man in Mind of what he has heard or read of Christs dying upon the Cross but if he know nothing of the History of Christs Sufferings the bare seeing a Crucifix can teach him nothing Children may be taught by Pictures which make a more strong impression on their fancies than Words but a Picture cannot teach and at best this is but a very childish way of learning 3. But devout Pictures are of great use in Prayer the sight of which cures distractions and recals his wandering thoughts to the right object and as certainly brings some good things into his mind as an immodest Picture disturbs his heart with naughtiness But can men read their Prayers as well as learn the Articles of their Creed in a Picture too For even good thought are a distraction in Prayers when they call us from attending to what we ask of God and it is to be feared then that Pictures themselves may distract us unless we are sure they will suggest no thoughts to us at such a time but what are in our Prayers the Church of Rome indeed teaching her Children such Prayers as they do not understand and therefore cannot imploy their thoughts may make Pictures very necessary to entertain them but if our thoughts and our words ought to go together as it must be if the Devotion of Prayers consists in praying devoutly an Image which cannot speak and a Prayer which is not understood are like to make Men equally devout should Men when they look upon a Cruci fix run over in their Minds all the History of our Saviours Sufferings should the sight of our Saviour hanging on the Cross affect us with some soft and tender Passions at the remembrance of him which it is certain the daily and familiar use of such Pictures cannot do yet what is this to Prayer Such sensible Passions as the sight of a Picture can raise in us are of little or no account in Religion true devout Affections must spring from an inward Vital Sense which the Picture cannot give to those who want it and is of no use to those who have it Thus I have as briefly as the Subject would permit examined the Doctrine of Praying to Saints and Worshipping Images according to the Exposition of the Bishop of Condâ—m to whom our Author appeals in these Points and this I hope will satisfie him what we think both of the Bishops Authority and his Exposition and how little we like Popery in its best dress And now it is time to return to our Protester And I hope by this time he sees that there is something more needful to clear the Matters in Controversie between us than barely M. de Meax his Authority and therefore he resolving not to look beyond the Exposition delivered by this Prelate I might here very fairly take my leave of him but I cannot do this tho' he be a perfect Stranger to me without dismissing him civilly with a Complement or two more 1. Then as to the Invocation of Saints he observes that I deny the Bishop has limited it only to their Prayers which I own is a mistake and this is such a Complement as must never be expected from a Doctor of the infallible Church for he had occasion enough for it had he had a Heart to do it but I hope I have abundantly made amends for this now by a fair and particular Examination of the Bishops Exposition as to that Point and indeed M. de Meaux himself gave the occasion for this by not owning it in its due place when he expounded the Decree of the Council which teaches them to fly to the aid and assistance of the Saints as well as to their Prayers but shuffling it into the middle of a sentence at some distance where no Man would expect it When Expositors dodge at this rate they may thank themselves if they are mistaken 2ly and 3dly He takes Sanctuary again in the Bishops Authority to justifie his renouncing the Popes personal Infallibility and the deposing Doctrine as no Articles of Faith But tho' the Bishop indeed do wave some things as he says which are disputed of in the Schools as no Articles of Faith yet he does not say what they are much less name the Popes personal Infallibility and the deposing power and one would think he could not mean the deposing power which is determined by General Councils and therefore must be an Article of Faith The Truth is the Bishop has here plaid a very cunning Game and men may make what they please of his words as their interest or inclination leads them if Protestants object the Doctrine of the Popes infallibility and Deposing power he can easily tell them that these are School disputes and not Articles of Faith if the Pope or Roman Doctors quarrel at it he has then said nothing in disparagement of the Popes infallibility and Deposing power but has taught that Fundamental Principle on which these Doctrines depend as in Truth he has when he makes the Primacy of Peter the Cement of Unity and gives this Primacy to the Bishops of Rome as Successors of the Prince of the Apostles to whom for this cause we owe that Obedience and Submission which the holy Councils and Fathers have always taught the Faithful though they have not said one word till of late of any such obedience and submission due to them especially when we consider what he means by the Primacy of the Pope that he is a Head established by God to conduct his whole Flock in his paths which gives him a Supremacy over bishops and Secular Princes and how naturally this infers infallibilty and a power of deposing Heretical Princes every one sees and we have reason to believe the Bishop expounded his Doctrine to this Orthodox Sence in his Letters to the Pope from the Popes Testimonial that his Letters shewed his submission and respect to the Apostolick See As for the Popes personal infallibility our Author in his Reflections p 8. denies it to be an Article of Faith because it is not positively determined by any General Council in my reply p. 47. I told him this is no proof that it is not an Article of Faith because the infallibility of the Church it self which they all grant to be an Article of Faith was never positively determined by any General Council and therefore some Doctrines may be Articles of Faith which never were determined by any General Council and I added that if the Church be infallible the Pope must if he be the Head of the Church for infallibility ought in reason to accompany the greatest and most absolute Power but our Author thought fit to let fall this dispute and to resolve all into the Bishop of Condoms Authority His Proposal which follows I have already answered without a smile but I cannot forbear smiling once more to hear him complain of disputing which he says belongs not to the Representer who being to represent and
to which they refer he has taken another course with Mr. Sutcliff has set down only half sentences and concealed both the authorities and the reasons he alledges for what he saies which is in a strict and proper sense to misrepresent All that he answers to that distinction between representing and disputing which he allows to be good is this That the common people do not distinguish these matters but look upon all to be equally the Faith of Papists That is if they hear any man call the worship of Images Idolatry they do as verily think that Papists believe Idolatry lawful as he saies in his Character as that they worship Images risum teneatis and thus much for Representing The next dispute is about the rule of Representing In his Introduction to A Papist Misrepresented c. he appeals to the Council of Trent and Catechism ad Parâ—chos this the Answerer likes well but tells him 1. That he shows no authority he hath to interpret that Rule in his own sense against the Doctrine of many others as zealous for their Church as himself as he does in the Popes Personal Infallibility and the Deposing Power which he saies are no Articles of Faith though other zealous Papists say they are and asks what authority he has to declare the sence of the Council of Trent when the Pope has expresly forbidden all Prelates to do it and reserved it to the Apostolical See 2. The Answerer tells him That he leaves out in the several particulars an essential part of the character of a Papist since the Council of Trent which is that he doth not only believe the Doctrine there defined to be true but to be necessary to Salvation 3. That he never sets down what it is which makes any Doctrine to become a Doctrine of their Church 4. That he makes use of the Authority of particular Divines as delivering the sense of their Church when there are so many of greater Authority against them whereas if we proceed by his own rule the greater number is to carry it These were all very material objections and did deserve to be considered but as for the three last he takes no notice of them in his Reflections and says very little to the first The Answerer had asked How the Council of Trent comes to be the Rule and Measure of Doctrine to any here in England where it was never received p. 4. To this he answers in his Reflections p. 5. That the Council of Trent is received here and all the Catholick World as to all its Definitions of Faith But I told him in my Reply p. 51. that the meaning of that Question was not Whether it was owned by private Catholicks but by what publick Act of Church or State it had been received in England as it had been in other Catholick Countries and this he says nothing to and therefore might as well have let it alone at first I reinforced the Bull of Pope Pius 4th against any private mans interpreting the Council according to his own private Sense shewed the Reason and Policy of it and what a presumption it is for a private man when their Divines differ in their Opinions about any Doctrine to call one Opinion Popery Represented and the other Popery Misrepresented as our Author has done in the Articles of the Popes personal Infallibility and the Deposing Power as if Bellarmin and Suarez must not pass for good Catholicks but for Misrepresenters because they do not believe in these Points as our Representer does and this he takes no further notice of But to prove that he has not interpreted the Council according to his own private Sense he appeals to the Bishop of Condom's Exposition which is approved by the Pope himself and therefore has the Authority of the See Apostolick To this I answered that Bellarmin's Controversies had as great an Attestation from Pope Sixtus 5. as the Bishop of Condom's from this present Pope to which he gives no Answer and I observed from Canus that the Popes private Approbation is not the Authority of the See Apostolick but only his Judgment ex Cathedra and to this he gives no Answer but Shuffles a little about a private malicious and inconsiderate Judgment which I have now answered and makes a new Flourish about the several Translations and great approbation which has been given to this Exposition which I have again said something to tho I need not have said any thing had I before seen the Preface to the Answer to the Bishop of Condom and I guess our Author will never mention it more and then what becomes of his Characters He denied the Popes Personal Infallibility to be an Article of Faith because not positively determined by any General Council In answer to which I told him that other Roman Divines did believe it an Article of Faith That the Churches Infallibility was not determined by any General Council no more than the Popes Infallibility and yet was owned by them as an Article of Faith that if there be any Infallibility in the Church the Pope as the Supreme Pastor has the fairest pretence to it For Infallibility ought in reason to accompany the greatest and most absolute Power and this he has passed over silently Next comes the Deposing Power which has as evidently been declared in General Councils as Transubstantiation and how comes this to be no Article of Faith To this he answers that it wants an Anathema and that it is not decreed as a Doctrinal point but as a matter of Discipline and Government This I examined at large in my Reply and he is much concerned at it that I put him out of his Representing humour by disputing but he thought himself bound in Civility to say something to it and truly he has been wonderfully Civil as appears from what I have already said in Answer to him The Answerer in his Introduction had proved the Deposing Doctrine on him from two sayings of his own That the orders of the supreme Pastor are to be obeyed whether infallible or not and that Popes have own'd the Deposing Doctrine and acted according to it and others are bound to obey their Orders and consequently to act when Popes shall require it according to the Deposing Doctrine To this he answers in his Reflections that he only made a comparison between Civil and Ecclesiastical Power and therefore it is as unjust from hence to infer That all the Orders of the Pope must be obey'd as it would be to say that Subjects must obey their Princes in every thing they command whether it be good or bad and this I told him in my Reply I would acknowledg to be a good answer if he would grant the Deposing Doctrine to be a sin But this I suppose he was unwilling to do and therefore we hear no more of this matter In the next place in his Reflections he finds great fault with the
