as any for it confounds Phancy and Tradition whereas the one is publick to the whole World and the other is private His next Paragraph adulterates the Royal Coin for when the King demands to know where the power of deciding matters of Faith is given to every particular person the sense is clear for the question cannot be meant otherwise than in relation to himself But he extends it so as if every one was to give Laws to another's Faith and this without any ground is made the first Member of the division But he adds If by deciding matters of Faith no more be meant but every Man 's 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 So that by his reply every Man whose Soul is dear to him may and ought to discuss and dispute every Article of his Faith and bring it to the Test of his own reason and so the Omnipotence of a God revealing and the Authority of a Church declaring what is revealed weighs not with him until reason be satisfy'd and the understanding becomes a measure of all revealed Truths Whereas in truth Authority is the correlative of Believing and Reason of Knowledge And though we make use of our reason to find out that Authority which ought to sway us as a blind Man serves himself with his reason to find out his Guide yet after that 't is Authority not Reason that moves us and the previous motives inducing us to embrace the Authority of the Church from whence we have Scriptures and all other inscrutable Mysteries are much more visible and resplendent than for any other Article of our Faith The King goes on Christ left power in his Church even to forgive sins c. He replys But where then was the Roman Catholic Church Undoubtedly where now it is one and the same from whence all other pretended Churches went out she never departing from any Church that was elder than her self If she had I doubt not but her Eagle-ey'd adversaries would long er'e this have brought to light the Fathers the Councils or whatever else stood in opposition against her and since they never did nor can their plea against her is common to all whoever opposed the true Church In a good Sense therefore she alone remains Heir general to the Apostles as to those gifts which were not personal but given by Christ for the necessary support and government of her self which is to continue untill the consummation of Time And though he seems surprised that God should keep Man more from Error than from Sin Yet if he recalls but to mind that some of the Prophets were led into truths by the holy Spirit and were great Sinners at the same time and that all the Prophets though infallible in delivering such truths as God put into their mouths yet were obnoxious to sin the miraculous surprize will cease and the reason why infallibility is necessary and not impeccability is manifest because without the first the Church could not subsist for if once she makes Shipwrack of her Faith she is no more a Church an effect not so proper to sin And whereas he demands Would any have believed the Apostles infallible if they had known them to have been persons of ill lives I answer yes for either by Miracles wrought in confirmation of their Infallibility or any other way they could have an assurance of it As to any concession that the Church may err in deposing Princes if he means she may err in the decision of Truth or definition of Faith about it he is purely beholding to himself for that concession not to the King or any else I know of who only engage for her inerrability in delivering what she received from Christ and his Apostles by an uninterrupted Tradition and in conformity to this Rule the Church of Rome with all those in Communion with her the rest either by Heresie or Apostacy being divided from her was judge even of the Scripture it self what was Canonical what not or else it had been impossible for the Church of England to have known any thing of Truth concerning that Point there being no other Church to inform her but what had forfeited her Credit by manifest Heresie and that owned by the Church of England this is a vindication of the King against three of his Paragraphs The King having put the question by what Authority Men separate themselves from that Church He replies that they have not separated themselves from the Catholick and Apostolick Church but are disjoyned from the Roman Church that we may keep up the Stricter Vnion with the truly Catholick and Apostolick Church But if the English Church reputes it self a Member of the Chatholick Church because she professes to stand to the three Creeds and four first general Councils then certainly the Arians Nestorians Eutichians and the Eastern Churches above-mentioned cannot be parts of the Catholick Apostolick Church because they hold not the Apostolick Doctrine contain'd in those Creeds and Councils But besides those Churches there were no other in Being at the time of Separation but those Churches which were in communion with the Church of Rome consequently the Church of England going out from them separated her self from the Catholick Apostolick Church and therefore unless he can prove the Church of Rome to have deserted any other elder Church than her self by Usurpation or otherwise his Story of an Usurper will be but a Shift and may authorise all Rebellion either in Church or State The last Paragraph is since Protestants do charge the Church of Rome with Imposition of new Articles of Faith the King desires to know who is to be judg of