that the Faithful ought to be in nothing more solicitous than to take care to expiate their Soul by Confession Is it because it 's called whispering For what then serve their Boxes and why is it call'd a Seal Is it because of the easiness of it That is the case at the last For saith he every one will see how insincere this Preacher was in saying that a man unlades himself c. To make his Followers believe the Papists to be so sottish as to think their sins forgiven by a whisper only He may e'ne turn his anger upon his own Church for teaching this Doctrine for from thence the Preacher learn'd it which saith The Sacrament of Confession was graciously instituted on purpose to supply the place of Contrition For further proof of this I remit the Reader to the Apology Assertion 21. 4. Of Transubstantiation where men must renounce all their Five Senses at once Here the Apologist charged our Author with a small Falsification which indeed he has now mended but not acknowledged But he will make up that defect by the force of his Argument for now he seriously undertakes to prove that in Transubstantiation they don't renounce all their Five Senses As for three of them he has nothing to say but then Sight and Hearing are so far from being against that they eminently serve for the proof of it As how If saith he we follow our Hearing which is the sense by which Faith comes we are oblig'd to believe it Christ's words expresly signifie and declare the Sacrament is his Body These words we hear deliver'd by those whom he has appointed to Teach and Instruct the Flock to wit the Pastors of the Church these words we see likewise and read in Holy Scripture So that if we follow our Ears and our Eyes directed by the Word of God we are bound to believe this Mystery and consequently do not Renounce all our Five Senses at once Well! but do we hear Christ thus declaring No but we hear the Church Has the Church then such an Organical voice to speak as we have Ears to hear No but the Church teaches by its Pastors But are the Pastors we hear all Infallible in their Teaching And are we to believe them although they teach contrary to sense and reason There indeed he has lost the Case But however he brings in Sight to his relief For these words saith he we see likewise and read in Holy Scripture And whilst we let both our Senses and Reason be immediately directed by God's Word which is Infallible we more reverence the Scriptures and believe upon better Grounds than the Protestants Thus we are at last led to a Private Spirit and the Protestant way of resolving Faith into the Scriptures without need of any Infallible Interpreter For 't is but letting our Senses and Reason be immediately directed by God's Word which is Infallible and we may soon be satisfied I heartily thank our Author for this free Concession for these are the Grounds Protestants do believe upon But yet he will needs have it that they believe upon better Grounds than the Protestants This I am apt to think he will no more be able to prove than that they Reverence the Scriptures more than Protestants However this he attempts and gives this reason for that Protestants let natural Objects ever about Mysteries of their Faith have the direction of their Senses in which they are so often deceived rather than the Word of God which cannot deceive them But where has the Word of God taught us that we are not to judg of Natural Objects by those Senses which he has given us to judg of Natural Objects by Will he undertake to provâ— this also When he himself acknowledges that to frame a judgment of the nature or substance of a thing we must depend upon the information of sense and that the common and natural way is to judg according to the relation the senses give from the external and natural accidents of the thing And now is not a Wafer a Sensible Object and are we not to judg of it according to the Relation the Senses give of it and from its external and natural accidents How will our Author salve this difficulty That he proceeds in after this manner But if we desire to frame a true judgment as if the other was a false one of what is the Nature and Substance of such an Object not according to a Natural Being but according to the Divine Power and what it may have of Supernatural the Senses ought not to be laid aside but we must consider here too the information these give not now from the Natural Accidents but from the Word of God. I should have thought the Conclusion to be infer'd from hence would rather be the Senses ought to be laid aside forasmuch as we are not in such case to judg of the Natural Accidents according to what they report For I must confess he is one of the first I have met with that has improved the Argument this way and that appeals to the Senses for the proof of Transubstantiation which their Church so cautiously warns them against in this matter But he will illustrate this by an instance in another matter A Friend saith he sends me a transparent Stone of which when I would make a judgment I cannot do it without the information of my Senses These may inform me two ways either by looking upon the thing it self or by reading the Letter sent along with it or the report of the Bearer If I take the information of my Senses from the view of the Stone I judg it to be a pebble if from the Letter wrote by an excellent Artist and the Bearer a skilful Jeweller I judg it to be a true Diamond upon their authority and greater skill Now in which judgment of these ought I to acquiesce Certainly in this last and yet in so doing I hope I should not renounce all my Five Senses at once So since my Senses assure me from Scripture and the Pastors of God's Church that the Sacrament is Christ's Body I am bound in reason to judg of it so rather than from the Natural Accidents to judg it to be Bread So that in thus believing this Mystery we do not renounce but follow our Senses But his Instance reaches not the Case 1. Because the judging whether a Transparent Stone be a Counterfeit or a Diamond is not a matter of mere sense but judgment skill and experience and belongs to an Artist But Sense will teach every one whether it be a Stone or a Pea hard or soft transparent or opacous But now the Case before us is whether what we see is a bit of Bread or the Body of a Man whether it 's broken or whole c. And therefore to put the case right and make it parallel he must suppose the Stone to be a known Diamond as known to him it 's sent to as to
Protestants that agree with the Papists Character of them There are few Papists but have some Relations Neighbours Correspondents Acquaintance or Conversation with some Protestants What I require of them then is to compare these Protestants they know with the Ideas Notions and Characters of a Papist-Protestant that is with the Notions that have been taught them by their Priests Pulpits and Books Let 'em tell me upon due Consideration whether they are meer Atheists and worship the Devil and act in defiance of their own Conscience and Profess the Broad way leading to Destruction and grant Libertinism to the highest degree of Wickedness c. 2. It 's Contingent as the same Persons and People may be good and bad better and worse in divers States and Circumstances If this be a good Argument it will always be so in all Ages and Cases and go where you will and take them where you will you will always find the Papist to answer our Authors Character and never to come up to the Pulpit-Character of him But I dare say our Author will not allow this to be a fair Method of proceeding and that for Example a Protestant should describe a Papist according to the great number of Matters of Fact which with our Author he may find by Writers of their own charg'd upon them such as Massacres Vsurpations Murders of Princes Treasons Plots Conspiracies Persecutions the vicious and scandalous Lives of some of her chief Prelates Popes their Pride Covetousness and Luxury as likewise the ill Examples of other Ecclesiastical Dignitaries as of Cardinals Bishops Priests their Ignorance Simony Oppression Cruelties Excesses c. And I may add the dissoluteness of manners prevailing throughout the Papal Dominions in some Ages Was ever this the State of the Papacy If it was as our Author cannot deny then why may not we take the Character of a Papist from such an age as well as the Age or Place where we live Or why not from another Country as well as from our own This indeed our Author sometimes refers to For saith he This That 't is only mistake and passion makes Popery so deform'd a Monster every one will conclude to be true who has taken a prospect of Holland and those Towns of Germany in which Papists and Protestants live together in one Corporation under the same Laws and making use in some places even of the same Churches too and this with such Freedom Amity and good Correspondence that their different Communion cannot be easily discovered and a man that should come out of England with his Head glowing with our Pulpit-Popery would not be easily convinc'd of the being of any Papists there Now 't is certain the Papists here and there are of the same Church Principles and Faith and 't is no Difference in this kind makes them there like other Men and here like Monsters but 't is because there the Papists are what they are and here they are made to be what they are not but what their Maligners please to render them I might here shew how far our Author is out in matter of Fact that tho these live together yet it is with great difference However supposing what he saith to be true yet that is no fit way to judge of their Religion by since whatever Freedom Amity and good Correspondence they have or exercise is not from their Church Principles and Faith but from other reasons which are Political such as Interest and Self-preservation c. For if it was from their Church Principles and Faith Popery