in the Church of England and in exclaiming against his Adversaries for falling foul upon what he calls the best of Institutions As if either of them were against that which their own Church encourages and which the Preacher himself calls a wholesome Discipline But the beginning of the Paragraph shews what Confession the Preacher thus Censures viz. Auricular Confession as it is practiced in the Church of Rome at this day that Confession which the Apologist elsewhere describes from themselves that requires beforehand a diligent Examination of the Conscience about all and singular mortal Sins even the most Secret with all their circumstances so far as may change the nature of the Sin and then to discover all those they can call to mind to the Priest from whom they expect Absolution and without which Absolution is not to be expected nor can they have any benefit of the Absolution It 's of this the Preacher saith That the Consequence of it is to run an apparent hazard of being undone in many Cases by Knaves for Interest or by Fools out of Levity and Inconstancy and a blabling Humor that lets them into the Secrets of Families c. Besides instead of keeping up a wholesome Discipline it 's the way to corrupt it and tends to the debauching both Laity and Clergy in as many ways as there are Sins to be committed when the Confessor and the Penitent begin to discover and understand one another And this the Apologist confirmed from the Complaints made by good Men of their own Communion from the shameful Cases to be found in their Casuists from the Bulls of Popes Contra solicitantes in Confessione And of which I find a late Instance Tenth Character of a Pulpit-Papist The Churches Interest is the Center of their Religion and their Consciences turn upon the same Pin. Every thing is Pious Conscientious and Meritorious that makes for their Cause What is said as to the first of these by the Apologist That the Churches Interest is the Center of their Religion Our Author has not thought fit to recite and much less to confute As to the latter the Apologist produced a Constitution of the Jesuits but this the Sayer saith is a wrested Interpretation contrary to its plain meaning But why then did not our Author venture to assign this plain meaning of it and to shew the meaning the Apologist thought belong'd to it to be thus wrested Who without doubt would have thought one good Argument of much better Authority than a hundred bare Affirmations tho never so positive But he has two things yet in reserve 1. That after all the Apologist can say He cannot but own it to be a received Maxim among all even the loosest of our Divines and Casuists That no Evil is to be done that God may come of it To speak ingenuously I do not find him so forward to own it but if he did as we cannot think they will interminis run so counter to the Apostle yet the Question is what is Evil and Good and whether that is not Good which makes for their Cause or whether the making for the Cause makes not that which was Evil to be Good. And if so our Author doth but beg the Question 2. He appeals to his Catholicks of this Nation who quitted all rather than do an ill thing take Oaths Tests or go to Church against their Conscience The main part of this lies in the last words against their Conscience for else that many of them did take Oaths go to Church receive the Sacrament is I suppose out of Question Eleventh Character of a Pulpit-Papist This he breaks into four parts 1. He changes Scripture into Legends Hereby the Apologist shew'd was understood either that the Legends are of as good Authority in the Church of Rome as Scripture or that in their publick Offices they used Legends where they should have used the Scripture He shews there is too much occasion given for the former amongst them as when they own in their publick Offices that St. Bridget's Revelations came immediately from God to Her. But here our Author interposes and saith How does the Papist change the Scripture into Legends when he 's commanded by his Church to own the Scripture as the Word of God But if he owns the Scripture as the Word of God because it 's commanded by his Church then wherein is the difference if he be commanded by his Church to believe a Legend to be of Divine Revelation Our Author would have done a kind part if he had set us right in this matter between Divine Revelation and Divine Revelation between the Revelation for Scripture and the Divine Revelation for the Legends But he saith for all this a Person is not alike obliged to assent No! altho the Church requires it But that saith he the Church doth not for tho he may read Legends if he pleases yet he is not bound by his Church or Religion to give assent to or believe any one passage in any one Legend whatsoever If he has no better Authority for the latter Branch than the former for he is not bound to assent than for he may read them if he pleases his Cause is uncapable of his support For how can he be at Liberty whether he will read hear them if he pleases when they are inserted into the Body of their Church-Service and are Lessons chosen out for their Instruction And he can as little say they are not obliged to Assent to them when the Church it self saith in its publick Office They come immediately from God. Is it at last all come to this that when things are instituted by Inspiration of the Holy Ghost as the Orders of St. Benedict and were received from the Holy Ghost as the Rules of those Orders and that the Popes were moved by the Holy Ghost as in ordaining some Festivals and declar'd others to be divinely inspired as St. Brigit and St. Catherine and to come immediately from God as their Offices Is it all I say come to this that he is not bound to give assent to or believe any one Passage in any Legend whatsoever Nor so much as to believe any one to be a Saint their Church has Canonized no not St. Brigit St. Catherine nor even the Great Xaverius For tho some pretended Reformers as he calls them have been so easy and forward it seems as to have judged those things worthy of Credit which he was Canonized for yet no Member of the Church of Rome is bound to assent or believe but he may believe as well as read the Legends of them if he pleases and if he pleases he may forbear and suspend And this our Author doth abundantly confirm by approving what the Apologist produced out of Bellarmin and Canus That all things contained in the Lives of the Saints tho mentioned even in the Canonization depend upon human Testimony as to matters of Fact and consequently are subject to
Error This saith he proves they are not bound to believe I grant it as far as that goes but then they are not bound to believe what their Church Representative doth declare to be of Divine Revelation and to come immediately from God. Let him take which he pleases if that will content him But if in the mean time their Church contradicts her self and owns that at one time to be Divine Revelation which at another time has only human Testimony is the Apologist bound to reconcile her to her self Surely that is an Office becoming our Author himself And till he has done it he must excuse us if we a little doubt of the certainty of Faith so much magnified in their Church Here our Author concludes this matter but the Apologist went on to the latter Branch that in their publick Offices they often use Legends instead of Scripture and have put out Scripture to bring in Legends This he proves from the design of Cardinal Quignonius who in the Reformation of the Breviary put Scripture instead of Legends but that was condemn'd and the Office so far brought back to its former state This was so full a proof of what the Preacher suggested that our Author thought it best to let it drop But if he will see the Character of the design against he writes again let him peruse the Cardinal's Preface or consult Espencaeus in Tom. 1. Digress l. 1. c. n. p. 156. which thus concludes of the former Breviary That many of the Histories of the Saints were so ill chose that sometimes they begat Contempt and Laughter at the reading of them This puts me in mind of a debt I am in to our Author at his fourth Character who there tells us that he cannot but admire some Protestant Preachers Writers and otherwise sober Lay-men of late who take upon them to ridicule and slightingly to wonder at the Papists for this their fond credulity forsooth in relation to old Legends and Modern Lives of the Saints This I admir'd at in him because I find some Popish Preachers Writers and otherwise sober Lay-men that are as hard to believe as the Protestants and think as meanly of them Attend we to Ludovicus Vives a man as I have heard saith Espencaeus when he quotes him out of all suspicion of an irreligious mind who saith In writing the Lives of the Saints every one writ as he was affected so that his Inclination not Truth did draw out the History How unworthy of the Saints and Men is the History of the Saints which they call the Golden Legend since it 's writ by a man of an Iron Mouth and a Leaden Heart And again There have been men who esteemed it for a great piety to devise little Lies for Religion But here this good man needs a little correction for if a good end be in prospect inventions of men how incredible soever may in our Author's opinion be allowed as he suggests For saith he there is scarce any thing in all those Books objected upon this score against the Papists whether Ancient or Modern Legends but however incredible it may appear yet generally is all in order to a good end and the working Christian effects in the Reader Here is now a Gate of Mindus sufficient to let in the whole Shoal of not only the Mendaciola of Vives but all the Heroical Fictions of Ecclesiastical Quixotism and to make them to become Authentick But because our Author is so grave upon this Argument that I doubt he may be in earnest let me for once recommend to him some few instances for an Exercise of his Talent this way to shew how they serve a good End and raise the Admiration of God's Power Goodness and Mercy Doubtless he will quit himself exceeding well if he can inform us where the great spiritual Advantage is in the Relations of St. Aldern's and Deicoala's hanging their Garments upon the Sun-beams of St. Kentigern's setting a Robin Red-breasts Head to its Body of St. Odoaceus's turning a Pound of Butter into a Bell of St. Mochua's hindring by Prayer the poor Lambs from Sucking their Dams I might run into a Volume upon this Theme if it were worth the while But I suppose these may serve for the present to entertain his thoughts and to shew the Reader how impertinent his Vindication of their Legends is These are of the number of those