that whether the whole Church the Succession whereof hath continued to this Day without Interruption or particular Men who have raised Schisms to their own Advantage The Roman Church having been in Possession of all those Truths now questioned by the Men of the Church of England nothing can be more unreasonable than to devest her of her just Possession and to require her to fall a proving whereas this ought to be the Province of those who under the Pretence of Innovation revolted from her For either they must make good their charge or else by all Laws they stand condemned and she remains justified Wherefore since at the time of separation she owned the Papal Supremacy and other Articles to have descended to her by an universal Tradition whoever questions the Title must convince her of that pretended Usurpation and then as it is well observed by the King who shall be judg in that case To have answered the Royal Paper this Method he should have minded which in disputes of another Nature I doubt not but he would have Practised However after his challenging the Church to prove her Possession he proceeds to declare that the Protestants being now by falling from the Church
the great work of our Salvation ought to depend upon such a Sandy Foundation as this Upon this Proposal of the king's he runs out into an airy Excursion against the Church of Rome under a pretence of a new Faith hatch'd in the Council of Trent which being an assertion as voluntary as 't is Sandy it leaves the Church unattack't and still standing upon a Rock But I appeal says he to any ingenious Man whether he doth not as much build upon his own Judgment who chooseth the Church as he who chooseth the Scripture for his Rule The answer is easy for certainly a Man hath more reason to rely upon his own Judgment in finding out the Church than the Scripture since the one is a Noon-day Light and may be discovered by every one the other is in the dark and so might continue if not discovered by the Light of the Church He advances for the Church can never be a Rule without the Scriptures but the Scriptures may without the Church It seems this Gentleman has forgot there was a Church before the Scriptures were written and consequently a Rule nay some Ages passed before a Collection of the Books of Scripture was made and owned by the Catholic Church for certainly the Apostles and Apostolick Men did not when they went to convert the World by Preaching bring about Waggons laden with Bibles to every Parish and even in St. Irenaeus his time there were many barbarous Nations Converted that could neither Write nor Read the Church then was the only Rule without the Scripture but without light from the Church there could be no certainty of Scripture either as to the Book it self or to the Copy or the Translation or Sence of it He pushes farther it is no such easy matter to find the Churches Infallibillity in the Scripture I answer there is no absolute necessity of finding it in the Scripture since the Church was found out before the new Testament was in Being and if God's special good Providence had not given us the Scriptures to our great Comfort yet the Church notwithstanding would have still been visible to the World's End and therefore when we cite those texts of Scripture about Christ's being with his Church to the end of the World about the Power to forgive Sins about God's Labourers Husbandry and the like t is only ad abundantiam and to shew the advantages the Church hath over her Enemies even at their own Weapons But in his opinion these Texts of Scripture do as effectually prove the infallibility of the Church of England as of the Church of Rome But I beseech him how can a Church but of yesterday and whose Negative Articles of Faith were lately Coined dure from Christ to the World's end The last thing the King charges upon those who resist the truth and will not submit to this Church is that they draw their arguments from implications and far fetch'd interpretation 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 I perceive touches to the quick but truth though she cuts must still be amiable Is it says the Answerer to deny truth to argue from implications and to deny plain and positive words of Scripture to say we must not worship Images we must make God alone the Object of holy Worship I reply it is for nothing of this is to be found in Scripture and if the word Image had been in the Commandments as it is not the Original signifying a graven thing yet it would be an implication or far-fetch'd interpretation because it is singled out and snatch't from the context which gives life to the words importing Divine Worship Nor is it any where expressed That God alone is the Object of holy Worship Though it may be deduced thence that worship to holy things is refer'd to God alone as the only final Object of all such Worship Again to say that Christ's Institution of the Eucharist in both kinds is a Command to the Lay-people to receive it in both kinds is an implication confounding Institution with a Command which are very different For Matrimony was Instituted by God yet I know no Man by virtue of the Institution commanded to Marry Lastly The discourse of St. Paul touching the understanding of our Prayers meddles not with the publick or settled Liturgy of the Church as may be evinced from the Chapter it self So that for any of those Examples there is neither plain nor positive words of Scripture on their