besides without setting up any private Spirit against it or the present Roman Church to be the Interpreter of it And now I hope I may have leave to ask some Questions of any ingenuous Man as whether it be not the same thing for the Church of Rome to make the Rule as to assume to it self the fole Power of giving the sense of it For what can a Rule signifie without the sense And if this were the intention of Almighty God had it not been as necessary to have told us to whom he had given the Power of Interpreting the Rule as to have given the Rule it self Whether it be reasonable for the Church of Rome to interpret those Texts wherein this Power of Interpreting is to be contained For this is to make it Iudge in its own Cause which was thought an Absurdity before And whether it be not as mischievous to allow a Prosperous Usurper the Power of interpreting Laws according to his own Interest as any private Person according to his own Fancy Whether it be possible to reform Disorders in the Church when the Person principally accused is Supream Judge Whether those can be indifferent Judges in Councils who before-hand take an Oath to defend that Authority which is to be Debated Whether Tradition be not as uncertain a Rule as Fancy when Men judge of Tradition according to their Fancy I would have any Man shew me where the Power of deciding matters of Faith is given to every particular Man If by deciding Matters of Faith be understood the determining them in such a manner as to oblige others I do not know where it is given to every particular Man nor how it should be For then every particular Man would have a Power over every particular Man and there would want a new Decision whose should take place But if by deciding Matters of Faith no more be meant but every mans being satisfied of the Reasons why he believes one thing to be true and not another that belongs to every Man as he is bound to take care of his Soul and must give an account both to God and Man of the Reason of his Faith And what can be meant in Scripture by Proving all things and holding fast that which is good 1 Thess. 5. 21. By trying the Spirits whether they be of God 1 John 4. 1. By judging of themselves what is right Luke 12. 57. unless God had given to Mankind a Faculty of discerning truth and falshood in Matters of Faith But if every Man hath not such a Power how comes he to be satisfied about the Churches Autority Is not that a Matter of Faith And where ever any Person will shew me that every Man hath a Power to determine his Faith in that matter I 'le undertake to shew him the rest Christ left his Power to his Church even to forgive Sins in Heaven and left his Spirit with them which they exercised after his Resurrection But where then was the Roman-Catholick Church And how can it be hence inferred That these Powers are now in the Church of Rome exclusive to all others unless it be made appear that it was Heir-General to all the Apostles I suppose it will be granted that the Apostles had some gifts of the Spirit which the Church of Rome will not in Modesty pretend to such as the Gift of Tongues the Spirit of Discerning Prophesie Miraculous Cures and Punishments Now here lyes the difficulty to shew what part of the Promise of the Infallible Spirit for the ordinary Power of the Keys relates not to this matter was to expire with the Apostles and what was to be continued to the Church in all Ages A Promise of Divine Assistance is denied by none but Pelagians But how far that extends is the Question In the Souls of good Men it is so as to keep them in the way to Heaven but not to prevent any lapse into sin and it were worth our knowing where God hath ever promised to keep any Men more from Error than from Sin Doth he hate one more than the other Is one more disagreeing to the Christian Doctrine than the other How came then so much to be said for the keeping Men from Error when at the same time they confess they may not only commit great sins but err very dangerously in the most Solemn manner in what relates to the Doctrine of Manners Would any have believed the Apostles Infallible if they had known them to be Persons of ill Lives or that they had notoriously erred in some Rules of great Consequence to the Welfare of Mankind Now all this is freely yielded as to the Pretence of Infallibility in the Church of Rome It is granted that the Guides of that Church have been very bad Men and that in Councils they have frequently erred about the Deposing Power being only a Matter of Practice and not of Faith Whether it be so or not I now dispute not but it is granted that notwithstanding this Infallible Spirit the Roman Church may grosly err in a matter of mighty Consequence to the Peace of Christendom and yet it cannot err in decreeing the least Matters of Faith As for Instance it can by no means err about the seven Sacraments or the Intention of the Priest about them but it may err about Deposing Princes and Absolving Subjects from their Allegiance Which in easier terms is They can never err about their own Interest but they may about any other whatsoever I pass over the next Paragraph the sense being imperfect and what is material about the