knows that without Faith it is impossible to please him But whether do's he mean to lead us All hitherto seems quite out of the way to our Question For what has the chief end for which a Rule was made to do with whether it will guide us certainly or no Hiâ— refusing to Answer is in truth confessing that Scripture after all is not the Rule of Controversiâ— s. For they are not ended till one side or other be certain But let us go no farther than we needs must In Matters of Good and Evil every Man's Conscience he says is his immediate Iudge and why not in Matters of Truth and Falshood Vnless we suppose Mens involuntary Mistakes to be more dangerous than their wilful Sins How Are we before we were aware come to Conscience at last and all his Magnificent Talk his Evident his Sure and his Infallible his Care in examining and comparing for nothing but to establish this Maxim Do every one what seems good in his own Eyes and believe what seems true Is this the clearer light he will give to the things contain'd in His Majesty's Papers and the loss of such a Liberty the great danger they run of being deceiv'd with their fair appearance whom he will secure with his safe Instructions of trusâ— ing their Conscience both for Good and for True Doctrine or not Doctrine of Christ is no such idle Circumstance sure that hitting or missing is equal so the Conscience be strait and the Mistake involuntary By the way I see not how this involuntary can thrust in here For who forces any Body to mistake or take the deceitful ways which lead them to it But to say nothing to that matter and but little to his Plea of Conscience as copious as the Theme is I only ask what Conscience can do more than secure a Man from being judg'd for sinning against his Conscience But if it lead him to do ill things or embrace a wrong Faith what can he answer for the Sin of having that Conscience Reason certainly never â— ramed such a Conscience and there is nothing besides which could frame it but Passion that is Affections wrong set or in plain English very wilful Sin Shall he who has this to answer for be safe because he has nothing to answer for the Sin against Conscience As if that were the only Sin to be accounted for in the next World For the rest This to say the truth is an Answer For Uncertainty do's not prove that Scripture is not the Rule if it be no matter whether we be uncertain or no nor indeed whether there be a Rule or Faith For if Conscience will carry those to Heaven who believe wrong Faith I think may be spared and a Rule for it But as it is an Answer which I believe would not have taken with His late Majesty because he had too much Experience of the bad Effâ— cts of mistaken Conscience to think it would 〈◊〉 at the Tribunal of God more than it did at His I am confident it will take as little with the Reader At least I will venture it without more words For I mâ— an not to stay at a new Apology of his 〈…〉 of England as unseasonable as the â— ormâ— r 〈◊〉 something were objected to her and as little 〈◊〉 At the rate he talks one woul◠〈…〉 do's what he undertakes She do's not 〈◊〉 every Man to â— e his own Iudge For this he 〈…〉 in what concerns his own Salvation that is in all Faith for Faith concerns Salvation Who believes not every body who believes Scripture knows shall be damned Then his Seducers with their dangerous Mistakes as such there are it seems for all his Conscience-security And his Spiritual Guides with their assistance would make work till Doomsday Nor can Quarrels about them be ended till those about Faith be settled For till then who shall know which is the Guide and which the Seducer As Christ appointed no body to teach other Doctrine than he taught They are plainly no Guides of his appointing who do The Ancient Creeds too are brought in again as if they would be serviceable to the Church of England and no Liberty of Conscience allow'd to judge against them or any Doctrines as universally receiv'd as if any part of universal Christian Doctrine were lost and all had not been always as universally retain'd as the Creeds But I have my Answer and will be going In the next Section the King asks Whether it be not the same thing to follow our own Fancy or to interpret Scripture by it And he answers There might be some colour for such a Question if They did not do so and so Pray what colour has he â— or such a Reply Might not the King have colour to say what he thought fit to be said to him to whom he spoke whether there be or be not colour to say the same to the Church of England He wâ—â— t not to her nor were His Writings publish'd with any relation to her but to satisfie the Curiosity of those who desir'd to see them and could not come by written Copies and to assure them they were His. In stead of concerning her where she is not concern'd let him if he please answer the Question and tell us whether it be or be not the same to follow 〈◊〉 own Fancy or interpret Scripture by it Till he say I or Nâ— all besides is leaving the Work â— ut out for us to cut out new of our own which twenty to one we shall never make up For which Reason I will pray him to keep his many Questions tâ— ll the Dispute be between the two Churches and I appear for the Church of Rome Till then he cannot rationally expect an Answer from me He perhaps may be able to manage two Disputes at a time or think the best way to end one is to begin another I think it too much for me to defend a King and a Church at once And so much good may his pleasant Fancies do him about a Rule and its Interpretation which he talks as if he would have belong to those who do not know the Sense of it about the Intention of Almighty God as if we knew not what he intended and did make the Pillar and Ground of Truth about reforming Disorders which he makes unreformable even in Commonwealths where the Supreme Judge has the ill luck to be principally accus'd about Oaths as if any were taken to defend an unjust Authority or could bind tho' they were about a Iudge of Tradition as if a Man who sees Pictures in one Church and none in another needed a Judge to pronounce to him that those Churches practise differently His Vsurpers and all shall do what he would have them for me I wish in stead of all this he would have minded his Business but mean however to mind mine What he replies to the next Section shews more like an Answer than any thing said yet I
