received p. 9. ed. 1. To this the Reflecter answers That the Council of Trent is received here and all the Catholick World over as to all its definitions of Faith p. 5. By which I suppose he means that all English Catholicks do own the Authority of the Council of Trent and take their Rule of Faith from it but this is not what the Answerer means by that Question Whether English Catholicks singly for themselves and in their private Capacities own the Doctrine of the Council of Trent but by what publick Act of Church or State it has been received in England as it has been in other Catholick Countries The Church of England had no Representatives in that Council nor did by any after Act own it's Authority and therefore it is no authentick and obligatory Rule here But allowing the Authority of this rule to determine what is Popery and what not which the Answerer allows reasonable enough considering that its definitions of Faith are received all the Catholick World over as the Reflecter saith the greater difficulty is about the Interpretation of this rule For not only we Hereticks interpret this Council a little differently from our Author but Catholick Doctors themselves cannot agree about it Now when other good Catholicks differ from him in explaining the definitions and Decrees of this Council why must his sense and not theirs pass for the character of a Papist Pope Pius IV. did strictly forbid any private Man to interpret the Council according to his own private sense and opinion but if any dispute happened about the true meaning of their definitions and Decrees he reserved the decision of it to the Apostolick See and a very wise Decree it was considering that many of their definitions were penned in loose and ambiguous words on purpose to compose the disputes and differences of their Divines who were many times very troublesome to the Council that each party might think their own sense favoured but then considering what ill consequence this might be of to suffer them to dispute the sense of the Council and wrest it to countenance their private opinions which would rather inflame than compose these disputes a fresh example of which they had in the dispute between Catharinus and Soto while the Council was sitting the Pope very prudently forbids this that if they would still wrangle among themselves yet the authority of the Council might not be concerned in it But now if their Doctors do differ still about the sense of the Council and affix their private opinions on it and Popes think fit rather to connive at these differences than to undertake to determine them why must any one of these different opinions be so made the character of a Papist as to exclude the other If some and those of greatest note and authority in the Church and not inferiour in number to say no more are for the deposing Doctrine and others against it why must those only be thought Papists who deny this deposing power and not those also who assert it Whether it be the Faith of the Church or not is a dispute between them and though our Author denies that it is the Faith of the Church and therefore that a Papist is not bound to believe it yet those who are for the deposing Power assert that it is the Faith of the Church and that with much greater reason than he denies it and what authority has he to decide this dispute and who gave him this authority Does not his representation of a Papist in this point depend upon his own private sense and opinion No he says He is so far from being guilty of this fault of interpreting the Council of Trent in his own sense that he has only delivered it as it is interpreted to him and to all their Church in the Catechism ad Parochos composed and set forth by the order of the Council and Pius V. for the instruction of the faithful in their Christian duty touching Faith and good Manners in conformity to the sense of the Council And is he sure that all his representations are conformable to the sense of this Catechism May he not play tricks with the Catechism and expound that by a private spirit as well as the Council Well but he appealed in his conclusion to Veron ' s rule of Faith And what of that How comes Veron's rule to be so Authentick as to justifie any interpretation which agrees with it Why did not our Author appeal to his own character which may have as much authority for ought I know as Veron's rule But besides Veron he appeals to the Bishop of Condom who drew up a like character in Paris of the belief of a Papist And what is the authority of this Bishops character For Bishops have no more authority to expound the Council of Trent which is intirely reserved to the Apostolick See than private Doctors Yes the Bishop of Condom's Book has all requisite authority because the second Edition was published with several distinct attestations of many Bishops and Cardinals and of the present Pope himself wherein they at large approve the Doctrine contained in that Treatise for the Faith and Doctrine of the Church of Rome and conform to the Council of Trent I shall take it for granted that it is as the Reflecter says but what then Had not Cardinal Bellarmin's controversies as great an attestation as the Bishop of Condom's Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church Did he not dedicate them to Pope Sixtus V. and that with the Popes leave and good liking Te annuente as he himself says and how much inferiour is this to a Testimonial under the Popes hand And why then are not Bellarmin's Controversies as authentick a rule for the exposition of the Catholick Faith as the Bishop of Condom's But Melchior Canus to whom the Reflecter refers us would have taught him that the Popes private approbation is as little worth