own'd as Such And as to this I need only Inform you that the Council of Trent is receiv'd here and all the Catholick World over as to all its Definitions of Faith althò it be not wholly receiv'd in some places as to its other Decrees which relate only to Discpline And therefore in appealing to this Council for the vindicating all I have there asserted to be the Doctrine of Catholicks I have done nothing but what I was oblig'd and is justifiable before the whole World and on the truth of what I have said concerning the Councils being universally receiv'd as to Doctrines of Faith I 'le allow the whole Cause between us to depend But this only as to your mistake Now supposing this to be the Rule of such Points of Faith as are there set down for the Belief of the Papists you raise your Difficulty pag. 11. because I shew no Authority I have to Interpret that Rule in my own sence it being a thing expresly forbidden by Pius 4th And because several of my Representations depend upon my own private Sence and Opinion Truly Sir had I in undertaking to state the Belief of our Church Interpreted the Council of Trent in my own private Sence or Obtruded any Opinion of mine for an Article of our Faith you might justly have Arraigned me at that Barr. But you must give me leave here to tell you that you Wrong me and Impose upon your Reader For so far was I from committing this Fault of Interpreting the Council of Trent in my own Sence That I have only deliver'd it as it is Interpreted to me and to all our Church in the Catechism ad Parochos composed and set forth by Order of the said Council and Pius 5th for the Instruction of the Faithful in their Christian Duty touching Faith and Good Manners in conformity to the Sense of the Council And for this reason in my Conclusion I appeal'd to this Catechism for the justifying of what I have represented to be the Faith of the Papists to be really so And that you may see how vainly you have charged me with the Transgression of Pope Pius's Bull remember I appeal'd again in my Conclusion to Veron 's Rule of Faith and to that set forth by the Bishop of Condom for maintaining the Character of the Papist Represented to be just Now you must know the Latter of these drew up a like Character in Paris of the Belief of a Papist and it being conform to the Principles of Piety and Christianity it quite overthrew the foul charge of its Adversaries There from their Books and Pulpits and this so home that they had no other way of preserving their Credit with their Flock than to declare to them that the Character set forth by the Bishop was not Exact and True but only vampt up by him into that Form for the benefit of the Publick cause Upon which he Published another Edition with several distinct attestations of many Bishops and Cardinals and of the present Pope himself wherein they at large approve the Doctrine contain'd in that Treatise for the Faith and Doctrine of the Church of Rome and conform to the Council of Trent And now Sir in proposing the Faith of our Church as I found it deliver'd by this Reverend Prelate and supported by such Authentick approbations wherein have I Entrenched upon the Priviledge of the Apostolick See of Interpreting the Council of Trent Or what necessity of relying upon a private Mans Judgment as you Phrase it of no Name and no Authority instead of that of the Pope and Council The Faith of a Papist I have deliver'd according to the Catechism Publish'd by Order of the Council or as Explicated by a Prelate who brings along with him the Authority of the See Apostolick and which part of all this is my private Sense or Opinion But you offer to make good this charge in some Instances As in the Invocation of Saints I seem to limit their Power of helping us to Prayers only which Limitation is not to be found in the Council of Trent I cannot but acknowledge Sir that the Council mentions their Aid and Assistance which we may reasonably expect But there being no other means of their Aiding and Assisting us express'd in the Council or in the Catechism ad Parochos besides that of their Prayers to God to obtain benefits for us through our only Saviour and Redeemer Jesus Christ And it being thus limited by the Bishop of Condom on this Subject pag. 33. Edit Pa. 1681. with the Pope and Cardinal's approbation I think I need no farther vindication to shew that in the proposal of that Point I follow'd not my own private sense or Opinion as you endeavour to prove In the Point of Merit you urge this again pag. 56. as if I had qualified this Doctrine with the dependance on Grace on God's goodness and Promise without the Authority of the Council there being no such qualification express'd in Can. 32. read and cited by you 'T is true 't is not in this Canon But if you please to look back to Can. 26. Sex 6. you 'l find it there clear enough to aquit me from the scandal of publishing my own private sense or Opinion You instance again pag. 11. in the