A REPLY TO THE ANSWER Made upon the Three Royal PAPERS.

Published by Authority.

LONDON, Printed for Matthew Turner, at the Lamb in High-Holborn. MDCLXXXVI.

THE PREFACE.

ENtring upon the Answer to the Three Royal Papers, whereof the two first were of CHARLES the Second of ever blessed memory; and the last of her Royal High­ness the Dutchess of York; I met with a Gen­tleman of so frank a Temper, that could his Will bribe his Understanding, and he believe as he pleased, he tells us he had not fail'd of that Sa­tisfaction in the KINGS first Paper, of which for the want of Reason to convince him he was now disappointed. This condescending Humour is a fair step made to the Inquest, by a second Examen of those excellent Truths illustrated by the pregnant Pens and Sense of those Royal Converts. Royal Papers I confess, as to their Value, may be examin­ed, as well as Royal Coin, even by a private Sub­ject. But, as the Royal Stamp in Coin may, under that fair Pretence, by a private Subject be coun­terfeited, clipt, or otherwise disguised; so Royal Papers, especially of Controversy, are no less ob­noxious [Page] to the same Fate; and in this they only differ, that no such Alteration in the KING'S Coin can be made by a private Subject, but he is look't upon as an ill Man, and acting with an ill Design: Whereas in the KING'S Controversial Papers the change either of Sense, or Word, may be made, and that by a well-designing Person, from misunderstanding, inadvertency, or other in­culpable Surprize. Now as to this Gentleman to determine any thing, would be a piece of Injustice, for I am ignorant both of his Merits and his Per­son. What Mist hath overcast his sight, I know not; but if he please to look back by a new Sur­vey, on the three Papers, he may still see in them Reason and Truth so well fixed, that to any thing yet opposed, they stand unconcerned, and as they bear in their Front the Royal Names and Super­scription, so their Weight will render them im­moveable.

THE FIRST Royal Paper VINDICATED.

FOrgers and Clippers of Royal Coin seek their safety in places of all the most ob­scure; and Disguisers and Clippers of Royal Sense hide themselves in the shades of Equivocation, the King availing himself in his first Paper upon this supposed Concession, That Christ can have but one Church here upon Earth, makes this other step, and I believe that it is as Visible as that Scripture is in print, that none can be that Church, but that which is called the Roman Catholic Church. Now if the King may be allowed to be the best expounder of his own words, and if the whole and sole design of this first Paper be to evince this truth, That all Controversial Points of Faith, either about holy Scripture, or other sub­jects [Page] do fall under the judgment and decision of the Church, as is manifest it is, then the import of the King's words must be thus, that whatever motives render it visible that a Book in print is Scripture, that is, the Word of God, the same, or other motives are as powerful to render this other truth as visible; That none can be that Church, but that which is called the Roman Catholic Church. This is the genuine Sense of the King, and to this the Examinant of the Royal Papers gives this an­swer. If particular Controuersies about matters of Faith could be ended by a principle as visible as that Scripture is in print, all Men of Sense would soon give over Disputing, for none who dare believe what they see, can call that in question. Not to contest with him about the impropriety of the phrase, to believe what one sees: Luther was a bold Man, and yet in the phrase of this Gentleman did not dare to be­lieve what he saw, for the Epistle of St. James was in print before his Eyes, he perused it, and yet cast it out of the Canon of Scripture; Catholics and Protestants are both Men of Sense, they have the Books of Machabees and others in print, they see them, they handle them; the Catholic gives them their place in the Canon; the Protestants do not on­ly question them, but seem resolv'd to dispute that point to the end; clearly then this principle that the Scripture is in print, is not so unquestionable or indisputable as the Gentleman pretends: and his miscarriage rests in this, That the visibility which in the sense of the King springs from the motives inducing to believe that such or such a Book in [Page 3] print is the holy Scripture, he assigns to a bare print of the Book.

But what if the Church whose Authority 'tis said, they must submit to, will not allow them to believe what they see. My first reply is, That here is a confu­sion of Notions, for belief is properly of things that are not seen, as the Apostle describes it, argu­mentum non apparentium, and hath Authority for motive; whereas sight or seeing is an inspection into the thing seen, and creates a knowledge of it. Secondly, not to recede from his mode of Speech, I am a stranger to such a Church, and think it im­possible to impose upon any Man a command not to believe what he sees. For though it may and doth often fall out, that a Man believes what he sees not, yet in true Philosophy it can never happen that a Man may not believe what he sees, and therefore such a command is ranged amongst the impossibles. I well know where his scruple is, and what he would be at; 'tis the Adorable Mystery of the conversion of Bread and Wine into the Bo­dy and Blood of our Redeemer, where he hopes to evince this assertion; but in vain, for what is seen are only the forms, shapes and figures of Bread and Wine, and that we believe to be there; con­sequently the Church lays upon us no command not to believe what we see. For instance, I will press upon him the two noted passages of holy Scrip­ture, the first is of two Angels appearing to Lot, and conversing with him in the figure and shapes of Men, the second is of the Holy Ghosts descent in the form of a Dove; with all, let us suppose that [Page 4] God had revealed to Lot this truth, that what he did see were not Men but Angels in Mens Shape, as he did to the Apostles, that what appeared was not a Dove, but the Holy Ghost in the Shape of a Dove. I now put this question to him, was this Revela­tion a Command upon Lot or the Apostles, not to believe what they did see? I believe his Answer will be Negative, for if there were neither Men, nor Dove, neither could be seen. If then God at any time should reveal to us by his Church, that what is in the Holy Sacrament, is not Bread nor Wine, but the Body and Blood of Christ, under those Shapes and Forms, why must this revelation be deemed a Command not to believe what we see? or where lies the Disparity? Evidently then there neither is, nor can be, any such Command, and by consequence no Injury is offered to our Senses, no reproach to the Church.

His next offer is, at a Clip to the Royal Stamp, and because he says 'tis with Submission, I presume it to be unadvised; for whereas the Kings. Paper runs thus, that none can be that Church, but that which is called the Roman-Catholic Church, he snips off, I know not how, this word Catholic, and so restrains the Kings meaning to the parti­cular Church or Diocess of Rome, this must be confessed not to be the best way of examining the King's Coin, for tho' by this term Roman some­times all Churches in Communion with the Church of Rome be signify'd, yet by the Parallel made betwixt the whole and the part, he is con­vinced not to have meant so. To requite then [Page 5] his Parallel, 'tis as visible that the word Roman, is not Roman-Catholic, as that one word is not two, as to the Corruption with which in general Terms, he aspersed the Roman Church, since 'tis as invisible as the Proofs he brings to justify the Charge; I shall pass it by.

After it was settled, That Christ can have but one Church upon Earth, and that this is that Church we profess to believe in the two Creeds. He thus subsumes, But if those who made those Creeds for our Direction, had intended the Roman-Catholic Church, why was it not so expressed? how came it to pass that such a Limi­tation of the Sense of Christ's Catholic Church to the Roman should never be put to persons to be baptized in any Age of the Church?