would be all over the World the same Popery as it is in Holland and the places of Germany he speaks of But there is a vast difference betwixt Popery and Popery betwixt Popery when it is alone and Popery when it is diluted with Protestantism And if we would know what it is the fairer way to judg of it is where it is alone not as in Holland and Germany or England but as in Italy Spain Portugal and I may add now in France For there is the Church Principles and Faith in puris naturalibus and if we are to be referred to judg of what it is by the Lives and Practices of its Professors thither in reason we are to go pass we over the Alps and the Pyrenean Mountains or indeed the narrow Seas and there we may take a better View and Prospect than in a few Converts here who yet I doubt will generally be found without being rigorously observ'd not to have chang'd their Lives for the better no more than their Religion 2. After all this is not to the purpose For the Question is what is Popery and whether the Pulpits have truly represented it or not And Popery certainly was not there describ'd from the Lives of the present Professors of it in this Nation but from its Principles and the Practices of their Church in Conformity to those Principles Our Author surely will acknowledg that Popery is always the same that it is what it hath been and it hath been what it is and if so his way must conclude against it self unless he will say in all Ages and all Countreys Men of that Religion have lived alike and therefore to know whether the Pulpits have represented Popery aright or no we must go not to the Lives of any Age or Place alone nor to the Refinements and Expositions of a new Generation but to the Authorities the Preachers went upon But this is a troublesome task and what suited not our Author's temper or design and so he quitted the one for the other It 's a pleasant Entertainment to write a Character or a Representation the Pen runs smoothly along when it has Comparison before it and all the business is to describe invite or inveigh but when there are Breaks and Interruptions when it is to argue closely to manage an Argument or to Answer it it requires another sort of Talent and what our Author warily avoids And if he is beat out of his Road and the Artifice has been detected yet it shall go hard if he finds not out some Retrenchments to secure himself Thus has he proceeded from Representation to Reflection from Reflection to Protestation from Protestation to Accommodation from Accommodation to Reflection again from Reflection to Caution from Caution to Character and at last for the ending of this Controversy to prospect that is from the Principles and Practices of the Papists he appeals to their Lives amongst us This is his last Refuge and if that fails him it is but to find a new Title or Method and then he appears without Wound or Scar. And he may in the Conclusion of his Book tell the World what Feats he has done what Religious Frauds he detected and how unsuccessful he render'd them in his first Book So that if his Reader be as credulous as he himself is confident â—nd secure in his own good Opinion this may be a Windingsheet to the â—ontroversy
and his Adversaries be eternally silenced But if the Reader casts his Eye a little back he will see from Point to Point how he has left the Cause to shift for it self And whereas now it had become him to have discharg'd himself from so gross an Imputation we must be contented to have one answer to that and all the rest that they are too impertinent to deserve any Such we are to account the Charge of his Representing by halves of continuing his Misrepresentations without Replying to the Answers of his not answering the View of his common but vain Allegation that we pretend to know Popery better than they themselves of his abusing Mr. Montague of his Insincerity particularly when he offers to receive us into the Church of Rome upon his Representing Terms and when he professes to detest some Doctrines and Practices charged upon the Church of Rome c. But here he will say I make too much haste for the two last Points he has reply'd to in the Close But truly it 's after such a manner and so faintly as if he hop'd 't would be overlook'd As for Example As to the first he Replies This offer may be said to have been answer'd over and over But the matter of Fact defeats all those Answers and is a Demonstration that they are nothing but shuffling Now what is this matter of Fact and where is this Demonstration That follows For whilst a man may be received upon those Terms and yet cannot be received unless he assents to the Faith of the Church 't is evident that in that Character the faith of the Church is truly Represented Any one that reads this would be apt to think that the matter of Fact had never been questioned or had been prov'd to a Demonstration beyond possibility of Reply But besides what has been before answer'd to it over and over as he confesses it was particularly considered by the Answerer to his Reflections and the offer 1. shew'd to be a ludicrous one made without good Faith and with no other meaning than to put some colour upon his deceitful Characters of a Papist 2. It was replied further that suppose we could accept and should be accepted upon the Terms he propounds yet we have no security that when we are in this Representer either can or will if he could save us from being prest to profess and practice that Popery which he either denies or conceals And that because on the one hand we are certain that the prevailing part of his Church holds that which he either rejects from his Faith or says nothing of and that agreeably to their Councils and publick Offices And on the other hand we have no reason to believe his Authority in the Roman Church to be considerable enough to carry on his Representation when the turn is once serv'd Here the Answerer appeals to the case of Imbert of the Physitian at Goa and last of all to that of the poor Citizens of Orange p. 39. The Answerer shews further that we have not any good reason to trust him he having not given us any reasonable assurance that himself rejects that Popery which he exclaims against And last of all he puts this question Whether he would refuse us if we desired to come into the Roman Communion with that which we call old Popery To all which our Author replies after this manner 1. Our new Adversary has one cavil here to put in viz. That the Character of the Papist represented is not a good Character because the Faith of a Papist as stated under each Article is not All his Faith. Our Author has been so unkind as not to refer us to the Page for these words he pretends to quote from the Answâ—â— and I think after a careful perusal I may safely lodg them at his own door as an instance of his Misrepresenting Faculty Any one that knew the Answerer and is conversant in his way of writing knows well he had too clear a head to express himself in so insipid and nonsensical a way as our Author would fasten upon him and so as to argue against the truth of the Character because the Faith of a Papist as stated under each Article is not all his Faith. But however the Argument is not so obscure as his Answer to it is impertinent as might be shewn were it to the purpose before us 2. He proceeds This man has still another scruple That if he should come into our Church upon the terms I have proposed whether I will be security that he shall not be prest to profess and practise that Popery which I have either deny'd or conceal'd To this our Author answers after a surprizing manner Marry saith he if he means by that Popery the Pulpit-Popery I 'le give him the same security I have my self viz. the Assistance of the Holy Ghost promised to his Church which will never permit it to lead her members into such Abominations He may have the security too of a good conscience which cannot be prest to the profession of so much evil But what is his security worth or how can he plead the Holy Ghost's Assistance for not being led by her into such Abominations when she pleads it for their belief and practice Our Author would be understood that he calls not an Image or Crucifix out of its name when he saith it's an Image of wood or stone and that he speaks consonantly to the sense of his Church when he saith the Image is not adored or pray'd to but Christ or the Saint in the Image And yet the French Physician was clap'd up in the Inquisition for the former and the Condomian Imbert was imprison'd for the latter And surely the Inquisitors of Goa and Archbishop of Bourdeaux are themselves of that Church which he saith has the promise of the Holy Ghost c. And who shall decide this case or what security have we against 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—tians fate if at Goa or of Imbert's if in the Diocess of Bourdeaux Well but however saith he a man may have the security of a good conscience which cannot be prest to the profession of so much evil How not be prest What is pressing if the Dragoons of Orange be not What if not the Prison of Bourdeaux What if not the Inquisition at Goa O but Conscience cannot be prest to the profession of it A very comfortable inducement to comply with the Terms of the Representer For you may come into the Church upon them and if whâ—n come in the Church will oblige you to profess abominable things however Conscience is free and the Inquisition it self cannot force it and if you be sincere you will never be prest by that or any external violence to the profession of so much evil It 's well our Author is not at Goa to have his sincerity try'd But yet he hath not done For he adds 3. In this the Answer above given he may see his
