AS I think the Answerer may, with as little need of Apology, become the Antagonist, as I the Champion of a King and Princess, and that the cowar­dise of delaying Time, suits ill with the Presumption of entring into such a Quarrel; I [Page 2] shall lose none in scanning the Preliminary Discour­ses of my Adversary, or making any for my self.

His Majesty says in his first Lines, That it is as visible, as that the Scripture is in Print, that none can be the One Church which Christ has here on Earth, but that which is called the Roman Catholic Church; and that there is no need to enter into the Ocean of Par­ticular Disputes, when the main, and in truth only Question is, Where that Church is.

The Answerer, who had a mind to flourish, before he offered to pass, says first: That if particular Con­troversies could be ended, by a Principle as visible as that the Scripture is in Print, all Men of sence would soon give over Disputing. And what if they did? The sooner, the better, I should think. For Chri­stians, sure, might without any harm become unani­mous in their Sentiments, all of one Heart, and one Soul again, and lay Disputing aside: As truly I believe they would, if the Apostle could prevail with them, to lay aside all Anger, and Malice, and Indignation. For Disputes, alas! continue, not because Truth is not visible, but because Men will not submit their Sence to Grace, but strain it, in stead of ending Disputes, to keep them up, and render invisible the most visible things in the World.

In our present Case, if His Majesty, in stead of as visible, had said, the Church is more visible than Scripture, He would have had a very great Man to take His part. For which do's the Answerer think is the more visible of the two, the thing which is seen, or that by which it is seen? And he knows who said, [...] Authoritas. Aug. Cont. Epist. Fund. c. v. I would not believe the Gospel, unless the Authority of the Catholic Church had moved me. [Page 3] And this is, in truth, the Case of every Body. But evidently S. Augustin's Eyes, as good as they were, did not see the Scripture, but by the Catholic, that is, the Roman Catholic Church. For that, the An­swerer knows, was the Catholic Church with which he communicated.

Then he gives a Reason why Disputing would cease, viz. Because none who dare believe what they see, can call Scriptures being in Print in question; which by making nothing visible, which can be cal­led in question, makes it not visible that Scripture is in Print. For he knows the far greatest part of Mankind, all Infidels and Mahumetans, do actually call Scripture in question at this day; he knows ma­ny Christians have questioned divers Parts of it heretofore; and He himself still questions some, as visibly in Print as any of the rest. But to question whether the Book in Print be Scripture, is manifest­ly to question whether Scripture be in Print. And so in one breath he says it is, in the next it is not visible that Scripture is in Print. But we will not fall out about Matters which import not.

But, goes he on, what if the Church, whose Au­thority it is said they must submit to, will not allow them to believe what they see? Why then that Church, if he take Believing strictly, agrees with all Mankind. For as every body knows that Faith is of things not seen, none can allow we properly believe [...] we see. [...] But if he take the Word large­ly, I know of no Church which allows not People to believe all they see. I do indeed know of one, which would be glad People would not believe they see, what they see not, nor by thier Senses can see. An Eye may see the Colour of a thing, and an Ear [Page 4] hear the Sound it makes, &c. but what this colour­ed, or sounding thing is, often needs more than the Senses to discover. For the What of a thing is not the Object of any Sense.

How then, says he, can this be a sufficient Reason to persuade them to believe the Church, because it is as visi­ble as that the Scripture is in Print? I am sorry, that to know our Duty, is not with him sufficient reason to do it. We all know by the Evangelist, that Christ left Commission to teach all Nations; and by the Apostle, that there are Pastors and Do­ctors appointed to build us up into the Vnity of Faith, and prevent our being Circumvented by Errour. And whatever he do's, I take it to be my Duty to learn of those, who are appointed, and have Commission from Christ to teach, when 'tis visible who they are.

His following conceit of using and renouncing our Senses, and indeed, all hitherto said, might have very well been spar'd: For there is nothing yet which relates to our Business. If he thinks Kings and their Writings are not above Sporting, the Matter I am sure is.

The substance of what he says, when he thinks to pass in earnest, is, 1. That a Part is not the Whole, and the Roman he takes to be only a part of the Ca­tholic Church. 2. That Roman Catholic is an Ex­pression found, neither in the Creeds, nor Office of Baptism even at present. 3. That the Roman do's not her self believe she is the Catholic Church of the Creeds, because she admits the validity of Baptism administred out of her Communion. And lastly, That there may be different Communions of Christi­ans, which may still continue parts of the Catholic; [Page 5] Church; for instance, the Holy Bishops and Mar­tyrs, who, he says, were Excommunicated hereto­fore in Asia and Afric, and the Eastern Christians at this Day.

For his first Riddle of a Part, and Whole, we may thank his Inadvertence. The Paper do's not say, that the Roman is the Catholic Church; but that the Roman Catholic is the one Church of Christ. As Ro­man alone may signify the Diocess under the imme­diate Government of the Bishop of Rome, which ne­ver did, nor can more pretend to be the Catholic Church, than the Church of Laodicea, or Ephesus, or any other particular Church; the Paper by joyn­ing Catholic to it, shews it speaks of her, and all joyn'd in Communion with her, and all who be­lieve as her Communion believes, whether they be joyn'd in External Communion or no. For it is ap­parent, by his Majesties talking all along of matters of Faith, and no where of any thing else; that he minded nothing but Faith, and considered the Church with respect only to Faith. Now I beseech him, is this Roman Catholic, ever the less visibly the one Church of Christ, because a Part is not a Whole? Of what will he make that Whole, but of all the Parts? And do's not Catholic signify all the Parts? Or is it the less Catholic; is any part taken out, because the particular Roman is put in? By the way, because He often mentions the Roman Church, with­out adding Catholic, let me here, to avoid Repetiti­ons, declare once for all, That I shall understand him of the Roman Catholic, wherever the Circum­stances of the place determine not the Sense to the particular Church of Rome. For he means not I suppose, to talk of one Church, while His Majesty talks of another.

[Page 6] Upon the Second Head, he asks, If those who made the Creeds for our direction, had intended the Roman Catholic Church, why was it not so expressed? He might have answered himself. For he knows, as well as I, that the Reason was, because Language always changes with Times. As there were no such Dreams of the Roman Church, when the Creeds were made, as now, it had been a very superfluous, and a very unaccountable piece of Care, to have said Roman in a Word by it self, which was already said by the Word Catholic, and so by all the World understood. Now there are who will have her, some a corrupt Part of the Catholic Church, some none at all; who have a mind to let People know, they take her for a Part, and a sound, and the prin­cipal Part, and yet would save Words, have light on a thrifty way of saying all in short, by Roman-Ca­tholic.

He says besides, That this Limitation, as he calls it, of the Sense of Christ's Catholic Church to the Roman, was never put to Persons to be Baptiz'd, in any Age of the Church. And, That he finds not in the Office of Baptism, that it is required that they believe the Roman Catholic Church. As if the Roman Bap­tism▪ by requiring belief of the Catholic, did not require belief of the Roman Catholic Church. If he think in earnest that it do's not, let him present a Man to this Baptism, who professes not to believe the Roman Catholic Church, and try whether his professing to believe the Catholic Church will ob­tain it. He reflects not that the Limitation, which is in this Expression, Roman Catholic Church, comes not from Roman, but from Church. That Word in­deed always limits the Expression to those who be­lieve, [Page 7] and sometimes to those who practise the Do­ctrine of Christ. Roman neither makes nor marrs, as to Limitation, but owns the Romans for such Christians. Taking in those, whom Injustice would keep out, is, it seems, Limitation in his Language.

As it griev'd him in likelihood, that this Expressi­on, as visible as that the Scripture is in Print, should be applied to the Roman Catholic Church, he had a mind to retort it upon her; but very unluckily chu­ses to do it, in an Assertion contrary to the sense of all the World, besides himself; and by an Argument contrary to the sense of the whole Church, not ex­cepting his own. He says then, in his third Head, That it is to him equally visible, that the Church of Rome it self do's not believe that it is the one Ca­tholic Church mentioned in the two Creeds; and this every body, but he, plainly sees it do's: And proves it by this Argument, Because, if it did, it must void all Baptism out of its Communion, which it hath ne­ver yet done; when 'tis plain, that all the Church agrees, it ought not to be voided. This he very well knows is a Plea over-ruled by the whole Church many Ages ago, and which I little expected he would have borrow'd from Men, who, he says, were excommunicated, because they made, and stood to it; especially wh [...] he, I think condemns it him­self. For he excludes the Donatists, I suppose, and Novatians from the Catholic Church, because they re-baptized. When he bethinks himself, he will not sure have the Church heretofore not believe her self the Catholic Church, because she would not void Baptism with the Re-baptizers; nor exclude the English from the Ca [...] holic Church, because she voids it not. The truth is to say in one breath, That the [Page 8] Donatists were not Catholics, because they Re-bap­tized; and in the next, That Roman Catholics can­not believe themselves Catholics, because they do not, is a cross piece of Business, and much too hard for me. As far as I can understand, the very Reason he gives why they should not, is one Reason why they should believe themselves the Catholic Church. For, in not voiding the Baptism of Heretics, they do as the Primitive Catholic Church did. And had I made such an Argument for a Friend, I am afraid he would have thought I plaid booty.

The Answerer nevertheless strives to make it good by this Discourse: As long as Baptism doth enter Persons into the Catholic Church, it is impossible that all who have the true Form of Baptism, though out of the Communion of the Roman Church, should be Mem­bers of the Catholic Church, and yet the Communion of the Roman and Catholic be all one; as it must be, if the Roman Church be the Catholic and Apostolic Church professed in the Creeds. This, if I under­stand it, is in short; Persons Baptized out of the Ro­man Communion, are Members of the Catholic, but not of the Roman Catholic Church; and therefore the Catholic, and Roman Catholic, are not the same Churches.

He was not, I perceive, aware, that he supposes what he should prove, and when he has done, proves it by means of that Supposition: For he could not make a Member of the Catholic, not to be a Member of the Roman Catholic, unless he suppose that those are two different Churches. And this is the very Point in Dispute, which he should prove, and which he puts for proved in his Conclusion. But we are all subject to oversights.

[Page 9] I wonder more how it could scape him, that the Baptized Persons he speaks of, are as much Mem­bers of both Churches, as of either. (I speak in his Language, as if they were different Churches, that his Argument may go on.) Those Persons are not truly Members either of the Catholic, or Roman Ca­tholic Church; but as far as Baptism makes Mem­bers, they are altogether as much Members of the Roman Catholic, as of the Catholic. And He, if he will recollect himself, knows very well, that both Points have been long since determin'd, and that by the whole Catholic Church.

The old Contest, about Rebaptisation, puts it past Dispute, that they were not truly Members of any Part of the Catholic Church. For the Contest was, How they should be made Members? Whether by a new Baptism, or only by Imposition of Hands? Both Sides therefore, that is▪ the whole Church, agreed, That they were not Members of the Church, till, one way or other, they were receiv'd into it. And to think they did not agree in this, is to make very wise Men of them; Men who fell out with one another, even to Excommunication, if we will believe the Answerer, how those should be brought into the Church, who were in already. Again, That they were nevertheless as much Members of the Ca­tholic Church, tho' baptised out of its Communi­on, and so of the Roman, tho' baptised out of the Roman Communion, as Baptism could make them, he knows too was carried against the Re-baptisers by the rest of the Church, in whose Judgment the whole Church ever since has acquiesced. And he stands single against that Judgment, when he thinks a Man baptised out of the Roman Communion, is not [Page 10] a Member of the Roman Communion, as much as Baptism makes a Member, and as much as if he were baptised in her Communion.