Imprimatur Martii 29. 1686. C. Alston R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. Ã Sacris Domesticis AN ANSWER TO A DISCOURSE INTITULED Papists Protesting against Protestant-Popery Being a VINDICATION of Papists not Misrepresented by Protestants And Containing A Particular Examination of Monsieur de MEAVX late Bishop of Condom his Exposition of the Doctrine of the CHURCH of ROME in the Articles OF INVOCATION of SAINTS AND THE WORSHIP of IMAGES Occasioned by that Discourse LONDON Printed for John Amery at the Peacock and William Rogers at the Sun both against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet MDCLXXXVI AN ANSWER TO Papists Protesting AGAINST Protestant Popery SINCE the Protester thinks my Answer to his Reflections so great a Complement I am resolved to oblige him a little farther and to complement him very heartily and I see no reason but Complementing may be as good a word for Disputing as Representing is The Reply consisted of two parts 1. Concerning the Misrepresentation of a Papist 2. Concerning the Rule of true Representing and I shall consider what the Protesting Papist says to each of them As for the First a Misrepresenter is so foul a Character that no Man can wonder if we think our selves concern'd to wipe off such an imputation and therefore I expresly denied the charge and made it appear from comparing his own Characters of a Papist Misrepresented and Represented together that we had not charged them falsly in any matter of Fact and therefore are no Misrepresenters for if we charge them with believing and doing nothing but what they themselves confess to be their Faith and Practice wherein is the Misrepresentation Thus I particularly showed that all matters of Fact excepting some points wherein they disown the Doctrine of their own Church in the Character of the Papist Misrepresented are confessed and defended in the Character of the Papist Represented and the Protester himself acknowledges that I have learnedly as he is pleased to speak distinguished between matters of Dispute and of Representation and if so then he ought to own that we do not Misrepresent them and this is all I undertook to prove in the first part of my Reply and for that reason gave it the Title of A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants wholly with relation to his Character of a Papist Misrepresented which I had proved to contain nothing in it which in a strict and proper sense can be called a Misrepresentation We truly relate what the Faith and Practice of the Church of Rome is and this is true Representing and though we say their Faith is erroneous and their Practices corrupt or superstitious contrary to the Laws of God and the usages of the Primitive Church yet whether this be true or false it is no matter of Representation but Dispute though we believe thus of their Faith and Practice we do not charge them with believing so and therefore do not Misrepresent a Papist Whether they or we be in the right is matter of Dispute and not to be determined by Character-making but by an appeal to the Laws of God and the dictates of right Reason and the Authentick Records of the ancient Church While we agree about matter of Fact there can be no Misrepresenting on either side for there is a great deal of difference between a Misrepresentation and a false Judgment of things and thus I hoped the talk of Misrepresenting would have been at an end But our Author though he confesses I am in the right will have us to be Misrepresenters still He says I declare plainly that Popery is really that Antichristian Religion which Protestants say it is that it teaches and practises all those fopperies superstitions and non-sense which have at any time been charged against it by Protestants But I never said any such thing yet but only said and proved that all matters of Fact complained of in the Character of a Papist Misrepresented are owned by himself in the Character of a Papist Represented and this I thought was proof enough that we were no Misrepresenters But the Title of my Reply offends him A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants which he says is a condemnation of the Religion to all those horrid shapes and monstrous forms it has been at any time exposed in by Members of the Reformation by no means If there have been other Misrepresentations of them which our Author has not yet given us an account of I can say nothing to them till I see what they are but my Title related only to my Book and that related only to the Character of a Papist Misrepresented which our Author had given us and I undertook for that then and will defend it still that there is no Misrepresentation in it Of the same nature is what he adds That I tell my Reader in the name of all my Brethren we charge them the Papists with nothing but what they expresly profess to believe and what they practise and thus says the Protester in this one assertion vouches for the truth of all that infamy and prophaneness which is laid at their doors and thus for ought I see I am drawn in for a great deal more than I intended I spoke with reference to his Characters and now I must discharge the scores of all Protestants since the beginning of the Reformation but when a Man 's in he must get out as well as he can but would not one wonder that there should not be one word of his own Characters all this while that instead of defending his own Misrepresentations which he has so unjustly father'd upon us he should be hunting about to pick up some new Misrepresentations for me to answer There must be a reason for this and I believe I can guess what it is But however he takes this occasion to ransack the Writings of Protestants and to see what fine things they have said of Papists and to collect a new Character of a Papist Misrepresented out of them For since all that proceeds from a Popish hand of this nature is suspected and challenged and the double Character of a Papist Misrepresented and Represented about which as the Replier says there is so much pother and noise is questioned as to its method its sincerity and exactness we 'll now follow our Author's call and learn what Popery is from the Pens of Protestants and especially from some of those who are supposed to know what Popery is And thus our Author makes as many turnings and doublings as ever any poor Hare did which was almost run down Because I have proved that his Character of a Papist Misrepresented contains no Misrepresentation in it properly so called therefore forsooth we will not take Characters from a Papist because we confute them as soon as they make them which is not very civil and therefore hoping that we will be more civil to Protestant Characters he turns off the Dispute to them never did any Man take more pains to defend Popery than he does to
prove a Papist to be Misrepresented it seems there is something in the World called Popery which he is very much ashamed of and it is well if it does not prove to be his own beloved Popery at last I had told him as plainly as I could in Answer to his Character of a Papist Misrepresented what I called Popery and what I take to be the general sense of Protestants about it and shewed him evidently that what he calls a Misrepresentation is none nay in most cases I have allow'd his own Character of a Papist Represented and surely there is no Misrepresentation in that unless he has misrepresented a Papist himself and why is he not satisfied with this why so much Zeal to prove us Misrepresenters when we are willing to fall with the Market and to abate as much in the Notion and Idea of Popery as they are pleased to lower it Why must we be bound to justifie that Representation of Popery which some Protestants have formerly made of it when Popery was quite another thing than the Bishop of Condom and the Representer have now made it any more than they are bound to justifie every thing which Thomas Aquinas or Bellarmin or Vasquez have taught for Popery But let us consider that Character he has made of a Papist out of the Writings of Protestants only I must put him in mind that he must still distinguish between matters of Representation and Dispute If the matter of Fact they charge them with be true they are no Misrepresenters as for their Reasons and Arguments I will no more undertake to defend all the reasonings of Protestants than I suppose our Protester will all the reasonings of Papists The first Misrepresenter he brings upon the Stage is John Lord Archbishop of York in his Manual or three small and plain Treatises written for the use of a Lady to preserve her from the danger of Popery And all that I shall say to this is that if what he transcribes out of his Book be a Misrepresentation it is not a Protestant but a Popish Misrepresentation For the Archbishop cites his Authors for what he says as the very Title of the Chapter tells us which I shall here present to the Reader with all the References and Authorities as they are Printed in his Book and leave the Protester to consider of a good Reason why he left all these Authorities out CHAP. VI. Reasons of refusal to leave the Romish Religion collected out of Printed Authors I cannot leave my Religion I. Reason BEcause we must simply believe the Church of Rome whether it teach true or false Stapl. Antidot in Evang. Luk. 10. 16. pag. 528. And if the Pope believe there is no life to come we must believe it as an Article of our Faith Bulgradus And we must not hear Protestant Preachers though they preach the Truth Rhem. upon Tit. 3. 10. And for your Scripture we little weigh it For the Word of God if it be not expounded as the Church of Rome will have it is the word of the Devil Hosius de expresso verbo Dei II. Reason You rely too much upon the Gospel and S. Paul's Epistles in your Religion whereas the Gospel is but a Fable of Christ as Pope Leo the tenth tells us Apol. of H. Stephen fol. 358. Smâ—ton contra Hamilton pag 104. And the Pope can dispense against the New Testament Panormit extra de divortiis And he may check when he pleases the Epistles of S. Paul Carolus Ruinus Concil 109. num 1. Volum 5. And controul any thing avouched by all the Apostles Rota in decis 1. num 3. in noviss Anton. Maria in addit ad decis Rotae nov de Big n. 10. And there is an eternal Gospel to wit that of the Holy Ghost which puts down Christs Cirellus a Carmelite set it forth III. Reason You attribute all your Salvation to Faith in Christ alone Whereas He is the Saviour of Men only but of no Women Dial. of Dives and Pauper compl 6. cited by Rogers upon the Artic. and Postellus in Jesuits Catech. l. 1. cap. 10. For Women are saved by S. Clare Mother Jane Som. in Morn de Eccles. cap. 9. Postellus in Jesuits Catech. Lib. 8. cap. 10. Nay to speak properly S. Francis hath redeemed as many as are saved since his days Conformit of S. Fran. And the blood of S. Thomas à Becket Hor. Beat. Virg. And sometimes one man by his satisfactions redeems another Test. Rhem. in Rom. 8. 17. IV. Reason In your Church there is but one way to remission of sins which you call Faith in Christ but we have many For we put away Our Venials with a little Holy Water Test. Rhem. in Rom. 8. 17. Mortals by 1. Merits of the B. Virg. Hor. B. Virg. 2. The Blood of Becket Ib. 3. Agnos Dei or Holy Lambs Cerem l. 1. t. 7. 4. Little parcels of the Gospel Breviar 5. Becoming Franciscans conf l. 1. fol. 101. 6. A Bishops pardon for 40 days a Cardinals for an 100. days and the Popes for ever Taxa Camer apud Esp. in 1 ad Tim. V. Reason You stand too precisely upon your Sacraments and require a true Faith in the partakers Whereas with us to become a Monk or a Nun is as good as the Sacrament of Baptism Aquin. de Ingres Relig. l. 2. c. 21. And the very true and real Body of Christ may be devoured of Dogs Hogs Cats and Rats Alex. Hales part 4. q. 45. Thom. parte 3. q. 8. art 3. VI. Reason Then for your Ministers every one is allowed to have his Wife or else inforced to live chastly whereas with us the Pope himself cannot dispense with a Priest to marry no more than he can priviledge him to take a Purse Turrianus found fault withal by Cassan. consult art 23. But Whoredom is allowed all the year long See Sparks 's Discovery pag. 13. and constitut Othen de concubit Cleric removend And another sin for June July August which you must not know of Allowed for this time by Sixtus Quartus to all the Family of the Cardinal of S. Lucie Vessel Grovingens tract de indulgent citat à Jacob. Laurent Jesuit lib. pag. 196. vide Jo. Wolâ—â—i lection memorab centen 15. pag. 836. For indeed the wickedness of the Church-men is a prime Argument of the worthiness of the Roman Church Bellar. l. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 14. artic 28. And the Pope can make that righteous which is unrighteous l. 1. Decretal Greg. tit 7. c. 5. And yet can no Man say unto him Sir why do you so In extrav tom 22. titul 5. c. ad Apostolatus VII and last Reason You in the Church of England have cast off the Bishop of Rome whereas the Bishop of Rome is a God Dist. 96. c. satis evidenter Panorm cap. Quanto Abbas The Use and Application of this Doctrine you may find in the next Chapter and a particular proof that some Doctrines of the Roman