Pulpit-Popery TRUE POPERY BEING AN ANSWER To a BOOK Intituled PULPIT-SAYINGS AND IN VINDICATION OF THE APOLOGY for the PULPITS AND THE STATER of the CONTROVERSIE against the REPRESENTER LONDON Printed and are to be Sold by Randall Taylor near Stationers-Hall MDCLXXXVIII THE CONTENTS THE whole Controversy is resolv'd into the Author himself Page 1. The Vnreasonableness of charging Misrepresentation on the Pulpits p. 2. None more guilty of Misrepresentation than those of the Church of Rome and our Author in particular p. 3 4. Our Author's mistake in framing Characters p. 6. Character I. About the Popish-Plot p. 7. Character II. About the Murther of K. Charles the 1st with an Answer to the Challenge p. 8. Character III. About the Fire of London ibid. Character IV. Of Popish Emissaries p. 9. Character V. Of the Divisions and Fanaticism in the Church of Rome p. 12 15. Character VI. Of a proper Propitiatory Sacrifice in the Sacrament p. 17. Mr. Thorndike Vindicated p. 18. Of a Sacramental Presence and breaking of a true Body p. 20. Character VII Popery puts out the understanding of those of her Communion p. 21. The Difference betwixt the Severity of the Church of England and Rome p. 23. The Absurdity of Auricular Confession p. 24. In Transubstantiation they renounce their Senses p. 25. The Popish-Plea That Hearing is for Transubstantiation ibid. The Pope alone cannot Err and all others cannot but Err. p. 26. Character VII Of Praying and Prophesying in an Vnknown Tongue p. 27. Of the Sense of Prophesying p. 29. Of the ill Vse made of Auricular Confession p. 30. Character IX Of Saints Canonized for Money and Treason ibid. Of Praying to a Crucifix p. 31. Auricular Confession tends to the debauching Laity and Clergy And of Confession in the Church of England p. 32. Character X. The Churches Interest the Centre of their Religion p. 33. Character XI Of the Legends in the Church of Rome p. 34. Of the turning Sacraments into Shews p. 37. Of Preaching Purgatory instead of Repentance p. 38. And Faction instead of Faith. p. 39. Of the Preachers in the Holy League p. 40. Character XII Of Alms in the Church of Rome p. 40. Of Exorcisms p. 41. Of the Difficulty of knowing the Doctrine of the Church of Rome p. 42. Of compounding for unforsaken sins p. 43 45. Dr. T. Translation of Poenitentia Vindicated p. 44. Indulgences for Thousands of years to come p. 46. Indulgences not a Relaxation of Canonical penances p. 48. Character XIII If a Papist be false and deceitful yet Euge c. p. 49. No man can be a Papist but he that 's blinded by Education c. p. 50. About Picturing the Divinity ibid. Of Praying to an Image p. 52. Of Worshipping Bread and Wine as God p. 53. Of the Passion of Christ taking away the guilt and not the punishment ibid. Of the Non-necessity of Repentance till the point of death ibid. Bare saying of Prayers without attendance to what they say is sufficient to Divine Acceptance p. 54. Of Prayers in an Vnknown Tongue and the Translation of the Mass-Book p. 55. Character XIV They take away the second Commandment p. 56. 'T is not necessary to be sorry for the sin but the penance p. 57. An Indulgence serves instead of a Godly life ibid. Auricular Confession the great Intelligencer p. 58. Ignorance the Mother of Devotion ibid. They must submit to an Infallible Judg so as to believe Vertue to be bad and Vice good p. 59. Their Clergy must lead a single life whether honestly or no it makes no matter p. 60. Of the several Artifices used by our Author p. 64. Of his Reply to the Answerer of his Reflections p. 65. His appeal to the Lives of Papists amongst us shew'd to be impertinent ibid. A further Account of his Artifice p. 67. His Answers all along insufficient p. 70. Of his insincerity in the offers he makes to receive us into his Church upon the Representing Terms and detesting some Principles and Practices charged upon the Church of Rome p. 71 72. ADVERTISEMENT TRansubstantiation contrary to Scripture or the Protestant's Answer to the Seeker's Request The Protestant's Answer to the Catholick Letter to the Seeker Or a Vindication of the Protestant's Answer to the Seeker's Request An Apology for the Pulpits being in Answer to a late Book Intituled Good Advice to the Pulpits Together with an Appendix containing a Defence of Dr. Tenison's Sermon about Alms in a Letter to the Author of the Apology ERRATA PAg. 22. l. 5. r. 15. p. 33. l. 35. r. in terminis p. 41. l. 6. a bringing p. 43. l. 2. r. saith he Pulpit-POPERY True POPERY IN ANSWER TO Pulpit-Sayings WHEN the Author of the Pulpit-Sayings first appeared in the World he undertook to shew what the Papist is not or how he is Misrepresented and what he really is and how he is to be Represented The first he tells us He exactly describ'd according to the Apprehension he had when a Protestant And the latter he represents according to his own private Opinion when a Papist as he is told So that in the issue the whole is resolv'd into himself Thus it was and thus he still maintains the Humour for what are the Characters he gives of a Papist but for the most part the fruits of his own Imagination And what doth he bring to confirm it but it is the Papist I am What course doth he take to confute his Adversaries to confront their Authorities but if that be a Papist I am none I profess I renounce such Popery Nay as if he acted sub sigillo Piscatoris and had by Deputation the Authority of the Chair to determine and renounce and the Keys of St. Peter to bind and loose to let in and out of their Communion as he sees fit he assures us that whoever will be a good Papist must disclaim every point that is here set down by the Pulpits as Articles of Religion And again the Papist Represented I own it it 's the Papist I am and whoever assents to that Character in that very Form of the Papist Represented has done what is required as to those particulars to be made a Member of our Communion So that if I declare I profess I renounce on one side and I am I do own on the other is sufficient to determine the Point and will be taken for an Answer by his Adversaries there is no more to be said But though our Author may suitably enough to the temper of the Church he is now of be thus assuming and dogmatical and may for ought we know thus expound transform and determine with Allowance yet there is no reason why he should prescribe to the Church he has forsaken and that his Apprehensions be taken for the Apprehensions of all of that Communion This he now thinks a little unreasonable and could be content for once to own it if his present Undertaking be allowed to come in the place
and the Immaculate Conception c Each charging the other with Heresie as the Jesuits and Jansenists about the First the Dominicans and Jesuits about the second the Franciscans and Dominicans about the third Thus far therefore we are not agreed with our Author for if actual and material Divisions betwixt Head and Head Head and Members Members and Members will make a plea to Union to be but a pretence then so it is with them 2. Their Religious Orders are neither better nor worse than so many Sects and Casts of Religion This saith our Author is an absolute Falshood and the Vindicator that undertakes to defend the Preacher is in his opinion no better than a vain Trister in publishing such an idle Apology But why so Because when the Preacher had said that the Orders among the Papists are so many Sects the account he gives of it is that they are so many distinct Bodies that having different Founders Rules Habits and Opinions by which an Emulation is begot betwixt Order and Order they become divided among themselves and when occasion is offer'd do actually war upon one another in their way Now saith our Author would not a School-boy have been scourged for such a sleeveless frivolous excuse which he saith may be as well applied to our Colleges in the Universities as to their Convents But was this all the Apologist undertook and did he thus conclude his defence of the Preacher When he had thus shewn what is meant by their Orders and how Emulations and Quarrels might arise and what occasions were given for them in point of Rules Habits and Opinions did he not proceed to shew of what sort these Differences were in the very next words after those quoted by the Sayer Surely he might in his Transports have so far condescended as to touch upon those points and shewed a little of his skill in proving the Differences betwixt the Franciscans and Dominicans about the Immaculate Conception to have been no other than a School-opinion in our Colleges and that notwithstanding all the Feuds betwixt the Jesuits and Dominicans the Franciscans and the Jesuits there mentioned they are as he would have it only different parts not dividing but making up the whole He complains of the Preacher that he so worded it that no Protestant of his Auditory but must receive this Notion that as in England so likewise in the Church of Rome there are different Sects of Religion and Fanaticks to divide it And let any Protestant or other read the History of their long contentions about the size of their Hoods and the Immaculate Conception and he will read a notable Comment upon the Preacher's words and see that he has not misrepresented them I would fain know of our Author what he thinks of a Controversie that hath filled Kingdoms Cities Universities Cloysters with Tumults and Disorders Pulpits and Schools with contentions Invectives and Revilings that hath concerned Kings Popes and Councils in composing and at last grew to that height that after 300 years bickerings Popes themselves though solicited from time to time not only by the Heads of the Faction but by Princes themselves yet either could not or thought it not safe and adviseable to determine it Let me sum it up in the Words of the King of Spain's Embassador to the Pope to move him to come to a Resolution upon it Consider the loss of many Souls the Discord of the Church the Dissentions of Cities the great Dangers that hang over the Kingdom Let our Author consider this and tell me for what