My first Answer shall be, ad hominem, by retor­fion: If the Apostles intended we should believe that Christ was Consubstantial to his Father, or that Hereticks were not to be re-baptized, why did they not insert it into their Creeds? If the Apostles and Nicene Fathers, after them intended we should believe the duality of Wills, and unity of Persons in Christ, how did it escape both their Creeds? I believe we shall jump upon the same Solution; which is, that none of these Doctrines were que­stioned in those days, no Hereticks had opposed them, and therefore there was no need of decision, this being the Province of General Councils in fra­ming their Creeds. Let's see if this will square to my purpose. Catholic, and Roman-Catholic-Church in the Language of Antiquity was one and the same thing, saving when the particular Church or Dio­cess [Page 6] of Rome was expressed; which being so, and the point never call'd in question in the first and best days of the Church when those Creeds were to be published, what great surprize is it that the word Roman should not be comprized in any of their Creeds? Or that it was not enter'd into the an­cient Formulary, or Ceremonies of Baptism, so ve­nerable to after ages, and of which they have ever been most tenacious? I have engaged Antiquity for the Roman-Catholic side; let's see whether she will stand by me, and let Tertullian lead the Van, who well understood the Language both of his own and the foregoing Age. Speak then Ter­tullian what thou knowest of Marcion's pecunary Oblation in Rome to the Roman Church. Marcion, says he, gave his money to the Catholic Church, which was rejected when he fell into Heresie. Tertul. contra Marcion lib. 4. cap. 4. See how easily it dropt from his Pen to stile the Roman Church the Catholic Church. What's now the sense of St. Cyprian, the mouth of the African Church, to Antonianus? You writ that I should send a Copy of the Letters to Cor­nelius (Bishop of Rome) to the end that he might understand that you communicate with him, that is to say, with the Catholic Church, Cypr. lib. 4. epist. 2. And if it be the same to communicate with the Pope, as it is with the Catholic Church, then clearly the Roman and Catholic Church are one and the same. St. Ambrose in his Funeral Oration upon his Bro­ther Satyrus, relates this passage of Satyrus, that coming into a City polluted with Heresie, he de­mands of the Bishop of the place whether he was in [Page 7] Communion with the Catholic Bishop, that is, with the Church of Rome. St. Ambros. Orat. funeb. So that in the phrase of that time, communion with the Ca­tholic Church, and Church of Rome nothing dif­fer'd. John of Constantinople to Hormisda, Pope, writes thus, We promise hereafter not to recite in the Sacred Mysteries the names of those who have separated themselves from the Catholic Church, that is to say, who agree not fully with the See Apostolic. Tom. 3. Concil. Edit. Binii inter Epist. Hormisdae. By this we may see the stile of old times. Nay it was so familiar to use promiscuously the word Roman for Catholic, that the very Arians, as the Protestants now do, called the Catholics by the name of Romanists. Victor of Utica brings in Jocundus an Arian, thus arguing with King Theodorick, If thou put Armo­gastus to death, the Romanists will proclaim him a Martyr. Victor. Utic. lib. 2. de persec. Vandal. And Gregory of Tours recounts of an Arian King, who seeing a miracle wrought by a Catholic, concludes that this was a device of the Romanists. Since therefore in the vulgar Speech and Records of old days, Roman and Catholic are Synonima, the King had much reason to declare, That none could be that Church, but that which is called the Roman-Catholic-Church. And a rational account is given why the word Roman was not expressed in the two Creeds, nor in the Ritual of Baptism.

From the Church of Rome's not denying the validity of Baptism to those who are out of her Communion, he urges thus, From whence it is to me as visible as that the Scripture is in print, that the [Page 8] Church of Rome it self doth not believe that she is the one Catholic Church mentioned in the Creeds. This is very pleasant, it is a fixed principle that there is but one Church Catholic, and the Church of Rome by a thousand Declarations takes it upon her self to be that one Church; and yet it must be as Vi­sible to this Gentleman, as that the Scripture is in print, that the Church of Rome doth not believe her self to be that ōne Catholic Church mention'd in the two Creeds, what can he offer to justifie so strange a Paradox? For then, says he, it must void all Bap­tism out of its communion, which it hath never yet done. But what greater necessity is there for the Church of Rome to void Baptism given out of her Communion, then for the Catholic Church? Or if the Catholic Church doth not make it void, what can oblige the Church of Rome to do it? The Re­ply is, That Baptism enters persons into the Catho­lic Church, who though they be out of the Com­munion of the Roman Church, yet having the true form of Baptism are Members of the Catholic Church. But I beseech him if Baptism enters Men into the Catholic Church, doth not Heresie, Apo­stacy, or Insidelity cast them out of the Catholic Church, as well as out of the Roman Church? Is it come to this, that Marcionists, Ebionites, Arians, Nestorians, Eutichians, Donatists, Novatians, and the scumm of Heretics, because rightly baptised, shall be reputed Members of the Catholic Church? This had been great news in the days of St. Austin who in his forty eighth Epistle makes this profession to Donatus, You are with us in Baptism, in the Creed, [Page 9] in the rest of our Lord's, Sacraments, but in the Ca­tholic Church you are not. And St. Hierom against the Luciferans, No Heretical Congregation can be cal­led a Church of Christ. For though Baptism be the Gate by which whoever enters the Church, must pass; yet there is no Man, though baptized, if an Heretic, can remain there.

His next Paragraph is made up by comparing the Church in her Infancy with her self in her ful­ler growth, and from that different State he would conclude that in her beginnings 'twas easy to find out that one visible Church, by reason of the strait u­nion of the Faithful in the Bonds of Faith and Charity, when the Multitude of them who believed were of one Heart and of one Soul, but not so in af­ter Ages, when the Concussion of the whole State of the Church by so many fractions and divisions in her Communion, had so obscured her that they ren­dred her difficult to be discerned. This is the sum of his discourse in gross, which I answer by detail; after the ascention of Christ there was no time wherein there was not divisions in the Church, for even in those good days of the Apostles, there went out from them either by Schism, Heresy, or Apostacy, many heads of Factions, who grew in­to Bodies, and drew after them considerable Par­ties, such as the Ebionits, the Nicholaits, the Mar­cionists, and many more whereof some had been Jewish, others had been Gentile Christians, but all of them went out from the Body of the Church; so that notwithstanding the Multitude of those who believed were of one Heart and Soul, yet there were [Page 10] many who fell from their Belief. I shall now take leave to ask, whether the Church in the throng of these Divisions was easily visible or no? He grants it was, how then came it to pass that in af­ter Ages she became so obscure, and as it were in­visible? He replies, by Divisions; but if in both States of the Church there were divisions, how happens it, that the Cause remaining the same, should not work the same Effect? Was there any Mark, Rule, or Standard, by which the Church was known amidst her first Divisions, which af­terwards disappeared? If not the Church may be equally visible in both her States, now if at the rise of any Heresie, the Apostles, and after them the Apostolick Men, used all means to suppress it, either by Preaching, Catechizing, writing against it, and meeting in full Assemblies for the Comdemnation of it, by stigmatizing both the Heresy, and its Author, cutting him off from the Body of the Church, if I say by these means the infant Church was rendred as visible as a Town, scituate on a Mountain, or a Light upon a Candlestick, then the same Methods continuing in the Church of af­ter times, do evidently evince that she was, and now is as visible as ever, and that there was a just Performance of this in every Age, is made out by the records of all times: where the time, the place, the Origin, the Author of every Heresie, the vi­gorous opposition that was made against it, the Fathers that writ against it, the Pastors that Preach'd it down, the Councils that condemned it, the Laws of Princes made against it, are all so [Page 11] exactly noted, that all the actions and motions of the Church in every Age, were as visible as those of the first and best of times.

As to the remarkable difference he mentions in the nature of Schisms, which happened in the Church, and gave occasion of great misapplications, and sayings of the Antients about the one Catholic Church. I do not believe it material to observe it, for let the Schism or Heresie be of what nature soever, since the Church in a general Council is the last tribu­nal in all such Causes, whoever separates, or goes out from her, is to be reputed as an Heathen, or a Publi­can, but because his way of writing merits, that nothing be slighted. I shall march with him through the following Passages. Some did so break off Communion with other Parts of the Catholic Church, as to challenge that Title wholly to themselves, as was evident in the case of the Novations and Donatists. If the Novatians and Donatists did break off Com­munion with other parts only of the Catholic Church, I desire to know where the whole Church was at that time? For unless he ranges these Hereticks in the Catholic Church, and so reputes them parts of it, the breach was from the whole, not from parts, as a rotten Branch is separated from the Trunck or the whole Tree. Well, how was the Breach? By Challenging the Title of the Catholic Church wholly to themselves, as was Evident, for they re-bap­tized all that embraced their Communion; not to in­sist upon other Enormities of these Novatians and Donatists, by what means were these Monsters crush­ed? were they not the same that were used in [Page 12] the first Ages, did not the Pastors watch over their Flock to preserve it from the contagion? did not St. Austin and other Fathers sharpen their Pens against them? did not the Church by her Councils cut them off as rotten Limbs from her Bo­dy? If nothing of this can be concealed, then clearly she was as visible as ever.