〈…〉 are not able to shew they have any 〈◊〉 It is enough to my purpose to have 〈◊〉 that his Majesty asks for a secure Motive and 〈…〉 no Answer 〈…〉 to see by his Objections against 〈…〉 what he takes for Fancy and 〈…〉 According to him They 〈…〉 and They Iudge who to be sure of a right 〈…〉 â—â—â—â—â—rences in Religion look out for a Fallible Iudge and hazard their Salvation on what may deceive them They Fancy who are for an Vnwritten Word They Iudge who think the Word of God is made by Writing Giving Honour to God by the Worship of Images is Fancy and Iudgment that giving Honour to God is not giving Honour to God For giving Honour any way is plainly giving Honour Mediators of Intercession besides the Mediator of Redemption are Fancy and so to think because only one could Redeem us no body besides can Pray for us is Iudgment The Doctrine of Concomitancy Fancy and true Christian Iudgment that the Body and Blood of Christ can nâ—â—â— e sepâ— rated and he die again A Substantial change in the Eâ—â—ments Fancy and right Iudgment that the Apostles did not understand what Christ said to them or not instruct the Church as they believ'd themselves So 't is with his last instance of Pargatory and all the rest Our Judgment is the Judgment of the Church from which there is no Appeal and it rests with the Answerer to shew how any other Judgment can be more than meer Fancâ—â— or 〈◊〉 to dispatch the next Paragraph under one Men are giddy or settled as they are guided or not 〈◊〉 by Reason and he should shew 〈◊〉 Reason besides can settle them 〈…〉 I desire to know therefore says His Majesty of every serious Considerer of these things whether the great Work of our Salvation ought to depend on such a sandy Foundation as this That is says the Answerer the Private Iudgment Can a Man expect there should be any Answer to this but that our Salvation ought or ought not depend on Sand or that the Foundation of Private Judgment is or is not Sandy And yet the Answerer makes a shift to spin out a Paragraph without one word of either I says he have seriously considered this matter and must declare That I â— ind no Christian Church built on a more sandy Foundation than that which pretends to be settled on a Rock as to part of her Faith If that Church build on Sand too she will I suppose hear on 't in due time At present he who considers so much might consider that he is not ask'd what he has considered or what he has found but whether any Church That if he will among the rest ought to build on Sand and whether Private Judgment be more than Sand Plain I or No if it please him first and then a l' autre Then he tells us That no understanding Man builds upon his own Iudgment He takes I suppose the Advice of his Friends in Compliment For after all he is to be his own Judge But is his Judgment and their Advice and what you will besides the Judgment of the Church without Appeal a Foundation to build upon There is the Knot which the Answerer should now untie But no Man of understanding can believe without his Judgment Sure enough nor no Man of not-understanding neither for his Belief is his Judgment But I am cloy'd with this Dish What Stand there is to set it upon is now the Question I appeal says the Answerer to any ingenuous Man whether he doth not as much build upon his own Iudgment who chuseth the Church as he that chuseth Scripture for his Rule Every ingenuous Man who reads these Papers will tell him that to build upon ones own Judgment is the same with following ones own Fancy being ones own Iudge and what other Terms a Master of English in all Senses used to express in variety of Phrases Iudging unreasonably Let the Answerer in stead of telling us what we all know as well as he That every one Judges who Judges tell 's what we do not know what Reason they have to chuse the Scripture not the Church for their Rule He that chuseth the Church hath many more Difficulties to conquer than the other hath How so For this sounds like a Paradox Those many more Difficulties to my thinking must be conquer'd before one can come at Scripture For unless we first chuse the Church for a Rule to find out Scripture by whom alone St. Austin has told us we know it there will be no assurance of Scripture for us to chuse And then in the choice of the Church there is but one thing to mind and that no difficulty neither where or which the Church is When that is settled a Man has no more to do but believe as he is taught and live as he believes Who thinks he has conquer'd the difficulties about the Letter of Scripture as which Books belong to the Canon which not which is a right Translation or Reading which wrong and whatever falls in his way has at least as many remaining as he has past and which if he find not insuperable he is I believe the more beholding to his Will For I know not how to have any Opinion of his Iudgment who only because such words will bear his Sense as they will it may be twenty others all abetted by Men of Name ventures his Soul upon 't that his is just the Sense meant by the Holy Ghost But let us hear his Reason For the Church can never be a Rule without the Scriptures but the Scriptures may without the Church that is without Faithful For a Congregation of them is a Church Will he persuade us there were no Faithful in the World before Moses No Christians before the New Testament which was written by Christians and no part of it till several Years after the Resurrection Do's not St. Irenaeus inform us that more than one Nation had the Doctrine of Christ and no Scriptures And will he make us believe that all these were Faithful without any Rule for their Faith and that the Church depends on Writing which if it should be lost in the World there would be an end of the Church Again of what and to whom should Scripture be a Rule if there were no Faith nor Faithful Paradoxes a part and the attempt to unriddle one by another let the Answerer tell us if he please whether our Salvation ought to stand upon Sand and to deal plainly whether he think that they who stand whether on the Church or Scripture do not build both on Sand For by saying nothing for Scripture and yet making it worse on the Churches side one would guess he is of Opinion there is no steadiness in either And it would be well to speak plain that People may leave off dealing where there is no Security and troubling themselves no longer with the uncertainties of Religion turn their Thoughts to more solid