reason he took no notice of this case laid before him or how he could after he had read it charge the Preacher with an absolute Falshood For this I shall refer him further to a late Book call'd The Virgin Mary Misrepresented by the Roman Church § 3 and 4. But here our Author relieves himself That this may be seen in the Queen Dowager ' s Chappel in which officiate Monks Friers Dominicans Jesuits and Clergy that is so many different Orders of Men and yet without any difference in Religion or disagreement in Faith. But will he say there are no differences between the Friers and Dominicans the Jesuits and the Clergy in those Cases when they charge each other with Heresy or because they seem to agree or do there agree there is then nothing of this between Order and Order This is much such an Argument as if one that had seen the Fox and the Sheep and other Creatures quietly sitting upon one and the same Hill in the West when drove thither by a sudden Inundation should from thence conclude and would perswade others to believe that these were all at a perfect Accord and that there was no Enmity in their Nature nor had ever been in Fact. I shall conclude this with what Antoninus A.B. of Florence saith in this case Let every one take heed of preaching on this matter the immaculate Conception before the People with a charge upon the contrary Party because it 's Scandalous to 〈◊〉 People and accordingly it was forbidden by several Popes Another of the Falshoods charged upon the Preacher is the asserting they have Fanaticks pack'd up in their Convents The best Answer I can give to the Sayer upon this is to set before the Reader an account of the Method taken by the Apologist in handling this Argument 1. Who shew'd what Fanaticism is and that it 's a general Name comprehending in it Superstition and Enthuasiasm The former is the placing Religion in those things which Religion is not concerned in The latter is when Persons are acted and governed by some suppos'd Communications from Heaven by Revelations Visions Inspirations by Raptures and Illuminations and unaccountable Impulses 2. He shew'd there was such Fanaticism amongst them and in their Convents of the former sort he instanced in their Monkish Orders Habits Rules and Privileges granted to them and depended upon To which our Author gives not one word of Reply To the latter Enthusiasm the Apologist refers 1. The Institution of their Orders which with their Rules they say were first instituted by the Holy Ghost 2. Many of their Doctrines as Purgatory Transubstantiation and the Immaculate Conception c. 3. Many of the things defined and observed in the Church as Sacraments Festivals Canonizations c. for which they plead Revelation 3. He shewed further that these Revelations were only suppos'd not truly so And that 1. Because it derogates from Divine Revelation And 2. Because they agree not amongst themselves Of which there is given a notorious Instance in the case of the Immaculate Conception where Revelation is pleaded on both sides and each side charges the other with Imposture about it But here our Author is wholly silent However something must be said upon this Head and that amounts to this 1. That those in Convents in the Church of Rome embrace a retired Life dedicate themselves to the Service of God in Praying Fasting
c. some according to the Institution of St. Benedict others of St. Francis c. And what follows therefore they are not Fanaticks therefore they are not Superstitious and Enthusiasts that is they are not Fanaticks because they are not Surely no Fanatick could have fallen into this account without the assistance of such a Representer 2. He adds Religious men in Convents are Fanaticks forsooth because they are acted by some suppos'd Revelations Visions Raptures c. What Controversial Stuff is this Why at this rate he might make Fanaticks of all the Patriarchs and Prophets of St. Joseph St. Peter and St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles and most of all St. John whose whole Book of Revelation is nothing now it seems but so much Fanaticism Surely our Author is here driven to some Extremity when he has no other Refuge but by making the Case in dispute betwixt us parallel with the Case of the Prophets and Apostles and that when the Apologist calls those of the Romish Church Supposed Revelations Visions and Raptures it 's as Criminal as if he had said as much of the Divine Writers At this rate saith he he might make Fanaticks of all the Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles At what rate What because he saith those pretended to in the Church of Rome are supposed will it follow therefore that those of the Prophets and Apostles are supposed too No surely no more than it will follow because the Revelations of the Prophets and Apostles are Divine therefore those alledged in the Church of Rome are Divine also Our Author saith of the Apologists account of Fanaticism What Controversial stuff is this But I may with good reason return it What impious stuff is this that will make the Inspirations of Magdalen of Pazzi and the Revelations of St. Bridget and Catharine of Siena how fond and contradictory soever to stand upon the same foundation with the Revelations of St. John And those which some of their own Authors call Humane Dreams Fantastick Visions and others call Impostures to be as much from God as the Visions of Ezekiel and the Dream of Joseph c. 4. That the Church of Rome disposes her Fanaticks into Convents for advantage is another Charge produced against them by the Preacher and insisted upon by the Apologist but that our Author for reasons best known to himself left as he found it Sixth Character of a Pulpit-Papist In the Roman Church the Sacrament must now be no longer a Representative but a Real Propitiatory Sacrifice And Christ's Natural Body must be brought down upon a Thousand Altars at once and there Really broken and his Blood actually spilt a Thousand times every day Here the Apologist charges our Author with altering the sense of the Preacher when he makes the Preacher to declare that was a positive Assertion of the Papists which was an Argument and Consequence of the Preacher's from their Assertion and that for this purpose he had left out the words Now and must be that were the Indications of it All that our Author has to reply to this Charge is that it 's a Nice point the Vindicator is reduced to to bring off the Preacher But it 's not so Nice as 't is evident that our Author's account of it is a Foul Misrepresentation If the Preacher had charged it as a Doctrine own'd by the Papists then so far as they disown it it had been a Misrepresentation but as it 's an Argument against them as it 's plain it was then it 's no more a Misrepresentation than it 's false and that belongs not to Representation but Dispute And therefore so far as an Argument of the Preacher against the Papists differs from a Concession and Assertion of the Papists so far has our Author misrepresented the Preacher when he saith That the Protestants awkard Reasoning is set out for their Doctrine Well at length however it shall be own'd for Reasoning and Inference and though it 's not his Province he saith to examine the truth of such Reasoning yet he fancies that 't is easily reconcilable with Reason and Scripture and so intelligible that the Sacrifice of the Altar is Representative of that upon the Cross That is if he will speak to the purpose That though the Sacrament be a Real and Propitiatory Sacrifice yet it 's still Representative But how will he prove it His Argument is this Christ really present in the Sacrament may be offer'd to God upon the Altar by the Hands of the Priest in Remembrance of the same Christ offering himself a Victim upon the Cross for the Redemption of man and consequently the Sacrifice of the Altar is Representative of that upon the Cross. Where I would only ask him what is the difference betwixt Christ's being really present in the Sacrament when offer'd and the Sacrifice of the Altar What again is the difference 'twixt the being offer'd in Remembrance of Christ's offering himself upon the Cross and the Representative of that upon the Cross and consequently whether he has not proved what he intended after this manner that the Sacrifice of the Altar is Representative of that upon the Cross because it 's Representative Methinks he might have shewn some little respect when he is on the Arguing part to what the Apologist had offer'd against this But however though his Argument may signifie little yet he hopes Mr. Thorndike's may be of some Authority who he saith never scrupled the least at this expresly owning the Elements changed into the Body and Blood of Christ to be truly the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross and to be both Propitiatory and Impetratory and yet never deni'd it to be perform'd in Remembrance of Christ crucified But here our Author has grosly injur'd Mr. Thorndike For 1. Mr. Thorndike owns no such thing as I can find that the Elements are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. But he speaks things plainly inconsistent with it as he saith N. 1. The Sacrament containing Mystically Spiritually and Sacramentally that is as in and by a Sacrament tendreth and exhibiteth not the Body of Christ much less turn'd into it Nay further he saith The Eucharist is Nothing else but the Representation here upon Earth of what is done in Heaven N. 4. 2. Neither doth he say the Elements are truly the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross but the Eucharist and the Eucharist as Representing For thus he saith N. 10. Not the Elements but the breaking pouring forth distributing dealing are all parts of the Sacrifice as the whole action is that Sacrifice by which the Covenant of Grace is confirmed N. 10. And further the Eucharist that is as thus administred is the same Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross. How As that which representeth is truly said to be the thing which it representeth That is so far as the Representer of the thing may be said to be the thing Represented so far is the Eucharist the same Sacrifice 3. When he