The next instance is from the Bishops of Rome ex­communicating the Bishops of Asia for not keeping Easter when they did and the Bishops both of Asia, and Africa for not allowing the Baptism of Heretics. This Breach I confess is of a different Nature from the former, for here the whole Church was not by any of her Councils yet engaged, but the contest was betwixt Parts, tho' some more Eminent than others, and in which 'tis possible, some transports of Passion might interyene. Irenaeus, 'tis true, expostulates with the Bishop of Rome, not that he wanted Au­thority, but that he exercised it with too much Severity over the Bishops of Asia; upon a Subject, he thought not to be of so great Moment. The truth is, both these customs had long obtain'd, the one in the Western, and the other in the Eastern Church, and nothing less then a general Council did set a Period to the Dispute. A Council was called, the decision was made for the Bishop of Rome, and Peace was restored to the whole Church: can any Man at this time of day, say that the Church was not as visible as ever? the controversy betwixt Cornelius, and Stephen, Bishops of Rome on the one side, and St. Cyprian with the Affrican Bishops of the other was much of the same [Page 13] Nature, nothing was yet defin'd by a general Council, Right stood for the Bishops of Rome, the Council determined the point, and the whole Church came to an acquiescence. Had this Gen­tleman been chosen advocate for the Catholic Church, I know not how he could have render'd her more visible. He proceeds but is it reasonable to suppose that upon these differences they shut out all those holy Bishops, and Martyrs from the possibility of Salvation, by excluding them from their Communion? How far the heat of these disputes might have car­ried the Parties engaged, or whether either, or neither party was free from blame, I shall not de­termine, but this is a certain Maxime both in Church and State, that a submission either active or passive is due to all Lawful Powers, though the command be unjust: and 'tis the known principle of St. Austin, with the Ancients, that no cause can be given to separate from the whole Church, ei­ther by Heresie or Schism, now in this contest here was no separation from the whole Church by either of the Parties, but a perfect submission to her Decrees when delivered by the mouth of her General Assembly, so that here was not different Communions amongst Christians, but only different sentiments in matters as yet undecided by the Church, with which it consisted that both parties were members of the Catholic Church, and con­sequently no one member of the contesting par­ties, as this Gentleman well observes, ought to as­sume to its self the Title and Authority of the one Ca­tholic Church. But when Sentence was passed by [Page 14] a General Council, the dissenting party, if any re­mained, was cut off as a rotten Member from the Body of the Catholic Church, and then the con­test is no more betwixt party and party, but be­twixt a rebellious party and the whole Church, to whom the stile of that one Catholic Church is just­ly due, she being the whole; as the Trunk of the Tree is the whole, compared to any Limb; and the Novatians and Donatists her putrified Members.

Amongst other calamities which have sprung from original corruption 'tis not the least, that be­ing our selves Criminals, we have an itch to find out confederates, as if their number rendered us Innocent. This assailant of the Royal Papers to justifie the late separation of the Protestants from the Roman Catholic Church, brings upon the Stage the Eastern Churches, cut off and separated from her Communion, And adds that the Bishops of Rome would hear of no other terms of accommodati­on with the Eastern Church, but by an intire submission as head of the Catholic Church, which all the Churches of the East refus'd however different amongst them­selves, and to this day look on the Popes Supremacy as an innovation in the Church. How well skill'd he is in the History of the Eastern Churches I shall not dispute. But sure all is not Game that rises, and I doubt the account given him is made up of false Musters. This is certain the Eastern Churches were divided from the Roman-Catholic Church, that is, from all Churches in Communion with the Church of Rome, by such Doctrines as are incon­sistent even with the Church of England, which [Page 15] professes to hold whatever was decreed by the first four general Councils, and this breach of uni­on continues with their descendents to this day. The Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Abissines are by Sect Eutichians, holding but one Nature, Will, and O­peration in Christ, and are condemned by the fourth general Council, that is of Chalcedon, with these side part of the Armenians, the Jacobites, Georgians and Cophties. The Christians under the Turk and Persians in Asia, are Nestorians, branded by the General Council of Ephesus for maintaining two persons in Christ. The Grecians with the Muscovites and Russians, by the Athanasian Creed (so Sacred to the Church of England) are excluded, even from Salvation, for refusing to believe the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son. As to the first division of the Greek Church, the true cause was from the contest betwixt Igna­tius true Patriarch of Constantinople, and Photius the intruder, with the first stood the Pope, and the Emperor with the last; and in the end, to make the breach the wider, the procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son was denyed, and so it rests till this day; now that the Pope's Supremacy was and is look'd on as an innovation by any of these Churches I doubt is a story not so well groun­ded as this Gentleman could wish.

And if my Authors deceive me not, some of these, as the Egyptians and Ethiopians, have often made overtures to the Pope for Peace and Com­munion, owning him Supream Head of the Church, provided only they might not be obliged to re­nounce [Page 16] Eutiches and Dioscorus. After these fun­damental Errours of Faith against the Holy Ghost, and the person of Jesus Christ, he put this questi­on, how then came they to be excluded from being parts of the one Catholic and Apostolic Church? Since in all those Churches the two Creeds are professed, true Bap­tism administred, A Man would have thought that such blasphemies against the Divinity and Hu­manity of Christ, had been cause enough to have Unchurched any number of Men, but since he seems to opine that the denyal of the two first Creeds can do the work, why should not the refu­sal of a third Creed (or if the emergencies of new started Doctrines made it necessary) a fourth and fifth Creed be as prevalent? Is the power of the Church Catholic in deciding Faith, less then it was in making the second Creed? Again, is it not as possible for Men who profess a Creed to err even a­gainst that Creed, as it is for Men professing a Rule to deviate from that Rule? Wherefore it being evident that nothing of all this hath been wanting to fill up the measure of Heresie in those Eastern Churches, they cannot be reputed parts of the one Catholic and Apostolic Church, consequently the Roman Church, and the Churches in Commu­nion with her must be that one Church, or there was, or is, none upon Earth.

This principle then that the Roman Church is that one Catholic and Apostolic Church being as visible as was asserted by the king to enter into the Ocean of particular disputes, would be to enter into the maze of everlasting jarring: Pregnant evidence of this [Page 17] truth is had from the pretended Reformation of this last Age, where the innumerable Sects that have swarm'd from the first Reformers in the di­vided World, steering their course, as they fancy, by the Compass of Holy Scripture (a president given them by their Leaders) have improved con­troversie to that degree, that 'tis impossible by that method to reclaim them, the Scholar still in that out-doing his Master. And whereas it is believed by this Gentleman, That the Church of Rome hath notoriously deviated from this infallible rule (Scrip­ture sensed by fancy, for neither he concerns him­self for Tradition nor Exposition of the Fathers) and therefore is not willing to put her self upon that issue. I answer, that the Church of Rome cannot deviate from a rule she never professed to follow. And if some of her Champions out of meer condescension to Protestants have fought them with their own weapons (in which way of combating the Church is not engaged) the judg­ment of the victory must be from the arbitration not of any private Man, but of the Learned World.

The king's next position is, That it is not left to every phantastical Man's head to believe as he pleases, but to the Church. Beware here of counterfeit Coin, 'twas out but he called it in again, and re­plies, The Church of England cannot be liable to any imputation of this nature, for our Church receives the three Creeds, embraces the four General Councils, and professes to hold nothing contrary to any universal Tra­dition of the Church from the Apostles time. Had he been pleased to have given in security for the [Page 18] Church of England, that notwithstanding this glo­rious profession, she could never err against the Creeds, nor the four Councils, nor universal Tra­dition, he had well merited of that Church. For we do not charge her for not professing these things, at least upon a pinch, but for erring against her own profession, and deserting that Church to which all these Authorities bear testimony, and of which her Progenitors, and first Reformers had been Members, and from whose hands she recei­ved whatsoever she had, either of Scripture, Creeds, Councils, or Tradition, consequently whose judgment she was bound to follow; for the Eastern Churches even by the profession of Pro­testants being lapsed into Heresies, there was then no visible Church in Being but such as was in Communion with the Church of Rome, which ne­ver went out of any elder than her self, and out of whom the Church of England sprang. It seems he would have the Controversie betwixt us put upon this issue, that is, the three Creeds, four Councils, and Tra­dition. But who shall be Umpire, the instructing, or instructed Party? This discourse in the mouth of a Protestant against Presbyterian, Anabaptist, or Quaker would be sound, though at the same time a self-condemnation in the Church of England. The rest of this Paragraph is made up of volun­tary assumptions without proof, and which are already answered as to the main; only I cannot let slip this concession, we do not deny that the Church hath Authority of declaring matters of Faith, but this must be the universal Church in a General [Page 19] and free Council, as when the Nicene Creed was made, not when a party in the Church, the most corrupt, takes upon it self to define many now Doctrines. This plea, if it be good, justifies the Arians, and condemns the Nicene Fathers, vindicates the Eutichians, Ne­storians, and Donatists, and confounds all Gene­ral Councils, for there is nothing of this but was as fully charged against them by the Heretics of those days. The following Paragraph is adulte­rated Coin, for whereas the King by the inhabi­tants of a Country means Subjects, instituting the comparison betwixt them and their Lawful Judges of the same Country, he stretches those words to signifie the People of one Society, and Judges of another.

