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
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
what has he in reserve I see what he alledges to justifie his confident Reproach of Vsurpation The Sacred Head of the Church on whom he cries out for an Usurper has shew'd by his reiterated Approbation of the Bishop of Meaux Book that he is content with that Submission and Obedience which the Holy Councils and Fathers have always â— aught the Faithful Pray with what propriety of Language or what Sense do's he call challenging of so much Usurpation What Scripture or Ancient Châ— rch or Part of the Christian World 〈◊〉 with him that 't is so not excepting the 〈◊〉 of England her self For there is more reason to take the Expositor's word who speaks in her 〈◊〉 than his for the Sense of the Church of England And from him I learn it sticks not at 〈◊〉 Point since she will be content to yield the Pope that Authority which the Ancient Councilâ— of the Primitive Church have acknowledged and 〈…〉 Fathers have always taught the Faithful to 〈…〉 And She I suppose would not yield to 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—pation nor the â— xpositor for her But pray for what is this Harangue â— pon Uâ—â—â— pation and a Spiritual Kingdom 〈…〉 would know how People come to separate from the 〈◊〉 that is vary from the Common â— aith of 〈◊〉 And the Answerer tells him There is an Usâ— rper set up in the West Why suppose there be mâ— st Pâ—â—ple therefore needs believe otherwise than they 〈◊〉 before needs believe there is no Change 〈◊〉 â—â—â—stance no Purgatory no more than two Sacraments and the rest This Western Usurpation has no Iâ—fluence upon the East to make the Christians there change their Faith Why cannot the Reforâ— ation believe of these Points as they believe and as 〈◊〉 Christians besides themselves ever have and 〈◊〉 do So all Differences would be reduc'd to a singâ— e Point and that if we may believe the Exposâ— tâ— r either no Difference or easily reconcileable But tâ— go about to make us believe we must needs differ about a hundred things and can by no means 〈◊〉 it lawful to pray to a Saint or set up an Image as long as a certain Man takes more than câ— mes to â— is share shews the Answerer was either in a very â— leasant Humour or hard put to it for something 〈◊〉 say I have follow'd him 〈…〉 my way To return again 〈…〉 do Men separate from 〈…〉 Church says the Question We own no Separation from that but are disjoyn'd from the Roman says the Answerer Since that Church is nothing but the Roman and the rest united in the same Faith as a Man's Body is nothing but the several Members animated by the same Soul and no Part can be cut off from any of the Members no Part of a Finger for example from the Finger without being cut off from the whole Body This is in truth to say We are not separated we are only disjoyned or We are not separated but separated But to let this pass and not stray further after him into the many Questions which his Reply would start As Whether there be any Catholic besides the Roman Catholic Church Whether there can be Reason for being disjoyn'd from any Part of it Whether Disjoyning and Union be not â— lat Contradiction since Disjoyning signifies a different Faith and Union the same And the like in which whatever concern his We have I do not believe he has Authority from the Church of England to concern her All these things apart I observe the Answerer do's here as elsewhere appears himself and leaves his Answer behind For who they are that separate and what they own and from what part they profess to be dis-joyn'd is nothing to what Authority they have to separate from the whole who do The Kings Quâ— stion is a step to an end of Controversies For let People once know that they whoever they be are in a deplorable condition who live separated from the one Church of Christ upon Earth those among them who haâ— e any care of their Souls will bethink themselves and be glad to find â— er out and by piecing with her if they be broken off help to make that One the only Church on Earth and all Christians of a mind again And I wish the Answerer had gone that one step without staggering It had been a safe step for every body who is sure he do's not separate For it takes off no weight from any Reason by which he can shew that he do's not But I am afraid the youngest Man in Christendom shall never live to see one step made towards an end of differences in Religion at least if the Answerer were inclin'd that way he might me thinks without boggling have frankly own'd there is or there is not Authority to separate The last Paragraph asks when pretences are made of separating from the Church Who shall judge of them the whole Church or particular Men He answers That the whole force of this Paragraph dependâ— upon a Supposition which is taken for granted but will never be yielded by Them and they are sure can never be prov'd by the Church of Rome Let the Paragraph and its force depend on what it will 〈◊〉 not have answered a plain Question plainly and told us whether the Judgment of pretences do or do not belong to the Church and if not to whom elseâ— He pretends here that things are taken for granted 〈◊〉 one side which can never be prov'd and will 〈◊〉 be yielded by the other Let him tell us if he please before he proceed who shall judge of thus much Who pronounce whether those of the Châ— rch 〈◊〉 Rome can prove or no and before whom they 〈◊〉 when it comes to their turn