to turn round a mans Hat and to strike him on the Face but the advantage is the greater in a lusty Blow But the Handle by which our Answerer would have the Reformation taken is not by the Causes and Effects the Means and Management and indeed the whole Series of History these are nothing to concern his present Enquiry though they rais'd such Scruples in the Duchess and will do in any other conscientious Reader he will have the Reformation consider'd his own way that is in the Political part of it and the Ecclesiastical Now the Political part if you observe him he gives for gone at the first dash It was grounded he says on such Maxims as are common to Statesmen at all Times and in all Churches who labour to turn all Revolutions and Changes to their own Advantage That is 't is common for Statesmen to be Atheists at the bottom To be seemingly of that Religion which is most for their Interest To crush and ruine that from which they have no future prospect of Advantage and to joyn with its most inveterate Enemies without consideration of their King's Interest and this was the Case of the Duke of Somerset All which together amounts to this That 't is no matter by what Means a Reformation be compass'd by what Instruments it be brought to pass or with what Design though all these be never so ungodly 't is enough if the Reformation it self be made by the Legislative Power of the Land The matter of Fact then is given up only 't is fac'd with Recriminations That Alexander the Sixth for example was as wicked a Pope as King Henry was a King As if any Catholic deny'd that God Almighty for Causes best known to his Divine Wisdom has not sometimes permitted impious Men to sit in that supream Seat and even to intrude into it by unlawful Means That Alexander the Sixth was one of the worst of Men I freely grant which is more then I can in Conscience say of Henry the Eighth who had great and Kingly Vertues mingled with his Vices That the Duke of Somerset rais'd his Estate out of Church Lands our Author excuses no other ways than by retorting that Popes are accustom'd to do the like in consideration of their Nephews whom they would greaten But though 't is a wicked thing for a Pope to mispend the Church Revenues on his Relations 't is to be consider'd he is a Secular Prince and may as lawfully give out of his Temporal Incomes what he pleases to his Favourite as another Prince to his But as our Author charges this Miscarriage home upon some late Popes of the former and the present Age so I hope he will exempt his present Holiness from that Note No Common Father of God's Church from St. Peter even to him having ever been more bountiful in expending his Revenues for the Defence of Christendom or less interessed in respect of his Relations whom he has neither greatn'd nor so much as suffer'd to enter into the least Administration of the Government But after all what have these Examples to do with this Ladies Conversion Why our Author pretends that these bad Popes and their ill Proceedings ought as reasonably to have hindred the Duchess from entring into the Catholic Church as the like Proceedings under Henry the Eighth Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth might move her Highness to leave the Protestant The Subject in hand was the Pretended Reformation The Duchess observ'd the scandalous and abominable Effects of it that an inordinate Lust was one principal Cause of the Separation that the Reformation it self was begun by worldly Interests in the Duke of Somerset and carried on by the Ambition of Queen Elizabeth Have the Examples produc'd by our Author on the contrary side any thing to do with a Reformation Suppose in the first place that she had never read nor heard any of those things concerning Pope Alexander or the advancing of Nephews by profusion of the Church-Treasure the first is very possible and she might interpret candidly the latter But make the worst of it on the one side there was only a Male-administration of a settled Government from which no State either Spiritual or Temporal can always be exempt on the other side here is a total Subversion of the Old Church in England and the setting up a New a changing of receiv'd Doctrines and the Direction of God's Holy Spirit pretended for the Change so that she might reasonably judge that the Holy Ghost had little to do with the Practices of ill Popes without thinking the worse of the Establish'd Faith but she could never see a new one erected on the Foundations of Lust Sacrilege and Usurpation without great Scruples whether the Spirit of God were assisting in those Councils As for his Method of Enquiry Whether there was not a sufficient Cause for the Reformation in the Church Whether the Church of England had not sufficient Authority to reform it self and Whether the Proceedings of the Reformation were not justifiable by the Rules of Scripture and the Ancient Church I may safely joyn Issue with him upon all three Points and conclude in the Negative That there was no sufficient Cause to reform the Church in Matters of Faith because there neither were nor can be any such Errours embrac'd and own'd by it The Church of England has no Authority of Reforming her self because the Doctrine of Christ cannot be reformed nor a National Synod lawfully make any Definitions in Matters of Faith contrary to the Judgment of the Church Universal of the present Age shewn in her Public Liturgies that Judgment being equivalent to that of a General Council of the present Age. And for the third Point The Proceedings of the Reformation were not justifiable by the Rule of Scripture according to the right Interpretation of it by the Fathers and Councils which are the true Judges of it nor consequently by the Rules of the Ancient Church But Calvin's Excuse must be your last Refuge Nos discessionem a toto mundo facere coacti sumus We are compell'd to forsake the Communion or to separate from all the Churches of the World These says our Author She confesses were but Scruples According to his mannerly way of arguing with the King I might ask him These what Do's he mean these Scruples were but Scruples For the Word these begins a Paragraph But I am asham'd of playing the Pedant as he has done I suppose he means these Passages of Heylyn only rais'd some Scruples in her which occasion'd her to examine the Points in difference by the Holy Scripture And now says he 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 That she did take in those Guides is manifest by her own Papers though both of them the more the Pity did but help to mislead her into the Enemies Country But
