conclude better 〈…〉 praying God to give every body the Grace to follow it and in behalf of Princes thanking him 〈◊〉 minding his Reader that they are not all drawn 〈…〉 of Rome by Interest A DEFENCE OF THE Second Paper THE first Paragraph as the Answerer has handled it concerns the Church of England more than me If She when the King talks of Heresies and Heresies crept in think her self oblig'd by the Answerers thinking presently of her or when she is brought in by his turning immediately to justifie the Dissenters and that by an Argument alledged formerly in her behalf with something more favour to them too than her â— for he allows Them Six Councils and but Four to Herâ— I have nothing to do with it They are Matters between themselves Are there Heresies in England or are there not Is it a sad thing there should or is it not These are the Questions at present and 't will be time enough to talk of the Church of England and Dissenters when they are answered What Power the Church of Rome has to define Heretiâ—â—â— Doctrines will keep cold too For 't is not ask'd How Heresies come to be or are known to be Hereâ—â—◠〈…〉 That 〈◊〉 should lay the stress of his Answer on a 〈◊〉 This Expression as competent as the 〈◊〉 is bâ— t an ordinary way of saying very compeâ—â—â—â— As when we say This Man is as strong as Samâ—◠〈◊〉 as wise as Solomon we mean no more 〈◊〉 that they are very strong and wise And he can 〈◊〉 that Not just so competent as the Apostles is an 〈◊〉 to Whether Competent or no and to 〈◊〉 at a Word fit matter in a Dispute with a King 〈…〉 us see The Apostles for what concerned 〈◊〉 could do no more with their Infallible 〈◊〉 than judge for themselves and act in order 〈…〉 Salvation according to that Judgment And 〈…〉 the Answerer contends is the right of every 〈◊〉 Why then every body is in rigour as competent 〈…〉 for himself as the Apostles And he 〈◊〉 to 〈…〉 His Majesty affirmed by 〈…〉 himself â— or His Majesty only said ther understand nor mean to inquire It concerns those Guides and it is not for me to thrust my self into the Concerns of other Folks And 't is no wonder says the third Paragraph it should be so since that Part of the Nation which looks most like a Church dares not bring the true Arguments against the other Sects for fear they should be turned against themselves and confuted by their own Arguments To this he says first That it is directly level'd against the Church of England As if an Arrow were the sharper or blunter for the Mark at which it is aim'd Let him tell us whether the Assertion be true or not true and talk of Levelling when Levelling is in question He is out even in that too For the Paragraph is in truth levell'd not against the Church of England but her Misfortune It is an Expression of Compassion not Reproach that she has been overaw'd from using the true Arguments against Sectaries Then he answers That if there can be no Authority in a Church without Infallibility or no Obligation to submit to Authority without it then the Church of England doth not use the best Arguments against Sectaries But if there be no ground for Infallibility as if his won Goodness were not Ground enough for God to give it to a Nature which needs it and his Word not Ground enough to believe he has given it then for ought he can see the Church of England hath wisely disown'd the Pretence of Infallibility and made use of the best Arguments against Sectaries from a just Authority and the Sinfulness and Folly of the Sectaries refusing to submit to it I take for granted he speaks of Authority to guide Souls to Heaven such as was in the Primitive Church when the Civil Laws were all against her And pray him if he please to instruct us how such Authority can be in a Church without Infalâ—â— bility We see no body will believe a Man who after he has told his Story should add It may be all falâ— e for any thing he knows nor lend his Money upon a Promise to be repaid which the Borrower declares before-hand he knows not whether he can keep or no. And we are persuaded there should be better Security for our Souls than for our Money or unconcerning Opinions To say a Church is fallible is to say she may be deceiv'd and if she may be deceiv'd her self They may be deceiv'd who follow her Wherefore to tell us that such a Church has notwithstanding Authority to guide us and that we ought submit to it is to tell us we ought be led by a Guide who cannot answer he knows the way we should go and venture eternal Happiness or Misery on a Security which he who gives tells us plainly before-hand may fail us Pray let us consider Christians every body knows are oblig'd to lose all things their Goods their Liberty their Lives rather than their Faith Can it be reasonable to do this for a Faith of which they are conscious to themselves that it may be false for any