produce their 〈◊〉 Who likewise whether the other side ougâ— t to yield 〈…〉 why he drives all to the Judgment of a particular Church unless he think all saâ— e there and the Judgment of that Church not to be submitted to any farther Judgment Which if he do he plainly thinks there is no Judge between Churches whatever may be betwixt Churches and particular Men. This indeed is a full Answer and which takes the Question quite away For it can no longer be ask'd who is the Judge if there be none at all But he do's not explain himself and 't is not for me to make him say more than he do's This I see that either this is his Answer or he gives none For there is nothing besides but what pretences they make and who made them and upon what account All which is nothing to who is the Iudge of them His Usurper is a strange importunate fellow to thrust in so often where he has nothing to do and I have no more to say to him At the last consideration I am as much surpriz'd as the Answerer For I thought no Interest should have been remembred in our Case but One what it avails a Man to gain the whole World and lose his Soul
〈…〉 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
things Whether it be easie or no to find the Churches Infallibility in the Scripture has been answered by Her Royal Highness and I will not presume to answer where she has especially when the Question has no relation to our Business In the last place who has found the Churches Infallibility has yet says the Answerer a harder Point to get over viz. How the Promises relating to the Church in general came to be appropriated to the Church of Rome By the way the Promises of which he talks are they not in Scripture and no harder to be found there by another than by him How comes the Churches Infallibility to be easily found there in this Period which was not easie to find in the last For who has found the Promise has founâ— Infallibility as certainly as that the Promises of Christ never fail But why are we not all agreed now That there are Promises of Infallibility made to the Church in general he agrees and doubts not I suppose but that those Promises are made good I suppose too he will allow that the Church in General and the General Church are all one and that the General and the Catholic Church are but two Names for the same thing And so we are arriv'd at Infallibility in the Catholic Church Yes but it must not be appropriated to the Church of Rome Why it shall not if that will content him We ask no more than what he allows That the Catholic Church be Infallible and the Church of Rome with all her faults one of the many Churches which make it up To allow so much is to allow the Roman Catholic Church is Infallible For Roman Catholic is nothing but the Catholic with the Roman in What remains then but to take the Infallibility promis'd to this Catholic Church for the Foundation of our Salvation inquire and believe what she teaches and leave off disputing For they are undoubtedly firmly grounded who build on the Promises of God It is true the Answerer has not all this while answered the Question For he says not whether Salvation ought to depend on a Sandy Foundation or whether the private Judgment be a Sandy Foundation But he has done much better by instructing People the Catholic Church is Infallible and shall for me keep his Thoughts of that Matter to himself since he has no mind to reveal them People I hope will profit by his Instructions and for their own sakes chuse Infallible rather than Fallible Security for their Souls now they know where 't is to be had There follow several lines in his Majesties Paper which are not transcrib'd by the Answerer because they are he says as effectual for the Church of England as Rome And truly I am of his mind that the Church of England has her share in those favours as much as any particular Church if she be as they are incorporated into the General For neither do they claim otherwise nor can the Favours granted by God to the Faithful be imagined extended to the not-faithful It is for this Reason I have always thought them no Friends of hers who make her of a dâ— fferent Faith from all or indeed any part of the Catholic Church that is no part her self For evidently there is no pretending to the Priviledges of a Body but by being a Member nor pretending to be of the Body of Faithful but by Faith And pray consider says the King on the other side that those who resist the Truth and will not submit to his Church draw their Arguments from Implications and far fetch'd Interpretations at the same time that they deny plain and positive words which is so great a disingenuity that 't is not almost to be thought that they can believe themselves Here are two particulars mentioned drawing Arguments from Implications and denying plain words In answer to the first out of the whole heap of Controversies the Answerer chuses Three in which they have he says plain and positive words on their side Now it had been altogether as easie and as short to have produc'd those plain and positive words if there had been any as to have past his word that there are such Besides that People love to see with their own Eyes and plain things may easily be seen He is a Party and even Supreme Powers according to him must not judge in their own Cause It rests then with him to shew where the Scripture says No of what the Roman Catholic Church says I or contrariwise For this is what People understand by plain and positive and