with us so many Articles of Faith and are obligatory to all of our Communion Yet not so of every other matter declar'd in such a Council There being many things treated of and resolv'd 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 or Decrees are not absolutely Obligatory as is evident even in the Council of Trent as is before hinted whose Decrees of Doctrine are as much acknowledg'd 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 universally receiv'd and it may be never will Now Sir altho we allow some Councils have made decrees for deposing in particular Cases yet the Power it self not being declar'd as a Doctrinal Point and the Decrees relating only to matter of Discipline and Government it comes short of being an Article of our Faith and all that in your Answer depends on it falls to the Ground I have no place here to give you a distinct account of the several matters treated of in Councils and of the difference between Decrees of Faith and others which are not so yet because you seem to require some satisfaction in these Points I remit you to such Authors who treat of them at large and most particularly the Considerations upon the Council of Trent Canus Bellarmine and others This that I have here said may be sufficient to evince that in my declaring the deposing Power to be no Article of Faith I have not follow'd my own Private Opinion or meerly the number of Authors but rather the sense of the whole Church Councils and Popes themselves who plainly enough own this in letting so many open and Positive Assertors of the no-deposing Power to pass without any Censure of Heresie It being certain that were this Doctrine any Article of our Faith as likewise that mention'd in the preceeding Paragraph of the Popes Personal Infallibility the obstinate Opposers of them would no more escape without that brand than those that deny other Articles of our Faith as Purgatory and Transubstantiation These Instances I look upon as the most Principal throughout your whole Reply because in them you have made use of a Medium directly opposit to the Intent of my Book and which if it had been effectual would have shew'd that I have not Represented the Faith of the Papist according to the Rule of approv'd General Councils as I pretend but rather according to my own private apprehension or Opinion which I confess would have been a full Answer to it as to such particulars But how far you have fail'd of your endeavours even in this Point I leave now to the Prudent Considerer to judge But the way you take in all other Parts of your Book seems to me not to answer your design nor to agree with the Title of it For whereas I undertake to propose the Faith of a Roman Catholick as he is really taught to believe in Conformity to the Definitions of Oecumenical Councils Bating those Points I have already spoke to in your Answer You either own the Doctrine to be the establish'd Belief of your Church as in part that of the Power of Priestly Absolution Confession of due veneration to the Relicks of Saints of Merit of Satisfaction of the Authority of the Church of General Councils c. Or you shew the Doctrine I have deliver'd not to be the Faith of our Church by appealing from the Definitions of our Councils and sense of our Church to some expressions found in Old Mass books Rituals c. as if this were a serious way of truly Representing the Doctrines of the Church of Rome Can any Religion stand this Test Will not many Expressions in all sorts of Prayers Preaching and Devotions if separated from the sense of the Church prove unjustifiable and Ridiculous Let but an Atheist take this liberty even with the Scripture it self and thus separate infinite number of expressions there and see what will be presently the colour of all Religion and whether Christianity will be better than Turcism And especially whether the allow'd Psalms in Meeter will prove the devotion of men of sence and reason tho all may be reconcileable to Piety and Religion if taken in the sense of the Church Or you appeal again from the Declarations of our Councils and sense of our Church to some external Action as in case of respect shewn to Images and Saints upon which from our external Adoration by construction of the Fact viz kneeling bowing c. you are willing to conclude us guilty of Idolatry As if a true judgment could be made of these Actions without respect to the Intention of the Church that directs them and of the Person that does them As if they were not in themselves Indifferent and capable of being paid to God or to Men. Or as if your measures being follow'd Abigail ought not to come in and share with us in our constructive Idolatry because she fell before David on her face and bow'd her self to the ground and fell at his feet Joshua likewise because he fell on his face to the earth and did worship the Angel And as many who on their knees pay their respects to the King and bow before him As likewise all the Beggers in Lincolns-Inn fields who on their knees with their hands lifted up ask an alms of Passers-by Must not all these by construction of Fact come into the list of your Idolaters Or finally not being willing the Doctrine should pass for ours in the form I have stated it you appeal again from our Councils and Sense of the Church which I follow to the Sentimetns