The King's discourse is home, and to the pur­pose, God would not leave us at those uncertainties, as to give us a Rule to go by, and leave every Man to be his own Judge. He answers, We cannot reasonably suppose God should give us a Rule not capable of being understood by those to whom it was given to save their Souls. As if there were no way to render a Man capable of understanding Scripture, to the saving of his Soul, but to leave him to be his own Judge? Is there no Church? No Pastors to instruct him? He that is blind or dim-sighted and will not use a Guide, merits to fall. Not to be wilfully mista­ken in matters of Faith, and not to be damn'd is of one and the same consequence: The know­ledge of good and evil, truth and falshood, I con­fess, in some sense, is to Man's conscience of the same concern, but he that willingly shuns light, [Page 20] and gropes for either of them in the dark is an Enemy to his Soul, and equally culpable. There follows, We do not leave every Màn to be his own Judge any farther then concerns his own Salvation, which depends upon his particular care and sincerity. But if the judgment of his own Salvation be in his own hands, I think he is made his own Judge of the Rule: And notwithstanding all his care and sincerity (though they should protect him from the Artifices of foreign Seducers, which is not pos­sible but by accident, without an inerrable Guide) yet the corruption of his own heart may be his own most powerful Seducer, and God, if he will, hath provided a guide even against that. As to his re­fuge to the Ancient Creeds, of how little concern it is, may appear by this, that if I should allow they followed exactly what they pretend to em­brace, (which I never can) yet if he denies it to be in the power of the Church to make new de­cisions of Faith, upon any new exigence of Here­sie, or the like, the sequel will be that every Man is left to be his own Judge.

To the question started by the King, Whether it be not the same thing to follow our own phansie; or to interpret Scripture by it. His reply is, That if we allowed no Creeds, no Fathers, no Councils, there might have been some colour for such a question. And is that colour vanish'd? I believe not; for if those Creeds, those Fathers and Councils have no infal­lible Authority to oblige the Church of England, why should not the King's question be still in force? For neither is that Church obliged to fol­low [Page 21] those Rights which may deceive it, nor is there any rational Authority in the Church of England to force any of her Members to embrace them. But the truth is, that Church neither stands to Creeds, Fathers or Councils, otherwise she had never deserted her Mother Church, who ever regarded those Authorities as Oracles infalli­ble, and sent from Heaven to direct us, and to whom she owes whatever is Sacred of that nature. To his first question of the Church of Rome assum­ing to it self the sole power of giving the sense of the Scripture. I answer, she gives no sense but what she received from former Tradition of the forego­ing Church, and consequently makes not any Rule to her self, but follows that Apostolical Tradition, which God hath given her as the best interpreter of holy Scriptures. To his second question the answer is the same. The third question stands up­on a false bottom, for it supposes the Pope to be the sole interpreter of Scripture, whereas neither he nor the Church do pretend to any other way, but by Tradition. The fourth question is also grounded upon Errour, as if the publick disorders which happen in the Church were not to be re­formed by General Councils. The fifth question is also built upon Sand, for it pretends that the Pa­pal Authority is to be debated in Councils, whereas no General Council did ever dispute it. The sixth question is as strange as any, for it con­founds Phancy, and Tradition, whereas the one is publick to the whole World, and the other is pri­vate.

[Page 22] His next Paragraph adulterates the Royal Coin, for when the King demands to know where the power of deciding matters of Faith is given to every particular person, the sense is clear, for the question cannot be meant otherwise than in relation to himself. But he extends it so, as if every one was to give Laws to another's Faith, and this without any ground is made the first Member of the divi­sion. But he adds, If by deciding matters of Faith, no more be meant, but every Man's being satisfied of the reasons why he believes one thing to be true, and not another, that belongs to every Man, as he is bound to take care of his Soul. So that by his reply every Man whose Soul is dear to him, may and ought to discuss, and dispute every Article of his Faith, and bring it to the Test of his own reason; and so the Omnipotence of a God revealing, and the Authority of a Church declaring what is revealed, weighs not with him until reason be satisfy'd, and the understanding becomes a measure of all re­vealed Truths. Whereas, in truth, Authority is the correlative of Believing, and Reason of Know­ledge. And though we make use of our reason to find out that Authority which ought to sway us, as a blind Man serves himself with his reason to find out his Guide; yet after that, 'tis Autho­rity, not Reason that moves us, and the previous motives inducing us to embrace the Authority of the Church, from whence we have Scriptures, and all other inscrutable Mysteries, are much more visible and resplendent than for any other Article of our Faith.

[Page 23] The King goes on, Christ left power in his Church even to forgive sins, &c. He replys, But where then was the Roman Catholic Church? Undoubtedly where now it is, one and the same, from whence all other pretended Churches went out, she never departing from any Church, that was elder than her self. If she had, I doubt not but her Eagle­ey'd adversaries would long er'e this have brought to light the Fathers, the Councils, or whatever else stood in opposition against her, and since they never did, nor can, their plea against her is com­mon to all whoever opposed the true Church. In a good Sense therefore she alone remains Heir general to the Apostles, as to those gifts which were not personal but given by Christ for the necessary support and government of her self, which is to continue untill the consummation of Time. And though he seems surprised that God should keep Man more from Error than from Sin. Yet if he re­calls but to mind that some of the Prophets were led into truths by the holy Spirit, and were great Sinners at the same time, and that all the Prophets (though infallible in delivering such truths as God put into their mouths) yet were obnoxious to sin, the miraculous surprize will cease, and the reason why infallibility is necessary, and not impecca­bility, is manifest, because without the first the Church could not subsist, for if once she makes Shipwrack of her Faith, she is no more a Church, an effect not so proper to sin. And whereas he demands, Would any have believed the Apostles infal­lible, if they had known them to have been persons of ill [Page 24] lives. I answer yes, for either by Miracles wrought in confirmation of their Infallibility, or any other way they could have an assurance of it. As to a­ny concession that the Church may err in deposing Princes, if he means she may err in the decision of Truth, or definition of Faith about it, he is pure­ly beholding to himself for that concession, not to the King, or any else I know of, who only engage for her inerrability in delivering what she received from Christ and his Apostles by an un­interrupted Tradition, and in conformity to this Rule, the Church of Rome, with all those in Com­munion with her, (the rest either by Here­sie, or Apostacy being divided from her) was judge even of the Scripture it self what was Cano­nical, what not, or else it had been impossible for the Church of England to have known any thing of Truth concerning that Point; there being no other Church to inform her, but what had forfeit­ed her Credit by manifest Heresie, and that owned by the Church of England, this is a vindication of the King against three of his Paragraphs.

The King having put the question, by what Autho­rity Men separate themselves from that Church? He re­plies that they have not separated themselves from the Catholick and Apostolick Church, but are disjoyned from the Roman Church; that we may keep up the Stricter Vnion with the truly Catholick and Apostolick Church. But if the English Church reputes it self a Member of the Chatholick Church, because she professes to stand to the three Creeds, and four first general Councils, then certainly the Arians, [Page 25] Nestorians, Eutichians, and the Eastern Churches above-mentioned, cannot be parts of the Catho­lick Apostolick Church, because they hold not the Apostolick Doctrine contain'd in those Creeds, and Councils. But besides those Churches, there were no other in Being at the time of Separation, but those Churches, which were in communion with the Church of Rome, consequently the Church of England going out from them, separated her self from the Catholick, Apostolick Church, and therefore unless he can prove the Church of Rome to have deserted any other elder Church than her self by Usurpation or otherwise, his Sto­ry of an Usurper will be but a Shift, and may au­thorise all Rebellion, either in Church or State.