Church destroy justice towards Men in all relations as the Popes power of dispensing with the duties of all relations their Doctrines of probabilities of mental reservations that the intention regulates the action that no Faith is to be kept with Hereticks that the Pope may depose Princes and dispose of their Kingdoms pardon nay canonize King-killers and absolve Subjects from their Allegiance c. I know our Author calls all this Misrepresentation but that is not our Dispute now but whose Misrepresentation it is It is plain this is not Protestant but Popish Popery for not Protestants but Papists were the Original Authors And I doubt not were it worth the while it might easily be proved that the grossest Misrepresentations which this Author charges on Protestants are only transcribed out of Popish Authors and this he seems to own when he is so angry with us for proving these Misrepresentations as he calls them by appealing to their own private but approved Doctors who have in plain terms asserted those things which poor Protestants must not repeat after them without incurring the Censure of Misrepresenters Now though we grant that every Doctrine which we find in Popish Authors ought not to be accounted an Article of the Romish Faith yet if such Books be published by the authority of Superiors and when they are published and known in the World escape the Inquisition and the Index expurgatorius the Doctrines contained in them ought at least to be looked on as licensed and tolerated Doctrines and therefore consistent with the Romish Faith not a Misrepresentation of it For will a Church so strict and severe in its Discipline and so jealous of Heresies which censures all the Ancient Fathers and expunges out of their Writings every passage which in the least savours of Heresie which will not entrust the People to use the Bible for fear of their learning Heresie from it I say will such a Church suffer their own Doctors to publish such Opinions to the World as Misrepresent her own Faith and Worship without condemning or passing the least censure on them And therefore though we cannot prove from these private Doctors what the Faith of the Church of Rome is and what all are bound to believe who are of that Communion yet by their Authority we may confute the charge of Misrepresentation For no Protestant can be justly accused of Misrepresenting the Doctrines of the Church of Rome who charges them with no Doctrines but what are allowed to be taught in that Church as all those Doctrines are which are allowed by publick Authority to be Printed and Read in the Communion of that Church especially as I observed before where the Press is kept under such strict Discipline as it is in the Church of Rome We must not indeed charge all Papists with believing such Doctrines because all are not bound to believe them as they are to believe the Decrees and Definitions of their Councils but we may say that they are not contrary to the Faith of the Church because all Papists are allowed to believe them who will for I presume all Men are allowed to believe that which any Man among them is allowed to teach However I hope it may be some excuse to the Archbishop that he Misrepresents only at second hand since our Author will have it to be a Misrepresentation and says no more than some Papists themselves say and resolves all into the Credit and Authority of his Authors and I cannot think it a greater fault in a Protestant to give an account of such pernicious Doctrines and Opinions as are owned by some of their own Writers than it is in the Church of Rome to suffer them to be published by Authority and to pass without any Censure if they dislike the Doctrine As for what he transcribes out of Doctor Beard and Mr. Sutcliff I presume he intended we should take it all upon his Authority for he has not directed us where to find any of those passages he has cited and it is a little too much to read two great Books in Quarto to pick them out Without looking on the Books we might easily perceive that those sayings he has transcribed out of them do not concern Representing but Disputing and I never undertook to justifie every saying in Protestant Writers against Popery but yet some things sounded so harsh that I vehemently suspected foul play and therefore had the curiosity to examine and found it to be as I suspected Some passages for which they produce their Authorities and that very good Authorities as the World went then are cited by the Protester without any Authorities as he dealt before with the Archbishop or what they prove by variety of reasons is nakedly Represented without any reason to back it or their words are curtailed or transplaced which alters their sense and signification I shall give some few instances of this out of Mr. Sutcliff to let the World judge who are the Misrepresenters Quotations out of Mr. Sutcliff in the Papists Protesting c. Mr. Sutchliff's Survey of Popery THey speak what they can in disgrace of the Holy Scriptures FInally they say they are obscure and hard to be understood they speak what they can in disgrace of the Holy Scriptures P. 6. They give the Office of Christ's mediation to the Virgin Mary to Angels and to Saints they make also Saints our Redeemers They give the Office c. teaching that by their Merits Christians obtain their desires and are delivered out of Purgatory Ibid. They overthrow Grace and ascribe the merit of our Salvation not to Gods mercy through Christ not to the merit of his Passion but properly to our own Works and Merits Albeit they exclude not Grace from the work of our Salvation yet making Grace a Habit or Vertue they overthrow Grace c. p. 9. They cut out the Second Commandment because it cannot stand with the Popish worship of Images They cut out the Second Commandment in the Offices of our Lady and their Primers because c. Ib. They pray before Stocks and Stones nay they put their trust in them Nay they put their trust in them for if this were not so why should they hope for better success at the Image of our Lady of Loretto or Monserat than at any other Image or form of our Lady p. 10. Papists think they do God good service when they murder true Christians Proved from the cruel Executions in England France Germany Spain p. 23. By the Doctrine of Papists the Devils of Hell may be saved They teach that the Devils of Hell may have true Faith but our Saviour saith John 3. that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life So it followeth by the Doctrine of Papists that the Reprobates and Devils in Hell may be saved p. 28. Papists blasphemously make Christ not only a desperate Man without hope but also an Infidel without Faith p. 13. They take from Christ both Faith
and hope Aqui. p. 3. q. 7. art 4. So that which they falsely objected to Calvin doth rightly fall upon the Papists that they blasphemously make Christ c. That Christ is not the Redeemer of all Mankind They affirm the Virgin Mary to be conceived without original Sin c. of which it follows that Christ is not the Redeemer of all Mankind for what needed they a Redeemer who were not born sinners p. 41. They make Christ inferiour to Saints and Angels They say Masses in honour of Angels and Saints but he in whose honour a Sacrifice is offered is greater than the Sacrifice doth it not then appear that while they offer Christs Body and Blood in honour of Saints and Angels they make Christ inferior to Saints and Angels p. 42. They prefer the Pope before Christ. They prefer the Pope before Christ for Christ's Body when the Pope goeth in progress is sent before with the Baggage and when the Pope is near goeth out to meet him while all the Gallants of Rome attend on the Pope p. 43. To the Images of the Cross and Crucifix they give as much honour as is due to God p. 14. To the Images c. teaching their followers that it is but one honour given to the Image and the thing Represented by the Image p. 74. They fall down like Beasts before the Pope and worship him as God ascribing to him most blasphemously the honour due to Christ. They fall down c. Paulus Aemilius l. 2. telleth how the Ambassadors of Sicily cried thus to the Pope Thou that takest away the sins of the World have mercy upon us Stapleton to Greg. 13. calls him supremum numen in terris They call him Vicar of Christ the Monarch of the Church the Head the Spouse the foundation of the Church ascribing to him most blasphemously the honour due to Christ. p. 72. They give divine honour to Images which they themselves cannot deny to be Idolatrous They confess is Idolatry to give divine honour to Creatures But they give divine honour to the Sacament to the Cross and to Images of the Trinity which I hope they will not deny to be Creatures The Romish Church consists of a Pack of Infidels p. 15. Faith is of things as the Papists say in their Catechism only proposed to us by the Church so that if the Church propose not to us the Articles of Faith we are not to believe them if these Men teach truth Further this sheweth the Romish Church consists of a pack of Infidels for if the same believed not without the authority of the Church then she did believe nothing of Christ seeing the Papists acknowledge no other Church but that of Rome and no Church can teach it self p. 178. Scripture and Fathers they read not Spoken of the Schoolmen not of all Papists upon the authority of Ferdinando Vellosillo p. 200. In a member of the Catholick Church they say neither inward Faith nor other virtue is required but only that he profess outwardly the Romish Religion and be subject to the Pope This Opinion he attributes to Cardinal Bellarmin and cites de Eccles milit cap. 2. They make more Conscience to abstain from flesh on Friday than to murder Christians They make more Conscience c. as their curiosity in keeping the Fast and their cruelty in massacring Christians declares p. 205. Divers points of Popish Doctrine are especially said to proceed from the Devil He instances in forbidding Marriage and commanding to abstain from meats which he says are called in Scripture Doctrines of Devils p. 213. That the Popish Church hath no true Bishops that Popery in many points is more absurd and abominable than the Doctrine of Mahomet That Papists that positively hold the heretical and false Doctrines of the modern Church of Rome cannot possibly be saved are the Titles of several Chapters in which he endeavours to make good these charges how well let our Author consider but all men will see that this is not Representing but Disputing This is abundantly enough to give the Reader a tast of the Protesters honestly in Representing and how little I am concerned in these Quotations If some Protestants have charged the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome with such consequences as they cannot justifie wiser Protestants disown it and Papists may confute it if they please which will be a little more to the purpose than to cry out so Tragically about Misrepresenting But to make good this charge of Misrepresenting against us he concludes with several passages out of the Homilies concerning the worship of Saints and Images Now if our Church be guilty of Misrepresenting in her very Homilies which we are all bound to subscribe we must acknowledge our selves to be Misrepresenters But wherein does the Misrepresentation consist Do they not set up Images in Churches And do they not worship them Have they not a great number of Saints whom they worship with Divine Honours The matter of fact is plain and confessed and therefore our Church does not misrepresent them So that the only Misrepresentation he can complain of is that he does not like the judgment of our Church about the worship of Saints and Images and we cannot help that This is the belief of our Church and this is our belief and let him prove us to be Misrepresenters in this if he can for that is not proved meerly by his calling it Misrepresenting Only I would gladly know of this Author what he takes the judgment of the Church of England to be about the worship of Images Whether it be Idolatry or not If he thinks our Church charges them with Idolatry in worshipping Images which I suppose he means when he complains of Misrepresentation and picks out some passages which look that way there is the authority of Doctor Godden against him unless he has changed his mind lately who accuses Dr. St. with contradicting the Church of England in his charge of Idolatry upon the Church of Rome and makes it a certain mark of Fanaticism to do so and then however we may be thought to misrepresent the Church of Rome in this charge of Idolatry we do not misrepresent the Church of England in it which is some satisfaction to us that we are not Misrepresenters on both sides But these Men take great liberties in Representing the Faith and Doctrines of Churches In one Kings Reign the Church of England does not charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry in the next it does though their Articles and Homilies be the same still but they deal with the Church of England no worse than they do with their own Church in one Age a Bellarmine truly Represents the Doctrine of their Church in another a Bishop of Condom and though the Council of Trent be but one and the same the Faith of it alters very often as it may best serve the interest of the Catholick Cause Our Author having exposed the Protestant Character as he calls