saith the Eucharist is Propitiatory and Impetratory he doth not in the least own that it is after the same manner that the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross was Propitiatory and Impetratory 1. Because he saith Whether the Eucharist in regard of the Oblation so in regard of the Consecration may be call'd a Propitiatory Sacrifice is a Question among some of the Church of Rome N. 6. 2. He refers it wholly to the Participation of it If men saith he did but consider that the Eucharist had never been instituted but to be participated they would find it impertinent to alledg any reason why it should be a Sacrifice that tendeth not to the participation of it which is directed against the Doctrine of the Church of Rome N. 10. 3. He most peculiarly makes the Propitiation and Impetration in the Sacrament to respect the Prayers of the Church there offer'd up N. 11. For thus he concludes Is not the Sacrament a Propitiatory and Impetratory Sacrifice by vertue of the Consecration though in order to the Oblation and Presentation of it by the Prayers of their Church So that the Case remains still where it was if it be a Real Propitiatory Sacrifice it 's not Representative for the one implies the Presence the other the Absence of the same thing the one implies it 's the thing the other implies it's only the sign or resemblance of it and so a thing can be no more the Representative of it self than it can be it self and not it self at the same time But he undertakes further that the other is not more difficult to be conceived viz. How Christ's Body may be Really present in this Sacrament and yet his Body not really Broken there nor his Blood actually spilt Here the Apologist took up the Cause after this manner Something is really broken and actually spilt if it be a Real and Propitiatory Sacrifice something is really broken and actually spilt as our senses tell us and as they acknowledg And now that the Body and Blood should only be there and yet that not be the Body that is broken nor that be the Blood that is spilt is next to the affirming that it 's broken and not broken spilt and not spilt But our Author here unties the knot as he presumes For saith he all this may yet be that his Body may be there and his Body not be broken c. Since 't is not present there Corporeally but Sacramentally only which manner of presence is no more consistent with real Breaking or Spilling than are Spirits or the Glorified Bodies of the Blessed which though Real and Substantial Bodies still are notwithstanding not at all susceptible of those Corporeal Accidents In answer to this let us consider What is that Body of Christ which is said to be Really present in the Sacrament And that is the same Body which our Saviour lived in and that hung upon the Cross and which the Elements are turn'd into by Consecration But will he say the Question is not concerning the nature of the Body which is granted to be a proper Body consisting of Flesh and Blood but the presence of that Body which is not Corporeal but Sacramental only which manner of presence is no more consistent with real Breaking c. than the Glorified Bodies of the Blessed which though Real and Substantial Bodies are not susceptible of those Corporeal Accidents But to this I answer 1. That the Body we speak of is not a Glorified Body but the same Body which hung upon the Cross which consisted of Flesh and Blood and had Flesh that might be broken and Blood that might be spilt 2. As to the Sacramental Presence of a Substantial Body consisting of Flesh and Blood Bones and Sinews which they grant the Body in the Sacrament to have whatever our Author thinks is surely one of the most difficult things to be conceived in the world For it is to suppose a thing to be without being that thing which it is to suppose a Body to be there and yet to be divested of all the Properties belonging to that Body Nay it 's to suppose that which is a Real and Substantial Body to be only representatively present and by way of Signification which is as much as to say the Body is not present for the same thing cannot be the thing and the Representation of the thing 3. There is no more reason for this Sacramental Presence of a Real Body than there is for its being a Sacramental and not a Substantial Body For what is the reason why they ascribe a Sacramental Presence to a Real Body but because they know there are none of the Tokens belonging to such a Presence and then why should it not be a Real Body but Sacramental when there are none of the Properties belonging to a Real Body to be discerned or existent in it 4. To this I add therefore there can be no such thing as what he calls a Sacramental Breaking and Spilling of Real Body and Blood. For such as the Body is such is the Presence such the Breaking and Spilling and why he should argue from a Sacramental Presence to a Sacramental Breaking and Spilling and not argue from a Substantial existence of a Body to Real Presence and Real Spilling is a thing may not be difficult to our Author but is surely in reason not to be conceiv'd If the Absurdities be gross let them thank themselves for it for they are no other than they first offer to the world and it 's no wonder the world returns them upon them with advantage Seventh Character of a Pulpit-Papist Popery puts out the Vnderstanding of those of her own Communion and tears out the Hearts of all others whom she cannot deceive she will destroy The Absurdity of Auricular Confession is endless where a man unlades himself of all his sins by whispering them into the Priests ears Likewise Transubstantiation where men must renounce all their Five Senses The Pope's Infallibility keeps a good decorum with the rest He alone cannot err and all others without some of his assistance cannot but err Upon this our Author saith their Religion is attacked only by the Vnchristian Artifices of passion and imposture But why only For supposing Popery puts not out the understanding of others or that in Transubstantiation men don't renounce all their five senses c. yet is there no Implicit Faith no Transubstantiation no other Principles owned by their Church that the Protestants do attack He saith further that in this Character there are as many Calumnies as Lines And that remains to be tried according to the Particulars he breaks it into As 1. It asserts that Popery puts out the Vnderstanding of those of her own Communion This Assertion was not introduced here either by the Adviser in his Assertions or by the Apologist But it was particularly handled in the Apology Assert 14. p. 29. and Assert 25. p. 48. where it 's proved 1. That in
their Church to believe the Church without a reason is not only safe but meritórious and that whoever thus implicitly believes is a good Catholick 2. That Ignorance is in their Opinion the Mother of Devotion 3. That it 's a mortal sin so much as to doubt and so no room is left for enquiry 4. That they take away the Key of all Spiritual and Divine knowledg the Holy Scriptures Now instead of an Answer our Author has in his Sayings whólly left out Assert 14. and blows off all that is said in Assert 15. with this one word it 's a great Calumny p. 51. And what he now offers upon this Head is 1. that they have many Books Catechisms c. I wish he could say the Scriptures to be ignorant of which is to be ignorant of Christ saith their Canon Law Dist. 38. Si juxta but That the people are not allowed so much as a Summary of And the time was in the Reign of Implicit Faith and before Heresie disturb'd the peace of its Empire that persons have been burnt for teaching their Children the Creed and the Lord's-Prayer in the Vulgar Tongue 2. He saith There 's none but knows that whoever will be a Christian must submit his Vnderstanding to such Mysteries that are above it Therefore will it follow he must not so much as enquire what those Mysteries are and whether they are of that kind as he must submit his Vnderstanding to whether that is they are of the Doctrines of our Saviour or of men 2. Popery tears out the Hearts of all others out of her Communion whom she cannot deceive she will destroy This saith our Author is false How so 1. because though Catholicks are bound to go and teach all Nations yet when men are so obstinate as to reject all Instructions they are taught to go elsewhere and only to pity and pray for such blind souls but not to destroy them Witness the course they took in the West-Indies in the Conversion of the poor Natives a course that made them abhor Christianity as Bartholomaeus Casas a Bishop of theirs present relates to whom I refer our Author 2. He answers 'T is true in the Catholick Church care is taken to preserve all such as are her Members firm in her Communion and there are not wanting Threats to keep the inconstant from being misled into Error as likewise punishments to reduce such as leave her and blindly run after false Guides A fair Concession And which will lead us into an examination of the case and teach the world what they are to expect For if all within her Communion are expos'd to their Threats and Punishments we know how large a share of the world according to their computation is to be taken in since they claim a Jurisdiction over all Christians and Churches But 3. He saith If for this reason such Punishments she must be said to tear out their Hearts and destroy such as she cannot deceive what is to be the Character of this Preacher's Church which by the consent of Bishops is fenced with such Laws as punishes with loss of Goods Imprisonment and Death not only those who leave her