The last Paragraph is, since Protestants do charge the Church of Rome with Imposition of new Articles of Faith, the King desires to know who is to be judg of that, whether the whole Church, the Successi­on whereof hath continued to this Day without Inter­ruption; or particular Men who have raised Schisms to their own Advantage. The Roman Church ha­ving been in Possession of all those Truths (now questioned by the Men of the Church of Eng­land) nothing can be more unreasonable than to devest her of her just Possession, and to require her to fall a proving: whereas this ought to be the Province of those, who under the Pretence of In­novation revolted from her. For either they must make good their charge, or else by all Laws they stand condemned, and she remains justified. Where­fore since at the time of separation, she owned [Page 26] the Papal Supremacy, and other Articles to have descended to her by an universal Tradition, who­ever questions the Title, must convince her of that pretended Usurpation, and then as it is well observed by the King, who shall be judg in that case? To have answered the Royal Paper, this Method he should have minded, which in disputes of another Nature, I doubt not but he would have Practised. However after his challenging the Church to prove her Possession, he proceeds to declare, that the Protestants being now by fal­ling from the Church of Rome (of whom they were once a part) at Liberty, betook themselves to the Examination of the Popes Supremacy, and other Articles of the Council of Trent, by Scrip­tures, Fathers, and Councils, but could find no­thing in any of them to make out that Supremacy, or any Article now in dispute. But still the King's Questions pressed upon them, who shall be Judge? Is not this a President for all Rebellion, either in Church or State? They have neither Scripture, Tradition, Councils, nor Fathers, but what they had from the Roman Church, and at the first Breach, they were in number very Inconsiderable and yet by a strange Presumption they pretend to have a clearer Sight into those Principles, than that Church, who gave them their very Being in Chri­stianity.

I believe, were this Gentleman to argue against those Sects that have spawn'd from the Church of England, he would not suffer a pride so intol­lerable, as to prefer their own sense in Scriptures, [Page 27] or the Rule of Faith before that Church that gave them the Rule. Well, but having finished this in­quiry, What did they do? He goes on thus: Ar­ticles of Religion were drawn up, wherein the Sense of our Church was delivered agreable to Scripture and Antiquity, not the private sense of particular Men. If they be Articles of Religion, then they are Arti­cles of Faith; if so, they must come by Divine Revelation, either by the way of Holy Scripture, Tradition, or otherwise. Now I beseech him to declare in which of these principles are all, or any of these negative Articles contained; as no pray­ing to Saints, no Purgatory, no reverencing of Images, no Transubstantiation, and the like, with which the nine and thirty Articles are stuft? Clearly this is a new Creed, which neither the Eastern, nor We­stern Churches did ever profess to hold: Nor will it avail to reply, that nothing of praying to Saints, Purgatory, or the like is to be found in the Scriptures or Antiquity (which notwithstanding is a manifest illusion) for if they be Articles of Religion, or of Faith, he must bring positive Texts to assert them, by which all persons should be obliged to believe them, and so to Sacrifice their Lives for them, if occasion should be; otherwise the Creed-makers will be lookt upon as Cheats, and their new Creeds as the deluding Fancies of particular Men. As to the advantages of the Cler­gy in the Church of Rome, I must needs confess they are very considerable, and therefore not likely to be lost by any Reformation in Religion, since if an Angel from Heaven should bring it, [Page 28] they are caution'd not to receive him: But that the Clergy should be against, and Princes for the Church of Rome, is as surprizing as that a Clergy may be byast, and a Prince unbyast, a Blessing so signally fallen from Heaven upon the Prince who now reigns, and his blessed Brother, that no ad­vantage under Heaven can be thought so power­ful as to have byast them in their Choice.

THE SECOND Royal Paper VINDICATED.

HIS late Majesty out of Paternal com­miseration, and his Princely care for the safety of this Nation breaks out into this complaint, It is a sad thing to con­sider what a world of Heresies are crept into this Na­tion. And this Assailant is much concerned that no distinction should be made, between the Religion establish'd by Law, and the Parties disowned by it, and dissenting from it. As if an establishment of a Religion by Law, could protect it from being an Heresie, or as if Error fix'd by a Law were not more to be pityed, than what is vagrant and un­setled. He need not trouble himself to vindicate other Sects from Heresie, against the four or six General Councils, let him defend his own and his [Page 30] work is done. But how comes the Church of Eng­land to bear the blame of so many Heresies? The rea­son is obvious to any one who reflects upon the breach she made from the Church of Rome, and by that example opened a Gate for all Heresies to enter; nay the truth is, she is a fruitful Womb of Heresies, of which, Time has and will still deliver her; for by throwing the Rule of Obedience and Government over-board, the Presbyterians revol­ted from her; from them the Anabaptists, the Quakers, and how many links more there will, or may be, God alone can tell, since 'tis not in the power of that Church, but by the Sword to sup­press them, which if she should use against them, nothing would be more unreasonable than to per­secute them for adhering too closely to a Rule, or Example which she first gave them. To his Question, How came the Church of Rome to have this power of defining or declaring what's Heresie? I answer, By the same way the Church had power in her General Councils to make Creeds, and Anathmatize Hereticks; and as the Church then did not make any new Articles of Faith, when she defined that the Son was Consubstantial to the Father, and that Christ had two Wills, and one Person; so the Church of Rome in her definitions never pretends to make new Articles of Faith but to declare the old ones.

When the King had pronounced, That every Man thinks himself as competent a Judge of Scripture as the Apostles themselves. He answers by a Coun­ter-questio Does every one amongst us pretend to [Page 31] an infallible Spirit? Yes, for by this Gentleman's Position, no Man of them will believe but what he sees or understands in the Scriptures, and in what they see or understand, he conceives they cannot be deceived, consequently their Spirit is infallible; To use a Man's understanding about Scripture, is not to be Judge of Scripture. For a Man that so uses his understanding as to submit it to the Tradition of the Church, makes the Church the Judge, and not himself: And whoever uses his understanding in opposition to the Churches Tradition, makes him­self judge indeed, but not to his Salvation. We, says he, own the Authority of Guides in the Church, and a due submission to them. What's this? Is that submission so due that Heaven will be lost without it? If so, his Church is as competent a Judge as the Apostles, for that is the only punishment due to those who hear not them, if otherwise the sub­mission is ad pompam, and in the sense of the King every Man thinks himself as competent a Judge of Scripture, as the very Apostles themselves.

The King gives here a Reason for his foregoing Assertion, and the sum of it is, that the Church of England dares not press her Authority upon other Sects in giving the sense of Scriptures, for fear they should confound her, for having cast off the Au­thority of that Church, of which she was once a Member, and to whom she was equally bound to submit. To this he replys, That the Church of England pretends to no Infallibility; but this is to disguise the Royal Coin, for the King abstracts from all Infallibility, and his Argument is as force­able [Page 32] without it, as with it; for if the Sectaries can with truth cast it in the Teeth of the Church of England, that she disobey'd her Mother Church, whether she were Infallible, or not, the Church of England can never justly charge them with any disobedience to her. But some Heads of the Ro­man Church have been not barely suspected of Heresie, for one of them stands condemned for it in three Ge­neral Councils. But what's this to the King's Reason? who in neither of his Papers, as I can see, defends any Man from the possibility of falling in­to Heresie.

Not to multiply Disputes, nor to recede from the King's Papers, I shall not dive deeper into the Question, Whether the Church of England be a true Church or no, since the King did not. Yet I could reply to this brisk Gentleman, as St. Austin (by me already cited) did to the Donatists, That all that he has raked together, if it should be al­lowed to be in the Church of England, yet some­thing would be wanting to make her a true Church. Well then, what is the Church of Eng­land charged with? 'Tis thus, says the King, She would fain have it thought that they are Judges in matters spiritual, yet dare not say positively there is no Appeal from them. His Reply is from a Parity Be­twixt Inferiour and Superiour Courts, where both are truly Judges, yet there lyes an Appeal from an Inferiour to a Superiour Court, and he instances in Courts both Spiritual and Temporal. But the Parity is very lame, for the Church of England supposes her self nor inferiour to any other Church, [Page 33] nor will she submit to any others Dictamen, as things stand, consequently, as things stand, she is the last Tribunal of Spiritual Doctrine. In the next Paragraph the King argues thus, What Coun­try can subsist in quiet where there is not a Supreme Judge, from whence there can be no Appeal. From hence this Gentleman infers, that every National Church ought to have the Supreme Power within its self. This is no good Illation, unless it be in reference to the Church of England, which will have no such Superiour to it, for the King speaks of a Country over which there is no Jurisdiction out of its self, consequently there must be in that Country a Supreme Judge in all Temporal Causes, but one Church which is subordinate to another Church, and owns her self but a Member of an universal Church in Being, cannot be said to be the last Tribunal from whence there can be no Appeal. The rest of this Paragraph is a running division upon certain Abuses complain'd of by some Saints, which because they may happen in the best of Ages, and to the best of Men without prejudice to the lawful Authority of the Church, I pass them by, and shall make my Observation upon the next Paragraph, that whereas the King's Expostula­tion is, We have had these Hundred Years past, the sad Effects of denying to the Church that Power in matters Spiritual, without Appeal. By which Expression, as also by the antecedent and consequent Discourses, is meant an Appeal to the Universal Church, in matters Spiritual; as Interpretation of Scripture, Delivery of Doctrine, Decisions of Faith, &c. He [Page 34] applies the Context against Personal Appeals to the Pope; and then declaims against abuses of those Appeals; of which, both our own and neighbour Princes have complained, and have been forced for the preserving of their own Dignity, to set Bounds and Limits to Appeal to Rome. But, admit the king had intended Appeals to Rome, does not this Gen­tleman by this reply, That Princes have limited or bounded these Appeals to Rome, own that Princes have believed that Appeals do of Right belong to Rome, provided that Power be not abused? And if the King himself was likely to suffer the most by them, the more was his Integrity in preferring his Conscience before his Interest. This Paragraph then is a Counterfeit of the Royal Stamp; and so is the next, by which the king is also misrepre­sented; for which Reason I shall make no remark upon it.

