man in Mind of what he has heard or read of Christs dying upon the Cross but if he know nothing of the History of Christs Sufferings the bare seeing a Crucifix can teach him nothing Children may be taught by Pictures which make a more strong impression on their fancies than Words but a Picture cannot teach and at best this is but a very childish way of learning 3. But devout Pictures are of great use in Prayer the sight of which cures distractions and recals his wandering thoughts to the right object and as certainly brings some good things into his mind as an immodest Picture disturbs his heart with naughtiness But can men read their Prayers as well as learn the Articles of their Creed in a Picture too For even good thought are a distraction in Prayers when they call us from attending to what we ask of God and it is to be feared then that Pictures themselves may distract us unless we are sure they will suggest no thoughts to us at such a time but what are in our Prayers the Church of Rome indeed teaching her Children such Prayers as they do not understand and therefore cannot imploy their thoughts may make Pictures very necessary to entertain them but if our thoughts and our words ought to go together as it must be if the Devotion of Prayers consists in praying devoutly an Image which cannot speak and a Prayer which is not understood are like to make Men equally devout should Men when they look upon a Cruci fix run over in their Minds all the History of our Saviours Sufferings should the sight of our Saviour hanging on the Cross affect us with some soft and tender Passions at the remembrance of him which it is certain the daily and familiar use of such Pictures cannot do yet what is this to Prayer Such sensible Passions as the sight of a Picture can raise in us are of little or no account in Religion true devout Affections must spring from an inward Vital Sense which the Picture cannot give to those who want it and is of no use to those who have it Thus I have as briefly as the Subject would permit examined the Doctrine of Praying to Saints and Worshipping Images according to the Exposition of the Bishop of Condâ—m to whom our Author appeals in these Points and this I hope will satisfie him what we think both of the Bishops Authority and his Exposition and how little we like Popery in its best dress And now it is time to return to our Protester And I hope by this time he sees that there is something more needful to clear the Matters in Controversie between us than barely M. de Meax his Authority and therefore he resolving not to look beyond the Exposition delivered by this Prelate I might here very fairly take my leave of him but I cannot do this tho' he be a perfect Stranger to me without dismissing him civilly with a Complement or two more 1. Then as to the Invocation of Saints he observes that I deny the Bishop has limited it only to their Prayers which I own is a mistake and this is such a Complement as must never be expected from a Doctor of the infallible Church for he had occasion enough for it had he had a Heart to do it but I hope I have abundantly made amends for this now by a fair and particular Examination of the Bishops Exposition as to that Point and indeed M. de Meaux himself gave the occasion for this by not owning it in its due place when he expounded the Decree of the Council which teaches them to fly to the aid and assistance of the Saints as well as to their Prayers but shuffling it into the middle of a sentence at some distance where no Man would expect it When Expositors dodge at this rate they may thank themselves if they are mistaken 2ly and 3dly He takes Sanctuary again in the Bishops Authority to justifie his renouncing the Popes personal Infallibility and the deposing Doctrine as no Articles of Faith But tho' the Bishop indeed do wave some things as he says which are disputed of in the Schools as no Articles of Faith yet he does not say what they are much less name the Popes personal Infallibility and the deposing power and one would think he could not mean the deposing power which is determined by General Councils and therefore must be an Article of Faith The Truth is the Bishop has here plaid a very cunning Game and men may make what they please of his words as their interest or inclination leads them if Protestants object the Doctrine of the Popes infallibility and Deposing power he can easily tell them that these are School disputes and not Articles of Faith if the Pope or Roman Doctors quarrel at it he has then said nothing in disparagement of the Popes infallibility and Deposing power but has taught that Fundamental Principle on which these Doctrines depend as in Truth he has when he makes the Primacy of Peter the Cement of Unity and gives this Primacy to the Bishops of Rome as Successors of the Prince of the Apostles to whom for this cause we owe that Obedience and Submission which the holy Councils and Fathers have always taught the Faithful though they have not said one word till of late of any such obedience and submission due to them especially when we consider what he means by the Primacy of the Pope that he is a Head established by God to conduct his whole Flock in his paths which gives him a Supremacy over bishops and Secular Princes and how naturally this infers infallibilty and a power of deposing Heretical Princes every one sees and we have reason to believe the Bishop expounded his Doctrine to this Orthodox Sence in his Letters to the Pope from the Popes Testimonial that his Letters shewed his submission and respect to the Apostolick See As for the Popes personal infallibility our Author in his Reflections p 8. denies it to be an Article of Faith because it is not positively determined by any General Council in my reply p. 47. I told him this is no proof that it is not an Article of Faith because the infallibility of the Church it self which they all grant to be an Article of Faith was never positively determined by any General Council and therefore some Doctrines may be Articles of Faith which never were determined by any General Council and I added that if the Church be infallible the Pope must if he be the Head of the Church for infallibility ought in reason to accompany the greatest and most absolute Power but our Author thought fit to let fall this dispute and to resolve all into the Bishop of Condoms Authority His Proposal which follows I have already answered without a smile but I cannot forbear smiling once more to hear him complain of disputing which he says belongs not to the Representer who being to represent and
to which they refer he has taken another course with Mr. Sutcliff has set down only half sentences and concealed both the authorities and the reasons he alledges for what he saies which is in a strict and proper sense to misrepresent All that he answers to that distinction between representing and disputing which he allows to be good is this That the common people do not distinguish these matters but look upon all to be equally the Faith of Papists That is if they hear any man call the worship of Images Idolatry they do as verily think that Papists believe Idolatry lawful as he saies in his Character as that they worship Images risum teneatis and thus much for Representing The next dispute is about the rule of Representing In his Introduction to A Papist Misrepresented c. he appeals to the Council of Trent and Catechism ad Parâ—chos this the Answerer likes well but tells him 1. That he shows no authority he hath to interpret that Rule in his own sense against the Doctrine of many others as zealous for their Church as himself as he does in the Popes Personal Infallibility and the Deposing Power which he saies are no Articles of Faith though other zealous Papists say they are and asks what authority he has to declare the sence of the Council of Trent when the Pope has expresly forbidden all Prelates to do it and reserved it to the Apostolical See 2. The Answerer tells him That he leaves out in the several particulars an essential part of the character of a Papist since the Council of Trent which is that he doth not only believe the Doctrine there defined to be true but to be necessary to Salvation 3. That he never sets down what it is which makes any Doctrine to become a Doctrine of their Church 4. That he makes use of the Authority of particular Divines as delivering the sense of their Church when there are so many of greater Authority against them whereas if we proceed by his own rule the greater number is to carry it These were all very material objections and did deserve to be considered but as for the three last he takes no notice of them in his Reflections and says very little to the first The Answerer had asked How the Council of Trent comes to be the Rule and Measure of Doctrine to any here in England where it was never received p. 4. To this he answers in his Reflections p. 5. That the Council of Trent is received here and all the Catholick World as to all its Definitions of Faith But I told him in my Reply p. 51. that the meaning of that Question was not Whether it was owned by private Catholicks but by what publick Act of Church or State it had been received in England as it had been in other Catholick Countries and this he says nothing to and therefore might as well have let it alone at first I reinforced the Bull of Pope Pius 4th against any private mans interpreting the Council according to his own private Sense shewed the Reason and Policy of it and what a presumption it is for a private man when their Divines differ in their Opinions about any Doctrine to call one Opinion Popery Represented and the other Popery Misrepresented as our Author has done in the Articles of the Popes personal Infallibility and the Deposing Power as if Bellarmin and Suarez must not pass for good Catholicks but for Misrepresenters because they do not believe in these Points as our Representer does and this he takes no further notice of But to prove that he has not interpreted the Council according to his own private Sense he appeals to the Bishop of Condom's Exposition which is approved by the Pope himself and therefore has the Authority of the See Apostolick To this I answered that Bellarmin's Controversies had as great an Attestation from Pope Sixtus 5. as the Bishop of Condom's from this present Pope to which he gives no Answer and I observed from Canus that the Popes private Approbation is not the Authority of the See Apostolick but only his Judgment ex Cathedra and to this he gives no Answer but Shuffles a little about a private malicious and inconsiderate Judgment which I have now answered and makes a new Flourish about the several Translations and great approbation which has been given to this Exposition which I have again said something