thing they know And do's not his own Heart tell him who knows nothing of it but by the Relation of a fallible Relator that it may be false for ought he can tell Wherefore to make the Faith of Christians depend on a fallible Authority is to make Christianity with its obliging Duties the most unreasonable thing in Nature What do I say unreasonable It is to make it absolutely impossible For can I be a Christian without believing Is not Belief a judgment that the thing is true which I believe Can I have such a Judgment without a cause able to produce it And is a fallible Authority able to make me judge more than that the thing is fallibly true When Christianity therefore obliges me to believe the thing absolutely true it there be nothing to make me believe but a fallible Authority it obliges me to an Effect without a Cause that is to a downright impossibility And indeed to flat Contradiction For as a thing cannot possibly be true and not true at once to judge it is true is to judge it cannot at the same time be false But I must of necessity judge both if I judge upon a Motive which I know is fallible That it is true by the Judgment to
Retail that it might not be thought she us'd the ordinary Means One thing I had omitted which was that the Bishop affirms in his letter to her Highness that she had made him a Promise in case any Writing were put into her Hand by those of the Roman Church she would send it either to him or the Bishop of Oxford Why do's our Author put down that Promise thus at large If he means any thing more by it besides a Justification of his Bishop for having done his part which signifies just nothing he would tacitely insinuate that she broke he Word by not sending any such Writing to him If so he is at his Legerdemain again He would have it thought she kept not her Promise but do's not positively affirm it But since it is manfsest by the order of time in her Paper that she neither sent for any Priest nor conferr'd with any Learn'd Catholic till after she had done with the two Bishops it may and ought to be suppos'd that she receiv'd no Writings from any of that Religion for if she had she would certainly have mention'd them If then the Bishop of Winchester would insinuate that she had such Papers which she sent not to him according to her Engagement I may at least answer with my Author That the Lady was dead long before the Bishop publish'd his Letter so that the Circumstances therein mention'd cannot be so fully clear'd But to return to our Answerer He has brought us at length to the several Discourses which her Highness had with the two Bishops his Grace of Canterbury and the Bishop of Worcester and since he has thought fit to put all that concern'd this Matter into one long Paragraph quoted from the Duchess I must follow his Example These are her Words After this I spoke severally to two of the best Bishops we have in England who both told me there were many things in the Roman Church which it were very much to be wish'd we had kept as Confession which was no doubt commanded of God that Praying for the Dead was one of the ancient things in Christianity that for their parts they did it daily tho' they would not own it And afterwards pressing one of them very much upon the other Points he told me That if he had been bred a Catholic he would not change his Religion but that being of another Church wherein he was sure were all things necessary to Salvation he thought it very ill to give that Scandal as to leave that Church wherein he had receiv'd his Baptism All these Discourses did but add more to the desire I had to be a Catholic and gave me the most terrible Agonies in the world c This he confesses seems to be to the purpose And where he confesses the least Advantage on our side the Reader may swear there is somewhat more than ordinary in the matter But he retrenches immediately and kicks down the Pail by adding this Restriction If there were not some Circumstances and Expressions very much mistaken in the Representation of it Yet in the next Line again as if he were asham'd of his own fearfulness he is for making a bold Sally and putting all to the push For supposing the utmost to be allow'd says he there could be no Argument from hence drawn for leaving the Communion of our Church But he restrains that too with this Caution If the Bishops Authority and Example did signifie any thing with her Thus from yielding at first he comes to modifie his Concession and from thence to strike out magnanimously But then he retreats again with another if 'T is a sign he is uneasie when he tosses and turns so often in a Breath and that he is diffident of his Cause when he shifts his Plea 'T is evident that the Duchess laid a great stress on these Concessions and well she might for what a startle would it give to a doubting