Here begins the Kings application of his former Discourse, by which this Gentleman may see his Error. This is our Case here in England in matters Spiritual, for the Protestants are not of the Church of England, as it is the true Church from whence there can be no Appeal; but because the Discipline of that Church is conformable at the present to their fancies, &c. He returns thus, What Security can be greater than that of our Judgments? For he will not have it to be Fancy. I Answer, That to submit our Judgments to that of the Catholic Church, which God has appointed to direct us, is the greatest Se­curity we can have, and in competition with this all is but Fancy. And, since he appeals to the [Page 25] whole World, whether we have not made it appear, that 'tis not Fancy, but Judgment, which hath made us firm to the Church of England, He is already cast by as many Votes, as there are Men out of the Church of England. Their adherence to the Crown, of which he speaks, is so principal a part of the Church of England as it is established by Law, that without it that Church cannot subsist; but, when the Fancy shall move to change that Religion into Presbytery, or any thing else, Loy­alty is out of Doors. Now against those of the Church of Rome the Argument will not have that force, for they and their Ancestors ever profes­sing that Church to be their Infallible Mistress, and that upon such Motives that nothing would be found more powerful; their Judgment is fix't upon such a Basis, that for want of it all other Churches which own themselves Fallible, that is, both apt to deceive and be deceived, are but in a Tottering state. What follows in this Paragraph is a Recrimination barely censuring, without pro­ving, some Tenets of the Catholic Church, as pure Fancy.

The Thread of the king's Discourse being still the same, He concludes, So, that according to this Doctrine there is no other Church nor Interpreter of Scripture but which lies in every mans giddy Brain. By which he may be assured the king calls that only a giddy. Brain, which stands in opposition to the great Authority of the Church interpreting Scripture. But says the Answerer, Let mens Brains be as giddy as they are said to be, they are the best [Page 36] Faculties they can make use of for the understanding of Scriptures, or any thing else. Undoubtedly they are with that Assistance of an infallible Church, which God has given them, since many things, to be understood there, are out of the reach of Man's private Reason, which he makes use of to find out his Guide, being as visible as a City upon a Hill, or a Light on a Candlestick, and then sub­mits to her Interpretation of Scriptures; so that the infallible Church lies not in every Man's giddy Brain, but is as visible as the Sun.

Upon the winding up of this Discourse, the king desires to know of every Serious Considerer of these things whether the great work of our Salvation ought to depend upon such a Sandy Foundation as this. Upon this Proposal of the king's, he runs out into an airy Excursion against the Church of Rome, under a pretence of a new Faith, hatch'd in the Council of Trent; which being an assertion, as voluntary as 'tis Sandy, it leaves the Church un­attack't, and still standing upon a Rock. But I appeal says he, to any ingenious Man, whether he doth not as much build upon his own Judgment, who chooseth the Church, as he who chooseth the Scrip­ture for his Rule. The answer is easy; for certainly a Man hath more reason to rely up­on his own Judgment in finding out the Church, than the Scripture, since the one is a Noon-day Light, and may be discovered by every one, the other is in the dark, and so might continue, if not discovered by the Light of the Church. He advances; for the Church can never be a Rule with­out [Page 37] the Scriptures, but the Scriptures may without the Church. It seems this Gentleman has forgot there was a Church before the Scriptures were written, and consequently a Rule; nay, some Ages passed before a Collection of the Books of Scripture was made, and owned by the Catholic Church (for certainly the Apostles, and Apostolick Men did not, when they went to convert the World by Preach­ing, bring about Waggons laden with Bibles to e­very Parish, and even in St. Irenaeus his time there were many barbarous Nations Converted that could neither Write nor Read) the Church then was the only Rule without the Scripture; but without light from the Church, there could be no certainty of Scripture, either as to the Book it self, or to the Copy, or the Translation or Sence of it. He pushes farther, it is no such easy matter to find the Churches Infallibillity in the Scripture.

I answer there is no absolute necessity of finding it in the Scripture, since the Church was found out, before the new Testament was in Being, and if God's special good Providence had not given us the Scriptures to our great Comfort, yet the Church notwithstanding would have still been visi­ble to the World's End, and therefore when we cite those texts of Scripture about Christ's being with his Church to the end of the World, about the Power to forgive Sins, about God's Labourers, Husbandry and the like, tis only ad abundantiam, and to shew the advantages the Church hath over her Enemies, even at their own Weapons. But, in his opinion, [Page 38] these Texts of Scripture do as effectually prove the infallibility of the Church of England as of the Church of Rome. But I beseech him, how can a Church but of yesterday, and whose Negative Articles of Faith were lately Coined, dure from Christ to the World's end.

The last thing the King charges upon those who resist the truth, and will not submit to this Church, is that they draw their arguments from implications and far fetch'd interpretation, at the same time that they deny plain and positive words; which is so great a disingenuity that 'tis not almost to be thought, that they can believe themselves. This I perceive touches to the quick, but truth, though she cuts, must still be amiable. Is it, says the Answerer, to deny truth, to argue from implications, and to deny plain and positive words of Scripture, to say we must not worship Images, we must make God alone the Object of holy Worship. I reply, it is, for nothing of this is to be found in Scripture; and, if the word Image had been in the Commandments, as it is not (the Original signifying a graven thing) yet it would be an implication, or far-fetch'd interpretation, be­cause it is singled out, and snatch't from the con­text, which gives life to the words, importing Divine Worship: Nor is it any where expressed, That God alone is the Object of holy Worship: Though it may be deduced thence, that worship to holy things is refer'd to God alone as the only final Ob­ject of all such Worship. Again, to say that Christ's In­stitution of the Eucharist in both kinds is a Command to the Lay-people to receive it in both kinds, is an [Page 39] implication confounding Institution with a Com­mand, which are very different. For Matrimony was Instituted by God, yet I know no Man by virtue of the Institution commanded to Marry. Lastly, The discourse of St. Paul touching the un­derstanding of our Prayers meddles not with the publick, or settled Liturgy of the Church, as may be evinced from the Chapter it self. So that for any of those Examples there is neither plain nor positive words of Scripture on their side. Let us now change sides, and see how it squares with the Catholic Party: They affirm Bread to be changed into the Body of Christ, because of these plain and positive words, This is my Body; this is true, because the words are so plain that they import no implication of Impossibility, or Absurdity, (a Rule observed by the Fathers in the understand­ing of Scriptures literally) but against this there lyes an Objection, That it is as plain and positive in Scripture, that God has Eyes, Ears, Hands and Feet. My reply is, That there is an Implication of Impossibility, which appears not in the plain Sense of these words, This is my Body. He pres­ses to know the difference betwixt these two Pro­positions, A Rock is Christ, and This is my Body. I answer, That had it been thus, Bread is my Bo­dy, there had been none, for then both Propo­sitions would have imply'd an Impossibility. But the words being This is my Body, the words are plain, as to their Sense, that they inferr neither Impossibility, nor Absurdity, since by these omni­potent words the Bread is changed into the Body [Page 40] of Christ, which neither is impossible to God, nor absurd to do; and therefore in those places where Christ is said to be Bread, 'tis always with some Emphasis, as the Bread of Life, this Bread, or the Bread, which clearly imports an Analogy.

