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
which Christianity obliges me and that it may be false by the same Judgments being grounded on my fallible Authority For by judging it fallible I judge it may deceive me that is that what it recommends to me for true may be false At which rate he is the only good Christian who contradicts himself When the Answerer shall make out that such things can be we may hope to see his Church Authority without Infallibility Till then he will permit us to be persuaded that Infallibility is the true Argument which he confesses has not been us'd against Sectaries If it be true that the Church of England cannot pretend to this Argument which if she did Sectaries he says might justly turn it against her it is so much the worse and the Kings Discourse is indeed levelled against her But I see no such matter Why may not she if she please pretend to her share in the Infallibility of the Whole by remaining as I think her best Advocates plead she do's a part of the Whole Because says he tho' Church Authority be asserted infallibility is deny'd in her Articles Where I beseech him for I cannot find infallibility deny'd save to particular Churches whereof any one undoubtedly may forfeit her pretence to Infallibility by changing her former Faith and so ceasing to be a Member of the Body to which it was promised But this is her concern not mine Iâ— it be so with her she may thank those against whom the Kings Discourse is truly levell'd those who have pull'd this Argument out of her Hands and reduc'd her to have nothing to urge against Sectaries but the sinfulness and folly of their Separation as if she could take it ill of other folks that they separate from her if she be brought to separate from other folks Or as if there were any sin or folly in Peoples desiring to make their Salvation sure and when they cannot find security in a Fallible Authority seeking it elsewhere There follows that the Church of England as â— is calâ—â— d. This as ' t is call'd makes him teachy and he would fain know what she wants to make her as good a Church as any in the Christian World she that wants neither Faith if the Câ— eed contain it nor Sacraments nor Succession of Bâ—â—â— ps nor a Liâ—â—â—â— Never so little Indulgence for a King would 〈◊〉 suffered him to speak as he thought fit especâ—â—â—â— when he had apply'd the Word which offends the Answerer to the Church of Rome too For he 〈◊〉 of the Roman the Church which is 〈◊〉 the Râ—â—â— Catholic But if the Answerers Zeal for the Church of England be so very nice it might have been employ'd much more 〈…〉 something material for her than in picking a needless Quarrel If the Church of England really be not what she is call'd it is long of her self and the influence she suffers those to have who will needs possess the World that she sets up Separately for her self with a different Faith from that of the great Body As the Whole is but One Church made up of as many Members as there are particular Churches which profess the same Faith it is unintelligible how there can be a particular Church otherwise than by being a Member of this Body If the Answerer have a mind to shew she is a Church he should shew she is a Member and believes as the rest not alledge for her things common to as very Heretics as ever were in the World For how many of them receiv'd the Creed had Sacraments Succession of Bishops and Liturgies Not to touch the rest in which for all the Answerers confidence there are difficulties more than he or any Man will be able to clear Is it not palpable that Christians are as much oblig'd to believe every thing which Christ taught when 't is known he taught it as what is contain'd in the Creed And is it not as certainly known he taught much more as that he taught what is there contain'd Is it not palpable that she her self believes more I for my part understand not the Zeal of talking as if she quitted her only sure hold to stand upon Ground which will certainly founder under her and upon which arrant Heretics are forc'd to stand because they have no better But this again is her concern Our business is with the remaining part of the Paragraph which says that she would have it thought that she is the judge in matters Spiritual yet dares not say positively there is no appeal from her His Answer dilated with several Examples is That They are ture Judges from whom there lies an Appeal Still catching at Words and saying nothing to the Thing His Majesty was solicitous of freeing the Nation from the Heresies crept in and convincing the Sects by Arguments to which there could be no return Till the Church of England can determine Spiritual as a Judge do's Temporal Differences by a final Sentence conclusive to the Parties He thought so great a Benefit could not be expected from her The Answerer with his Zeal never thinks of shewing which way she can conclude any body but as if the Name of a thing were All tells us There are true Judges who nevertheless cannot conclude the Parties which come before them Why His Majesty and every body else knew this without needing to trouble his Rhetorâ— and Erudition for the Matter But what are those Judges to our purpose What Benefit shall we get by them And how much the nearer will our Differences be to an end If there were no other in the World Suits would be endless in a Nation and Controversies in a Church as I pray God there be not who desire no better In short His Majesty talks of Judges from whom there lies no Appeal He of Judges from whom there do's and gives us this for a satisfactory Answer He might peradventure have made something a better shew by saying That His Majesty by expecting the Church of England should judge without Appeal expects more than can be had from a particular Church because Appeals must needs lie from all such But every particular Church may judge as the rest of the Body do and it is to our purpose all one to judge without Appeal and to judge as they judge from whom there is none For that Judgment is without Appeal tho' not purely in vertue of the Authority of the particular Church So the Church of England may judge without Appeal and if she do not may thank those who will not let her His Majesty goes on proving what he had said For either they must say that They are Infallible which they cannot pretend to that is otherwise than by giving the right-hand of Fellowship to those who are or confess that what they decide in Matters of Conscience is no farther to be followed than it agrees with every Mans private Iudgment If Christ did leave a Church here upon Earth and We were all once of that Church