Creeds hath been spoken to already That which next deserves Consideration is That the Church was the Iudge even of the Scripture it self many years after the Apostles which Books were Canonical and which were not We have a distinction among us of Iudges of the Law and Iudges of the Fact The One declare what the Law is the Fact being supposed the Other gives judgment upon the Fact as it appears before them Now in this Case about the Canonical Books the Church is not judge of the Law For they are not to declare whether a Book appearing to be Canonical ought by it to be received for Canonical which is taken for granted among all Christians but all they have to do is to give Judgment upon the Matter of Fact i. e. whether it appear upon sufficient Evidence to have been a Book written by Divine Inspiration And the Church of Rome hath no particular Priviledge in this matter but gives its Judgment as other parts of the Christian World do And if it takes upon it to judge contrary to the general sense of the Christian Church we are not to be concluded by it but an Appeal lyes to a greater Tribunal of the Universal Church And if they had this Power then I desire to know how they came to lose it Who are meant by They And what is understood by this Power It is one thing for a Part of the
Christendom groans under the sad effects of them and it is a very self-denying humour for those to be most sensible of the want of them who would really suffer the most by them Can there be any Iustice done where the Offenders are their own Iudges and equal Interpreters of the Law with those that are appointed to Admister Iustice And is there any likelihood Justice should be better done in another Country by another Authority and proceeding by such Rules which in the last resort are but the Arbitrary will of a Stranger And must such a one pretending to a Power he hath no right to be Iudge in his own Cause when he is the greatest Offender himself But how is this applied to the Protestants in England This is our Case here in England in matters Spiritual for the Protestants are not of the Church of England as 't is the true Church from whence there can be no Appeal but because the Discipline of that Church is conformable at present to their fancies which as soon as it shall contradict or vary from they are ready to embrace or joyn with the next Congregation of People whose Discipline or Worship agrees with the Opinion of that Time The sense of this Period is not so clear but that one may easily mistake about it That which is aimed at is that we of the Church of England have no tie upon us but that of our own judgments and when that changes we may join with Independents or Presbyterians as we do now with the Church of England And what security can be greater than that of our Judgments If it be said to be nothing but fancy and no true Iudgment we must beg leave to say that we dare Appeal to the World whether we have not made it appear that it is not fancy but Iudgment which hath made us firm to the Church of England Might it not as well have been said that the Protestants of the Church of England adhered to the Crown in the Times of Rebellion out of Fancy and not out of Iudgment And that if their Fancy changed they might as well have joined with the Rebels Will not this way of Reasoning hold as strongly against those of the Church of Rome For why do any adhere to that but because it is agreeable to their Judgment so to do What evidence can they give that it is Iudgment in them and only Fancy in us If Reason must be that which puts the difference we do not question but to make ours appear to be Iudgment and theirs Fancy For what is an infallible Iudge which Christ never appointed but Fancy What is their unwritten Word as a Rule of Faith to be equally received with the Scriptures but Fancy What is giving honour to God by the Worship of Images but Fancy What is making Mediators of Intercession besides the Mediator of Redemption but Fancy What is the Doctrine of Concomitancy to make amends for half the Sacrament but Fancy What is the substantial Change of the Elements into the Body of Christ but Fancy for both Senses and Reason are against it What is the deliverance of Souls out of Purgatory by Masses for the Dead but meer Fancy But I forbear giving any more Instances So that according to this Doctrine there is no other Church nor Interpreter of Scripture but that which lies in every Man 's giddy Brain Let Mens Brains be as giddy as they are said to be for all that I can see they are the best faculties they can make use of for the understanding of Scripture or any thing else And is there any Infallible Church upon Earth which must not be beholding to Mens giddy Brains for believing it And it may be never the less giddy for doing it For God-sake why do any Men take the Church of Rome to be Infallible Is it not because their Understandings tell them they ought so to do So that by this consequence there is no Infallible Church but what lies in every Mans giddy Brain I desire to know therefore of every serious Considerer of these things whether the great Work of our Salvation ought to depend on such a Sandy Foundation as this I thank