In truth, there is nothing to dispute of, but Words. When he says, that Baptism enters the Baptised into the Catholic Church, if he mean, that those who are duly baptised by Men who are out of the Commu­nion of the Catholic Church, need no other Bap­tism to be brought into the Catholic Church, he says very true, and no more than what the whole Church has long since said before him. Neither do they need any other Baptism to be brought into the Roman. And if he will have this called an entry, and the Baptised called Members, with all my heart. For I think it time lost, to quarrel about the Names of things, when we know what they signifie. But if he mean, that their Baptism so enters them, that they need nothing more, to be what every body un­derstands by Members, Men who believe and pro­fess the Faith of the Catholic Church, he contra­dicts every Member of the Catholic Church, and every Man in the World. For all Men see they do not profess that Faith, but the Heresies of their Bap­tisers; and all Christians know they need, notwith­standing their Baptism, to be receiv'd into the Church; and that there goes Faith, as well as Bap­tism, to a Member of the Body of Faithful. And as Faith signifies an Assent to the Doctrine of Christ, the Answerer, sure, will not say, that they have Faith, who, far from assenting, contradict the Do­ctrine of Christ; and so make the Church a Con­gregation, no longer of Faithful, but of Faithful and not Faithful.

There is more ado about the last Head, and no­thing [Page 11] 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 [Page 12] 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 [Page 13] examine how 'tis 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 'tis 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 [Page 14] 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 [Page 15] 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 [Page 16] 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, 'tis 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 [Page 17] 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, 2 Per. 1. [...] 0 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 [Page 18] for the bold and self-conceited Disputers. 1 Cor. 11. 16. 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, Quoniam nihil proficiat congressio Scripturarum, nisi plane ut aut sto­machi quis in [...] at eversionem aut ce­rebri—Non ad Scripturas provo­candum est: nec in his constituen­dum certamen, in quibus aut nulla aut incerta victoria est, aut parum [...] erta. Tertull. de Praescrip. c. 17, 19. 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, Si dixeris, noli Catholicis credere, non recte facies per Evangelium me cogere ad Manichaei sidem, quia ipsi Evangelio Catholicis praedicantibus credidi. Quod si forte in Evangelio aliquid apertissimum de Manichaei Apostolatu invenire poteris, infir­mabis mihi Catholicorum authori­tatem, qui jubent ut tibi non cre­dam. Qua infirmata, jam nec E­vangelio credere potero, quia per eos illi credideram, ita nihil apud me valebit, qui [...] quid inde protule­ris. Si inde aliquid manifestum pro Man [...] chaeo legeris, nec illis (cre­dam) nec tibi, Aug. cont. Ep. Fund. [...] 5. 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 [Page 19] 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. 2 Pet. 3. 16 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. Si unaquae [...] c disciplina, quamquam [...] lis & [...] percipi possit, doctorem aut magi [...] trum re­quirit: quid temerariae su­perb [...] ae pleni­us, quam [...] ­norum Sacra­mentorum libros, & ab Interpretibus suis nolle cognoscere, & incognitos ve [...] e damnare Aug. de Util. Cred. c. 17. tom. 6. 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 [Page 20] 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.

[Page 21] 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 [Page 22] 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 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 [Page 23] 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, Neque [...] parvi momen [...] est, qu [...] d cum &c. Hoc per universam Ca­tho [...] , [...] [...] ­fundit [...] r, ob­servari placuit, quod tenemus. August. con [...] r. Cre [...] on. l. 1. c 32. 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, Quam consue­tudinem credo ex [...] traditione venientem, sicut multa quae non inveniuntur in litteris eorum, neque in [...] liis posteriorum; & tamen quia per universam custod [...] untur Ecclesiam, non [...] tradita, & commendata creduntur. Aug. de Bap. con [...] . Donatist. l. 2. c. 7. Si jam [...] tibi jactatus videris, finemque hujusmodi laboribus vis imponere, sequere viam Catho [...] disciplinae, quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos usque manavit, & abhin [...] ad [...] manatura est. Aug. de Util. Cred. c. 8. 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 [Page 24] losing their Benefices, it were great pity: Lik [...] [...] 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 [Page 25] [...] 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 determi [...] '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 [Page 26] 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 [...] 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 In­tenti [...] n. 'Twill 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 knows, that [Page 27] 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? Hi [...] refusing to Answer, is, in truth, confessing that Scripture, after all, is not the Rule of Controversi [...] 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 trus [...] 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 [Page 28] 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 [...] 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 Eff [...] 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 m [...] an not to stay at a new Apology of his [...] of England, as unseasonable as the [...] orm [...] 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 [...] e his own Iudge. For this he [...] in what concerns his own Salvation, [Page 29] 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 [...] 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 w [...] 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.

[Page 30] 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 N [...] , all besides is leaving the Work [...] 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, t [...] 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 [Page 31] 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 [...] 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 [...] [Page 32] [...] 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 Ma [...] sty, left his Power to his Church, even to forgive Sins in Hea­ven, and left his Spirit with them, which they exer­ [...] 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? 'Tis a strange Qu [...] stion [...] , and he, I believe, the first, who ever ask'd, [Page 33] 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 [...] ierusalem, and where the Church of [...] ierusalem too was, be­fore Christ was born, in the order of Providen [...] But how can it be hence inferr'd, that these Power [...] are now in the Church of Rome [...] Roman Cath [...] 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 Man [...] to be saved; or Powers left to the Church of Christ, are in the Church of Christ; and those excl [...] ded from the Powers, who are not incl [...] ded [...] n the Church; or to make appear She is Heir-General to all the Apostles, who as visibly as that the S [...] rip­ture is in Print, is the One Chur [...] 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 [...] [Page 34] [...] 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 f [...] 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 Com­ [...] 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 a [...] d chuse through the whole Bundle. When I con­ [...] 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 [...] 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 [Page 35] the Power of Church-Guid [...] 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 to [...] the Promise of Assistance was made, should [...] know what it means, none in the Roman Cathol [...] 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.

[...] [Page 36] imper [...] 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 Gi [...] 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 Scrip­ [...] 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 'tis 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 [Page 37] 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 App [...] ll [...] ­tion, was the Judge of Scripture, which Books were Canonical, and which were not. One may perc [...] ve the Answerer thinks this is true, and he m [...] 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 Boo [...] . Then he falls to his D [...] 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 Boo [...] Canonical which were not. By the way, he means, I suppose, making Books not written by [...] I [...] ­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 [...] [Page 38] [...] [Page 39] 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 Countr [...] the Men live, that People may go to them, and lear [...] 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 t [...] at F [...] ­ction, and requir'd by him who is own'd [...] or Hea [...] of that Church, are unjust and unreasonable, and [...] Authority [...] e challenges a meer Vsurpation; and t [...] at They are not to be condemn'd for such a Separation, which was unavoidable. Why unavoidable, I beseec [...] him, even supposing Usurpation, and whatever [...] would have? Cannot they who are, let [...] t he [...] so unjustly, separated from the Communion, avoi [...] 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. [...] [Page 40] [...] 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. 'Tis true, there is a general Excommunication of those who ha [...] 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 Wickli [...] ists. If any of his We be included in it, 'tis 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 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 [...] 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 Ch [...] rch, or Part of the Christian World, [...] with him that 'tis 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 [Page 41] 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 Council [...] of the Primi­tive Church have acknowledged, and [...] Fa­thers have always taught the Faithful to [...] And She▪ I suppose, would not yield to [...] [...] ­pation, nor the [...] xpositor for her.

But pray for what is this Harangue [...] pon U [...] pa­tion, and a Spiritual Kingdom? [...] would know, how People come to separate from the [...] , that is, vary from the Common [...] aith of [...] . And the Answerer tells him, There is an Us [...] rper set up in the West. Why, suppose there be, m [...] st P [...] ­ple therefore needs believe otherwise than they [...] before? needs believe there is no Change [...] [...] ­stance, no Purgatory, no more than two Sacraments, and the rest? This Western Usurpation has no I [...] ­fluence upon the East, to make the Christians there change their Faith. Why cannot the Refor [...] 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 sing [...] e Point, and that, if we may believe the Expos [...] t [...] r, ei­ther no Difference, or easily reconcileable. But t [...] 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 c [...] mes to [...] is share, shews the Answerer was either in a very [...] lea­sant Humour, or hard put to it for something [...] say.

I have follow'd him, [...] my way. To return again. [...] do Men separate from [...] [Page 42] 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 [...] 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 Qu [...] 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 ha [...] e any care of their Souls, will bethink themselves, and be glad to find [...] er out, and by piecing with her, if they be broken [Page 43] 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 depend [...] 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 else [...] 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 Ch [...] rch [...] Rome can prove or no, and before whom they [...] , when it comes to their turn, produce their [...] Who likewise, whether the other side oug [...] t to yield. [...] [Page 44] [...] [Page 45] [...] [Page 46] why he drives all to the Judgment of a particular Church, unless he think all sa [...] 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 'tis 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. I see no great cause he has to wonder, that Princes and the Clergy should be of different minds in Matters of Religion. He knows the Case has happened heretofore, and that there had been no change of Religion in England, if the whole Body of the Clergy, and their Advice had been re­garded. But not to pry into Mens Hearts, to see what Interest sways them, This is certain, that those Princes, who prefer their Eternal, before their Tem­poral Interest, when they are for the Church of Rome, [...] good example; And I cannot conclude better, [...] praying God to give every body the Grace to follow it; and in behalf of Princes, thanking him [...] minding his Reader, that they are not all drawn [...] of Rome by Interest.

THE first Paragraph, as the Answerer has handled it, concerns the Church of England more than me. If She, when the King talks of Heresies, and Heresies crept in, think her self oblig'd by the Answerers thinking pre­sently of her: or when she is brought in, by his turning immediately to justifie the Dissenters, and that by an Argument alledged formerly in her be­half, with something more favour to them too than her; [...] for he allows Them Six Councils, and but Four to Her [...] I have nothing to do with it. They are Mat­ters between themselves. Are there Heresies in Eng­land, or are there not? Is it a sad thing there should, or is it not? These are the Questions at present; and 'twill be time enough to talk of the Church of Eng­land and Dissenters, when they are answered. What Power the Church of Rome has to define Hereti [...] Doctrines, will keep cold too. For 'tis not ask'd, How Heresies come to be, or are known to be Here­ [...] [Page 48] [...]

[...]

