them opis impetrandae causâ as the Council of Trent directs This is Matter of Fact and owned by the Representer Now we think this is to ascribe Divinity to them if Religious Worship signifies any Divinity in the Object of Worship This the Misrepresenter puts into the Character of a Papist which we never did and the Representer on the other hand denies that they believe any such thing which for ought I know may be true but the Question is Whether they do not give a Divinity to them by worshipping them And this we assert they do and this they may do without believing any Divinity in them V. Of the Eucharist AS for worshipping the Host we only charge them with worshipping the Consecrated Bread which we say is Bread still but which they say is the natural Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin and suffered on the Cross and for so doing some Protestants charge them with Idolatry in worshipping a Breaden God and some Papists acknowledge it would be Idolatry if what they worshipped were only Bread and not the natural Body of Christ but no Protestant ever gave such a Character of a Papist That he believes it lawful to commit Idolatry that he worships and adores what he believes only to be a Breaden God and the poor empty Elements of Bread and Wine The Question is not what a Papist believes but what the truth of the thing is not whether he believes the Host to be only Bread but whether it be so or not not whether he believes Idolatry to be lawful but whether he be not guilty of Idolatry in worshipping the Host and therefore this ought not to be put into the Character of a Papist for those who believe that he worships nothing but Bread and Wine and is guilty of Idolatry in it do not charge him with believing so And therefore the Representer who acknowledges the worship of the Host might very truly deny all the rest As for Transubstantiation we charge them with believing no more than what they themselves own That the Consecrated Bread and Wine is changed into the natural substance of Christ's Flesh and Blood which the Misrepresenter very fallaciously calls Christ's being really present under those appearances that our People may not perceive the difference between Transubstantiation which the Church of England denies and a real presence which she owns not under the appearances of Bread and Wine but in the use of the Consecrated Bread and Cup which differ as much as a Bodily and Sacramental presence Now if this Doctrine of Transubstantiation be true besides many other Absurdities we say Christ must have as many Bodies as there are Consecrated Hosts and that his Body must be on Earth and that in fifty thousand distant places at the same time though the Scripture assures us That he ascended in his Body into Heaven and is to continue there till he come to Judgment But we do not charge the Papists with believing these Absurdities for we cannot guess what they believe much less do we charge them with believing that there are as many Christs as many Redeemers as there are Churches Altars or Priests For there is we grant some little difference between Christ's having many Bodies and there being many Christs What an easy Task has the Representer to take off such Characters as these VI. Of Merits and Good Works HEre we only charge them with saying as the Council of Trent does That the Good Works of justified Persons are truly meritorious of the increase of Grace and of Eternal Life And though we think this is too much for any Creature especially a Sinner to pretend to Merit and know not how to reconcile Grace and strict Merit together yet we never charged a Papist with believing Christ's Death and Passion to be ineffectual and insignificant and that he has no dependance on the Merits of his Sufferings or the Mercy of God for attaining Salvation For it is plain the Council of Trent owns both the Grace of God the Merits of Christ and the Merits of Good Works The Representer indeed qualifies this by saying That through the Merits of Christ the good Works of a just Man proceeding from Grace are so acceptable to God that through his Goodness and Promise they are truly meritorious of Eternal Life The Answerer alleages the 32 d Canon Sess. 6. of the Council of Trent where no such Qualification is used which yet is the Canon purposely designed to establish the Merits of goods Works This the Reflecter grants pag. 8. and refers us to the 26 th Canon of that Session where there is not one word of the Merit of good Works and therefore how we should learn from that Canon in what sense good Works are said to merit I cannot tell but in the sixteenth Chapter of that Session this Doctrine is explained at large and there we may expect the fullest Account of it which in short is this That that Divine Vertue which flowes from Christ into justified Persons as from the Head to the Members and from the Vine to the Branches makes the good Actions of such Men acceptable to God and meritorious and that such good Works which are done in God do satisfy the Divine Law and truly and