which Quignonius saith are the Subject of Scorn and Coâ—tempt but here are others which are so inconsistent with true Religion that their Driâ—do concludes they were devised by Hereticks as when the Saints are said in the Agony of Death to have warned or requir'd that when translated out of this World they should be worshipp'd and be invoked in Afflictions and Dangers It being not likely that these holy Men while in this World should be solicitous of these Humours who should rather pray with David Enter not into Judgment with thy Servant O Lord. 2. He changes Sacraments into Shews Priests into Puppets Of this the Apologist produced his Instances as 1. When they shew the Cup to the Laity but suffer them not to partake of it 2. When in their Solitary Masses the Priest alone Communicates and the People are only Spectators of the Solemnity a Practice that the Council of Trent approves of and commends 3. When the Host is elevated at Mass for Adoration 4. When it 's carried about in publick Processions In which cases the Sacrament is only shew'd to the People and is contrary to the end for which it was instituted For as it was to be in Remembrance of Christ so it was to be partook of and by partaking of which we do shew forth his Death 1 Cor. 11.26 But to shew the Sacrament and not to partake of it is to change the Sacrament into a shew To this our Author replies Might not a Jew here step in and with this Argument pretend that Christ crucified was another shew upon Calvary but all this is nothing but a method to teach Atheists how to make the greatest Mysteries of Christianity ridiculous As if Christianity in its first Institution was a ridiculous thing and he that will bring it back to its first State and have the Sacrament only so Administred and used only to those ends for which it was ordain'd must expose the Mysteries of it to the Scorn of Atheists Cannot Christianity subsist or the Mysteries of it be sacred without we depart from the Simplicity and Purity of it and set up new Institutions or give new Ends to those Institutions And because we are for partaking of it and not making it an empty shew because we are for the People's partaking of it as well as the Priest and for their partaking of it in both Kinds and not in one according to the Primitive Institution Must we teach Atheists a method how to make the Mysteries of Christianity ridiculous And because we declare against their Elevations and
and the Immaculate Conception c Each charging the other with Heresie as the Jesuits and Jansenists about the First the Dominicans and Jesuits about the second the Franciscans and Dominicans about the third Thus far therefore we are not agreed with our Author for if actual and material Divisions betwixt Head and Head Head and Members Members and Members will make a plea to Union to be but a pretence then so it is with them 2. Their Religious Orders are neither better nor worse than so many Sects and Casts of Religion This saith our Author is an absolute Falshood and the Vindicator that undertakes to defend the Preacher is in his opinion no better than a vain Trister in publishing such an idle Apology But why so Because when the Preacher had said that the Orders among the Papists are so many Sects the account he gives of it is that they are so many distinct Bodies that having different Founders Rules Habits and Opinions by which an Emulation is begot betwixt Order and Order they become divided among themselves and when occasion is offer'd do actually war upon one another in their way Now saith our Author would not a School-boy have been scourged for such a sleeveless frivolous excuse which he saith may be as well applied to our Colleges in the Universities as to their Convents But was this all the Apologist undertook and did he thus conclude his defence of the Preacher When he had thus shewn what is meant by their Orders and how Emulations and Quarrels might arise and what occasions were given for them in point of Rules Habits and Opinions did he not proceed to shew of what sort these Differences were in the very next words after those quoted by the Sayer Surely he might in his Transports have so far condescended as to touch upon those points and shewed a little of his skill in proving the Differences betwixt the Franciscans and Dominicans about the Immaculate Conception to have been no other than a School-opinion in our Colleges and that notwithstanding all the Feuds betwixt the Jesuits and Dominicans the Franciscans and the Jesuits there mentioned they are as he would have it only different parts not dividing but making up the whole He complains of the Preacher that he so worded it that no Protestant of his Auditory but must receive this Notion that as in England so likewise in the Church of Rome there are different Sects of Religion and Fanaticks to divide it And let any Protestant or other read the History of their long contentions about the size of their Hoods and the Immaculate Conception and he will read a notable Comment upon the Preacher's words and see that he has not misrepresented them I would fain know of our Author what he thinks of a Controversie that hath filled Kingdoms Cities Universities Cloysters with Tumults and Disorders Pulpits and Schools with contentions Invectives and Revilings that hath concerned Kings Popes and Councils in composing and at last grew to that height that after 300 years bickerings Popes themselves though solicited from time to time not only by the Heads of the Faction but by Princes themselves yet either could not or thought it not safe and adviseable to determine it Let me sum it up in the Words of the King of Spain's Embassador to the Pope to move him to come to a Resolution upon it Consider the loss of many Souls the Discord of the Church the Dissentions of Cities the great Dangers that hang over the Kingdom Let our Author consider this and tell me for what reason he took no notice of this case laid before him or how he could after he had read it charge the Preacher with an absolute Falshood For this I shall refer him further to a late Book call'd The Virgin Mary Misrepresented by the Roman Church § 3 and 4. But here our Author relieves himself That this may be seen in the Queen Dowager ' s Chappel in which officiate Monks Friers Dominicans Jesuits and Clergy that is so many different Orders of Men and yet without any difference in Religion or disagreement in Faith. But will he say there are no differences between the Friers and Dominicans the Jesuits and the Clergy in those Cases when they charge each other with Heresy or because they seem to agree or do there agree there is then nothing of this between Order and Order This is much such an Argument as if one that had seen the Fox and the Sheep and other Creatures quietly sitting upon one and the same Hill in the West when drove thither by a sudden Inundation should from thence conclude and would perswade others to believe that these were all at a perfect Accord and that there was no Enmity in their Nature nor had ever been in Fact. I shall conclude this with what Antoninus A.B. of Florence saith in this case Let every one take heed of preaching on this matter the immaculate Conception before the People with a charge upon the contrary Party because it 's Scandalous to 〈◊〉 People and accordingly it was forbidden by several Popes Another of the Falshoods charged upon the Preacher is the asserting they have Fanaticks pack'd up in their Convents The best Answer I can give to the Sayer upon this is to set before the Reader an account of the Method taken by the Apologist in handling this Argument 1. Who shew'd what Fanaticism is and that it 's a general Name comprehending in it Superstition and Enthuasiasm The former is the placing Religion in those things which Religion is not concerned in The latter is when Persons are acted and governed by some suppos'd Communications from Heaven by Revelations Visions Inspirations by Raptures and Illuminations and unaccountable Impulses 2. He shew'd there was such Fanaticism amongst them and in their Convents of the former sort he instanced in their Monkish Orders Habits Rules and Privileges granted to them and depended upon To which our Author gives not one word of Reply To the latter Enthusiasm the Apologist refers 1. The Institution of their Orders which with their Rules they say were first instituted by the Holy Ghost 2. Many of their Doctrines as Purgatory Transubstantiation and the Immaculate Conception c. 3. Many of the things defined and observed in the Church as Sacraments Festivals Canonizations c. for which they plead Revelation 3. He shewed further that these Revelations were only suppos'd not truly so And that 1. Because it derogates from Divine Revelation And 2. Because they agree not amongst themselves Of which there is given a notorious Instance in the case of the Immaculate Conception where Revelation is pleaded on both sides and each side charges the other with Imposture about it But here our Author is wholly silent However something must be said upon this Head and that amounts to this 1. That those in Convents in the Church of Rome embrace a retired Life dedicate themselves to the Service of God in Praying Fasting