to her and says That who believe her to be the Catholic believe as they please without any colour of Scripture Antiquity or Reason This Ball has been tost already and in my Opinion enough Only lest he whoever believe be thought to speak as he pleases he would do well to shew what Scripture or Reason tells him that the Roman Church with the rest of her Belief for sure he talks not of a Diocess was not always believ'd the Catholic Church Antiquity I know he has as much as since Luther Any other Colour from all these three I see none Divers other Points he brings in I know not why unless that he has perhaps a mind to be sailing on the Ocean of particular Disputes As I have not I mean to stay on firm Ground with S. Austin and content my self that It was thought fit by the Catholic Church spread throughout the World to observe what we hold And that Because the things we hold are observ'd by the Vniversal Church they are believ'd not otherwise deliver'd and recommended than by the Apostles Who has a mind to put to Sea with the Answerer will I think find the same Saint's Counsel good When he has been tost enough and has a mind to be at ease to follow the way of Catholic Discipline which descended from Christ himself by the Apostles even to us and shall to Posterity He shall if he please excuse me from rambling after him into the Authority they allow the Church which gay word if it should signify no more as I suspect it sometimes do's not than that it do's oblige People whatever they think to hold their Tongues and not to thwart her decisions in public for fear of losing their Benefices it were great pity Likâ—â— e into free Councils and Factions and what else he fills a Page with For whatever he do I remember our Question all the while is whether it be well or ill said That it is not left to every Phantastical Man's Head to believe as he pleases And when he pleases to speak to it I am for him In the next Section he tells us That all they plead for in this case is the right which Loyal Subjects have under an Vsurper so far to interpret the Laws as to be able to understand their duty c. I will not ask him who the Usurpers are and who the Loyal Subjects For he makes account I find that to receive Faith from him who thought it no Usurpation to be equal to God and keep it when People have it and tell other folks what it is is Usurpation and that who is so bold as to deny it stands in danger of being hurried into the Ocean of Controversies with the Answerers fancy of Scripture for a sure Compass to direct him out again All this while we have other Business in hand We have an Assertion and an Answer to mind The Assertion is That it were a very irrational thing to make Laws for a Country and leave it to the Inhabitants to be Interpreters and Iudges of those Laws And the Answer is That it is as irrational to allow an Vsurper to Interpret the Laws to his own advantage Is this I or No again or what do's it say That both are Irrational which is to say that the Assertion is true Or that both are Rational or one Rational the other not Let him say if he please what he would be at and leave Usurpers till we have Business with them His Majesty supposes next that the goodness of 〈◊〉 would not leave Men uncertain of the way to Heaven which they would be if Scripture were the Rule and every Man his own Judge He by way of Question says first That the Rule is capable of being understood by those to whom it was given in order to the great end of it Salvation Which is next to saying that it is not capable of being understood by those to whom it was not given that is by any but the Church to whom alone it was given In which he may be sure I shall not contradict him But is it understood with certainty by every Man who will be his own Judge or are we left to uncertainty These are our Questions to which how this which he says should be any step towards an Answer I cannot imagine Next he tells us That the main end of the Rule was to direct us in the way to Heaven and not meerly to determine Controversies Here is work enough for him that needs it For who shall understand what other end there is of a Rule to determine Controversies but determining Controversies Heaven is indeed the end for which it is necessary Controversies should be determiâ— ' d but that is to be the end of the Determination not the Rule How a Rule made to determine Controversies should have any end besides determining them when the end of a thing is what it was made for or why directing to Heaven and determining Controversies should here be separated where the Determination is the very direction of a Rule to determine them they may Dispute who love Disputing All shall pass for me till I find something which concerns our Question certain or uncertain His next words suppose Scripture is the Rule a little odly me thinks for an Answerer For when it is objected against its being a Rule that we should be left at uncertainties it would have shew'd better to have taken some notice of the Objection before he take for granted the thing which is in Dispute But I shall not stop him What will he do with his Rule now he has suppos'd it Why It is fit to examine and compare Controversies with this Infallible Rule and then we shall determine them Infallibly I hope I expected this should follow but was much mistaken What he says is That when that is done to help us in our way to Heaven is that which it was chiefly intended for He may if he please keep his Intended till some body doubt what was intended in every thing which God do's for Man and tell us in the mean time what his examining and comparing will do Whether it will determine Controversies or no and whether certainly or no or whether it be no matter whether they be determined or no but we shall get to Heaven by â— are examining which side soever of the Controversie examined we chuse and whether any or none Whatever was chiefly intended determining Controversies sure was intended by a Rule to determine them and our comparing them with that Rule Pray let him tell us how we shall succeed whether hit or miss in compassing that Intentiâ— n. 'T will be afterwards time enough to talk of his other chief Intention He says further That no Man can think it of equal consequence to him not to be mistaken and not to be damned As if mistakes in our case would not damn a Man For who can hope to be saved without pleasing God and every body
