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
we think we should be guilty of Idolatry if we did it and that is the reason why we cannot comply with such practices I would only desire to know whether there be any such thing as External and Visible Idolatry If there be it must consist in External and Visible Actions for we can never know what mens intentions are but by their Actions and then if men do such Actions as are Idolatrous how can the intention excuse them from Idolatry Especially no intention can alter the nature of actions which are determined by a Divine or Human Law for then men might Murder or commit Adultery or Steal or Forswear themselves and yet avoid the sin and guilt of such actions by intending to do no evil in them if then the External Acts of Kneeling or Bowing to or before an Image directing such Actions to the Image be called Worshiping of them and are forbid in the Second Commandment without any regard to what intentions men have in doing so we put no other Interpretation upon such Actions but what the Divine Law puts upon them and if they will venture to Expound them otherwise and think to Justify themselves in doing forbidden Actions by their good Intentions they think they may but we dare not As for what he says that these Actions such as Bowing Kneeling c. are in themselves indifferent and capable of being paid to God and men I readily grant it but is there then no way to distinguish between Civil and Religious Worship between the Worship of God and men I will tell him one Infallible Distinction allowed by all the rest of mankind viz. the Worship of the Invisible Inhabitants of the other World tho with such External Acts as may be paid to Creatures has always been accounted Religious Worship Civil Respects are confined to this World as all Natural and Civil Relations which are the Foundation of Civil Respects are but we have no Intercourse with the other World but what is Religious And therefore as the different kinds and degrees of Civil Honour are distinguished by the fight of the object to which they are paid tho the External Acts and Expressions are the same as when men bow the Body and are uncovered you know what kind of Honour it is by seeing who is present whether their Father their Friend or their Prince or some other Honourable Persons so the most certain mark of distinction between Civil and Religious VVorship is this That the one relates to this VVorld the other to the Invisible Inhabitants of the next But God allows us to Worship no Invisible Being but himself which would unavoidably confound the Worship of God and Creatures If the Reflecter can give me any one Instance of any Nation in the World which did not account the Worship of all Invisible Beings to be Religious I will own my self mistaken And if all Worship of Invisible Beings is Divine and Religious Worship this puts an end to this Dispute and Abigail might fall down on her Face before David and the Beggars in Lincolns-Inn-Fields may beg upon their Knees as the Reflecter argues without any constructive Idolatry but so cannot a Papist who prays to the Virgin Mary to Saint Peter and Saint Paul now they are in an invisible State with all the External Signs of Worship and Adoration excepting Sacrifice which we can give to God himself And as for his Instance of Joshua's falling down before the Angel when he can prove that this was only a created Angel and that Joshua took him for no more we will consider it farther Now if to Worship any Invisible Being be to give Divine Honours to it then to be sure to Worship the Image of such an Invisible Being must be Religious Worship also For if the Worship of the Image be referred to that Invisible Being whom the Image represents it cannot be Civil but Religious Honour 4. The last Complaint is That the Answerer appeals from their Councils and sense of their Church to the sentiments of some private Authors And this I confess were a just Exception against the Answer if it were true but I challenge him to give any one Instance of it wherein the Answerer has set up the judgment of private Authors against the declared Sense and Judgment of their Councils and Church He has indeed quoted several of their Authors and to very good purpose as to give an account of matter of Fact and what the practice of their Church is and what Opinion Wise Men among them had of such practices to which purpose he cites some French Authors Wicelius and Vives p. 27 28. which our Reflecter is so much grieved at or to give an Historical Account of the state of the Controversie what it was before and what since the Council of Trent as about the worship of Images p. 17. about the necessity of Confession p. 61. or about the Sense and Interpretation of some controverted Texts of Scripture or to state the notions of things expressed but not defined by the Council as what Merit is p. 57. for tho the Church has defined the good works of justified Persons to be truly meritorious yet it has not told us what true and proper Merit is and therefore we must learn this from the allowed and received definitions of their Divines Thus the Council has determined due Honour and Worship to be given to Images but has not determined what this due Honour and Worship is and therefore we have no way to know it but by appealing to the general Practice of the Church and the Doctrine of their Divines which is not to oppose the sentiments of private Authors to the judgment of the Church but where the Church has not explained her self to learn her sense as well as we can from their most approved Divines Thus the Council has decreed the use of Indulgences but has not defin'd in what cases and to what purposes they may be used and therefore when the Representer says confidently that it is only a relaxation of Canonical Penances the Authority and especially the argument of Greg. de Valent. and Bellarmin are good against him tho not against their Church had their Council defined it p. 66. When he asserts that Indulgences are not sold the Tax of the Apostolick Chamber is good Authority against him especially if those who sell Indulgences receive the Money only under the notion of Alms which is allowed by the Council and when he denies that Indulgences do concern the remission either of mortal or venial sins the Answerer might well appeal to the very form of the Popes Bulls which not only grant the remission of sins but in some cases the plenary and most plenary remission of sins Thus in what cases the Pope can dispense and in what not is not determined by the Council and therefore there is no other way of knowing how large this power is but by appealing to the practice of Popes in granting Dispensations and