c. some according to the Institution of St. Benedict others of St. Francis c. And what follows therefore they are not Fanaticks therefore they are not Superstitious and Enthusiasts that is they are not Fanaticks because they are not Surely no Fanatick could have fallen into this account without the assistance of such a Representer 2. He adds Religious men in Convents are Fanaticks forsooth because they are acted by some suppos'd Revelations Visions Raptures c. What Controversial Stuff is this Why at this rate he might make Fanaticks of all the Patriarchs and Prophets of St. Joseph St. Peter and St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles and most of all St. John whose whole Book of Revelation is nothing now it seems but so much Fanaticism Surely our Author is here driven to some Extremity when he has no other Refuge but by making the Case in dispute betwixt us parallel with the Case of the Prophets and Apostles and that when the Apologist calls those of the Romish Church Supposed Revelations Visions and Raptures it 's as Criminal as if he had said as much of the Divine Writers At this rate saith he he might make Fanaticks of all the Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles At what rate What because he saith those pretended to in the Church of Rome are supposed will it follow therefore that those of the Prophets and Apostles are supposed too No surely no more than it will follow because the Revelations of the Prophets and Apostles are Divine therefore those alledged in the Church of Rome are Divine also Our Author saith of the Apologists account of Fanaticism What Controversial stuff is this But I may with good reason return it What impious stuff is this that will make the Inspirations of Magdalen of Pazzi and the Revelations of St. Bridget and Catharine of Siena how fond and contradictory soever to stand upon the same foundation with the Revelations of St. John And those which some of their own Authors call Humane Dreams Fantastick Visions and others call Impostures to be as much from God as the Visions of Ezekiel and the Dream of Joseph c. 4. That the Church of Rome disposes her Fanaticks into Convents for advantage is another Charge produced against them by the Preacher and insisted upon by the Apologist but that our Author for reasons best known to himself left as he found it Sixth Character of a Pulpit-Papist In the Roman Church the Sacrament must now be no longer a Representative but a Real Propitiatory Sacrifice And Christ's Natural Body must be brought down upon a Thousand Altars at once and there Really broken and his Blood actually spilt a Thousand times every day Here the Apologist charges our Author with altering the sense of the Preacher when he makes the Preacher to declare that was a positive Assertion of the Papists which was an Argument and Consequence of the Preacher's from their Assertion and that for this purpose he had left out the words Now and must be that were the Indications of it All that our Author has to reply to this Charge is that it 's a Nice point the Vindicator is reduced to to bring off the Preacher But it 's not so Nice as 't is evident that our Author's account of it is a Foul Misrepresentation If the Preacher had charged it as a Doctrine own'd by the Papists then so far as they disown it it had been a Misrepresentation but as it 's an Argument against them as it 's plain it was then it 's no more a Misrepresentation than it 's false and that belongs not to Representation but Dispute And therefore so far as an Argument of the Preacher against the Papists differs from a Concession and Assertion of the Papists so far has our Author misrepresented the Preacher when he saith That the Protestants awkard Reasoning is set out for their Doctrine Well at length however it shall be own'd for Reasoning and Inference and though it 's not his Province he saith to examine the truth of such Reasoning yet he fancies that 't is easily reconcilable with Reason and Scripture and so intelligible that the Sacrifice of the Altar is Representative of that upon the Cross That is if he will speak to the purpose That though the Sacrament be a Real and Propitiatory Sacrifice yet it 's still Representative But how will he prove it His Argument is this Christ really present in the Sacrament may be offer'd to God upon the Altar by the Hands of the Priest in Remembrance of the same Christ offering himself a Victim upon the Cross for the Redemption of man and consequently the Sacrifice of the Altar is Representative of that upon the Cross. Where I would only ask him what is the difference betwixt Christ's being really present in the Sacrament when offer'd and the Sacrifice of the Altar What again is the difference 'twixt the being offer'd in Remembrance of Christ's offering himself upon the Cross and the Representative of that upon the Cross and consequently whether he has not proved what he intended after this manner that the Sacrifice of the Altar is Representative of that upon the Cross because it 's Representative Methinks he might have shewn some little respect when he is on the Arguing part to what the Apologist had offer'd against this But however though his Argument may signifie little yet he hopes Mr. Thorndike's may be of some Authority who he saith never scrupled the least at this expresly owning the Elements changed into the Body and Blood of Christ to be truly the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross and to be both Propitiatory and Impetratory and yet never deni'd it to be perform'd in Remembrance of Christ crucified But here our Author has grosly injur'd Mr. Thorndike For 1. Mr. Thorndike owns no such thing as I can find that the Elements are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. But he speaks things plainly inconsistent with it as he saith N. 1. The Sacrament containing Mystically Spiritually and Sacramentally that is as in and by a Sacrament tendreth and exhibiteth not the Body of Christ much less turn'd into it Nay further he saith The Eucharist is Nothing else but the Representation here upon Earth of what is done in Heaven N. 4. 2. Neither doth he say the Elements are truly the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross but the Eucharist and the Eucharist as Representing For thus he saith N. 10. Not the Elements but the breaking pouring forth distributing dealing are all parts of the Sacrifice as the whole action is that Sacrifice by which the Covenant of Grace is confirmed N. 10. And further the Eucharist that is as thus administred is the same Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross. How As that which representeth is truly said to be the thing which it representeth That is so far as the Representer of the thing may be said to be the thing Represented so far is the Eucharist the same Sacrifice 3. When he
of it For thus he saith If any make Exceptions against the Character of a Papist thus disguis'd as 't was drawn there in the Papist Misrepresented I 'le never quarrel upon that score let that be raz'd out But however tho he thus drops his own Apprehensions as well as he had his 37. Points of Representation and at once gives away half his Labour yet like a true Master of Defence he mounts the Stage again and renews the Fight for by the help of some Pulpit-Sayings he thinks he has given life to his otherwise dying Cause Let that saith he be raz'd out and these others take place which 't is likely are more Authentick What! more Authentick than his own Apprehensions O yes for its such a Popery and such a Papist as is describ'd by Ministers in their Pulpits In which there are many things charged upon them without either Truth and Sincerity and consequently 't is not without grounds they complain of Misrepresenting 1. But why the Pulpits Are not the same things in Books of Controversy and are they not there more fully explain'd and debated Thither therefore in reason we ought to be sent to understand how the Protestants Represent the Papist But then our Author had not had the opportunity of exclaiming against those high Places as he Phrases it from whence it seems they have received no little Damage or which is worse he had been engaged in a Dispute which is not his Province as he tells us p. 28. 2. But if some Pulpits have misrepresented them in some cases what is that to the Pulpits in general What is that to our Church He has been already told that we are far from defending such Misrepresentations if such there be That which we adhere to is the Doctrine and Sense of our Church as it is by Law established and what Representations are made agreeable thereto we undertake to defend and no other Can he think we are any more concern'd in the mistakes or infirmities of others then he thinks himself to be in the loose and extravagant opinions of their own Doctors Schoolmen and Casuists And is it not reasonable he should allow the same Law to others he is forced so frequently to plead in his own defence 3. But further supposing that some of the Pulpits have Misrepresented the Papist in some points and in those points he disclaims yet are there no points besides they differ in And if these were set aside would the Church of England and Rome be one What thinks he of the many points I find in the same Sermons he quotes that he civilly passes by Such as these That the Church of Rome is alone the Catholick Church out of which is no Salvation That the Pope is the Universal Head of that Church That that Church is Infallible What thinks he of Transubstantiation Purgatory Invocation of Saints Communion in one kind Divine Service and Scriptures in an Unknown Tongue Merit and Works of Supererogation the Worship of Images Implicit Faith Indulgences Deposition of Princes c. Lastly What thinks he of the great point he all along omitted as he is charged that a Papist doth not only believe the Doctrines defin'd in the Council of Trent to be true but also to be necessary to Salvation Are not these the Doctrines of the Church of Rome And are not the Pulpits as much employ'd in confuting these as those of praying to Images and putting their trust in them and the other Follies and Abominations as he calls them charged on his Church And do not the Protestants think as ill of those points he owns as of those he disclaims 4. But how come they of the Church of Rome to start this charge of Misrepresentation who are of all Churches in the world the most guilty of it Or how comes our Author to continue it who neither durst so much as vindicate others or himself when convicted of it The learned Author of the View enter'd the Field and threw down the Gantlet but our Author fairly slinks aside and leaves his Brethren to sink under the imputation of the soulest Misrepresentations And this is not to be wonder'd at when he has not one word of Reply to all the Accusations of that kind there produced against himself And yet to give a further Specimen how far this disingenuous quality has prevail'd upon his temper he still proceeds in the same course and to be quit with the Pulpits which he saith are forward in making characters of the Papists he is as forward in making characters of the Pulpits The business of so many Pulpits ten thousand open every week he saith is chiefly to make exceptions pick holes quarrel ridicule and the more excellent they are at their work the more they gain upon their Auditory And that he may not be wanting he will be at his Plots too and follow what he calls Oat's Divine way of Information He had tried once before to form a design of this kind when he would have Sermons preach'd many years ago against Popery to contain severe reflections upon his present Majesty But that he was soon made sensible of and has not a syllable to excuse And yet he will be again at his Innuendo's for thus he lays the Scene Methinks the Pulpits saith he should be more tender of their Soveraign than to venture upon the same Method which he before charges them with with the Son which prov'd so fatal to the Father and dangerous to the Brother But I fear the excess of jealousie for their Religion puts them upon being too bold with their Prince and that by a just judgment of Heaven they are blindly practising the very principles they have so often charged upon the Papists making their Churches Interest the center of their Religion Preaching Faction instead of Faith c. Such expressions as these are not thrown out at all adventure and we may soon guess what they tend to and it 's a fair warning Thus far for the Pulpits but to shew what a Talent he has at Character-making he will furnish us also with that of the true Son of the Church of England viz. A Genuine Son of the Church of England is to have a good stock of this implicit Faith by him and to believe and speak though he knows nothing at all Again This is to the Protestant Tune If a man can't tell how to run down Popery though he knows nothing of it he 's no true Son of the Church of England So that quarrelling and ridiculing is the work it seems of the Preachers and a delight in it the temper of their Auditors and to speak all at once Ignorance and Arrogance Slander and Impudence are in his opinion the Ingredients of a true Son of the Church of England This is the faithful Representer the soft Adviser the prudent Cautioner the impartial Character-maker the Preacher of Charity the Detecter of Impostures