Point of the Popes personal Infallibility which I represent to be no matter of Faith pag. 42. and what reason have you you say to adhere to my representation rather than to that of many others who assert the contrary But this difficulty is nothing but your mistake for I do not in the least deliver here my own private sentiment or opinion touching this point in opposition to other Authors But I only by way of Narative relate that whereas some Divines endeavour in their School debates to prove and maintain this Personal Infallibility yet it is not receiv'd amongst Catholicks as any matter of Faith because not positively determin'd by any General Council and propos'd to the Faithful to be embrac'd as such And this Sir again is not my private sense or Opinion but a bare Narative of matter of Fact But I am now to encounter your Goliath-Argument which shews it self throughout your Answer and seems to defy all the Hosts of Israel If I can find never a Stone to fling at it I must e'en lie at its mercy And it appears thus In my Character of a Papist Represented I pretend to declare the Faith of a Roman Catholick as 't is defin'd and deliver'd in allow'd General Councils and yet tho the Deposing Doctrine has been as evidently declar'd in such Councils as ever Purgatory and Transubstantiation were in that of Trent yet still with me 't is no Article of our Faith This is the main strength of it as urg'd by you on several occasions I answer it in short that tho all Doctrinal Points defin'd in any approv'd General Council and propos'd to the Faithful to be receiv'd under an Anathema are
with us so many Articles of Faith and are obligatory to all of our Communion Yet not so of every other matter declar'd in such a Council There being many things treated of and resolv'd on in such an Assembly which concern not the Faith of the Church but only some matter of Discipline Government or other more particular Affair And these Constitutions or Decrees are not absolutely Obligatory as is evident even in the Council of Trent as is before hinted whose Decrees of Doctrine are as much acknowledg'd here by Catholicks in England and Germany as within the Walls of Rome it self or the Vatican And yet it 's other Constitutions and Decrees are not universally receiv'd and it may be never will Now Sir altho we allow some Councils have made decrees for deposing in particular Cases yet the Power it self not being declar'd as a Doctrinal Point and the Decrees relating only to matter of Discipline and Government it comes short of being an Article of our Faith and all that in your Answer depends on it falls to the Ground I have no place here to give you a distinct account of the several matters treated of in Councils and of the difference between Decrees of Faith and others which are not so yet because you seem to require some satisfaction in these Points I remit you to such Authors who treat of them at large and most particularly the Considerations upon the Council of Trent Canus Bellarmine and others This that I have here said may be sufficient to evince that in my declaring the deposing Power to be no Article of Faith I have not follow'd my own Private Opinion or meerly the number of Authors but rather the sense of the whole Church Councils and Popes themselves who plainly enough own this in letting so many open and Positive Assertors of the no-deposing Power to pass without any Censure of Heresie It being certain that were this Doctrine any Article of our Faith as likewise that mention'd in the preceeding Paragraph of the Popes Personal Infallibility the obstinate Opposers of them would no more escape without that brand than those that deny other Articles of our Faith as Purgatory and Transubstantiation These Instances I look upon as the most Principal throughout your whole Reply because in them you have made use of a Medium directly opposit to the Intent of my Book and which if it had been effectual would have shew'd that I have not Represented the Faith of the Papist according to the Rule of approv'd General Councils as I pretend but rather according to my own private apprehension or Opinion which I confess would have been a full Answer to it as to such particulars But how far you have fail'd of your endeavours even in this Point I leave now to the Prudent Considerer to judge But the way you take in all other Parts of your Book seems to me not to answer your design nor to agree with the Title of it For whereas I undertake to propose the Faith of a Roman Catholick as he is really taught to believe in Conformity to the Definitions of Oecumenical Councils Bating those Points I have already spoke to in your Answer You either own the Doctrine to be the establish'd Belief of your Church as in part that of the Power of Priestly Absolution Confession of due veneration to the Relicks of Saints of Merit of Satisfaction of the Authority of the Church of General Councils c. Or you shew the Doctrine I have