God I have seriously considered this matter and must declare that I find no Christian Church built on a more sandy Foundation than that which pretends to be setled upon a Rock I mean so far as it imposes the new Faith of Trent as a necessary Condition of Salvation Had we no other reason to embrace Christianity than such as they offer for these New Doctrines I am much afraid Christianity it self to all inquisitive Men would be thought to have but a Sandy Foundation But what is this Sandy Foundation we build upon Every Man 's private judgment in Religion No understanding Man builds upon his own Judgment but no Man of understanding can believe without it For I appeal to any ingenious Man whether he doth not as much build upon his own Judgment who chuseth the Church as he that chuseth Scripture for his Rule And he that chuseth the Church hath many more Difficulties to conquer than the other hath For the Church can never be a Rule without the Scriptures but the Scriptures may without the Church And it is no such easy matter to find the Churches Infallibility in the Scripture But suppose that be found he hath yet 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 Which a Man must have an admirable Faculty at discerning who can find it out either in Scripture or the Records of the Ancient Church The places of Scripture which are brought about Christ's being with his Church to the end of the World about the Power to forgive Sins about the Clergy being God's Labourers Husbandry Building having the Mind of Christ do as effectually prove Infallibility of the Church of England as the Church of Rome for I cannot discern the least inclination in any of them to favour one against the other And pray consider 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 This is a very heavy Charge To resist the Truth to deny plain and positive Words of Scripture to be guilty of great Disingenuity so as not to believe our selves are faults of so high a nature as must argue not only a bad Cause but a very bad Mind And God forbid that those of the Church of England should ever be found guilty of these things But to come to Particulars Is it resisting Truth or arguing from Implications and denying plain and positive Words of Scripture to say We must not worship Images We must make God alone the
Object of Holy Worship We must give the Eucharist in both kinds according to Christ's express Institution We must understand our Prayers when St. Paul's words are so clear about it So far at least we have plain and positive Words of Scripture on our side And for Implications and far fetch'd Interpretations commend me to the Pope's Bulls especially when they have a mind to prove their Authority from Scripture which they can do from In the beginning to the end of the Apocalypse But that which seems to be aimed at here is This is my Body wherein the words seem to be plain and positive on their side and our sense to be from Implications or far-fetched Interpretations To which I Answer That there are Expressions in Scripture as plain and positive as this which none think themselves bound to understand in their literal sense For then we must all believe that God hath Eyes and Ears a Face Hands and Feet as firmly as that the Bread was then turned into Christ's Body when he spake those words And I would know whether the Christian Church rejecting the Doctrine of Those who made God to be like to Man was not chargeable with the same resisting the Truth and denying plain and positive Words of Scripture as we are And yet I hope the Christian Church did then believe it self Suppose any should assert That the Rock in the Wilderness was really changed into Christ's Body would not he have the very same Things to say against those who denied it For are not the Words as plain and as positive That Rock was Christ But Sacramental Expressions by the consent of the Christian Church and the very Neture of the Things are of a different sense from Logical Propositions And if this had been intended in the plain and literal sense St. Paul would never have as plainly and positively called it Bread after Consecration nor the Cup be said to be the New Testament in his Blood The Conclusion is Is there any other Foundation of the Protestant Church but that if the Civil Magistrate pleases he may call such of the Clergy as he thinks fit for his turn at that time and turn the Church either to Presbytery or Independency or indeed what he pleases This was the way of our pretended Reformation here in England And by the same Rule and Authority it may be altered into as many Shapes and Forms as there are Fancies in Mens Heads This looks like a very unkind Requital to the Church of England for her Zeal in asserting the Magistrate's Power against a Foreign Jurisdiction to infer from thence that the Magistrate may change the Religion here which way he pleases But although we attribute the Supream Iurisdiction to the King yet we do not question but there are inviolable Rights of the Church which ought to be preserved against the Fancies of some and the Usurpations of others We do by no means make our Religion mutable according to the Magistrate's pleasure For the