side Let us now change sides and see how it squares with the Catholic Party They affirm Bread to be changed into the Body of Christ because of these plain and positive words This is my Body this is true because the words are so plain that they import no implication of Impossibility or Absurdity a Rule observed by the Fathers in the understanding of Scriptures literally but against this there lyes an Objection That it is as plain and positive in Scripture that God has Eyes Ears Hands and Feet My reply is That there is an Implication of Impossibility which appears not in the plain Sense of these words This is my Body He presses to know the difference betwixt these two Propositions A Rock is Christ and This is my Body I answer That had it been thus Bread is my Body there had been none for then both Propositions would have imply'd an Impossibility But the words being This is my Body the words are plain as to their Sense that they inferr neither Impossibility nor Absurdity since by these omnipotent words the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ which neither is impossible to God nor absurd to do and therefore in those places where Christ is said to be Bread 't is always with some Emphasis as the Bread of Life this Bread or the Bread which clearly imports an Analogy The Conclusion of this Royal Paper is That if the Civil Magistrate pleases he may turn the Protestant Church either to Presbytery or Independency or indeed to what he pleases for this was the way of our pretended Reformation in England and by the same Rule c. This he tells the King is an unkind requital to the Church of England for her Zeal in asserting his Majesties power against a foreign Jurisdiction But Truth methinks when uttered with design of publick good ought never to be taken unkindly especially from the Pen of a King and if it seems an ill requital I am sure it is a worse complement to palliate one Errour with another The King's reason is to the purpose for as our Princes lately notwithstanding all Laws Divine and Humane did by their Regal Power cancel a Religion which came into this Nation with Christianity and was Established by more strong and forcing Laws than ever gave Being or Preservation to the Church of England For besides a thousand years Prescription and the
so she either out of some disgust or for reasons best known to her self did not so well relish the advice given her by the Bishop of Winchester Had she no Body else to consult If she had there is no reason to charge her with the not using ordinary means unless this Gentleman has a Revelation for it After this he cites the following discourse of her Royal Highness That she spoke severally to two of the best Bishops we have in England who both told her there were many things in the Roman Church which it were much to be wished 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 though they would not own it And afterwards pressing one of them very much upon the other point he told her that if he had been breed up a Catholic he would not change his Religion but that being of another Church wherein be was sure were all things necessary to Salvation he thought it very ill to give that Scandal as to leave that Church wherein he received his Baptism Which discourse she said did but add more to the desire she had to be a Catholic By this long Text 't is clear that her Royal Highness had made many steps towards the Catholic Religion and that the Conference she had with these Bishops did but add fuel to the flame that was within her for such is the result of her last words did but add more to the desire she had to be a Catholic This being so her Highness and the two Bishops were now upon different terms as Party and Party she making advantage of their Concessions as of Truths coming out of the mouth of the Enemies to the Religion she either actually professed or was inclinable to and they notwithstanding those Concessions keeping their own ground So that it was not the Authority or Example of these Bishops that prevailed with her but Truth forced from an Enemy which for that reason convinced her the more Since therefore this Gentleman allows of the Concessions 't is unreasonable to put this question Why should not the last words have greater force to have kept her in our Church than the former to have drawn her from it Because 't is easier for a Catholic to believe a Protestant speaking against himself in matters of Religion than for himself Ex ore tuo te judico is an Argument invincible against a Man's self The Concessions then being admitted both by the Catholic party and these two Bishops she had reason to believe them as to the Concessions but not in that wherein the Catholics and they differ'd which was That all things necessary to Salvation are certainly in the Protestant Church and that it was ill to leave it The next two Paragraphs concern not her Royal Highness For whether the two Bishops did let fall words inconsistent with their own Religion or not her work was done she not being obliged to reconcile them to their own Religion But the late Bishop of Winchester instead of untying has cut the knot a sunder For says he he first doubts whether there ever were such Bishops who made such answers and then he affirms That he believes there never was in rerum natura such a discourse as is pretended What pity 't is the Bishop of Winchester should be a person of so small a faith as not to give credit to so great a