deliver'd not to be the Faith of our Church by appealing from the Definitions of our Councils and sense of our Church to some expressions found in Old Mass books Rituals c. as if this were a serious way of truly Representing the Doctrines of the Church of Rome Can any Religion stand this Test Will not many Expressions in all sorts of Prayers Preaching and Devotions if separated from the sense of the Church prove unjustifiable and Ridiculous Let but an Atheist take this liberty even with the Scripture it self and thus separate infinite number of expressions there and see what will be presently the colour of all Religion and whether Christianity will be better than Turcism And especially whether the allow'd Psalms in Meeter will prove the devotion of men of sence and reason tho all may be reconcileable to Piety and Religion if taken in the sense of the Church Or you appeal again from the Declarations of our Councils and sense of our Church to some external Action as in case of respect shewn to Images and Saints upon which from our external Adoration by construction of the Fact viz kneeling bowing c. you are willing to conclude us guilty of Idolatry As if a true judgment could be made of these Actions without respect to the Intention of the Church that directs them and of the Person that does them As if they were not in themselves Indifferent and capable of being paid to God or to Men. Or as if your measures being follow'd Abigail ought not to come in and share with us in our constructive Idolatry because she fell before David on her face and bow'd her self to the ground and fell at his feet Joshua likewise because he fell on his face to the earth and did worship the Angel And as many who on their knees pay their respects to the King and bow before him As likewise all the Beggers in Lincolns-Inn fields who on their knees with their hands lifted up ask an alms of Passers-by Must not all these by construction of Fact come into the list of your Idolaters Or finally not being willing the Doctrine should pass for ours in the form I have stated it you appeal again from our Councils and Sense of the Church which I follow to the Sentimetns of some of our own Private Authors and so you come often with this French Author says this Vives says that Wicelius says another thing and Lessius another by this method endeavouring to convince your Reader that the Belief of a Papist is much different from what I ahve represented it But Sir this way may do well enough with the unwary but it ill suits with what you pretend The Frontis piece of your Book puts us upon expecting The Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented And when we come to peruse it we find several Doctrines propos'd but without any Authority of Church or Councils but this Author says this and that Author says that as if the Sense of every Author were immediately the Doctrine of our Church The Church speaks to us in her approv'd General Councils and from them you might have truly Represented her Belief and Doctrine but from particular Authors some of which may Write upon a Pique others upon a Passion others upon some other Biass nothing more can be Collected besides their own Opinion and with understanding Men it passes for no more So that nothing can be more unjustifiable than to
REFLECTIONS Upon the ANSWER To the PAPIST Mis-represented c. Directed to the ANSWERER SIR I have perus'd your Answer and am glad to find it so moderate and calm You make here and there some Personal reflections indeed but this being done soberly without heat and passion I am still bound to thank you if not on my particular yet on the Publick score For having by this convinc'd the world that men of different judgments may now treat of matters of Controversie without making use of Satyr and Scurrility or letting Cavil fill up the place of Judgment and Reason This method I cannot but approve as most agreeable to Christianity And if I pursue the same in giving a farther explication of some most material Points you have been pleas'd to question in my small Treatise as also in letting you know my farther sence of Yours I hope it may be done without offence and that the shortness I shall use will be easily pardon'd if it be but to the purpose Sir You let me know my First Character of a Papist Mis-represented is not satisfactory as not founded on the sense of a Party and the quotations of Authors but being rather my own False Apprehensions my ignorant my childish or wilful mistakes Indeed had I been bred up in a Wood and jumpt forth into the world with this Character in my head I should have had reason to subscribe to you But because upon examination I find I was educated in a well-peopled Town at the foot of the Pulpit and liv'd always in Company and Conversation I cannot imagin this Character so my own as you seem to understand it but rather my own as I receiv'd it And you need not wonder that I did not heretofore by the help of Books