their Church to believe the Church without a reason is not only safe but meritórious and that whoever thus implicitly believes is a good Catholick 2. That Ignorance is in their Opinion the Mother of Devotion 3. That it 's a mortal sin so much as to doubt and so no room is left for enquiry 4. That they take away the Key of all Spiritual and Divine knowledg the Holy Scriptures Now instead of an Answer our Author has in his Sayings whólly left out Assert 14. and blows off all that is said in Assert 15. with this one word it 's a great Calumny p. 51. And what he now offers upon this Head is 1. that they have many Books Catechisms c. I wish he could say the Scriptures to be ignorant of which is to be ignorant of Christ saith their Canon Law Dist. 38. Si juxta but That the people are not allowed so much as a Summary of And the time was in the Reign of Implicit Faith and before Heresie disturb'd the peace of its Empire that persons have been burnt for teaching their Children the Creed and the Lord's-Prayer in the Vulgar Tongue 2. He saith There 's none but knows that whoever will be a Christian must submit his Vnderstanding to such Mysteries that are above it Therefore will it follow he must not so much as enquire what those Mysteries are and whether they are of that kind as he must submit his Vnderstanding to whether that is they are of the Doctrines of our Saviour or of men 2. Popery tears out the Hearts of all others out of her Communion whom she cannot deceive she will destroy This saith our Author is false How so 1. because though Catholicks are bound to go and teach all Nations yet when men are so obstinate as to reject all Instructions they are taught to go elsewhere and only to pity and pray for such blind souls but not to destroy them Witness the course they took in the West-Indies in the Conversion of the poor Natives a course that made them abhor Christianity as Bartholomaeus Casas a Bishop of theirs present relates to whom I refer our Author 2. He answers 'T is true in the Catholick Church care is taken to preserve all such as are her Members firm in her Communion and there are not wanting Threats to keep the inconstant from being misled into Error as likewise punishments to reduce such as leave her and blindly run after false Guides A fair Concession And which will lead us into an examination of the case and teach the world what they are to expect For if all within her Communion are expos'd to their Threats and Punishments we know how large a share of the world according to their computation is to be taken in since they claim a Jurisdiction over all Christians and Churches But 3. He saith If for this reason such Punishments she must be said to tear out their Hearts and destroy such as she cannot deceive what is to be the Character of this Preacher's Church which by the consent of Bishops is fenced with such Laws as punishes with loss of Goods Imprisonment and Death not only those who leave her Communion but likewise those who were never members of it But we are not concern'd for the present so much to understand what the Preacher's Church is as that Church which the Preacher is not of Was there never no Tearing or Destroying elsewhere Yes surely somewhat looks that way I cannot say saith our Author but that rash Zeal headlong Revenge or detestable Avarice may have hurried some of ours upon such barbarous attempts But certainly never did any Christians deliberately and with counsel thus deeply engage themselves in Blood. So that if he is to be credited if there have been Barbarous Attempts it was only rash zeal c. but not deliberate not with Counsel and Law. And it has been only some that have been thus hurried to such attempts but not a considerable Body among them and much less such as have had the Supreme Regiment in their Church As for the Laws the Preacher's Church is fenced with our Author surely knows from what occasion they arose and whose practices they were that gave birth to them and he ought to know again that the Laws in their Execution never produced such Barbarous Attempts as what he calls their own rash Zeal Headlong Revenge and Detestable Avarice So that if Law and no Law be compared the state of no Law if such it was has been far more mischievous than that of Law. But were there never any Christians that did thus deliberately and with counsel engage themselves in Blood as he saith the Preacher's Church has done What thinks he of the Church of Rome are they not Christians And were there never any such things deliberately and with Counsel perpetrated amongst them Have they no Councils no Laws that touch upon this point And were there never any Christians engaged in Blood upon pursuance of those Laws Is there no such thing as Excommunicating and Anathematizing Hereticks among them No delivering over persons so convicted and condemned to the Secular Power And is there no such thing as compelling such Secular Powers to exterminate those Hereticks out of their Dominions Is there no Confiscations of Goods Imprisonment no Death for such as are obstinate And were there never Persons Families Countries that suffer'd under Crusado's issued out against them in obedience to such Laws Canons and Decrees Surely our Author is much to seek in the state of his present Church if he is ignorant of this and a thousand times more than I shall now tell him and is very ignorant in the state of the Preacher's Church he has left if he thinks his New Mother falls short of the old as he saith But if he saith one thing and thinks another how fit he may be to be a Member of the Church he is now in I know not but surely he could be no fit Member then of the Church he left For a Conclusion of this I shall crave our Author's patience to turn to the Lateran Council under Innocent the Third Can. 3. and he will see I have not said this without Book or wrong'd his Church however he may have wrong'd the Preacher's Church in his account of it 3. The Absurdity of Auricular Confession is endless where a man unlades himself of all his sins by whispering them into the Priests Ears Of this he saith it 's a Calumny and Misrepresentation since no Catholicks teach that Only whispering sins in the Ears of a Priest is sufficient for their Remission Nor doth the Preacher say that only whispering is sufficient for he must needs know that there is the making up their Cross and saying Mea Culpa and many other things to be done Where then is the Calumny and Misrepresentation Is it in the Vnlading But why is not that as fit as expiating which is the phrase used by their own Catechism where they are taught
that the Faithful ought to be in nothing more solicitous than to take care to expiate their Soul by Confession Is it because it 's called whispering For what then serve their Boxes and why is it call'd a Seal Is it because of the easiness of it That is the case at the last For saith he every one will see how insincere this Preacher was in saying that a man unlades himself c. To make his Followers believe the Papists to be so sottish as to think their sins forgiven by a whisper only He may e'ne turn his anger upon his own Church for teaching this Doctrine for from thence the Preacher learn'd it which saith The Sacrament of Confession was graciously instituted on purpose to supply the place of Contrition For further proof of this I remit the Reader to the Apology Assertion 21. 4. Of Transubstantiation where men must renounce all their Five Senses at once Here the Apologist charged our Author with a small Falsification which indeed he has now mended but not acknowledged But he will make up that defect by the force of his Argument for now he seriously undertakes to prove that in Transubstantiation they don't renounce all their Five Senses As for three of them he has nothing to say but then Sight and Hearing are so far from being against that they eminently serve for the proof of it As how If saith he we follow our Hearing which is the sense by which Faith comes we are oblig'd to believe it Christ's words expresly signifie and declare the Sacrament is his Body These words we hear deliver'd by those whom he has appointed to Teach and Instruct the Flock to wit the Pastors of the Church these words we see likewise and read in Holy Scripture So that if we follow our Ears and our Eyes directed by the Word of God we are bound to believe this Mystery and consequently do not Renounce all our Five Senses at once Well! but do we hear Christ thus declaring No but we hear the Church Has the Church then such an Organical voice to speak as we have Ears to hear No but the Church teaches by its Pastors But are the Pastors we hear all Infallible in their Teaching And are we to believe them although they teach contrary to sense and reason There indeed he has lost the Case But however he brings in Sight to his relief For these words saith he we see likewise and read in Holy Scripture And whilst we let both our Senses and Reason be immediately directed by God's Word which is Infallible we more reverence the Scriptures and believe upon better Grounds than the Protestants Thus we are at last led to a Private Spirit and the Protestant way of resolving Faith into the Scriptures without need of any Infallible Interpreter For 't is but letting our Senses and Reason be immediately directed by God's Word which is Infallible and we may soon be satisfied I heartily thank our Author for this free Concession for these are the Grounds Protestants do believe upon But yet he will needs