as any other Bishops That the name of the Apostolick See does not signifie the Pope in his personal capacity but acting as it becomes the Chair that is not giving his own private sense but proceeding in Council with the advice of good and learned Men. And therefore that is not to be accounted the judgment of the Apostolick See which is given only by the Bishop of Rome privately and inconsiderately or with the advâ—ce only of some few of his own mind but what he determines upon a due examination of the thing by the adviâ—e and counsel of many wise Men. And therefore I doubt notwithstanding the present Popes approbation he is a little out when he calls this the Authority of the Apostolick See But the Answerer did not only charge him in general with interpreting the Council of Trent by his own private sense and opinions but gave some particular instances of it and I must now consider how the Reflecter takes off this charge 1. As to Invocation of Saints
abuse of Christianity to coin such Miracles to nurse Men up in Superstition which is the general design of them So that here the matter is not represented so bad as it is which is the only Misrepresentation I have hitherto met with XXXIII Of Holy Water THe Papist misrepresented is said highly to approve the superstitious use of many inanimate things and to attribute wonderful Effects to Holy Water Blessed Candles Holy Oil and Holy Bread The Papist represented disproves all sort of Superstition but yet is taught to have an esteem for Holy Water c. So that when we charge them with using such Religious Charms as these we do not misrepresent them for they own they do so but the Misrepresentation is in charging these usages with Superstition but if this be misrepresenting it is not to misrepresent a Papist but to misrepresent Popery We charge them with nothing but what they own and justify but we charge their Doctrines and Practices with such Guilt as they will not own but this is not matter of Representation but of Dispute XXXIV Of breeding up People in Ignorance WE do indeed charge them with breeding people up and keeping them in Ignorance because they deny them the means and opportunity of knowledge will not suffer them to read the Bible nor say their publick Prayers in a Language which they understand and forbid them to read such Books as might inform them better Is this true or not If it be then though they may have a â—â—at many Learned Men among them their Learned Men may keep the People in Ignorance We deny not but they do instruct People after a fashion but yet they take care to let them know no more than they are pleased to teach them and they may be very ignorant for all that But I think though this be a very great fault it belongs neither to the Character of a Papist misrepresented nor represented but is the fault of their Governours their Popes and Bishops and Priests and I charitably hope it will be some excuse to the Ignorant and deluded People XXXV Of the Uncharitableness of the Papists WE here charge them with damning all who are not of their Church and Communion and this we think very Uncharitable For it damns far the greatest number of Christians in the World The Representer does not deny that they do this only endeavours to prove that it is not Uncharitableness in them to do it I am not to dispute this point with him now but if this be his charity I like it as little as I do his Faith XXXVI Of Ceremonies and Ordinances WE charge them with corrupting the Christian Worship by a great number of Ceremonies and Ordinances which we judge useless burdensom or Superstitious unworthy of the simplicity and spirituality of the Christian Worship and a great infringement of true Christian liberty That they do command great numbers of such Ceremonies the Representer grants and therefore we do not misrepresent them in it whether they do well or ill in this is no part of the Character but the matter in Controversie between us XXXVII Of Innovations in matters of Faith AND so is his last Character about Innovations a meer dispute and cannot be made a Character unless we should charge them with believing those Doctrines to be Innovations which we say and prove to be so but never charge them with believing so at this rate he may make Characters of a Papist misrepresented out of all the disputes which are between us It is but saying what we charge their Doctrines and Practices with and this makes the Character of a Papist misrepresented and it is but denying this charge in another Column and then you have a Character of a Papist represented if we charge them with believing any thing which they do not believe or with doing what they do not then indeed we misrepresent them but he has not given any one instance of this in all his 37 Characters But if to condemn their Doctrines and Practices if to charge them with contradicting the evidence of Sense of Reason and of Scripture that they are innovations in Faith and corruptions of the Christian Worship be to misrepresent them we confess we are such misrepresenters and for ought I can perceive are like to continue so unless they have some better arguments in reserve than ever we yet saw for Character-making will not do it so that all this cry about misrepresenting is come to just nothing We like a Papist as little as he has represented him as when we see him represented by a Protestant Pen for there is no difference at all in the Parts Proportions and Features though there is some difference in the Colours A Papist is the same in both Characters only with this difference that a Protestant thinks him a very bad Christian and a Papist we may be sure thinks him a very good one A Protestant thinks the Faith and Worship of a Papist to be