Communion but likewise those who were never members of it But we are not concern'd for the present so much to understand what the Preacher's Church is as that Church which the Preacher is not of Was there never no Tearing or Destroying elsewhere Yes surely somewhat looks that way I cannot say saith our Author but that rash Zeal headlong Revenge or detestable Avarice may have hurried some of ours upon such barbarous attempts But certainly never did any Christians deliberately and with counsel thus deeply engage themselves in Blood. So that if he is to be credited if there have been Barbarous Attempts it was only rash zeal c. but not deliberate not with Counsel and Law. And it has been only some that have been thus hurried to such attempts but not a considerable Body among them and much less such as have had the Supreme Regiment in their Church As for the Laws the Preacher's Church is fenced with our Author surely knows from what occasion they arose and whose practices they were that gave birth to them and he ought to know again that the Laws in their Execution never produced such Barbarous Attempts as what he calls their own rash Zeal Headlong Revenge and Detestable Avarice So that if Law and no Law be compared the state of no Law if such it was has been far more mischievous than that of Law. But were there never any Christians that did thus deliberately and with counsel engage themselves in Blood as he saith the Preacher's Church has done What thinks he of the Church of Rome are they not Christians And were there never any such things deliberately and with Counsel perpetrated amongst them Have they no Councils no Laws that touch upon this point And were there never any Christians engaged in Blood upon pursuance of those Laws Is there no such thing as Excommunicating and Anathematizing Hereticks among them No delivering over persons so convicted and condemned to the Secular Power And is there no such thing as compelling such Secular Powers to exterminate those Hereticks out of their Dominions Is there no Confiscations of Goods Imprisonment no Death for such as are obstinate And were there never Persons Families Countries that suffer'd under Crusado's issued out against them in obedience to such Laws Canons and Decrees Surely our Author is much to seek in the state of his present Church if he is ignorant of this and a thousand times more than I shall now tell him and is very ignorant in the state of the Preacher's Church he has left if he thinks his New Mother falls short of the old as he saith But if he saith one thing and thinks another how fit he may be to be a Member of the Church he is now in I know not but surely he could be no fit Member then of the Church he left For a Conclusion of this I shall crave our Author's patience to turn to the Lateran Council under Innocent the Third Can. 3. and he will see I have not said this without Book or wrong'd his Church however he may have wrong'd the Preacher's Church in his account of it 3. The Absurdity of Auricular Confession is endless where a man unlades himself of all his sins by whispering them into the Priests Ears Of this he saith it 's a Calumny and Misrepresentation since no Catholicks teach that Only whispering sins in the Ears of a Priest is sufficient for their Remission Nor doth the Preacher say that only whispering is sufficient for he must needs know that there is the making up their Cross and saying Mea Culpa and many other things to be done Where then is the Calumny and Misrepresentation Is it in the Vnlading But why is not that as fit as expiating which is the phrase used by their own Catechism where they are taught
refers to But what if it be not the common acceptation of the word but that it 's taken vulgarly for foretelling things to come Who then is the Calumniator 2. They make no other use of Confession than what profest Drunkards do of Vomiting Our Author saith This is a most putid Calumny and that the Vindicator dares not defend but only that so it is in the practice of many of their Church This he complains of and with good reason but then what shall be said of one that after he has told a story of one that declaim'd against the Papists for a Generation of Vipers and a profligate sort of men knowing but two Families and those good men from thence takes occasion to exclaim But this is to the Protestant-tune if a man can't tell how to run down Popery though he knows nothing of it he 's no true Son of the Church of England This is Case for Case But was this all the Apologist had to say in defence of the Preacher did not he produce Authorities of their own as to the General practice Did he not refer to their Doctrines and Penances and the Taxa Camerae Apostolicae in confirmation of it This had more become him to have answered than to put a Case Ninth Character of a Pulpit-Papist It consists of three Paragraphs 1. He pays his Devotions to Saints Canonized for Money and Treason Here the Apologist charges the Sayer with an alteration of the Preacher's words from which he would bring himself off by saying it's an insinuation which to the Hearers is as good as an Assertion whereas the corruption was that he turn'd a Particular into an Universal Here our Author observes against the Apologist 1. That he proves first it may so happen which is as much to the purpose as for one to say the Church-of-England men are corrupters of God's Word because 't is possible they may be so But the case is far otherwise for if there be no certainty but that the Pope may Canonize a Rebel for a Saint then there is no certainty but that the Saint may be no Saint And then what become of the Devotions of the Supplicants as those to Thomas à Becket at whose Shrines were more Offerings made than to Christ himself 2. He saith it has been done and in the next line comes in with an instance where it had like to have been done The instance was of Maria Visitationis where indeed it was not done but that it was not was more from the King of Spain's Jealousie than the Pope's Sagaciousness who sanctified her by Letters under his own hand Our Author I perceive dares not so much as name this Instance 3. As for the Instance of Thomas à Becket he saith he was Canoniz'd not for Rebellion and because he adhered to the Pope against his Prince but for his Virtuous Life and Martyrdom and the attestation of his Sanctity by undeniable Miracles Not for Rebellion as if that would be exprest in the Reasons for his Canonization I have read it was a Moot question Whether he was damn'd for Treason or Glorified as a Martyr I think it not worth the while to decide it but leave our Chronicles and our Author to struggle about it But it minds me of a story told by Bellarmin of one that was worshipped for a Martyr and yet appear'd afterward and told them he was damn'd 2. They pray to a Crucifix of Wood or Stone as well as to Christ himself and attribute as much satisfaction to it as to the Blood of Christ. Our Author rejoyns that This is every word an Infamous Falshood And continues Though the Vindicator appeals to the Words and Forms of some of our Prayers and then says That if words will make it plain the Preacher was not mistaken yet this is so childish a plea that methinks it ought to be beneath a Divine especially a man of conscience to charge so gross an abomination upon such a frothy pretext And then he gives his reason I must confess that if the Vindicator had only the Words and Forms of their Prayers to plead in Vindication of the Preacher without attending to the sense and reason of the thing that it might be as childish and frothy as he represents it and he would have Deut. 32.1 and the Benedicite used in our Church against him as our Author argues But if he had read on he would have found that it was the words as necessarily including such a sense and that the Apologist did covertly refer him to the Papist Represented and not Misrepresented Our Author now confesses himself to be the same that wrote the Papist Misrepresented and Represented and should be therefore concern'd to have defended it against the forecited Answer In which was shewn 1. That the Cross in the Church of Rome as it's Representative so is Consecrated by an Office on purpose composed for it 2. That at the Consecration of it they pray that the Lord would bless the Wood of the Cross that it may be a saving remedy to Mankind a stability of Faith an increase of good Works and the Redemption of Souls and that Christ would take this Cross into his hands and that all that offer it may by the merit of this Cross be delivered from every Sin they have committed 3. That it 's esteem'd upon Consecration to have those Virtues communicated to it 4. That they adore it even with Latria the Worship they give to God and direct their Prayers to it 5. That those Prayers are without a Figure and in a proper Sense applied to the Material Cross. This the Author of that Book proved 1. as that throughout the Cross is distinguished from Christ because they pray to Christ to bless the Cross and that he would communicate such Virtues to it 2. From their own Authors such as Soto Catharinus and Aquinas 3. From the severe Censures of those who held otherwise as was the case of Johannes Aegidius Canon of Sevil and Imbert of Bourdeaux and the Curate of Pomyrol Our Author talks of a Forehead of these that make up against them it 's a Word I am not us'd to but he must have somewhat like it that allows this Practice to be worse than Heathenish and a gross Abomination and yet lets all this to this day lye unanswer'd and thinks to put us off with the same crude Replies that stand there confuted In Conclusion it appears to be no more true that they are defamed by the method used in the Church of England than that the Church of Rome is the Mother-Church of the Church of England as our Author suggests 3. Making a particular Confession of our Sins to Men instead of keeping up wholesome Discipline is the way to corrupt it and tends to the debauching both Laity and Clergy Here our Author spends what he has to say both against Preacher and Vindicator in shewing special Confession to be allow'd