to tho I need not have said any thing had I before seen the Preface to the Answer to the Bishop of Condom and I guess our Author will never mention it more and then what becomes of his Characters He denied the Popes Personal Infallibility to be an Article of Faith because not positively determined by any General Council In answer to which I told him that other Roman Divines did believe it an Article of Faith That the Churches Infallibility was not determined by any General Council no more than the Popes Infallibility and yet was owned by them as an Article of Faith that if there be any Infallibility in the Church the Pope as the Supreme Pastor has the fairest pretence to it For Infallibility ought in reason to accompany the greatest and most absolute Power and this he has passed over silently Next comes the Deposing Power which has as evidently been declared in General Councils as Transubstantiation and how comes this to be no Article of Faith To this he answers that it wants an Anathema and that it is not decreed as a Doctrinal point but as a matter of Discipline and Government This I examined at large in my Reply and he is much concerned at it that I put him out of his Representing humour by disputing but he thought himself bound in Civility to say something to it and truly he has been wonderfully Civil as appears from what I have already said in Answer to him The Answerer in his Introduction had proved the Deposing Doctrine on him from two sayings of his own That the orders of the supreme Pastor are to be obeyed whether infallible or not and that Popes have own'd the Deposing Doctrine and acted according to it and others are bound to obey their Orders and consequently to act when Popes shall require it according to the Deposing Doctrine To this he answers in his Reflections that he only made a comparison between Civil and Ecclesiastical Power and therefore it is as unjust from hence to infer That all the Orders of the Pope must be obey'd as it would be to say that Subjects must obey their Princes in every thing they command whether it be good or bad and this I told him in my Reply I would acknowledg to be a good answer if he would grant the Deposing Doctrine to be a sin But this I suppose he was unwilling to do and therefore we hear no more of this matter In the next place in his Reflections he finds great fault with the
Imprimatur Martii 29. 1686. C. Alston R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. Ã Sacris Domesticis AN ANSWER TO A DISCOURSE INTITULED Papists Protesting against Protestant-Popery Being a VINDICATION of Papists not Misrepresented by Protestants And Containing A Particular Examination of Monsieur de MEAVX late Bishop of Condom his Exposition of the Doctrine of the CHURCH of ROME in the Articles OF INVOCATION of SAINTS AND THE WORSHIP of IMAGES Occasioned by that Discourse LONDON Printed for John Amery at the Peacock and William Rogers at the Sun both against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet MDCLXXXVI AN ANSWER TO Papists Protesting AGAINST Protestant Popery SINCE the Protester thinks my Answer to his Reflections so great a Complement I am resolved to oblige him a little farther and to complement him very heartily and I see no reason but Complementing may be as good a word for Disputing as Representing is The Reply consisted of two parts 1. Concerning the Misrepresentation of a Papist 2. Concerning the Rule of true Representing and I shall consider what the Protesting Papist says to each of them As for the First a Misrepresenter is so foul a Character that no Man can wonder if we think our selves concern'd to wipe off such an imputation and therefore I expresly denied the charge and made it appear from comparing his own Characters of a Papist Misrepresented and Represented together that we had not charged them falsly in any matter of Fact and therefore are no Misrepresenters for if we charge them with believing and doing nothing but what they themselves confess to be their Faith and Practice wherein is the Misrepresentation Thus I particularly showed that all matters of Fact excepting some points wherein they disown the Doctrine of their own Church in the Character of the Papist Misrepresented are confessed and defended in the Character of the Papist Represented and the Protester himself acknowledges that I have learnedly as he is pleased to speak distinguished between matters of Dispute and of Representation and if so then he ought to own that we do not Misrepresent them and this is all I undertook to prove in the first part of my Reply and for that reason gave it the Title of A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants wholly with relation to his Character of a Papist Misrepresented which I had proved to contain nothing in it which in a strict and proper sense can be called a Misrepresentation We truly relate what the Faith and Practice of the Church of Rome is and this is true Representing and though we say their Faith is erroneous and their Practices corrupt or superstitious contrary to the Laws of God and the usages of the Primitive Church yet whether this be true or false it is no matter of Representation but Dispute though we believe thus of their Faith and Practice we do not charge them with believing so and therefore do not Misrepresent a Papist Whether they or we be in the right is matter of Dispute and not to be determined by Character-making but by an appeal to the Laws of God and the dictates of right Reason and the Authentick Records of the ancient Church While we agree about matter of Fact there can be no Misrepresenting on either side for there is a great deal of difference between a Misrepresentation and a false Judgment of things and thus I hoped the talk of Misrepresenting would have been at an end But our Author though he confesses I am in the right will have us to be Misrepresenters still He says I declare plainly that Popery is really that Antichristian Religion which Protestants say it is that it teaches and practises all those fopperies superstitions and non-sense which have at any time been charged against it by Protestants But I never said any such thing yet but only said and proved that all matters of Fact complained of in the Character of a Papist Misrepresented are owned by himself in the Character of a Papist Represented and this I thought was proof enough that we were no Misrepresenters But the Title of my Reply offends him A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants which he says is a condemnation of the Religion to all those horrid shapes and monstrous forms it has been at any time exposed in by Members of the Reformation by no means If there have been other Misrepresentations of them which our Author has not yet given us an account of I can say nothing to them till I see what they are but my Title related only to my Book and that related only to the Character of a Papist Misrepresented which our Author had given us and I undertook for that then and will defend it still that there is no Misrepresentation in it Of the same nature is what he adds That I tell my Reader in the name of all my Brethren we charge them the Papists with nothing but what they expresly profess to believe and what they practise and thus says the Protester in this one assertion vouches for the truth of all that infamy and prophaneness which is laid at their doors and thus for ought I see I am drawn in for a great deal more than I intended I spoke with reference to his Characters and now I must discharge the scores of all Protestants since the beginning of the Reformation but when a Man 's in he must get out as well as he can but would not one wonder that there should not be one word of his own Characters all this while that instead of defending his own Misrepresentations which he has so unjustly father'd upon us he should be hunting about to pick up some new Misrepresentations for me to answer There must be a reason for this and I believe I can guess what it is But however he takes this occasion to ransack the Writings of Protestants and to see what fine things they have said of Papists and to collect a new Character of a Papist Misrepresented out of them For since all that proceeds from a Popish hand of this nature is suspected and challenged and the double Character of a Papist Misrepresented and Represented about which as the Replier says there is so much pother and noise is questioned as to its method its sincerity and exactness we 'll now follow our Author's call and learn what Popery is from the Pens of Protestants and especially from some of those who are supposed to know what Popery is And thus our Author makes as many turnings and doublings as ever any poor Hare did which was almost run down Because I have proved that his Character of a Papist Misrepresented contains no Misrepresentation in it properly so called therefore forsooth we will not take Characters from a Papist because we confute them as soon as they make them which is not very civil and therefore hoping that we will be more civil to Protestant Characters he turns off the Dispute to them never did any Man take more pains to defend Popery than he does to