Rule of our Religion is unalterable being the Holy Scripture but the Exercise of it is under the regulation of the Laws of the Land And as we have cause to be thankful to God when Kings are Nursing Fathers to our Church so we shall never cease to pray for their continuing so and that in all things we may behave our selves towards them as becomes good Christians and Loyal Subjects AN ANSWER TO THE Third Paper THE Third Paper is said to be written by a Great Lady for the satisfaction of her Friends as to the Reasons of Her leaving the Communion of the Church of England and making her self a Member of the Roman Catholick Church If she had written nothing concerning it none could have been a competent Judg of those Reasons or Motives she had for it but her self but since she was pleased to write this Paper to satisfy her Friends and it is thought fit to be published for general Satisfaction all Readers have a right to judg of the strength of them and those of the Church of England an Obligation to vindicate the Honour of it so far as it may be thought to suffer by them I am sensible how nice and tender a thing it is to meddle in a Matter wherein the Memory of so Great a Lady is so nearly concern'd and wherein such Circumstances are mentioned which cannot fully be cleared the Parties themselves having been many Years dead But I shall endeavour to keep within due bounds and consider this Paper with respect to the main Design of it and take notice of other Particulars so far as they are subservient to it The way of her Satisfaction must needs appear very extraordinary for towards the Conclusion she confesses She was not able nor would she enter into Disputes with any Body Now where the Difference between the two Churches lies wholly in Matters of Dispute how any one could be truly satisfied as to the Grounds of leaving one Church and going to the other without entring into matter of Dispute with any body is hard to understand If Persons be resolved before-hand what to do and therefore will hear nothing said against it there is no such way as to declare they will enter into no Dispute about it But what Satisfaction is to be had in this manner of proceeding How could one bred up in the Church of England and so well instructed in the Doctrines of it ever satisfy her self in forsaking the Communion of it without enquiring into and comparing the Doctrines and Practices of both Churches It is possible for Persons of Learning who will take the pains of examining things themselves to do that without entring into Disputes with any Body but this was not to be presumed of a Person of her Condition For many things must fall in her way which she could neither have the leisure to examine nor the Capacity to judg of without the Assistance of such who have made it their business to search into them Had she no Divines of the Church of England about her to have proposed her Scruples to None able and willing to give her their utmost Assistance in a Matter of such Importance before she took up a Resolution of forsaking our Church This cannot be imagined considering not only her great Quality but that just esteem they had for her whilst she continued so zealous and devout in the Communion of our Church But we have more than this to say One of the Bishops who had nearest Relation to her for many Years and who owns in Print That he bred her up in the Principles of the Church of England was both able and willing to have removed any Doubts and Scruples with respect to our Church if she would have been pleased to have communicated them to him And however she endeavoured to conceal her Scruples he tells her in his Letter to her which he since printed for his own vindication That he had heard much Discourse concerning her
which tends to that end and none can be sufficient against it But why may not others set up for the Change as to other Opinions upon the same Grounds as well as this Great Person does as to the Change from our Church to the Church of Rome And we have no Pretenders to Enthusiasm among us but do as solemnly ascribe the Blessing wholly to Almighty God and look on it as the Effect of such Prayers as she made to him in France and Flanders But I wonder a Person who owed her Change so wholly to Almighty God should need the Direction of an Infallible Church since the utmost they can pretend to is no more than to have such an Immediat Conduct and the least that can be meant by it is that she had no Assistance from any other Persons Which may not exclude her own Endeavours but supposing them to be employed and an Account to be here given of them yet there is no Connexion between any of the Premisses and the Conclusion she drew from them and therefore it must be Immediate Impulse or some concealed Motive which determin'd her Choice The Conclusion was That she would never have changed if she could have saved her Soul otherwise If this were true she had good Reason for her Change if it were not true she had none as it is most certain it was not Now let us examine how she came to this Conclusion and I will suppose it to have been just in the Method she sets it down in First she saith She never had any Scruples till the