to 〈◊〉 the Promise of Assistance was made should 〈◊〉 know what it means none in the Roman Catholâ—â— Church ever understood it would always preserve even those who by their Functions are Church-Guides from Errour any more than Sin save when they perform the Office of Church-Guides or expected more than that They should not Authoritatively declare that to be Christ's Doctrine which 〈◊〉 not or that not to be which is Since it is undeniably certain that our Church-Guides have never made any such Declaration in stead of profiting by their Pains we stand wondring what Protestants mean by repeating so often a Tale which has nothing in it Whoever errs among us Church-Guide or not Church-Guide errs on his own Head and not misguided now or at any time by the Church or her Gnides And so long it is as wildly unreasonable to impute those Errours to the Church or any but the erring Particulars as to bring Peter in guilty for the Faults of Paul 〈…〉 imperâ— ect as half-periods use to be but who read the whole will I believe understand it perfectly enough and if he had no mind to speak to this part of it he might have said so without imputing to it an Imperfection of his own making by severing it from its fellows As imperfect as it is I find by it that the Power of which his Majesty speaks was the Power of deciding Matters of Faith and so that when he talks of the Giâ— t of Tongues and the like he talks of what his Majesty did not It informs us too that as great Prerogatives as the Apostles had above other Men subsequent Councils took upon them to make Creeds as well as they Creeds which declare they will undoubtedly perish eternally who believe not entirely what they contain And so might have put us in mind that those who do as much in latter Ages have Precedents for what They do Matters which it seems he takes no delight to speak of As it had been something rugged to have said this Part for all it was left out deserv'd no consideration he smoothly passes to that which next do's And that is That the Church was the Iudge even of Scripâ—â— re it self many Years after the Apostles which Books were Canonical and which were not To which he replys That there is a Iudge of Law and a Iudge of Fact and that the Church Iudges of Fact 〈◊〉 Law Let him call it how he pleases if the Church Judges whether a Book be Canonical or no the Church is the Judge of that Matter and the King said true and 't is but so much erudition lost to Dispute by what name Her Judgment shall go He says besides that The Church of Rome hath no 〈◊〉 priviledge in this Matter but gives its Iudgment as other parts of the Christian World do 〈◊〉 if the Clause he answers spoke of any 〈◊〉 Church or Priviledge It says the Church that 〈◊〉 the whole made up of the Roman and the 〈◊〉 whose same Faith intitles them to the same Appâ— llâ—tion was the Judge of Scripture which Books were Canonical and which were not One may percâ—â— ve the Answerer thinks this is true and he mâ— ght 〈◊〉 said what he thought in two words But he thought fit to spin it out into a Section and 〈◊〉 the Matter so that one Member of his Division is not included in the Matter divided he alone knows why And if They had this Power then I desire to know says his Majesty next how They came to lose it And the Answerer desires to know who are meant by They and what is understood by This Power He had not the Paper by him sure when he askt these Questions For it is there as plain as words can make it that by They is meant the Church and by this Power the Power of deciding Matters of Faith exercised in making Creeds and judging of Canonical Booâ—â— Then he falls to his Dâ— stinctions again and tells us It is one thing for a part of the Church to give Testimony to a matter of Fact and another to assume the Power of making Books Canonical which were not so Pieces of Learning which he may if he please keep in reserve till he have to do with some body who talks of a Part of the Church or making Booâ—â— Canonical which were not By the way he means I suppose making Books not written by 〈◊〉 Iâ—spiration to be written by Divine Inspiration For if he mean making it appear and 〈…〉 and with obligation of 〈◊〉 that a Book of which it is doubted whether it were 〈◊〉 that truly Catholic and Apostolic Church 〈◊〉 which by separting from the Roman they keep 〈◊〉 their stricter Union and with which the Roman 〈◊〉 none For sure he do's not talk of a strict Union with nothing Let him tell us in what Countrâ—â—â— the Men live that People may go to them and learâ— of them what their Faith is and see whether it 〈◊〉 be all one with that of the Answerer and his 〈◊〉 and have something more than his word 〈…〉 stricter Union which he says is between 〈◊〉 What He and those who take his part do 〈◊〉 separating of themselves he tells us but being 〈◊〉 out by an Vsurping Faction in the Church and 〈◊〉 the Conditions of Communion impos'd by tâ— at Fâ—ction and requir'd by him who is own'd â— or Heaâ— of that Church are unjust and unreasonable and 〈◊〉 Authority â— e challenges a meer Vsurpation and tâ— at They are not to be condemn'd for such a Separation which was unavoidable Why unavoidable I beseecâ— him even supposing Usurpation and whatever 〈◊〉 would have Cannot they who are let â— t he 〈◊〉 so unjustly separated from the Communion avoiâ— being separated from the Faith of a Church if they please Is there any Church or Power on Earth which could hinder them from believing 〈◊〉 they were out of Communion what they did 〈◊〉 they were in it Which if 〈◊〉 had done Excommunication it self had not 〈◊〉 them from the Church of which these Papers speak 〈…〉 〈…〉 their voluntary Change of Faith And that Change indeed casts them unavoidably out because to be of the same Faith with a Church and of a 〈◊〉 Faith from her is inconsistent Other casting 〈◊〉 by which he means I suppose Excommunication there is none that I know 'T is true there is a general Excommunication of those who haâ— e chang'd their Faith into Heresie And some are particularly named but not a word of the Church of England or any relating to England but the Wickliâ— ists If any of his We be included in it 't is because they have voluntarily thrust themselves in by embracing the Anathematiz'd Heresies And yet he with his Flourishes and big Talk would have their casting off the Church pass for the Churches casting them out and their voluntary Act be call'd a being cast unavoidably out Cross Language in my Opinion and a very sorry Justification of Separation But
