Part 15

[47] Louis Maimbourg was born at Nanci, in 1610, and became a Jesuit in 1626. But he was degraded from that order by the General, because he espoused, in some of his writings, the cause of the Gallican church against the claims of the Roman see. He retired to the Abbey of St Victor, where he died in 1686. His historical writings, which are numerous, are now held in little esteem, being all composed in the spirit of a partizan, and without even the affectation of impartiality. They are, however, lively and interesting during the perusal; which led an Italian to say, that Maimbourg was among the historians, what Momus was among the deities.

[48] Maimbourg’s History of the League was first published at Paris in 1683.

CONTROVERSY BETWEEN DRYDEN AND STILLINGFLEET, CONCERNING THE DUCHESS OF YORK’S PAPER.

CONTROVERSY BETWEEN DRYDEN AND STILLINGFLEET, CONCERNING THE DUCHESS OF YORK’S PAPER.

One of the first acts of King James the Second’s reign, was the publication of two papers found in the strong box of his deceased brother Charles, assigning various reasons to prove, that the church of Rome was the only true church; with a copy of another written by his first duchess, Anne Hyde, stating the grounds of her conversion to the Catholic faith.[49] These papers were announced to be published by his majesty’s command; and, thus authenticated, were industriously dispersed over the kingdom. The learned Stillingfleet stood forward as the champion of the church of England, in refutation of the arguments alleged in the papers of the royal proselytes.[50] In answer, appeared “A Defence of the Papers written by the late King, of blessed Memory, and Duchess of York, against the Answer made to them. _By Command_. London, 1686.” This defence, like the answer of Stillingfleet, was divided into three parts, applying to the three papers; and it seems that these were drawn up by different hands.

Dryden informs us, that he was concerned in the _last_, which seems to exclude the idea of his having any share in the first and second parts of the Defence;[51] which, indeed, are written in a style more approaching to polemic controversy than that assumed by Dryden. Stillingfleet returned to the conflict, and published a “Vindication of his Answer;” in which he is severely personal upon Dryden, “the brisk defender,” as he calls him, of the duchess’s paper, and the “new convert” to the church of Rome. Dryden, personally assaulted, made a personal retort, both directly upon Stillingfleet, and upon Burnet, his coadjutor in the controversy; and to this we probably owe the character of the Buzzard in “The Hind and Panther,” as well as the reflections upon the moderate clergy, or Low Church divines, with which that piece abounds.[52]

In order to understand Dryden’s defence, it is necessary to prefix the duchess’s paper, and Stillingfleet’s answer to it.

COPY OF A PAPER WRITTEN BY THE LATE DUCHESS OF YORK, &c.

It is so reasonable to expect, that a person always bred up in the church of England,[53] and as well instructed in the doctrine of it, as the best divines and her capacity could make her, should be liable to many censures for leaving that, and making herself a member of the Roman Catholic church, to which, I confess, I was one of the greatest enemies it ever had;[54] that I rather choose to satisfy my friends by reading this paper, than to have the trouble to answer all the questions that may be daily asked me. And first, I do protest, in the presence of Almighty God, that no person, man or woman, directly or indirectly, ever said any thing to me since I came into England, or used the least endeavour to make me change my religion: it is a blessing I wholly owe to Almighty God, and, I hope, the hearing of a prayer I daily made him ever since I was in France and Flanders; where, seeing much of the devotion of the Catholics, (though I had very little myself,) I made it my continual request to Almighty God, that, if I were not, I might, before I died, be in the true religion. I did not in the least doubt but that I was so, and never had any scruple till November last; when, reading a book called “The History of the Reformation,” by Dr Heylin,[55] which I had heard very much commended, and have been told, if ever I had any doubt of my religion, that would settle me; instead of which, I found it the description of the horridest sacrileges in the world; and could find no reason why we left the church, but for three, the most abominable ones that were ever heard of among Christians. First, Henry VIII. renounces the Pope’s authority, because he would not give him leave to part with his wife, and marry another in her lifetime; secondly, Edward VI. was a child, and governed by his uncle, who made his estate out of church-lands; and then Queen Elizabeth, who, being no lawful heiress to the crown, could have no way to keep it but by renouncing a church that could never suffer so unlawful a thing to be done by one of her children. I confess I cannot think the Holy Ghost could ever be in such counsels; and it is very strange, that if the bishops had no design but (as they say) the restoring us to the doctrine of the primitive church, they could never think upon it, till Henry VIII. made the breach upon so unlawful a pretence. These scruples being raised, I began to consider of the difference between the Catholics and us, and examined them as well as I could by Holy Scripture, which though I do not pretend to be able to understand, yet there are some things I found so easy, that I cannot but wonder I had been so long without finding them out; as—the real presence in the blessed sacrament, the infallibility of the church, confession, and praying for the dead. After this I spoke severally to two of the bishops[56] we have in England, who both told me, there were many things in the Romish church which were very much to be wished we had kept: as confession, which was no doubt commanded by 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 points, he told me,—that if he had been bred a Catholic, he would not change his religion; 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 received 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 within myself: for all this, fearing to be rash in a matter of that weight, I did all I could to satisfy myself; made it my daily prayer to God, to settle me in the right; and so went on Christmas-day to receive in the king’s chapel: after which, I was more troubled than ever, and could never be at quiet till I had told my design to a Catholic, who brought a priest to me; and that was the first I ever did converse with, upon my word. The more I spoke to him, the more I was confirmed in my design; and as it is impossible for me to doubt the words of our blessed Saviour, who says,—the holy sacrament is his body and blood; so cannot believe, that he, who is the Author of all truth, and has promised to be “with his church to the end of the world,” would permit them to give that holy mystery to the laity but in one kind, if it were not lawful so to do.