prove a Papist to be Misrepresented it seems there is something in the World called Popery which he is very much ashamed of and it is well if it does not prove to be his own beloved Popery at last I had told him as plainly as I could in Answer to his Character of a Papist Misrepresented what I called Popery and what I take to be the general sense of Protestants about it and shewed him evidently that what he calls a Misrepresentation is none nay in most cases I have allow'd his own Character of a Papist Represented and surely there is no Misrepresentation in that unless he has misrepresented a Papist himself and why is he not satisfied with this why so much Zeal to prove us Misrepresenters when we are willing to fall with the Market and to abate as much in the Notion and Idea of Popery as they are pleased to lower it Why must we be bound to justifie that Representation of Popery which some Protestants have formerly made of it when Popery was quite another thing than the Bishop of Condom and the Representer have now made it any more than they are bound to justifie every thing which Thomas Aquinas or Bellarmin or Vasquez have taught for Popery But let us consider that Character he has made of a Papist out of the Writings of Protestants only I must put him in mind that he must still distinguish between matters of Representation and Dispute If the matter of Fact they charge them with be true they are no Misrepresenters as for their Reasons and Arguments I will no more undertake to defend all the reasonings of Protestants than I suppose our Protester will all the reasonings of Papists The first Misrepresenter he brings upon the Stage is John Lord Archbishop of York in his Manual or three small and plain Treatises written for the use of a Lady to preserve her from the danger of Popery And all that I shall say to this is that if what he transcribes out of his Book be a Misrepresentation it is not a Protestant but a Popish Misrepresentation For the Archbishop cites his Authors for what he says as the very Title of the Chapter tells us which I shall here present to the Reader with all the References and Authorities as they are Printed in his Book and leave the Protester to consider of a good Reason why he left all these Authorities out CHAP. VI. Reasons of refusal to leave the Romish Religion collected out of Printed Authors I cannot leave my Religion I. Reason BEcause we must simply believe the Church of Rome whether it teach true or false Stapl. Antidot in Evang. Luk. 10. 16. pag. 528. And if the Pope believe there is no life to come we must believe it as an Article of our Faith Bulgradus And we must not hear Protestant Preachers though they preach the Truth Rhem. upon Tit. 3. 10. And for your Scripture we little weigh it For the Word of God if it be not expounded as the Church of Rome will have it is the word of the Devil Hosius de expresso verbo Dei II. Reason You rely too much upon the Gospel and S. Paul's Epistles in your Religion whereas the Gospel is but a Fable of Christ as Pope Leo the tenth tells us Apol. of H. Stephen fol. 358. Smâ—ton contra Hamilton pag 104. And the Pope can dispense against the New Testament Panormit extra de divortiis And he may check when he pleases the Epistles of S. Paul Carolus Ruinus Concil 109. num 1. Volum 5. And controul any thing avouched by all the Apostles Rota in decis 1. num 3. in noviss Anton. Maria in addit ad decis Rotae nov de Big n. 10. And there is an eternal Gospel to wit that of the Holy Ghost which puts down Christs Cirellus a Carmelite set it forth III. Reason You attribute all your Salvation to Faith in Christ alone Whereas He is the Saviour of Men only but of no Women Dial. of Dives and Pauper compl 6. cited by Rogers upon the Artic. and Postellus in Jesuits Catech. l. 1. cap. 10. For Women are saved by S. Clare Mother Jane Som. in Morn de Eccles. cap. 9. Postellus in Jesuits Catech. Lib. 8. cap. 10. Nay to speak properly S. Francis hath redeemed as many as are saved since his days Conformit of S. Fran. And the blood of S. Thomas à Becket Hor. Beat. Virg. And sometimes one man by his satisfactions redeems another Test. Rhem. in Rom. 8. 17. IV. Reason In your Church there is but one way to remission of sins which you call Faith in Christ but we have many For we put away Our Venials with a little Holy Water Test. Rhem. in Rom. 8. 17. Mortals by 1. Merits of the B. Virg. Hor. B. Virg. 2. The Blood of Becket Ib. 3. Agnos Dei or Holy Lambs Cerem l. 1. t. 7. 4. Little parcels of the Gospel Breviar 5. Becoming Franciscans conf l. 1. fol. 101. 6. A Bishops pardon for 40 days a Cardinals for an 100. days and the Popes for ever Taxa Camer apud Esp. in 1 ad Tim. V. Reason You stand too precisely upon your Sacraments and require a true Faith in the partakers Whereas with us to become a Monk or a Nun is as good as the Sacrament of Baptism Aquin. de Ingres Relig. l. 2. c. 21. And the very true and real Body of Christ may be devoured of Dogs Hogs Cats and Rats Alex. Hales part 4. q. 45. Thom. parte 3. q. 8. art 3. VI. Reason Then for your Ministers every one is allowed to have his Wife or else inforced to live chastly whereas with us the Pope himself cannot dispense with a Priest to marry no more than he can priviledge him to take a Purse Turrianus found fault withal by Cassan. consult art 23. But Whoredom is allowed all the year long See Sparks 's Discovery pag. 13. and constitut Othen de concubit Cleric removend And another sin for June July August which you must not know of Allowed for this time by Sixtus Quartus to all the Family of the Cardinal of S. Lucie Vessel Grovingens tract de indulgent citat à Jacob. Laurent Jesuit lib. pag. 196. vide Jo. Wolâ—â—i lection memorab centen 15. pag. 836. For indeed the wickedness of the Church-men is a prime Argument of the worthiness of the Roman Church Bellar. l. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 14. artic 28. And the Pope can make that righteous which is unrighteous l. 1. Decretal Greg. tit 7. c. 5. And yet can no Man say unto him Sir why do you so In extrav tom 22. titul 5. c. ad Apostolatus VII and last Reason You in the Church of England have cast off the Bishop of Rome whereas the Bishop of Rome is a God Dist. 96. c. satis evidenter Panorm cap. Quanto Abbas The Use and Application of this Doctrine you may find in the next Chapter and a particular proof that some Doctrines of the Roman
Church destroy justice towards Men in all relations as the Popes power of dispensing with the duties of all relations their Doctrines of probabilities of mental reservations that the intention regulates the action that no Faith is to be kept with Hereticks that the Pope may depose Princes and dispose of their Kingdoms pardon nay canonize King-killers and absolve Subjects from their Allegiance c. I know our Author calls all this Misrepresentation but that is not our Dispute now but whose Misrepresentation it is It is plain this is not Protestant but Popish Popery for not Protestants but Papists were the Original Authors And I doubt not were it worth the while it might easily be proved that the grossest Misrepresentations which this Author charges on Protestants are only transcribed out of Popish Authors and this he seems to own when he is so angry with us for proving these Misrepresentations as he calls them by appealing to their own private but approved Doctors who have in plain terms asserted those things which poor Protestants must not repeat after them without incurring the Censure of Misrepresenters Now though we grant that every Doctrine which we find in Popish Authors ought not to be accounted an Article of the Romish Faith yet if such Books be published by the authority of Superiors and when they are published and known in the World escape the Inquisition and the Index expurgatorius the Doctrines contained in them ought at least to be looked on as licensed and tolerated Doctrines and therefore consistent with the Romish Faith not a Misrepresentation of it For will a Church so strict and severe in its Discipline and so jealous of Heresies which censures all the Ancient Fathers and expunges out of their Writings every passage which in the least savours of Heresie which will not entrust the People to use the Bible for fear of their learning Heresie from it I say will such a Church suffer their own Doctors to publish such Opinions to the World as Misrepresent her own Faith and Worship without condemning or passing the least censure on them And therefore though we cannot prove from these private Doctors what the Faith of the Church of Rome is and what all are bound to believe who are of that Communion yet by their Authority we may confute the charge of Misrepresentation For no Protestant can be justly accused of Misrepresenting the Doctrines of the Church of Rome who charges them with no Doctrines but what are allowed to be taught in that Church as all those Doctrines are which are allowed by publick Authority to be Printed and Read in the Communion of that Church especially as I observed before where the Press is kept under such strict Discipline as it is in the Church of Rome We must not indeed charge all Papists with believing such Doctrines because all are not bound to believe them as they are to believe the Decrees and Definitions of their Councils but we may say that they are not contrary to the Faith of the Church because all Papists are allowed to believe them who will for I presume all Men are allowed to believe that which any Man among them is allowed to teach However I hope it may be some excuse to the Archbishop that he Misrepresents only at second hand since our Author will have it to be a Misrepresentation and says no more than some Papists themselves say and resolves all into the Credit and Authority of his Authors and I cannot think it a greater fault in a Protestant to give an account of such pernicious Doctrines and Opinions as are owned by some of their own Writers than it is in the Church of Rome to suffer them to be published by Authority and to pass without any Censure if they dislike the Doctrine As for what he transcribes out of Doctor Beard and Mr. Sutcliff I presume he intended we should take it all upon his Authority for he has not directed us where to find any of those passages he has cited and it is a little too much to read two great Books in Quarto to pick them out Without looking on the Books we might easily perceive that those sayings he has transcribed out of them do not concern Representing but Disputing and I never undertook to justifie every saying in Protestant Writers against Popery but yet some things sounded so harsh that I vehemently suspected foul play and therefore had the curiosity to examine and found it to be as I suspected Some passages for which they produce their Authorities and that very good Authorities as the World went then are cited by the Protester without any Authorities as he dealt before with the Archbishop or what they prove by variety of reasons is nakedly Represented without any reason to back it or their words are curtailed or transplaced which alters their sense and signification I shall give some few instances of this out of Mr. Sutcliff to let the World judge who are the Misrepresenters Quotations out of Mr. Sutcliff in the Papists Protesting c. Mr. Sutchliff's Survey of Popery THey speak what they can in disgrace of the Holy Scriptures FInally they say they are obscure and hard to be understood they speak what they can in disgrace of the Holy Scriptures P. 6. They give the Office of Christ's mediation to the Virgin Mary to Angels and to Saints they make also Saints our Redeemers They give the Office c. teaching that by their Merits Christians obtain their desires and are delivered out of Purgatory Ibid. They overthrow Grace and ascribe the merit of our Salvation not to Gods mercy through Christ not to the merit of his Passion but properly to our own Works and Merits Albeit they exclude not Grace from the work of our Salvation yet making Grace a Habit or Vertue they overthrow Grace c. p. 9. They cut out the Second Commandment because it cannot stand with the Popish worship of Images They cut out the Second Commandment in the Offices of our Lady and their Primers because c. Ib. They pray before Stocks and Stones nay they put their trust in them Nay they put their trust in them for if this were not so why should they hope for better success at the Image of our Lady of Loretto or Monserat than at any other Image or form of our Lady p. 10. Papists think they do God good service when they murder true Christians Proved from the cruel Executions in England France Germany Spain p. 23. By the Doctrine of Papists the Devils of Hell may be saved They teach that the Devils of Hell may have true Faith but our Saviour saith John 3. that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life So it followeth by the Doctrine of Papists that the Reprobates and Devils in Hell may be saved p. 28. Papists blasphemously make Christ not only a desperate Man without hope but also an Infidel without Faith p. 13. They take from Christ both Faith
