it that Authority which Christ gave it and that he believes his Church to be above the Scripture and prophanely allows to her an uncontroulable Authority of being Judge of the Word of God For though there may be some truth in such Consequences as these from their Doctrine yet they were never charged upon them by us as their Principles or Faith Which is the chief Art he uses in drawing up these Misrepresentations XV. Of Traditions WE charge them with making some unwritten Traditions of equal authority with the Scripture and believing them with a Divine Faith This we say derogates from the perfection of the Scripture or the written Word of God For if our Rule be partly the written partly the unwritten Word then the Scripture or written Word is but part of the Rule and part of a Rule cannot be a whole and perfect Rule And we say That these unwritten Traditions are but humane Ordinations and Traditions of men but we do not say a Papist believes them to be Humane but Divine though unwritten Traditions and therefore though we affirm that they give equal authority to such Traditions as are in truth no better than humane Ordinations as to the Scriptures themselves yet we do not say that they admit what they believe to be only humane Traditions to supply the defects of Scripture allowing equal authority to them as to the Scriptures themselves which is the only Misrepresentation in this Character all the rest being owned by the Representer himself who then had very little cause to complain of Misrepresenting XVI Of Councils THe difference between the Misrepresenter and Representer in this Article is no more but this That the Papist Misrepresented is said to receive new Additions to his Creed from the Definitions and Authority of General Councils and to embrace them with a Divine Faith The Papist Represented owns the Authority of General Councils as well as the other and receives all their Definitions and believes them as firmly but though they define such Doctrines for Articles of Faith as were never heard of in the Christian Church and least were never put into any Christian Creed before yet he will not believe them to be Additions to his Faith or to what was taught by Christ and his Apostles But Pope Pius the 4 th his Creed must be the Faith of the Church from the Apostles days Now here I fancy our Author mistook his side for the Papist Represented has much the worse Character that he is so void of all sence that he cannot tell which is most twelve or four and twenty Articles in a Creed This is a hard case that Men must believe all the Definitions of their Councils but though they see their Creed increase every day must never own that their Faith receives any Additions However I think he has no reason here to complain of Misrepresenting since he owns all that any Protestant charges him with such an Implicit Faith in General Councils as receives all their Definitions and rather than fail in defiance of Sense and History will believe that to be the old Faith which was never defined till yesterday XVII Of Infallibility in the Church THe Misrepresenter says a Papist believes that the Pastors and Prelates of his Church are infallible which if it be understood of every particular Pastor and Prelate no Protestant ever charged them with and therefore the Representer might very safely deny it and this is all the difference between them except it be this That what the Misrepresenter barely affirms the Representer endeavours to prove viz. the Infallibility of the Church at least as assembled in General Councils and yet this must be called Misrepresenting too a Word which I suppose must have some secret Charm in it to Convert Hereticks XVIII Of the Pope HEre the Misrepresenter is very Rhetorical and facetious and we may give him leave to be a little pleasant with his own Universal Pastor He says the Papist believes the Pope to be his great God how great I cannot tell but some Flatterers of the Papal greatness have given the Title of God to the Pope and possibly some Protestants have repeated the same after them but never charged the Papists with believing it much less do they charge them with denying Christ to be the Head of the Church or with saying That the Pope has taken his place but we do charge them with making the Pope the Universal Pastor and Head of the Church under Christ and this I hope is no Misrepresenting for it is asserted and proved after this Fashion by the Representer But why is the Pope's personal Infallibility put into the Character of a Papist Misrepresented Why not as well the Infallibility of General Councils Since he grants some Papists do believe the Pope's Infallibility and such Papists are not Misrepresented by charging them with it and there are others who do not believe the Councils Infallibility without the Pope which therefore cannot be an inherent Infallibility in them The truth is the Infallibility of the Church is the Faith of a Papist but in whom this Infallibility is seated whether in the Diffusive Representative or Virtual Church in Pope or Council or the whole Body of Christians is not agreed among them But neither of these are Misrepresentations of a Papist unless you tell what particular sort of Papists you represent and then I am sure you misrepresent a Jesuit if you make him deny the Pope's Infallibility XIX Of Dispensations HEre I confess the Misrepresenter and Representer do flatly contradict each other and I am heartily glad to hear the Representer so fully disown those Principles which are destructive to all Religion as well as to Humane Societies and should be more glad still had there been never any foundation for what he calls the Misrepresentation However this he does very ill in to charge Protestants with this Misrepresentation of a Papist for I know no Protestant that charges these Principles upon Papists in general but I hope it is no Misrepresentation to charge those Men with such Principles who charge themselves with them and I suppose our Author will not say that these Principles were never taught or defended by any Papist Whenever he is hardy enough to say this I 'll direct him to such Popish Authors as will satisfy him about it XX. Of the Deposing Power HEre the dispute between the Misrepresenter and Representer is only this Whether the Deposing Power be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome For it 's granted on all hands that it is or has been the Doctrine and Practice of many Popes Divines and Canonists but that it has been condemned by other Divines and some famous Universities tho I do not hear that it was ever condemned by any Pope But what does he think of this being decreed by General Councils Does not this make it the Doctrine of their Church This he says nothing to here but we shall meet with it by and by in his
