it that Authority which Christ gave it and that he believes his Church to be above the Scripture and prophanely allows to her an uncontroulable Authority of being Judge of the Word of God For though there may be some truth in such Consequences as these from their Doctrine yet they were never charged upon them by us as their Principles or Faith Which is the chief Art he uses in drawing up these Misrepresentations XV. Of Traditions WE charge them with making some unwritten Traditions of equal authority with the Scripture and believing them with a Divine Faith This we say derogates from the perfection of the Scripture or the written Word of God For if our Rule be partly the written partly the unwritten Word then the Scripture or written Word is but part of the Rule and part of a Rule cannot be a whole and perfect Rule And we say That these unwritten Traditions are but humane Ordinations and Traditions of men but we do not say a Papist believes them to be Humane but Divine though unwritten Traditions and therefore though we affirm that they give equal authority to such Traditions as are in truth no better than humane Ordinations as to the Scriptures themselves yet we do not say that they admit what they believe to be only humane Traditions to supply the defects of Scripture allowing equal authority to them as to the Scriptures themselves which is the only Misrepresentation in this Character all the rest being owned by the Representer himself who then had very little cause to complain of Misrepresenting XVI Of Councils THe difference between the Misrepresenter and Representer in this Article is no more but this That the Papist Misrepresented is said to receive new Additions to his Creed from the Definitions and Authority of General Councils and to embrace them with a Divine Faith The Papist Represented owns the Authority of General Councils as well as the other and receives all their Definitions and believes them as firmly but though they define such Doctrines for Articles of Faith as were never heard of in the Christian Church and least were never put into any Christian Creed before yet he will not believe them to be Additions to his Faith or to what was taught by Christ and his Apostles But Pope Pius the 4 th his Creed must be the Faith of the Church from the Apostles days Now here I fancy our Author mistook his side for the Papist Represented has much the worse Character that he is so void of all sence that he cannot tell which is most twelve or four and twenty Articles in a Creed This is a hard case that Men must believe all the Definitions of their Councils but though they see their Creed increase every day must never own that their Faith receives any Additions However I think he has no reason here to complain of Misrepresenting since he owns all that any Protestant charges him with such an Implicit Faith in General Councils as receives all their Definitions and rather than fail in defiance of Sense and History will believe that to be the old Faith which was never defined till yesterday XVII Of Infallibility in the Church THe Misrepresenter says a Papist believes that the Pastors and Prelates of his Church are infallible which if it be understood of every particular Pastor and Prelate no Protestant ever charged them with and therefore the Representer might very safely deny it and this is all the difference between them except it be this That what the Misrepresenter barely affirms the Representer endeavours to prove viz. the Infallibility of the Church at least as assembled in General Councils and yet this must be called Misrepresenting too a Word which I suppose must have some secret Charm in it to Convert Hereticks XVIII Of the Pope HEre the Misrepresenter is very Rhetorical and facetious and we may give him leave to be a little pleasant with his own Universal Pastor He says the Papist believes the Pope to be his great God how great I cannot tell but some Flatterers of the Papal greatness have given the Title of God to the Pope and possibly some Protestants have repeated the same after them but never charged the Papists with believing it much less do they charge them with denying Christ to be the Head of the Church or with saying That the Pope has taken his place but we do charge them with making the Pope the Universal Pastor and Head of the Church under Christ and this I hope is no Misrepresenting for it is asserted and proved after this Fashion by the Representer But why is the Pope's personal Infallibility put into the Character of a Papist Misrepresented Why not as well the Infallibility of General Councils Since he grants some Papists do believe the Pope's Infallibility and such Papists are not Misrepresented by charging them with it and there are others who do not believe the Councils Infallibility without the Pope which therefore cannot be an inherent Infallibility in them The truth is the Infallibility of the Church is the Faith of a Papist but in whom this Infallibility is seated whether in the Diffusive Representative or Virtual Church in Pope or Council or the whole Body of Christians is not agreed among them But neither of these are Misrepresentations of a Papist unless you tell what particular sort of Papists you represent and then I am sure you misrepresent a Jesuit if you make him deny the Pope's Infallibility XIX Of Dispensations HEre I confess the Misrepresenter and