have it that they believe upon better Grounds than the Protestants This I am apt to think he will no more be able to prove than that they Reverence the Scriptures more than Protestants However this he attempts and gives this reason for that Protestants let natural Objects ever about Mysteries of their Faith have the direction of their Senses in which they are so often deceived rather than the Word of God which cannot deceive them But where has the Word of God taught us that we are not to judg of Natural Objects by those Senses which he has given us to judg of Natural Objects by Will he undertake to provâ— this also When he himself acknowledges that to frame a judgment of the nature or substance of a thing we must depend upon the information of sense and that the common and natural way is to judg according to the relation the senses give from the external and natural accidents of the thing And now is not a Wafer a Sensible Object and are we not to judg of it according to the Relation the Senses give of it and from its external and natural accidents How will our Author salve this difficulty That he proceeds in after this manner But if we desire to frame a true judgment as if the other was a false one of what is the Nature and Substance of such an Object not according to a Natural Being but according to the Divine Power and what it may have of Supernatural the Senses ought not to be laid aside but we must consider here too the information these give not now from the Natural Accidents but from the Word of God. I should have thought the Conclusion to be infer'd from hence would rather be the Senses ought to be laid aside forasmuch as we are not in such case to judg of the Natural Accidents according to what they report For I must confess he is one of the first I have met with that has improved the Argument this way and that appeals to the Senses for the proof of Transubstantiation which their Church so cautiously warns them against in this matter But he will illustrate this by an instance in another matter A Friend saith he sends me a transparent Stone of which when I would make a judgment I cannot do it without the information of my Senses These may inform me two ways either by looking upon the thing it self or by reading the Letter sent along with it or the report of the Bearer If I take the information of my Senses from the view of the Stone I judg it to be a pebble if from the Letter wrote by an excellent Artist and the Bearer a skilful Jeweller I judg it to be a true Diamond upon their authority and greater skill Now in which judgment of these ought I to acquiesce Certainly in this last and yet in so doing I hope I should not renounce all my Five Senses at once So since my Senses assure me from Scripture and the Pastors of God's Church that the Sacrament is Christ's Body I am bound in reason to judg of it so rather than from the Natural Accidents to judg it to be Bread So that in thus believing this Mystery we do not renounce but follow our Senses But his Instance reaches not the Case 1. Because the judging whether a Transparent Stone be a Counterfeit or a Diamond is not a matter of mere sense but judgment skill and experience and belongs to an Artist But Sense will teach every one whether it be a Stone or a Pea hard or soft transparent or opacous But now the Case before us is whether what we see is a bit of Bread or the Body of a Man whether it 's broken or whole c. And therefore to put the case right and make it parallel he must suppose the Stone to be a known Diamond as known to him it 's sent to as to
him that sent it and that the Letter and Bearer both affirm this small Stone which he now holds betwixt his fingers and knows by his Senses to be a Stone and not a Man is yet the great Mogul in person and so is every Diamond besides that comes over and yet that Prince is still in his own Country Must that person now because of their Authority and greater skill think himself bound to acquiesce in their judgment against the testimony of sense or must he not renounce his senses to do it 2. He supposes further that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is as plainly contained in Scripture as it is in the Letter that the Transparent Stone then sent is a Diamond But that he knows we deny and when he can find these or the like words This Bread is turn'd into my Natural Body or is upon Consecration my true Substantial Body it will be time enough to prepare a further Answer for him The Question being not whether what God teaches is not to be believed but whether he hath so taught So that it still remains true what the Preacher charged upon him that in believing Transubstantiation a man must renounce his five Senses at once even hearing it self which will not only teach us to distinguish betwixt the Host's and the Priest's falling into the water though we are blindfold but we must in their way renounce that Sense to believe it when we hear all Mankind concurring in it that the report of Sense is to be believed and that in our Author's words To frame a judgment of the nature or substance of a thing we must depend upon Sense 5. The Pope alone cannot err and all others without some of his Assistance cannot but err Here are two Propositions 1. The Pope cannot err This our Author now calls an Opinion of some School-Divines whereas the Apologist shewed it to be the prevailing Opinion of their Church whether in respect of number or authority It 's the most common opinion of almost all Catholicks as Bellarmin It 's the Catholick Truth and what all Catholick Doctors teach in these days saith Suarez But to this not a word 2. All others cannot but err Here our Author is guilty of a new Misrepresentation It is charged upon us saith he because we believe the members of our Church to be fallible that therefore they cannot but err Where he changes the Proposition into a Conclusion by foysting in the word Therefore and then running it down as a most Illogical and absurd consequence but let him answer for the faults of it whose conseqeunce it is The consequence then be to himself and let the Proposition be the Preacher's that all others without some of his assistance cannot but err This is absolutely false saith our Author and so say I too but it is true Popery Let their Catechism decide the Case to that I appeal which thus delivers the sense of their Church upon it But as this one Church which the Pope of Rome is at the Head of Sect. 15. cannot err in delivering the Doctrine of Faith and Manners seeing it 's governed by the Holy Ghost So all the rest which assume to themselves the name of a Church must of necessity be engaged in the most pernicious Errors of Doctrine and Manners as being led by the spirit of the Devil Now here is the whole Calummy at large If men submit to the Pope and are in his Church they have the benefit and assistance of his Infallibility and are under the Guidance of it as secure as in the Ark of Noah but if they leave it they are drown'd in error and perdition And surely while they are in actual Error they cannot but err according to the known Axiom Quicquid est quamdiu est necesse est esse Because the Apologist before was modest and having not seen the Sermon it self and so not fully understanding the sense of it would neither too hastily condemn or acquit but after he had said what he thought fit upon it concludes If the Preacher went beyond this what Author or Authors he had for it I know not they do not at present occur to me our Author begins to exult saying It 's such a Consequence as the Apologizer himself knows not how to justifie nor need not as a Consequence for that 's his own and yet he has not goodness enough to acquit us from so foul a Calumny The matter it seems is foul and is prov'd upon them let him now she his goodness in confessing the Charge or more of his strength to prove it a Calumny Eighth Character of a Pulpit-Papist He is professedly edified in ignorance by his Church Praying and Prophesying in an Vnknown Tongue They make no other use or account of Confession than what profest Drunkards do of Vomiting The first shall be considered in another place Char. 14. As to the second The Apologist shew'd what is the sense of the word Prophesie in the 1 Cor. 14. which the Preacher there refer'd to viz. that the Apostle there understands by it the expounding the Articles of the Christian Faith and of the Scriptures that contain it But here our Author grievously mistakes him when he adds and to be the same as Preaching For that he affirmed not as well knowing that the Apostle is to be otherwise understood than of Vulgar Preaching 1. Because the Apostle there distinguishes it from Doctrine v. 6. 2. Because of the way it was exercised in when one spoke after another agreeably to the custom of the Jewish Doctors in their Synagogues of whom Philo saith that one read the Bible and another of the more skilful 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 passing through places not understood expâ—undâ—d them 3. Because it was an extraordinary gift by Revelation v. 29 30 31 32. and reckoned as such amongst them c. 12.10 13.2.9 2. The Apologist shew'd farther it was not reasonable to fix this sence upon the Preacher because he must needs know it to be otherwise To this our Author briskly returns Marry if they never Preached contrary to what they knew this would be a good Rule And he has found it by woful experience to be a hard task to discover it though it has been plainly made out that some write contrary to what they know 3. He shew'd farther that the Preacher was speaking about Worship and so consequently it must be what is so accounted and therefore that this must be rather the Reading of Lessons out of Scripture and Hymns which are sometimes call'd Prophesie 1 Chron. 25.1 and which are in their Church-Service in an Vnknown Tongue This our Author passes by as also the Challenge following it But yet he will have it a Calumny whilst he asserts a thing of the Papists which in the common acceptation of the word is absolutely false But what if it was the common acceptation of the word if not the acceptation the Apostle takes it in in that place which the Preacher