contrary to Sense Reason and Scripture and the Faith and Practice of the Primitive Church a Papist thinks it agreeable to all these Rules or can give a Reason why it should not And therefore I could not but smile at his concluding Proposal to convince us that the Faith as he has represented it is really the Faith of the Papist which we believe is true excepting the deposing Doctrine and some few other Points which I have already observed that the decision of this whole Affair depend upon an experience Do but you or any Friend for you give your assent to these Articles of Faith in the very form and manner as I have stated them and if upon your Request you are not admitted into the Communion of the Roman Catholicks and owned to believe aright in all those Points I 'll then confess that I have abused the World c. and truly I am apt to think so too but we must like his Faith better before we shall make the Experiment Secondly But it is time now to proceed to his other Reflections which concern the Rule whereby the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is to be known For though the Faith of their Church be infallible it is wonderful hard to know what their Faith is Now his Reflections may be reduced to two general Heads First Concerning the Authority of the Council of Trent in England and the Rules of expounding it Secondly Concerning the false Rules the Answerer has used in judging of the Faith and Doctrine of the Church of Rome First Concerning the Authority of the Council of Trent and the Rules of expounding it The Author of A Papist misrepresented and represented in drawing the Character of a Papist represented professes to follow the Doctrine prescribed in the Council of Trent This the Answerer says he finds no fault with and therefore would not ask How the Council of Trent comes to be the rule and measure of Doctrine to any here where it was never
he limits their power of helping us to Prayers only whereas he grants the Council mentions their Aid and Assistance as well as Prayers And the only vindication he thinks necessary to make for this is that no other means of their aiding and assisting us is expressed in the Council or in the Catechism ad Parochos besides that of their Prayers and it is thus limited by the Bishop of Condom on this Subject with the Pope and Cardinals approbation But though the Council does not specifie what other aid and assistance we may expect from the Saints besides their Prayers yet it mentions Aid and Assistance without limiting it to the assistance of their Prayers and the Answerer P. 25. told him what reason he had to believe that neither the Trent Council nor Catechism did intend any such limitation but this he thought fit to take no notice of for it had been very troublesome to answer it As for the Bishop of Condom though his authority is nothing yet I do not find that he limits their aid and assistance only to their Prayers for us for after repeating the Decree of the Council That it is good and useful to invoke the Saints by way of supplication and to have recourse to their succors and assistances c. he quietly drops the last clause without saying any thing of it and only tells us It is evident that to invoke the Saints according to the intent of this Council is to resort to their Prayers for the obtaining the blessings and benefits of God by Jesus Christ. And no doubt but this is true but the Council speaks not only of invoking the Saints but of flying to their aid and assistance and pray what does that signifie That he had no mind to tell us and when he says nothing of it how comes our Reflecter to know that he limits it to their Prayers As for the point of merit I have already considered that though I do not see upon second thoughts how the Answerer is concerned in it for he does not alledge the 32 Canon to oppose what he asserts that good works are meritorious by the goodness and promise of God but for the sake of the Anathema which it denounces against those who deny that good works are truly meritorious of the increase of Grace and eternal life And therefore his next instance is the Popes personal Infallibility This our Reflecter denys and makes it the Character of a Papist misrepresented to assert it and yet there are as many Papists who believe the Popes Infallibility as there are who deny it and were they to make Characters to deny the Popes personal Infallibility would certainly be one Character of a Papist misrepresented But he says this is only a School-debate and not matter of Faith because not positively determined by any general Council And yet whoever reads Cardinal Bellarmin and several others on this subject would think they made a matter of Faith of it But I would ask him Whether the Infallibility of the Church be an Article of Faith If it be my next question is In what general Council it was defined It seems indeed to be taken for granted in some later Councils but I am yet to seek what General Council has positively defined it I am sure Bellarmin and other learned Divines of the Roman Communion who use all manner of arguments they can think of to prove the Infallibility of the Church never alledge the authority of any Council for it So that it seems infallibility it self was never determined by any General Council and if the Infallibility of the Church be matter of Faith though it were never defined by any General Council why may not the Infallibility of the Pope be so too nay how does our Reflecter come to believe the Infallibility of a General Council for this is no more defined by any General Council than the Infallibility of the Pope is If there must be Infallibility in the Church somewhere I think the Pope whom they acknowledge to be the supream