and he has endeavoured to make his Readers believe that there is yet in truth there is none in most parts of the Character For what does strictly belong to Representation that is all matter of Fact is the same in both For 1. He having put the Opinions of Protestants concerning Popish Doctrines and Practices into the Character of a Papist Misrepresented as if they were his avowed Doctrine and Belief in the Character of a Papist Represented he denies that he believes those Interpretations and Consequences and this he might very easily do because as he observes p. 24. no body charges him with that belief and whereas he says then he contradicts no Body and he hopes there is no fault in that he is so far in the right but his fault is that he imposes upon his Reader with an appearance of a Misrepresentation when there is none and by his denying that they believe such things would perswade the World that Protestants charge Papists with believing all these ill things themselves which we say of their Faith and Worship a sign that he was hard put to it to find out some Protestant Misrepresentations of Papists And 2. As for matter of Fact which alone is proper for a Character he generally owns the Doctrines and Practices we charge them with and his saying how could this possibly be otherwise if they charge us with â—ore but what we expresly profess to own in which he reflects upon what I had said in my Reply that we charge them with believing nothing but what they expresly profess to believe is nothing to the purpose for it is not absolutely what we charge them with but what he himself makes us charge them with in his Character of a Papist Misrepresented and calls us Misrepresenters for doing so that he owns in the Character of a Papist Represented as I particularly shewed in my Reply now the question is why he calls one Character a Misrepresentation and the other a Representation when the matter of Fact is the same in both But then 3. I observed that in some cases he disowns that to be the doctrine and belief of their Church which manifestly is so and has been proved on them beyond all possibility of a fair Reply by the learned Answerer To which he Answers then for all his word we are in some cases charged with more than we expressly profess to believe But he must know we do not take the profession of the Roman Faith from every private Character-maker but from the authentick Records of their Church and if they deny what their Church teaches and requires them to believe it is not indeed their Faith but yet it ought to be so and though he may huff at manifestly and proving I suspect he will take a little time before he brings it to the Tryal This is a sufficient answer to his fresh complaint of Misrepresentations I now proceed to the second part of the Reply The rule of true Representing or the Rule whereby the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is to be known He appealed to the Council of Trent and the Catechism ad Parâ—chos and these I acknowledged to be authentick Rules but since Catholick Divines differ about the sense of the Council and Catechism the question is Why we must prefer his sense of the Council and Catechism before Cardinal Bellarmin's or any other Divines of Note and Eminency in the Church of Rome who lived since the Council of Trent and may be presumed to understand the meaning of it as well as the Representer and therefore to remove this difficulty in his Reflections he appealed to the Bishop of Condom as the Authentick Expositor of the Council and Catechism and told us how his Book had been approved by many Bishops and Cardinals and by the present Pope himself and therefore has the authority of the See Apostolick To this I answered in my Reply p. 44. that the attestation given to Cardinal Bellarmin's Controversies was not inferior to that given to the Bishop of Condom's Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church that it was Dedicated to Pope Sixtus 5. and that with the Popes leave and good liking which is not much inferior 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 to this he thought fit to answer nothing And whereas he pretends that the Popes approbation gives it the authority of the Apostolick See I acquainted him out of Melchior Canus That the name of the Apostolick See does not signifie the Pope in his private capacity but in his Chair or doing such things and in such a manner as belong to the Papal 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 maliciously and inconsiderately or with the advice only of some few of his own mind but what he determines upon a due examination of the thing by the advice and Counsel of many wise Men. To this the Protester answers that it is only an ungrounded and ill-turned consequence that because that is not to be accounted the judgment of the Apostolick See which is given only by the Pope privately maliciously and inconsiderately or with the advice only of some few of his own mind therefore this learned Prelates Exposition of the Catholick Faith is to be thrown by as of no Authority so that our Replier has here concluded without any more ado that the approbation of this Book was only given privately maliciously inconsiderately or else with the advice only of some few of the Popes own mind otherwise the Consequence will not hold But I thought Canus had told us what was necessary to make the Popes approbation the judgment of the Apostolick See as well as what hinders it from being so That the Pope must give judgment according to the due form and method of proceedings belonging to the Apostolick Chair in full Council after due examination and with the advice of many wise Men. Now I only desire to know whether the Pope in a full Council of Cardinals did give judgment ex Cathedrâ that the Bishop of Condom's Book was a true Exposition of the Catholick Faith For if he did not though the Pope and all his Cardinals should singly for themselves give their own private judgment and approbation of it according to Canus his rule it is not the judgment of the Apostolick See for it is a private judgment whether it be malicious or not which I was so far from concluding without more ado that as the Protester observes I did not so much as translate it though I put it in the Latine Quotation in the Margin which is an argument I did not designedly conceal it because I thought it
other Catholick Divines will take this I cannot tell This is enough in all Conscience concerning the Bishop of Condom's Authority which I must still say is nothing when we speak of an Authentick Rule of expounding the Catholick Faith in which sense our Author appeals to him though we will allow him the Authority of a wise and prudent man whose writings are published and approved by Publick Authority as the writings of other Catholick Doctors are which is all the Authority we Protestants give to our best Writers and therefore the Protester has no reason to complain as he does p. 27. of an uneven kind of Justice and Reasoning in this matter and whoever desires a more particular account of the Bishop of Condom's Authority and those Glorious Testimonies which are given to his Book if he be a reasonable man may find Satisfaction in the Preface to the late Answer to the Bishop of Condom But the truth is I know no reason there is for all this Dispute I told the Reflector before that I did not like his Faith though it were as he has represented it should we allow the Bishop of Condom's Exposition and his Character of a Papist represented to contain the true Catholick Faith and that this is the whole of what the Council of Trent has determined yet I can never be of this Religion and since he was not satisfied with my bare telling him so I will now give him some Reasons for it and particularly shew him what it is I dislike in Monsieur de Meaux the late Bishop of Condom his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church about the Object of Worship Invocation of Saints and worship of Images and take the flourishes of his Introduction into the bargain And I chuse these Heads because these are the matters wherein he principally appeals to the Bishop of Condom and about which only he has offered any thing like an Argument in his answer to my Reply And I am as glad to take any opportunity of useful Discourse as our Author seems cautious not to give any And that neither he nor the Bishop may have any occasion of Quarrel I shall observe the Directions the Bishop has given to those who think fit to answer to his Treatise He tells us To urge any thing solid against this Treatise the Exposition and which may come home to the point it must be proved that the Churches Faith is not here faithfully expounded and that by Acts which the same Church has obliged her self to receive or else it must be shewn that this Explication leaves all the Objections in their full force and all the disputes untouched or in fine it must be precisely shewn in what this Doctrine subverts the foundations of Faith As for the first of these it is done already to my hand in the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly represented in answer to the Papist misrepresented and represented And he must be as bold a man who will attempt to mend that Author as who attempts to confute him The other two I will have in my eye in examining as far as I am now concerned Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condom his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church in matters of Controversie SECT I. The Design of this Treatise WEre it possible to reconcile the Differences between us and the Church of Rome only by a fair Representation of matters in Controversie between us I should think it an admirable Design and this being all the Author professes to intend I cannot but highly commend his good Meaning in it whether he has shewn so much Skill and Judgment in undertaking a Design in its own nature impracticable I shall leave to the Reader to judge when he has fairly heard both sides Had I known no more of the matter but that the Reformation was begun by men brought up in the Communion of the Church of Rome and intimately acquainted with the Doctrines and Practices of that Church that some of these Corruptions both before and since have been complained of by men of that Communion that the Council of Trent which was convened upon this occasion condemns many Doctrines of the Reformers as contrary to the Catholick Faith and guilty of Heresie that both before and after this Council there have been many Volumes written and many fine Disputes between Popish and Protestant Divines who have been men of as great Learning and true Understanding in these matters as any the Age has bred who did all this while believe that there was a real and substantial difference between them I say when I consider these things I should not venture for the reputation both of Papists and Protestants especially of the Council of Trent to say That the Dispute has been only about Words that Papists and Protestants even the most Learned men among them have mistaken each others Propositions and that the only way to reconcile this Difference is so to state the matter in dispute that Papists and Protestants may understand each other I doubt not but fierce men on both sides may have made this difference much wider than it is but yet such a difference there is as no Representing can cure as I believe will appear by considering Particulars SECT II. Those of the Reformed Religion acknowledge that the Catholick Church embraces all the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion THat the Church of Rome does profess to believe all the Principal and Fundamental Articles of Faith as the Bishop affirms I readily grant but yet she may hold Fundamental Errors and destroy that Faith she professes by other Doctrines destructive of the true Catholick Faith That this is possible he cannot deny for men may believe inconsistent Propositions and the Design of his Book is so to explicate the peculiar Doctrines of the Church of Rome as to reconcile them with the Fundamental Articles of Faith which the Protestant Explication of Popish Doctrines contradicts and overthrows which had been a very needless Undertaking were it impossible for men who believe all the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith to believe any thing contrary to it He might then have spared his pains in vindicating and explaining particular Doctrines for it had been evidence enough that such Doctrines and Practices do not overthrow any Fundamental Article of Faith because they are owned by that Church which professes to believe all Fundamental Articles And therefore I cannot well guess what advantage he promised himself from this We may safely grant that the Church of Rome believes all Fundamental Articles and yet charge her with such Doctrines and Practices as destroy and tear up Foundations He observes indeed from M. Daille that we ought not to charge men with believing such Consequences as they themselves do formally reject nor do we charge any such thing upon the Church of Rome but M. Daille never said that we may not charge mens Doctrines and Practices with such Consequences as they