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 alter'd into as many Shapes and Forms as there are Fancies in Mens Heads This says the Answerer looks like a very unkind Requital to the Church of England for her Zeal in asserting the Magistrates Power against a Forreign Iurisdiction to infer from thence That the Magistrate may change the Religion here which may be pleases I need not observe that this is no Answer because I suppose it was not meant for one It seems rather a kind of Complaint to my thinking very unreasonable For he is a great deal more justly to be complain'd of who takes a concerning Truth unkindly then he who speaks it Religion I think should not depend on Compliments and I pray God preserve me from the Kindness which not to fail in the Punctilio's of nice Civility forbears to tell me what may be useful to my Salvation Again Zeal against Forreign Jurisdiction very well might and much more according to knowledge actually did appear in England without any alteration in Religion a thing to which I am persuaded neither Magistrate not Church have reason to think themselves beholding because it was the Gap at which the Heresies crept in of which His Magesty complains and which not long since ruin'd Both. Neither is any inference made from that Zeal but a plain Question ask'd to which a plain Answer would much better become the Part he now acts and shew much more Zeal to Truth and to the Church of England than talking of her Zeal unseasonably But although we attribute the Supreme Iurisdiction to the King yet we do not question but there are inviolable Rights of the Church which ought to be preserv'd against the Fancies of some and Vsurpations of others Rights and Fancies and Usurpations Pray let him keep these things till their time come and tell us at present why the Protestant Church may not be alter'd as it was made by the Authority of the Magistrate and Concurrence of such of the Clergy as are for his turn This if he have forgot it is the Question For the Rights of the Church his Care will be more seasonable when he has settled the Foundation We do by no means make our Religion mutable according to the Magistrates Pleasure But only according to the Pleasure of other Folks perhaps If it be immutable let us see the immutable Foundation which makes it so and have some Reason to think it so There it sticks Barely to say it is immutable costs nothing nor was there ever so great a Criminal who could not say Not guilty For the Rule of our Religion is unalterable being the Holy Scripture Not to turn our present Question into a Dispute about the Rule of Faith I pray him to make it appear that the Holy Scripture is such a Foundation as makes the Protestant Church unalterable The Letter of Scripture is common to all who bare the name of Christians and may be as much a Foundation to every as to any one The Sense is not a Foundation of Religion but Religion it self As Protestants build Protestancy upon Scripture the Presbyterians build Presbytery the Independents Independency and every one his own Religion Their several Religions are nothing but their several Expositions of the same words Why now is this Foundation more unalterable in respect of the Protestant Church than any other It sustain'd a Catholic Building heretofore It sustains a Protestant now Why may not the same Hands which removed the Catholic and set up the Protestant in its place remove the Protestant and set up the Presbyterian the Independent Building or what you will this is the Question to which a Body would have expected an Answer from an Answerer But he in stead of thinking of that Matter gives us for an unalterable Foundation of Protestant Religion a Foundation upon which all the Alterations of Religion which are and perhaps ever have been pretend to stand as much as the Protestant But the exercise of Religion is under the Regulation of the Laws of the Land Must the Laws which regulate the Exercise of Religion be obey'd not only for Wrath but for Conscience or must they not If they must People are oblig'd to exercise a new Religion as often as the Laws appoint a new Exercise For they cannot exercise one Religion and be of another And then they are oblig'd in Conscience to alter their Religion as the Laws alter from Protestant to Presbyterian or Independent or as the Law pleases If such Laws are not to be obey'd that the exercise of Religion is under the Regulation of the Laws signifies that People may be punish'd for not doing what in Conscience they are not oblig'd to do So Christianity is under the Regulation of Pagan or Turkish Laws and every weaker Man under the Regulation of a stronger which to may Ears sounds odly But take it which way you will the Case is equal If there be an Obligation from the Laws there may be an Obligation to the Presbyterian or Independent Exercise and Religion when the Law pleases And if there be none Presbytery indeed and Independency cannot be impos'd upon our Consciences by Law but they may be as much settled as Protestancy is now For all are under the same Regulation with the same either Obligation or not Obligation from that Regulation He concludes with a Prayer with which it is as with Scripture Take it right and 't is a good Prayer but yet they may joyn in it who will be Good Christians and Loyal Subjects no longer than their King is a Nursing Father to their Church But now he is parting from His Majesty it will not be amiss to reflect how it stands between them His Majesty as he had perhaps more reason than other Men was deeply sensible of the sad effects of Differences in Religion which he saw must needs last till an effectual course be taken to compose them Wrangling about particular Points that is turning Religion into Ergotery He had reason to think would never do it For there never came so bad a Cause into Westminster-Hall nor ever will into the Church for which no Argument can be made As long as Men have Tongues they will never want something to say which 't is but dressing up in handsome Language and it may take with those who distinguish not the Plausible from the Solid The bare name of an Answer is enough to make a shew and keep up the Reputation of not being overcome and so much is Victory to one side In short Men die and Disputes live and all that comes of them is what was long since observ'd There is no end of writing many Books He saw besides that it agrees not with the Goodness of God and His care of Man to leave us at uncertainties which without Infallibility he saw unavoidable And
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