and hope Aqui. p. 3. q. 7. art 4. So that which they falsely objected to Calvin doth rightly fall upon the Papists that they blasphemously make Christ c. That Christ is not the Redeemer of all Mankind They affirm the Virgin Mary to be conceived without original Sin c. of which it follows that Christ is not the Redeemer of all Mankind for what needed they a Redeemer who were not born sinners p. 41. They make Christ inferiour to Saints and Angels They say Masses in honour of Angels and Saints but he in whose honour a Sacrifice is offered is greater than the Sacrifice doth it not then appear that while they offer Christs Body and Blood in honour of Saints and Angels they make Christ inferior to Saints and Angels p. 42. They prefer the Pope before Christ. They prefer the Pope before Christ for Christ's Body when the Pope goeth in progress is sent before with the Baggage and when the Pope is near goeth out to meet him while all the Gallants of Rome attend on the Pope p. 43. To the Images of the Cross and Crucifix they give as much honour as is due to God p. 14. To the Images c. teaching their followers that it is but one honour given to the Image and the thing Represented by the Image p. 74. They fall down like Beasts before the Pope and worship him as God ascribing to him most blasphemously the honour due to Christ. They fall down c. Paulus Aemilius l. 2. telleth how the Ambassadors of Sicily cried thus to the Pope Thou that takest away the sins of the World have mercy upon us Stapleton to Greg. 13. calls him supremum numen in terris They call him Vicar of Christ the Monarch of the Church the Head the Spouse the foundation of the Church ascribing to him most blasphemously the honour due to Christ. p. 72. They give divine honour to Images which they themselves cannot deny to be Idolatrous They confess is Idolatry to give divine honour to Creatures But they give divine honour to the Sacament to the Cross and to Images of the Trinity which I hope they will not deny to be Creatures The Romish Church consists of a Pack of Infidels p. 15. Faith is of things as the Papists say in their Catechism only proposed to us by the Church so that if the Church propose not to us the Articles of Faith we are not to believe them if these Men teach truth Further this sheweth the Romish Church consists of a pack of Infidels for if the same believed not without the authority of the Church then she did believe nothing of Christ seeing the Papists acknowledge no other Church but that of Rome and no Church can teach it self p. 178. Scripture and Fathers they read not Spoken of the Schoolmen not of all Papists upon the authority of Ferdinando Vellosillo p. 200. In a member of the Catholick Church they say neither inward Faith nor other virtue is required but only that he profess outwardly the Romish Religion and be subject to the Pope This Opinion he attributes to Cardinal Bellarmin and cites de Eccles milit cap. 2. They make more Conscience to abstain from flesh on Friday than to murder Christians They make more Conscience c. as their curiosity in keeping the Fast and their cruelty in massacring Christians declares p. 205. Divers points of Popish Doctrine are especially said to proceed from the Devil He instances in forbidding Marriage and commanding to abstain from meats which he says are called in Scripture Doctrines of Devils p. 213. That the Popish Church hath no true Bishops that Popery in many points is more absurd and abominable than the Doctrine of Mahomet That Papists that positively hold the heretical and false Doctrines of the modern Church of Rome cannot possibly be saved are the Titles of several Chapters in which he endeavours to make good these charges how well let our Author consider but all men will see that this is not Representing but Disputing This is abundantly enough to give the Reader a tast of the Protesters honestly in Representing and how little I am concerned in these Quotations If some Protestants have charged the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome with such consequences as they cannot justifie wiser Protestants disown it and Papists may confute it if they please which will be a little more to the purpose than to cry out so Tragically about Misrepresenting But to make good this charge of Misrepresenting against us he concludes with several passages out of the Homilies concerning the worship of Saints and Images Now if our Church be guilty of Misrepresenting in her very Homilies which we are all bound to subscribe we must acknowledge our selves to be Misrepresenters But wherein does the Misrepresentation consist Do they not set up Images in Churches And do they not worship them Have they not a great number of Saints whom they worship with Divine Honours The matter of fact is plain and confessed and therefore our Church does not misrepresent them So that the only Misrepresentation he can complain of is that he does not like the judgment of our Church about the worship of Saints and Images and we cannot help that This is the belief of our Church and this is our belief and let him prove us to be Misrepresenters in this if he can for that is not proved meerly by his calling it Misrepresenting Only I would gladly know of this Author what he takes the judgment of the Church of England to be about the worship of Images Whether it be Idolatry or not If he thinks our Church charges them with Idolatry in worshipping Images which I suppose he means when he complains of Misrepresentation and picks out some passages which look that way there is the authority of Doctor Godden against him unless he has changed his mind lately who accuses Dr. St. with contradicting the Church of England in his charge of Idolatry upon the Church of Rome and makes it a certain mark of Fanaticism to do so and then however we may be thought to misrepresent the Church of Rome in this charge of Idolatry we do not misrepresent the Church of England in it which is some satisfaction to us that we are not Misrepresenters on both sides But these Men take great liberties in Representing the Faith and Doctrines of Churches In one Kings Reign the Church of England does not charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry in the next it does though their Articles and Homilies be the same still but they deal with the Church of England no worse than they do with their own Church in one Age a Bellarmine truly Represents the Doctrine of their Church in another a Bishop of Condom and though the Council of Trent be but one and the same the Faith of it alters very often as it may best serve the interest of the Catholick Cause Our Author having exposed the Protestant Character as he calls
and he has endeavoured to make his Readers believe that there is yet in truth there is none in most parts of the Character For what does strictly belong to Representation that is all matter of Fact is the same in both For 1. He having put the Opinions of Protestants concerning Popish Doctrines and Practices into the Character of a Papist Misrepresented as if they were his avowed Doctrine and Belief in the Character of a Papist Represented he denies that he believes those Interpretations and Consequences and this he might very easily do because as he observes p. 24. no body charges him with that belief and whereas he says then he contradicts no Body and he hopes there is no fault in that he is so far in the right but his fault is that he imposes upon his Reader with an appearance of a Misrepresentation when there is none and by his denying that they believe such things would perswade the World that Protestants charge Papists with believing all these ill things themselves which we say of their Faith and Worship a sign that he was hard put to it to find out some Protestant Misrepresentations of Papists And 2. As for matter of Fact which alone is proper for a Character he generally owns the Doctrines and Practices we charge them with and his saying how could this possibly be otherwise if they charge us with â—ore but what we expresly profess to own in which he reflects upon what I had said in my Reply that we charge them with believing nothing but what they expresly profess to believe is nothing to the purpose for it is not absolutely what we charge them with but what he himself makes us charge them with in his Character of a Papist Misrepresented and calls us Misrepresenters for doing so that he owns in the Character of a Papist Represented as I particularly shewed in my Reply now the question is why he calls one Character a Misrepresentation and the other a Representation when the matter of Fact is the same in both But then 3. I observed that in some cases he disowns that to be the doctrine and belief of their Church which manifestly is so and has been proved on them beyond all possibility of a fair Reply by the learned Answerer To which he Answers then for all his word we are in some cases charged with more than we expressly profess to believe But he must know we do not take the profession of the Roman Faith from every private Character-maker but from the authentick Records of their Church and if they deny what their Church teaches and requires them to believe it is not indeed their Faith but yet it ought to be so and though he may huff at manifestly and proving I suspect he will take a little time before he brings it to the Tryal This is a sufficient answer to his fresh complaint of Misrepresentations I now proceed to the second part of the Reply The rule of true Representing or the Rule whereby the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is to be known He appealed to the Council of Trent and the Catechism ad Parâ—chos and these I acknowledged to be authentick Rules but since Catholick Divines differ about the sense of the Council and Catechism the question is Why we must prefer his sense of the Council and Catechism before Cardinal Bellarmin's or any other Divines of Note and Eminency in the Church of Rome who lived since the Council of Trent and may be presumed to understand the meaning of it as well as the Representer and therefore to