supposes the same and the Decree to abstain from Blood and from things Strangled includes this doctrinal Definition That it was unlawful for Gentile Christians at that time to use their Christian Liberty in those matters to the offence and scandal of believing Jews The matter in short is this Every Decree which commands the doing any thing must contain a virtual Definition that such a thing may be lawfully done and every Decree which forbids the doing any thing does withal define that such a thing is either absolutely unlawful in it self or highly inexpedient and therefore unlawful in such Circumstances to be done this is as necessary as it is to command nothing but what is lawful and to forbid nothing but what is either unlawful or highly inexpedient And therefore when the Church of Rome Decrees the deposing Heretical Princes or the favourers of Hereticks She virtually defines that it is lawful to depose Princes which is a doctrinal Definition and may in a large sense be called an Article of Faith as that signifies all Doctrinal points proposed to us to be believed as I observed in my Reply p. 50 3. The third Enquiry was Whether the Authority of the Church be not as sacred in decrees of Manners as in Articles of Faith for the proof of which I urged the Council at Jerusalem and shew'd That Rules of Discipline and Government to direct the lives and manners of men is the only proper subject of Ecclesiastical Authority P. 55. And here where he should have taken notice of the Council of Jerusalem he says nothing of it but only says p. 32. that I urge out of Canus and Bellarmine that General Councils cannot err even in such decrees when they relate to things necessary to salvation and which concern the whole Church And when I have proved the Deposing Decree to be of this nature and esteemed as such by their Church I may then deserve a farther consideration What their Church will esteem if he may be the Expounder of it is nothing to the purpose for we argue not from their private esteeming but from their publick Definitions and if a General Decree for the government of the whole Church concern the whole Church and if to command a sin concerns mens salvation then the Deposing decree does for if it be unlawful to depose Heretical Princes it is more than a single sin to do it and if they will grant that General Councils cannot command a sin then they must grant that it is lawful to depose Heretical Princes and I agree with him that this does deserve a farther Consideration and shall be glad to hear his thoughts of it This Author in his Reflections p. 10. proves that Popes themselves own that the deposing power is no Article of Faith in letting so many open and positive asserters of the no-deposing power pass without any censure of heresie This in my Reply p. 57. I attribute to their want of power For Princes will not be deposed now nor suffer those to be censured who deny the deposing Power This in his protestation p. 32. he says Is spoke like an Oracle but he expects some better Argument than my bare assurance of what the Pope would do if he had power And I thought I had given him a better argument than my bare word for it viz. the experience of former Ages what Popes did when they had power for tho the infallible Chair may dissemble a little when circumstances of affairs require it yet sure it is not given to change What follows about the worship of Saints and Images I suppose has been sufficiently answered already but I cannot but observe a very pleasant argument he has against what I assert That no intention can alter the nature of actions which are determined by a divine or human Law Whereby I prove that if they do such things as in the account of the Divine Law are idolatrous their intention not to commit Idolatry will not excuse them This he says p. 36. a Quaker might as reasonably make use of for the justifying his yea's and his nay's and his other points of Quakerism For if he should say No intention can alter the nature of actions which are determined by a divine or human law but Swear not at all neither be ye called Masters and let your communication be yea yea nay nay are actions or things determined by the divine law therefore the intention of doing no evil in them cannot excuse the dâ—ing otherwise than is there determined from the guilt of sin But will our Protester say that the Divine Law does forbid all swearing then I grant that the Quakers are in the right and no intention will justifie swearing but St. James must be expounded so as to reconcile his words with other passages in Scripture which allow of swearing and could he show us where bowing and kissing and kneeling and praying before an Image is in any sence allow'd in Scripture then we would grant also that the direction of the intention would justifie such a use of these actions as the Scripture allows but what is absolutely forbid to be done no intention can excuse which is our present case here He concludes all with two or three Requests which must be briefly consider'd 1. That he the Replier will use his interest with Protestants to hold to what he saies they do ond charge us with nothing but what we expresly profess to Believe and Practice Now I can assure him there is no need of using my interest with Protestants to do this for I hope they are naturally inclined to to be honest but there are so many us's among them that possibly some Protestants may mistake one us for another They practice indeed generally much alike but they believe differently and they represent differently and they expound the Doctrine of their Councils differently and I hope Protestants may without any offence say how and wherein they differ and I think we cannot be justly charged with misrepresenting while we relate matter of Fact truly what their practice is and what their different sentiments and opinions are about these matters 2. That they Protestants pick not up the abuses of some the vices and cruelties of others the odd opinions of particular Authors and hold these forth for the Doctrines and Practices of our Church and that in charging any practises they charge no more than are concerned Now this is very reasonable if he speaks of such abuses as are not allowed and countenanced by the Church and of such cruelties as are not practised encouraged commended by the Governours of the Church and justified by the Decrees and Canons of Popes and Councils or of such odd opinions of particular Authors as steal into the world without publick authority and are censured as soon as they are known but as far as the Church gives any countenance and authority to such abuses cruelties odd opinions I see no reason why Protestants may not complain of
representing nor misrepresenting Any Man would have thought so indeed who had read his Characters but I never expected that he should have said so But he did not intend to misrepresent any Body and therefore had nothing to do with those Rules but he intended it seems to give an account how Papists are misrepresented by Protestants and therefore ought to have understood what is Misrepresenting and not have called that Misrepresenting which is not But his Province he says was only to draw forth the Character of a Papist as it is commonly apprehended by the Vulgar or the Multitude with the common prejudices and mistakes that generally attend such a notion Now I would fain know whether this Character as it lies in the Peoples heads is distinguished into antecedents and consequents whether they when they hear one declaiming against Popery for committing Idolatory as bad or worss than that of the grossest Heathens worshipping Stocks and Stones for Gods distinguisheth between the Doctrine of the Papists and these interpretations and consequences charged against it Thus in short he tells us The Character of a Papist Misrepresented was intended only as the Author expresses himself in his introduction for a Copy of Popery as painted in the imagination of the Vulgar and if it be conform to that it is exact and perfect and if there be any faults in it the blame must fall on those who drew the Original This is the sum of his excuse for putting such things into the Character of a Papist Misrepresented as do not belong to Character-making nor are in a strict and proper sense Misrepresentations That the common People who do not distinguish between Antecedents and Consequents have such an idea and notion of a Papist as he has described in the Character of a Papist Misrerepresented Well suppose this how does this mend the matter If his Character of a Papist Misrepresented be no misrepresentation then our People who have this notion of a Papist are not Misrepresenters Now this is that which I undertook to prove in my Reply That there is nothing of misrepresentation properly so called in his Character of a Papist Misrepresented It is a false Character indeed because it contains such things as are not matters of Representation but of Dispute and therefore do not belong to a Character but separate matters of Fact from matters of Opinion and Dispute as I have particularly done in my Reply and the Character of a Papist Misrepresented contains no matter of Fact excepting some very few things but what the Character of the Papist Represented owns And therefore as far as it can be called a Character it is a true one And if this as he says be a Copy of Popery as painted in the imagination of the Vulgar the Original can have no more of misrepresentation in it than the Copy has But though the Protester does acknowledge that there is a real difference between Representing the Doctrines and Practices of Papists and declaring our own Judgment and Opinion concerning them he suspects the People do not distinguish between Antecedents and Consequents between the Doctrines of the Papists and these interpretations and consequences charged on it They swallow all down greedily in the lump Antecedents and Consequents go down with them all at once But what does he mean by this that any Protestant People are so silly as to think that Papists believe as bad of their own Religion as they believe of it That Papists believe Idolatry to be lawful as he tells us in the Character of a Papist Misrepresented or that they believe the Worship of an Image to be Idolatry no I assure him our People are taught what Popery is in its genuine purity as he speaks they know in the most material points what the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is and are taught what to think of it and when they hear or read our Disputes against the Church of Rome they are not so weak as to believe that we and Papists have the same Opinions about Worshipping Saints and Images and the Host c. and therefore are not in danger of affixing such Opinions on Papists as they hear us charge on Popery So that this is a very needless fear he is in and if nothing else hinders he may as he promises reform his Character of a Papist Misrepresented I must confess we are pretty positive in declaring to our People the evil and danger of Popery We tell them what we think of it not as thinking signifies doubtfulness and uncertainty but an assured perswasion founded on Reason Scripture and the best Authorities as he complains that we go beyond thinking and instead of saying we think so we positively say so it is But if we are in the right there is no hurt in this and we shall believe so till they can prove that we are in the wrong we do not indeed pretend to Infallibility but we think our selves as certain as those who do This is the sum of what he says in defence of his Character of a Papist Misrepresented that though he acknowledges my distinction to be good between Matters of Dispute and of Representation and consequently that his Character of a Papist Misrepresented has nothing of misrepresentation in it truly so called yet he says this is the Idea of a Papist as it is commonly apprehended by the Vulgar who do not distinguish between Antecedents and Consequents but whatever they hear said of Popery they take to be the Faith of a Papist without distinguishing what it is the Papists own and believe and practise and what guilt Protestants charge them with for thus believing and doing that when they hear the Papists charged with Idolatry for Worshipping Images they as verily think that Papists believe Idolatry to be lawful as they do that they believe it lawful to Worship Images If there be any among us so very silly I dare say they can neither Read nor Write and therefore he might have spared his pains in writing and printing Characters for them and if his Character of a Papist as he says be what he thought of a Papist while he himself was a Protestant it seems he was in a very low dispensation then and could not himself distinguish between Antecedents and Consequents but swallowed all down together though he is now improved into a Writer of Characters and may they never have any wiser Converts However this does plainly yield the cause that the Protestant Clergy and understanding Gentry and Laity who can distinguish between Antecedents and Consequents are no Misrepresenters and as for others we fear they have a great many more Misrepresenters on their side than we hope we have on ours Let us now consider his Character of a Papist Represented and what the faults of that are Now the general fault is that whereas one might reasonably expect that there should be some difference between the Character of a Papist Misrepresented and of a Papist Represented