Lady in a concern wherein 't was no advantage to her to tell a Lye and if she had was by all the Laws Divine and Humane bound to restitution for the wrong she did them Non dimittitur peccatum nisi restituatur ablatum Or if he doubted whether there were ever any such Paper we have now the Royal word of a King for it attesting it to be hers Matters being thus we do not charge upon the Church of England the single Opinion of one or two Bishops but 't is reason to believe that a Lady thirsting after truth might defer much to persons of so eminent a rank in that Church This Gentleman I perceive is very studious very industrious to find a Lady in Errour and hopes she may contradict her self thus then She protests in the presence of Almighty God that no person Man or Woman directly or indirectly ever said any thing to her since she came into England or used the least endeavour to make her change her Religion and that it is a blessing she wholly owes to Almighty God So that the Bishops are acquitted from having any hand in it by her own words But I beseech him did she or any else charge upon these Bishops that they said any thing to her or used any endeavours to make her change her Religion How oft doth it happen that the speaker of words may utter them for one design and the hearer make use of them for another though then the Bishops did not say any thing to her with endeavour to make her change her Religion yet their words may have added much to the change of her Religion He proceeds And as far as we can understand her meaning she thought her self Converted by immediate Divine Illumination This construction of her words so tickled his fancy that it made him sport upon the Church of Rome's private Spirit for a long time But for my part if he has done laughing I can understand nothing of this immediate Divine Illumination from her words For God who disposes of all things strongly and sweetly has infinite methods to convert Souls to himself without immediate Illumination by so unexpected a concourse of second Causes so well tempered and knit together by his wisdom that a conversion of a Soul may and will follow thence she not knowing how and consequently as 't is the sole work of the Almighty so that blessing she wholly owes to him What this Gentleman understands by a private Spirit I know not but be it what it will 't is therefore vitious because it is inconsistent with those publick Methods and Rules God has left to govern his Church by which whether the Protestants when they went out from the Roman Church did not desert by following an Ignis Fatuus of their own in their singular interpretation of holy Scripture against the known Sense of their Mother Church is the subject of another dispute or rather indeed 't is put out of all dispute that they then did unless they can shew that the constant Tradition and Practice of the Primitive Church interpreted Scripture as they then did in all the Points they reform'd in which they know is impossible Her Royal Highness declares that she would never have changed if she thought she could have saved her Soul otherwise and he answers 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 I cannot perswade my self
A REPLY TO THE ANSWER Made upon the Three Royal PAPERS Published by Authority LONDON Printed for Matthew Turner at the Lamb in High-Holborn MDCLXXXVI THE PREFACE ENtring upon the Answer to the Three Royal Papers whereof the two first were of CHARLES the Second of ever blessed memory and the last of her Royal Highness the Dutchess of York I met with a Gentleman of so frank a Temper that could his Will bribe his Understanding and he believe as he pleased he tells us he had not fail'd of that Satisfaction in the KINGS first Paper of which for the want of Reason to convince him he was now disappointed This condescending Humour is a fair step made to the Inquest by a second Examen of those excellent Truths illustrated by the pregnant Pens and Sense of those Royal Converts Royal Papers I confess as to their Value may be examined as well as Royal Coin even by a private Subject But as the Royal Stamp in Coin may under that fair Pretence by a private Subject be counterfeited clipt or otherwise disguised so Royal Papers especially of Controversy are no less obnoxious to the same Fate and in this they only differ that no such Alteration in the KING'S Coin can be made by a private Subject but he is look't upon as an ill Man and acting with an ill Design Whereas in the KING' 's Controversial Papers the change either of Sense or Word may be made and that by a well-designing Person from misunderstanding inadvertency or other inculpable Surprize Now as to this Gentleman to determine any thing would be a piece of Injustice for I am ignorant both of his Merits and his Person What Mist hath overcast his sight I know not but if he please to look back by a new Survey on the three Papers he may still see in them Reason and Truth so well fixed that to any thing yet opposed they stand unconcerned and as they bear in their Front the Royal Names and Superscription so their Weight will render them immoveable THE FIRST Royal Paper VINDICATED FOrgers and Clippers of Royal Coin seek their safety in places of all the most obscure and Disguisers and Clippers of Royal Sense hide themselves in the shades of Equivocation the King availing himself in his first Paper upon this supposed Concession That Christ can have but one Church here upon Earth