manifest for you I shall neither believe Catholics nor you Here I will stop For truly after so much said of this Subject and so long Experience of his sure Compass I grieve too much to dispute it farther when I observe that neither Reason nor Experience will do and fear there are who more desire the Ocean of Controversies should never be past than truly think it will be past this way But he is merry whatever I be For sure he is in jest when he talks of clear Evidence of Scripture against us and the Church of Romes notoriously deviating from it Under the Face he sets on this Matter there is nothing in the World but that he has the Art to make the Words of Scripture bear a Sense of his own or Friends invention no great matter to brag on Alas no not so much as for Learning For even the Unlearned he knows have Wit enough to pervert the Scriptures to their own Perdition And because the Church of Rome has no mind his Word should be past upon her for God's Word he runs away with it with a sure Compass and clear Evidence and the infallible Rule Words which as big as they sound signifie nothing but the Whimsies of possibly a single possibly an unlearned Man but yet who will needs be wiser than the Church To take upon us to understand the meaning of the Books of Divine Mysteries otherwise than by learning it of their Interpreters when no Trade the most trivial and easie is learnt without a Master and condemn what we understand not as we do when we will not embrace that Meaning is not to mince his Words rash Pride in the Opinion of S. Austin But to go on the Answerer knows very well that the meaning of his Majesties next Paragraph is not what his Question would put upon it and yet he must needs suppose it has another as if he did him Grace His Majesty asks no Grace of him but to put the Period entire It is not left to every Phantastical Mans Head to believe as he pleases but to the Church to whom Christ left the Power on Earth where I think the Compositor has left out a Comma to govern us in matters of Faith who made the Creeds for our direction and then to understand English But he will needs suppose the meaning is that those who reject the Authority of the Roman Catholic Church do leave every Man to believe according to his own Fancy Still he takes it not right Not but that rejecting that Authority infers setting up private Fancy But as inconsequent as it is there are who for all their rejecting that greater Authority are severe enough in requiring punctual obedience to their own little or no Authority and this too visibly for his Majesty to say they do not His words I conceive cannot fairly be suppos'd to extend farther than they were directed to a single Person in all likelihood who had the honour of his Confidence and whom he thought fit to put in mind That it is not left to every Phantastical Mans Head to believe as he pleases What has the Answerer to say to this is it true or is it not true Certainly says he those of the Church of England cannot be liable to any Imputation of this Nature And who can tell by this whether he say I or no or what kind of Answer that should be which says neither or what it serves for but to do the Church of England the same good Office which they do themselves who when Vice is ridicul'd on the Stage fall out with the Actors or Poet and will needs be the Fools of the Play But if he will be 〈◊〉 needless Apologies why must he needs make one fifty times worse than the attempt to make it All Heretics since the first Four General Councils may say the very same which he says for the Church of England and all before them the Equivalent Arius himself could say I receive the Apostles Creed and why should more be requir'd of me when that has hitherto been thought sufficient for all Christians Moreover I embrace all former Councils but think I have very great reason to complain that a Party in the Church the most corrupt and obnoxious assuming the Title of a General and Free Council takes upon it self to define new Doctrine which has neither universal Tradition divers heretofore and all the Orthodox that is my Abetters being on my side and so plainly no Scripture that because they could find none there they were fain to Coyn a new Word for their new Faith Macedonius Nestorius and Eutiches might have said as much of the Creeds and Councils before them and all Heretics since of the Creeds and Councils alledg'd by the Answerer and all complain of the Villanous Factions call'd General Councils He has plainly justify'd them all if it be a justification of a Doctrine that it is not found condemned in Councils held before it was broach'd For the Doctrine of none of them was condemn'd by any former Council nor indeed well could For as Councils seldom meddle with more than the exigence for which they were call'd requires it is not to be expected that more Faith should be found in their Creeds or Acts than was Controverted when they sat Wherefore unless one will fancy that every part of Christs Doctrine was denied so early or that no body since can deny some part which was not denied then it is as wild as unseasonable to plead in behalf of a Doctrine now that it was not condemn'd by the first Four General Councils or Three Creeds where there was no occasion to mention it And yet he thinks this an Apology fit to be made for the Church of England Truly I have long thought and there are of her Members who know my Thoughts that she has ill luck when she has much better things to say for her self to have such things as these said for her things which fit the greatest Enemies she has every jot as well as her self and which I therefore wonder not when I see alledg'd by them as Pleas for her For They have reason when They will not be brought to Her to bring Her to Them if they can But to see them produc'd by those who will be even unseasonably zealous for her is a Riddle with which it is not for me to meddle What he adds of holding nothing contrary to any universal Tradition of the Church from the Apostles Times and putting it upon that Issue for professing and offering as he expresses it is no great matter unless they do what they profess and offer is indeed to purpose and spoken like a Friend of the Church of England and a Lover of Peace And I hea◠tily wish and as earnestly as I can pray to Almighty God that this Trial may be brought speedily on which I can safely undertake shall neither be declin'd nor delay'd by the Church of Rome Then he passes on