I am not able, or if I were, would I enter into disputes with any body; I only, in short, say this for the changing of my religion, which I take God to witness I would never have done, if I had thought it possible to save my soul otherwise. I think I need not say, it is not any interest in this world leads me to it. It will be plain enough to every body, that I must lose all the friends and credit I have here by it; and have very well weighed which I could best part with,—my share in this world, or the next: I thank God, I found no difficulty in the choice.

My only prayer is, “That the poor Catholics of this nation may not suffer for my being of their religion; that God would but give me patience to bear them, and then send me any afflictions in this world, so I may enjoy a blessed eternity hereafter.”

_St James’s, Aug. 20, 1670._

AN ANSWER TO THE DUCHESS’S PAPER.

BY THE REVEREND EDWARD STILLINGFLEET.[57]

The third paper is said to be written by a great lady, for the satisfaction of her friends, as to the reasons of her leaving the communion of the church of England, and making herself a member of the Roman Catholic church. If she had written nothing concerning it, none could have been a competent judge of those reasons or motives she had for it, but herself; but since she was pleased to write this paper, to satisfy her friends, and it is thought fit to be published for general satisfaction, all readers have a right to judge of the strength of them; and those of the church of England, an obligation to vindicate the honour of it, so far as it may be thought to suffer by them.

I am sensible how nice and tender a thing it is, to meddle in a matter wherein the memory of so great a lady is so nearly concerned, and wherein such circumstances are mentioned which cannot fully be cleared, the parties themselves having been many years dead; but I shall endeavour to keep within due bounds, and consider this paper with respect to the main design of it, and take notice of other particulars, so far as they are subservient to it.

The way of her satisfaction must needs appear very extraordinary; for, towards the conclusion, she confesses she was not able, nor would she enter into disputes with any body. Now, where the difference between the two churches lies wholly in matters of dispute, how any one could be truly satisfied as to the grounds of leaving one church and going to the other, without entering into matter of dispute with any body, is hard to understand. If persons be resolved beforehand what to do, and therefore will hear nothing said against it, there is no such way as to declare they will enter into no dispute about it. But what satisfaction is to be had in this manner of proceeding? How could one, bred up in the church of England, and so well instructed in the doctrines of it, ever satisfy herself in forsaking the communion of it, without enquiring into, and comparing the doctrines and practices of both churches? It is possible for persons of learning, who will take the pains of examining things themselves, to do that without entering into disputes with any body; but this was not to be presumed of a person of her condition: For many things must fall in her way, which she could neither have the leisure to examine, nor the capacity to judge of, without the assistance of such who have made it their business to search into them. Had she no divines of the church of England about her, to have proposed her scruples to? None able and willing to give her their utmost assistance in a matter of such importance, before she took up a resolution of forsaking our church? This cannot be imagined, considering not only her great quality, but that just esteem they had for her, whilst she continued so zealous and devout in the communion of our church.

But we have more than this to say. One of the bishops,[58] who had nearest relation to her for many years, and who owns in print,[59] that he bred her up in the principles of the church of England, was both able and willing to have removed any doubts and scruples with respect to our church, if she would have been pleased to have communicated them to him. And however she endeavoured to conceal her scruples, he tells her in his letter[60] to her, which he since printed for his own vindication, “that he had heard much discourse concerning her wavering in religion, and that he had acquainted her highness with it, the Lent before the date of this paper;” and was so much concerned at it, that he obtained a promise from her, that if any writing were put into her hands by those of the church of Rome, that she would send it either to him, or to the then bishop of Oxford, whom he left in attendance upon her.[61] After which, he saith, “she was many days with him at Farnham; in all which time she spake not one word to him of any doubt she had about her religion.” And yet this paper bears date, August 20th, that year, wherein she declares herself changed in her religion; so that it is evident she did not make use of the ordinary means for her own satisfaction, at least as to those bishops who had known her longest.