Anathema's for had it been known in the time of the Council of Florence we may suppose they would have anathematized too as well as decreed But this Council supposing that now the Greeks and Armenians were united to the Church of Rome the Heresie and Schism at an end and the Persons reconciled there was no need to exercise any Church Censures and therefore no use for Anathema's For this seems to be the true reason why the Council of Trent was so liberal of Anathema's because there were so many obstinate and incorrigible Hereticks at that time 2. The next Enquiry is Whether the deposing Decree be a Doctrinal Point or only matter of Discipline and Government For thus the Reflecter says That the Deposing Power is not declared as a Doctrinal Point and the Decrees relate only to Discipline and Government and therefore come short of being an Article of Faith This I confess I look on as a very childish Evasion For as they have been lately told To decree what shall be done includes a virtual Definition of that Doctrine on which that Decree is founded But I will only ask this Reflecter one short Question Why he rejects this Decree of Deposing Heretical Princes or Favourers of Hereticks Is it because he thinks the Doctrine of Deposing Heretical Princes erroneous or only because he don't like the Practice of it If the first then it seems this is a Doctrinal Decree as well as a Decree of Discipline and Government If he only condemns the Practice of it without renouncing the Doctrine let him say so and see how Princes will like it When Papists dispute among themselves about this Deposing Decree those who are for it vindicate the Popes Power to depose Princes those who are against it deny that the Pope hath any such Power which shows that they think it a Doctrinal Dispute for there is no other difference between them but whether the Pope has or has not Power to do it which is a point of Doctrine But when they dispute with us Hereticks then the Church has not decreed it as a Point of Doctrine but only of Discipline and Government But let them tell me then if this Decree do not involve a Doctrinal Error what is the fault of it 3. But suppose this Decree must be only ranked among the decreta morum which concern the Discipline and Government of the Church Is not the Authority of the Church as sacred in such matters as in points of Doctrine Is not the Church guided by an infallible Spirit in making such Decrees as concern the whole Christian World and the propagation and security of the Christian Faith At least Is not the Church secured from making wicked and sinful Decrees The only Example they have in Scripture whereon to found the Authority and Infallibility of General Councils is the Conncil of the Apostles at Jerusalem Acts 15. And yet that contains no definition of Faith but a Decree of Manners as they call it that is a rule whereby they are to guide their Actions without defining any point of Doctrine whereon that Decree is founded It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things that ye abstain from meats offered to Idols and from Blood and from things strangled and from Fornication from which if you keep your selves ye shall do well fare ye well They might as well object here as they do against the deposing Decree That there is no Point of Doctrine determined in it but it is only a Decree to direct them what to do and yet we find the Holy Ghost assisting in such Decrees for indeed the rules of Discipline and Government to direct the lives and manners of men is the only proper subject of Ecclesiastical Authority and therefore we may most reasonably expect that God should assist and direct his Church in such matters The Church has no Authority to make new Articles of Faith the Gospel was preached by Christ and what Christ could not perfectly instruct them in because they were not able to bear it at that time was supplied by the Holy Spirit who led the Apostles into all truth and now we must expect no farther Revelations And therefore as to matters of Faith the Authority of General Councils was no more than the Authority of Witnesses to declare what Doctrine they received from Christ and his Apostles and therefore their Authority could reach no farther than we may reasonably presume them to be credible Witnesses that is while the Tradition might be supposed clear and strong which I doubt will go no farther than the four first General Councils which are Received by the Church of England but the Authority of the Church in Decrees relating to Discipline and Government is perpetual and therefore in all Later Councils if there be any Infallibility in the Church I should more securely rely on such Decrees than on their Definitions of Faith And therefore Bellarmin for the Pope and MelchiorCanus for General Councils the two Authors to whom our Reflecter refers us declare that they cannot err in those Decrees which relate to manners if they concern the whole Church and are in things necessary to Salvation that is that they cannot forbid any Vertue nor Command any thing which is a Sin So that they who believe the Infallibility of Popes and Councils must acknowledg the Lawfulness of deposing Heretical Princes for if it were Unlawful to do it Popes and Councils could never Command it Our Reflecter indeed proves That such Decrees and Constitutions as concern Discipline and Government are not absolutely obligatory from the Example of the Council of Trent whose decrees of Doctrine are as much acknowledged 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 Vniversally received and it may be never will But pray can he tell me for what reason this is Let him say if he dare that it is for want of Authority or Infallibility in the Council to make Decrees to oblige all the Christian World and if Christian Princes will not submit to the Decrees of Councils and the Church dares not compel them to it does this justify such a refusal The truth is such Decrees ought not to take place nor become Laws in a Christian Nation without the Consent and Authority of the Soveraign Prince and therefore the Roman Emperors gave Authority to the Decrees of Councils and made them Laws but since the Church has pretended to act Independently on the Secular Powers and to give Laws to them without their consent no wonder that Princes who understand their own Authority and have power to defend it take what they like and reject the rest And for the same reason as our Reflecter observes the Popes suffer so many Positive assertors of the no-deposing power to pass without any censure of Heresy Which is no
abuse of Christianity to coin such Miracles to nurse Men up in Superstition which is the general design of them So that here the matter is not represented so bad as it is which is the only Misrepresentation I have hitherto met with XXXIII Of Holy Water THe Papist misrepresented is said highly to approve the superstitious use of many inanimate things and to attribute wonderful Effects to Holy Water Blessed Candles Holy Oil and Holy Bread The Papist represented disproves all sort of Superstition but yet is taught to have an esteem for Holy Water c. So that when we charge them with using such Religious Charms as these we do not misrepresent them for they own they do so but the Misrepresentation is in charging these usages with Superstition but if this be misrepresenting it is not to misrepresent a Papist but to misrepresent Popery We charge them with nothing but what they own and justify but we charge their Doctrines and Practices with such Guilt as they will not own but this is not matter of Representation but of Dispute XXXIV Of breeding up People in Ignorance WE do indeed charge them with breeding people