who teach these Doctrines disown for M. Daille himself in the place quoted by the Bishop charges the Opinion of the Lutherans and of the Church of Rome about the manner of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament with inferring the destruction of the Humanity of Jesus Christ and therefore the Bishop concludes too much when he infers It is then a certain Maxime established amongst them that they must not in these cases look upon the Consequences which may be drawn from a Doctrine but purely upon what he proposes and acknowledges who teaches it But the use M. Daille makes of it is only this That when such ill Consequences as mens Doctrines are justly chargeable with have no ill influence upon Worship or as he speaks no poyson in them if they disown such Consequences this ought not to break Christian Communion And therefore though no man ought to be received into the Communion of the Church who denies the Humanity of Jesus Christ yet the National Synod at Charenton admits Lutherans to the Holy Table because whatever might be inferred from their Doctrine yet they expresly owned the Humanity of Christ and this Doctrinal Consequence was a meer Speculative Error which made no change at all in Acts of Worship but when the Consequences are not meerly speculative but practical and do not so much concern what other men believe and think as what we our selves are to do as it is in the Worship of Saints and Images and the Host c. to say that we must have no regard to Consequences if the Church disowns them is to say that we must not consider the nature and tendency of our Actions nor what they are in Gods account but only what the Church thinks of them and therefore though we will not charge the Church of Rome with believing any Consequences which she disowns yet if her Doctrines and Practices corrupt the Christian Faith and Worship it is fit to charge her with such Corruptions and if the Charge be just though she disown it it will justifie our Separation from her Communion SECT III. Religious Worship is terminated in God alone THE account the Bishop gives of that Interior Adoration which is due to God alone is very sound and Orthodox that it consists principally in believing he is the Creator and Lord of all things and in adhering to him with all the powers of our Soul by Faith Hope and Charity as to him alone who can render us happy by the Communication of an infinite Good which is himself But there are two things I except against in this Section as not fairly stated First concerning the exteriour marks of Adoration Secondly concerning the terminating of Religious Worship As for the first he tells us This interiour Adoration which we render unto God in Spirit and in Truth has its exterior marks of which the principal is Sacrifice which cannot be offered to any but to God And with respect to the second he tells us The same Church teaches us that all Religious Worship ought to terminate in God as its necessary End and that if the Honour which she renders to the Blessed Virgin and to the Saints may in some sence be called Religious it is for its necessary relation to God The Bishop very well knew that this is the main Seat of the Controversie between us and had he intended by his Exposition to have put an end to our disputes he should have taken a little more care about this Point for as he has now stated it he has left the matter just as he found it We say that all Religious Worship ought not only to terminate in God as its necessary End but that God is the sole and immediate Object of all Religious Worship and that we must worship none besides him as our Saviour expounds the Law Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Matth. 4. We have always denied any relative Worship to be due to Creatures for to worship Creatures is to make them Gods and it is no honour to the Supreme God to advance his own Creatures to divine Honours to make more though inferiour Gods for God's sake We say all external Acts of Religious Worship are peculiar and appropriate to God as well as Sacrifice for since we must worship none but God whatever can be called Religious Worship must be given to none besides him and the Bishop has not dealt plainly in this matter he says that Sacrifice can be offered to none but God but he has not told us what he thinks of other external Acts of Worship whether they may be paid to some excellent Creatures for since Sacrifice is not a natural but instituted Worship if nothing but Sacrifice is peculiar to God then all external natural Worship is common to God and Creatures and then in the state of nature there could be no external and visible Difference between the worship of God and Creatures nor had there been any under the Gospel neither had not Christ instituted his last Supper which the Church of Rome has transformed into a Sacrifice of his natural Flesh and Blood Thus when he says that all Religious Worship ought to terminate in God as its necessary end this seems to me an ambiguous Expression for Worship properly terminates in the Object to which it is given and in this sense If all Religious Worship must terminate in God then all Religious Worship must be given to God and to none else which is the true Catholick Faith that God is only to be worshipped But then what becomes of that Religious Worship which is given to the Virgin Mary and Saints in relation to God Does not this Worship which is given to them terminate in them and not in God Are not they the immediate and proper Objects of that Worship which is given to them And does not the Object terminate the Worship Is God the Object of that Worship which they give to the Saints and Blessed Virgin Then they either give that inferior Degree of Worship to God which is proper for Creatures which is an affront to his Majesty and Greatness or they give that Worship to Creatures which is proper to God which is Idolatry Which plainly shews that that Worship which is given to Creatures is terminated in those Creatures to which it is given and therefore if any degree of Religious Worship be given to Creatures all Religious Worship does not terminate in God as he said it must and if all Religious Worship must terminate in God then no Religious Worship must be given to Creatures as he grants it may to the Virgin Mary and Saints Yes you will say that Worship which is given to the Saints and Blessed Virgin terminates in God because it is given them upon account of their Relation to God but this is a great mistake their Relation to God can only serve for a Reason why they are worshipped but cannot terminate that worship on God which
admitted into God's immediate Presence our selves But could every ordinary Priest or Jew have been admitted into the Holy of Holies as the High-Priest was they might as well have offered their Prayers and Sacrifices there immediately to God without the Ministry and Mediation of the High-Priest and those who are in Heaven in the immediate presence of God if they offer up any Prayers to God for themselves or others they offer them immediately and directly to God because they offer them to God in his immediate Presence which is the true notion of Christ's Mediation that he appears in the presence of God for us And therefore whatever use there may be of the Name of Christ in Heaven Saints in Heaven who live in the immediate Presence of God have no need of a Mediator to offer their Prayers to God as Saints on Earth have because they are admitted to the immediate Vision of God themselves To offer up our Prayers to God in the Name and Mediation of Christ supposes that we are at a distance from God and not admitted into his Presence to speak for our selves but those Prayers which are offered to God in his immediate Presence need no Mediator to present them And yet to say that the Saints in Heaven offer their Prayers to God in the Name and Mediation of Christ is to say that when they are admitted to the immediate Presence of God themselves they still need a Mediator that the Prayers they offer to God in his immediate Presence they do not offer immediately to him but by the hands of a Mediator which if it be Sence I am sure is no good Divinity as neither agreeing with the Types of the Law nor with the Gospel-account of Christ's Mediation And therefore if glorified Saints appear for us in the presence of God in Heaven they are as much our Mediators as Christ is for this is the most essential Character of this Mediation that he appears in the presence of God for us The only Objection I can fore-see against this is that some of the ancient Fathers though they did not pray to Saints to pray for them yet were inclined to believe that Saints departed did Pray for the Church on Earth especially for their particular Friends which they left behind them and therefore to be sure did not think this any injury to the Mediation of Christ. But then we must consider that as they spoke doubtfully of this matter so those very Fathers did not believe that Saints departed were received up into the highest Heaven into the immediate Presence and Throne of God though they thought them in a very happy state yet not perfect till the resurrection and therefore they prayed for Saints departed as well as believed that Saints departed prayed for them Now any Mediation and Intercession on this side Heaven is very consistent with the Mediation of Christ in Heaven but to intercede in Heaven is his peculiar Office which no other Creature can share in since his Resurrection and Ascension This I think is sufficient to prove that Monsieur de Meaux his Exposition cannot reconcile Praying to Saints to Pray for us either with the peculiar Worship of God or with the Glory and Dignity of our great and only Mediator and Advocate Jesus Christ. The Character of a Papist Represented 3. Of addressing more Supplications to the Virgin Mary than to Christ. Monsieur de Meaux takes no notice of that peculiar kind of Worship which is paid in the Church of Rome to the Virgin Mary as being sensible how hard it is to reconcile this with his bare Ora pro nobis but the Representer who pretends to follow the Bishops Pattern but wants his Judgment and Caution to manage it undertakes to Apologize for this too and it is worth the while to consider what he says The Papist Mis-represented is said to believe the Virgin Mary to be much more powerful in Heaven than Christ and that she can command him to do what she thinks good and for this reason he Honours her much more then he does her Son or God the Father for one Prayer he says to God saying ten to the Holy Virgin Let us then consider how much of Mis-representation there is in this and I shall begin with the last first because mens Actions are the best Interpreters of their Thoughts and Belief The Papist for one prayer he says to God says ten to the Virgin Mary Is this mis-represented Let him but tell over his Beads and see how many Ave Maries and Pater nosters he will find upon a string which are exactly ten for one This he confesses and thinks it as innocent to recite the Angelical Salutation now as it was for the Angel Gabriel and Elizabeth to do it But did the Angel use it as a Prayer to the Virgin Mary Is Hail thou that art Highly favoured the Lord is with Thee blessed art thou amongst Women when spoken to the Virgin who was then present to hear it a friendly Saluation or a Prayer Was it delivering a Message or an act of Devotion Or is this the Ave Maria now in use in the Church of Rome As I remember there are two or three little words Ora pro nobis added to it which make it a Prayer not the Angelical Salutation And we do not read that the Angel said Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us sinners now and in the hour of Death Indeed were it lawful to pray to the Virgin Mary I should have less to say against the frequent repetition of this prayer but yet a man might enquire why the prayer to the Virgin Mary is repeated so much oftner than the prayer to God is not this to honour her much more then he does her Son or God the Father For is not Prayer an act of Honour and Worship And do we not then honour that Being most to whom we pray oftenest No says the Representer for he does not at any time say even so much as one Prayer to her but what is directed more principally to God Surely there must be some Mystery in this For do they not say a great many Prayers immediately directed to the Virgin Mary and not at all directed to God Is not their Ave Maria such a Prayer and do they principally pray to God in those Prayers which are immediately directed to the Virgin Mary When they pray to the Virgin Mary to pray to them is this Prayer princâ—pally directed to God Almighty What when the Virgin is only named And the matter of the Prayer is such that it cannot be directed to God Almighty unless they think it proper to pray to God to pray for them Yes these Prayers to the Virgin are offered up as a thankful Memorial of Christ's Incarnation and an acknowledgement of the Blessedness of Jesus the fruit of her Womb. The meaning of which can be no more than this That when they Pray to Mary the Mother of Jesus it is a