That [...] should lay the stress of his Answer on a [...] This Expression, as competent as the [...] is b [...] t an ordinary way of saying very compe­ [...] As when we say, This Man is as strong as Sam­ [...] [...] as wise as Solomon; we mean no more [...] that they are very strong and wise. And he can [...] , that Not just so competent as the Apostles, is an [...] to, Whether Competent or no? and to [...] at a Word, fit matter in a Dispute with a King. [...] us see. The Apostles, for what concerned [...] , could do no more with their Infallible [...] , than judge for themselves, and act in order [...] Salvation according to that Judgment. And [...] the Answerer contends is the right of every [...] . Why then, every body is in rigour as com­petent [...] for himself, as the Apostles. And he [...] to [...] His Majesty affirmed, by [...] himself: [...] or His Majesty only said, [Page 49] [...] [Page 50] ther understand, nor mean to inquire. It concerns those Guides, and it is not for me to thrust my self into the Concerns of other Folks.

And 'tis no wonder, says the third Paragraph, it should be so, since that Part of the Nation, which looks most like a Church, dares not bring the true Ar­guments against the other Sects, for fear they should be turned against themselves, and confuted by their own Arguments. To this he says first, That it is directly level'd against the Church of England. As if an Arrow were the sharper, or blunter, for the Mark at which it is aim'd. Let him tell us whether the Assertion be true, or not true, and talk of Le­velling, when Levelling is in question. He is out even in that too. For the Paragraph is in truth le­vell'd, not against the Church of England, but her Misfortune. It is an Expression of Compassion, not Reproach, that she has been overaw'd from using the true Arguments against Sectaries.

Then he answers, That if there can be no Authority in a Church, without Infallibility; or no Obligation to submit to Authority, without it; then the Church of England doth not use the best Arguments against Se­ctaries. But if there be no ground for Infallibility, as if his won Goodness were not Ground enough for God to give it to a Nature which needs it, and his Word not Ground enough to believe he has given it; then, for ought he can see, the Church of England hath wisely disown'd the Pretence of Infallibility, and made use of the best Arguments against Sectaries, from a just Authority, and the Sinfulness and Folly of the Sectaries refusing to submit to it.

I take for granted, he speaks of Authority to guide Souls to Heaven, such as was in the Primitive [Page 51] Church, when the Civil Laws were all against her. And pray him, if he please, to instruct us how such Authority can be in a Church, without Infal [...] bility. We see no body will believe a Man, who, after he has told his Story, should add, It may be all fal [...] e, for any thing he knows; nor lend his Money upon a Pro­mise to be repaid, which the Borrower declares be­fore-hand he knows not whether he can keep or no. And we are persuaded there should be better Secu­rity for our Souls, than for our Money, or uncon­cerning Opinions. To say a Church is fallible, is to say she may be deceiv'd; and if she may be de­ceiv'd her self, They may be deceiv'd who follow her. Wherefore to tell us, that such a Church has notwithstanding Authority to guide us, and that we ought submit to it, is to tell us, we ought be led by a Guide, who cannot answer he knows the way we should go, and venture eternal Happiness or Misery on a Security, which he who gives, tells us plainly before-hand may fail us.

Pray let us consider. Christians, every body knows, are oblig'd to lose all things; their Goods, their Liberty, their Lives, rather than their Faith. Can it be reasonable to do this for a Faith, of which they are conscious to themselves, that it may be false, for any thing they know? And do's not his own Heart tell him, who knows nothing of it but by the Relation of a fallible Relator, that it may be false, for ought he can tell? Wherefore, to make the Faith of Christians depend on a fallible Authori­ty, is to make Christianity, with its obliging Du­ties, the most unreasonable thing in Nature.

What do I say, unreasonable? It is to make it absolutely impossible. For, can I be a Christian [Page 52] without believing? Is not Belief a judgment that the thing is true which I believe? Can I have such a Judgment without a cause able to produce it? And is a fallible Authority able to make me judge more than that the thing is fallibly true? When Christi­anity therefore obliges me to believe the thing abso­lutely true, it there be nothing to make me believe but a fallible Authority, it obliges me to an Effect without a Cause, that is, to a downright impossibi­lity. And indeed to flat Contradiction. For as a thing cannot possibly be true, and not true at once, to judge it is true, is to judge it cannot at the same time be false. But I must of necessity judge both, if I judge upon a Motive which I know is fallible: That it is true by the Judgment to which Christianity obliges me; and that it may be false, by the same Judgments being grounded on my fallible Authority. For by judging it fallible, I judge it may deceive me, that is, that what it recommends to me for true, may be false. At which rate he is the only good Christian who contradicts himself.

When the Answerer shall make out, that such things can be, we may hope to see his Church Au­thority without Infallibility. Till then he will per­mit us to be persuaded that Infallibility is the true Argument, which he confesses has not been us'd a­gainst Sectaries.

If it be true, that the Church of England cannot pretend to this Argument, which if she did, Secta­ries, he says, might justly turn it against her, it is so much the worse, and the Kings Discourse is indeed levelled against her. But I see no such matter. Why may not she, if she please, pretend to her share in the Infallibility of the Whole, by remaining, as I [Page 53] think, her best Advocates plead she do's, a part of the Whole? Because, says he, tho' Church Authori­ty be asserted, infallibility is deny'd in her Articles. Where I beseech him? for I cannot find infallibility deny'd, save to particular Churches, whereof any one undoubtedly may forfeit her pretence to Infalli­bility, by changing her former Faith, and so ceasing to be a Member of the Body, to which it was pro­mised. But this is her concern not mine. I [...] it be so with her, she may thank those against whom the Kings Discourse is truly levell'd; those who have pull'd this Argument out of her Hands, and reduc'd her to have nothing to urge against Sectaries, but the sinfulness and folly of their Separation: as if she could take it ill of other folks that they separate from her, if she be brought to separate from other folks: Or, as if there were any sin, or folly in Peoples de­siring to make their Salvation sure, and when they cannot find security in a Fallible Authority, seeking it elsewhere.

There follows that the Church of England, as [...] is cal [...] d. This as ' tis call'd makes him teachy; and he would fain know what she wants to make her as good a Church as any in the Christian World; she that wants neither Faith, if the C [...] eed contain it, nor Sa­craments, nor Succession of B [...] ps, nor a Li [...] Never so little Indulgence for a King, would [...] suffered him to speak as he thought fit, espec [...] when he had apply'd the Word, which offends the Answerer, to the Church of Rome too. For he [...] of the Roman, the Church which is [...] the R [...] Catholic. But if the Answerers Zeal for the Church of England be so very nice, it might have been em­ploy'd much more [...] [Page 54] something material for her, than in picking a need­less Quarrel.

If the Church of England really be not what she is call'd, it is long of her self, and the influence she suffers those to have, who will needs possess the World, that she sets up Separately for her self with a diffe­rent Faith, from that of the great Body. As the Whole is but One Church, made up of as many Members, as there are particular Churches which profess the same Faith; it is unintelligible how there can be a particular Church otherwise, than by being a Member of this Body. If the Answerer have a mind to shew she is a Church, he should shew she is a Member, and believes as the rest, not alledge for her things common to as very Heretics as ever were in the World. For how many of them receiv'd the Creed, had Sacraments, Succession of Bishops, and Liturgies? Not to touch the rest (in which, for all the Answerers confidence, there are difficulties more than he or any Man will be able to clear.) Is it not palpable that Christians are as much oblig'd to believe every thing which Christ taught, when 'tis known he taught it, as what is contain'd in the Creed? And is it not as certainly known he taught much more, as that he taught what is there contain'd? Is it not palpable, that she her self believes more? I for my part, understand not the Zeal of talking, as if she quitted her only sure hold, to stand upon Ground which will certainly founder under her, and upon which arrant Heretics are forc'd to stand, because they have no better. But this again is her concern. Our business is with the remaining part of the Para­graph, which says, that she would have it thought, that she is the judge in matters Spiritual, yet dares not say positively, there is no appeal from her.

[Page 55] His Answer, dilated with several Examples, is, That They are ture Judges, from whom there lies an Appeal. Still catching at Words, and saying no­thing to the Thing! His Majesty was solicitous of freeing the Nation from the Heresies crept in, and convincing the Sects by Arguments, to which there could be no return. Till the Church of England can determine Spiritual, as a Judge do's Temporal Differences, by a final Sentence, conclusive to the Parties, He thought so great a Benefit could not be expected from her. The Answerer, with his Zeal, never thinks of shewing which way she can conclude any body, but, as if the Name of a thing were All, tells us, There are true Judges, who nevertheless cannot conclude the Parties which come before them. Why, His Majesty, and every body else, knew this, without needing to trouble his Rhetor [...] and Erudition for the Matter. But what are those Judges to our purpose? What Benefit shall we get by them? And how much the nearer will our Dif­ferences be to an end? If there were no other in the World, Suits would be endless in a Nation, and Controversies in a Church; as I pray God there be not who desire no better. In short, His Majesty talks of Judges, from whom there lies no Appeal; He, of Judges, from whom there do's; and gives us this for a satisfactory Answer.

He might peradventure have made something a better shew, by saying, That His Majesty, by expect­ing the Church of England should judge without Ap­peal, expects more than can be had from a particular Church; because Appeals must needs lie from all such. But every particular Church may judge as the rest of the Body do; and it is to our purpose all one, to [Page 56] judge without Appeal, and to judge as they judge from whom there is none. For that Judgment is without Appeal, tho' not purely in vertue of the Au­thority of the particular Church. So the Church of England may judge without Appeal; and if she do not, may thank those who will not let her.

His Majesty goes on, proving what he had said: For either they must say, that They are Infallible, (which they cannot pretend to, that is, otherwise than by giving the right-hand of Fellowship to those who are) or confess, that what they decide in Mat­ters of Conscience, is no farther to be followed, than it agrees with every Mans private Iudgment. If Christ did leave a Church here upon Earth, and We were all once of that Church, How, and by what Authority, did we separate from that Church? If the Power of Interpreting Scripture be in every Mans Brain, what need have we of a Church, or Church­men? To what purpose then did our Saviour, after He had given his Apostles Power to bind and loose in Heaven and Earth, add to it, That He would be with them, even to the end of the World? These Words were not spoken Parabolically, or by way of Figure: Christ was then ascending into his Glory, and left his Power with his Church, even to the end of the World.

All this the Answerer leaves out; what relates to the Churches Authority, and every Mans following his own Iudgment, having, he says, been answered already. I wish he had told us where. For, tho' I remember some Speech of Persons who separate from the Church, and of their Pretences, I cannot call one Word to mind, of the Authority by which they separated. If this be the Answer he means, he [Page 57] compliments His Majesty's Papers; For to insist upon it, is to consess he has none. He said too, and that too often to be forgotten, That every Man is to judge for himself, tho' not for others. What need then of a Church, or Church men, says His Majesty, when every body is provided without them? It seems he thinks they are indeed needless, but had no mind to say so.

He takes the matter of Appeals more to heart, in which he takes occasion to proceed from these words: What Country can subsist in peace or quiet, where there is not a Supreme Iudge, from whence there can be no Appeal? From whence, the natural Consequence, he says, appears to be, That every National Church ought to have the Supreme Power within it self. In the Comparison here made, a National to the Whole Church, is as a Shire to a Kingdom. And a very natural, and very consistent Consequence it is, That every Sheriff should be a King.