makes this other step and I believe that it is as Visible as that Scripture is in print that none can be that Church but that which is called the Roman Catholic Church Now if the King may be allowed to be the best expounder of his own words and if the whole and sole design of this first Paper be to evince this truth That all Controversial Points of Faith either about holy Scripture or other subjects do fall under the judgment and decision of the Church as is manifest it is then the import of the King's words must be thus that whatever motives render it visible that a Book in print is Scripture that is the Word of God the same or other motives are as powerful to render this other truth as visible That none can be that Church but that which is called the Roman Catholic Church This is the genuine Sense of the King and to this the Examinant of the Royal Papers gives this answer If particular Controuersies about matters of Faith could be ended by a principle as visible as that Scripture is in print all Men of Sense would soon give over Disputing for none who dare believe what they see can call that in question Not to contest with him about the impropriety of the phrase to believe what one sees Luther was a bold Man and yet in the phrase of this Gentleman did not dare to believe what he saw for the Epistle of St. James was in print before his Eyes he perused it and yet cast it out of the Canon of Scripture Catholics and Protestants are both Men of Sense they have the Books of Machabees and others in print they see them they handle them the Catholic gives them their place in the Canon the Protestants do not only question them but seem resolv'd to dispute that point to the end clearly then this principle that the Scripture is in print is not so unquestionable or indisputable as the Gentleman pretends and his miscarriage rests in this That the visibility which in the sense of the King springs from the motives inducing to believe that such or such a Book in print is the holy Scripture he assigns to a bare print of the Book But what if the Church whose Authority 't is said they must submit to will not allow them to believe what they see My first reply is That here is a confusion of Notions for belief is properly of things that are not seen as the Apostle describes it argumentum non apparentium and hath Authority for motive whereas sight or seeing is an inspection into the thing seen and creates a knowledge of it Secondly not to recede from his mode of Speech I am a stranger to such a Church and think it impossible to impose upon any Man a command not to believe what he sees For though it may and doth often fall out that a Man believes what he sees not yet in true Philosophy it can never happen that a Man may not believe what he sees and therefore such a command is ranged amongst the impossibles I well know where his scruple is and what he would be at 't is the Adorable Mystery of the conversion of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of our Redeemer where he hopes to evince this assertion but in vain for what is seen are only the forms shapes and figures of Bread and Wine and that we believe to be there consequently the Church lays upon us no command not to believe what we see For instance I will press upon him the two noted passages of holy Scripture the first is of two Angels appearing to Lot and conversing with him in the figure and shapes of Men the second is of the Holy Ghosts descent in the form of a Dove with all let us suppose that God had revealed to Lot this truth that what he did see were not Men but Angels in Mens Shape as he did to the Apostles that what appeared was not a Dove but the Holy Ghost in the Shape of a Dove I now put this question to him was this Revelation a Command upon Lot or the Apostles not to believe what they did see I believe his Answer will be Negative for if there were neither Men nor Dove neither could be seen If then God at any time should reveal to us by his Church that what is in the Holy Sacrament is not Bread nor Wine but the Body and Blood of Christ under those Shapes and Forms why must this revelation be deemed a Command not to believe what we see or where lies the Disparity Evidently then there neither is nor
of her Champions out of meer condescension to Protestants have fought them with their own weapons in which way of combating the Church is not engaged the judgment of the victory must be from the arbitration not of any private Man but of the Learned World The king's next position is That it is not left to every phantastical Man's head to believe as he pleases but to the Church Beware here of counterfeit Coin 't was out but he called it in again and replies The Church of England cannot be liable to any imputation of this nature for our Church receives the three Creeds embraces the four General Councils and professes to hold nothing contrary to any universal Tradition of the Church from the Apostles time Had he been pleased to have given in security for the Church of England that notwithstanding this glorious profession she could never err against the Creeds nor the four Councils nor universal Tradition he had well merited of that Church For we do not charge her for not professing these things at least upon a pinch but for erring against her own profession and deserting that Church to which all these Authorities bear testimony and of which her Progenitors and first Reformers had been Members and from whose