tacite acknowledgement that Jesus was born of her and that the Son must be a very Glorious Prince when the Mother is so highly exalted upon account of her Relation to him as to have so many devout Prayers and Hymns offered up to her But does this prove that the Prayers which are immediately directed to the Virgin Mary are principally directed to Christ because Mary was his Motâ—â—â— which is the whole Mystery of the business Suppose Christ should think himself honoured by those Prayers which are offered to his Mother yet is there no difference between praying to Christ and that Honour we do him in praying to his Mother A late Author indeed tells us that the Veneration which we give to Mary redounds to Jesus All Honour given to the Mother tending to the Glory of the Son for as he communicates with her in Flesh and Blood so also doth he partake with her in her Qualities and Perfections and therefore he is a sharer in that Homage and Observance that is made to her This is a new sort of Consubstantiation and Communication of Properties but yet how much soever we honour Jesus when we pray to Mary yet we do not pray to Jesus when we pray to Mary and therefore these Prayers are principally and immediately directed to Mary not to God or Christ and therefore to offer ten Prayers to Mary for one to God look very like honouring Mary much more than her Son or God the Father Well but she is the Mother of God and Blessed amongst Women but how does her being Christs Mother entitle her to a greater share in our Prayers and Devotions than Christ himself It is indeed a great Honour to her to be the Mother of Jesus but does this entitle her to that Worship and Homage which is due to her Son She is the happiest Mother among Women but does this advance her above Angels and Arch-Angels For my part I see no reason to think that her bearing Christ in her Womb which was a singular Favour conferred on her but has nothing of Merit in it should advance her above the most Eminent Apostles and Martyrs who with undaunted Courage and unwearied Industry propagated the Gospel throughout the World and were the great Ministers of his Kingdom I am sure our Saviour does not seem to attribute any such mighty Vertue to the Maternity of Mary when a certain Woman said unto him Blessed is the Womb that bare thee and the Paps which thou hast sucked he answered yea rather Blessed are they who hear the Word of God and keep it And in another place when some told him behold thy Mother and thy Brethren stand without desiring to speak with thee he answered and said unto him that told him who is my Mother And who are my Brethren and he stretched forth his hand towards his Disciples saying behold my Mother and my Brethren for whosever shall do the Will of my Father which is in Heaven the same is my Mother and Sister and Brother Which prefers his meanest Disciples before the Mother of his Flesh considered only as his Mother which he would not have done had the bare Maternity of Mary advanced her above all other Creatures Well but she is most acceptable to God in her Intercession for us Did the Angel tell them this too as well as that she is Blessed among Women Whence then do they learn it Is it only because she is a Mother Have all Mothers then such a natural Authority over their Sons even when they are Soveraign Princes Cannot the Eternal Son of God chuse an Earthly Mother but he must admit her into the Throne with him and govern his Kingdom if not by her Commands yet by her Importunities and Requests This is thought a great weakness in Earthly Princes and usually proves fatal to their Government and yet it is much more tolerable in Earth than in Heaven What has the Mother of his Flesh to do to intermeddle in the affairs of his Spiritual Kingdom which she is not capable of managing She had no Authority in the Church while she was on Earth which methinks her Maternity might give her as much Right to as to be Queen-Regent of Heaven When Christ was a Child he lived in Subjection to Mary and Joseph though he began early to give them a Specimen of a Superiour Power he had and such a work to do as discharged him from Subjection to Earthly Parents When he was but twelve years old he told his Mother how was it that ye sought me wist ye not that I must be about my Fathers business When his Mother at the Marriage in Cana of Galilee acquainted him that their Wine was spent and insinuated her desire that he should help them he rebukes her for it Woman what have I to do with thee my hour is not yet come She was not to direct him what to do in such matters and can we think then that now he is advanced to the Right Hand of God he will suffer her to intermeddle in the administration of his Kingdom But our Author believes it damnable to think the Virgin Mary more powerful in Heaven than Christ or that she can in any thing command him It is well the Impera Redemptori command the Redeemer is at last disowned by them though it may be some may think it a little too much to call it damnable because whatever Papists believe now there was a time when this was used in the Missals of the Roman Church and will he say that it was damnable then to use that Hymn I believe no Papist ever thought the Virgin Mary to be-Omnipotent much less that she can do more than Christ can or can command him by a direct and Superior Authority nor did any man that I know of ever charge them with this and if it be only in this sense that he denies the Virgin to be more powerful in Heaven than Christ it is nothing to the purpose for it is possible for a Subject to be more powerful than his Prince though he cannot command him and can do nothing but by his Princes favour but if he have so much the ascendant of his Prince that he can deny him nothing that he does whatever he will have him and such things as no other consideration should incline him to do but the desire of such a powerful Favourite this man is really more powerful than the Prince because he has the direction and Government of the Princes Power He has the Prince himself in his Power and therefore is more powerful than he And if this be the case of the Blessed Virgin that she has the Disposal of Christ's Grace and Mercy though not by a direct Authority yet by her Interest in her Son if he never denies that which she asks but grants that at her Intercession which he would not grant without it if the Papists believe this they believe her to be more Powerful than Christ
shew 1. Then he tells us That the Council of Trent forbids us expresly to believe any Divinity or Virtue in Images for which they ought to be reverenced We grant the Council does forbid this and he knows that we never charge them with it though there are some practices of the Church of Rome which look very suspiciously that way but then we say the second Commandment forbids the worship of all Images without any such limitation for there is not any one word in the Commandment to limit the Prohibition of worshipping Images to such Images as are believ'd to have any Divinity in them The words of the Commandment are as general as can be Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image nor the likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above or in the Earth beneath or in the Water under the Earth thou shalt not how down to them nor worship them The Commandment takes no notice of any Divinity which is supposed to be in these Images but only of the Representation made by them that they are the Likeness or Representation of things in Heaven or things on Earth or things under the Earth and therefore the whole Dispute between Papists and Protestants about the sense of the second Commandment and the strict notion of an Idol is left untouch'd by this Exposition The Roman Doctors indeed tell us that the Heathens worshipped their Images as Gods and did ascribe Divinity to them upon which account Monsieur de Meaux tells us All these words of the Council are like so many Characters to distinguish us from Idolaters seeing we are so far from believing with them any Divinity annexed to the Images that we do not attribute to them any Virtue but that of exciting in us the remembrance of those they represent But he knew very well that Protestants deny that the Heathens took their Images for Gods any more than Papists do their Philosophers despised the charge and made the same Apologies for themselves which the Divines of the Church of Rome now do and we may suppose that common Heathens had much such Apprehensions about them as common Papists have Those who had any sense could not believe them to be Gods and those who have none may believe any thing but there is no great regard to be had to such Mens Faith whatever their Religion be who are void of common Sense However this Dispute whether the Heathens did believe their Images to be Gods or to have any more Divinity in them than Papists attribute to their Images is a Dispute still and Monsieur de Meaux has not said one word to prevent it and therefore the Condemnation of the Heathens for worshipping Images is still a good Objection against the worship of Images in the Church of Rome till he prove as well as assert this difference between them But indeed tho I readily grant that the Church of Rome does not believe that there is any Divinity in their Images and that the Heathens did believe that Consecration brought down the Gods whom they worshipped by such Representations and tied them by some invisible Charms to their Image that they might be always present there to receive their Worship yet this makes no material difference in their Notion of Images The reason why the Heathens thought it necessary by some Magical Arts to fasten their Gods or some Divine Powers to their Images was not to incorporate them with their Images but to secure a Divine Presence there to hear their Prayers and receive their Sacrifices without which all their Devotions paid to an Image were lost which was very necessary especially in the Worship of their Inferior Daemons whom they did not believe to be present in all places As Elijah mocked the Priests of Baal and said Cry aloud for he is a God either he is talking or he is pursuing or he is in a Journy or peradventure he sleepeth and must be awaked But now those who believe that God is every where present to fee and hear what we do and that the Saints who are not present in their Images yet do certainly know by what means soever it be what Prayers and Homages are offered to them at their Images need not call down any Divine Powers constantly to attend their Images but only to procure their acceptance of those Devotions which are paid to them at their Images And this is the difference between the Consecration of Heathen and Popish Images The first is to procure the Presence of their Gods in their Images the other to obtain the Favour of Christ and the Saints to accept those Prayers and Oblations and other Acts of Devotion which are offered to them at their Images as to give but one Instance of it in a Prayer used at the Consecration of the Cross. Sanctificetur lignum istud in nomine Pa ✚ tris Fi ✚ lii Spiritus ✚ Sancti benedictio illius ligni in quo membra sancta salvatoris suspensa sunt sit in isto ligno ut orantes inclinantesque se propter Deum ante istam crucem inveniant Corporis Animae sanitatem Let this Wood be santified in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and let the Blessing of that Wood on which the holy Members of our Saviour hung be on this Wood that those who pray and bow themselves before this Cross may obtain Health both of Body and Soul This peculiar Virtue which Consecration bestows on Images to obtain the Favour of Christ and his Saints to those who pray and worship before them is all that the Heathens intended in calling down their Gods to attend their Images to hear and receive their Prayers and Sacrifices They did not believe their Images to be Gods but Silver or Gold Wood or Brass or Stone according to the Materials they were made of as the Church of Rome does but they thought their Gods were present to hear the Prayers they made before their Images as the Church of Rome also believes that Christ and his Saints have a peculiar regard to those Prayers which are made before their Images as is evident from their forms of consecrating Images to such an use The Heathens did not put their trust in an Image of Wood and Stone but in that God who was represented by that Image and was there present to help them And thus tho the Church of Rome does not demand any Favour of Images nor put any Trust in them yet she expects the Relief and Acceptance of Christ and the Saints for that Worship she pays to their Images and I would desire any Man to show me the difference between these two especially when we consider how much greater Vertue is attributed to some Images of the Blessed Virgin in the Church of Rome than there is to others as to the Image of the Lady of Loretto c. which can signify nothing less than that the Virgin is