But how come Appeals to a Forreign Iurisdiction, to tend to the Peace and Quiet of a Church? He would peradventure, if one should press him, be hard enough put to it, to make Sense of his Forreign Jurisdiction in our Case. For how can any thing be Forreign, but by not belonging to that Aggregate, whether Civil or Spiritual, in respect whereof they are said to be Forreigners. Forreign, I think, comes from Foris, and signifies out. So that unless the ultimate Jurisdiction of the Church be out of the Church, it seems as hard to understand how it can be Forreign to any part of the Church, as how a Native of any part of England, can be a Forreigner in England. The several Nations, which make the Church, are Forreigners to one another in respect of [Page 58] the several Temporal Bodies, which they compose too, but Fellow-Citizens All in respect of the Ec­clesiastical.

But let this pass, and the Answerer, if he please, inform us, how the Appeals, of which we talk, can be made, but to what he calls Forreign Jurisdiction. The King aim'd at an end of Differences in Religi­on, and as he thought every one ought believe as the Catholic Church believes, which Christ has here on Earth, calls their Agreement in Faith, a De­cision; and knowing or searching what it is, an Ap­peal. As no Particular can be the Catholic Church, let him make it intelligible, who can, how the Faith of a Church, compos'd of many Nations, can be known, without knowing the Faith of the Nations which compose it; that is, of those Churches which he calls Forreign. It is therefore so far from hard, to comprehend how Appeals to Forreigners tend to the Peace and Quiet of a National Church, that when that Peace is disturbed by Dissentions in Matters of Religion, it is absolutely impossible to resettle it without them.

We, says the King in the Period before, which the Answerer, I know not why, puts after, have had these hundred years past, the sad Effects of denying to the Church that Power in Matters Spiritual, with­out an Appeal. And our Ancestors, says the Answe­rer, for many hundred years last past, found the in­tollerable Inconveniences of an Appeal to Forreign Iurisdiction. Which after he has a little dilated, by reckoning up the Particulars, he tauntingly adds, But these were slight things, in comparison to what we have felt these hundred years, for want of it. This Taunt is unexpected, and, by his good favour, might [Page 59] have been spared, for more Reasons than one. For what? Do's he in earnest think, that the Incoveni­ences he has thought of, and may think of here­after, hold comparison with the Inconvenience of Heresie? Are not all temporal Concerns, let them be what they will, slight things in respect of the eter­nal Ruine of so many as Heresie has swallow'd up in Perdition? Will he compare the gain of the whole World, to the loss even of a single Soul?

For the rest, 'tis strange a Man should toss a Word so long, and never mind what it means. The King us'd the Word Appeal with respect to the Allegory, in which he speaks: The Answerer will needs un­derstand it in the Law-sense, and talks all the while of another matter. For the Impoverishment, the Ob­struction of Justice, and what else he mentions, are Consequences all of Legal Trials betwixt Plaintiff and Defendant, according to the Methods of Courts. In which, where-ever those Courts be, Princes can, and, when they see fit, do preserve their own Prero­gatives from diminution, and their Subjects from Oppression, without shocking their Religion. There is nothing of all this in the Appeals of which the King speaks, no feeing of Lawyers, nor need to tra­vel from home. Who will but step to St. Iames's, and see what they do, and hear what they say, has appeal'd as much as the King desir'd he should. To his Conclusion, That it is a very self-denying Hu­mour for those to be most sensible of the want of Ap­peals, who would really suffer the most by them; I shall say no more than that it is very unreasonable, because no body dreams of such Appeals as he un­derstands, and I wish that no body may think worse of it, and of him and other Folks for it.

[Page 60] Can there be any Iustice done, says the next Pa­ragraph, where the Offenders are their own Iudges, and equal Interpreters of the Law, with those that are appointed to administer Iustice? He cross interrogates, and asks, Whether there be any likelihood Iustice should be better done in another Country, by another Authority, and proceeding by such Rules, which in the last resort are but the arbitrary Will of a Stran­ger? I have already observ'd, That another Country, and another Authority is un [...] ntelligible where all are Countrymen; and arbitrary Rules are altogether as unintelligible, where the Law is [...] ixt and known. At present I pray him to tell us how he answers the Question. Can Iustice be done? Or, which is the same, Is there a Judge without Appeal? signifies, he knows, Can Controversies be ended? And he knows the Answer is, They can, or They cannot. And yet he will not say either the one or the other, but amuses us with his Descant upon the Metaphor, ne­ver touching the Plain-song Question. Subordinate Judges may be as true Judges, and Appeals do as much harm as they will; Justice too may be as well administred at home as abroad, for any thing we are the wiser, or the better. For what is it to us, what becomes of those Matters? We can inform our selves time enough of Lawyers, and those who un­derstand Government, how they go, when it im­ports us to know. At present let the Answerer tell us, whether Controversies can or cannot be ended? Whether we can be secure that we are in the right way to Heaven, or must live on at a venture, never knowing whether we live as we should, till we come into the next World, and find perhaps by a sad Expe­rience, how we have liv'd in this?

[Page 61] We are all Travellers to the Country of Happ [...] and as a wrong way can never lead right, it imports us, as much as Happiness imports, to travel in t [...] right Road. He who undertakes to assist us in the [...] ­ficulties started by these Papers, acquits himself by taking an Allegorical Expression in a Literal sense, and then by shewing Erudition upon it, turning our Thoughts from the Moral. For while we are enter­tain'd with literally true Judges, and Appeals, and Justice, unless we think of two things at once, there is no minding Differences in Religion. So that the Assi­stance, which it seems he meant, was his Assistance to remove those Difficulties out of sight; and the Danger he apprehended, the Danger lest people should once perceive how 'tis with those who are out of the Catholic Church; that they have no ac­countable Means to end a Controversie, or satisfie a Difficulty, save by cleanly conveying it out of the way, if it become importunate. But for any Assi­stance towards the only difficulty which imports, Whether People be in the right way to Heaven, or no? Whether Controversies can, or cannot be end­ed? we have none from the Answerer; but may guess from his silence, he either thinks They cannot, or wishes They would not.

He asks again, Whether such a one, pretending to a Power he has no right to, must be Iudge in his own Cause, when he is the greatest Offender▪ This Such a one, if he take it, as in all rea [...] on he should, as His Majesty do's, signifies Him, or Those who are appointed to administer Iustice. Do's such a one, in his conceit▪ pretend, without right, to the Power of Administring Justice? And if they be ap­pointed to administer it in all Causes, must they [Page 62] not administer it in their own? Pray turn this Do­ctrine to another Subject, and suppose a Question started in England about the king's Prerogative▪ By what Authority should, or could this Question be judg'd, but the king's? As much his own Cause as it is, we must not have another Authority set up in His Kingdom to judge of Differences belonging to His Kingdom. For, deciding Differences being one Part of the Kingly Office, it would be to set up another King. It is palpable, that to apply the Ex­ception of ones own Cause to Supreme Powers, is to make them not Supreme; and yet as irrational and as destructive as it is, People take the confidence to do it.

But if the Answerer mean by his Such a one, a Stranger proceeding by his arbitrary Will, there nei­ther is nor can be such a one. No Member of the Church can be more a Stranger in the Church, than an Englishman in England. And for arbitrary Will, in our Case, there cannot be a wilder Fancy. Christ commanded his Apostles to teach his Doctrine to all Nations. They obey'd his Command, and their sound is gone forth through the whole earth. Can the arbitrary Will of any Mortal, stretch it to the utmost extent of Imagination, alter, or conceal, or disguise a Doctrine known and practis'd by a great many Nations, some very remote, and those which are Neighbours agreeing in few things besides that Doctrine? Then as the king would have his Appeal for Justice made to the Catholic Church, so many Millions, as make up that Church, are a very plea­sant arbitrary such a one.

This, says His Majesty, is our Case here in Eng­land in matters Spiritual. For the Protestants are [Page 63] not of the Church of England, as 'tis the true Church, from whence there can be no Appeal, but because t [...] Discipline of that Church is conformable at that pre­sent to their Fancies, which as soon as it shall contra­dict, or vary from, They are really (he out of an un­correct Copy says ready) to imbrace or joyn with the next Congregation of People, whose Discipline and Worship agrees with their Opinion at that time. His Copy has whose Discipline or Worship agrees with the Opinion of that time. Here is the Moral of the Al­legory, which we find by Iustice to be done, under­stood deciding differences in Matters Spiritual, that is, in Faith: By those who are to administer Iustice the Church from which there is no Appeal. Because Protestants do not think themselves concluded by the Decisions of the Church of England, but adhere to her because they like them at present; The king infers there is no Authoritative deciding of Spiritual Differences in England, no thrusting out the Here­sies crept in; but every one, in consequence of his Principles, is to leave the Church of England as of­ten as she decides against his Perswasions, and take up with the next Congregation which is more to his humour. What says the Answerer to this.

Why, that the Sense of this Period is not so clear, but that one may easily mistake about it. Very easily without question. For there is not an easier thing in the World, than to mistake, when one will give his mind to it. He is the first, tho', I believe, who thought his late Majesty did not speak intelligible English. But the Answerer will help him out, and tell us what is aim'd at. As if what a Man says, and what he aims at by saying it, were not two things, as dif [...] ere [...] t as End and Means. But let him set the [Page 64] Cart before the Horse for me, and tell us what was aim'd at. That we of the Church of England have no [...] upon us, but that of our own Iudgments; [...] nd when that changes, we may joyn with Independents or Presbyterians, as we do now with the Church of Eng­land. For one half, His Majesty, I believe, did think the Church of England, as things go, has no tie upon her Members; but his aim was, she might; and it depends on her self whether she will or no. The other half was not only aim'd at, but directly said, and more; that who adhere to Day to the Church of England in vertue of their own Fancies, not only may, but ought, quit her for the next Con­gregation which is more agreeable to those Fancies. How do's the Answerer avoid that Consequence.

Why truly by talking of another Matter. For he asks, What security can be greater than that of our own Iudgments? As if it pinched there. His Maje­sty talks of those who do not believe, as the Church of England do's, for this reason, because they are taught by a Church from which there is no Appeal, that is, who have not that Motive for their Judg­ments which he took for the only, truly reasonable Motive. And while he is speaking of Motives, the Answerer falls a talking of Judgments. The difficul­ty is not whether Judgment affords Security: (A Judgment grounded on true Reason, can no more change than Reason:) but whether there be any se­curity in those Judgments, which are made on unse­cure Motives. Or if you will, what Security there is in that Judgment, which the Answerer offers for Security. 'Tis as in Land. The Security is good, where the Title is unquestionable; but if that be doubtful, there is no Money to be borrow'd on the [Page 65] Land. And he will have us take for Security the Judgment of which we are not satisfy'd▪ that it is it self secure.

Once again, His Majesty thought Church-secu­rity the only Security in this Matter. And it rests with the Answerer to shew that Protestants either have this or other true Security; to shew what o­ther Foundation and Pillar of Truth there is, besides the Church; how it can be a Foundation without Infallibility, and People have reason to trust their Souls to what may deceive them; In short, what good account they can give of the Hope which is in them, who learn the Faith by which they think to please God, otherwise than from those whom he ap­pointed to teach it. Till he do this, as obscurely as his Majesty speaks, People will see, they have no­thing to trust to for their Salvation, but Fancy, nor the Church of England for their company.