all besides is Implication And by the favour of his Confidence I affirm to him that who argue against the Roman Catholic Church out of Scripture argue always from Implications tho' it be more than needs to justifie His Majesties Assertion For if they draw their Arguments from Implications at any time they draw Arguments from Implications In answer to the Second he pitches upon a point wherein he acknowledges the words of Scripture seem plain and positive on our side and their Sense to be from Implications and far-fetch'd Interpretations and alledges what he has to say why notwithstanding they are not plain and positive As if there were any other way of denying plain Words of Scripture but by denying them to be plain No Christian has the confidence to deny what Scripture plainly teaches but who has no mind to believe what it teaches denies that it teaches contrary to him and for a Pretence to deny That raises some Mist or other to obscure the Clearness of every Text alledg'd against him The Answerer then is far enough from shewing that they do not deny plain Words of Scripture by pretending that they are not plain not did not could His Majesty mean they denied them otherwise who knew very well that there is no other way to do it and that no Words are so plain but who will make it his business may find something to say against them This which the Answerer alledges was far from a Secret to Him In short the Answerer would have them cleared from arguing from Implications by saying they have in three Points plain Words which he thought it needless to produce and from denying plain Words by denying that they are plain And this is all his Answer What he says of Implications in the Pope's Bulls might if he could shew the Church of Rome builds her Faith on those Implications be an Argument against her but none for himself For Paul is not a just the less a Thief because Peter is caught stealing too But some in the Church of Rome argue from Implications upon which they do not build their Faith therefore others may build their Faith upon Implications seems to me but an odd Argument The King's Conclusion is Is there any other Foundation of the Protestant Church but that if the Civil Magistrate please he may call such of the Clergy as he thinks fit for his turn at that time and turn
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
would have any Man shew me says the King where the Power of deciding Matters of Faith is given to every particular Man He distinguishes and says The Power of Deciding so as to oblige others is not given to every particular Man the Power of Deciding so as to satisfie the particular Decider is Denial is a fair Answer and this seems to deny what His Majesty says and yet in truth says nothing to it Deciding of particular Men being our own Iudges following our own Fancy or private Spirit believing as we please and the like Expressions signifie all the same And the King as Men use to do who mind Sense more than Words and have Language at will takes now one now another as they come in His way As it could not scape an â— ye less piercing than His that he judges every jot as much who believes upon the Authority of the Church as he who believes upon his own Fancy of Scripture and that every Assent is a Judgment and so the Assent of Faith as well as the rest it cannot be imagin'd that He would have Men not judge at all But He meant as all the World means by those Phrases that they should not judge unreasonably For as they are blamed who will be their own Judges and no body blames another for doing well and Judging is of it self a good thing an Exercise of a Faculty planted in us by God there is nothing to be blamed but the ill use of that Faculty by suffering Passion to 〈◊〉 it which should only be guided by Reason That Men 〈◊〉 mean thus by those Expressions we see by the 〈◊〉 to which they apply them He who being 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 or Conceit of 〈…〉 〈…〉 the Advice of his unpassionate and 〈…〉 or he who has no skill in Physic or 〈…〉 will commence and prosecute Suits 〈…〉 against the Advice of able Lawyers and Doctors is said to be his own Judge He is not who understanding Jewels or Pictures buys them at his own Rate tho' never so many of less 〈◊〉 than himself persuade him to the contrary 〈…〉 is said to be his Judge Now the King 〈◊〉 because Christ taught his Apostles and 〈◊〉 who with those that believ'd his Doctrine 〈…〉 Preaching and their Successors through 〈…〉 are called the Church that he could not 〈◊〉 reasonably who would pretend to find out that Doctrine by his own Wit or Study or any 〈◊〉 but by learning it of the Church which 〈…〉 at first from Christ and preserv'd it ever 〈◊〉 And this unreasonable Judgment made on their own Heads or Fancy against the Judgment of those whose Profession it is His several Expressions strike at The Answerer reflected not on the meaning of them but would persuade us That to say particular Men must be satisfied of the Reasons why they believe is an Answer to the Question Whether there be indeed any Reasons why they should believe besides the Authority of the Church To go forward Christ says his Maâ—â— sty left his Power to his Church even to forgive Sins in Heaven and left his Spirit with them which they exerâ—â—â—â— d after his Resurruction He answers as if he were at 〈◊〉 purposes where then was the Roman 〈…〉 What has where was she to do 〈…〉 left to her 'T is a strange Quâ— stion 〈◊〉 and he I believe the