up and keeping them in Ignorance because they deny them the means and opportunity of knowledge will not suffer them to read the Bible nor say their publick Prayers in a Language which they understand and forbid them to read such Books as might inform them better Is this true or not If it be then though they may have a â—â—at many Learned Men among them their Learned Men may keep the People in Ignorance We deny not but they do instruct People after a fashion but yet they take care to let them know no more than they are pleased to teach them and they may be very ignorant for all that But I think though this be a very great fault it belongs neither to the Character of a Papist misrepresented nor represented but is the fault of their Governours their Popes and Bishops and Priests and I charitably hope it will be some excuse to the Ignorant and deluded People XXXV Of the Uncharitableness of the Papists WE here charge them with damning all who are not of their Church and Communion and this we think very Uncharitable For it damns far the greatest number of Christians in the World The Representer does not deny that they do this only endeavours to prove that it is not Uncharitableness in them to do it I am not to dispute this point with him now but if this be his charity I like it as little as I do his Faith XXXVI Of Ceremonies and Ordinances WE charge them with corrupting the Christian Worship by a great number of Ceremonies and Ordinances which we judge useless burdensom or Superstitious unworthy of the simplicity and spirituality of the Christian Worship and a great infringement of true Christian liberty That they do command great numbers of such Ceremonies the Representer grants and therefore we do not misrepresent them in it whether they do well or ill in this is no part of the Character but the matter in Controversie between us XXXVII Of Innovations in matters of Faith AND so is his last Character about Innovations a meer dispute and cannot be made a Character unless we should charge them with believing those Doctrines to be Innovations which we say and prove to be so but never charge them with believing so at this rate he may make Characters of a Papist misrepresented out of all the disputes which are between us It is but saying what we charge their Doctrines and Practices with and this makes the Character of a Papist misrepresented and it is but denying this charge in another Column and then you have a Character of a Papist represented if we charge them with believing any thing which they do not believe or with doing what they do not then indeed we misrepresent them but he has not given any one instance of this in all his 37 Characters But if to condemn their Doctrines and Practices if to charge them with contradicting the evidence of Sense of Reason and of Scripture that they are innovations in Faith and corruptions of the Christian Worship be to misrepresent them we confess we are such misrepresenters and for ought I can perceive are like to continue so unless they have some better arguments in reserve than ever we yet saw for Character-making will not do it so that all this cry about misrepresenting is come to just nothing We like a Papist as little as he has represented him as when we see him represented by a Protestant Pen for there is no difference at all in the Parts Proportions and Features though there is some difference in the Colours A Papist is the same in both Characters only with this difference that a Protestant thinks him a very bad Christian and a Papist we may be sure thinks him a very good one A Protestant thinks the Faith and Worship of a Papist to be contrary to Sense Reason and Scripture and the Faith and Practice of the Primitive Church a Papist thinks it agreeable to all these Rules or can give a Reason why it should not And therefore I could not but smile at his concluding Proposal to convince us that the Faith as he has represented it is really the Faith of the Papist which we believe is true excepting the deposing Doctrine and some few other Points which I have already observed that the decision of this whole Affair depend upon an experience Do but you or any Friend for you give your assent to these Articles of Faith in the very form and manner as I have stated them and if upon your Request you are not admitted into the Communion of the Roman Catholicks and owned to believe aright in all those Points I 'll then confess that I have abused the World c. and truly I am apt to think so too but we must like his Faith better before we shall make the Experiment Secondly But it is time now to proceed to his other Reflections which concern the Rule whereby the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is to be known For though the Faith of their Church be infallible it is wonderful hard to know what their Faith is Now his Reflections may be reduced to two general Heads First Concerning the Authority of the Council of Trent in England and the Rules of expounding it Secondly Concerning the false Rules the Answerer has used in judging of the Faith and Doctrine of the Church of Rome First Concerning the Authority of the Council of Trent and the Rules of expounding it The Author of A Papist misrepresented and represented in drawing the Character of a Papist represented professes to follow the Doctrine prescribed in the Council of Trent This the Answerer says he finds no fault with and therefore would not ask How the Council of Trent comes to be the rule and measure of Doctrine to any here where it was never
received p. 9. ed. 1. To this the Reflecter answers That the Council of Trent is received here and all the Catholick World over as to all its definitions of Faith p. 5. By which I suppose he means that all English Catholicks do own the Authority of the Council of Trent and take their Rule of Faith from it but this is not what the Answerer means by that Question Whether English Catholicks singly for themselves and in their private Capacities own the Doctrine of the Council of Trent but by what publick Act of Church or State it has been received in England as it has been in other Catholick Countries The Church of England had no Representatives in that Council nor did by any after Act own it's Authority and therefore it is no authentick and obligatory Rule here But allowing the Authority of this rule to determine what is Popery and what not which the Answerer allows reasonable enough considering that its definitions of Faith are received all the Catholick World over as the Reflecter saith the greater difficulty is about the Interpretation of this rule For not only we Hereticks interpret this Council a little differently from our Author but Catholick Doctors themselves cannot agree about it Now when other good Catholicks differ from him in explaining the definitions and Decrees of this Council why must his sense and not theirs pass for the character of a Papist Pope Pius IV. did strictly forbid any private Man to interpret the Council according to his own private sense and opinion but if any dispute happened about the true meaning of their definitions and Decrees he reserved the decision of it to the Apostolick See and a very wise Decree it was considering that many of their definitions were penned