But He dares appeal to the World, whether They have not made it appear, that it is not Fancy, but Iudgment which hath made them firm to the Church of England? Dares he, in earnest, put it to the Ca­tholic World, any more than we to the Protestant? To what purpose these great words, when he knows before-hand, nothing will, nor can come of them? It had been a great deal more to purpose, since Fancy and Judgment, in this place, signifie a rational or not rational Persuasion, to have shew'd, that they truly have Reason, who are firm to the Church of England, and that They are indeed firm. For that Firmness may as well be pretended, as Reason for it [...] and they may desire to pass for firm to Her, [...] make her not firm to her self. But for big [...] , none are better at it than Cowards out of Gun-shot.

[Page 66] Might it not, asks he on, as well have been said, That the P [...] tants of the Church of England adhe­red to the Crow [...] in the Times of Rebellion, out of [...] , and not out of Iudgment? His Zeal for the Church of England is wondrou [...] unlucky. As no body thought of detracting from the just Praises of the Church of England, and every body must ac­knowledge her Doctrine in this Point is very Or­thodox, and her Practice in the Times of Rebellion conformable to it, there was no need to mention this matter. And yet he will by all means bring it in against himself. Many, he knows, did desert her, and her Doctrine in this Point, at that time; so many, that the Rebellion peradventure was indebted for its Success to those Deserters. For had not the ill-affected Rabble been countenanc'd and headed, by Men who had, perhaps, all their Life before con­form'd to the Church of England, the Rebellion either would not have been at all, or not so unfortu­nately prosperous. Now, as it is plain, that if those who deserted, had ever adhered to her, with a per­suasion, that they were oblig'd to believe what she [...] aught, They could not have deserted her in this Point, who always taught Loyalty; This very Case proves what the King asserts, That till they do so, there is no security of their adhering to her. For they may desert her in any other Point of Christ's Doctrine, as well as they did in this, and for ought appears will, when they meet with the same Interest, or whatever Motive They had to desert her then.

In the last place, He tries to turn the Argument [...] pon the Church of Rome, to which, he asks, why any adhere, but because it is agreeable to their Iudg­ment so to do? This Actor went off the Stage but [Page 67] now, and needed not return so soon, with [...] a Part. For what do's he mean by Adhering [...] Be­lieving, I suppose, that the Church of [...] right. For he talks not sure of acting [...] conformity to our inward [...] but Hypocrites, do in all their Actions. [...] he mean it of the inward Persuasion, to ask, why They adhere, but because they judge they ought, is in other words, Why do they adhere, but because they adhere▪ For their Judgment is their Adhesion. To [...] People adhere to a Church, with every body [...] signifies, What Reason or Motive have they [...] adhering?

To which Question, with respect to the [...] oman Catholic Church, the Answer, in the words of the Paragraph, is, That People are of her, as 'tis the true Church, from whence there can be no Appeal; or be­cause she is the Church which Christ has now on Earth, with whom his Doctrine was deposited, and from whom only it can be learn'd. In the words or St. Austin; [...] I am kept in the Bosom of the Catholic Church, by the consens of People and Nations; by an Au­thority begun by Miracles, [...] by Hope, increas'd by Charity, [...] by Antiquity; by a Succession of Bishops from St. Peter, to whom [...] [Page 68] [...] where Catholics meet, none of them have the [...] him to their Congregations. The Answerer will tell us when he thinks sit, what Answer he thinks proper to be made for other Churches. In the mean time, let us reslect what he has answer'd to the Paragraph.

He has told us, That there is no Security greater than that of our Judgments: That theirs is Judg­ment not Fancy, and particularly was so in the times of Rebellion: And that they Judge in the Church of [...] too. What is all this to the Paragraph, which says in short, That because Protestants have no firm Motive for their adhering to the Church of England, they cannot be firm to her. Do's he make it appear their Motive is firm? Or how They will be firm without one▪ This little is all there was before him; is their Judgment solidly grounded, or is it not? the only and whole business. What need was there to talk of Judgment in common, when the Question is of their Judgment in this Particular? Or what serves it for, but to make a shew, and fill up a Page? There may be as much Security in the Judgment as there will, and Protestants be never the better, unless there be Security in their Judgment. They will, I hope, since their Souls are at stake, consider what [...] do to venture them, where those, who write [...] 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 [Page 69] Iudge, who to be sure of a right [...] [...] ­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 n [...] [...] e sep [...] rated, and he die again. A Substantial change in the E [...] ­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 'tis 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 Fanc [...] 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, [...]

[Page 70] 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 [...] 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 not­understanding neither: for his Belief is his Judg­ment. But I am cloy'd with this Dish. What [Page 71] 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 [Page 72] 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, Quid autem si neque Apostoli qui­dem Scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne opportebat ordinem sequi Traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis quibus committebant Ecclesias? cui ordinationi a [...] lentiunt multae Gentes Barbarorum, eorum qui in Christum credunt, sine charta & atramento scriptam habentes per spiritum in cordibus suns salutem, & veterem Tra­ditionem diligenter custodientes. [...] advers. Haere [...] . Lib. 3. col. 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 [Page 73] 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 foun [...] 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 [Page 74] 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 'tis 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 d [...] 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 [Page 75] 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 'tis 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 [Page 76] 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 [Page 77] 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 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, [Page 78] 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 [Page 79] 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 [Page 80] 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 'tis 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 'tis but dressing [Page 81] 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 therefore wish'd People, in stead of floating uncer­tainly up and down in the Ocean of Disputes, to take Port in that one Church which Christ has upon Earth, and to which Power was given to govern us in Matters of Faith, and a promise of perpetual assi­stance. Which Church, he says, is vibsily the Ro­man Catholic.

The Answerer flatly denies the Roman Catho­lic to be the one Church of Christ, for Reasons, ever since St. Cyprians Days, condemn'd by all Christians; and never minds that he denies two terms the same with a third, to be the same be­tween themselves. For Church of Christ, and Ca­tholic Church, are the same, both signifying all the particular Churches which believe the Do­ctrine of Christ. Again, Roman Catholic, is the same too with Catholic: for both signifie likewise all the same Churches, with the Roman for one of the number, which the Answerer acknowledges she is. Catholic, says All, and who says All says Ro­man, if she be one; And who says Roman Catholic, says those very All, neither more nor less; And yet the Answerer can fancy a difference. For the [Page 82] rest he gives no direct Answer, that I remember to any one Question, yet hovers so about it, that one must keep his thoughts very attentive, not to have them diverted quite another way. As for Certain­ty or Uncertainty, they are Matters which he seems not to mind. Not but that he talks of a sure Compass, and Infallible Rule: but he never tells us, whether, or how a Man shall be sure, that he do's indeed steer by that Compass, or is guided by that Rule. Those great sounds vanish into Conscience at last, and that Conscience may be right or wrong, for any care he takes; as perhaps he thinks it e­qual, whether the one, or the other. The King desired People should have sure hold, and shews them where they may: He is only solicitous to keep them from fastning there, and leaves them to find another, if they can of themselves, or be con­tent, if they will, without any. If he have a Pique to the Roman Catholic, he may shew them another Catholic Church, or, if a Church be needless, on what they may rest securely without a Church. If on Scripture, he may shew them, how they may safely stake their Souls, that they do not mistake it: If on Conscience, how they may securely trust it. Let People be but safe, and I ask no more. But as there is, after all but one way to Heaven, the King shews it, and he imputes deceit to him for his pains; and then sets up for the faithful Friend himself, who will neither let them go that way, nor shew them that there is any other. And thus it stands between them.

It is for the Reader to consider, which of the two gives him better Counsel, and where he can find better Security, than what His Majesty offers, [Page 83] or whether Security be needless. One would think is not like to take up much Consideration in our Country, whether, in a concern of infinite more value than all the Money, which troubles so ma­ny Lawyers and Scriveners, one should deal with­out looking after Security. And yet, by what­ever charm it happens, there needs a great deal of Grace, to make People sensible in this Case, of what in all others they are but too much, their greatest concerns. God of his Mercy grant it to all who ask it, and to all, who by not asking it, shew they more need it.

I Dare appeal to all unprejudic'd Readers, and especially to those who have any sense of Piety, whether upon perusal of the Paper written by Her late Highness the Duchess, they have not found in it somewhat which touch'd them to the very Soul: whether they did not plainly and perfectly discern in it the Spirit of Meekness, Devotion, and Sincerity, which animates the whole Discourse; and whether the Reader be not satisfied, that she who writ it has open'd her Heart without disguise, so as not to leave a Scruple that she was not in ear­nest. I am sure I can say, for my own particular, that when I read it first in Manuscript, I could not but consider it as a Discourse extremely moving, plain, without Artifice, and discovering the Piety of the Soul from which it flow'd. Truth has a [Page 86] Language to it self, which 'tis impossible for Hypo­crisie to imitate: Dissimulation could never write so warmly, nor with so much life. What less than the Spirit of Primitive Christianity could have di­ctated her Words? The loss of Friends, of worldly Honours, and Esteem, the Defamation of ill Tongues, and the Reproach of the Cross, all these, though not without the struglings of Flesh and Blood, were surmounted by her; as if the Saying of our Saviour were always sounding in her Ears, What will it profit a man to gain the whole world, and lose his Soul!

I think I have amplified nothing in relation ei­ther to this Pious Lady, or her Discourse: I am sure I need not. And now let any unbias'd and indif­ferent▪ Reader compare the Spirit of the Answerer with hers. Do's there not manifestly appear in him a quite different Character? Need the Reader be inform'd, that he is disingenuous, soul-mouth'd, and shuffling; and that, not being able to answer plain Matter of Fact, he endeavours to evade it, by Sup­positions, Circumstances, and Conjectures; like a cunning Barreter of Law, who is to manage a sink­ing Cause, the Dishonesty of which he cannot other­wise support, than by defaming his Adversary? Her only Business is▪ to satisfie her Friends of the inward Workings of her Soul, in order to her Conversion, and by what Methods she quitted the Religion in which she was educated. He on the contrary, is not satisfied, unless he question the Integrity of her Proceedings, and the Truth of her plain Relation, even so far as to blast, what in him lies, her Blessed Memory, with the imputation of Forgery and De­ceit; as if she had given a false Account, not only of the Passages in her Soul, and the Agonies of a [Page 87] troubl'd Conscience, only known to God and to her self, but also of the Discourses which she had with others concerning those Disquiets. Every where the Lie is to be cast upon her, either directly, in the Words of the Bishop of Winchester, which he [...] ▪ or indirectly, in his own, in which his spiteful De­ligence is most remarkable.