properly merit Eternal Life That this is called our Righteousness because we are justified by its inhering in us and the Righteousness of God because it is infused into us by God through the Merits of Christ and that the Goodness of God as to this matter consists in this that he will have his own Gifts to be our Merits And therefore in the 32 d Canon they pronounce an Anathema against those who shall say that the good Works of a justified Man are so the Gift of God as not to be his own Merits So that though they do indeed own the Grace and Promise of God and the Merits of Christ as the Cause and Foundation of their own Merits yet they do assert that the inherent Righteousness and good Works of a justified Man have that intrinsick Vertue as to satisfy the Divine Law and to be truly meritorious of the increase of Grace and Eternal Life This we think injurious to the Grace of God and the Merits of Christ they think it is not and we never said they did VII Of Confession WE charge them with making a particular Confession to a Priest of all our Sins committed after Baptism necessary to obtain Pardon and Forgiveness and with attributing a Judicial and Praetorian Authority such as is exercised by Judges and Magistrates to the Priest to forgive Sins And tho we do not say that he believes it part of his Religion to make Gods of Men yet we say and prove it too that this is a Power which God has reserved wholly to himself We do not charge them with saying that the Absolution of the Priest is valid without any thoughts or intentions of Amendment in the Penitent but they do say that
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
Memories and a needless Explication of the first but whatever may be said for or against it if the Charge be true why is this called misrepresenting XXVI Of Mental Reservations THE Representer himself grants all that we charge them with not that this Doctrine was ever defined by any general Council or that it was universally received and practised by all of that Communion but that it has been taught and defended by great numbers of their Divines and Casuists not to take notice of any greater Authorities now and practised as occasion served by themselves and their Disciples To charge all Papists in general with this would indeed be a Misrepresentation but I hope it is none to charge those who are really guilty XXVII Of a Death-bed Repentance VVE do not think so ill of any Sect or Profession of Christians but that they will all grant that Men ought to live as well as die in the Faith and Fear and Obedience of God nor did we ever charge the Church of Rome with teaching otherwise but then we say that Men may teach such Doctrines as may give great encouragement to Sinners to take their fill of Sensual Lusts and to put off the thoughts of Repentance to a Death-bed and this indeed we think the Church of Rome has done but do not charge her with teaching her Children to make such an ill use of these Doctrines or with encouraging them to live wickedly in their Health and to repent when they are sick This is no part of the Character which we give of a-Papist but we alleadg it only to convince Men how dangerous the Communion of such a Church is which has found out so many easy ways to keep good Catholicks out of Hell as without her teaching any such Consequence is very apt to incline Men who believe them to take greater liberties than are consistent with the safety of their Souls XXVIII Of Fasting VVE do not blame the Church of Rome for enjoyning Fasting which is a very useful Duty when it serves the true ends and purposes of Religion nor do we deny that a Papist may fast very devoutly and religiously but we say the common Practice of Fasting among Papists is far enough from being religious an Ecclesiastical Fast being very reconcilable with the greatest Excesses and though this be the fault of the Men and we charge none with it but those who are guilty which I suppose is not misrepresenting yet their Church has given occasion to it by making Fasting to signify Eating so they do but abstain from all Meats forbidden by the Church and their Casuists have stated this matter so loosely that no Men who have not an Antipathy to the best Fish and most delicious Wines and Sweet-meats need do any great Penance in Fasting and it is hard we cannot be allowed to complain of these Abuses without being charged as Misrepresenters XXIX Of Divisions and Schisms in the Church IN this Point we are not the Assailants but are only on the defensive part when they make it an Argument against the Reformation that there are so many Divisions and different Opinions among us We desire them to look home and to the eternal shame of a pretended Infallibility consider how many different Opinions there are among themselves We are all agreed in following the same Rule of Faith as he says they are only our Rule indeed differs we take the Scripture to be the safest Rule and we all agree that it is so they the Sense and Judgment and Faith of their Church and I doubt not but