in loose and ambiguous words on purpose to compose the disputes and differences of their Divines who were many times very troublesome to the Council that each party might think their own sense favoured but then considering what ill consequence this might be of to suffer them to dispute the sense of the Council and wrest it to countenance their private opinions which would rather inflame than compose these disputes a fresh example of which they had in the dispute between Catharinus and Soto while the Council was sitting the Pope very prudently forbids this that if they would still wrangle among themselves yet the authority of the Council might not be concerned in it But now if their Doctors do differ still about the sense of the Council and affix their private opinions on it and Popes think fit rather to connive at these differences than to undertake to determine them why must any one of these different opinions be so made the character of a Papist as to exclude the other If some and those of greatest note and authority in the Church and not inferiour in number to say no more are for the deposing Doctrine and others against it why must those only be thought Papists who deny this deposing power and not those also who assert it Whether it be the Faith of the Church or not is a dispute between them and though our Author denies that it is the Faith of the Church and therefore that a Papist is not bound to believe it yet those who are for the deposing Power assert that it is the Faith of the Church and that with much greater reason than he denies it and what authority has he to decide this dispute and who gave him this authority Does not his representation of a Papist in this point depend upon his own private sense and opinion No he says He is so far from being guilty of this fault of interpreting the Council of Trent in his own sense that he has only delivered it as it is interpreted to him and to all their Church in the Catechism ad Parochos composed and set forth by the order of the Council and Pius V. for the instruction of the faithful in their Christian duty touching Faith and good Manners in conformity to the sense of the Council And is he sure that all his representations are conformable to the sense of this Catechism May he not play tricks with the Catechism and expound that by a private spirit as well as the Council Well but he appealed in his conclusion to Veron ' s rule of Faith And what of that How comes Veron's rule to be so Authentick as to justifie any interpretation which agrees with it Why did not our Author appeal to his own character which may have as much authority for ought I know as Veron's rule But besides Veron he appeals to the Bishop of Condom who drew up a like character in Paris of the belief of a Papist And what is the authority of this Bishops character For Bishops have no more authority to expound the Council of Trent which is intirely reserved to the Apostolick See than private Doctors Yes the Bishop of Condom's Book has all requisite authority because the second Edition was published with several distinct attestations of many Bishops and Cardinals and of the present Pope himself wherein they at large approve the Doctrine contained in that Treatise for the Faith and Doctrine of the Church of Rome and conform to the Council of Trent I shall take it for granted that it is as the Reflecter says but what then Had not Cardinal Bellarmin's controversies as great an attestation as the Bishop of Condom's Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church Did he not dedicate them to Pope Sixtus V. and that with the Popes leave and good liking Te annuente as he himself says and how much inferiour is this to a Testimonial under the Popes hand And why then are not Bellarmin's Controversies as authentick a rule for the exposition of the Catholick Faith as the Bishop of Condom's But Melchior Canus to whom the Reflecter refers us would have taught him that the Popes private approbation is as little worth as any other Bishops That the name of the Apostolick See does not signifie the Pope in his personal capacity but acting as it becomes the Chair that is not giving his own private sense but proceeding in Council with the advice of good and learned Men. And therefore that is not to be accounted the judgment of the Apostolick See which is given only by the Bishop of Rome privately and inconsiderately or with the advâ—ce only of some few of his own mind but what he determines upon a due examination of the thing by the adviâ—e and counsel of many wise Men. And therefore I doubt notwithstanding the present Popes approbation he is a little out when he calls this the Authority of the Apostolick See But the Answerer did not only charge him in general with interpreting the Council of Trent by his own private sense and opinions but gave some particular instances of it and I must now consider how the Reflecter takes off this charge 1. As to Invocation of Saints
never will Now Sir although we allow some Councils have made Decrees for deposing in particular Cases yet the Power it self not being declared as a doctrinal Point and the Decrees relating only to 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 Now in answer to this I must inquire into these three things First Whether nothing be an Article of Faith but what is decreed with an Anathema Secondly Whether the deposing Decree be a Doctrinal Point or only matter of Discipline and Government Thirdly What Authority General Councils have in decretis morum or such matters as concern Discipline and Government First Whether nothing be an Article of Faith but what is decreed with an Anathema Now here we must 1 consider what they mean by an Article of Faith For an Article of Faith may be taken in a strict or in a large Sense In a strict Sense it signifies only such Articles the belief of which is necessary to Salvation in a large Sense it includes all Doctrinal Points whatever is proposed to us to be believed There are Articles of both these Kinds both in Scripture and in some General Councils and the difference between them is not that we must believe the one and may refuse to believe the other when they are both proposed with equal Evidence and Authority but that a mistake in one is not of such dangerous consequence as it is to mistake the other Whoever refuses to believe whatever is plainly taught in Scripture and which he believes to be taught there is an Infidel and guilty of disbelieving God though the thing be of no great consequence in it self but what he might safely have been ignorant of or mistaken in and thus it is with General Councils if we believe them to be infallible though their definitions are not all of equal necessity yet they are all equally true and therefore we must not pick and chuse what we will believe and what we will not believe in the Definitions of a General Council but we must believe them all if not to be equally necessary yet to be equally true and therefore to reject the belief of any thing plainly taught in the Council as points of Doctrine is to disown the Authority and Infallibility of the Council Whatever is defined in the Council is the Faith of the Council and therefore of the Catholick Church which is both represented