or Friends receive better information and correct my false Apprehensions of Popery For indeed were I even at this time to be rul'd by the greatest number of these the Character of a Papist would be with me much blacker yet than I have there drawn it There would be but few strokes of reason or Christianity in it but Beast and Barbarous all over And pray do you see Sir what weighty proofs are urg'd against me to shew how foul and monstrous a Religion I have chosen They shew me the Book of Homilies laying a good foundation Mr. Fox's Book of Martyrs Bishop Ridley's Writings The Publick Test A Manual of three small Treatises by John late Arch-Bishop of York for the use of a Lady to preserve her from the danger of Popery Printed London 1672. Then a large Description given by Mr. Sutcliffe in his Survey of Popery where he undertakes to draw its several features as chap. 10. That Popery is a sink of Heathenish Idolatry chap. 27. That t is a most absurd and foolish Religion chap. 32. That it is a Doctrine of Devils chap. 47. That in many points 't is more absurd and abominable than the Doctrine of Mahomet Then the Anatomy of Popery printed at London 1673. in which an Agreement is shown between Paganism and Popery in six and twenty Points and with the Jews and Pharisees in other ten Then Mr. Julian Johnson who has again set forth This Comparison of Popery and Paganism especially as to Politheism and Idolatry With the approbation of his Answerer Jovian who assures him that He with all the rest that have so thundred of late with the Thebean Legion like it well and are as well satisfied with it as he himself is bating some irreverent Phrases Now Sir amidst these Authentick proofs besides a great number of other Authors who undertake to draw Popery in its own Colours what convenience or even possibility had I of framing any better apprehension of this Religion than was here laid before me Especially since my Friends were not wanting to vouch the truth of all this and to assure me they had heard all this over and over from Men of Character and in Places which gave it reputation beyond all question Neither does it appear to me had it been my fortune to have consulted you in this affair that I should have been much rectified as to these my Childish or Wilful Mistakes concerning Popery as is evident from the Character you give of it throughout your Answer and especially at the end pag. 161. viz. That it is that you can never yield to without betraying the truth renouncing your senses and Reason wounding your Conscience dishonouring God and his Holy Word and Sacraments perverting the doctrine of the Gospel as to Christ's satisfaction Intercession and Remission of sins depriving the People of the means of Salvation which God himself hath appointed and the Primitive Church observ'd and damning those for whom Christ died But however I will not insist upon this point He rather yeild than be contentious And because you say that my Character of a Papist Mis-represented is made up of False Apprehensions Ignorant Childish and Wilful Mistakes He own it to be no better But then Sir you must give me leave to make use of your Authority with my Friends and Acquaintance in assuring them that wheresoever they shall for the future either hear or read such things charg'd upon the Papists they must give it no credit and esteem it no better than the False Apprehensions Ignorant Childish and Wilful Mistakes of the Relatours Upon this condition I close this point only adding that in laying down the Colours of a Papist Mis-represented I never thought of declaring the Articles of your Church or by Mis-representing the Papist to represent you as you seem to mistake me But only to shew the many Mistakes and Errours to be found amongst Protestants of what kind soever concerning the notion of Popery for Debitor sum sapientibus Insipientibus And tho you seem willing in your Introduction that your Reader should esteem this our complaint of being basely Mis-represented no better than a meer Pretence or a Design of such who go about to deceive by comparing it with the Complaints of the Arians Pelagians Nestorians c Yet we are beholding to you soon after when finding some of the dirt thrown at us to fall upon your own Face by your standing so near us you then own it to be grounded and Real pitying the Weakness and Folly of those who Cast it pag. 10. And therefore I believe you will close with me in this Point that Mis-representing is Mis-representing tho from those who dissent from your Church But we go on to the other Character of the Papist represented And this too it seems affords you as little satisfaction as the former on several accounts And First you move a Scruple by the by pag. 9. by your having no mind to ask How the Council of Trent should come to be the Rule and Measure of Doctrine to any here where it was never received As if in this Character I had observ'd a Rule which ought to be none Here nor is