hands she received whatsoever she had either of Scripture Creeds Councils or Tradition consequently whose judgment she was bound to follow for the Eastern Churches even by the profession of Protestants being lapsed into Heresies there was then no visible Church in Being but such as was in Communion with the Church of Rome which never went out of any elder than her self and out of whom the Church of England sprang It seems he would have the Controversie betwixt us put upon this issue that is the three Creeds four Councils and Tradition But who shall be Umpire the instructing or instructed Party This discourse in the mouth of a Protestant against Presbyterian Anabaptist or Quaker would be sound though at the same time a self-condemnation in the Church of England The rest of this Paragraph is made up of voluntary assumptions without proof and which are already answered as to the main only I cannot let slip this concession we do not deny that the Church hath Authority of declaring matters of Faith but this must be the universal Church in a General and free Council as when the Nicene Creed was made not when a party in the Church the most corrupt takes upon it self to define many now Doctrines This plea if it be good justifies the Arians and condemns the Nicene Fathers vindicates the Eutichians Nestorians and Donatists and confounds all General Councils for there is nothing of this but was as fully charged against them by the Heretics of those days The following Paragraph is adulterated Coin for whereas the King by the inhabitants of a Country means Subjects instituting the comparison betwixt them and their Lawful Judges of the same Country he stretches those words to signifie the People of one Society and Judges of another The King's discourse is home and to the purpose God would not leave us at those uncertainties as to give us a Rule to go by and leave every Man to be his own Judge He answers We cannot reasonably suppose God should give us a Rule not capable of being understood by those to whom it was given to save their Souls As if there were no way to render a Man capable of understanding Scripture to the saving of his Soul but to leave him to be his own Judge Is there no Church No Pastors to instruct him He that is blind or dim-sighted and will not use a Guide merits to fall Not to be wilfully mistaken in matters of Faith and not to be damn'd is of one and the same consequence The knowledge of good and evil truth and falshood I confess in some sense is to Man's conscience of the same concern but he that willingly shuns light and gropes for either of them in the dark is an Enemy to his Soul and equally culpable There follows We do not leave every MÃ n to be his own Judge any farther then concerns his own Salvation which depends upon his particular care and sincerity But if the judgment of his own Salvation be in his own hands I think he is made his own Judge of the Rule And notwithstanding all his care and sincerity though they should protect him from the Artifices of foreign Seducers which is not possible but by accident without an inerrable Guide yet the corruption of his own heart may be his own most powerful Seducer and God if he will hath provided a guide even against that As to his refuge to the Ancient Creeds of how little concern it is may appear by this that if I should allow they followed exactly what they pretend to embrace which I never can yet if he denies it to be in the power of the Church to make new decisions of Faith upon any new exigence of Heresie or the like the sequel will be that every Man is left to be his own Judge To the question started by the King Whether it be not the same thing to follow our own phansie or to interpret Scripture by it His reply is That if we allowed no Creeds no Fathers no Councils there might have been some colour for such a question And is that colour vanish'd I believe not for if those Creeds those Fathers and Councils have no infallible Authority to oblige the Church of England why should not the King's question be still in force For neither is that Church obliged to follow those Rights which may deceive it nor is there any rational Authority in the Church of England to force any of her Members to embrace them But the truth is that Church neither stands to Creeds Fathers or Councils otherwise she had never deserted her Mother Church who ever regarded those Authorities as Oracles infallible and sent from Heaven to direct us and to whom she owes whatever is Sacred of that nature To his first question of the Church of Rome assuming to it self the sole power of giving the sense of the Scripture I answer she gives no sense but what she received from former Tradition of the foregoing Church and consequently makes not any Rule to her self but follows that Apostolical Tradition which God hath given her as the best interpreter of holy Scriptures To his second question the answer is the same The third question stands upon a false bottom for it supposes the Pope to be the sole interpreter of Scripture whereas neither he nor the Church do pretend to any other way but by Tradition The fourth question is also grounded upon Errour as if the publick disorders which happen in the Church were not to be reformed by General Councils The fifth question is also built upon Sand for it pretends that the Papal Authority is to be debated in Councils whereas no General Council did ever dispute it The sixth question is as strange