and infallibly taught by a General Council and if we will give Men leave to distinguish they may soon distinguish away all the Council for it is easie for every Man to find a distinction to excuse him from believing what he does not like And I believe this is the true reason of this Dispute about the Marks and Characters of Articles of Faith that Roman Catholicks must maintain the infallibility of their General Councils and yet meet with some things in them which either they do not believe or dare not own and therefore though it may be they do not believe the Infallibility of Councils themselves yet they are put to hard shifts to find out some Salvo to reconcile the Infallibility of their Councils with their disowning some of their Decrees But this will not do for though Men who believe these Councils to be infallible are not bound to believe all their Definitions to be Articles of Faith in such a strict Sense as to make the belief of them necessary to Salvation yet they are bound to believe all their Definitions to be true and therefore we have no need of any other â—â—â—k of the Roman Catholick Faith than to examine what is defined in their Councils whether with or without an Anathema it is all one for all Doctrines decreed by the Council must be as infallibly true as the Council is and must be owned by all those who own the Authority of the Council Secondly and therefore the use of Anathema is not to confirm Articles of Faith but to condemn Hereticks and does not concern the Faith but the Discipline of the Church Anathemas relate properly to Persons not to Doctrines The Faith of the Church is setled by the Definitions of Councils and must be so before there can be any place for Anathemas For till it be determined what the true Faith is how can they curse or condemn Hereticks The infallible Authority of the Council to declare the Faith gives Life and Soul to the Decree the Anathema signifies only what Censure the Church thinks fit to inflict upon Hereticks who deny this Faith And therefore even in the Council of Trent the Decrees of Faith and the Anathematizing Canons are two distinct things the first explains the Catholick Verity and requires all Christians to believe as they teach and this establishes the Faith before the Anathemas are pronounced by their Canons and whether any Anathema had been denounced or no. And thus it is even in the Council of Trent which decrees the Doctrine of Purgatory without an Anathema and yet asserts it to be the Doctrine of the Scriptures and Fathers and Councils and commands the Bishops to take care this Doctrine be preached to all Christian People and believed by them which Melchior Canus saies is a sufficient mark of an Article of Faith without an Anathema and I suppose 〈◊〉 Reflecter will grant that the Doctrine of Purgatory is an Article of Faith The validity of the Anathema depends upon the truth and certainty of the Decree or Definition of Faith not the truth of the Definition upon the Anathema for it is strange if the Church cannot infallibly declare the Doctrines of Faith without cursing that the most damning Councils should be the most infallible which if it be true I confess gives great Authority to the Council of Trent I do not deny but that there is great reason for the Church in some cases to denounce Anathema's against great and notorious Hereticks but I say this belongs to the Discipline not to the Faith of the Church and it is very unreasonable to think that when a Council defines what we are to believe in any particular point they should not intend to oblige all Christians to believe such definitions unless they curse those who do not In the Council of Florence they decreed the Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son the Doctrine of Purgatory the Primacy and Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome without an Anathema which I suppose the Church of Rome owns for Articles of Faith and the Council intended should be received as such And in the same Council Pope Eugenius IV. in his Decree for the Union of the Armenians delivers them the whole Faith of the Church of Rome all their Creeds seven Sacraments c. without any Anathema which shows that tho Anathema's have been anciently used yet this is but a late invention to distinguish Articles of Faith from some inferior Theological Truths by
Argument that they do not believe it an Article of Faith as he suggests but only that they want power to do it Princes will not be deposed now nor suffer those to be Censured who deny the Deposing Power But should the blessed Hildebrandtimes return again we should quickly see whether the Deposing Power be an Article of Faith or not What I have now discoursed will abundantly justify an argument which I find our Reflecter much grieved at The Answerer in his Introduction p. 14. lays two passages together which he thinks will oblige them to own the deposing power For in the Papist misrepresented p. 42 the Author saies the orders of the supream Pastor are to be obeyed whether he be Infallible or not and in another place he confesses that Popes have owned the deposing Doctrine and acted according to it and others are bound to obey their Orders whether Infallible or not and consequently by the Doctrine of their Church to act when the Popes shall require it according to the deposing power To this the Reflecter answers That he only made a comparison between Civil and Ecclesiastical power Taht as in the Civil Government the sentence of the supream Judge or highest Tribunal is to be obeyed tho there be no assurance of Inâ—allibility or Divine protection from error or mistake so is he taught should be done to the orders of the supream Pastor whether he be Infallible or not Now he saies it is as unjust from hence to infer that all the Orders of the Pope must be obeyed as it would be to say that Subjects must obey their Princes in every thing they command whether it be good or bad And I ackowledge his answer to be good if he will grant the deposing Decree to command a sin which he has never done yet and when he does it I would desire him to consider how to reconcile himself to his two Friends Bellarmine and Canus who assert that Popes and General Councils can make no sinful Decrees which shall relate to the whole Church 2 ly Let us now consider what faults the Reflecter finds with the Answerers way of proceeding and they are reduced to Four heads 1 st He saies that in some points the Answerer owns the Doctrine which he has represented to be the Faith of a Roman-Catholick to be the established belief of the Church of England as in part that of the power of Priestly absolution confession of due veneration to the Relicks of Saints of merit of satisfaction of the authority of the Church of General Councils Now here our Reflecter returns to his old trade of Misrepresenting again for every one who will believe his own eyes may soon satisfie himself that the Answerer in these Doctrines owns nothing which is peculiar to the Faith of a Papist as distinguished from the Common Faith of all Christians He might as well say that because Protestants own that Christ is to be worshipped therefore they in part own the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that Christ is