The Conclusion of this Royal Paper, is, That if the Civil Magistrate pleases he may turn the Prote­stant Church either to Presbytery, or Independency, or indeed to what he pleases, for this was the way of our pretended Reformation in England, and by the same Rule, &c. This he tells the King is an unkind re­quital to the Church of England, for her Zeal in asserting his Majesties power against a foreign Ju­risdiction. But Truth, methinks, when uttered with design of publick good, ought never to be taken unkindly, especially from the Pen of a King; and if it seems an ill requital, I am sure it is a worse complement to palliate one Errour with another. The King's reason is to the purpose; for, as our Princes lately, notwithstanding all Laws Divine and Humane, did by their Regal Power cancel a Religion which came into this Nation with Chri­stianity, and was Established by more strong and forcing Laws, than ever gave Being or Preserva­tion to the Church of England: For besides a thousand years Prescription, and the Immunities and great Priviledges of the Clergy, it was so Fen­ced with the great Charter of England, Magna Charta, that nothing but the forcing of this, could ruine that: As, I say, some Princes have by their power wrought a change from that Religion into another, how much more is it in their hands to [Page 41] turn the Protestant Church into Presbytery or In­dependency; since Protestancy is but of a fresh date, and hath no other Foundation, but what is common to Presbytery or Independency; all of them being built on private interpretations of Scripture; saving a Being from the breath of the Civil Magistrate, by an establishment in the Law; and, therefore, if the Law be mutable, the Religi­on will be mutable. Nor does it avail him to say, The Rule of our Religion is unalterable, being the Holy Scripture, but the Exercise of it is under the Law. For Presbytery once established by Law, will speak both Law and Scripture as loud as he. Thus ends the Vindication of the two Royal Papers: Long may they dure in the hands and hearts of all those who love Truth.

THE THIRD Royal Paper VINDICATED.

IT cannot but be very surprizing to behold a Gentleman pretending to no ordinary Size in Learning, rallying all his Forces to encoun­ter a Princess (now in the midst of Laurels) whom whilst she Lived, the great Figure she made in the Court, left no time to improve by Art those excellent Endowments with which Nature had plentifully enriched her; and who, generously humble, consigned to paper this Profession. I am not able, or if I were, would I enter into Disputes with any Body, Her design was only the Satisfacti­on she owed to her Friends, not any Engage­ment in the Quarrels of Disputes; and what she left behind her was but a bare and candid Narra­tive of those great conflicts which she suffered in [Page 44] her Soul, upon the only necessary work of her Conversion to God. And, why a Paper so inno­cent, left by so great a Lady as a Legacy to her Friends, should raise the Spleen of so great a Gy­ant to that degree as to tear it in pieces, and thus torn to disfigure it, and thus disfigured, to expose it, would have been a subject of great wonder, were it not obvious to suspect the unhappy Genius, that moved him. But since she has gained the point she aim'd at, and so well satisfied her Friends, even to the Conviction of many Adversaries, and to the admiration of all. I shall so recollect the Sense of her Paper, by Design and Artifice dis­jointed, that put together it will cement it self, and the native Beauty will appear more resplen­dent by his Neighbouring Shade.

The first attempt upon her Paper is from her own Concession which is thus, I am not able, or if I were, woul'd I enter into Disputes with any Body: at this he seems astonished, and hardly capable to understand, how any one could be truly satisfied, as to the Grounds of leaving one Church, and going to the other, without entring into matter of Dispute with any Body. Before I reply, I cannot but observe a Coin newly Counterfeited; for the Dutchess does not say, she will not enter into the matter of Disputes, but only that she will not enter into Disputes, which are Expressions of so different a Nature, that the one may well be, and often is without the other. For the matter of Dispute may be any thing, about which there may be no Dispute. To deliver him then, from this astonish­ment, [Page 45] there are many ways to the Wood besides one, and God in the Treasury of his all-seeing Providence can so temper second Causes, that e­ven without Miracle he can work a thousand Con­versions of Souls from Errour to Truth, without any Dispute; but he urges farther, How could one, bred up in the Church of England, and so well in­structed in the Doctrines of it ever satisfy herselfin for­saking the Communion of it, without inquiring into, and comparing the Droctrines and Practises of both Churches? If this will give him Content, I doubt not but all this may be, and is frequently perform­ed without disputing with any Body; for she being now so well knowing in the Doctrines and Practi­ses of the Church of England, she had no more to do, but to make Inquiry into the Doctrines and Practises of the Church of Rome, and so by com­paring them together, as in the collision of two Flints, might by her own Industry strike out that Fire, and that Light, which might both comfort her Soul, and light it to the secure Haven of E­ternity. But this he adds, was not to be presumed of a Person of her Condition, for many things must fall in her way, which she could neither have leisure to ex­amine, nor the Capacity to judg of without the assistance of others. As to this I must crave his Pardon; for if I be not mis-informed by those who had the Ho­nour to know her, she was a Princess of as search­ing a Wit, and of as clear a Judgment as any of her time: Nor can it be questioned but she had time and leisure enough; for she that professes to have found no rest to her Soul Night nor Day, can [Page 46] never be presumed to want time to hunt after that, which her Soul did so passionately Love, and if any difficulty had fallen in her way, which by her self she could not Conquer, she had choice of Learned Men of all Professions to consult, who might have so smooth'd all the Rubs that lay in her way, as to resolve her without any Dispute. Had she not, says he, Divines of the Church of England about her to propose her scruples to, yes, she had, and did so, and professes to have received such satisfa­ction from them, as contributed much to her Con­version to the Catholic Church; which Discourses she said, did but add more to her desire of being a Catholic. Now if this be reputed a Dispute, then every one who advises with his Divine or Lawyer in matters relating either to his Soul, or Estate; must be stil'd a Disputant.

To evince that her Royal Highness did not make use of the ordinary means for her own satisfaction, he brings for instance the Bishop of Winchester, who had nearest Relation to her, as having bred her up in the Principles of the Church of England, and was a Man both able and willing to have removed any doubts. As to the ability or inclination this Bishop had to have serv'd her, in removing her doubts or Scru­ples, I shall not dispute them; but this is certain, that notwithstanding all his care in her. Education in the Protestant Religion, she was af­terwards out of Love with it, and who knows whether this very Bishop at other times (at least accidentally) in his Discourses with her might not [Page 47] have dropt something, which taken up by her, might give an advance to her Conversion; as it fell out to the insinuated yielding Bishops? O, but she endeavoured to conceal her Scruples from him. Ad­mit she did; and that, as the Palate nauseats Meat which formerly it loved, so she, either out of some disgust, or for reasons best known to her self, did not so well relish the advice given her by the Bi­shop of Winchester. Had she no Body else to con­sult? If she had, there is no reason to charge her with the not using ordinary means, unless this Gentleman has a Revelation for it.

After this, he cites the following discourse of her Royal Highness, That she spoke severally to two of the best Bishops we have in England, who both told her there were many things in the Ro­man Church, which it were much to be wished we had kept; as Confession, which was, no doubt, commanded of God: That, praying for the dead was one of the an­cient things in Christianity: That for their parts they did it daily, though they would not own it. And afterwards pressing one of them very much, upon the o­ther point, he told her that if he had been breed up a Catholic, he would not change his Religion, but that being of another Church, wherein be was sure were all things necessary to Salvation, he thought it very ill, to give that Scandal, as to leave that Church wherein he received his Baptism. Which discourse, she said, did but add more to the desire she had to be a Catholic. By this long Text 'tis clear that her Royal High­ness had made many steps towards the Catholic [Page 48] Religion, and that the Conference she had with these Bishops did but add fuel to the flame that was within her, for such is the result of her last words, did but add more to the desire she had to be a Catholic. This being so, her Highness, and the two Bishops were now upon different terms, as Party and Party; she making advantage of their Concessions, as of Truths coming out of the mouth of the Enemies to the Religion she either actually professed, or was inclinable to; and they, not­withstanding those Concessions, keeping their own ground: So that it was not the Authority, or Example of these Bishops that prevailed with her, but Truth forced from an Enemy; which for that reason convinced her the more. Since therefore this Gentleman allows of the Conces­sions, 'tis unreasonable to put this question, Why should not the last words have greater force to have kept her in our Church, than the former to have drawn her from it? Because 'tis easier for a Catholic to believe a Protestant speaking against himself in matters of Religion, than for himself: Ex ore tuo te judico is an Argument invincible against a Man's self. The Concessions then being admitted both by the Catholic party, and these two Bishops, she had reason to believe them, as to the Concessions; but not in that wherein the Catholics and they differ'd, which was, That all things necessary to Salvation are certainly in the Protestant Church, and that it was ill to leave it.