conclude that this could not be giving leave to sin for so long time to come which so far exceeds the term of mans life But though it gives not leave to sin it 's sure a pardon for sin and he can no more have a pardon for a Thousand years past who has lived but fifty or sixty than have an allowance for a Thousand years to come And the Doctor said not that they grant by Indulgences leave to sin for many Thousand years to come but that they granted Idulgences for many Thousand years to come But what saith our Author to these prodigious numbers of years It 's saith he only the releasing of Penances which being assign'd in proportion to the sins for some sins three years penance for others five might with some careless Christians amount to that degree that for fifty years of life they might possibly have 5000 years penalties due to their sins And we shall add for him the 32000 of Sixtus the 4 th and the ten hundred thousand of John the 22 th Well supposing this account of it to be right and that an Indulgence is only a relaxation of such Penances as are due to the offence Yet what a leave or at least encouragement is here given to sin when a man that has deserved to undergo 5000 or 30000 or ten hundred thousand years of Penance shall by a Bull of a Pope be discharged from all this for saying three short Prayers or five Pater-Nosters five Aves and a Credo But supposing the Sinner is so careless also that after that he has run up the score to so high a sum he has not procured such an Indulgence and that the 5000 and the ten hundred thousand years Penalties remain due where is it that he is to undergo these Penalties And where is it that the Church in his notion appoints assigns and inflicts them After all methinks he had better have said with some of their own Church that the Relaxation doth not avail as far as is promised but it 's so declared that the Faithful might be excited to give and the Church deceives them Thirteenth Character of a Pulpit-Papist This he distributes into nine Particulars 1. If he be false and deceitful to Mankind yet Euge bone serve all is well and he in an instant is thought worthy of a better Kingdom This he saith is absolutely false For this he gives two Reasons 1. That Falshood and deceit are no where recommended or taught by his Church As if his Church would directly establish such Propositions And yet the Council of Constance comes near it when it asserts Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks 2. He saith I am certain no man of what Church soever so guilty can have admittance there but by a sincere repentance and restitution This is the received Doctrine of his Church and I hope in their dealing they practice it as much as any Here he turns off the case in hand from the publick to the private state of affairs and has not one word in vindication of what the Apologist laid to their charge especially in that notorious instance of the Pope's solemn Oration made in the Conclave in commendation of the Assassination of Henry the Third of France As our Author has here broke one sentence of the Preacher's from another and set in the midst what belongs to the Sermon of Alms So he has wholly omitted Assertion 14 th in the Apology viz. If the Pope and his Emissaries say the right hand is the left the Papists are bound to believe it which is there made good by four several Arguments But here our Author is modest and has left it to shift for it self and his Church under the heavy charge of it 2. No man can be a Papist but he whose eyes are blinded by Education or he who puts his own eyes out by Atheism It 's in the Sermon No man Therefore can be a Papist c. which refers to what was there before said and the description the Preacher had given of Popery viz. 1. That the Pope can dispence with the Laws of Nature and against the Old and New Testament 2. That the Word of God is a Nose of Wax a Dumb Judg and dead Ink. 3. That the Pope is another God upon Earth and that if he declares the right hand is the left we ought to believe him And then follows No man therefore can be a Papist but c. The Question here is not about the Lives of Papists as our Author would have it but about the character of Popery And then it remains to be considered whether the Preacher was right in his representation of it and in the Authorities he produces for it But instead of bringing the case to an issue our Author in his Good Advice left out what went before and the Marginal Quotations of what he cited from the Sermon and now has offer'd no manner of Reply to nor so much as taken notice of the Apologist's Argument 3. The Council of Trent expresseth its allowance of picturing the Divinity it self and accordingly the Pictures of the Trinity are ordinarily to be beheld in the Popish Churches This is a new point our Author has substituted perhaps thinking this look's somewhat better than an Answer to that he has omitted but yet I shall take it in my way Here the Preacher 1. Appeals to their Doctrine and for which he quotes the Council of Trent 2. To their practice and use As to the first our Author saith it 's false since the Council delivers just the contrary taking care that if it happens that the Histories of the Holy Scriptures be painted or figured that the people be taught the Divinity is not therefore figur'd or painted as if that could be seen with corporeal eyes or represented in colours Sess. 25. Now here I observe 1. Our Author represents the case as if the Picturing of God and the Trinity in their Churches was much like what Aaron pleads for the Golden Calf I cast it into the fire and there came out this calf as if it was what they find in their Churches have been placed there by they know not whom and are like those that are to be seen it seems in the frontispiece of some Bibles and Common-Prayer-Books of the Church of England that come from an obscure uncertain hand but what they themselves do not regard If it happens c. saith the Council thus far indeed our Author goes with the Council but why did he leave out what immediately follows and why did he not read it as the Council reads it If it happens that sometimes the Histories and Narrations of Scripture be Painted or Figured when that shall be expedient for the unlearned people So that it 's not an accidental thing but designedly done as an Expedient for instructing the unlearned people But however the Preacher saith that of the Council which the Council denies that they picture the Divinity
insinuate as if the 2 d Commandment is never expunged by them which he dares not stand to If it be expunged elsewhere to what purpose doth he refer us to the Bible and Catechisms For if it be in the Bible and Catechisms but not in the Offices of the Church it 's still a true Charge against them And I remember it was both shew'd that it was not in several of their Offices and it was put to him to shew in what publick Offices of their Church it is to be found But however it is in their Bibles but what is this to those that have not the use of the Bible permitted to them However it is in their Catechisms Surely our Author is not sincere For he once confess'd it to be left out in their short Catechisms or if he is improv'd since that time in his Confidence I will produce Catechism after Catechism where it is not such as the Child's Catechism 1678. And as for the Abstracts even in those the two first Commandments are thrust into one and often there is nothing at all of the second but an c. in the place as in the Abstract of the Scripture Catechism An. 1675 which I suppose is that which he himself refers to p. 57. 2. For his Absolution 't is not necessary he should be sorry for his Sin but only for the Penance Here I presumed our Author would have expatiated upon the point and have clear'd their Church if he could from the Imputation charged upon them by the Preacher and maintain'd by the Apologist who shew'd from the Council of Trent their Catechism and the Practice of their Church that a Sorrow for the Penance alone or Attrition with Confession to the Priest is sufficient without Contrition but to all this our Author gives no Reply 3. If this should fail 't is but being at the Charge of an Indulgence or Pope's Pardon that is to purchase so many penny-worth of other mens Merits And this is what is requir'd instead of Regeneration Sanctification and a Godly Life This saith our Author involves an absolute Falsity whilst it supposes that a Papist who is sorry neither for his Sins nor the Punishment that attends them has no more to do than to procure the Pope's Pardon and that this is sufficient instead of Repentance This is a most abominable Doctrine in it self and most injuriously charg'd upon us And yet as abominable Doctrine as it is it 's found and prov'd upon them by the Apologist from the Indulgences granted in their Crusado's and upon other Occasions But saith our Sayer The only ground for it is the Practice of some prostigate Men in the number of which he must then place several of his Popes But to all the Evidence for this our Author saith not a Word Of this let the Reader see before Char. 12. 4. Auricular Confession their great Intelligence and Leiger Nuntio is the main Curb of the Laity whereby the Clergy holds them in aw in being admitted to all their Secrets of States and Families thereby to work their Purposes and Plots 't is a matter of meer Interest and were there no gain in it they would be ashamed of it Of this he saith It 's a most odious Character of an Institution allowed even in the Church of England What is their Auricular Confession as it 's described from the Council of Trent in the Apology an Institution of the Church of England Doth the Church of England hold it necessary jure Divino to Confess to the Priest all and singular mortal Sins even the most Secret whether Acts Thoughts or Desires with all their Circumstances so far as may change the nature of the Sin and without doing which no Absolution is to be given He may as well say Transubstantiation is the Doctrine of the Church of England because they own the Eucharist as their Auricular Confession is an Institution of our Church because it allows and approves Confession in some cases But what saith our Author to the Charge What to the use made of it in intruding into the Secrets of States and Families and to work their Projects What to the Allegations from their own Historians Here the old Refuge is made use of Silence Of this see before Char. 9. n. 3. 