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
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
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
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
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
is given to them because not God but they themselves are the Object and the ultimate Object of that Worship which is given to them Though we should grant that God is honoured by that Worship which is given to some excellent Creatures who are his Friends and Favourites yet the Honour we do to God in this is of a very different nature from that Worship which we pay to Creatures it does not consist in this that the worship we give to Creatures is terminated on God for it is terminated upon those Creatures whom we worship but the Honour must consist in the Reason of our worship that we worship them for God's sake It is an honour to God by Interpretation and Consequence as we intend it for God's Honour or as God is pleased to think himself honoured by it but it is no act of Worship to God and therefore not terminated on him The Worship can go no further than its proper Object though the Reason of the Worship may For there is a great deal of difference between an Object and a Medium of Worship a Medium of Worship which is only a representative Object receives our Worship but does not terminate it but convey it to that Being it represents because it is worshipped only in the place and stead of another as it is in that Worship which is given to the Images of Christ and the Saints which some Divines of the Church of Rome tell us is not terminated on the Images but on Christ or the Saints represented by those Images but a proper Object of Worship which receives worship in its own proper person for whatsoever reason it is worshipped it terminates the Worship the Worship which is given to it goes not beyond it self though the Reason of the Worship may reach farther and be thought to reflect some Honour upon God and to testifie our Love and Reverence for him by that Worship we pay to those who are dear to him So that if we do give Religious Worship to the Virgin Mary and Saints such Worship is terminated on them and then all Religious Worship is not terminated on God as he says the Church of Rome teaches it must be which yet teaches also the worship of Saints and the Blessed Virgin Methinks he should have taken care to have stated this matter a little plainer For if he cannot reconcile the Doctrine and Practice of the Church together I fear his Exposition will rather increase than end Controversies Thus how doubtfully does he speak If the Honour she renders to the Blessed Virgin and to the Saints may in some sense be called Religious it is for its necessary Relation to God Why does he not tell us plainly whether this Honour the Church of Rome gives to Saints and the Virgin be Religious or not and in what sense it may be called Religious Honour If he undertake to expound the Catholick Faith why does he not do it Why does he speak so cautiously As if he were afraid to own what the Faith of the Church is in this point Which yet is a very material one and very necessary to be truly stated Thus I can understand how the Honour which is given to Creatures may have Relation to God viz. because we honour them for God's Sake and upon account of their Relation to him but I do not understand how this relation to God makes the Honour of Creatures a Religious Honour For though we honour Creatures for God's Sake yet the Honour we give to Creatures must be sutable to their own Natures and therefore not that Religious Honour which is proper to God only As when we honour a man for the sake of our Father or our Prince we do not give him that Honour which is proper to our Father or our Prince though we honour him for their Sakes And therefore if the Church of Rome does give Religious Honour to any Creatures it will not justifie her in giving religious Honour to Creatures that she honours them for God's Sake for Creatures are Creatures still though never so nearly related to God and therefore not capable of Religious Honours So that I do not see how this Explication if it may be so called takes off any Objection that was ever made against the Church of Rome about the Object of Religious Worship For if by all Religious Worship being terminated on God he means that no other Being must be religiously worshipped but only God then this is an invincible Objection against that Religious Worship which the Church of Rome gives to the Blessed Virgin and to Saints and Angels If he means by it that Religious Worship may be given to other Beings besides God so it be all terminated in God then all the other Objections against worshipping any other Being besides God are in full force still notwithstanding his Explication their Relation to God will not justifie the Religious Worship of Creatures and it is contrary to all Sense and Reason to say That the Worship which is given to Creatures is terminated on God SECT IV. Invocation of Saints THere are two great Opinions against that Worship which the Church of Rome gives to Saints departed who now reign with Christ in Heaven as the Council of Trent teaches 1. That it is to give them that Religious Worship which is due only to God 2. That it makes them our Mediators and Intercessors in Heaven which is an Honour peculiar to Christ. Now M. de Meaux and after him the Author of the Character think to remove these Objections only by explaining the Doctrine of their Church about this matter and I shall distinctly consider what they say to each of these 1. As for the first That in praying to Saints they do not give them that Worship which is due only to God they think is evident from hence That the Council of Trent and the Catechism ad Parochos teaches them only to pray to Saints to pray for them The Bishop takes great pains to prove this to be the sense of the Council and therefore that in what terms soever those Prayers which we address to Saints are couched the Intention of the Church and of her Faithful reduces them always to this Form Now I will not dispute this matter at present but refer my Reader to the Answer to a Papist misrepresented But let us suppose that this is all the Church of Rome intends by it that we should only pray to the Saints to pray for us what advantage can they make of this Yes says the Advertisement before the Bishops Exposition p. 12. To pray to Saints only to pray for us is a kind of Prayer which by its own nature is so far from being reserved by an Independent Being to himself it can never be addressed to him That is we must never pray to God to pray for us and therefore such a Prayer is no part of that Worship which is due to God And he adds If this Form of Prayer
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