it self but doth he say that they picture what they themselves believe to be the Picture of the Divinity No surely then he had contradicted the Council and made them downright Anthropomorphites but he lays it to their charge that they picture and make Representations of the Divinity and Trinity it self as well as of Saints that is not sparing even the Divinity O but saith the Council these are only Histories of the Holy Scriptures But is there any History of Scripture that tells us God did so appear in any Form otherwise than in a Prophetical Scheme And is not even that forbidden when an Image of God is forbidden because God cannot be described in any way but by what he is not and so is a reason against Images in all as well as any one Instance and of which none can be proposed but what fall under the same condemnation As for what he hath seen in the Frontispiece of some Bibles and Common-Prayer Books they belong no more to our Church than the Temple of Pallas to the Roman Church though existent in it If indeed they were as commonly to be seen in our Churches were allow'd were set up by order and ador'd if he could find it defended and the benefit they are of to the people set forth in the Articles and Catechism of our Church then he had something to say but till that he is guilty of a gross Misrepresentation and in his common phrase of an Absolute Falshood that saith that the Preacher's Exclamation of O hateful sight may be as properly apply'd to any thing of that nature in our Churches 4. He prays to Images This saith he is false too for several Reasons 1. Because they are taught to pray to God alone but to none else Is that all It must be acknowledged they go a little further for they desire the Intercession of such holy persons as are acceptable to God whether in Heaven or Earth But do they no otherwise desire the Intercession of Holy persons in Heaven than they do those in Earth Do they ask suppose of a Confessor to be delivered from the chain of their sins to be preserved from spiritual maladies and Hell-fire and to be prepar'd for Heaven c. as they ask of the Saints Or do they so much as pray to God that he would grant that by the Merits and Prayers of their Confessor as well as St. Andrew they may be delivered from the Fire of Hell 2. He saith For Images we confess them to be nothing but wood and stone Will he be so bold as to say this nothing but wood after they are Consecrated Let our Author consult Papist Represented and not Misrepresented Chap. 1. And will he deny that they are Representers and to be applied to as if the Objects Represented were present If he doth why has he not bestow'd a little of his pains in chastising the Apologist But it seems the Apologist however has laid himself open in going farther for he speaks of leaving prayers with an Image And why not as well as pray to them Let him state the matter and confute this and I 'le promise him the Apologist shall then give up the former But what 's become of the Christus in Imagine in Curtius Surely the City of Lucca will take it ill at his hands that he has not a word to say in behalf of their famous Image and the veracity of their Historian Here I shall refer the Sayer to what has been already said Char. 9. n. 2. I shall take his excuse that he makes for his perversion of the Preacher's sense though it had been a little more sincere if he had positively acknowledged his fault rather to come off with an If when the case is evident 5. He worships Bread and Wine not as Representations of God but as God himself This saith he is false since we worship only God himself and not the Bread and Wine which we believe not to be in the Blessed Sacrament And then he comes in with his charge of Misrepresenting and gravely adds a good Rule from a worthy hand But all is spoiled for want of proof that the Preacher doth charge it upon them that tâ—â—y believe first of all the Bread and Wine to be in the Sacrament and yet worship it as God himself But the Preacher speaks not of what they believed but what they did as is plain by the Negative he inserts viz. Here you see the Bread and Wine are worshipped by them not as Representations of God which the Bread and Wine are but as God himself The Preacher shews the grossness of their practice that what is indeed but Bread and Wine in their Substance and a Representation of our Saviour they worship as God himself The former is what the thing is in it self the latter he charges upon them as their practice And therefore the Sayer first mistakes the case and then proceeds to spend a censure upon it 6. He is taught that the Passion of Christ takes away only the guilt of Mortal sins but not the eternal punishment Here the Apologist took some little pains to state the Case and proceeded upon these Heads to shew in their way 1. That the Guilt may be taken away when the punishment is not 2. That the Guilt may be taken away by one cause and the eternal punishment by another 3. That the Passion of Christ only takes away the Guilt of Mortal sins but doth not take away the eternal punishment Here it might be expected our Author would have enter'd into the Merits of the Cause but instead of that saith it 's false gives us a short reason or two and dismisses the point and leaves the Apology without a word of Reply 7. He is taught the non-necessity of Repentance before the imminent point of death This is another new point scor'd up to the account of the Preachers and was none of the twenty eight Assertions in the Advice But however I shall try whether the Preacher had not Authority for it Here our Author offers two things 1. That it 's absolutely contrary to the Doctrine and general practice of their Church whose Members are obliged to go to Confession once a year which cannot be perform'd without a beauty Repentance 2. We hear nothing so much discoursed of in our Books and Sermons as deferring Repentance to the last I will not undertake for their Sermons for I am not so conversant in theirs as he is in ours but in their Books we find 1. That they are taught that they are not bound to repent but in the danger or point of death So Navar who affirms it to be the sense of all 2. That though the Church calls upon them to repent at solemn times as Easter yet the Church is satisfied in the Ritual performance of it and that true inward Repentance is not thereby requir'd 3. That to defer our Repentance is but a venial sin 4. This is conformable to the
insinuate as if the 2 d Commandment is never expunged by them which he dares not stand to If it be expunged elsewhere to what purpose doth he refer us to the Bible and Catechisms For if it be in the Bible and Catechisms but not in the Offices of the Church it 's still a true Charge against them And I remember it was both shew'd that it was not in several of their Offices and it was put to him to shew in what publick Offices of their Church it is to be found But however it is in their Bibles but what is this to those that have not the use of the Bible permitted to them However it is in their Catechisms Surely our Author is not sincere For he once confess'd it to be left out in their short Catechisms or if he is improv'd since that time in his Confidence I will produce Catechism after Catechism where it is not such as the Child's Catechism 1678. And as for the Abstracts even in those the two first Commandments are thrust into one and often there is nothing at all of the second but an c. in the place as in the Abstract of the Scripture Catechism An. 1675 which I suppose is that which he himself refers to p. 57. 2. For his Absolution 't is not necessary he should be sorry for his Sin but only for the Penance Here I presumed our Author would have expatiated upon the point and have clear'd their Church if he could from the Imputation charged upon them by the Preacher and maintain'd by the Apologist who shew'd from the Council of Trent their Catechism and the Practice of their Church that a Sorrow for the Penance alone or Attrition with Confession to the Priest is sufficient without Contrition but to all this our Author gives no Reply 3. If this should fail 't is but being at the Charge of an Indulgence or Pope's Pardon that is to purchase so many penny-worth of other mens Merits And this is what is requir'd instead of Regeneration Sanctification and a Godly Life This saith our Author involves an absolute Falsity whilst it supposes that a Papist who is sorry neither for his Sins nor the Punishment that attends them has no more to do than to procure the Pope's Pardon and that this is sufficient instead of Repentance This is a most abominable Doctrine in it self and most injuriously charg'd upon us And yet as abominable Doctrine as it is it 's found and prov'd upon them by the Apologist from the Indulgences granted in their Crusado's and upon other Occasions But saith our Sayer The only ground for it is the Practice of some prostigate Men in the number of which he must then place several of his Popes But to all the Evidence for this our Author saith not a Word Of this let the Reader see before Char. 12. 