we shall as soon agree in the Sense of every Text of Scripture as they will what that Authority in the Church is to which they must yield what these Traditions are they must receive and what is the true Sense and Interpretation of the Definitions and Decrees of their Councils We agree in the Articles of the Apostles Creed which was the ancient Faith of the Church and our Differences as to matters of Faith are as meer School-Disputes as they say theirs are and in most cases the same as about Predestination Election and Reprobation the Efficacy of Grace and Free-will We have some indeed which they have not and they have some that we have not as about the the immaculate Conception the Infallibility of the Pope c. They have a way indeed to confine these Disputes to their Schools which we have not and that is to keep the Common People in Ignorance which will effectually cure their disputing but we think it better that our People should understand their Religion tho they dispute a little about it Now we are so far from misrepresenting in this case that we do not think this a reasonable Objection against either side but if they will needs be talking of our Divisions to perswade People for Peace and Unities sake to take Sanctuary in an Infallible Church they must give us leave to tell our People that Infallibility tho it sounds big does not do such feats in the Church of Rome as is pretended Their Common People indeed do not dispute about Religion because they know little of it and their Divines and Scholars agree just as our Divines do or it may be not so well And this is all the misrepresenting we are guilty of in this matter XXX Of Friers and Nuns VVHerein the Misrepresentation he complains of here consists I cannot guess Is it that Papists are taught to have an high esteem of Friers and Nuns This he himself owns Is it that many who enter into this religious course of Life live very irreligiously this he also confesses and apologizes for and these two things make the Character I suppose he forgot something else which was to be the Misrepresentation XXXI Of Wicked Principles and Practices HEre also I cannot find wherein the Misrepresentation consists There are a great many ill things said to be committed by some Persons of the Roman Communion this the Representer grants and excuses the Church from the scandal of such Examples how well is not my business at present to enquire who am no farther concerned than to see Right done them that they be not misrepresented XXXII Of Miracles HEre the Papist is charged with believing a great many idle Stories and ridiculous Inventions in favour of his Saints which he calls Miracles And if this be a Misrepresentation they themselves are guilty of it for these Popish Miracles were not invented by Protestants but published by themselves who are the only Persons that ever saw them but their believing such Miracles which I hardly think a wise Man among them does tho they are willing the People should is the least thing in it for bare Credulity which does no hurt is very innocent though very silly but to recommend such Miracles as credible which are no better than Impostures is an injury to common Christianity and makes Men suspect the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles to be Cheats too and it is a horrid
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
he limits their power of helping us to Prayers only whereas he grants the Council mentions their Aid and Assistance as well as Prayers And the only vindication he thinks necessary to make for this is that no other means of their aiding and assisting us is expressed in the Council or in the Catechism ad Parochos besides that of their Prayers and it is thus limited by the Bishop of Condom on this Subject with the Pope and Cardinals approbation But though the Council does not specifie what other aid and assistance we may expect from the Saints besides their Prayers yet it mentions Aid and Assistance without limiting it to the assistance of their Prayers and the Answerer P. 25. told him what reason he had to believe that neither the Trent Council nor Catechism did intend any such limitation but this he thought fit to take no notice of for it had been very troublesome to answer it As for the Bishop of Condom though his authority is nothing yet I do not find that he limits their aid and assistance only to their Prayers for us for after repeating the Decree of the Council That it is good and useful to invoke the Saints by way of supplication and to have recourse to their succors and assistances c. he quietly drops the last clause without saying any thing of it and only tells us It is evident that to invoke the Saints according to the intent of this Council is to resort to their Prayers for the obtaining the blessings and benefits of God by Jesus Christ. And no doubt but this is true but the Council speaks not only of invoking the Saints but of flying to their aid and assistance and pray what does that signifie That he had no mind to tell us and when he says