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
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
had for the Pagan Deities in assuming their names and worship let others consider But to return to the Bishop He having assured us that the Church of Rome does not ascribe any divine perfections to the Saints of which the Reader may judge by what I have already discoursed he thus concludes It is therefore true that by examining what are our interiour Sentiments concerning the Saints it will be found we do not raise them above the condition of creatures and from thence we ought to judge of what nature that exteriour honour is which we render them exteriour Veneration being established to testifie the interior Sentiments of the mind That is we must conclude they do not give the worship of God to them because they do not believe them to be Gods Now this I confess would be true were the external Signs of honour wholly arbitrary and at our own choice for then they could signifie no more than what we intend to signifie by them and we ought not to be charged with intending to signifie more than what we profess to intend but when either the Act of worship naturally signifies divine perfections as prayer to an Invisible Being does or God has reserved any Acts of worship to himself as he has done all Religious Worship that is all Worship paid to Invisible Beings as I have already shewn in these cases we may be guilty of giving divine honours to creatures though in words and intention we ascribe no divine perfections to them So that I cannot see but that after all the fine colours and soft interpretations which the Bishop puts upon this practice of the Church of Rome in praying to Saints the charge against them of giving the peculiar worship of God to creatures is as strong and forcible as ever Secondly let us now consider whether our praying to the Saints to pray and intercede for us be not injurious to the Merits and Mediation of Christ. Now there are two things the Bishop urges to prove that the Mediation of Saints is not injurious to the Mediation of Christ. 1. That if the quality of Mediator which the Scriptures gives to Jesus Christ received any prejudice from the Intercession made to the Saints who raign with God it would receive no less from the intercession made to the Faithful who live with us For this he alledges the Authority of the Catechism ad Parochos which tells us That if it were not lawful to desire help of the Saints because we have one Patron or Mediator Jesus Christ the Apostle would not so earnestly have desired the Prayers of the Brethren who were then living to God for him For the glory and dignity of Christ as Mediator is not less diminished by the Prayers of the Living than by the Intercession of Saints in Heaven This is the least that can be made of it that the Mediation and Intercession of the Saints for us in Heaven is no more than one Christians praying for another on Earth and I fear this is not reconcileable with the practice of the Church of Rome in this matter For can this if it be no more be thought a sufficient foundation for all that pompous worship of the Virgin Mary and other powerful Saints Is this a good reason to erect Temples and Altars consecrated not only to their Memory but to their Honour to set up their Images in Holy Places and pay our humble Adorations before them because they pray for us in Heaven just as Christian Brethren pray for one another on Earth And therefore I must needs say the Bishop has not truly expounded the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in this Point which makes the Saints to be our Mediators in Heaven not indeed Mediators of Redemption which she acknowledges none to be but Christ who has purchased us with his own Blood but Mediators of Intercession who have so much interest and favour in the Court of Heaven as powerfully to recommend those to God who put themselves under their Patronage This I confess makes a great difference between the Mediation of Christ and of the Saints and yet leaves a great distance between the Prayers of Saints in Heaven for us and the mutual Intercessions of Christians for each other on Earth and the Church of Rome never taught that they were of the same nature for though the Catechism endeavours to prove that the Mediation and Intercession of the Saints in Heaven for us is not injurious to the Mediation of Christ because the Prayers of Christians for each other on Earth are very reconcileable with the Honour of Christ's Intercession yet it never teaches that there is no difference between the Prayers of Saints in Heaven and Christians on Earth and I think we ought to distinguish between the Doctrine and the Arguments of the Church What she declares to be her Doctrine we must own to be so but I think we must not grant every thing to be her Domakes which ought to be supposed to make her Arguments good because there is no necessity of granting that all her Arguments must be good This Argument indeed that the intercession of the Saints in Heaven is no more injurious to the Mediation of Christ than the Prayers and Intercessions of the Saints on Earth for each other cannot be good without supposing that the Intercessions of the Saints in Heaven are of the very same nature with the Prayers of Christians for each other on Earth and the Bishop takes the advantage to represent this as the Doctrine of the Church that she teaches us to pray to Saints in the same spirit of Charity and according to the same order of fraternal society which moves us to demand assistance of our Brethren living upon Earth But this I think is not reconcileable with the express words of the Council of Trent which founds the invocation of Saints upon their reigning with Christ which makes a vast difference between their interest and authority in the Court of Heaven and the humble supplications of Christians on Earth And I think the spirit of Charity and the order of fraternal society does not require us supplicitèr invocare to pray to our fellow Christians on Earth as humble Supplicants to pray for us as the Council teaches us to address our selves to the Saints in Heaven Christians indeed on Earth and Saints in Heaven since the Bishop has limited all their aid and assistance to their prayers can do no more than pray for us and are thus both of them distinguished from Christ who is our Mediator of Redemption who has bought us with his blood But then we ought to consider that there is a vast difference in prayers and prayers may prevail upon such different Reasons as may quite alter the nature of the Intercessions For is there no difference between the power and interest of a favourite to obtain what he desires of his Prince and the Petition of an ordinary Subject A Prince may grant the Petition