Pastor has the fairest Pretences to it For Infallibility ought in reason to accompany the greatest and most absolute Power If we must have an infallible Judge of Controversies it must be the Pope not a Council because if you place Infallibility in a Council the Church has no infallible Judge any longer than while the Council is sitting For the Definitions and Decrees of Councils how infallible soever they are yet certainly cannot be an infallible Judge which they will not allow to the Scriptures themselves And therefore if the Church can never be without an infallible Judge he who is the supreme Pastor and Judge must be infallible Now this being the Case I desire to know why our Reflecter prefers the Infallibility of a General Council before the Pope's personal Infallibility how one comes to be matter of Faith and not the other or if neither of them be why one makes the Character of a Papist misrepresented the other of a Papist represented For though he pretends not to deliver his own private Sentiment or Opinion concerning this Point but only to relate matter of Fact yet he has so cunning a way of telling his Tale as to let every body know which side he is of For we may guess that he does not over admire the Papist misrepresented and then he cannot be very fond of the Pope's Infallibility which is part of that Character And now I come to the Goliath-argument as he calls it concerning the deposing Power which he puts into this form In my Character of a Papist represented I pretend to declare the Faith of a Roman-Catholick as it is defined and delivered in allowed General Councils and yet though the deposing Doctrine has been as evidently declared in such Councils as ever Purgatory and Transubstantiation were in that of Trent yet still with me it is no Article of our Faith This indeed is an untoward Argument and I wish him well delivered and I think he does very prudently to keep at a distance with a sling and a stone and not venture to grapple with it To this he thus replies I answer it in short that though all Doctrinal Points defined in any approved General Council and proposed to the Faithful to be received under an Anathema are with us so many Articles of Faith and are obligatory to all of our Communion yet not so of every other Matter declared in such a Council there being many things treated of and resolved on in such an Assembly which concern not the Faith of the Church but only some matter of Discipline Government or other more particular Affair and these Constitutions and Decrees are not absolutely obligatory as is evident in the Council of Trent whose Decrees of Doctrine are as much acknowledged here by Catholicks in England or Germany as within the Walls of Rome it self or the Vatican And yet it s other Constitutions and Decrees are not universally received and it may be
which owns the Authority of all Councils called by the Pope and confirmed by him tho as we say neither Free nor General and ascribes an unerring Infallibility to them and so puts an end to all inquiries into the Grounds of their Faith We are sorry we are at such a distance from the Church of Rome that there are few things besides the common Principles of Christianity wherein we can own any part of their Doctrine and if we own no more than the Answerer has done I think the Reflecter has no great Reason to Glory in it 2 ly The Reflecter charges the Answerer with appealing from the Definitions of their Councils and sense of their Church to some Expressions found in old Mass-Books Rituals c. what this c. means I cannot tell for I find but one instance of this in the whole Answer relating to the Worship of the Virgin Mary That famous Hymn O felix puerpera nostra pians scelera Jure Matris impera Redemptori O happy Mother who dost expiate our sins by the right of a Mother command our Redeemer being found in the old Paris Missal which the Answerer himself has seen and as Balinghem a Jesuit saith in the Missals of Tournay Liege Amiens Artois and the Old-Roman Now I confess I should not have thought it so great a fault to have taken the sence of their Church from their Missals be they never so old for their Missals are not like private books of devotion but are the allowed and approved worship of their Church as our Liturgy is and therefore is either the sence of their Church at present or once was so and if it be damnable to own that the Virgin is more powerful than her Son or can command him which seems to be an argument of greater power it is very hard to charge it upon an Infallible Church that her publick Offices did once contain damnable Errors for surely She was not Infallible then which may bring her Infallibility into question still And therefore old Missals have so much Authority still that nothing contained in them ought to be thought damnable And yet the Answerer does not appeal from the Definitions of Councils to old Mass-books for the Church of Rome has never condemned this Hymn nor the Doctrine of it The Council of Trent in her Decree for Invocation of Saints faith nothing in particular of the Worship of the Virgin Mary and yet all Roman Catholicks make a vast difference between the Worship of the Virgin and other Saints how then shall we learn the Sense of the Church but from her Practice from her publick Offices and Hymns And tho since Hereticks have been Inquisitive into these matters they have reformed some of their Hymns yet they have never condemned the old ones And if he remembers the Answerer in the same place told him a notable Story whereby he might guess at the Sense at least of the governing part of their Church still That a Book which was writ by a Gentleman ten Years since to bring the People to a bare Ora pro nobis to the blessed Virgin was so far from being approved that it was condemned at Rome and vehemently opposed by the Jesuits in France and a whole Volume published against it 3 ly He complains that the Answerer appeals from the Declaration of their Councils and Sense of their Church to some External Action as in case of respect shewn to Images and Saints upon which from our External Adoration by construction of the Fact viz. Kneeling Bowing c. you are willing to conclude us guilty of Idolatry As if a true Judgment could be made of these Actions without respect to the Intention of the Church who directs them and of the Person that does them The Paragraph in the Answer p. 21. to which the Reflecter refers us is but a short one and if he had thought fit to answer it it would have cleared this point He saies To Worship Stocks or Stones for Gods as far as we charge them with any such thing signifies to give to Images made of Wood and Stone the Worship due only to God and so by construction of the Fact to make them Gods by giving them Divine Worship And if they will clear themselves of this they must either prove that External Adoration is no part of Divine Worship notwithstanding the Scripture makes it so and all the rest of mankind look upon it as such even Jews Turks and Infidels or that their External Adoration hath no respect to the Images which is contrary to the Council of Trent or that Divine Worship being due to the Being represented it may be likewise given to the Image and how then could the Gnosticks be Condemned for giving Divine Worship to the Image of Christ which Bellarmin confesses and is affirmed by Irenaeus Epiphanius St. Austin and Damascen Wherein now does the Answerer appeal from the Declarations of their Councils and sense of their Church to External Actions Does the Council forbid such External Acts of Adoration as Kneeling Bowing Offering Incense c. to be paid to Images No it injoyns it Does the Council then deny that the Worship which is paid before the Image has regard to the Image No both the Trent Council and Catechism teach the Worship of Images The whole Mystery of this pretended Appeal from their Church and Councils to External Actions is no more than this that they do not believe the giving such Worship to Images to be giving the Worship due to God to Images and the Answerer considering the Nature of those External Acts of Adoration knows not how to excuse them from it but has put him into a way of doing it if he can if he can either prove that External Adoration is no part of Divine Worship or that they do not give this External Worship to Images or that Divine Worship being due to the Being Represented it may likewise be given to the Image then he will grant that they are not guilty of Worshiping Stocks and Stones for Gods but till he can do this he must give us leave to Interpret such Actions as all Mankind besides themselves Interpret them But our Reflecter did not like this he is for Judging of Actions by the intention of the Church that directs them and of the Person that does them Well and what is their intention in it Is it not to Worship Images Yes this is the Intention and the express Declaration of their Church Right but their Church does not intend to break the Second Commandment and to commit Idolatry in the Worship of Images and therefore you ought not to charge this upon them Very true nor did ever any man in the World intend to commit Idolatry We charge them not with any such intention but if they Worship Images we desire to know how they excuse themselves from breaking the Second Commandment and committing Idolatry Whether they are Idolaters or not let God Judg but
IMPRIMATUR C. Alston R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. Ã Sacris Domesticis Decemb. 29. 1685. A PAPIST Not Misrepresented by PROTESTANTS BEING A REPLY TO THE REFLECTIONS Upon the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented LONDON Printed for Ric. Chiswel at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVI A REPLY to the REFLECTIONS upon the ANSWER to the Papist Misrepresented c. I Do not love to be behind-hand in Civility with any Man and therefore in the Name of the Answerer I return the Reflecter his Complement and that with some advantage For I heartily thank him for the Civility of his Language and more for the Civility of his Arguments and having done this once for all I shall apply my self to consider his Reflections and will complement no more His Reflections consist principally of two general Heads I. What concerns the Misrepresentation of a Papist II. Concerning the Rule of true representing I. The Misrepresentation of a Papist And here I confess he has shewed some Art but very little Honesty He was told in the Answer that some of those Misrepresentations which he had made of a Papist and given out for the Protestant Character of Popery were his own ignorant or childish or wilful Mistakes As that Papists are never permitted to hear Sermons which they are able to understand or that they held it lawful to commit Idolatry or that a Papist believes the Pope to be his great God and to be far above all Angels These I think may pass for Misrepresentations and very childish and ignorant ones too and hence the Reflecter craftily insinuates that we grant all his Misrepresentations of a Papist to be ignorant childish or wilful Mistakes and is willing to end this Dispute and I very much commend him for it upon these terms that his Character of a Papist misrepresented should be confessed to be made up of false Apprehensions ignorant childish and wilful Mistakes and that he may use the Authority of the Answerer to assure his Friends and Acquaintance that wheresoever they shall for