first who ever ask'd where a Church was before she was The Roman was a part of the Catholic as soon as she was a Church till then she was where all the Churches 〈◊〉 the World besides were except that of â— ierusalem and where the Church of â— ierusalem too was before Christ was born in the order of Providenâ—â— But how can it be hence inferr'd that these Powerâ— are now in the Church of Rome 〈◊〉 Roman Cathâ—â—â—â— Church I suppose he means exclusive to all others unless it be made appear that it was Heir-General to all the Apostles As if there needed Logic to infer that Powers left for the Salvation of Mankind remain in being as long as there remains a Manâ—â—â—â— to be saved or Powers left to the Church of Christ are in the Church of Christ and those exclâ— ded from the Powers who are not inclâ— ded â— n the Church or to make appear She is Heir-General to all the Apostles who as visibly as that the Sâ— ripture is in Print is the One Churâ— h 〈…〉 he could be content to be 〈…〉 Point but since his Majesty 〈…〉 purpose to do more than barely mention it I 〈◊〉 it not to mine to stray from the Papers I 〈◊〉 In the process of his Discourse he would 〈◊〉 the ordinary Power of the Keys out of the 〈◊〉 and shall with all my heart so he remove it not out of the Church For since it was with the 〈◊〉 given only to her I do not see what 〈…〉 Title there can be to it but 〈…〉 Her He is by his good favour 〈…〉 removing Miraculous Power out of the 〈…〉 God who slights not the Roman 〈…〉 so much as he continues 〈…〉 her And would he be content to 〈…〉 〈◊〉 on Miracles I would be content to undertake the Proof But alas I fear there needs a Miracle to make People willing that Differences of Religion should have any Issue He would have it question'd What part of the Promise of the Infallible Spirit was to expire with the Apostles what to be continued to the Church in all Ages And how fâ— r that Promise extends Strange Questions for Christians to dispute after they have been answer'd by Christ himself When Christ has extended the Assistance of that Spirit to All his Doctrine and All Time for us to ask which part of that Assistance shall cease or to 〈◊〉 is to ask Which is the Part of Christ's Promise which he will not perform Neither indeed are these Questions with his Distinction between Sin and Errour and subtle Speculations upon it for any thing but to bring in Deposing Doctrine a Comâ— on-place bang'd in every Book of late It is a Theme than which as much as it is 〈◊〉 upon I do not think a worse can be taken 〈◊〉 an Invective against Infallible Assistance pick aâ— d chuse through the whole Bundle When I conâ—â—â— er what has past and reflect there wanted neither Power nor Propension in Men and nevertheless that the Persuasions about Deposing were never settled as those in other Matters which displease the Answerer what he takes for an Argument against Infallible â—â—â—â— tance I take for a strong Argument for it For 〈◊〉 else could be the Cause of that Effect but that 〈◊〉 Power even of willing Men was directed by an 〈◊〉 Assistance of the Divine Spirit He may 〈…〉 shew he pleases with the Errours of 〈◊〉 who will not reflect they never exercis'd the Power of Church-Guidâ—â— upon 〈◊〉 Errours or in his Language so as to 〈…〉 which yet he knows very well no Council of 〈◊〉 he had in his eye ever did As the Church
the Word of Roman Catholic Next for want of a Quarrel he is falling on his late dear Friend the Bishop Was he says our Answerer so weak to mean the Word Catholic in the strictest sense he must then have contradicted himself there was an inconsistency in his Words and so forth From the inconsistency of the Bishop's Words in this and other Places our Answerer perhaps would make a secret Inference That he never said them and obliquely draw the Duchess into the Statute of Coining So that the two Spiritual Hectors may make a Sham-duel of it for ought we know For 't is a common trick with Robbers to clash their Swords together in the dark to draw Company together and then some third Person pays for it Take it in this manner and then the Argument against her Highness will stand thus The Sayings which she relates are inconsistent and therefore she must not be believ'd though she affirms she heard them Why do not as many as have Ears hear inconsistent things said every day and must every body needs lie who reports them again That Inconsistency of the Words is in truth an Argument that the things were said For what bids fairer for adding to the desire she had of being a Catholic and of giving her the terrible Agonies she felt But after all if the Answerer's Quarrel be in earnest with the Bishop 't is pity they should fall out for such a Trifle As weak as the Bishop was and as strong as our Answerer makes his Inconsistencies appear I dare answer for him he meant nothing less than to convert her You do ill therefore to play the Bully with a peaceable Old Gentleman who only desir'd to possess his Conscience and his Bishopric in peace without offence to any Man either of the Catholic Church or that of England But if he held that both Churches were so far Parts of the Catholic that there was no necessity of going from one Church to another to be sav'd if he asserted that you say he must overthrow the Necessity of your Reformation and then down go's his Belief of your Homilies and Articles Thirty nine at a Tip and consequently he could be no true Member of the Church of England And now what can I do more for the poor Bishop