nothing of it how comes our Reflecter to know that he limits it to their Prayers As for the point of merit I have already considered that though I do not see upon second thoughts how the Answerer is concerned in it for he does not alledge the 32 Canon to oppose what he asserts that good works are meritorious by the goodness and promise of God but for the sake of the Anathema which it denounces against those who deny that good works are truly meritorious of the increase of Grace and eternal life And therefore his next instance is the Popes personal Infallibility This our Reflecter denys and makes it the Character of a Papist misrepresented to assert it and yet there are as many Papists who believe the Popes Infallibility as there are who deny it and were they to make Characters to deny the Popes personal Infallibility would certainly be one Character of a Papist misrepresented But he says this is only a School-debate and not matter of Faith because not positively determined by any general Council And yet whoever reads Cardinal Bellarmin and several others on this subject would think they made a matter of Faith of it But I would ask him Whether the Infallibility of the Church be an Article of Faith If it be my next question is In what general Council it was defined It seems indeed to be taken for granted in some later Councils but I am yet to seek what General Council has positively defined it I am sure Bellarmin and other learned Divines of the Roman Communion who use all manner of arguments they can think of to prove the Infallibility of the Church never alledge the authority of any Council for it So that it seems infallibility it self was never determined by any General Council and if the Infallibility of the Church be matter of Faith though it were never defined by any General Council why may not the Infallibility of the Pope be so too nay how does our Reflecter come to believe the Infallibility of a General Council for this is no more defined by any General Council than the Infallibility of the Pope is If there must be Infallibility in the Church somewhere I think the Pope whom they acknowledge to be the supream Pastor has the fairest Pretences to it For Infallibility ought in reason to accompany the greatest and most absolute Power If we must have an infallible Judge of Controversies it must be the Pope not a Council because if you place Infallibility in a Council the Church has no infallible Judge any longer than while the Council is sitting For the Definitions and Decrees of Councils how infallible soever they are yet certainly cannot be an infallible Judge which they will not allow to the Scriptures themselves And therefore if the Church can never be without an infallible Judge he who is the supreme Pastor and Judge must be infallible Now this being the Case I desire to know why our Reflecter prefers the Infallibility of a General Council before the Pope's personal Infallibility how one comes to be matter of Faith and not the other or if neither of them be why one makes the Character of a Papist misrepresented the other of a Papist represented For though he pretends not to deliver his own private Sentiment or Opinion concerning this Point but only to relate matter of Fact yet he has so cunning a way of telling his Tale as to let every body know which side he is of For we may guess that he does not over admire the Papist misrepresented and then he cannot be very fond of the Pope's Infallibility which is part of that Character And now I come to the Goliath-argument as he calls it concerning the deposing Power which he puts into this form In my Character of a Papist represented I pretend to declare the Faith of a Roman-Catholick as it is defined and delivered in allowed General Councils and yet though the deposing Doctrine has been as evidently declared in such Councils as ever Purgatory and Transubstantiation were in that of Trent yet still with me it is no Article of our Faith This indeed is an untoward Argument and I wish him well delivered and I think he does very prudently to keep at a distance with a sling and a stone and not venture to grapple with it To this he thus replies I answer it in short that though all Doctrinal Points defined in any approved General Council and proposed to the Faithful to be received under an Anathema are with us so many Articles of Faith and are obligatory to all of our Communion yet not so of every other Matter declared in such a Council there being many things treated of and resolved on in such an Assembly which concern not the Faith of the Church but only some matter of Discipline Government or other more particular Affair and these Constitutions and Decrees are not absolutely obligatory as is evident in the Council of Trent whose Decrees of Doctrine are as much acknowledged here by Catholicks in England or Germany as within the Walls of Rome it self or the Vatican And yet it s other Constitutions and Decrees are not universally received and it may be
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.