the future either hear or read such things charged upon the Papists they must give it no Credit and esteem it no better than the false Apprehensions ignorant childish and wilful Mistakes of the Relators This would be a great Point gained indeed and I am sorry we cannot oblige him in it Especially since he has taken the Pains to prove by great and good Authorities that his Character of a Papist misrepresented is not made up of such childish Mistakes but is indeed what the best and wisest Men have believed of them and this we thank him for He alleadges the Authority of the Homilies a Book which we greatly reverence Fox's Book of Martyrs where we read how many were burnt for not believing as his Papist misrepresented believes Bishop Ridly ' s Writings a very learned and holy Man who may be supposed to have understood what Popery was and that he was not so fond of misrepresenting as to burn for it The publick Test a very authentick and lasting Proof of this Matter with several other good Authors he mentions whose Credit is never the worse because he hath thrust one bad Man into the Company Nay he has been so civil as to grant the Answerer to be as very a Misrepresenter as the rest and he had been a very strange Answerer if he had not which argues great Modesty in him to desire leave to use his Name and Authority to condemn the Misrepresentation that is to confute his own Book which in all the material Points proves what he calls the Misrepresentation I wo'nt say not to be ignorant Mistakes but to be the avowed Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome which is the only way I know of that it can be confuted for unless he condemn it himself I am sure this Reflecter can never confute it Well but what then is the meaning of all this pother and noise about this double Character of a Papist misrepresented and represented Why are we so angry with what he calls the Misrepresentation if it be true or what is the fault of it This is a Mystery which ought to be explained and I doubt our Reflecter will have no reason to glory that he gave the occasion of it And I shall do these two things I. Show you what are the Faults of the Misrepresentation II. That allowing for such Faults the Papist represented excepting some very few cases professes to believe all that the Papist misrepresented is charged with I. As for the Faults of the Misrepresentation they are briefly these 1. That he puts such things into the Character of a Papist as no Man in his Wits ever charged them with and these the Answerer calls childish and ignorant or wilful Mistakes 2. That the Opinions of Protestants concerning Popish Doctrines and Practices and those ill Consequents which are charged and justly charged upon them are put into the Character of a Papist misrepresented as if they were his avowed Doctrine and Belief which is misrepresenting indeed but is his own not our Misrepresentation We charge them with nothing but what they expresly profess to believe and what they practise and we tell them what we think of such Doctrines and Practices what their Nature and what their Consequences are but do not charge them with believing as we believe concerning these Matters and therefore it is not fair to put such things into a Protestant Character of a Papist misrepresented As to give an Instance of a like nature There are some dissenting Protestants who think it lawful to resist their Prince and take up Arms against him this we say is Rebellion and yet it would be a very ridiculous Misrepresentation of such Men to say they are those who believe it lawful to rebel for no Man believes Rebellion no more than Idolatry to to be lawful and they no more believe taking up Arms in such cases to be Rebellion than the Papist thinks his Worship of Saints and Images to be Idolatry which shows how unjust it is to put the Interpretations and Consequences of Mens Opinions and Practices which they themselves disown into their Character And tho we never do this the Misrepresenter has done it for us which makes it a false Character tho every thing which is said in it may be true 3. It is still so much the worse when the Interpretations and Consequences which are charged upon Mens Practices and Opinions are set in the front of the Character as first and Original Principles As to keep to our former Instance To say that Men believe Rebellion to be lawful and therefore make no scruple of taking up Arms against their Prince is a very different thing from saying that Men believe they may lawfully take up Arms in some Cases and in doing so are guilty of Rebellion These are some of the principal Arts our Author has used in drawing the Character of a Papist
Argument that they do not believe it an Article of Faith as he suggests but only that they want power to do it Princes will not be deposed now nor suffer those to be Censured who deny the Deposing Power But should the blessed Hildebrandtimes return again we should quickly see whether the Deposing Power be an Article of Faith or not What I have now discoursed will abundantly justify an argument which I find our Reflecter much grieved at The Answerer in his Introduction p. 14. lays two passages together which he thinks will oblige them to own the deposing power For in the Papist misrepresented p. 42 the Author saies the orders of the supream Pastor are to be obeyed whether he be Infallible or not and in another place he confesses that Popes have owned the deposing Doctrine and acted according to it and others are bound to obey their Orders whether Infallible or not and consequently by the Doctrine of their Church to act when the Popes shall require it according to the deposing power To this the Reflecter answers That he only made a