For most certainly he did imply thus much in saying That if he had been bred a Catholic he would not change his Religion Therefore Take him Topham there 's no help but he must be turn'd out of the Church of England even so long after he has been dead In the mean time let us a little examine this Proposition Our Answerer affirms That he cannot be a true Member of the Church of England who asserts both Churches to be so far Parts of the Catholic Church that there is no necessity of going from one Church to another to be sav'd If this be true then to be a Member of the Church of England one must assert That either both Churches are not Parts of the Catholic or That they are so Parts that there is a necessity of going from one to another Of these two the first is not for the Honour of one of the Churches and the second is direct Nonsence A Necessity of Change consists not with their being both Parts for Parts constitute one Whole and leave not one and another to go to or from There is no Church in France or Italy to which a Spanish Catholic can go but what he left in Spain nor can he leave his own by going to either of them He may be under other Governours in the same Church but let him go wheresoever he shall please he cannot be of another so long as he remains a Catholic In short Necessity of Change makes it absolutely impossible for both Churches to be Parts of the Catholic and forces the Church of England to maintain either that she is a Part and the Roman Catholic none or else that 't is no matter whether she be a Part or no to which I wish they may not with the Pretence of Zeal for her Honour desire to drive her who have nothing better to say in their own behalf But though our Answerer has laid one Bishop slat I warrant you he has another in reserve For now the Bishop of Winchester who as I said formerly was not commended so much for nothing is brought back in Triumph from his Palace of Farnham to make a short end of the Dispute At first he doubts whether ever there were any such Bishops who made such Answers and then affirms that he believes there never was in rerum naturâ such a Discourse as is pretended to have been betwixt this Great Person and two of the most Learned Bishops in England This is downright indeed for our Answerer to do him Justice has often collaterally accus'd the Duchess for her good Invention at making Stories but here is plain English upon the Point What pity is it in the mean time that my Lord of Winton gives not so much as one single Reason either for his Doubt or his contrary Belief So that having only his Lordship's Opinion and her Highness's Affirmation before me I might say with at least as much Good Manners as that Prelate That I believe as little of his pretended Letter sent to the Duchess so long after her Decease as he do's of her pretended Discourse with the two Bishops In the mean time what use would my Gentleman here make of his Lordships doubts his belief or his affirmation Are the Embers too hot for him that he uses the Bishops Foot to pull out the Chesnut Suppose our Prelate had believ'd there were no Antiphodes is this a time of Day to give him credit But I wonder the less why our Author attributes so much to his ipse dixit upon all occasions for the whole body of his Answer to this Paper is in effect a Transcript from the Bishops Preface He purloyns his Arguments without altering sometime so much as the property of his words He has quoted him five times only in the Margent and ought to have quoted him in almost every line of his Pamphlet In short if the Master had not eaten the Man saving Reverence could not have vomited But it is easie to be seen through all the grimaces of that Bishop that he found himself aggriev'd he has not thought on when her Highness spoke of the two best or most Learned Bishops of England and that his Opinion was not consulted when indeed he had offer'd it though unask'd I know his Defender will reply That his Lordship has modestly disclaim'd any such Pretence to Learning in his Preface where he says No I am not I know I am not I am sure I am not the most Learned Bishop See how he mounts in his Expressions at three several Bounds 'T is true all these Asseverations like his three Nolo's needed not for any reasonable Man who had read his Works would have taken his
bare word without Repetition Yet this notwithstanding he might have some inward grudgings that his Pupil thought him not so great a Doctor But it is not fit that a Matter of such importance should end in a bare Ay and No on either side for though the Parties have been so long dead yet there is a Witness still alive and such a one that all Loyal Subjects are bound to joyn with me in Prayers for the long continuance of His Life and even for His continuance in the True Religion as far as the English Liturgycan oblige them The Duchess thought her self bound to make his Royal Highness acquainted with every one of these several Conferences which she had either with Archbishop Sheldon or Bishop Blandford and that account was the very same in substance with what she communicates to her Friends in this present Paper as he is pleas'd to permit me to assure the World after having had the Honour to hear him solemnly affirm it which puts an end to the whole Matter of Dispute and this which follows is as Authentic The Day it pleased Almighty God to call her Highness to his Mercy some Relations of hers who are yet living were desirous that she should speak with the