In his Answer to the two former Papers there seems to have been some restraint upon the viru­lence of his Genius, though even there he has mani­festly past the Bounds of Decency and Respect: But so soon as he has got loose from disputing with Crown'd Heads, he shews himself in his pure Na­turals, and is as busie in raking up the Ashes of their next Relations, as if they were no more of kin to the Crown, than the New Church of England is to the Old Reformation of their Great-Grandfathers. But God forbid that I should think the whole Epi­scopal Clergy of this Nation to be of his Latitudi­narian Stamp; many of them, as Learn'd as him­self, are much more Moderate: And such, I am con­fident, will be as far from abetting his Irreverence to the Royal Family, as they are from the jugling Designs of his Faction, to draw in the Nonconfor­mists to their Party, by assuring them they shall not be prosecuted (as indeed, upon their Principles, they cannot be by them); but in the mean time this is to wrest the Favour out of the King's Hands, and take the Bestowing it into their own; and to re­assume to themselves that Headship of the English Church, which their Ancestors gave away to King Henry the Eighth. And now let any Loyal Subject but consider▪ whether this new way of their Pro­ceeding do's not rather tend to bring the Church of [Page 88] England into the Fanatics, than the Fanatics into the Church of England.

These are the Arts which are common to him and his Fellow-labourers; but his own peculiar Talent is that of subtle Calumny and sly Aspersion, by which he insinuates into his Readers an ill Opinion of his Adversaries, before he comes to Argument; and takes away their Good Name rather by Theft than open Robbery. He lays a kind of accumulative Dishonesty to their Charge, and touches 'em here and there with Circumstances, in stead of positive Proofs, till at last he leaves a bad Impression of 'em; like a Painter who makes Blotches of hard Colour­ing in several Parts of the Face, which he smooths afterwards into a Likeness. After this manner he, or one of his Brethren in Iniquity, has us'd Mon­sieur de Condom, by picking up Stories against him in his Preface, which he props up with little Cir­cumstances, but seldom so positive that he cannot come off, when their Falsity shall be detected. In the mean time, his Cause go's forward with the Common Reader; who, prepossest by the Preface, is made partial to his Answer. The same kind of Ar­tifice, with some little variation, has been us'd in other of their Books, besides this present Libel against the Duchess.

But, the Cloven-foot of this our Answerer, ap­pears from underneath the Cassock, even in the first step he makes towards his Answer to the present Pa­per: Which, he tells us, is said to be written by a great Lady. How doubtfully he speaks, as if there were no certainty of the Author. But surely 'tis more than barely said; for 'tis Publish'd by the same Authority, which order'd the two other Papers writ­ten [Page 89] by His late Majesty to the Press; and the Origi­nal of it, is still remaining in the Hands of the pre­sent King▪ Indeed the Bishop of Winchester may seem to have given him some encouragement for this in the Preface to his Treatises, where he tells us, That Maimbourg the Iesuite recites something which he says was written by the late Duchess; and which he afterwards calls the Papers pretended to be writ­ten by Her. But if that Bishop had liv'd to see what our Answerer has seen, Her Paper Printed and Pub­lish'd by His Majesty, I cannot think he would have been so incredulous as to have made that doubt. It may be allow'd him to suspect a Stranger of For­gery; but with what face can this Son of the Church of England suspect the Integrity of his King? In the mean time, observe what an excellent Voucher he has got of this dead Bishop, and what an excellent Argument he has drawn from him. Because he would not believe what he did not think she said, we must not believe what he know the did say. Let our Author therefore come out of his Mists and Ambiguities, or give us some better Authority for his unreasonable Doubts: For, at this rate, if it be already suspected, whether what she writes be Mat­ter of Fact, and indeed, whether she writ it at all; it may be doubted hereafter, whether she chang'd, and perhaps, whether there were ever such a Woman.

After he had thus begun, That this Paper was said to be written by a Great Lady, for the satisfacti­on of her Friends; he shuffles in commodious Words for an Answerer, and which afford him Elbow-room: For he talks of the Reasons and Motives which she had, for her leaving the Communion of the Church of England, &c. and of the Right which all Readers [Page 90] have to judge of the strength of them. Now, as Luck will have it, none of those Motives and Rea­sons are to be found in the Paper of her Highness: She expresses her self clearly to write for the Satis­faction of her Friends, not as to the Reasons she had her self for changing, but as to the Censures which she might expect from them for so doing: and her whole Paper shews this was only her De­sign. So that, against the Law of all Romances, he first builds the Enchanted Castle, and then sets up to be the Doughty Knight who conquers it. It seems he found, that a bare Denial, which is the proper Answer to Matter of Fact, was a dry Busi­ness, and would make no sport; and therefore he would be sure to cut himself our sufficient Work. But it is not every Mans Talent to force a Trade; for a Customer may chuse whether he will buy or not.

This Great Person chang'd not lightly, nor in haste; but after all the Endeavours which could be us'd, by a Soul which was true to it self, and to its Eternal Interest. She was sensible, as I before hint­ed, that she should lose her Friends and Credit, and what to her Condition at that time was more sharp­ly piercing, expose the Catholics of England to the danger of suffering for her sake. On these Consi­derations she makes a plain Relation of all the Pas­sages in her Change; and expecting severe Censures from the World, took care to satisfie her Friends concerning it. As for the Reasons of it, they were only betwixt God and her own Soul, and the Priest with whom she spoke at last. What a wonderful Art has this Gentleman, to turn a bare Narrative into Motives and Inducements? When he is arriv'd [Page 91] to the Perfection of calling down a Saint from Hea­ven, he may examine her concerning them; in the mean time he must be content with the Relation which she has left behind her here on Earth; and if he will needs be mistaking her Scruples for her Mo­tives, who can help it?

His Design, as he tells us a little after the begin­ning, is to vindicate the Honour of the Church of England, so far as it may be thought to suffer by the Paper of her late Highness. I might here tell him, that he has on Obligation antecedent to the Honour of his Community, which is that to God and his own Conscience. But the Honour of the Church of England is no farther concern'd in the Paper of her Highness, than in relation to the Persons of two or there Prelates; and those he leaves at last to shift for themselves as they are able, with this melancho­ly Farewell, That God be thanked, the Cause of our Church do's not depend upon the singular Opinion of one or two Bishops in it, wherein they apparently re­cede from the establish'd Doctrine of it.

In the next place, he is sensible how nice and ten­der a thing it is to meddle in a Matter wherein the Memory of so Great a Lady is concern'd.

Here he is sensible, once for all; for after this one Civility, you hear no more of his Good Manners to the end of the Chapter; but the Honour of the Church of England so wholly takes up his thoughts, that he forgets the Respect which is due to her Sex, her Quality, her Memory, her Relations, and con­futes her as coursly as the Parson did Bellarmine.

He go's on to inform us, how hard a Task he has undertaken in answering these Papers, wherein such Circumstances are mention'd as cannot fully be clear'd, [Page 92] the Parties themselves having been many years dead; yet he shall endeavour to keep within due Bounds, &c.

These due Bounds either are, or ought to be, Re­spect to the Great Lady, and Caution in regard of Circumstances, which I hope he will not put upon his Readers for Arguments, the Parties being dead so long ago.

But let the Reader here take notice, that in this very Place he is clapping his Cups together, and shuffling his Balls from Hand to Hand, to lay the Foundation of his Jugling, and to prepare the way for all the Tricks which he is to play hereafter.

For the Parties being dead long since, that is, the Duchess, in the first place, not being alive to justifie the several Conferences which she had with the Bi­shops; not they, in the second, to answer as in the sight of God, whether she had such Discourse with them, the Field is open for him, as he vainly ima­gines, by laying Circumstances of Time and Place together, and racking her own Paper till it seem­ingly speaks against her, to render it suspected to his good Friends the Rabble, that she has falsified the whole Matter.

Well, we shall see what he builds upon this Foun­dation: Let him speak for himself.

The way of her Satisfaction was very extraordinary; for towards the Conclusion she confesses she was not able, nor would she enter into Disputes with any body.

Commend me to him for a Man of quick dispatch. At the first dash he is bringing the two Ends of her Paper together; for he says, Towards the Conclusion she confesses. 'Twas well search'd of him, however, to hunt counter, and run to the End of her Discourse for the Beginning of his own. He will lose no Ad­vantages, [Page 93] I warrant him. Press that home, Doctor. She modestly owns, that she was neither able nor willing to enter into Disputes; therefore she had no other way to satisfie her self: When the whole drift of this Pious and sincere Discourse is to inform her Friends of the Methods by which God Almighty brought her into his Church; her Paper being a plain and short History of her Conversion.

The Answerer is of Opinion, there is nothing to be done, no satisfaction to be had in Matters of Re­ligion without Dispute; that's his only Receipt, his Nostrum for attaining a true belief. But Doctors dif­fer in this Point. For another Sir. Her. Wootton. Witty Gentleman of his Church desir'd no other Epitaph upon his Tomb than this; Here lies the Author of this Sentence, Disputandi pruritus, scabies Ecclesiae— The itch of Disputation is the Scab or Tetter of the Church. Now if the Learned avail themselves so little of Dis­pute, that it is as rare as a Prodigie for one of them to convince another, what shall become of the Ig­norant, when they are to deal with those fencers of Divinity? Who can hit them in Tierce and Quart at pleasure, while they are ignorant how to stand upon their guard. And yet such poor Peo­ple have Souls to save as precious in the sight of God as the grim Logicians. Must they be damn­ed unless they can make a regular approach to Heaven, in Mood and Figure? Is there no entring there without a Sillogism? or Ergoteering it with a nego, concedo, & distinguo? The best on't is, Our Saviours Disciples were but poor Fishermen, and we read but of one of his Apostles who was bred up at the Feet of Gamaliel. I would be­seech our Answerer to consider whether he has ar­gued. [Page 94] upon his own Principles, in affirming, that none can be satisfied as to the grounds of leaving one Church and going to the other without entring into Dispute? Has he not allow'd, that every Man is to Interpret the Scripture for himself, in reference to his own Salvation? With what Face then can he positively say, That this Lady, who had not only read the Scriptures, but found them in her Judg­ment plainly to decide the great Controversie be­twixt Catholics and Protestants, might not leave his Church, and enter into that of Christ, by Interpre­ting this is my Body, in the Litteral and Obvious meaning? If from a Catholic she had become a Pro­testant by expounding those Words in a Figurative Sense, he would have applauded her for not discern­ing the Lords Body, and said she was in the right to interpret for her self. But she, it seems, must be an exception to his General Rule, and not have that priviledge allow'd her which he dare not deny to any Sectary of the Nonconformists. The Phana­tics think the Scripture is clear in all Matters of Sal­vation, and if so, what need, say they, of those Spiritual Directours? Even the Pillars of the Church by Law establish'd, from their own Concessi­ons are found to be but broken Staffs: For after all their undertaking to heal a wounded Conscience, when the Arrows of the Almighty are stuck into it, they leave their Proselytes finally to the Scripture; as our Physicians, when they have emptied the Pockets of their Patients without curing them, send them at last to Tunbridge Waters, or the Air of Montpelliers.

But if Persons be resolv'd before hand what to do, says our Answerer, there is no such way as to declare they will not enter into Dispute.