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
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
we think we should be guilty of Idolatry if we did it and that is the reason why we cannot comply with such practices I would only desire to know whether there be any such thing as External and Visible Idolatry If there be it must consist in External and Visible Actions for we can never know what mens intentions are but by their Actions and then if men do such Actions as are Idolatrous how can the intention excuse them from Idolatry Especially no intention can alter the nature of actions which are determined by a Divine or Human Law for then men might Murder or commit Adultery or Steal or Forswear themselves and yet avoid the sin and guilt of such actions by intending to do no evil in them if then the External Acts of Kneeling or Bowing to or before an Image directing such Actions to the Image be called Worshiping of them and are forbid in the Second Commandment without any regard to what intentions men have in doing so we put no other Interpretation upon such Actions but what the Divine Law puts upon them and if they will venture to Expound them otherwise and think to Justify themselves in doing forbidden Actions by their good Intentions they think they may but we dare not As for what he says that these Actions such as Bowing Kneeling c. are in themselves indifferent and capable of being paid to God and men I readily grant it but is there then no way to distinguish between Civil and Religious Worship between the Worship of God and men I will tell him one Infallible Distinction allowed by all the rest of mankind viz. the Worship of the Invisible Inhabitants of the other World tho with such External Acts as may be paid to Creatures has always been accounted Religious Worship Civil Respects are confined to this World as all Natural and Civil Relations which are the Foundation of Civil Respects are but we have no Intercourse with the other World but what is Religious And therefore as the different kinds and degrees of Civil Honour are distinguished by the fight of the object to which they are paid tho the External Acts and Expressions are the same as when men bow the Body and are uncovered you know what kind of Honour it is by seeing who is present whether their Father their Friend or their Prince or some other Honourable Persons so the most certain mark of distinction between Civil and Religious VVorship is this That the one relates to this VVorld the other to the Invisible Inhabitants of the next But God allows us to Worship no Invisible Being but himself which would unavoidably confound the Worship of God and Creatures If the Reflecter can give me any one Instance of any Nation in the World which did not account the Worship of all Invisible Beings to be Religious I will own my self mistaken And if all Worship of Invisible Beings is Divine and Religious Worship this puts an end to this Dispute and Abigail might fall down on her Face before David and the Beggars in Lincolns-Inn-Fields may beg upon their Knees as the Reflecter argues without any constructive Idolatry but so cannot a Papist who prays to the Virgin Mary to Saint Peter and Saint Paul now they are in an invisible State with all the External Signs of Worship and Adoration excepting Sacrifice which we can give to God himself And as for his Instance of Joshua's falling down before the Angel when he can prove that this was only a created Angel and that Joshua took him for no more we will consider it farther Now if to Worship any Invisible Being be to give Divine Honours to it then to be sure to Worship the Image of such an Invisible Being must be Religious Worship also For if the Worship of the Image be referred to that Invisible Being whom the Image represents it cannot be Civil but Religious Honour 4. The last Complaint is That the Answerer appeals from their Councils and sense of their Church to the sentiments of some private Authors And this I confess were a just Exception against the Answer if it were true but I challenge him to give any one Instance of it wherein the Answerer has set up the judgment of private Authors against the declared Sense and Judgment of their Councils and Church He has indeed quoted several of their Authors and to very good purpose as to give an account of matter of Fact and what the practice of their Church is and what Opinion Wise Men among them had of such practices to which purpose he cites some French Authors Wicelius and Vives p. 27 28. which our Reflecter is so much grieved at or to give an Historical Account of the state of the Controversie what it was before and what since the Council of Trent as about the worship of Images p. 17. about the necessity of Confession p. 61. or about the Sense and Interpretation of some controverted Texts of Scripture or to state the notions of things expressed but not defined by the Council as what Merit is p. 57. for tho the Church has defined the good works of justified Persons to be truly meritorious yet it has not told us what true and proper Merit is and therefore we must learn this from the allowed and received definitions of their Divines Thus the Council has determined due Honour and Worship to be given to Images but has not determined what this due Honour and Worship is and therefore we have no way to know it but by appealing to the general Practice of the Church and the Doctrine of their Divines which is not to oppose the sentiments of private Authors to the judgment of the Church but where the Church has not explained her self to learn her sense as well as we can from their most approved Divines Thus the Council has decreed the use of Indulgences but has not defin'd in what cases and to what purposes they may be used and therefore when the Representer says confidently that it is only a relaxation of Canonical Penances the Authority and especially the argument of Greg. de Valent. and Bellarmin are good against him tho not against their Church had their Council defined it p. 66. When he asserts that Indulgences are not sold the Tax of the Apostolick Chamber is good Authority against him especially if those who sell Indulgences receive the Money only under the notion of Alms which is allowed by the Council and when he denies that Indulgences do concern the remission either of mortal or venial sins the Answerer might well appeal to the very form of the Popes Bulls which not only grant the remission of sins but in some cases the plenary and most plenary remission of sins Thus in what cases the Pope can dispense and in what not is not determined by the Council and therefore there is no other way of knowing how large this power is but by appealing to the practice of Popes in granting Dispensations and