Memories and a needless Explication of the first but whatever may be said for or against it if the Charge be true why is this called misrepresenting XXVI Of Mental Reservations THE Representer himself grants all that we charge them with not that this Doctrine was ever defined by any general Council or that it was universally received and practised by all of that Communion but that it has been taught and defended by great numbers of their Divines and Casuists not to take notice of any greater Authorities now and practised as occasion served by themselves and their Disciples To charge all Papists in general with this would indeed be a Misrepresentation but I hope it is none to charge those who are really guilty XXVII Of a Death-bed Repentance VVE do not think so ill of any Sect or Profession of Christians but that they will all grant that Men ought to live as well as die in the Faith and Fear and Obedience of God nor did we ever charge the Church of Rome with teaching otherwise but then we say that Men may teach such Doctrines as may give great encouragement to Sinners to take their fill of Sensual Lusts and to put off the thoughts of Repentance to a Death-bed and this indeed we think the Church of Rome has done but do not charge her with teaching her Children to make such an ill use of these Doctrines or with encouraging them to live wickedly in their Health and to repent when they are sick This is no part of the Character which we give of a-Papist but we alleadg it only to convince Men how dangerous the Communion of such a Church is which has found out so many easy ways to keep good Catholicks out of Hell as without her teaching any such Consequence is very apt to incline Men who believe them to take greater liberties than are consistent with the safety of their Souls XXVIII Of Fasting VVE do not blame the Church of Rome for enjoyning Fasting which is a very useful Duty when it serves the true ends and purposes of Religion nor do we deny that a Papist may fast very devoutly and religiously but we say the common Practice of Fasting among Papists is far enough from being religious an Ecclesiastical Fast being very reconcilable with the greatest Excesses and though this be the fault of the Men and we charge none with it but those who are guilty which I suppose is not misrepresenting yet their Church has given occasion to it by making Fasting to signify Eating so they do but abstain from all Meats forbidden by the Church and their Casuists have stated this matter so loosely that no Men who have not an Antipathy to the best Fish and most delicious Wines and Sweet-meats need do any great Penance in Fasting and it is hard we cannot be allowed to complain of these Abuses without being charged as Misrepresenters XXIX Of Divisions and Schisms in the Church IN this Point we are not the Assailants but are only on the defensive part when they make it an Argument against the Reformation that there are so many Divisions and different Opinions among us We desire them to look home and to the eternal shame of a pretended Infallibility consider how many different Opinions there are among themselves We are all agreed in following the same Rule of Faith as he says they are only our Rule indeed differs we take the Scripture to be the safest Rule and we all agree that it is so they the Sense and Judgment and Faith of their Church and I doubt not but we shall as soon agree in the Sense of every Text of Scripture as they will what that Authority in the Church is to which they must yield what these Traditions are they must receive and what is the true Sense and Interpretation of the Definitions and Decrees of their Councils We agree in the Articles of the Apostles Creed which was the ancient Faith of the Church and our Differences as to matters of Faith are as meer School-Disputes as they say theirs are and in most cases the same as about Predestination Election and Reprobation the Efficacy of Grace and Free-will We have some indeed which they have not and they have some that we have not as about the the immaculate Conception the Infallibility of the Pope c. They have a way indeed to confine these Disputes to their Schools which we have not and that is to keep the Common People in Ignorance which will effectually cure their disputing but we think it better that our People should understand their Religion tho they dispute a little about it Now we are so far from misrepresenting in this case that we do not think this a reasonable Objection against either side but if they will needs be talking of our Divisions to perswade People for Peace and Unities sake to take Sanctuary in an Infallible Church they must give us leave to tell our People that Infallibility tho it sounds big does not do such feats in the Church of Rome as is pretended Their Common People indeed do not dispute about Religion because they know little of it and their Divines and Scholars agree just as our Divines do or it may be not so well And this is all the misrepresenting we are guilty of in this matter XXX Of Friers and Nuns VVHerein the Misrepresentation he complains of here consists I cannot guess Is it that Papists are taught to have an high esteem of Friers and Nuns This he himself owns Is it that many who enter into this religious course of Life live very irreligiously this he also confesses and apologizes for and these two things make the Character I suppose he forgot something else which was to be the Misrepresentation XXXI Of Wicked Principles and Practices HEre also I cannot find wherein the Misrepresentation consists There are a great many ill things said to be committed by some Persons of the Roman Communion this the Representer grants and excuses the Church from the scandal of such Examples how well is not my business at present to enquire who am no farther concerned than to see Right done them that they be not misrepresented XXXII Of Miracles HEre the Papist is charged with believing a great many idle Stories and ridiculous Inventions in favour of his Saints which he calls Miracles And if this be a Misrepresentation they themselves are guilty of it for these Popish Miracles were not invented by Protestants but published by themselves who are the only Persons that ever saw them but their believing such Miracles which I hardly think a wise Man among them does tho they are willing the People should is the least thing in it for bare Credulity which does no hurt is very innocent though very silly but to recommend such Miracles as credible which are no better than Impostures is an injury to common Christianity and makes Men suspect the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles to be Cheats too and it is a horrid