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
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
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
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-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
Reflections and therefore will dismiss this Cause till then XXI Of Communion in one kind HEre we charge the Church of Rome with altering the Institution of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper for Christ instituted it in both kinds but the Church of Rome denies the Cup to the Layity but yet we do not say That a Papist believes that he is no longer obliged to obey Christ's Commands than his Church will give him leave but we say that herein he transgresses the Institutions of our Saviour to comply with the Innovations of his Church And does the Representer deny this Yes he denies that they alter the Institution of Christ for he says Christ did not command them to receive in both kinds but left it indifferent But does he deny that the Church of Rome takes away the Cup from the People No this he owns and justifies Wherein then do we Misrepresent them For we charge them only with taking away the Cup whether this be agreeable or contrary to the Institution of our Saviour is not Matter of Representation but of Dispute XXII Of the Mass. HEre we charge them with making the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper as the Council of Trent defines a true proper propitiatory Sacrifice for the Quick and the Dead And this we say infers an insufficiency in the Sacrifice made by Christ upon the Cross. For if Christ by his Death upon the Cross had made a complete and perfect Atonement and Propitiation for sins by his once offering himself what occasion can there be for the repetition of such a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the only reason the Apostle assigns why the legal Sacrifices were so often repeated was because they could not make the Comers thereunto perfect Hebr. 10. But we do not charge them with believing an insufficiency in the Sacrifice made by Christ on the Cross. Much less do we say that they are taught wholly to rely on the Sacrifice of the Mass and to neglect the Passion of Christ and to put no hopes in his Merits and the Work of our Redemption The first is a Consequence which we charge upon their Doctrine and Practice but do not charge them with believing it The second was never charged on them that I know of before So that if there be any Misrepresentation here it must be in charging them That they believe the Sacrifice of the Mass to be a true proper propitiatory Sacrifice for the Quick and Dead But this is the very definition of their Council and an Anathema pronounced against those who deny it and this the Representer acknowledges though he conceals as much of it as he can calling it a Commemorative Sacrifice representing in an unbloody manner what when the Blood of Christ is actually shed in the Sacrifice of the Mass is it still an unbloody Sacrifice the bloody Sacrifice which was offered for us upon the Cross But is it a Propitiatory Sacrifice or not Does it make an actual Propitiation for our Sins If they do not own this then indeed we misrepresent them if they do as they must if they own the Council of Trent we represent them truly and whether the Consequences we charge upon this Doctrine be true or false that is no part of the Representation we may argue ill but we represent right though we are ready to justify that too whenever they please XXIII Of Purgatory TO carry on the humour of Misrepresenting he complains of Misrepresenting here too when all that is charged on them is the belief of Purgatory a middle place between Heaven and Hell where Souls departed who are acquitted from the Sentence of Eternal Punishment must undergo a Temporal Punishment for those Sins which were not expiated in this Life That there is such a State the Representer most industriously and zealously proves Why then is the belief of Purgatory thrust into the Character of a Papist misrepresented All that I can perceive is That the Misrepresentation consists not in charging them with believing a Purgatory but with believing it contrary to all Reason the Word of God and all Antiquity for the Representer says he believes it damnable to admit of any thing for Faith that is contrary to Reason the word of God and all Antiquity Damnable is a very dangerous word especially when it is applied to believing things contrary to Reason and therefore though it may serve now and then to bluster with I would advise him to use it sparingly but though I must confess we think that they do believe a Purgatory and a great many other things which are contrary to Reason Scripture and Antiquity yet we do not say that they admit any thing for Faith which they believe contrary to Reason Scripture and Antiquity and therefore this is no part of their Character and therefore no Mirepresentation XXIV Of praying in an unknown Tongue HEre indeed I meet with somewhat of Misrepresentation For he says He the Papist misrepresented is counselled by his Church to be present at Sermons but never permitted to hear any he is able to understand they being all delivered in an unknown Tongue This is misrepresenting with a witness But no Protestant ever charged them with preaching as well as praying in Latin but the meaning of this is easily understood to perswade those People who place all their Religion in hearing Sermons that it is no matter what Language their Prayers are in which they care not much for hearing when they are in English if they have but English Sermons to entertain their Curiosity and itching Ears And it is I confess a cunning Suggestion and I hope will warn all sober Christians to joyn more devoutly in the Prayers of the Church which they do understand and that will teach them the difference between an English Liturgy and Latin Mass-Book The rest of the Character only charges them with praying in Latin a Language which the People do not understand and therefore whatever other devout Thoughts they may have they cannot joyn with the Priest in offering up the same Petitions to God when they do not understand what it is he says All this is granted on all hands to be true and yet this also which the Representer owns is called misrepresenting XXV Of the Second Commandment WE charge them with making the second Commandment which forbids the Worship of Images only a part and branch of the first which forbids the Worship of other Gods which is designed to obscure the true sense and interpretation of that Law and to excuse all Men from the Sin of Image-worship who are not so sensless to believe the Images to be Gods And yet not thinking themselves safe in this they dare not trust the People with the second Commandment but leave it out of their Catechisms and Manuals and such Offices are like to come into Peoples hands Is this charge true or is it not The Representer grants the whole and excuses it thinks the second Commandment too great a burden to Mens
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