[Page 49] The next two Paragraphs concern not her Roy­al Highness: For, whether the two Bishops did let fall words inconsistent with their own Reli­gion, or not, her work was done; she not being obliged to reconcile them to their own Reli­gion.

But the late Bishop of Winchester instead of un­tying, has cut the knot a sunder: For, says he, he first doubts, whether there ever were such Bishops who made such answers; and then he affirms, That he believes there never was in rerum natura such a discourse as is pretended. What pity 'tis the Bi­shop of Winchester should be a person of so small a faith, as not to give credit to so great a Lady in a concern wherein 'twas no advantage to her to tell a Lye; and, if she had, was by all the Laws Divine and Humane bound to restitution for the wrong she did them. Non dimittitur peccatum nisi restituatur ablatum. Or, if he doubted whether there were ever any such Paper, we have now the Royal word of a King for it, attesting it to be hers. Matters being thus, we do not charge upon the Church of England the single Opinion of one, or two Bishops, but 'tis reason to believe that a Lady thirsting after truth, might defer much to persons of so eminent a rank in that Church.

This Gentleman I perceive is very studious, very industrious to find a Lady in Errour, and hopes she may contradict her self; thus then, She [Page 50] protests, in the presence of Almighty God, that no per­son, Man or Woman, directly, or indirectly, ever said any thing to her, (since she came into England) or used the least endeavour to make her change her Re­ligion, and that it is a blessing she wholly owes to Al­mighty God. So that the Bishops are acquitted from having any hand in it by her own words. But I be­seech him, did she or any else charge upon these Bishops, that they said any thing to her, or used any endeavours to make her change her Religion? How oft doth it happen, that the speaker of words may utter them for one design, and the hearer make use of them for another, though then the Bishops did not say any thing to her with endeavour to make her change her Religion, yet their words may have added much to the change of her Religion. He proceeds, And as far as we can understand her meaning, she thought her self Converted by immediate Divine Illumination. This construction of her words, so tickled his fancy, that it made him sport upon the Church of Rome's private Spirit for a long time: But for my part (if he has done laughing) I can understand nothing of this im­mediate Divine Illumination from her words. For God, who disposes of all things strongly and sweetly, has infinite methods to convert Souls to himself without immediate Illumination, by so un­expected a concourse of second Causes, so well tempered and knit together by his wisdom, that a conversion of a Soul may and will follow thence, she not knowing how; and consequently as 'tis the sole work of the Almighty, so that blessing [Page 51] she wholly owes to him. What this Gentleman un­derstands by a private Spirit I know not; but, be it what it will, 'tis therefore vitious, because it is inconsistent with those publick Methods and Rules God has left to govern his Church by; which whether the Protestants when they went out from the Roman Church did not desert, by following an Ignis Fatuus of their own, in their singular inter­pretation of holy Scripture, against the known Sense of their Mother Church, is the subject of another dispute; or rather indeed 'tis put out of all dispute that they then did, unless they can shew that the constant Tradition and Practice of the Primitive Church interpreted Scripture as they then did, in all the Points they reform'd in; which they know is impossible.

Her Royal Highness declares, that she would ne­ver have changed, if she thought she could have saved her Soul otherwise, and he answers, if this were true she had good reason for her change; if it were not true, she had none; as it is most certain it was not. I cannot perswade my self that this Gentleman would force his Modesty to such a Degree, as to give the Lye to a Lady of her transcendent Qua­lity; especially who had been so well bred up in the Principles of the Church of England. I shall ra­ther favour him with this Construction, that tho' she thought what she said was true, yet in reality it was not.

[Page 52] But how came she to make this Declaration? she tells us, she never had any scruple till the Novem­ber before, and then they began upon reading Doctor Heylin's History of the Reformation; which was com­mended to her, as a Book to settle her; and there she found such abominable Sacriledge upon Henry the Eighth's Divorce, King Edward's Minority, and Queen Elizabeth's Succession, that she could not be­lieve the Holy Ghost could ever be in such Councills. And, because Doctor Heylin's History wrought her Conversion, he seems to be displeased at the Au­thor of that Advice; but I must needs dissent from him: for, it being a History of the Reformation, it wasmore fit to put that into her hands to settle her in her Religion, if the Reformation had been from God, being within her Sphere, than any Book of Controversy; wherein she might have been plunged into difficulties insuperable, the Objection oftentimes out-weighing the Solution. And tho' in the History of Reformation he tells us, there are two distinct parts. The one built on Scripture and Antiquity; the other upon Maxims of State; yet the one being visible, and the other invisible, had she been a Person of greater Understanding, than she was, how could she possibly discern both? what he requires to have been the Subject of her Consideration, was so far beyond her Reach, that more Speculative Persons, than her Condition would permit her to be, come short of that Per­formance: and therefore no better way could be, than to be conversant with such Objects, or mo­tives [Page 53] as were of her own size. One of which was that where the Foundations of a Pretended Reformation were Sacriledge, Rapine, and Lust, She could not believe the Holy Ghost could ever be in such Councills. He replies thus; were not the Vices of Alexander the Sixth, and of many other Popes, as great at least as those of Henry the Eighth? Be it so, and suppose them greater; therefore neither she, nor any Body else in Prudence can believe that God ever chose Alexander the Sixth, or such as he points at by vitiously acting to be the Refor­mers of his Church, or to give Being to a Refor­mation.

As to the Invasion upon the Rights and Lands of the Church; he replies to by Retaliation: Are there not Miscarriages of the like Nature in the Church of Rome? It may be so, but if by such Miscarriages one should think to reform the Church, I shall as freely declare with this great Lady, that I cannot believe, the Holy Ghost can ever be in such Councils.

From her scruples which the reading of Dr. Heylin's History of the Reformation, had put into her mind, she came to the Examen (of points in difference) by the Holy Scriptures, where it seems, says he, contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, she found some things so easie, that she won­dered she had been so long without finding them out. That some things may easily be met with in Holy Scripture, makes not against the Doctrine of the [Page 54] Church of Rome; nay standing to the bare Letter, without the assistance of Tradition, experience has made it manifest that her Champions have fought against all sorts of Enemies, with that suc­cess, even at their own weapon, that partiality it self cannot deny her the Victory. Nor is it any great wonder, that a Lady of her great endow­ments, being but yet a seeker of Truth, and not acquainted with the Catholic Rules of Expound­ing Scriptures, and having no other interest, but her Soul's safety, should easily find what she did not formerly, when she thought her self secure, and was not concern'd, nay what great Doctors do pass slightly over, when thousands of lesser Talents than she, have done the like. What dis­coveries then hath she made? First, of the Real Pre­sence, then of the Infallibility, of Confession, and praying for the Dead.

As to the Real Presence importing a Real and Sub­stantial change of the Elements into the Body and Blood of Christ. He demands, In what words of Christ is it to be found? I answer in these, This is my Body: And whereas he adds, That the wisest Persons of the Church of Rome have confessed, that the bare words of our Saviour can never prove it. I answer, 'Tis hard for him to determine who are the wisest; but he knows well that they general­ly teach, that those words cannot be verify'd, without that change. Confession of Sins, as ever commanded, is no harder to meet withal, than [Page 55] confess your sins to one another. And if the Apostles and in them their Successors, had power to forgive and retain sins, there must be an Obligation in o­thers to confess them, otherwise that power had been useless. Praying for the Dead is also frequent­ly grounded upon Scripture, and though her Roy­al Highness seems to have been somewhat confirm­ed in the belief of it, by the concession of the two Bishops, yet she no where affirm'd that to be the sole Motive to change her Religion, but only that it added more to her desire of being a Catholic. The Places usually cited for the Infallibility of the Church, he would perswade us may as well be ap­ply'd to other Churches, as to the Roman; but because I have already proved the Roman to be that one Catholic Church, I shall supersede from any fur­ther trouble at the present. From Christ's promise of being with the Church to the end of the World (and she now believing no other Church, to be that Church, but that which is called the Roman) she makes this inference, That our Saviour would not permit the Church to give the Laity the Communion in one kind, if it were not lawful so to do. This Il­lation is evident; for otherwise, he would not be with his Church to the end of the world.

From this excellentDiscourse of her Royal High­ness, 'tis an invincible Truth, that all the force of Sense and Reason do center in this conclusion, that she did not think it possible to save her Soul, other­wise than in the Roman Church; and by her Pa­per [Page 56] the world may see the pregnant Power of Truth, which forced those two great Lights of England's Church to a private concession of what in publick they were unwilling to own. Mag­na est veritas & pr [...]valebit.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.