comparison between Civil and Ecclesiastical power Taht as in the Civil Government the sentence of the supream Judge or highest Tribunal is to be obeyed tho there be no assurance of Inâ—allibility or Divine protection from error or mistake so is he taught should be done to the orders of the supream Pastor whether he be Infallible or not Now he saies it is as unjust from hence to infer that all the Orders of the Pope must be obeyed as it would be to say that Subjects must obey their Princes in every thing they command whether it be good or bad And I ackowledge his answer to be good if he will grant the deposing Decree to command a sin which he has never done yet and when he does it I would desire him to consider how to reconcile himself to his two Friends Bellarmine and Canus who assert that Popes and General Councils can make no sinful Decrees which shall relate to the whole Church 2 ly Let us now consider what faults the Reflecter finds with the Answerers way of proceeding and they are reduced to Four heads 1 st He saies that in some points the Answerer owns the Doctrine which he has represented to be the Faith of a Roman-Catholick to be the established belief of the Church of England as in part that of the power of Priestly absolution confession of due veneration to the Relicks of Saints of merit of satisfaction of the authority of the Church of General Councils Now here our Reflecter returns to his old trade of Misrepresenting again for every one who will believe his own eyes may soon satisfie himself that the Answerer in these Doctrines owns nothing which is peculiar to the Faith of a Papist as distinguished from the Common Faith of all Christians He might as well say that because Protestants own that Christ is to be worshipped therefore they in part own the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that Christ is to be worshipped by Images This is the very case here The Answerer grants that Christ gave to the Bishops and Priests of the Catholick-Church authority to absolve any truly penitent sinner from his sins and that such absolution is ratified in heaven Therefore in part he owns the Popish Doctrine of Absolution which is a Judicial and Pretorian Authority to forgive sins tho we think that to absolve as a Minister and as a Judge are two very different things as different as the Kings granting a Pardon and the Chancellors sealing it which is a publick and authentick declaration of the thing The Answerer owns the ancient practice of Canonical confession as part of the discipline of the Church for publick offences that is that those who had been guilty of any publick and scandalous sins were not reconciled tothe Church without making as publick a confession and giving publick Testimonies of their sorrow and repentance therefore he in part owns the Auricular confession of the Church of Rome there being little difference it seems between confessing our sins to the whole Congregation and in the ear of a Priest He owns the use of voluntary confession for the ease and satisfaction of the perplexed minds of doubting or dejected Penitents and therefore he in part owns the Sacramental Confession as necessary to the Remission of Sins before God The Answerer allows A due Veneration to the Bodies of Saints and Martyrs i. e. a Religious Decency to be observed towards them which lies in avoiding any thing like contempt or dishonour to them and using all such Testimonies of Respect and Decency which becomes the remains of excellent Persons And therefore in part he agrees with the Church of Rome in giving Divine Worship to Relicks just as much as a decent respect is a part of Religious Worship The Answerer grants The necessity of good Works in order to the reward of another Life And if he will call this Merit in which large Sense the Fathers sometimes use that word we will not dispute with him about it but is this to own the Popish Doctrine of Merit That the good Works of justified Persons are truly meritorious of the increase of Grace and Eternal Life The Answerer distinguishes between satisfaction to the Church before Absolution according to the Discipline of the Primitive Church which did not use to reconcile publick Penitents till by a long course of Penance and Mortification they had given sufficient Testimonies of the Sincerity of their Repentance and had made some Satisfaction for that Scandal they had given to the Church and Satisfaction to the Justice of God for some part of the Punishment to Sin which is unremitted The first we own as a very useful part of Church Discipline and wish the restoring of it but the second we utterly disown for there is no other Satisfaction to the Justice of God for Sin but the meritorious Death and Sacrifice of Christ whereas the Church of Rome takes no notice of Satisfaction in the first sence but has changed the Ancient Discipline of Satisfaction to the Church into Satisfaction to the Justice of God for Sin The Answerer grants That truly penitential Works are pleasing to God so as to avert his Displeasure but denies the Popish Doctrine of Satisfaction that there can be any Compensation by way of Equivalency between what we Suffer and what we Deserve and is this in part to own his Doctrine of Satisfaction The Answerer owns the right and necessity of General Councils upon great Occasions if they be truly so which have been and may be of great use to the Christian World for setling the Faith healing the Breaches of Christendom and reforming Abuses and that the Decrees of such Councils ought to be submitted to where they proceed upon certain Grounds of Faith and not upon unwritten Traditions But this is no part of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning Councils