remove this difficulty in his Reflections he appealed to the Bishop of Condom as the Authentick Expositor of the Council and Catechism and told us how his Book had been approved by many Bishops and Cardinals and by the present Pope himself and therefore has the authority of the See Apostolick To this I answered in my Reply p. 44. that the attestation given to Cardinal Bellarmin's Controversies was not inferior to that given to the Bishop of Condom's Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church that it was Dedicated to Pope Sixtus 5. and that with the Popes leave and good liking which is not much inferior to a testimonial under the Popes hand and why then are not Bellarmin's Controversies as authentick a rule for the Exposition of the Catholick Faith as the Bishop of Condom's But to this he thought fit to answer nothing And whereas he pretends that the Popes approbation gives it the authority of the Apostolick See I acquainted him out of Melchior Canus That the name of the Apostolick See does not signifie the Pope in his private capacity but in his Chair or doing such things and in such a manner as belong to the Papal Chair that is not giving his own private sense but proceeding in Council with the advice of good and learned Men and therefore that is not to be accounted the Judgment of the Apostolick See which is given only by the Bishop of Rome privately maliciously and inconsiderately or with the advice only of some few of his own mind but what he determines upon a due examination of the thing by the advice and Counsel of many wise Men. To this the Protester answers that it is only an ungrounded and ill-turned consequence that because that is not to be accounted the judgment of the Apostolick See which is given only by the Pope privately maliciously and inconsiderately or with the advice only of some few of his own mind therefore this learned Prelates Exposition of the Catholick Faith is to be thrown by as of no Authority so that our Replier has here concluded without any more ado that the approbation of this Book was only given privately maliciously inconsiderately or else with the advice only of some few of the Popes own mind otherwise the Consequence will not hold But I thought Canus had told us what was necessary to make the Popes approbation the judgment of the Apostolick See as well as what hinders it from being so That the Pope must give judgment according to the due form and method of proceedings belonging to the Apostolick Chair in full Council after due examination and with the advice of many wise Men. Now I only desire to know whether the Pope in a full Council of Cardinals did give judgment ex Cathedrâ that the Bishop of Condom's Book was a true Exposition of the Catholick Faith For if he did not though the Pope and all his Cardinals should singly for themselves give their own private judgment and approbation of it according to Canus his rule it is not the judgment of the Apostolick See for it is a private judgment whether it be malicious or not which I was so far from concluding without more ado that as the Protester observes I did not so much as translate it though I put it in the Latine Quotation in the Margin which is an argument I did not designedly conceal it because I thought it
was needless to my purpose and yet the Consequence holds good without it if it be not a judgment ex Cathedra it is not the judgment of the Apostolick See which was all I intended to prove and our Author in his long harangue has said nothing to prove that it was nay is so far from that that he avoided the very mentioning of that because he knew not what to say to it Malitiously and inconsiderately were pretty words to descant upon but the Cathedra choaked him The truth is the principal Commendation which is given to the Bishop of Condom's Book is that it is a new way of dealing with Hereticks and that which they hope may be more effectual than Disputing has been but there is none of them that make it the Rule much less the only Rule of the Catholick Faith Cardinal de Buillon acquaints Cardinal Bona that there are some and he speaks of Catholicks who find some fault in it and Cardinal Sigismond Chigi in his Letter to the Abbot of Dangeau though he highly commends him yet is far from allowing his Book to be the Standard of the Catholick Faith or the Authentick interpretation of the Council of Trent when he tells the Abbot certainly it was never his Condom ' s intention to give the interpretation of the Tenets of the Council but only to deliver them in his Book rightly explicated in such sort that Hereticks may be convinced that is he did not allow him to interpret the Council but commends him for dealing with Hereticks in a new and as he thought more advantageous method than had been formerly used and to this purpose the Pope commends him that his Exposition of the Catholick Faith contains such Doctrine and is composed in such a method and with so much prudence that it is thereby rendred proper to instruct the Readers clearly in few words and to extort even from the unwilling a confession of thâ— Catholick Faith Now to me this seems to fall very short of making the Bishops Exposition the Authentick interpretation of the Council of Trent that what ever the Bishop of Condom says is the sense of the Council must be acknowledged to be so though other as good Catholick Divines as famous in their Generation and whose Books have been received with as universal approbation are of another mind and which signifies a little with us Protestants where the plain words and reason of the Council is against him I would desire our Author to tell me whether the Pope when he approved the Bishop of Condom's Book did at the same time condemn Cardinal Bellarmin's or those other Divines and Schoolmen who give such a different explication of the Council of Trent from what this Bishop does if he did not what authority has he given to this Exposition more than any other Catholick Doctor may challenge Why may we not if we please follow Bellarmin or Suarez or Vasquez or Cajetan as well as Condom Our Author thinks it the shortest and easiest way to decide this Controversie whether he have truly Represented the Faith of a Papist by making an experiment Thus he concluded his Reflections p. 19. Do but you or any Friend for you though I did not know before that the Church of Rome would admit Proxies in the profession of our Faith give your assent to those Articles of Faith as I have Represented it in the very form and manner a I have stated them in that Character of a Papist Represented 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 'le then confess that I have abused the World that my Representing is Mispresenting the Faith of the Papist To this I answered in my Reply p. 40. that I did believe that his Representation was the Faith of a Papist excepting what concerned the deposing Doctrine and some few other points which I had before particularly remarked not that this is the whole of what Papists believe but that it is right as far as it goes but we did not like his Faith so well as he had Represented it as to make the experiment This I thought had been answer enough for any reasonable Man but in his Answer to the Reply he is still for new experiments as being much easier than Disputing which he does not like and now the trial is That if notwithstanding my refusal to admit the deposing Doctrine and the Popes Infallibility but as stated by the Representer that is not as Articles of Faith I be not judged sufficiently qualified as to these points to be received into the Communion of the Roman Catholicks then he will grant that I have reason to charge the Representer not to have done his part in those particulars that is not to have truly Represented the Faith of a Papist Now in answer to this I beg his leave that I may take my turn too in making Proposals and I will do it very gravely without the least Smile since I see he is offended at it and that is this Suppose I should resolve to be a thorough-paced Papist and instead of assenting to his Representation should rather chuse that Representation which Cardinal Bellarmine has made of the Faith of a Papist who does not mince the matter as to worshipping Images and praying to Saints and trusting in their aid and assistance c. who makes the Popes Infallibility and his Deposing Power an Article of Faith should I be thought sufficiently qualified as to these Points wherein the Cardinal expresly contradicts and condemns our Authors and the Bishop of Condom's Representation to be received into the Communion of Roman Catholicks If I should and I will venture the Protestor to say that I should not then if his Argument from Experience be good it is plain That Cardinal Bellarmine has made a true Representation of the Roman Catholick Faith and thus we have Experience for both sides for Cardinal Bellarmine and for the Bishop of Condom and our Representer and yet it is somewhat strange they should be all true Representers especially in those points wherein they contradict each other This the Bishop of Condom was aware of and therefore concludes his Book with a Caution against it to those who should think fit to answer it That it would be a quitting the design of this Treatise to examine the different Methods which Catholick Divines make use of to establish or explicate the Doctrine of the Council of Trent and the different Consequences which particular Doctors have drawn from it Which is a plain Confession that other Catholick Divines do not agree with him in this Method nor allow of those narrow Bounds which he has set to the Catholick Faith and therefore it was wisely done of him to persuade his Answerers to take no notice of any such Disagreement and it will be a great piece of Civility and good Breeding in them not to do it but how