Representer do flatly contradict each other and I am heartily glad to hear the Representer so fully disown those Principles which are destructive to all Religion as well as to Humane Societies and should be more glad still had there been never any foundation for what he calls the Misrepresentation However this he does very ill in to charge Protestants with this Misrepresentation of a Papist for I know no Protestant that charges these Principles upon Papists in general but I hope it is no Misrepresentation to charge those Men with such Principles who charge themselves with them and I suppose our Author will not say that these Principles were never taught or defended by any Papist Whenever he is hardy enough to say this I 'll direct him to such Popish Authors as will satisfy him about it XX. Of the Deposing Power HEre the dispute between the Misrepresenter and Representer is only this Whether the Deposing Power be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome For it 's granted on all hands that it is or has been the Doctrine and Practice of many Popes Divines and Canonists but that it has been condemned by other Divines and some famous Universities tho I do not hear that it was ever condemned by any Pope But what does he think of this being decreed by General Councils Does not this make it the Doctrine of their Church This he says nothing to here but we shall meet with it by and by in his
Attrition which is but an imperfect degree of Sorrow for fear of Hell and can produce only some faint and sudden thoughts of Amendment does qualifie Sinners for Absolution and we say whatever the Doctrine of their Church teaches the constant Practice of absolving all that confess without any apparent signs of Repentance and purposes of a new Life and that after many and repeated Relapses is apt to teach Men to place their Confidence in the Priest's Absolution without any serious intention to forsake their Wickedness VIII Of Indulgences WE charge the Church of Rome with teaching the Pope's Power to grant Indulgences not to commit Sin for the future but for the Pardon of those Sins which are committed that is for the remitting those Temporal Punishments which are due to Sin in Purgatory The Absolution of the Priest remits the Eternal Punishment of Sin and keeps Men out of Hell but still the Temporal Punishment in Purgatory remains due and this must be taken off either by humane Satisfactions and Penances of which presently or by the Pope's Pardon which surely is a differently thing from the Relaxation of Canonical Penances as the Representer states it for I never heard before that Purgatory Fire was a Canonical Penance enjoyned by the Church for sure the Decrees of the Church did not kindle Purgatory and it is strange the Church should grant so many thousand Years Pardon of Canonical Penances if they concern this Life as some Indulgences contain when few Men live an hundred Years in this World and then have no need of all the rest We say the Popes have and do to this day sell these Indulgences at different rates according to the nature of the Crime and Men who have Mony need not fear the Purgatory Fires and Men who have none must be contented to endure them this we grant with the Representer to be a great Abuse but it is an Abuse of their Popes and hardly separable from the Doctrine and Practice of Indulgences IX Of Satisfaction WE charge them with making human Penances necessary to satisfy for the Temporal Punishment which is due to Sin in Purgatory when the Eternal Punishment is pardoned for the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ which we say is injurious to the Satisfaction of Christ for all Men must grant that Christ had been a more perfect Saviour had he by his Death and Passion delivered us from the Temporal Punishment of Sin in Purgatory as well as from the Eternal Pains of Hell Yet we do not say that they believe very injuriously of the Passion of Christ that his Sufferings and Death were not sufficiently satisfactory for our Sins and therefore think it necessary to make Satisfaction for themselves but that they believe as their Church teaches them that they must satisfy themselves for the Temporal Punishment of their Sins and this is injurious to the Satisfaction of Christ. We do not charge them with evacuating Christ's Passion by relying on their own penitential Works but that they rely on Christ to satisfy for the Eternal Punishment of Sin and on their own Satisfactions for the Temporal Punishment which ascribes indeed the better half but not the whole to Christ and all this the Representer owns X. Of reading the Holy Scriptures WE only charge them with denying the People the use of the Bible in the vulgar Tongue as every body knows they do and as the Representer owns and defends it And to justify this Practice we say many of their Divines have charged the Scripture with being a very dark obscure unintelligible Book and that it is of very dangerous consequence to grant a liberty to the People to read it and this we think is not much for the Credit and Reputation of the Holy Scriptures But we do not as the Misrepresenter says charge the Papist with believing it part of his Duty to think meanly of the Word of God and to speak irreverently of the Scripture Whether denying the People the use of the Bible in a Language they understand be an Argument of their Respect or Disrepect