But she saith, “that she spoke severally to two of the best bishops[62] 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[63] of them very much upon the other points, he told her, that if he had been bred a Catholic, he would not change his religion; 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 received his baptism. Which discourses,” she said, “did but add more to the desire she had to be a Catholic.”

This, I confess, seems to be to the purpose; if there were not some circumstances and expressions very much mistaken in the representation of it: but yet suppose the utmost to be allowed, there could be no argument from hence drawn for leaving the communion of our church, if this bishop’s authority or example did signify any thing with her. For supposing he did say, “that if he had been bred in the communion of the church of Rome, he would not change his religion;” yet he added, “that being of another church, wherein were all things necessary to salvation, he thought it very ill to give that scandal, as to leave that church wherein he had received his baptism.” Now, why should not the last words have greater force to have kept her in the communion of our church, than the former to have drawn her from it? For why should any person forsake the communion of our church, unless it appears necessary to salvation so to do; and yet this yielding bishop did affirm, “that all things necessary to salvation were certainly in our church; and that it was an ill thing to leave it.” How could this “add to her desire of leaving our church?” unless there were some other motive to draw her thither, and then such small inducements would serve to inflame such a desire. But it is evident from her own words afterwards, that these concessions of the bishop could have no influence upon her; for she declares, and calls God to witness, “that she would never have changed her religion, if she had thought it possible to save her soul otherwise.” Now what could the bishop’s words signify towards her turning, when he declares just contrary, viz. not only that it was possible for her to be saved without turning, “but that he was sure we had all things necessary to salvation; and that it was a very ill thing to leave our church?” There must therefore have been some more secret reason, which encreased her desire to be a Catholic after these discourses; unless the advantage were taken from the bishop’s calling the church of Rome the Catholic religion; “if he had been bred a Catholic, he would not have changed his religion.” But if we take these words so strictly, he must have contradicted himself; for how could he be sure we had all things necessary to salvation, if we were out of the Catholic church? Was a bishop of our church, and one of the best bishops of our church, as she said, so weak as to yield, “that he was sure all things necessary to salvation were to be had out of the communion of the Catholic church?”

But again; there is an inconsistency in his saying, “that he thought it very ill to leave our church;” which no man of common sense would have said, if he had believed the Roman church to be the Catholic, exclusive of all others that do not join in communion with it.

The utmost then that can be made of all this, is, that there was a certain bishop of this church, who held both churches to be so far parts of the Catholic church, that there was no necessity of going from one church to another. But if he asserted that, he must overthrow the necessity of the Reformation, and consequently not believe our articles and homilies, and so could not be any true member of the church of England.

But the late bishop of Winchester hath made a shorter answer to all this; for he first doubts whether there ever were any such bishops who made such answers; and afterwards he affirms, that he believes there never was, in _rerum naturâ_,[64] such a discourse as is pretended to have been between this great person, and two of the most learned bishops of England. But God be thanked, the cause of our church doth not depend upon the singular opinion of one or two bishops in it, wherein they apparently recede from the established doctrine of it. And I am sure those of the church of Rome take it ill from us, to be charged with the opinion of particular divines, against the known sentiments of their church. Therefore, supposing the matter of fact true, it ought not to have moved her to any inclination to leave the church of England.

But after all, she 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; and, as far as we can understand her meaning, she thought herself converted by immediate divine illumination. We had thought the pretence to a private spirit had not been at this time allowed in the church of Rome; but I observe, that many things are allowed to bring persons to the church of Rome, which they will not permit in those who go from it; as the use of reason in the choice of a church; the judgment of sense; and here, that which they would severely condemn in others as a private spirit, or enthusiasm, will pass well enough if it doth but lead one to their communion: any motive or method is good enough which tends to that end; and none can be sufficient against it. But why may not others set up for the change, as to other opinions, upon the same grounds, as well as this great person does, as to the change from our church to the church of Rome? and we have no pretenders to enthusiasm among us, but do as solemnly ascribe the blessing wholly to Almighty God, and look on it as the effect of such prayers as she made to him in France and Flanders.

But I wonder a person, who owed her change so wholly to Almighty God, should need the direction of an infallible church; since the utmost they can pretend to, is no more than to have such an immediate conduct; and the least that can be meant by it is, that she had no assistance from any other persons, which may not exclude her own endeavours: but supposing them to be employed, and an account to be here given of them, yet there is no connection between any of the premises, and the conclusion she drew from them; and therefore it must be immediate impulse, or some concealed motive, which determined her choice.

The conclusion was, “that she would never have changed, if she could have saved her soul otherwise.” 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. Now let us examine how she came to this conclusion, and I will suppose it to have been just in the method she sets it down in.

First, she saith, she never had any scruples till the November before; and then they began upon reading Dr Heylin’s “History of the Reformation,” which was commended to her as a book to settle her; and there she found such abominable sacrilege 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 counsels.