Bishop of Worcester which the Duchess did not absolutely refuse upon their importunity but requested the then Duke to stop the Bishop a little in the Anti-chamber and prepare him according to her directions before he enter'd the Bed-chamber accordingly His Highness having met the Bishop acquainted him That she was actually reconcil'd to the Catholic Church he then enquir'd Whether she were fully satisfied in all Points of the Doctrine which she had embrac'd and the Duke answer'd that she was entirely satisfied in the Doctrine of the Catholic Church at length the Bishop ask'd Whether she had already receiv'd the last Sacraments of the Church naming particularly those of the Blessed Eucharist and the Extreme Vnction and it being reply'd by the Duke that she had receiv'd them the Bishop answered That then he doubted not but that her Soul was in a very safe condition before they parted His Royal Highness told him That it was the desire of the Duchess he would not trouble her with any Matter of Dispute nor offer to Pray with her but if he had any Spiritual Counsel fitting for a Person in her condition in order to prepare her for her Death he might freely tender it upon this he was admitted to her Bed-chamber and made her a brief Exhortation after which his stay there was very short This being matter of Fact and of unquestionable Truth I hope the Answerer will acquiesce in it What he will think of his Bishop concerns not me but as a Protestant he has reason for his thanking God that the Cause of his Church do's not depend on the singular Opinion of one Bishop in it It appears plainly by this Relation that the Bishop of Worcester was ignorant almost to the last of her Conversion so that if that will serve our Authors turn he is acquitted from intending any such Act of Charity but that he contributed to it without any such intention is apparent Yet our Author will not so sit down he will condemn her Highness from her own words again and prove from her saying that she ow'd the Blessing of her Conversion to God Almighty that therefore the Bishop could have no hand in it What obligation has he to defend the Honour of his Church by a piece of Sophistry she ow'd it wholly to Almighty God for of our selves we can do nothing but as the Answerer confesses this excluded not her own endeavours God inspir'd her with a desire of being reconcil'd to his Church in answer to her frequent Prayers not by immediate illumination or shewing her the right belief miraculously but by affording her the ordinary means and conducting her by his good Spirit in the use of them If she had been immediately enlightn'd she needed not to have recourse to any of the Bishops but it pleas'd God who often works Good out of Evil that the Arguments they us'd or rather the Answers which they made produc'd a contrary effect and added more to the desire she had to be a Catholic in this sense therefore it may be said that the Bishops sent her to the Priest for an unresistable over-ruling Power made them contribute to her change by opposing it and the very hands which labour'd to hold her fast in the Protestant Perswasion carried her half Seas over and put her into other Hands which carried her the other half Truly they would have receiv'd hard measure if they had been found guilty on the Statute of Perswasion who far from endeavouring to make her change disswaded her from changing tho' the Protestant Flints happen'd to strike Catholic Fire So that I cannot but think there was an extraordinary Hand of Providence in her Case and of which she had reason to be extraordinary sensible But we must have I perceive a care of Praying and owning benefits from God for that or nothing made her pass for an Enthusiast with the Answerer She did nothing besides Praying which our Author do's not acknowledge it her duty to have done She read the History which was put into her Hands to confirm her in her first belief she examin'd the Scripture she conferr'd with her Divines and yet he can make an obstinate Woman of her for doing that very thing to which he wou'd advise her But says our Author All pretenders to Enthusiasm do as solemnly and wholly ascribe the Blessing to Almighty God and look on it as the effect of such Prayers as she made to him in France and Flanders They ascribe it indeed wholly to God in our Authors Sense but not in hers for she meant not immediate illumination by the word wholly as I have already prov'd they may look on their false light as the effect of their Prayers but she looks on her Conversion as the effect of hers after having used the means He had thought he says that the pretence to a private Spirit or Enthusiasm for he joyns them both afterwards had not been at this time allowed in the Church of Rome Somebody once thought otherwise or he had never diverted the young Gallants of the Town with his merry Book concerning the Fanaticism of the Church of Rome He next enquires what need she had of an infallible Church if she owed her Change so wholly to Almighty God Wholly is already explain'd to him and then his Argument is of no more force against her then against all Catholics who have once been Protestants which is a new Subject of Dispute and forrein to the Argugument in hand Her Conclusion as he tells us is That she would never have chang'd if she could have sav'd her Soul otherwise Whereupon he infers If this were true she had good reason for her change if it were not true as most certainly it was not she had none But