to the Scriptures let any Man judg but for whatever reason they do it the Effect is plain that it keeps People in great Ignorance and as we fear occasions the eternal Damnation of many Souls though we do not say as the Misrepresenter does that they do it with this design That Men may be preserved in Ignorance and damned eternally But they know their own Designs best XI Of Apocryphal Books HEre can be no pretence of misrepresenting unless it be in the first clause which he usually takes care shall contain some Misrepresentation That he believes it lawful to make what additions to Scripture his party thinks good For as for their receiving such Apocryphal Books as Tobit Judeth Ecclesiastious Wisdom and the Maccabees into the Canon of Scripture which is all we charge them with the Representer owns and defends it This indeed we think to be making Additions to the Scripture but we don't charge them with believing that they may make what Additions to the Scripture they please for we believe they have so much Wit as to know it safer to do it than to say it may be done XII Of the Vulgar Edition of the Bible ALL that we charge them with here is that they make the Vulgar Latin Edition of the Bible so Authentick as to allow of any Appeals to the Originals for the Interpretation of doubtful places and we know not what Authority can make a Translation more Authentick than the Original That this is truly charged on them the Representer cannot deny though the Misrepresenter makes tragical work with it as any one may see who will divert himself with reading that Character which though in some parts it may have too much Truth in it was never before made the Character of a Papist but we must give them leave to speak some blunt and bold Truths of themselves XIII Of the Scripture as the Rule of Faith XIV Of the Interpretation of Scripture WE do not charge them with denying in express words the authority of the Scripture to be a Rule but with saying that which is equivalent to it That the sense of it is so various and uncertain that no man can be sure of the true meaning of it in the most necessary and fundamental Articles of the Faith but by the Interpretation and Authority of the Church which does effectually divest it of the authority of a Rule for that is my Rule which can and must direct me which it seems is not the Scripture considered in it self but as interpreted by the authority of the Church which makes the Faith and Interpretation of the Church not the Scriptures my immediate Rule But why does he now complain of Misrepresentation When the Representer owns and justifies every particular of it except it be those goodly Introductions That he believes it lawful nay that it is his Obligation to undervalue the Scripture and take from
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
he limits their power of helping us to Prayers only whereas he grants the Council mentions their Aid and Assistance as well as Prayers And the only vindication he thinks necessary to make for this is that no other means of their aiding and assisting us is expressed in the Council or in the Catechism ad Parochos besides that of their Prayers and it is thus limited by the Bishop of Condom on this Subject with the Pope and Cardinals approbation But though the Council does not specifie what other aid and assistance we may expect from the Saints besides their Prayers yet it mentions Aid and Assistance without limiting it to the assistance of their Prayers and the Answerer P. 25. told him what reason he had to believe that neither the Trent Council nor Catechism did intend any such limitation but this he thought fit to take no notice of for it had been very troublesome to answer it As for the Bishop of Condom though his authority is nothing yet I do not find that he limits their aid and assistance only to their Prayers for us for after repeating the Decree of the Council That it is good and useful to invoke the Saints by way of supplication and to have recourse to their succors and assistances c. he quietly drops the last clause without saying any thing of it and only tells us It is evident that to invoke the Saints according to the intent of this Council is to resort to their Prayers for the obtaining the blessings and benefits of God by Jesus Christ. And no doubt but this is true but the Council speaks not only of invoking the Saints but of flying to their aid and assistance and pray what does that signifie That he had no mind to tell us and when he says nothing of it how comes our Reflecter to know that he limits it to their Prayers As for the point of merit I have already considered that though I do not see upon second thoughts how the Answerer is concerned in it for he does not alledge the 32 Canon to oppose what he asserts that good works are meritorious by the goodness and promise of God but for the sake of the Anathema which it denounces against those who deny that good works are truly meritorious of the increase of Grace and eternal life And therefore his next instance is the Popes personal Infallibility This our Reflecter denys and makes it the Character of a Papist misrepresented to assert it and yet there are as many Papists who believe the Popes Infallibility as there are who deny it and were they to make Characters to deny the Popes personal Infallibility would certainly be one Character of a Papist misrepresented