other Catholick Divines will take this I cannot tell This is enough in all Conscience concerning the Bishop of Condom's Authority which I must still say is nothing when we speak of an Authentick Rule of expounding the Catholick Faith in which sense our Author appeals to him though we will allow him the Authority of a wise and prudent man whose writings are published and approved by Publick Authority as the writings of other Catholick Doctors are which is all the Authority we Protestants give to our best Writers and therefore the Protester has no reason to complain as he does p. 27. of an uneven kind of Justice and Reasoning in this matter and whoever desires a more particular account of the Bishop of Condom's Authority and those Glorious Testimonies which are given to his Book if he be a reasonable man may find Satisfaction in the Preface to the late Answer to the Bishop of Condom But the truth is I know no reason there is for all this Dispute I told the Reflector before that I did not like his Faith though it were as he has represented it should we allow the Bishop of Condom's Exposition and his Character of a Papist represented to contain the true Catholick Faith and that this is the whole of what the Council of Trent has determined yet I can never be of this Religion and since he was not satisfied with my bare telling him so I will now give him some Reasons for it and particularly shew him what it is I dislike in Monsieur de Meaux the late Bishop of Condom his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church about the Object of Worship Invocation of Saints and worship of Images and take the flourishes of his Introduction into the bargain And I chuse these Heads because these are the matters wherein he principally appeals to the Bishop of Condom and about which only he has offered any thing like an Argument in his answer to my Reply And I am as glad to take any opportunity of useful Discourse as our Author seems cautious not to give any And that neither he nor the Bishop may have any occasion of Quarrel I shall observe the Directions the Bishop has given to those who think fit to answer to his Treatise He tells us To urge any thing solid against this Treatise the Exposition and which may come home to the point it must be proved that the Churches Faith is not here faithfully expounded and that by Acts which the same Church has obliged her self to receive or else it must be shewn that this Explication leaves all the Objections in their full force and all the disputes untouched or in fine it must be precisely shewn in what this Doctrine subverts the foundations of Faith As for the first of these it is done already to my hand in the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly represented in answer to the Papist misrepresented and represented And he must be as bold a man who will attempt to mend that Author as who attempts to confute him The other two I will have in my eye in examining as far as I am now concerned Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condom his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church in matters of Controversie SECT I. The Design of this Treatise WEre it possible to reconcile the Differences between us and the Church of Rome only by a fair Representation of matters in Controversie between us I should think it an admirable Design and this being all the Author professes to intend I cannot but highly commend his good Meaning in it whether he has shewn so much Skill and Judgment in undertaking a Design in its own nature impracticable I shall leave to the Reader to judge when he has fairly heard both sides Had I known no more of the matter but that the Reformation was begun by men brought up in the Communion of the Church of Rome and intimately acquainted with the Doctrines and Practices of that Church that some of these Corruptions both before and since have been complained of by men of that Communion that the Council of Trent which was convened upon this occasion condemns many Doctrines of the Reformers as contrary to the Catholick Faith and guilty of Heresie that both before and after this Council there have been many Volumes written and many fine Disputes between Popish and Protestant Divines who have been men of as great Learning and true Understanding in these matters as any the Age has bred who did all this while believe that there was a real and substantial difference between them I say when I consider these things I should not venture for the reputation both of Papists and Protestants especially of the Council of Trent to say That the Dispute has been only about Words that Papists and Protestants even the most Learned men among them have mistaken each others Propositions and that the only way to reconcile this Difference is so to state the matter in dispute that Papists and Protestants may understand each other I doubt not but fierce men on both sides may have made this difference much wider than it is but yet such a difference there is as no Representing can cure as I believe will appear by considering Particulars SECT II. Those of the Reformed Religion acknowledge that the Catholick Church embraces all the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion THat the Church of Rome does profess to believe all the Principal and Fundamental Articles of Faith as the Bishop affirms I readily grant but yet she may hold Fundamental Errors and destroy that Faith she professes by other Doctrines destructive of the true Catholick Faith That this is possible he cannot deny for men may believe inconsistent Propositions and the Design of his Book is so to explicate the peculiar Doctrines of the Church of Rome as to reconcile them with the Fundamental Articles of Faith which the Protestant Explication of Popish Doctrines contradicts and overthrows which had been a very needless Undertaking were it impossible for men who believe all the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith to believe any thing contrary to it He might then have spared his pains in vindicating and explaining particular Doctrines for it had been evidence enough that such Doctrines and Practices do not overthrow any Fundamental Article of Faith because they are owned by that Church which professes to believe all Fundamental Articles And therefore I cannot well guess what advantage he promised himself from this We may safely grant that the Church of Rome believes all Fundamental Articles and yet charge her with such Doctrines and Practices as destroy and tear up Foundations He observes indeed from M. Daille that we ought not to charge men with believing such Consequences as they themselves do formally reject nor do we charge any such thing upon the Church of Rome but M. Daille never said that we may not charge mens Doctrines and Practices with such Consequences as they
who teach these Doctrines disown for M. Daille himself in the place quoted by the Bishop charges the Opinion of the Lutherans and of the Church of Rome about the manner of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament with inferring the destruction of the Humanity of Jesus Christ and therefore the Bishop concludes too much when he infers It is then a certain Maxime established amongst them that they must not in these cases look upon the Consequences which may be drawn from a Doctrine but purely upon what he proposes and acknowledges who teaches it But the use M. Daille makes of it is only this That when such ill Consequences as mens Doctrines are justly chargeable with have no ill influence upon Worship or as he speaks no poyson in them if they disown such Consequences this ought not to break Christian Communion And therefore though no man ought to be received into the Communion of the Church who denies the Humanity of Jesus Christ yet the National Synod at Charenton admits Lutherans to the Holy Table because whatever might be inferred from their Doctrine yet they expresly owned the Humanity of Christ and this Doctrinal Consequence was a meer Speculative Error which made no change at all in Acts of Worship but when the Consequences are not meerly speculative but practical and do not so much concern what other men believe and think as what we our selves are to do as it is in the Worship of Saints and Images and the Host c. to say that we must have no regard to Consequences if the Church disowns them is to say that we must not consider the nature and tendency of our Actions nor what they are in Gods account but only what the Church thinks of them and therefore though we will not charge the Church of Rome with believing any Consequences which she disowns yet if her Doctrines and Practices corrupt the Christian Faith and Worship it is fit to charge her with such Corruptions and if the Charge be just though she disown it it will justifie our Separation from her Communion SECT III. Religious Worship is terminated in God alone THE account the Bishop gives of that Interior Adoration which is due to God alone is very sound and Orthodox that it consists principally in believing he is the Creator and Lord of all things and in adhering to him with all the powers of our Soul by Faith Hope and Charity as to him alone who can render us happy by the Communication of an infinite Good which is himself But there are two things I except against in this Section as not fairly stated First concerning the exteriour marks of Adoration Secondly concerning the terminating of Religious Worship As for the first he tells us This interiour Adoration which we render unto God in Spirit and in Truth has its exterior marks of which the principal is Sacrifice which cannot be offered to any but to God And with respect to the second he tells us The same Church teaches us that all Religious Worship ought to terminate in God as its necessary End and that if the Honour which she renders to the Blessed Virgin and to the Saints may in some sence be called Religious it is for its necessary relation to God The Bishop very well knew that this is the main Seat of the Controversie between us and had he intended by his Exposition to have put an end to our disputes he should have taken a little more care about this Point for as he has now stated it he has left the matter just as he found it We say that all Religious Worship ought not only to terminate in God as its necessary End but that God is the sole and immediate Object of all Religious Worship and that we must worship none besides him as our Saviour expounds the Law Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Matth. 