November before and then they began upon reading Dr. Heylin's History of the Reformation which was commended to her as a Book to settle her and there she found such abominable Sacriledg upon Henry the 8th's Divorce King Edward's Minority and Queen Elizabeth's Succession that she could not believe the Holy Ghost could ever be in such Counsels This was none of the best Advices given to such a Person to read Dr. Heylin's History for her Satisfaction For there are two distinct Parts in the History of our Reformation the one Ecclesiastical the other Political the former was built on Scripture and Antiquity and the Rights of particular Churches the other on such Maxims which are common to Statesmen at all Times and in all Churches who labour to turn all Revolutions and Changes to their own Advantage And it is strange to me that a Person of so great Understanding should not distinguish these two Whether Hen. 8. were a good Man or not Whether the D. of Somerset raised his Estate out of the Church Lands doth not concern our present Enquiry which is Whether there was not sufficient Cause for a Reformation in the Church And if there was Whether our Church had not sufficient Authority to reform it self And if so Whether the Proceedings of our Reformation were not Justifiable by the Rules of Scripture and the Ancient Church These were the proper Points for her to have considered and not the particular Faults of Princes or the Miscarriages of Ministers of State Were not the Vices of Alexander the 6th and many other Heads of the Church of Rome for a whole Age together by the Confession of their own greatest Writers as great at least as those of Henry the 8th And were these not thought sufficient to keep her from the Church of Rome and yet the others were sufficient to make her think of leaving our Church But Henry the Eighth's Church was in Truth the Church of Rome under a Political Head much as the Church of Sicily is under the King of Spain All the difference is Henry the 8th took it as his own Right the King of Spain pretends to have it from the Pope by such Concessions which the Popes deny And suppose the King of Spain's Pretence were unlawful to that Jurisdiction which he challengeth in the Kingdom of Sicily were this a sufficient Ground to justify the thoughts of Separation from the Church of Rome But the Duke of Somerset raised his Estate out of Church-Lands and so did many Courtiers in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth Are there not Miscarriages of the like nature in the Church of Rome What is the Popes making great Estates out of the Church-Lands for their Nephews to be Princes and Dukes a thing not unheard of in our Age. And is it not so much worse to be done by the Head of the Church These she confesses were but Scruples but such as occasioned her examining the Points in difference by the Holy Scripture Now she was in the right way for Satisfaction provided she made use of the best Helps and Means for understanding it and took in the Assistance of her Spiritual Guides But it seems contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome she found some things so easy there that she wondered she had been so long without finding them out And what were these No less than the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament the Infallibility of the Church Confession and Praying for the Dead These were great Discoveries to be made so easily considering how those of the Church of Rome who have been most vers'd in these Matters have found it so difficult to make them out from thence 1. As to the Real Presence as it is in the Dispute between us and the Church of Rome it implies the Real and Substantial Change of the Elements into the Body and Blood of Christ. But where do our Saviour's words in calling the Sacrament his Body and Blood imply any such thing The wisest Persons of the Church of Rome have confessed that the bare words of our Saviour can never prove it but there needs the Authority of the Church to interpret them in that sense How then could she so easily find out that which their most Learned Men could not But there is nothing goes so far in such Discoveries as a willing Mind 2. As to Confession No doubt the Word is often used in Scripture and therefore easily found But the Question between us is not about the Usefulness or Advantage of Confession in particular Cases but the Necessity of it in all Cases in order to Remission of Sins And I can hardly believe any Bishop of our Church would ever say to her that Confession in this sense was ever commanded by God For then he must be damned himself if he did not confess every known Sin to a Priest But some general Expressions might be used that Confession of Sin was commanded by God Confess your Sins one to another But here is nothing of a particular Confession to a Priest necessary in order to Forgiveness of Sin 3. As to praying for the Dead It is hard to find any place of Scripture which seems to have any tendency that way unless it be with respect to the Day of Iudgment and that very doubtfully But how came this Great Person to think it not possible to be saved in our Church unless we prayed for the Dead How