4. Auricular Confession their great Intelligence and Leiger Nuntio is the main Curb of the Laity whereby the Clergy holds them in aw in being admitted to all their Secrets of States and Families thereby to work their Purposes and Plots 't is a matter of meer Interest and were there no gain in it they would be ashamed of it Of this he saith It 's a most odious Character of an Institution allowed even in the Church of England What is their Auricular Confession as it 's described from the Council of Trent in the Apology an Institution of the Church of England Doth the Church of England hold it necessary jure Divino to Confess to the Priest all and singular mortal Sins even the most Secret whether Acts Thoughts or Desires with all their Circumstances so far as may change the nature of the Sin and without doing which no Absolution is to be given He may as well say Transubstantiation is the Doctrine of the Church of England because they own the Eucharist as their Auricular Confession is an Institution of our Church because it allows and approves Confession in some cases But what saith our Author to the Charge What to the use made of it in intruding into the Secrets of States and Families and to work their Projects What to the Allegations from their own Historians Here the old Refuge is made use of Silence Of this see before Char. 9. n. 3. 5. Ignorance is the Mother of their Devotion which they are bound to by Vow and under the severest Penalties This saith our Author is a great Calumny and an empty Consequence of the Preacher Methinks our Author should not be so brisk upon this Sermon which he has made so extremely bold with sometimes mollifying the Sense of it when it looks two broad upon them at other times sharpning it leaving out and altering as it was here when he made the Preacher say before they are bound to vow Ignorance This he saith the Apologizer pretends to make out But if it be but Pretence why has not the Sayer expos'd him and run down the Instances of St. Benedict Francis Ignatius Loyala I acknowledg the Learning of many of their Fryers and Monks but they are not beholding to their Vows and Rules for their Learning For the more they keep to them the less Learned they will be or else I know not why the Jesuits are not as strictly tied up to their Hours c. as the Benedictines But what is become of Assertion 25. Their avowed Principles are to keep the People in Ignorance Where are we to expect the Answer to what the Apologist there produced in Confirmation of it That 's reserved to a more convenient time See before Char. 8. Here again we want an Answer to what was said on Assertion 26. They teach their People better Manners than to rely upon the all-sufficient Merits of Christ. All which the Apologist did undetake to prove upon them But instead of that our Author throws in a new Instance to make up the Defect viz. 6. They must wholly submit their Reason to an Infallible Judg even so far if one of their greatest Authors say true as to be bound to believe Virtue to be Bad and Vice to be Good if it shall please his Holiness to say so This saith he is a gross Abuse of Bellarmin But first of all what saith he to the general Proposition That they must wholly submit their Reason to the Infallible Judg Is that an Abuse of their Church And setting aside Bellarmin for the present Is there none of his gross Doctrine to be found elsewhere What thinks he if the Pope should declare the right Hand is the left are they bound to believe it This was once call'd a Misrepresentation in the Preacher but their own Lyra was beforehand with him tho our Author had the good manners to leave out the Quotation What thinks he of the Rule of Ignatius That if the Catholick Church define that to be black which appears to be white they are bound to account it to be black What 's think he of meriting by believing an
Heretical Proposition taught by his Bishop These are Cases resolved by them in the Affirmative as the Apologist shew'd in the place quoted by our Author but tho nothing could be objected against those and the like Evidences yet it seems this is a most gross Abuse of Bellarmin an inexcusable Aspersion a Forgery of the Preacher But why all this Because saith he these words are not his Assertion but an Inconvenience he argues from in proof of what he had before asserted that the Pope is Infallible But if it be an Inconvenience it's what he is contented should be taken for an Assertion It 's plainly a case he puts The general Proposition in proof indeed was that the Pope could not err in things of themselves good and evil as it 's a matter of Faith the Catholick Faith teaching Virtue to be good and Vice to be evil The next Proposition in confirmation of it is that the Church is bound to believe according to the Pope's Resolution of the case Vnless she would sin against conscience The next is supposing that the Pope should command Vice and forbid Virtue then saith he the Church is bound to acquiesce in his judgment in all doubtful matters to do what he commands and not do what he forbids and lest perhaps she act against conscience she is bound to believe that to be good which he commands and that evil which he forbids That the Pope cannot err is the Principle he holds to but yet to secure the duty of the people he breaks off the Argument and lets it all issue in the point of the Churches obedience and submission lest they should at last find his Holiness has thus err'd Well saith he however if it should be so yet as he said before in another case it belongs not to Subjects to doubt of these things but simply to obey And how timorous soever our Author is to own it how solicitous to bury it under the rubbish of Abuses Aspersions and Forgeries yet others are not so bashful Even Bellarmin himself elsewhere doth admit it with some little qualification In a good sense saith he Christ gave to Peter the power of making sin not to be a sin and of what was not sin to be sin Bellarmin indeed saw further than our Author he know well that these Metamorphoses had been practised by the Papal Authority and if they were bound to believe that to be good which he commands and approve that which he decrees when what was in it self unlawful was made lawful by his determination there was no disputing Of this we have a notable instance in Pope Martin the Fifth who after mature consultation did dispense with one that had taken his Sister to Wife because of the Scandals that otherwise must have happen'd upon their Separation 7. Their Church-men must live a single life whether honestly or no it makes no matter Our Author after his wonted manner declares this to be utterly false it being no indifferent thing in our Church whether the Clergy live honestly or no. In this Assertion the Apologist observed there were two Points contained 1. That the Clergy in the Church of Rome must and are obliged by the Order of their Church and their own Vow to lead a single life 2. That there is more care taken that they live single than that they live honestly But this saith our Author is to fall much below the Preacher but why so what mighty difference is there betwixt saying as the Preacher that whether they can do it honestly it makes no matter or more care is taken that they live single than that they live honestly For certainly not much matter is made of that which they take no reasonable care in But however he will not allow the proof of it offer'd in the Apology Which saith he is this chiefly because the punishment for a Clergy-man that marries is much greater than for one that keeps his Concubine The matter of fact he allows and indeed it was undeniably prov'd against them But this he saith is not to the purpose it being as if I should say that according to the Principles of the Church of England it matters not whether her Members turn Turks or no And then should bring this for proof because she has severe penalties even of death it self for such as become Papists but none at all for those that turn Turks But this is far from the case for Laws are made according to the state and exigence of Affairs and the Cases that fall out or probably may fall out and the damage done thereby to the Community But where there is no danger or damage in prospect it 's a ridiculous thing to make a Law. The danger here was from the Papists and their practices against the Government which was the reason of those Laws but there is no danger of the Members of its Church turning Turks which is the reason why there is no Law against it And his Argument would be much as if it should be said That according to the Principles of the Greek Church it matters not whether her Members turn Heathens and then should bring this for proof of it because she has severe Penalties even death it self for those that turn Turks for they that so turn are not received into the Church without as openly renouncing as they profest Mahometism which is death but none at all for those that turn Heathens If he had put the case right it should have been thus That by the Laws of England it is death to turn Papist and a Fine of 10 s. to turn Turk in the same circumstances of danger then it had look'd speciously enough that they took more care that they should not turn Papists than Turks And so we have brought the case home For if when a Clergy-man is found married he must be separated or depriv'd but if he keeps a Concubine he is Fin'd but 10 s it 's evident which is the worst crime in the opinion of the Church of Rome Our Author saith This was the chief Argument of the Apologist and if so methinks when he had dismist this by a comparison he might at once have blown off what remains But though he has not thought fit to set the rest before the Reader yet I shall offer them to his Consideration In further confirmation of this Charge the Apologist appeal'd to their Allowances as Priests Marriage is absolutely forbid without any Relaxation or Dispensation but Concubinage has been openly allow'd and licensed it 's further confirmed by their Resolution of the Case when they account Concubinage and Fornication a less sin in a Priest than Marriage These it seems were inconsiderable so neither the Argument nor the Authorities vouch'd for them deserved an Answer And for company our Author has dismist also Assertion 28. viz. The reason why the Clergy are bound to live single is for fear lest having Wives and Children they should give the State security of