Soul which already had taken the Alarm to hear two Bishops whereof one was Primate of All England renouncing and condemning two of the establish'd Articles of their Church But 't is well known that those two Prelates were not nor if they were now living would be the only Clergy-men of the Church of England who are of opinion they have over-reform'd themselves in casting off Prayers for the Dead and consequently the Doctrine of a Third Place But these are Church of England Men of the old stamp betwixt whom and the Faction of this Answerer there is just as much difference as betwixt a true Episcopal Man and a Latitudinarian and this latter in plain terms is no otherwise different from a Presbyterian then by whatsoever Titles and Dignities he is distinguish'd So that our Answerer was much in the right to skip over the first half of this Paragraph without answering in this place and to gallop to the last Sentence of it which begins with Bishop Blandford's saying That if he had been bred in the communion of the Roman Church he would not change his Religion Whither as in Duty bound I follow him To over-ballance the weight of these Concessions our Author would have us think that the subsequent Words of the Bishop ought to have had greater force to have kept her in the Communion of the Protestant Church than the former to have drawn her from it for the Bishop comes off with this Excuse That being of another Church wherein he was sure were all things necessary to Salvation he thought it very ill to give that Scandal as to leave that Church wherein he receiv'd his Baptism First take notice That the Duchess says the Bishop was pressed by her very much before he made the Concession That if he had been bred a Catholic he would not have chang'd which shews that a Truth was forc'd out of him which he would willingly have conceal'd For both in regard to his own Credit and the retaining of so Great a Person in his Church it was not his Interest to have yielded that a Catholic might be saved at least on as easie Terms as Protestant But he goes farther when he confesses That if he had been bred a Catholic he would not have alter'd his Religion For therein he seems even to regret his being bred a Protestant at least he yields that all things necessary to Salvation were in the Roman Catholic Church for otherwise had he been educated in it he ought in conscience to have chang'd which he owns he would not have done Now this is manifestly more than what he said for the Church of England for his following Words are rather an Excuse for his Continuance in his Church than Argument to dissuade her Highness from turning Catholic He thought it very ill to give that Scandal to leave the Church wherein he was Baptiz'd Now the Word Scandal plainly relates to his own Person and signifies no more than that he was asham'd to change For it was impossible for him to think he should sin
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
her words which he hath falsifi'd in this place are these I would never have chang'd if I had thought it possible to have sav'd my Soul otherwise He never misquotes without design Now by altering these words If I had thought it possible to save my Soul into these If I could have sav'd my Soul he would shuffle off her true meaning which was That her Conscience oblig'd her to this change And that 's a Point he would not willingly have touch'd for he cannot deny upon his own Principles but that after having examin'd the Scriptures as she professes to have done as well as she was able concerning the Points in dispute and afterwards using the assistance of her Spiritual Guides the two Bishops she was to judge for her self in the last resort and the Judgment she made according to her Conscience was That the Scripture spoke clearly in behalf of the Catholic Church or Church of Rome as he calls it Therefore according to his Principles and her Conscience she was to be of that Church of whose Truth she was thus convinc'd so that whether she could be otherwise sav'd or no was not the Proposition to be advanc'd but whether she thought it possible to be otherwise sav'd And therefore though it were true that she could otherwise be sav'd yet she had a sufficient reason for her change though he says she had none which was her Conscience and supposing that were erroneous yet upon his Principles she must be the Judge of it without appeal Her Scruples began upon reading Dr. Heylin 's History of the Reformation and there she found such abominable Sacriledge upon Harry the Eighth's Divorce King Edward 's Minority and Queen Elizabeths Succession that she could not believe the Holy Ghost could ever be in such Councils Thus he compendiously quotes her Paper as being it seems asham'd of the Particulars therein mention'd but for once I will follow him