5. Ignorance is the Mother of their Devotion which they are bound to by Vow and under the severest Penalties This saith our Author is a great Calumny and an empty Consequence of the Preacher Methinks our Author should not be so brisk upon this Sermon which he has made so extremely bold with sometimes mollifying the Sense of it when it looks two broad upon them at other times sharpning it leaving out and altering as it was here when he made the Preacher say before they are bound to vow Ignorance This he saith the Apologizer pretends to make out But if it be but Pretence why has not the Sayer expos'd him and run down the Instances of St. Benedict Francis Ignatius Loyala I acknowledg the Learning of many of their Fryers and Monks but they are not beholding to their Vows and Rules for their Learning For the more they keep to them the less Learned they will be or else I know not why the Jesuits are not as strictly tied up to their Hours c. as the Benedictines But what is become of Assertion 25. Their avowed Principles are to keep the People in Ignorance Where are we to expect the Answer to what the Apologist there produced in Confirmation of it That 's reserved to a more convenient time See before Char. 8. Here again we want an Answer to what was said on Assertion 26. They teach their People better Manners than to rely upon the all-sufficient Merits of Christ. All which the Apologist did undetake to prove upon them But instead of that our Author throws in a new Instance to make up the Defect viz. 6. They must wholly submit their Reason to an Infallible Judg even so far if one of their greatest Authors say true as to be bound to believe Virtue to be Bad and Vice to be Good if it shall please his Holiness to say so This saith he is a gross Abuse of Bellarmin But first of all what saith he to the general Proposition That they must wholly submit their Reason to the Infallible Judg Is that an Abuse of their Church And setting aside Bellarmin for the present Is there none of his gross Doctrine to be found elsewhere What thinks he if the Pope should declare the right Hand is the left are they bound to believe it This was once call'd a Misrepresentation in the Preacher but their own Lyra was beforehand with him tho our Author had the good manners to leave out the Quotation What thinks he of the Rule of Ignatius That if the Catholick Church define that to be black which appears to be white they are bound to account it to be black What 's think he of meriting by believing an
Heretical Proposition taught by his Bishop These are Cases resolved by them in the Affirmative as the Apologist shew'd in the place quoted by our Author but tho nothing could be objected against those and the like Evidences yet it seems this is a most gross Abuse of Bellarmin an inexcusable Aspersion a Forgery of the Preacher But why all this Because saith he these words are not his Assertion but an Inconvenience he argues from in proof of what he had before asserted that the Pope is Infallible But if it be an Inconvenience it's what he is contented should be taken for an Assertion It 's plainly a case he puts The general Proposition in proof indeed was that the Pope could not err in things of themselves good and evil as it 's a matter of Faith the Catholick Faith teaching Virtue to be good and Vice to be evil The next Proposition in confirmation of it is that the Church is bound to believe according to the Pope's Resolution of the case Vnless she would sin against conscience The next is supposing that the Pope should command Vice and forbid Virtue then saith he the Church is bound to acquiesce in his judgment in all doubtful matters to do what he commands and not do what he forbids and lest perhaps she act against conscience she is bound to believe that to be good which he commands and that evil which he forbids That the Pope cannot err is the Principle he holds to but yet to secure the duty of the people he breaks off the Argument and lets it all issue in the point of the Churches obedience and submission lest they should at last find his Holiness has thus err'd Well saith he however if it should be so yet as he said before in another case it belongs not to Subjects to doubt of these things but simply to obey And how timorous soever our Author is to own it how solicitous to bury it under the rubbish of Abuses Aspersions and Forgeries yet others are not so bashful Even Bellarmin himself elsewhere doth admit it with some little qualification In a good sense saith he Christ gave to Peter the power of making sin not to be a sin and of what was not sin to be sin Bellarmin indeed saw further than our Author he know well that these Metamorphoses had been practised by the Papal Authority and if they were bound to believe that to be good which he commands and approve that which he decrees when what was in it self unlawful was made lawful by his determination there was no disputing Of this we have a notable instance in Pope Martin the Fifth who after mature consultation did dispense with one that had taken his Sister to Wife because of the Scandals that otherwise must have happen'd upon their Separation 7. Their Church-men must live a single life whether honestly or no it makes no matter Our Author after his wonted manner declares this to be utterly false it being no indifferent thing in our Church whether the Clergy live honestly or no. In this Assertion the Apologist observed there were two Points contained 1. That the Clergy in the Church of Rome must and are obliged by the Order of their Church and their own Vow to lead a single life 2. That there is more care taken that they live single than that they live honestly But this saith our Author is to fall much below the Preacher but why so what mighty difference is there betwixt saying as the Preacher that whether they can do it honestly it makes no matter or more care is taken that they live single than that they live honestly For certainly not much matter is made of that which they take no reasonable care in But however he will not allow the proof of it offer'd in the Apology Which saith he is this chiefly because the punishment for a Clergy-man that marries is much greater than for one that keeps his Concubine The matter of fact he allows and indeed it was undeniably prov'd against them But this he saith is not to the purpose it being as if I should say that according to the Principles of the Church of England it matters not whether her Members turn Turks or no And then should bring this for proof because she has severe penalties even of death it self for such as become Papists but none at all for those that turn Turks But this is far from the case for Laws are made according to the state and exigence of Affairs and the Cases that fall out or probably may fall out and the damage done thereby to the Community But where there is no danger or damage in prospect it 's a ridiculous thing to make a Law. The danger here was from the Papists and their practices against the Government which was the reason of those Laws but there is no danger of the Members of its Church turning Turks which is the reason why there is no Law against it And his Argument would be much as if it should be said That according to the Principles of the Greek Church it matters not whether her Members turn Heathens and then should bring this for proof of it because she has severe Penalties even death it self for those that turn Turks for they that so turn are not received into the Church without as openly renouncing as they profest Mahometism which is death but none at all for those that turn Heathens If he had put the case right it should have been thus That by the Laws of England it is death to turn Papist and a Fine of 10 s. to turn Turk in the same circumstances of danger then it had look'd speciously enough that they took more care that they should not turn Papists than Turks And so we have brought the case home For if when a Clergy-man is found married he must be separated or depriv'd but if he keeps a Concubine he is Fin'd but 10 s it 's evident which is the worst crime in the opinion of the Church of Rome Our Author saith This was the chief Argument of the Apologist and if so methinks when he had dismist this by a comparison he might at once have blown off what remains But though he has not thought fit to set the rest before the Reader yet I shall offer them to his Consideration In further confirmation of this Charge the Apologist appeal'd to their Allowances as Priests Marriage is absolutely forbid without any Relaxation or Dispensation but Concubinage has been openly allow'd and licensed it 's further confirmed by their Resolution of the Case when they account Concubinage and Fornication a less sin in a Priest than Marriage These it seems were inconsiderable so neither the Argument nor the Authorities vouch'd for them deserved an Answer And for company our Author has dismist also Assertion 28. viz. The reason why the Clergy are bound to live single is for fear lest having Wives and Children they should give the State security of
their Obedience to their Sovereign I have now done with our Author 's 14 Characters which consist partly of matter of Fact and Observation partly of Doctrine of their own and partly of Inferences from and Arguings upon them In the two former of which which are the proper Subject of Representation I have shew'd there has been nothing charged upon them by the Preachers as to Principle Practice or Fact which they had not good Evidence for and was so far from being a Fiction of their own that they condemn them out of their own mouths As for the latter it belongs not to the Case before us but yet that nothing might be wanting to give our Author satisfaction the Arguments produced by the Preachers against the Church of Rome have been considered and justified So that in Conclusion I may here challenge him to shew that there is any Principle or Doctrine which is not a Principle of theirs or a Practice which is not a Practice or a Consequence which is not truly inferr'd from them I do not think that a Misrepresentation can be justly chargeable upon a mere Mistake no more than it is upon the inconsequence of an Argument But it 's a Wonder to me that amongst the Ten thousand Pulpits as he reckons them and the multitude of Writers in the Church of England and under all the Provocations they have met with and in the heat of Argument there can be nothing material produced against them notwithstanding the utmost diligence could be used and the reading of Volumes of Sermons on purpose to make a Discovery Were they indeed guilty of Misrepresentation and that there was No praying to Images in the Church of Rome No compounding with Heaven for Vnforsaken Sins No worshipping Bread and Wine as God himself No saying Prayers without Attention No Divisions among themselves No renouncing their Senses c. Yet we know where these would be match'd when our Adversaries tell us The Protestants have no God no Faith no Religion but are meer Atheists and worship the Devil as Possevine and Prateolus teach That to run down Popery tho he know nothing of it is to be a true Son of the Church of England That Interest and Passion puts the Preachers upon arguing in Defiance to their own Conscience which our Author it seems knows better than themselves Or as a late Author That Libertinism is the sole Profession and the very soul of all Sectaries that is those that are not in