to be worshipped by Images This is the very case here The Answerer grants that Christ gave to the Bishops and Priests of the catholick-Catholick-Church authority to absolve any truly penitent sinner from his sins and that such absolution is ratified in heaven Therefore in part he owns the Popish Doctrine of Absolution which is a Judicial and Pretorian Authority to forgive sins tho we think that to absolve as a Minister and as a Judge are two very different things as different as the Kings granting a Pardon and the Chancellors sealing it which is a publick and authentick declaration of the thing The Answerer owns the ancient practice of Canonical confession as part of the discipline of the Church for publick offences that is that those who had been guilty of any publick and scandalous sins were not reconciled tothe Church without making as publick a confession and giving publick Testimonies of their sorrow and repentance therefore he in part owns the Auricular confession of the Church of Rome there being little difference it seems between confessing our sins to the whole Congregation and in the ear of a Priest He owns the use of voluntary confession for the ease and satisfaction of the perplexed minds of doubting or dejected Penitents and therefore he in part owns the Sacramental Confession as necessary to the Remission of Sins before God The Answerer allows A due Veneration to the Bodies of Saints and Martyrs i. e. a Religious Decency to be observed towards them which lies in avoiding any thing like contempt or dishonour to them and using all such Testimonies of Respect and Decency which becomes the remains of excellent Persons And therefore in part he agrees with the Church of Rome in giving Divine Worship to Relicks just as much as a decent respect is a part of Religious Worship The Answerer grants The necessity of good Works in order to the reward of another Life And if he will call this Merit in which large Sense the Fathers sometimes use that word we will not dispute with him about it but is this to own the Popish Doctrine of Merit That the good Works of justified Persons are truly meritorious of the increase of Grace and Eternal Life The Answerer distinguishes between satisfaction to the Church before Absolution according to the Discipline of the Primitive Church which did not use to reconcile publick Penitents till by a long course of Penance and Mortification they had given sufficient Testimonies of the Sincerity of their Repentance and had made some Satisfaction for that Scandal they had given to the Church and Satisfaction to the Justice of God for some part of the Punishment to Sin which is unremitted The first we own as a very useful part of Church Discipline and wish the restoring of it but the second we utterly disown for there is no other Satisfaction to the Justice of God for Sin but the meritorious Death and Sacrifice of Christ whereas the Church of Rome takes no notice of Satisfaction in the first sence but has changed the Ancient Discipline of Satisfaction to the Church into Satisfaction to the Justice of God for Sin The Answerer grants That truly penitential Works are pleasing to God so as to avert his Displeasure but denies the Popish Doctrine of Satisfaction that there can be any Compensation by way of Equivalency between what we Suffer and what we Deserve and is this in part to own his Doctrine of Satisfaction The Answerer owns the right and necessity of General Councils upon great Occasions if they be truly so which have been and may be of great use to the Christian World for setling the Faith healing the Breaches of Christendom and reforming Abuses and that the Decrees of such Councils ought to be submitted to where they proceed upon certain Grounds of Faith and not upon unwritten Traditions But this is no part of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning Councils
which owns the Authority of all Councils called by the Pope and confirmed by him tho as we say neither Free nor General and ascribes an unerring Infallibility to them and so puts an end to all inquiries into the Grounds of their Faith We are sorry we are at such a distance from the Church of Rome that there are few things besides the common Principles of Christianity wherein we can own any part of their Doctrine and if we own no more than the Answerer has done I think the Reflecter has no great Reason to Glory in it 2 ly The Reflecter charges the Answerer with appealing from the Definitions of their Councils and sense of their Church to some Expressions found in old Mass-Books Rituals c. what this c. means I cannot tell for I find but one instance of this in the whole Answer relating to the Worship of the Virgin Mary That famous Hymn O felix puerpera nostra pians scelera Jure Matris impera Redemptori O happy Mother who dost expiate our sins by the right of a Mother command our Redeemer being found in the old Paris Missal which the Answerer himself has seen and as Balinghem a Jesuit saith in the Missals of Tournay Liege Amiens Artois and the Old-Roman Now I confess I should not have thought it so great a fault to have taken the sence of their Church from their Missals be they never so old for their Missals are not like private books of devotion but are the allowed and approved worship of their Church as our Liturgy is and therefore is either the sence of their Church at present or once was so and if it be damnable to own that the Virgin is more powerful than her Son or can command him which seems to be an argument of greater power it is very hard to charge it upon an Infallible Church that her publick Offices did once contain damnable Errors for surely She was not Infallible then which may bring her Infallibility into question still And therefore old Missals have so much Authority still that nothing contained in them ought to be thought damnable And yet the Answerer does not appeal from the Definitions of Councils to old Mass-books for the Church of Rome has never condemned this Hymn nor the Doctrine of it The Council of Trent in her Decree for Invocation of Saints faith nothing in particular of the Worship of the Virgin Mary and yet all Roman Catholicks make a vast difference between the Worship of the Virgin and other Saints how then shall we learn the Sense of the Church but from her Practice from her publick Offices and Hymns And tho since Hereticks have been Inquisitive into these matters they have reformed some of their Hymns yet they have never condemned the old ones And if he remembers the Answerer in the same place told him a notable Story whereby he might guess at the Sense at least of the governing part of their Church still That a Book which was writ by a Gentleman ten Years since to bring the People to a bare Ora pro nobis to the blessed Virgin was so far from being approved that it was condemned at Rome and vehemently opposed by the Jesuits in France and a whole Volume published against it 3 ly He complains that the Answerer appeals from the Declaration of their Councils and Sense of their Church to some External Action as in case of respect shewn to Images and Saints upon which from our External Adoration by construction of the Fact viz. Kneeling Bowing c. you are willing to conclude us guilty of Idolatry