his own way To read Dr. Heylin's History in order to settle her he confesses was none of the best Advices given to such a Person He is much in the right on 't as appears by the success and I add nor any other either Protestant or Catholic Writer then extant for no Paint is capable of making lovely the hideous Face of the pretended Reformation But says he there are two distinct Parts in the History of it the one Ecclesiastical the other Political the first built on Scripture Antiquity and the Rights of particular Churches the other on such Maxims as are common to Statesmen at all Times and in all Churches who labour to turn all Revolutions and Changes to their own Advantage But why might not her Highness consider it her own way which is that of Nature in the Causes which produc'd it and the Effects which it produc'd though I doubt not but she consider'd it his way too because a Child could not have mist it that very Distinction being inserted into the History by the Author himself Now the immediate Cause which produc'd the Separation of Harry the Eighth from the Church of Rome was the refusal of the Pope to grant him a Divorce from his first Wife and to gratifie his Desires in a Dispensation for a second Marriage Neither the Answerer nor I nor any Man can carry it so high as the original Cause with any certainty for the King only knew whether it was Conscience and Love or Love alone which mov'd him to sue for a Divorce But this we may say that if Conscience had any part in it she had taken a long Nap of almost Twenty years together before she awaken'd and perhaps had slept on till Doomsday if Anne Bullen or some other fair Lady had not given her a Jog so the satisfying of an inordinate and a brutal Passion cannot be deny'd to have had a great share at least in the production of that Schism which led the very way to our pretended Reformation for breaking the Unity of Christ's Church was the Foundation of it I pass over the manner of those first Proceedings and the Degrees by which they came to terminate in Schism though I doubt not but her Highness was sufficiently scandaliz'd in both and could not also but observe some of the concomitant Causes as Revenge Ambition and Covetousness all which and others drew with a strong Biass towards it But the immediate Effects even of this Schism were Sacriledge and a bloody Persecution of such as deny'd the King's Supremacy in Matters wholly Spiritual which no Layman no King of Israel ever Exercis'd as is observ'd by my Lord Herbert As for the Reformation it self what that produc'd is full as obvious in the Sequel of History where we find that Chanteries and Hospitals undevour'd by Henry the Eighth were left only to be Morsels for Edward the Sixth or rather for his Ministers of State and the Reason was given That the Revenues of them were fruitlesly spent on those who said Prayers for the Dead Now this was as naturally produc'd from the Reformation as an Effect is from the Cause so that as it is observ'd by some had that young King Reign'd any considerable time longer the Church of England had been left the poorest of any one in Christendom the rich Bishoprick of Duresme having been much retrench'd by him and 't is probable those of Rochester and Westminster Harry the Eighth had indeed eaten so much of the Churches Bread out of his Son's Mouth beforehand that even Calvin complains of it in a Letter to Cranmer concerning the paucity of good Pastors in England in these words Vnum apertum obstaculum esse intelligo quod praedae expositi sunt Ecclesiae redditus One open obstacle I find to this he meaneth the increase of good Pastors is That your Church Revenues are expos'd to Rapine Besides these things what an Usurpation this change of Religion caus'd is most notorious that of the Lady Iane Gray being evidently grounded on the Testament of Edward the Sixth by which she was made his Successor because she was of the Protestant Religion As for the Title of Queen Elizabeth to the Crown the Histories lie open and I shall not be over forward to meddle with the Rights of Princes especially since the Answerer has avoided that Dispute 'T is enough in general to say that her Interest carry'd her against the Pope whose Power if good she was Illegitimate She had also been inform'd by the English Resident at Rome that the Pope expected she shou'd acknowledge her Crown from him and not take upon her to be Queen without his leave These were strong Solicitations in a new unseâ—â— led Succession for her to shake off a Religion whereof his Holiness is Head on Earth What matter of Conscience was in the case I say not but her Temporal Interest lies bare-fac'd and uppermost to view in reassuming of the Supremacy and to make the Breach yet wider in subverting the Foundations of the Faith For the Affront is the same