But he says this is only a School-debate and not matter of Faith because not positively determined by any general Council And yet whoever reads Cardinal Bellarmin and several others on this subject would think they made a matter of Faith of it But I would ask him Whether the Infallibility of the Church be an Article of Faith If it be my next question is In what general Council it was defined It seems indeed to be taken for granted in some later Councils but I am yet to seek what General Council has positively defined it I am sure Bellarmin and other learned Divines of the Roman Communion who use all manner of arguments they can think of to prove the Infallibility of the Church never alledge the authority of any Council for it So that it seems infallibility it self was never determined by any General Council and if the Infallibility of the Church be matter of Faith though it were never defined by any General Council why may not the Infallibility of the Pope be so too nay how does our Reflecter come to believe the Infallibility of a General Council for this is no more defined by any General Council than the Infallibility of the Pope is If there must be Infallibility in the Church somewhere I think the Pope whom they acknowledge to be the supream Pastor has the fairest Pretences to it For Infallibility ought in reason to accompany the greatest and most absolute Power If we must have an infallible Judge of Controversies it must be the Pope not a Council because if you place Infallibility in a Council the Church has no infallible Judge any longer than while the Council is sitting For the Definitions and Decrees of Councils how infallible soever they are yet certainly cannot be an infallible Judge which they will not allow to the Scriptures themselves And therefore if the Church can never be without an infallible Judge he who is the supreme Pastor and Judge must be infallible Now this being the Case I desire to know why our Reflecter prefers the Infallibility of a General Council before the Pope's personal Infallibility how one comes to be matter of Faith and not the other or if neither of them be why one makes the Character of a Papist misrepresented the other of a Papist represented For though he pretends not to deliver his own private Sentiment or Opinion concerning this Point but only to relate matter of Fact yet he has so cunning a way of telling his Tale as to let every body know which side he is of For we may guess that he does not over admire the Papist misrepresented and then he cannot be very fond of the Pope's Infallibility which is part of that Character And now I come to the Goliath-argument as he calls it concerning the deposing Power which he puts into this form In my Character of a Papist represented I pretend to declare the Faith of a Roman-Catholick as it is defined and delivered in allowed General Councils and yet though the deposing Doctrine has been as evidently declared in such Councils as ever Purgatory and Transubstantiation were in that of Trent yet still with me it is no Article of our Faith This indeed is an untoward Argument and I wish him well delivered and I think he does very prudently to keep at a distance with a sling and a stone and not venture to grapple with it To this he thus replies I answer it in short that though all Doctrinal Points defined in any approved General Council and proposed to the Faithful to be received under an Anathema are with us so many Articles of Faith and are obligatory to all of our Communion yet not so of every other Matter declared in such a Council there being many things treated of and resolved on in such an Assembly which concern not the Faith of the Church but only some matter of Discipline Government or other more particular Affair and these Constitutions and Decrees are not absolutely obligatory as is evident in the Council of Trent whose Decrees of Doctrine are as much acknowledged here by Catholicks in England or Germany as within the Walls of Rome it self or the Vatican And yet it s other Constitutions and Decrees are not universally received and it may be
Anathema's for had it been known in the time of the Council of Florence we may suppose they would have anathematized too as well as decreed But this Council supposing that now the Greeks and Armenians were united to the Church of Rome the Heresie and Schism at an end and the Persons reconciled there was no need to exercise any Church Censures and therefore no use for Anathema's For this seems to be the true reason why the Council of Trent was so liberal of Anathema's because there were so many obstinate and incorrigible Hereticks at that time 2. The next Enquiry is Whether the deposing Decree be a Doctrinal Point or only matter of Discipline and Government For thus the Reflecter says That the Deposing Power is not declared as a Doctrinal Point and the Decrees relate only to Discipline and Government and therefore come short of being an Article of Faith This I confess I look on as a very childish Evasion For as they have been lately told To decree what shall be done includes a virtual Definition of that Doctrine on which that Decree is founded But I will only ask this Reflecter one short Question Why he rejects this Decree of Deposing Heretical Princes or Favourers of Hereticks Is it because he thinks the Doctrine of Deposing Heretical Princes erroneous or only because