inform the World that she had such Divines that she imparted her Scruples and after all remain'd unsatisfied with their Answers Persons of Learning indeed he says may possibly be satisfied without entring into Disputes of Matters which she had neither the leisure to examine nor the capacity to judge of Then as I said before the Kingdom of Heaven is chiefly if not only for the Wise and Learned of this World though our Saviour was not of this Judgment But is not every Man to be satisfied pro modulo suo according to the measure of his own Understanding Can an ignorant Person enter into the Knowledge of the Mysteries of our Faith when even the most Learned cannot understand them Can the Answerer himself unriddle the secrets of the Incarnation fadom the undivided Trinity Or the Consubstantiality of the Eternal Son with all his Readings and Examinations From whence comes it then that he believes them since neither the Scripture is plain about them nor the Wit of Man can comprehend them As for her comparing the Doctrines of both Churches no question she did it to the best of her Ability for if he will believe her in any thing she both read the Scriptures and conferr'd with the most Learned Protestants before she had any Discourses with a Catholic Priest But if she had not as he rudely says the capacity of judging in deep Controversies 't is very probable she might want that of understanding the instructions of her Guides For if I may similize in my turn a dull fellow might ask the meaning of a Problem in Euclide from the Bishop of Salisbury without being ever the better for his Learned Solution of it So then her Capacity will break no squares at least from the Doctrine of the English Church and the Presbyterians put them both together as they now stand united for either the Scriptures are clear and then a mean Capacity will serve to understand them or though they are never so obscure yet the upshot of all is that every Man is to Interpret for himself What farther quarrel he can have against the Lady in this particular I know not unless it be upon the Bishop of Winchesters account namely That she refus'd to advise with him and admitted the two others to a Conference and what reason she had for so doing if I were as penetrating as my Author I should undertake to demonstrate by the Infallible Evidence of Circumstances and Inferences but since the parties are dead and so long since I will not give my own Opinion why she refus'd him and of what Principles she might possibly have thought him At present I will not trouble my self farther with that Prelate of rich Memory whom I warrant you our Author would not commend so much for his great Abilities and willingness to resolve the Ladies doubts if he had not some Journey-work for him to do hereafter neither will I meddle much with the long Impertinent Story of his Letter to the Duchess and her silence at Farnham where she would not consult him in any of her doubts Whatever great matters are made of these by our Answerer she had a very sufficient reason for not asking his Advice as will instantly be made appear but now our Author is at another of his dodging tricks comparing Times and Dates of Letters the Bishops bearing Date the Twenty fourth of Ianuary that very Year in which she chang'd but that he may not puzzle himself too much in reckoning I will unriddle the Matter of Fact to him which I have from a most Authentic Hand the Duke and Duchess were at Farnham in the beginning of September where they continued about three Days in the Year 1670. Her Highnesses Paper bears Date the Twentieth of August 1670. by which it is manifest that it was written twelve or fourteen Days before her visit to the Bishop Now where I beseech your is the wonder that she spoke nothing to him concerning any points of a Religion in which she was already satisfied Wou'd any Man ask another what 's a Clock after he had been just looking upon a Sun-dial So that all his aggravations dwindle at length into this poor inference that it is evident she did not make use of the ordinary means for her own Satisfaction at least mark how he mollifies for fear of being trap'd as to those Bishops who had known her longest Now this is so pitiful that is requires no Answer for it amounts to no more than that she lik'd not the Bishop and therefore from the begining conceal'd her Scruples from him and she chang'd her Religion the same Year tho' before he writ to her because she was satisfied of another but do's it follow from hence as he infers that in the mean while she did not use the ordinary means for her satisfaction supposing she had lik'd the other two Bishops as little as she did him had she no other ordinary means but by those two or even by any other Bishops Satisfied to be sure she was or she had not chang'd and if the means had been wholly extraordinary from the Inspirations of Gods Holy Spirit only she had thereby receiv'd the greater favour but not omitting to give God thanks for his Supernatural Assistance she us'd also the ordinary means It appears that her first Emotions were from her observing the Devotions of the Catholics in France and Flanders and this is no news to any Traveller ask even our Protestant Gentlemen at their return from Catholic Countries and they cannot but confess that the Exercises of their Devotion their Mortifications their Austerities their Humility their Charity and in short all the ways of good living are practis'd there in a for greater measure than they are in England But these are the Vertues from which we are blessedly reform'd by the Example and Precept of that Lean Mortified Apostle St. Martin Luther Her first Scruples were rais'd in her by reading Doctor Heylins History of the Reformation and what she found in it we shall see hereafter it appears that History had given her some new apprehensions and to satisfie them she consider'd of the Matters in difference betwixt the Catholics and Protestants and so considered them as to examine them the best she could by Scripture which she found to speak clearly for the Catholics and she upon our Authors Principles was Judge of this after which she spoke with two of the best Bishops in England and their doubtful or rather favourable Answers did but add more to the desire she had to be a Catholic All these ordinary ways she took before she could persuade her self to send for a Priest whose endeavours it pleas'd the Almighty so to bless that she was reconcil'd to his Church and her troubled Conscience was immediately at rest I have been forc'd to recapitulate these things and to give them the Reader at one view for our Answerer is so cunning at this Trade that he shews them only in Parcels and by