As if a true Judgment could be made of these Actions without respect to the Intention of the Church who directs them and of the Person that does them The Paragraph in the Answer p. 21. to which the Reflecter refers us is but a short one and if he had thought fit to answer it it would have cleared this point He saies To Worship Stocks or Stones for Gods as far as we charge them with any such thing signifies to give to Images made of Wood and Stone the Worship due only to God and so by construction of the Fact to make them Gods by giving them Divine Worship And if they will clear themselves of this they must either prove that External Adoration is no part of Divine Worship notwithstanding the Scripture makes it so and all the rest of mankind look upon it as such even Jews Turks and Infidels or that their External Adoration hath no respect to the Images which is contrary to the Council of Trent or that Divine Worship being due to the Being represented it may be likewise given to the Image and how then could the Gnosticks be Condemned for giving Divine Worship to the Image of Christ which Bellarmin confesses and is affirmed by Irenaeus Epiphanius St. Austin and Damascen Wherein now does the Answerer appeal from the Declarations of their Councils and sense of their Church to External Actions Does the Council forbid such External Acts of Adoration as Kneeling Bowing Offering Incense c. to be paid to Images No it injoyns it Does the Council then deny that the Worship which is paid before the Image has regard to the Image No both the Trent Council and Catechism teach the Worship of Images The whole Mystery of this pretended Appeal from their Church and Councils to External Actions is no more than this that they do not believe the giving such Worship to Images to be giving the Worship due to God to Images and the Answerer considering the Nature of those External Acts of Adoration knows not how to excuse them from it but has put him into a way of doing it if he can if he can either prove that External Adoration is no part of Divine Worship or that they do not give this External Worship to Images or that Divine Worship being due to the Being Represented it may likewise be given to the Image then he will grant that they are not guilty of Worshiping Stocks and Stones for Gods but till he can do this he must give us leave to Interpret such Actions as all Mankind besides themselves Interpret them But our Reflecter did not like this he is for Judging of Actions by the intention of the Church that directs them and of the Person that does them Well and what is their intention in it Is it not to Worship Images Yes this is the Intention and the express Declaration of their Church Right but their Church does not intend to break the Second Commandment and to commit Idolatry in the Worship of Images and therefore you ought not to charge this upon them Very true nor did ever any man in the World intend to commit Idolatry We charge them not with any such intention but if they Worship Images we desire to know how they excuse themselves from breaking the Second Commandment and committing Idolatry Whether they are Idolaters or not let God Judg but
the Opinions of their Divines and Canonists about it And I cannot imagine what should make the Reflecter so angry with the Answerer for stating this matter as he seems to be p. 17. but that he rebukes his confidence by discovering his unskilfulness in such disputes Nor do I discern the Answerers fault in saying We know this dispensing power is to be kept as a great Mystery and not to be made use of but upon weighty and urgent causes of great consequence and benefit to the Church as their Doctrines tho the Errata which a Reflecter ought to have consulted would have told him it should be Doctors declare for if their Doctors who may be presumed best to understand the intrigue do say this what fault did the Answerer commit in saying it after them and thus it is in several other cases the Answerer has alledged the Opinions of their Divines and Casuists Not to oppose them to the Authority of the Church but to learn from them what is the most received and currant Doctrine in such matters as are not expresly defined by their Councils and is this like picking up some particular sayings out of private Authors to charge them upon any Church I do not think my self concerned to examine his citations out of some of our Authors there being so great a disparity between these two cases but if he have dealt by others as he has done by the Answerer he is a very Misrepresenter still He says The Answerer seems to maintain that good works of justified persons are not free And the Answerer indeed does say that they are not free as freedom is opposed to a Divine assistance in doing them and to an antecedent obligation to do them which freedom is necessary to merit but does this destroy the liberty of the Will as assisted by the Divine Grace Or will the Reflecter own such a freedom as the Answerer denies These are all the material Exceptions the Reflecter has made against the Answer which come to little more than some popular talk for I do not think the Vision of St. Perpetua worth disputing about and if he did not think this Vision gave some Credit to the Doctrine of Purgatory I would know why he mentioned it The Answerer does not charge them with making such Visions and Apparitions the only Foundation of Purgatory but certainly those who have taken so much pains to tell if not to invent such Stories and to father them upon ancient Writers did think that they would do some service to propagate the belief of it in the World and if this be true I know no reason they have to be ashamed of them and notwithstanding all their other arguments I confess I think they want them And now I know nothing in his Reflections unanswered but some Popular Harangues and Insinuations but plain truth like a true Beauty needs no Paint and Varnish and therefore I shall only for a Conclusion assure our People That the Answer is every way agreeable to its Title the Doctrines and Practises of the Church of Rome truly Represented and when this Reflecter or any one for him shall think fit to examine any part of it as it becomes men and Scholars they shall either have a fair Reply or a Recantation FINIS Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome c. p. 10. Reflect p. 4. Toid pag. 2. Pag. 3. Page 19. The Introduction Page 5. Page 6. Page 7. Sidis Apostolicâ—e nomen non sâ—lum summuon Pontificem significare sed ipsum ut facit ea que ad Cathedram spectant hoc est quaâ—â—â—us non ex suo sed ex consilio bonorum virorum doctorum procedit Iâ—a sedis Apostolice juâ—â—icia intelligi non que occulte malitiosâ— inconsultè per solum Romanum Episcopum aut etiam cum paâ—cis sibi faventibus proferuntâ—r sed quae ab â—o ex consilio plurimorum virorum sapientium plâ—nè prius re examinata prodâ—unt Canus de Auct Concil libr. 5. Page 7. Page 8. Page 9. De auct Conc. 1. 5. Concil To. 13. p. 510. Lubb. Ib. p. 530. Vindicat. of Dr. Sherlock's Serm. p. 18. Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. 1. 4. c. 5. Canus de Auct Concil 1. 5. P. 9. P. 10. Pag. 15. 16. Pag. 60. Pag. 62. P. 40. P. 55. P. 67. P. 91. P. 11. P. 35. P. 36. P. 11 12. P. 12. Page 17.