[Page 95] Here he would make us believe, that she swal­low'd a new Religion without chewing it, because she Disputed not, I have shew'd already what is the common fate of Disputation: But had she no other way of satisfying her Conscience? (as he immedi­ately infers she had not.) If he were not obstinate­ly blind, or rather had not an intention to blind his Reader, he might have observ'd the Methods and Gradations of her change, and that tho' she Dispu­ted not; yet she Discoursed (which is entring into Matter of Dispute) with some of the ablest of the English Clergy, even with him particularly who was left by the Bishop of Winchester to be her Spi­ritual Directour; by which it plainly appears, not­withstanding all the jugglings and glosses of our Answerer, that the better part even of his own Pre­scription was put in practice by her, though with­out effect, as to her satisfaction. Why then do's he ask so many idle Questions? Had she no Divines of the Church of England about her? none able and willing to afford her their utmost assistance, when she takes care to 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 [Page 96] 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, 'tis 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 [Page 97] 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 Journey­work 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 [Page 98] 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 [Page 99] 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 Retail, that it might not be thought she us'd the ordinary Means. One thing I had omitted, which was, that the Bishop affirms in his letter to her Highness, that she had made him a Promise, in case any Writing were put into her Hand by those of the Roman Church, she would send it either to him, or the Bishop of Oxford.

Why do's our Author put down that Promise thus at large? If he means any thing more by it, besides a Justification of his Bishop for having done his part, which signifies just nothing, he would ta­citely insinuate, that she broke he Word, by not [Page 100] sending any such Writing to him. If so, he is at his Legerdemain again. He would have it thought, she kept not her Promise, but do's not positively af­firm it: But since it is manfsest, by the order of time in her Paper, that she neither sent for any Priest, nor conferr'd with any Learn'd Catholic, till after she had done with the two Bishops, it may, and ought to be suppos'd, that she receiv'd no Writings from any of that Religion; for if she had she would certainly have mention'd them.

If then the Bishop of Winchester would insinuate, that she had such Papers, which she sent not to him, according to her Engagement, I may at least answer with my Author, That the Lady was dead long be­fore the Bishop publish'd his Letter, so that the Cir­cumstances therein mention'd cannot be so fully clear'd.

But to return to our Answerer: He has brought us at length to the several Discourses which her Highness had with the two Bishops, his Grace of Canterbury, and the Bishop of Worcester; and since he has thought fit to put all that concern'd this Matter into one long Paragraph, quoted from the Duchess, I must follow his Example. These are her Words. After this, I spoke severally to two of the best Bishops we have in England, who both told me, there were many things in the Roman Church which it were very much to be wish'd we had kept; as Confession, which was no doubt commanded of God; that Praying for the Dead was one of the ancient things in Christianity; that for their parts, they did it daily, tho' they would not own it: And afterwards pressing one of them very much upon the other Points, he told me, That if he had been bred a Catholic, he would not change his Re­ligion; [Page 101] but that being of another Church, wherein he was sure were all things necessary to Salvation, he thought it very ill to give that Scandal, as to leave that Church wherein he had receiv'd his Baptism. All these Discourses did but add more to the desire I had to be a Catholic, and gave me the most terrible Agonies in the world, &c,

This, he confesses, seems to be to the purpose. And where he confesses the least Advantage on our side, the Reader may swear there is somewhat more than ordinary in the matter: But he retrenches im­mediately, and kicks down the Pail, by adding this Restriction, If there were not some Circumstances and Expressions very much mistaken in the Representa­tion of it. Yet in the next Line again, as if he were asham'd of his own fearfulness, he is for ma­king a bold Sally, and putting all to the push: For, supposing the utmost to be allow'd, says he there could be no Argument from hence drawn for leaving the Communion of our Church: But he restrains that too with this Caution, If the Bishops Authority and Example did signifie any thing with her. Thus from yielding at first he comes to modifie his Concession, and from thence to strike out magnanimously.

But then he retreats again with another ( if.) 'Tis a sign he is uneasie, when he tosses and turns so often in a Breath; and that he is diffident of his Cause, when he shifts his Plea. 'Tis evident that the Duchess laid a great stress on these Concessions; and well she might: for what a startle would it give to a doubting Soul, which already had taken the Alarm, to hear two Bishops, whereof one was Primate of All England, renouncing and condemn­ing two of the establish'd Articles of their Church? [Page 102] But 'tis well known, that those two Prelates were not, nor, if they were now living, would be the on­ly Clergy-men of the Church of England who are of opinion they have over-reform'd themselves, in casting off Prayers for the Dead, and consequently, the Doctrine of a Third Place: But these are Church of England Men of the old stamp, betwixt whom, and the Faction of this Answerer, there is just as much difference, as betwixt a true Episcopal Man, and a Latitudinarian: and this latter, in plain terms, is no otherwise different from a Presbyterian, then by whatsoever Titles and Dignities he is distinguish'd. So that our Answerer was much in the right, to skip over the first half of this Paragraph without an­swering in this place, and to gallop to the last Sen­tence of it, which begins with Bishop Blandford's saying That if he had been bred in the communion of the Roman Church, he would not change his Religion: Whither, as in Duty bound, I follow him.

To over-ballance the weight of these Concessions, our Author would have us think, that the subsequent Words of the Bishop ought to have had greater force to have kept her in the Communion of the Prote­stant Church, than the former to have drawn her from it; for the Bishop comes off with this Excuse, That being of another Church, wherein he was sure were all things necessary to Salvation, he thought it very ill to give that Scandal, as to leave that Church wherein he receiv'd his Baptism.

First, take notice, That the Duchess says, the Bi­shop was pressed by her very much, before he made the Concession; That if he had been bred a Catho­lic, he would not have chang'd: which shews, that a Truth was forc'd out of him, which he would [Page 103] willingly have conceal'd. For, both in regard to his own Credit, and the retaining of so Great a Person in his Church, it was not his Interest to have yield­ed that a Catholic might be saved, at least on as easie Terms as Protestant. But he goes farther, when he confesses, That if he had been bred a Catholic, he would not have alter'd his Religion: For therein he seems even to regret his being bred a Protestant; at least he yields, that all things necessary to Salva­tion were in the Roman Catholic Church; for other­wise, had he been educated in it, he ought in con­science to have chang'd, which he owns he would not have done. Now this is manifestly more than what he said for the Church of England; for his fol­lowing Words are rather an Excuse for his Continu­ance in his Church, than Argument to dissuade her Highness from turning Catholic. He thought it very ill to give that Scandal to leave the Church, wherein he was Baptiz'd. Now the Word Scandal plainly relates to his own Person, and signifies no more, than that he was asham'd to change: For it was impossible for him to think he should sin against his Conscience in changing, who had declar'd, That he would not have chang'd, in case he had been bred a Catholic. And the Reason he gives is made of the same yielding Metal, ( viz.) That he had his Baptism in the Protestant Church; for that Argu­ment in it self is of no weight, since the Right Re­verend well knew, that the Baptism even of Heretics is good; so that if he had been Christn'd in the Lutheran, the Abyssine, or the Russian Church, he must for that reason have continu'd in it: But he timerously pleads his fear of giving Scandal; which is, as I said, no Justification of himself, no Dissua­sive [Page 104] to Her, but only a mean, interessed Apology for his not changing.

As for his intimating, That all things necessary to Salvation were to be had in the Church of Eng­land, let any reasonable Man be Judge, whether he could possibly have said less in defence of himself, for continuing in it: For this only shew'd, that he thought Salvation was to be had in both Churches, as even this Author himself is forc'd to confess af­terwards, in these words: The utmost that can be made of this, is, That a certain Bishop of our Church (who in the mean time has prov'd himself an un­certain one) held both Churches so far Parts of the Catholic Church, that there was no necessity of going from one Church to another.

That which he calls the utmost we can make of it, is in truth the least which the Bishop's Words will naturally bear; and I may safely put the Cause upon this Issue, Whether such a Discourse might not reasonably add more to the desire she had to be a Catholic?

Let us hear now what he has to answer; and I will reply briefly, because I have taken away the Strength of his Argument already.

First, He says in effect, That the Bishops Autho­rity and Example ought to have prevail'd with her on the one side, more than his Concessions on the other.

I reply; Not his Authority, because he spoke more for the Church of Rome, than against it: Nor his Example; for he gave her no encouragement to follow it, by saying, That if he had been bred a Catholic, he would not have chang'd. His Exam­ple of Praying daily for the Dead, shew'd his Opi­nion [Page 105] at the bottom; but his not publicly owning that he did so, has prov'd him little better than a Black Bi­shop, who was enter'd privately into the White ones Walk.

Our Author asks in the second place, Why any Person should forsake the Communion of the Prote­stant Church, wherein the Bishop affirm'd were all things necessary to Salvation? And I enquire, How she could be bound to believe him, since Confession, and Prayers for the Dead are wanting in it; one of which he had before acknowledg'd to be command­ed of God; the other, to be one of the ancient things in Christianity?

Thirdly, He urges, That the Bishop had told her it was an ill thing to leave the Church of England. And I reply, That the Answerer has falsified his Words. The Bishop only thought it very ill to give that Scandal, as to leave the Church wherein he was Baptiz'd. First, he spoke of himself only, not of her. Mark that Fallacy. And then he said not, It was ill to leave the Church; but, very ill to give that Scandal, as to leave the Church; relating again to his own particular.

Fourthly, He says, 'Tis evident that the Bishops Concessions could have no influence upon her (tho' she positively says, those Discourses, in which were those Concessions, did but add more to the desire she had to be a Catholic.) This is full upon the Vi­zor; but the Dead are to take all things patiently. Well! How if he can convince her of Falsity from her own Words? Why, then he will carry his Argu­ment, as well as his Good Manners, to the height; and how broad soever the Word may be which he has slily given her, yet he will tell you, That Free­dom [Page 106] ought to be permitted him, as sustaining the Ho­nour of the Church of England.

His Argument is this: She declares afterwards, That she would not have chang'd, if she had thought it possible otherwise to have saved her Soul: But the Bishop had told her, That all things necessary for Sal­vation were in the English Church: Therefore the Bi­shop contributed nothing to her Change.

So the Miter be safe in its Reputation, no matter what becomes of the Ducal Coronet. Now I can be very well content that the Bishop should have no part in the Honour of her Conversion; for, 'tis plain, that he desir'd it not: and why should he do good against his will?

I wish my Author would have furnish'd me with an Argument to have brought him wholly off; but I will bring him on his way as far as by the help of the Answerer's Scarf I can fairly drag him. I say therefore, That tho' her Highness chang'd not her Belief upon the Concessions of the Bishop, yet his Concessions were an occasion of her farther Scruples, in order to her Change: For, she says, they added to the desire she had to be a Catholic.

The Bishop did indeed tell her, That all things necessary to Salvation were in the English Church; but tell me, Sir, I beseech you, was that all he told her? By your favour, you have left out the better half of what he said: for he told her also, That if he had been bred a Catholic, he would not have chang'd. And she had reason to believe what he said to the ad­vantage of a Church of which he was no Member, as being sure he would say no more than scanty Truth. And he acknowledges into the Bargain, That Confession was commanded of God; and, that [Page 107] Praying for the Dead was one of the ancient things in Christianity. What a shameful way of arguing is this, to make a general Negative Conclusion from half the Premises? Or, in other Words, to maintain that the Bishops Concessions could have no influence upon her, because they had not the greatest influence? And you in a manner confess it before you were aware, in the close of your Argument, where you say, There must therefore have been some more secret Reason, which increas'd her desire to be a Catholic af­ter these Discourses. Now some more secret Reason do's not hinder the Bishops Concessions from being one; nay, it argues, that they were one of the Reasons, though not the most prevalent, because there was one more secret. You have now contra­dicted your self so plainly, that you have wholly justified the Duchess, and the broad Word, without naming it, is fairly brought back to your own door.