he don't like the Practice of it If the first then it seems this is a Doctrinal Decree as well as a Decree of Discipline and Government If he only condemns the Practice of it without renouncing the Doctrine let him say so and see how Princes will like it When Papists dispute among themselves about this Deposing Decree those who are for it vindicate the Popes Power to depose Princes those who are against it deny that the Pope hath any such Power which shows that they think it a Doctrinal Dispute for there is no other difference between them but whether the Pope has or has not Power to do it which is a point of Doctrine But when they dispute with us Hereticks then the Church has not decreed it as a Point of Doctrine but only of Discipline and Government But let them tell me then if this Decree do not involve a Doctrinal Error what is the fault of it 3. But suppose this Decree must be only ranked among the decreta morum which concern the Discipline and Government of the Church Is not the Authority of the Church as sacred in such matters as in points of Doctrine Is not the Church guided by an infallible Spirit in making such Decrees as concern the whole Christian World and the propagation and security of the Christian Faith At least Is not the Church secured from making wicked and sinful Decrees The only Example they have in Scripture whereon to found the Authority and Infallibility of General Councils is the Conncil of the Apostles at Jerusalem Acts 15. And yet that contains no definition of Faith but a Decree of Manners as they call it that is a rule whereby they are to guide their Actions without defining any point of Doctrine whereon that Decree is founded It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things that ye abstain from meats offered to Idols and from Blood and from things strangled and from Fornication from which if you keep your selves ye shall do well fare ye well They might as well object here as they do against the deposing Decree That there is no Point of Doctrine determined in it but it is only a Decree to direct them what to do and yet we find the Holy Ghost assisting in such Decrees for indeed the rules of Discipline and Government to direct the lives and manners of men is the only proper subject of Ecclesiastical Authority and therefore we may most reasonably expect that God should assist and direct his Church in such matters The Church has no Authority to make new Articles of Faith the Gospel was preached by Christ and what Christ could not perfectly instruct them in because they were not able to bear it at that time was supplied by the Holy Spirit who led the Apostles into all truth and now we must expect no farther Revelations And therefore as to matters of Faith the Authority of General Councils was no more than the Authority of Witnesses to declare what Doctrine they received from Christ and his Apostles and therefore their Authority could reach no farther than we may reasonably presume them to be credible Witnesses that is while the Tradition might be supposed clear and strong which I doubt will go no farther than the four first General Councils which are Received by the Church of England but the Authority of the Church in Decrees relating to Discipline and Government is perpetual and therefore in all Later Councils if there be any Infallibility in the Church I should more securely rely on such Decrees than on their Definitions of Faith And therefore Bellarmin for the Pope and MelchiorCanus for General Councils the two Authors to whom our Reflecter refers us declare that they cannot err in those Decrees which relate to manners if they concern the whole Church and are in things necessary to Salvation that is that they cannot forbid any Vertue nor Command any thing which is a Sin So that they who believe the Infallibility of Popes and Councils must acknowledg the Lawfulness of deposing Heretical Princes for if it were Unlawful to do it Popes and Councils could never Command it Our Reflecter indeed proves That such Decrees and Constitutions as concern Discipline and Government are not absolutely obligatory from the Example of the Council of Trent whose decrees of Doctrine are as much acknowledged here by Catholicks in England and Germany as within the Walls of Rome it self or the Vatican and yet it s other Constitutions and Decrees are not Vniversally received and it may be never will But pray can he tell me for what reason this is Let him say if he dare that it is for want of Authority or Infallibility in the Council to make Decrees to oblige all the Christian World and if Christian Princes will not submit to the Decrees of Councils and the Church dares not compel them to it does this justify such a refusal The truth is such Decrees ought not to take place nor become Laws in a Christian Nation without the Consent and Authority of the Soveraign Prince and therefore the Roman Emperors gave Authority to the Decrees of Councils and made them Laws but since the Church has pretended to act Independently on the Secular Powers and to give Laws to them without their consent no wonder that Princes who understand their own Authority and have power to defend it take what they like and reject the rest And for the same reason as our Reflecter observes the Popes suffer so many Positive assertors of the no-deposing power to pass without any censure of Heresy Which is no