more pleased with and will more graciously accept our Worship before such an Image than any other or else me-thinks the Devotoes of the Virgin should not go so many Miles in Pilgrimage to the Lady of Loretto as they often do if they believed the Images of the Virgin which they had at home to be of equal Power which is as much trusting in Images and attributing a Divine Virtue to them as ever the Heathens were guilty of For me-thinks those who strictly adhere to the Letter of Scripture to prove that the Heathens believed their Images to be Gods and did put their Trust in them because the Scripture expresly says so should consider also that the Scripture expresly tells us that the Idols of the Heathens are Silver and Gold the Work of Mens hands they have Mouths but they speak not Eyes have they but they see not they have Ears but they hear not neither is there any Breath in their Mouths and therefore we have as much reason to conclude that the Heathens did not put their Trust in the material Images which they knew to be no better than stupid senseless matter which could not of themselves hear or help them as to confess that in some sense they made Gods of them For if the Heathens did not believe them to be dead senseless Images which could neither speak nor see nor hear but that they were really animated by invisible Spirits they were not such dull and sottish Idolaters as the Psalmist represents them and if they did as the Psalmist takes it for granted they themselves acknowledged than it is certain they could not believe the material Images to be Gods nor the Objects of their Hope and Trust and therefore might as some of their Philosophers in effect did as safely renounce believing any Divinity or Vertue in their Images for which they ought to be reverenced or demanding any Favâ—ur of them or putting any Trust in them as the Council of Trent does So that their not believing any Divinity in their Images does neither excuse them from the Breach of the second Commandment nor sufficiently distinguish the Church of Rome's worshipping Images from that Worship which the Heathens gave them at least the Bishop has said nothing to answer or prevent these Objections against Image-worship which he pretends to be the design of his Exposition 2. As a fuller Explication of the Doctrine of the Church about Image-worship Monsieur de Meaux adds that the Council of Trent ordains That all the Honour which is given to them Images should be referred to the Saints themselves which are represented by them Or as the Council expresses it The Honour we render to Images has such a reference to those they represent ad Prototypa quae illae representant to the Prototypes which they represent that by the means of those Images per Imagines by those Images we kiss and before which we kneel we adore Jesus Christ and honour the Saints whose Types they are Quorum illae similitudinem gerunt Whose likeness they are or whom they represent Hitherto we have no Exposition at all of the Doctrine of the Church about Image-Worship but only a bare relation what the Council says that Images must be worshipped only upon account of their Representation and that the Worship which is given to the Image is referred to the Prototype This all Roman-Catholicks agree in but yet there is an endless Dispute among them about the Nature and Degree of this Worship and it will be necessary to take a short view of it They are all agreed that at least the external Acts of Adoration are to be paid to Images such as Kissing Kneeling Bowing Prostration Incense this Durandus and Holcot and Picus Mirandula allowed they all agreed that the Worship which was given to Images is upon account of Representation or as Christ and his Saints are represented by them and worshipped in that Worship which is given to their Images but then there was a threefold difference between them 1. That some would not allow this Worship in a proper sense to be given to the Images but improperly and abusively because at the presence of the Image which excites in us the remembrance of the Object we worship the Object represented by it Christ or his Saints as if they were actually present this was the Opinion of Durandus Holcot and Picus Mirandula who could hardly escape the censure of Heresy for it and that which excused them as Vasquez says was That they agreed with the Catholick Church in performing all external Acts of Adoration to Images and that they differed only in manner of speaking from the rest 2. Thomas Aquinas and his Followers and several great Divines since the Council of Trent teach That the same Worship is to be given to the Image which is due to the Prototype and therefore as Christ must be worshipped with Latria or a supream Worship so must the Image of Christ because the Image is worshipped only on account of its Representation and therefore must be worshipped with the same Worship with the thing represented and the motion of the Mind to an Image as an Image is the same with the motion to the Thing represented Which seems the most reasonable Account for if I worship Christ by his Image I must give that Worship to the Image which I intend for Christ because in that case the Image is in Christ's place and stead to me 3. The third Opinion is That though we must worship Images yet we must not give the Worship of Latria to them no not to the Image of Christ himself but an inferior degree of Worship This some Divines asserted on the Authority of the Council of Nice which expresly determined that Latria is not to be given to Images But this is the most absurd Opinion of all for if we must worship Images only upon the account of their Representation we must give that Worship to them which is due to the thing represented by them and if we give any other Worship to them we must worship them for their own sakes And what is that Worship which is due to them as separated from the Prototype What Worship is due to carved and polished Brass and Stone Whoever desires to see these three different Opinions with the proper Reasons of them explained more at large may consult Dr. Stillingfleet's learned Defence of his Discourse of Idolatry Part 2. Chap. 1. pag. 575 c. Now the Council of Trent only determines that the Honour we give to Images must be referred to the Prototypes that we must adore Christ and his Saints in that Worship which we give to their Images which seems to countenance the second Opinion That the Worship of Latria is to be given to the Image of Christ because that is the Worship which we must give to Christ But then the Council refers to the second Council of Nice which determines the quite contrary and I dare not undertake
these things and charge the Church of Rome with them and not like that Church ever the better which suffers such abuses and applauds such cruelties as Papists themselves who have not put off all humanity cannot but abhor 3. That as often as they tell what they think of our Doctrines and Practices they would likewise at the same time inform their hearers that those thoughts are as the Replier says Opinions Interpretations and Consequences of their own concerning our Doctrine and not our avowed Doctrine But this is a very needless caution as I observed before for our people do not think that the Papists themselves believe all that ill of their own Doctrines and Practises which we charge them with and I cannot easily see how our disputing against the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome and answering the Arguments whereby they justify themselves should betray people into such a mistake for it is no natural proof that two men are of the same mind because they dispute against one another Thus much for the Protester And to conclude the whole I shall give my Readers a short view of the whole progress of this dispute that they may see what shuffling Adversaries we have to deal with When the Book entituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented was exposed to publick view and mightily applauded by those of the Roman Communion and industriously dispersed and earnestly recommended to the perusal of Protestants a very learned and charitable hand undertook to make a true representation of the Doctrines and Practises of the Church of Rome which he performed with such full and plain evidence that the Misrepresenter hath not so much as attempted to charge him with any one false Citation nor to show in any one particular that he has misrepresented their Doctrines and Practises but instead of this in his Reflections on the Answer if the Reflecter and Misrepresenter be the same person as he owns himself to be he makes fresh complaints of Protestants misrepresenting Papists which if it had been true is no confutation of that representation which the Answerer had made of Popery The question then was Whether the Church of Rome believes and practises as the Answerer says she does and proves by unquestionable authorities that she does But this was too plainly proved to be a question any longer and therefore he rather chose to debate that general question about the Rules of Representing and how we must know what is the Faith of the Church of Rome and whether the Bishop of Condom's Exposition have not a sufficient authority given to it by the Pope and Cardinals and Bishops of France and what the authority of private Doctors is and the like but has not in any one particular shown wherein the Answerer has misrepresented them that the authorities he alledges are not good that he has put any forced and unnatural sense upon the words of their Council or Catechism or Doctors or that their Church has by any publick acts contradicted what he charges to be her Doctrine or Practise This he has not done and therefore we have reason to believe this he could not do and this is reason enough to conclude that the Answer contains a true Representation of the Doctrines and Practises of the Church of Rome I did not think such Reflections as these worth the notice of the Learned Answerer and therefore undertook to reply to them my self and particularly examined every thing he had said in return to this he publishes another Answer which he calls Papists Protesting against Protestant Popery and I thought it would come to bare protesting at last for his Reason and Argument run very low before this I have now considered and I think have not suffered any thing to escape without an answer but that the Reader may the better understand what a formidable Adversary this is I shall briefly compare the Reply with his Answer and then leave him to judg of the ingenuity and honesty of the Protester In answer to his fresh complaint of Misrepresenting in my Reply I considered what it is to Misrepresent viz. To charge them with such Doctrines and Practises as the Church of Rome dâ—sowns and proved from his own Character of a Papist Misrepresented that we are no Misrepresenters for what he makes us charge them with believing and doing in the Character of a Papist Misrepresented that he owns and defends in the Character of a Papist Represented and the only difference in most Cases between these two Characters is this That in the Character of a Papist Misrepresented he puts in all the ill things which Protestants say of their Faith and Worship and in the Character of a Papist Represented he says all the good things he can of it but this I told him does not belong to Representation but Dispute and therefore whatever guilt we charge their Doctrines and Practises with this is not to misrepresent while we charge them with nothing but what is their Faith and Practise to Represent in this sense is only to report matter of fact and he who reports truly cannot misrepresent If we charge them with any guilt which they think they are not chargeable with this becomes matter of dispute and it is not enough to confute such a charge to tell the World that they do not believe so ill of their own Doctrines and Practises as we Protestants do By this Rule I examined the Thirty seven particulars of his Character and carefully distinguished between matters of representation and dispute and all this he grants and yet in his Answer falls a protesting against Protestant Popery as if we had made a new Religion for them whereas we only tell them what the faults of their Religion is and this he calls Protestant Popery That is the judgment of Protestants concerning Popery and this he protests against which is a much easier way than to confute it And now instead of defending his own Characters wherein he had charged us with misrepresenting Papists and which I had proved and he in effect granted to be no misrepresentation he seeks about to find out some new Protestant Misrepresenters and fills up several Pages with Citations out of the Manual of John Archbishop of York Mr. Sutcliff and others Now in the first place he ought to have shown that the distinction between matters of representation and dispute by which I answer'd his own Characters will not justify these Misrepresenters also as most certainly it will and a Hundred more if he can find them but he saies not one word of this but only cites their words and calls it misrepresenting But besides this he has used very foul play to make Misrepresenters of them The Archbishop only transcribes out of Popish Authors and cites his authorities the Protester sets all down as the Archbishops words without letting his Reader know that Papists teach these things and that the Archbishop only repeats them after them But besides concealing the Popish authorities