After this, our Answerer do's but piddle, and play at small Game, as if her Highness might possibly take encouragement from the Bishop's calling the Church of Rome the Catholic Religion: But she was too much in earnest to lay hold upon a Word. Nei­ther is more advantage to be taken from his calling the Church of Rome the Catholic Religion, than we receive disadvantage from the playing upon 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 [Page 108] 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 'tis 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, 'tis 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 [Page 109] 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 'tis no matter whether she be a [Page 110] 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 [Page 111] 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. 'Tis 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.

[Page 112] 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 [Page 113] 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 Bed­chamber, 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 [Page 114] 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 [Page 115] 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 her words (which he hath falsifi'd in this place) are these, I would never have chang'd, if I had thought it possible to have sav'd my Soul otherwise. He never mis­quotes without design. Now by altering these words, If I had thought it possible to save my Soul, into these, If I could have sav'd my Soul, he would shuffle off her true meaning; which was, That her Conscience oblig'd [Page 116] her to this change. And that's a Point he would not willingly have touch'd: for he cannot deny upon his own Principles, but that after having examin'd the Scriptures, as she professes to have done as well as she was able, concerning the Points in dispute, and afterwards using the assistance of her Spiritual Guides, the two Bishops, she was to judge for her self, in the last resort; and the Judgment she made according to her Conscience, was, That the Scripture spoke clearly in behalf of the Catholic Church, (or Church of Rome, as he calls it:) Therefore according to his Principles, and her Conscience, she was to be of that Church, of whose Truth she was thus convinc'd; so that whether she could be otherwise sav'd or no, was not the Proposition to be advanc'd, but whether she thought it possible to be otherwise sav'd. And therefore though it were true, that she could other­wise be sav'd, yet she had a sufficient reason for her change▪ (though he says she had none) which was her Conscience; and supposing that were erroneous, yet upon his Principles she must be the Judge of it without appeal.

Her Scruples began upon reading Dr. Heylin 's Hi­story of the Reformation; and there she found such a­bominable Sacriledge upon Harry the Eighth's Divorce, King Edward 's Minority, and Queen Elizabeths Suc­cession, that she could not believe the Holy Ghost could ever be in such Councils. Thus he compendiously quotes her Paper, as being it seems asham'd of the Particulars therein mention'd; but for once I will follow him his own way.

To read Dr. Heylin's History in order to settle her, he confesses, was none of the best Advices given to such a Person. He is much in the right on't, as appears [Page 117] by the success; and I add, nor any other, either Pro­testant or Catholic Writer then extant: for no Paint is capable of making lovely the hideous Face of the pre­tended Reformation. But, says he, there are two di­stinct Parts in the History of it, the one Ecclesiastical, the other Political; the first built on Scripture, Anti­quity, and the Rights of particular Churches; the other 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.

But why might not her Highness consider it her own way, which is that of Nature, in the Causes which produc'd it, and the Effects which it produc'd; though I doubt not but she consider'd it his way too, because a Child could not have mist it, that very Di­stinction being inserted into the History by the Au­thor himself. Now the immediate Cause which pro­duc'd the Separation of Harry the Eighth from the Church of Rome, was the refusal of the Pope to grant him a Divorce from his first Wife, and to gratifie his Desires in a Dispensation for a second Marriage. Nei­ther the Answerer, nor I, nor any Man, can carry it so high as the original Cause with any certainty: for the King only knew whether it was Conscience and Love, or Love alone, which mov'd him to sue for a Divorce: But this we may say, that if Conscience had any part in it, she had taken a long Nap of almost Twenty years together before she awaken'd, and perhaps had slept on till Doomsday, if Anne Bullen, or some other fair Lady, had not given her a Jog; so the satisfying of an inordinate and a brutal Passion cannot be deny'd to have had a great share at least, in the production of that Schism which led the very way to our pretended Reformation: for breaking the [Page 118] Unity of Christ's Church was the Foundation of it.

I pass over the manner of those first Proceedings, and the Degrees by which they came to terminate in Schism, though I doubt not but her Highness was sufficiently scandaliz'd in both, and could not also but observe some of the concomitant Causes, as Re­venge, Ambition, and Covetousness; all which, and others, drew with a strong Biass towards it. But the immediate Effects even of this Schism, were Sacri­ledge, and a bloody Persecution of such as deny'd the King's Supremacy in Matters wholly Spiritual, which no Layman, no King of Israel ever Exercis'd, as is observ'd by my Lord Herbert. Herbert Hen 8. pag. 402. As for the Reforma­tion it self, what that produc'd is full as obvious in the Sequel of History, where we find, that Chante­ries and Hospitals undevour'd by Henry the Eighth, were left only to be Morsels for Edward the Sixth, or rather for his Ministers of State; and the Reason was given, That the Revenues of them were fruitlesly spent on those who said Prayers for the Dead. Now this was as naturally produc'd from the Reformation, as an Effect is from the Cause; so that as it is ob­serv'd by some, had that young King Reign'd any considerable time longer, the Church of England had been left the poorest of any one in Christendom; the rich Bishoprick of Duresme having been much re­trench'd by him, and 'tis probable those of Rochester and Westminster. Harry the Eighth had indeed eaten so much of the Churches Bread out of his Son's Mouth beforehand, that even Calvin complains of it in a Letter to Cranmer, (concerning the paucity of good Pastors in England) in these words: Vnum aper­tum obstaculum esse intelligo quod praedae expositi sunt Ecclesiae redditus; One open obstacle I find to this, (he [Page 119] meaneth the increase of good Pastors) is, That your Church Revenues are expos'd to Rapine.

Besides these things, what an Usurpation this change of Religion caus'd, is most notorious; that of the Lady Iane Gray being evidently grounded on the Testament of Edward the Sixth, by which she was made his Successor, because she was of the Prote­stant Religion.

As for the Title of Queen Elizabeth to the Crown, the Histories lie open, and I shall not be over forward to meddle with the Rights of Princes, especially since the Answerer has avoided that Dispute. 'Tis enough in general to say, that her Interest carry'd her a­gainst the Pope, whose Power, if good, she was Ille­gitimate: She had also been inform'd by the English Resident at Rome, that the Pope expected she shou'd acknowledge her Crown from him, and not take up­on her to be Queen without his leave. These were strong Solicitations in a new unse [...] led Succession, for her to shake off a Religion, whereof his Holiness is Head on Earth. What matter of Conscience was in the case, I say not, but her Temporal Interest lies bare-fac'd and uppermost to view, in reassuming of the Supremacy, and to make the Breach yet wider) in subverting the Foundations of the Faith. For the Affront is the same 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 [Page 120] 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, 'tis 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 'tis 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, 'tis enough if the Reformation it self be made by the Le­gislative Power of the Land. The matter of Fact then is given up, only 'tis 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 [Page 121] Popes are accustom'd to do the like in consideration of their Nephews, whom they would greaten. But though 'tis a wicked thing for a Pope to mis­pend the Church Revenues on his Relations, 'tis 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 [Page 122] 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 [Page 123] 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 then, for our comfort, neither of them were true Church of England Men, though they were both Bishops, and one of them no less than Primate of All England.

[Page 124] And now for a relishing bit before we rise, he has kept in store for us, the four Points, which about the midst of her Paper, the Duchess told us, she found so easie in the Scripture, that she wondered she had been so long without finding them. He will needs fall into Dispute with her about them, tho he knows before hand, that she will not Dis­pute with him. This is a Kind of Petition to her, that she will permit him to make that difficult, which she found easie: for every thing becomes hard by chopping Logic upon it. I am sure enough, that the Wall before me is White, and that I can go to it: but put me once upon unriddling Sophisms, I shall not be satisfied of what colour the Wall is, nor how 'tis possible for me to stir from the place in which I am. Alas, if People would be as much in earnest as she was, and read the Scriptures with the same disposition, the same unprejudic'd sincerity in their Hearts, and docility in their Understanding, seeking to bend their Judgments to what they find, not what they find to their Judgments, more I be­lieve would find things as easie as she did, and give the Answerer more frequent occasion for his derision of a willing mind.

But not to dilate on that matter, I presume he will not pretend by his Disputing, to make any thing plainly appear against her: If he can, let him do it, and end Controversie in a moment; for every one can see plain things, and all Christians must be concluded by the Scripture. But he knows well e­nough there is no such thing to be perform'd. A Mist may be raised, and interposed, through which the Eye shall not discern what otherwise it would, if nothing but the due medium were betwixt, and [Page 125] the Object before it. And that is all the fruit of this sort of Disputation, and all the Assistance, for which the Answerer was so earnest. Upon the whole, his mortal quarrel to the Duchess, is that she would not become an Experiment of the perfection to which the Art of Learned Obscurity is improv'd in this our Age. And the Honour he has done to the Church of England, is, that he has us'd her Name to countenance the Defamation of a Lady, I suspected whether he would bring it, when I saw that Honour pretended, in the beginning of his Pamphlet: If he thinks his Bishops have reflected a Scandal on his Church by their Discourses with the Duchess, he ought to have proceeded a more reaso­nable way, than to insinuate that she forg'd them, without proving it. If she had been living, and he had subscrib'd his Name to so infamous a Libell, he knows the English of a Scandalum Magnatum; for an Innuendo is considered in that case: and three indi­rect insinuations, will go as far in Law, towards the giving a downright Lie, as three Foils will go to­wards a Fall in Wrastling.

To Conclude, I leave it to the Judgment of the Impartial Reader, what occasion our Answerer has had for his Song of Triumph at the end of his Scur­rilous, Sawcy Pamphlet; I have treated him as one single Answerer, tho' properly speaking his Name is Legion; but tho the Body be possessed with many evil Spirits, 'tis but one of them who talks; let him disguise his defeat by the ringing of his Bells: 'Twas an old Dutch Pollicy when the Duke had beaten them to make Bon [...] ires, for that kept the Populace in Heart. Our Author knows he has all the Common People on his side, and they only [Page 126] read the Gazetts of their own Writers; so that every thing which is called an Answer is with them a Confutation, and the Turk and Pope are their Sworn Enemies ever since Robin Wisdom was In­spir'd to joyn 'em together in a Godly Ballad: In the mean time the Spirit of Meekness and Hum­ble Charity would become our Author better than his boasts for this imaginary Victory, or his Re­flections upon Gods Anointed; but it is the less to be admir'd that he is such a Stranger to that Spirit, because, among all the Volumes of Divinity writ­ten by the Protestants, there is not one Original Treatise, at least, that I have seen, or heard of, which has handled distinctly and by it self, that Chri­stian Vertue of Humility.