Communion with the Church of Rome That the false Church that is all but themselves and Religion hath no other but vile Hypocrites That it Professeth the broad and large way leading to Destruction granting Libertinism to the highest degree of Wickedness in one kind or another Into which whoever enters for saking the true begins presently to leave all Goodness and becomes an outcast and scum of the Earth as to all Wickedness and Prophaness That it enjoys no true Spirituality but brainsick Phancy and there was never any sound Spiritual Book written by them They have the Lord in their Mouth but their hearts are far from him That by reason of its wicked Obstinacy and Libertinism it brings all the Professors thereof to Disobedience and takes away all neighbourly Love and just Dealing one with another and hereby bringing Ruin and Confusion upon all Commonwealths c. If so much had been said of the Church of Rome what a rout had here been What a mustering up of Misrepresentations Calumnies and Abuses What arguing in Defiance to their own Conscience But I will here excuse the Author of the Mirror for he that can be so ignorant as to tell us that the Creed of Pius 4 th which he at large rehearses was the constant Profession of Faith in the days of Austin the Monk An. 596. and can quote that Monk's Letter to Pope Gregory for it may for ought I know think as he writes and so his Representations of the Sectaries and of the Profession of Pope Gregory's Faith be equally true and what he equally understands But our Author is not alike excusable For whatever he may know concerning the Days of Austin the Monk I know not but what he writes about belongs more to his own and so if he falls in with Misrepresentation his Conscience must be the more concerned And which after all he is so far from making good that he is forced to use all the Shifts that one conscious to himself of infirmity and subtle enough to conceal it can contrive which for a Conclusion to the whole I shall now a little enquire into 1. The first Artifice he uses is Disclaiming and Renouncing after this manner If to be a Papist is to be that which is describ'd in these Characters I declare I am none and that I am so far from undertaking Apologies for men of such Practices and Belief that I here profess a hearty Detestation of all such Engagements If this was so I concluded I had certainly fall'n into the very mouth of Hell-Doctrines I as much abhor as Hell and Damnation it self If this be to be a Papist then certainly to be a Papist is to be the worst of Men. And 't is so far from being a doubt whether he be a Christian that 't is certain he can be none and that if he be bound to believe and live according to the Principles here laid down he can have no right to Salvation Whatever Church would receive him with the Profession of all those scandalous Doctrines the Pulpits charge against us I would be sure to be no Member of it and if there were no other but that Church amongst Christians I would then begin to look towards Turky Nay he advances further Whoever will be a good Papist must instead of assenting to disclaim every point that is here set down by the Pulpits as Articles of his Religion Let us now try our Author in some one of these Scandalous and Abominable Doctrines who comes thus arm'd Cap-a-pie with Detestations Abhorrencies Disclaimings and see whether he be invulnerable What thinks he of the first of those he calls Follies and Abominations viz. praying to Images and attributing Satisfaction and Expiation to a Crucifix of Wood and Stone What doth he think of the Office of Consecration where it 's pray'd that God would bless the Wood of the Cross that it may be a saving Remedy to Mankind a Stability of Faith the Redemption of Souls c How would he behave himself in the Company of Cardinal Capisucci who maintains that the Worship is to the Image How in the presence of the Arch-Bishop of Bourdeaux who defended the Curate's to the Word the Wood against Imbert's to Christ and not to the Wood Could he bear up to them and tell them it 's Infamous that they are no Christians and have no right to Salvation Which doth he think would there be the Misrepresenter our Author that
and his Adversaries be eternally silenced But if the Reader casts his Eye a little back he will see from Point to Point how he has left the Cause to shift for it self And whereas now it had become him to have discharg'd himself from so gross an Imputation we must be contented to have one answer to that and all the rest that they are too impertinent to deserve any Such we are to account the Charge of his Representing by halves of continuing his Misrepresentations without Replying to the Answers of his not answering the View of his common but vain Allegation that we pretend to know Popery better than they themselves of his abusing Mr. Montague of his Insincerity particularly when he offers to receive us into the Church of Rome upon his Representing Terms and when he professes to detest some Doctrines and Practices charged upon the Church of Rome c. But here he will say I make too much haste for the two last Points he has reply'd to in the Close But truly it 's after such a manner and so faintly as if he hop'd 't would be overlook'd As for Example As to the first he Replies This offer may be said to have been answer'd over and over But the matter of Fact defeats all those Answers and is a Demonstration that they are nothing but shuffling Now what is this matter of Fact and where is this Demonstration That follows For whilst a man may be received upon those Terms and yet cannot be received unless he assents to the Faith of the Church 't is evident that in that Character the faith of the Church is truly Represented Any one that reads this would be apt to think that the matter of Fact had never been questioned or had been prov'd to a Demonstration beyond possibility of Reply But besides what has been before answer'd to it over and over as he confesses it was particularly considered by the Answerer to his Reflections and the offer 1. shew'd to be a ludicrous one made without good Faith and with no other meaning than to put some colour upon his deceitful Characters of a Papist 2. It was replied further that suppose we could accept and should be accepted upon the Terms he propounds yet we have no security that when we are in this Representer either can or will if he could save us from being prest to profess and practice that Popery which he either denies or conceals And that because on the one hand we are certain that the prevailing part of his Church holds that which he either rejects from his Faith or says nothing of and that agreeably to their Councils and publick Offices And on the other hand we have no reason to believe his Authority in the Roman Church to be considerable enough to carry on his Representation when the turn is once serv'd Here the Answerer appeals to the case of Imbert of the Physitian at Goa and last of all to that of the poor Citizens of Orange p. 39. The Answerer shews further that we have not any good reason to trust him he having not given us any reasonable assurance that himself rejects that Popery which he exclaims against And last of all he puts this question Whether he would refuse us if we desired to come into the Roman Communion with that which we call old Popery To all which our Author replies after this manner 1. Our new Adversary has one cavil here to put in viz. That the Character of the Papist represented is not a good Character because the Faith of a Papist as stated under each Article is not All his Faith. Our Author has been so unkind as not to refer us to the Page for these words he pretends to quote from the Answâ—â— and I think after a careful perusal I may safely lodg them at his own door as an instance of his Misrepresenting Faculty Any one that knew the Answerer and is conversant in his way of writing knows well he had too clear a head to express himself in so insipid and nonsensical a way as our Author would fasten upon him and so as to argue against the truth of the Character because the Faith of a Papist as stated under each Article is not all his Faith. But however the Argument is not so obscure as his Answer to it is impertinent as might be shewn were it to the purpose before us 2. He proceeds This man has still another scruple That if he should come into our Church upon the terms I have proposed whether I will be security that he shall not be prest to profess and practise that Popery which I have either deny'd or conceal'd To this our Author answers after a surprizing manner Marry saith he if he means by that Popery the Pulpit-Popery I 'le give him the same security I have my self viz. the Assistance of the Holy Ghost promised to his Church which will never permit it to lead her members into such Abominations He may have the security too of a good conscience which cannot be prest to the profession of so much evil But what is his security worth or how can he plead the Holy Ghost's Assistance for not being led by her into such Abominations when she pleads it for their belief and practice Our Author would be understood that he calls not an Image or Crucifix out of its name when he saith it's an Image of wood or stone and that he speaks consonantly to the sense of his Church when he saith the Image is not adored or pray'd to but Christ or the Saint in the Image And yet the French Physician was clap'd up in the Inquisition for the former and the Condomian Imbert was imprison'd for the latter And surely the Inquisitors of Goa and Archbishop of Bourdeaux are themselves of that Church which he saith has the promise of the Holy Ghost c. And who shall decide this case or what security have we against 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—tians fate if at Goa or of Imbert's if in the Diocess of Bourdeaux Well but however saith he a man may have the security of a good conscience which cannot be prest to the profession of so much evil How not be prest What is pressing if the Dragoons of Orange be not What if not the Prison of Bourdeaux What if not the Inquisition at Goa O but Conscience cannot be prest to the profession of it A very comfortable inducement to comply with the Terms of the Representer For you may come into the Church upon them and if whâ—n come in the Church will oblige you to profess abominable things however Conscience is free and the Inquisition it self cannot force it and if you be sincere you will never be prest by that or any external violence to the profession of so much evil It 's well our Author is not at Goa to have his sincerity try'd But yet he hath not done For he adds 3. In this the Answer above given he may see his