as Learn'd as himself are much more Moderate And such I am confident will be as far from abetting his Irreverence to the Royal Family as they are from the jugling Designs of his Faction to draw in the Nonconformists to their Party by assuring them they shall not be prosecuted as indeed upon their Principles they cannot be by them but in the mean time this is to wrest the Favour out of the King's Hands and take the Bestowing it into their own and to reassume to themselves that Headship of the English Church which their Ancestors gave away to King Henry the Eighth And now let any Loyal Subject but consider whether this new way of their Proceeding do's not rather tend to bring the Church of England into the Fanatics than the Fanatics into the Church of England These are the Arts which are common to him and his Fellow-labourers but his own peculiar Talent is that of subtle Calumny and sly Aspersion by which he insinuates into his Readers an ill Opinion of his Adversaries before he comes to Argument and takes away their Good Name rather by Theft than open Robbery He lays a kind of accumulative Dishonesty to their Charge and touches 'em here and there with Circumstances in stead of positive Proofs till at last he leaves a bad Impression of 'em like a Painter who makes Blotches of hard Colouring in several Parts of the Face which he smooths afterwards into a Likeness After this manner he or one of his Brethren in Iniquity has us'd Monsieur de Condom by picking up Stories against him in his Preface which he props up with little Circumstances but seldom so positive that he cannot come off when their Falsity shall be detected In the mean time his Cause go's forward with the Common Reader who prepossest by the Preface is made partial to his Answer The same kind of Artifice with some little variation has been us'd in other of their Books besides this present Libel against the Duchess But the Cloven-foot of this our Answerer appears from underneath the Cassock even in the first step he makes towards his Answer to the present Paper Which he tells us is said to be written by a great Lady How doubtfully he speaks as if there were no certainty of the Author But surely 't is more than barely said for 't is Publish'd by the same Authority which order'd the two other Papers written by His late Majesty to the Press and the Original of it is still remaining in the Hands of the present King Indeed the Bishop of Winchester may seem to have given him some encouragement for this in the Preface to his Treatises where he tells us That Maimbourg the Iesuite recites something which he says was written by the late Duchess and which he afterwards calls the Papers pretended to be written by Her But if that Bishop had liv'd to see what our Answerer has seen Her Paper Printed and Publish'd by His Majesty I cannot think he would have been so incredulous as to have made that doubt It may be allow'd him to suspect a Stranger of Forgery but with what face can this Son of the Church of England suspect the Integrity of his King In the mean time observe what an excellent Voucher he has got of this dead Bishop and what an excellent Argument he has drawn from him Because he would not believe what he did not think she said we must not believe what he know the did say Let our Author therefore come out of his Mists and Ambiguities or give us some better Authority for his unreasonable Doubts For at this rate if it be already suspected whether what she writes be Matter of Fact and indeed whether she writ it at all it may be doubted hereafter whether she chang'd and perhaps whether there were ever such a Woman After he had thus begun That this Paper was said to be written by a Great Lady for the satisfaction of her Friends he shuffles in commodious Words for an Answerer and which afford him Elbow-room For he talks of the Reasons and Motives which she had for her leaving the Communion of the Church of England c. and of the Right which all Readers have to judge of the strength of them Now as Luck will have it none of those Motives and Reasons are to be found in the Paper of her Highness She expresses her self clearly to write for the Satisfaction of her Friends not as to the Reasons she had her self for changing but as to the Censures which she might expect from them for so doing and her whole Paper shews this was only her Design So that against the Law of all Romances he first builds the Enchanted Castle and then sets up to be the Doughty Knight who conquers it It seems he found that a bare Denial which is the proper Answer to Matter of Fact was a dry Business and would make no sport and therefore he would be sure to cut himself our sufficient Work But it is not every Mans Talent to force a Trade for a Customer may chuse whether he will buy or not This Great Person chang'd not lightly nor in haste but after all the Endeavours which could be us'd by a Soul which was true to it self and to its Eternal Interest She was sensible as I before hinted that she should lose her Friends and Credit and what to her Condition at that time was more sharply piercing expose the Catholics of England to the danger of suffering for her sake On these Considerations she makes a plain Relation of all the Passages in her Change and expecting severe Censures from the World took care to satisfie her Friends concerning it As for the Reasons of it they were only betwixt God and her own Soul and the Priest with whom she spoke at last What a wonderful Art has this Gentleman to turn a bare Narrative into Motives and Inducements When he is arriv'd to the Perfection of calling down a Saint from Heaven he may examine her concerning them in the mean time he must be content with the Relation which she has left behind her here on Earth and if he will needs be mistaking her Scruples for her Motives who can help it His Design as he tells us a little after the beginning is to vindicate the Honour of the Church of England so far as it may be thought to suffer by the Paper of her late Highness I might here tell him that he has on Obligation antecedent to the Honour of his Community which is that to God and his own Conscience But the Honour of the Church of England is no farther concern'd in the Paper of her Highness than in relation to the Persons of two or there Prelates and those he leaves at last to shift for themselves as they are able with this melancholy Farewell That God be thanked the Cause of our Church do's not depend upon the singular Opinion of one or two Bishops in it wherein they apparently recede