IMPRIMATUR C. Alston R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. Ã Sacris Domesticis Decemb. 29. 1685. A PAPIST Not Misrepresented by PROTESTANTS BEING A REPLY TO THE REFLECTIONS Upon the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented LONDON Printed for Ric. Chiswel at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVI A REPLY to the REFLECTIONS upon the ANSWER to the Papist Misrepresented c. I Do not love to be behind-hand in Civility with any Man and therefore in the Name of the Answerer I return the Reflecter his Complement and that with some advantage For I heartily thank him for the Civility of his Language and more for the Civility of his Arguments and having done this once for all I shall apply my self to consider his Reflections and will complement no more His Reflections consist principally of two general Heads I. What concerns the Misrepresentation of a Papist II. Concerning the Rule of true representing I. The Misrepresentation of a Papist And here I confess he has shewed some Art but very little Honesty He was told in the Answer that some of those Misrepresentations which he had made of a Papist and given out for the Protestant Character of Popery were his own ignorant or childish or wilful Mistakes As that Papists are never permitted to hear Sermons which they are able to understand or that they held it lawful to commit Idolatry or that a Papist believes the Pope to be his great God and to be far above all Angels These I think may pass for Misrepresentations and very childish and ignorant ones too and hence the Reflecter craftily insinuates that we grant all his Misrepresentations of a Papist to be ignorant childish or wilful Mistakes and is willing to end this Dispute and I very much commend him for it upon these terms that his Character of a Papist misrepresented should be confessed to be made up of false Apprehensions ignorant childish and wilful Mistakes and that he may use the Authority of the Answerer to assure his Friends and Acquaintance that wheresoever they shall for the future either hear or read such things charged upon the Papists they must give it no Credit and esteem it no better than the false Apprehensions ignorant childish and wilful Mistakes of the Relators This would be a great Point gained indeed and I am sorry we cannot oblige him in it Especially since he has taken the Pains to prove by great and good Authorities that his Character of a Papist misrepresented is not made up of such childish Mistakes but is indeed what the best and wisest Men have believed of them and this we thank him for He alleadges the Authority of the Homilies a Book which we greatly reverence Fox's Book of Martyrs where we read how many were burnt for not believing as his Papist misrepresented believes Bishop Ridly ' s Writings a very learned and holy Man who may be supposed to have understood what Popery was and that he was not so fond of misrepresenting as to burn for it The publick Test a very authentick and lasting Proof of this Matter with several other good Authors he mentions whose Credit is never the worse because he hath thrust one bad Man into the Company Nay he has been so civil as to grant the Answerer to be as very a Misrepresenter as the rest and he had been a very strange Answerer if he had not which argues great Modesty in him to desire leave to use his Name and Authority to condemn the Misrepresentation that is to confute his own Book which in all the material Points proves what he calls the Misrepresentation I wo'nt say not to be ignorant Mistakes but to be the avowed Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome which is the only way I know of that it can be confuted for unless he condemn it himself I am sure this Reflecter can never confute it Well but what then is the meaning of all this pother and noise about this double Character of a Papist misrepresented and represented Why are we so angry with what he calls the Misrepresentation if it be true or what is the fault of it This is a Mystery which ought to be explained and I doubt our Reflecter will have no reason to glory that he gave the occasion of it And I shall do these two things I. Show you what are the Faults of the Misrepresentation II. That allowing for such Faults the Papist represented excepting some very few cases professes to believe all that the Papist misrepresented is charged with I. As for the Faults of the Misrepresentation they are briefly these 1. That he puts such things into the Character of a Papist as no Man in his Wits ever charged them with and these the Answerer calls childish and ignorant or wilful Mistakes 2. That the Opinions of Protestants concerning Popish Doctrines and Practices and those ill Consequents which are charged and justly charged upon them are put into the Character of a Papist misrepresented as if they were his avowed Doctrine and Belief which is misrepresenting indeed but is his own not our Misrepresentation We charge them with nothing but what they expresly profess to believe and what they practise and we tell them what we think of such Doctrines and Practices what their Nature and what their Consequences are but do not charge them with believing as we believe concerning these Matters and therefore it is not fair to put such things into a Protestant Character of a Papist misrepresented As to give an Instance of a like nature There are some dissenting Protestants who think it lawful to resist their Prince and take up Arms against him this we say is Rebellion and yet it would be a very ridiculous Misrepresentation of such Men to say they are those who believe it lawful to rebel for no Man believes Rebellion no more than Idolatry to to be lawful and they no more believe taking up Arms in such cases to be Rebellion than the Papist thinks his Worship of Saints and Images to be Idolatry which shows how unjust it is to put the Interpretations and Consequences of Mens Opinions and Practices which they themselves disown into their Character And tho we never do this the Misrepresenter has done it for us which makes it a false Character tho every thing which is said in it may be true 3. It is still so much the worse when the Interpretations and Consequences which are charged upon Mens Practices and Opinions are set in the front of the Character as first and Original Principles As to keep to our former Instance To say that Men believe Rebellion to be lawful and therefore make no scruple of taking up Arms against their Prince is a very different thing from saying that Men believe they may lawfully take up Arms in some Cases and in doing so are guilty of Rebellion These are some of the principal Arts our Author has used in drawing the Character of a Papist