4. We have always denied any relative Worship to be due to Creatures for to worship Creatures is to make them Gods and it is no honour to the Supreme God to advance his own Creatures to divine Honours to make more though inferiour Gods for God's sake We say all external Acts of Religious Worship are peculiar and appropriate to God as well as Sacrifice for since we must worship none but God whatever can be called Religious Worship must be given to none besides him and the Bishop has not dealt plainly in this matter he says that Sacrifice can be offered to none but God but he has not told us what he thinks of other external Acts of Worship whether they may be paid to some excellent Creatures for since Sacrifice is not a natural but instituted Worship if nothing but Sacrifice is peculiar to God then all external natural Worship is common to God and Creatures and then in the state of nature there could be no external and visible Difference between the worship of God and Creatures nor had there been any under the Gospel neither had not Christ instituted his last Supper which the Church of Rome has transformed into a Sacrifice of his natural Flesh and Blood Thus when he says that all Religious Worship ought to terminate in God as its necessary end this seems to me an ambiguous Expression for Worship properly terminates in the Object to which it is given and in this sense If all Religious Worship must terminate in God then all Religious Worship must be given to God and to none else which is the true Catholick Faith that God is only to be worshipped But then what becomes of that Religious Worship which is given to the Virgin Mary and Saints in relation to God Does not this Worship which is given to them terminate in them and not in God Are not they the immediate and proper Objects of that Worship which is given to them And does not the Object terminate the Worship Is God the Object of that Worship which they give to the Saints and Blessed Virgin Then they either give that inferior Degree of Worship to God which is proper for Creatures which is an affront to his Majesty and Greatness or they give that Worship to Creatures which is proper to God which is Idolatry Which plainly shews that that Worship which is given to Creatures is terminated in those Creatures to which it is given and therefore if any degree of Religious Worship be given to Creatures all Religious Worship does not terminate in God as he said it must and if all Religious Worship must terminate in God then no Religious Worship must be given to Creatures as he grants it may to the Virgin Mary and Saints Yes you will say that Worship which is given to the Saints and Blessed Virgin terminates in God because it is given them upon account of their Relation to God but this is a great mistake their Relation to God can only serve for a Reason why they are worshipped but cannot terminate that worship on God which
is given to them because not God but they themselves are the Object and the ultimate Object of that Worship which is given to them Though we should grant that God is honoured by that Worship which is given to some excellent Creatures who are his Friends and Favourites yet the Honour we do to God in this is of a very different nature from that Worship which we pay to Creatures it does not consist in this that the worship we give to Creatures is terminated on God for it is terminated upon those Creatures whom we worship but the Honour must consist in the Reason of our worship that we worship them for God's sake It is an honour to God by Interpretation and Consequence as we intend it for God's Honour or as God is pleased to think himself honoured by it but it is no act of Worship to God and therefore not terminated on him The Worship can go no further than its proper Object though the Reason of the Worship may For there is a great deal of difference between an Object and a Medium of Worship a Medium of Worship which is only a representative Object receives our Worship but does not terminate it but convey it to that Being it represents because it is worshipped only in the place and stead of another as it is in that Worship which is given to the Images of Christ and the Saints which some Divines of the Church of Rome tell us is not terminated on the Images but on Christ or the Saints represented by those Images but a proper Object of Worship which receives worship in its own proper person for whatsoever reason it is worshipped it terminates the Worship the Worship which is given to it goes not beyond it self though the Reason of the Worship may reach farther and be thought to reflect some Honour upon God and to testifie our Love and Reverence for him by that Worship we pay to those who are dear to him So that if we do give Religious Worship to the Virgin Mary and Saints such Worship is terminated on them and then all Religious Worship is not terminated on God as he says the Church of Rome teaches it must be which yet teaches also the worship of Saints and the Blessed Virgin Methinks he should have taken care to have stated this matter a little plainer For if he cannot reconcile the Doctrine and Practice of the Church together I fear his Exposition will rather increase than end Controversies Thus how doubtfully does he speak If the Honour she renders to the Blessed Virgin and to the Saints may in some sense be called Religious it is for its necessary Relation to God Why does he not tell us plainly whether this Honour the Church of Rome gives to Saints and the Virgin be Religious or not and in what sense it may be called Religious Honour If he undertake to expound the Catholick Faith why does he not do it Why does he speak so cautiously As if he were afraid to own what the Faith of the Church is in this point Which yet is a very material one and very necessary to be truly stated Thus I can understand how the Honour which is given to Creatures may have Relation to God viz. because we honour them for God's Sake and upon account of their Relation to him but I do not understand how this relation to God makes the Honour of Creatures a Religious Honour For though we honour Creatures for God's Sake yet the Honour we give to Creatures must be sutable to their own Natures and therefore not that Religious Honour which is proper to God only As when we honour a man for the sake of our Father or our Prince we do not give him that Honour which is proper to our Father or our Prince though we honour him for their Sakes And therefore if the Church of Rome does give Religious Honour to any Creatures it will not justifie her in giving religious Honour to Creatures that she honours them for God's Sake for Creatures are Creatures still though never so nearly related to God and therefore not capable of Religious Honours So that I do not see how this Explication if it may be so called takes off any Objection that was ever made against the Church of Rome about the Object of Religious Worship For if by all Religious Worship being terminated on God he means that no other Being must be religiously worshipped but only God then this is an invincible Objection against that Religious Worship which the Church of Rome gives to the Blessed Virgin and to Saints and Angels If he means by it that Religious Worship may be given to other Beings besides God so it be all terminated in God then all the other Objections against worshipping any other Being besides God are in full force still notwithstanding his Explication their Relation to God will not justifie the Religious Worship of Creatures and it is contrary to all Sense and Reason to say That the Worship which is given to Creatures is terminated on God SECT IV. Invocation of Saints THere are two great Opinions against that Worship which the Church of Rome gives to Saints departed who now reign with Christ in Heaven as the Council of Trent teaches 1. That it is to give them that Religious Worship which is due only to God 2. That it makes them our Mediators and Intercessors in Heaven which is an Honour peculiar to Christ. Now M. de Meaux and after him the Author of the Character think to remove these Objections only by explaining the Doctrine of their Church about this matter and I shall distinctly consider what they say to each of these 1. As for the first That in praying to Saints they do not give them that Worship which is due only to God they think is evident from hence That the Council of Trent and the Catechism ad Parochos teaches them only to pray to Saints to pray for them The Bishop takes great pains to prove this to be the sense of the Council and therefore that in what terms soever those Prayers which we address to Saints are couched the Intention of the Church and of her Faithful reduces them always to this Form Now I will not dispute this matter at present but refer my Reader to the Answer to a Papist misrepresented But let us suppose that this is all the Church of Rome intends by it that we should only pray to the Saints to pray for us what advantage can they make of this Yes says the Advertisement before the Bishops Exposition p. 12. To pray to Saints only to pray for us is a kind of Prayer which by its own nature is so far from being reserved by an Independent Being to himself it can never be addressed to him That is we must never pray to God to pray for us and therefore such a Prayer is no part of that Worship which is due to God And he adds If this Form of Prayer
not to dispute is not concerned with those tedious Arguments The Case is this In the Character of a Papist Represented he had denied the deposing Power to be an Article of Faith the Answerer proved it was an Article of Faith because it was decreed by General Councils to this in his Reflections he answers that every thing approved in General Councils is not an Article of Faith but only Doctrinal Points and those decreed with an Anathema and therefore the Deposing Power not being declared as a doctrinal point and the decrees relating only to Discipline and Government and not being decreed neither with an Anathema it does not appear to be an Article of Faith In Answer to this in my Reply p. 49 I proposed three Enquiries 1. Whether nothing be an Article of Faith but what is decreed with an Anathema 2. Whether the deposing Decree be a doctrinal Point or only matter of Discipline and Government 3. What Authority general Councils have in decretis morum or such matters as concern Discipline and Government This is the disputing he complains of and I confess he has some reason for it for Arguments that cannot be answered how short soever they are are very tedious but how I could answer his argument without disputing or how he comes to be unconcerned to defend his own arguments I cannot tell but tho disputing is not his Province yet in civility he will go out of his way with me and in Civility I will keep him company 1. He confesses I prove at large that all definitions of Faith declared in General Councils are not concluded with Anathema's and in this he willingly agrees with me But this does not at all prove that whatsoever is declared in such a Council without an Anathema is an Article of Faith and therefore nothing against us deserving any farther answer And thus he has very prettily altered the state of the question he said the Deposing doctrine tho approved by General Councils was not an Article of Faith because not decreed with an Anathema now if this argument be good then nothing must be accounted an Article of Faith but what is decreed with an Anathema in opposition to which I proved that several Doctrines which they themselves account Articles of Faith have been decreed by general Councils without Anathema's and he grants that I have proved this and if I have I am sure his argument is lost for then the deposing Doctrine may be an Article of Faith tho it be not confirmed with an Anathema and now instead of proving that no Doctrine is an Article of Faith which is not decreed with an Anathema he complains that I have not proved that every Doctrine which is decreed without an Anathema is an Article of Faith which is nothing at all to the purpose We knew not where to find the Articles of the Romish Faith but in the decrees of their Councils and finding the Popes power to depose heretical Princes there we took it for an Article of their Faith no says the Reflecter that is a mistake it is no Article of Faith because it is not decreed with an Anathema we examine the matter and find it otherwise that Articles of Faith are decreed without Anathema's yes says the Protester this may be but you must prove still that every Doctrine which is decreed without an Anathema is an Article of Faith which is a very easie matter to do after this for if being decreed with or without an Anathema make no distinction as to this matter then the Decree it self in doctrinal Points must make an Article of Faith if some Doctrines which are acknowledged to be Articles of the Romish Faith are decreed without Anathema's then it is no argument against any Doctrine being an Article of Faith that it has no Anathema annexed to it so that our Author is wonderful uncertain what to call an Article of Faith if we call the decrees of their Councils Articles of their Faith No says he every Decree is not an Article of Faith but only what is decreed with an Anethema if we confute this distinction and prove that Articles of Faith are decreed without Anathema's then he can distinguish no further but requires us to prove that every Doctrine decreed without an Anethema is an Article of Faith that is that the decree of their Church makes an Article of their Faith And if that don 't I would desire to know of him what does And had I not reason then to say that it is wonderful hard to know what their Faith is when he himself cannot tell what it is that makes an Article of Faith and their most Learned Divines so much differ about this matter some allowing that to be an Article of Faith which others reject 2ly The second enquiry was Whether the Deposing decree be a Doctrinal point or only matter of Discipline and Government and in answer to this I told him That a Decree what shall be done includes a virtual Definition of that Doctrine on which that Decree is founded To this he opposes what I say under the next head That in the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem there was a Decree of Manners yet it contained no Definition of Doctrine Not expresly indeed but virtually it does as I said before My business there was to vindicate the Authority of Councils in those Decrees which relate to Manners as not less Obligatory than the Decrees of Faith and I observed that the only Apostolical Council we have an account of in Scripture Viz. the Council at Jerusalem Acts 15. was of this nature for the only Decrees made in it were to abstain from Meats offered to Idols and from Blood and from things Strangled and from Fornication and I observed they might as well object here to invalidate this Decree as they do against the Deposing Decree that there is no point of Doctrine determined in it And how does this contradict what I before asserted That a Decree what shall be done includes a virtual Definition of that Doctrine on which that Decree is founded But however he saies This Decree of what was to be done did not include a virtual Definition of that Doctrine on which the Decree was founded for if it had then the Doctrine of abstaining from Blood and Strangled meats had been an Article of Faith But what does he think of abstaining from Fornication and from Meats offered to Idols which are contained in the same Decree is not that a necessary Doctrine and virtually contained in that Decree I never said That every Decree of Manners must be immediately founded on an Article of Faith but I said every Decree of Manners is founded on some Doctrine whether it be in a strict sense an Article of Faith or not and includes a virtual Definition of that Doctrine The Decree to abstain from Fornication includes this Doctrine that Fornication is unlawful under the Gospel and the Decree for Gentile Converts to abstain from meats offered to Idols
supposes the same and the Decree to abstain from Blood and from things Strangled includes this doctrinal Definition That it was unlawful for Gentile Christians at that time to use their Christian Liberty in those matters to the offence and scandal of believing Jews The matter in short is this Every Decree which commands the doing any thing must contain a virtual Definition that such a thing may be lawfully done and every Decree which forbids the doing any thing does withal define that such a thing is either absolutely unlawful in it self or highly inexpedient and therefore unlawful in such Circumstances to be done this is as necessary as it is to command nothing but what is lawful and to forbid nothing but what is either unlawful or highly inexpedient And therefore when the Church of Rome Decrees the deposing Heretical Princes or the favourers of Hereticks She virtually defines that it is lawful to depose Princes which is a doctrinal Definition and may in a large sense be called an Article of Faith as that signifies all Doctrinal points proposed to us to be believed as I observed in my Reply p. 50 3. The third Enquiry was Whether the Authority of the Church be not as sacred in decrees of Manners as in Articles of Faith for the proof of which I urged the Council at Jerusalem and shew'd That Rules of Discipline and Government to direct the lives and manners of men is the only proper subject of Ecclesiastical Authority P. 55. And here where he should have taken notice of the Council of Jerusalem he says nothing of it but only says p. 32. that I urge out of Canus and Bellarmine that General Councils cannot err even in such decrees when they relate to things necessary to salvation and which concern the whole Church And when I have proved the Deposing Decree to be of this nature and esteemed as such by their Church I may then deserve a farther consideration What their Church will esteem if he may be the Expounder of it is nothing to the purpose for we argue not from their private esteeming but from their publick Definitions and if a General Decree for the government of the whole Church concern the whole Church and if to command a sin concerns mens salvation then the Deposing decree does for if it be unlawful to depose Heretical Princes it is more than a single sin to do it and if they will grant that General Councils cannot command a sin then they must grant that it is lawful to depose Heretical Princes and I agree with him that this does deserve a farther Consideration and shall be glad to hear his thoughts of it This Author in his Reflections p. 10. proves that Popes themselves own that the deposing power is no Article of Faith in letting so many open and positive asserters of the no-deposing power pass without any censure of heresie This in my Reply p. 57. I attribute to their want of power For Princes will not be deposed now nor suffer those to be censured who deny the deposing Power This in his protestation p. 32. he says Is spoke like an Oracle but he expects some better Argument than my bare assurance of what the Pope would do if he had power And I thought I had given him a better argument than my bare word for it viz. the experience of former Ages what Popes did when they had power for tho the infallible Chair may dissemble a little when circumstances of affairs require it yet sure it is not given to change What follows about the worship of Saints and Images I suppose has been sufficiently answered already but I cannot but observe a very pleasant argument he has against what I assert That no intention can alter the nature of actions which are determined by a divine or human Law Whereby I prove that if they do such things as in the account of the Divine Law are idolatrous their intention not to commit Idolatry will not excuse them This he says p. 36. a Quaker might as reasonably make use of for the justifying his yea's and his nay's and his other points of Quakerism For if he should say No intention can alter the nature of actions which are determined by a divine or human law but Swear not at all neither be ye called Masters and let your communication be yea yea nay nay are actions or things determined by the divine law therefore the intention of doing no evil in them cannot excuse the dâ—ing otherwise than is there determined from the guilt of sin But will our Protester say that the Divine Law does forbid all swearing then I grant that the Quakers are in the right and no intention will justifie swearing but St. James must be expounded so as to reconcile his words with other passages in Scripture which allow of swearing and could he show us where bowing and kissing and kneeling and praying before an Image is in any sence allow'd in Scripture then we would grant also that the direction of the intention would justifie such a use of these actions as the Scripture allows but what is absolutely forbid to be done no intention can excuse which is our present case here He concludes all with two or three Requests which must be briefly consider'd 1. That he the Replier will use his interest with Protestants to hold to what he saies they do ond charge us with nothing but what we expresly profess to Believe and Practice Now I can assure him there is no need of using my interest with Protestants to do this for I hope they are naturally inclined to to be honest but there are so many us's among them that possibly some Protestants may mistake one us for another They practice indeed generally much alike but they believe differently and they represent differently and they expound the Doctrine of their Councils differently and I hope Protestants may without any offence say how and wherein they differ and I think we cannot be justly charged with misrepresenting while we relate matter of Fact truly what their practice is and what their different sentiments and opinions are about these matters 2. That they Protestants pick not up the abuses of some the vices and cruelties of others the odd opinions of particular Authors and hold these forth for the Doctrines and Practices of our Church and that in charging any practises they charge no more than are concerned Now this is very reasonable if he speaks of such abuses as are not allowed and countenanced by the Church and of such cruelties as are not practised encouraged commended by the Governours of the Church and justified by the Decrees and Canons of Popes and Councils or of such odd opinions of particular Authors as steal into the world without publick authority and are censured as soon as they are known but as far as the Church gives any countenance and authority to such abuses cruelties odd opinions I see no reason why Protestants may not complain of