of some of our own Private Authors and so you come often with this French Author says this Vives says that Wicelius says another thing and Lessius another by this method endeavouring to convince your Reader that the Belief of a Papist is much different from what I ahve represented it But Sir this way may do well enough with the unwary but it ill suits with what you pretend The Frontis piece of your Book puts us upon expecting The Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented And when we come to peruse it we find several Doctrines propos'd but without any Authority of Church or Councils but this Author says this and that Author says that as if the Sense of every Author were immediately the Doctrine of our Church The Church speaks to us in her approv'd General Councils and from them you might have truly Represented her Belief and Doctrine but from particular Authors some of which may Write upon a Pique others upon a Passion others upon some other Biass nothing more can be Collected besides their own Opinion and with understanding Men it passes for no more So that nothing can be more unjustifiable than to
own'd as Such And as to this I need only Inform you that the Council of Trent is receiv'd here and all the Catholick World over as to all its Definitions of Faith althò it be not wholly receiv'd in some places as to its other Decrees which relate only to Discpline And therefore in appealing to this Council for the vindicating all I have there asserted to be the Doctrine of Catholicks I have done nothing but what I was oblig'd and is justifiable before the whole World and on the truth of what I have said concerning the Councils being universally receiv'd as to Doctrines of Faith I 'le allow the whole Cause between us to depend But this only as to your mistake Now supposing this to be the Rule of such Points of Faith as are there set down for the Belief of the Papists you raise your Difficulty pag. 11. because I shew no Authority I have to Interpret that Rule in my own sence it being a thing expresly forbidden by Pius 4th And because several of my Representations depend upon my own private Sence and Opinion Truly Sir had I in undertaking to state the Belief of our Church Interpreted the Council of Trent in my own private Sence or Obtruded any Opinion of mine for an Article of our Faith you might justly have Arraigned me at that Barr. But you must give me leave here to tell you that you Wrong me and Impose upon your Reader For so far was I from committing this Fault of Interpreting the Council of Trent in my own Sence That I have only deliver'd it as it is Interpreted to me and to all our Church in the Catechism ad Parochos composed and set forth by Order of the said Council and Pius 5th for the Instruction of the Faithful in their Christian Duty touching Faith and Good Manners in conformity to the Sense of the Council And for this reason in my Conclusion I appeal'd to this Catechism for the justifying of what I have represented to be the Faith of the Papists to be really so And that you may see how vainly you have charged me with the Transgression of Pope Pius's Bull remember I appeal'd again in my Conclusion to Veron 's Rule of Faith and to that set forth by the Bishop of Condom for maintaining the Character of the Papist Represented to be just Now you must know the Latter of these drew up a like Character in Paris of the Belief of a Papist and it being conform to the Principles of Piety and Christianity it quite overthrew the foul charge of its Adversaries There from their Books and Pulpits and this so home that they had no other way of preserving their Credit with their Flock than to declare to them that the Character set forth by the Bishop was not Exact and True but only vampt up by him into that Form for the benefit of the Publick cause Upon which he Published another Edition with several distinct attestations of many Bishops and Cardinals and of the present Pope himself wherein they at large approve the Doctrine contain'd in that Treatise for the Faith and Doctrine of the Church of Rome and conform to the Council of Trent And now Sir in proposing the Faith of our Church as I found it deliver'd by this Reverend Prelate and supported by such Authentick approbations wherein have I Entrenched upon the Priviledge of the Apostolick See of Interpreting the Council of Trent Or what necessity of relying upon a private Mans Judgment as you Phrase it of no Name and no Authority instead of that of the Pope and Council The Faith of a Papist I have deliver'd according to the Catechism Publish'd by Order of the Council or as Explicated by a Prelate who brings along with him the Authority of the See Apostolick and which part of all this is my private Sense or Opinion But you offer to make good this charge in some Instances As in the Invocation of Saints I seem to limit their Power of helping us to Prayers only which Limitation is not to be found in the Council of Trent I cannot but acknowledge Sir that the Council mentions their Aid and Assistance which we may reasonably expect But there being no other means of their Aiding and Assisting us express'd in the Council or in the Catechism ad Parochos besides that of their Prayers to God to obtain benefits for us through our only Saviour and Redeemer Jesus Christ And it being thus limited by the Bishop of Condom on this Subject pag. 33. Edit Pa. 1681. with the Pope and Cardinal's approbation I think I need no farther vindication to shew that in the proposal of that Point I follow'd not my own private sense or Opinion as you endeavour to prove In the Point of Merit you urge this again pag. 56. as if I had qualified this Doctrine with the dependance on Grace on God's goodness and Promise without the Authority of the Council there being no such qualification express'd in Can. 32. read and cited by you 'T is true 't is not in this Canon But if you please to look back to Can. 26. Sex 6. you 'l find it there clear enough to aquit me from the scandal of publishing my own private sense or Opinion You instance again pag. 11. in the Point of the Popes personal Infallibility which I represent to be no matter of Faith pag. 42. and what reason have you you say to adhere to my representation rather than to that of many others who assert the contrary But this difficulty is nothing but your mistake for I do not in the least deliver here my own private sentiment or opinion touching this point in opposition to other Authors But I only by way of Narative relate that whereas some Divines endeavour in their School debates to prove and maintain this Personal Infallibility yet it is not receiv'd amongst Catholicks as any matter of Faith because not positively determin'd by any General Council and propos'd to the Faithful to be embrac'd as such And this Sir again is not my private sense or Opinion but a bare Narative of matter of Fact But I am now to encounter your Goliath-Argument which shews it self throughout your Answer and seems to defy all the Hosts of Israel If I can find never a Stone to fling at it I must e'en lie at its mercy And it appears thus In my Character of a Papist Represented I pretend to declare the Faith of a Roman Catholick as 't is defin'd and deliver'd in allow'd General Councils and yet tho the Deposing Doctrine has been as evidently declar'd in such Councils as ever Purgatory and Transubstantiation were in that of Trent yet still with me 't is no Article of our Faith This is the main strength of it as urg'd by you on several occasions I answer it in short that tho all Doctrinal Points defin'd in any approv'd General Council and propos'd to the Faithful to be receiv'd under an Anathema are
make a Collection of private Mens sentiments and obtrude them for the truly Representing the Doctrine of the Church in whose Communion they are And this is not the Case of our Church alone there 's no Church or Congregation in the World will stand this Test And if it come a little home to you it may be you will be more sensible of this truth For althô you seem to maintain in your Answer that good works of justified Persons are not Free yet t is not just this Doctrine should be immediately charg'd for the Belief of your Church Althô Mr. Thorndike seems to allow Prayers for the Dead yet neither from him are we to take a true representation of the Doctrin of his Church Thô a worthy Divine declares that in case a Popish Julian indeed should Reign over us he should Believe him uncapable of Repentance and upon that supposition should be tempted to pray for his Destruction yet would it not be honest hence to blacken his Church with this Dis-loyal Principle as if she allowed her Members thô not to Fight against yet to Pray for the Destruction of such a Prince The like may be said of King James the First his holding Christ to be truly present in the Sacrament and there also to be truly ador'd maintaining in his Epistle to Cardinal Perron the Doctrine of the Real Presence to be the Doctrine of the Church of England and again what the aforesaid Mr. Thorndike delivers of the same Real Presence and Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist practis'd in the Antient Church from the beginning and thereupon owning the Eucharistical Sacrifice to be truely the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross in as much as the Body and Blood of Christ are contain'd in them and then farther adding that the Sacrifice of the Cross being necessarily Propitiatory and Impetratory both it cannot be denied that the Sacrament of the Eucharist in as much as it is the same Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross is also both Propitiatory and Impetratory Will you give me leave from hence to inferr that because these are the sentiments of such Eminent Persons in the Communion of the Church of England that therefore they are the Doctrine of that Church I suppose you will not and therefore in the true Representation of the Doctrine of yours or our Church I suppose you will easily grant that no appeal ought to be made to such Private Authors but the Undertaker is oblig'd to keep close to the sense of either Church declar'd in their Councils and Decrees and as explicated by their Authority And as far as you have effectually prov'd this against what I have represented for the Faith of a Papist so so far will I allow you have given me a just Answer And as much as you fail of this so much you come short of what you undertake which I recommend to your own perusal to examine But for any of these ways they are insignificant to your design and deserve not to stand under the Title of an Answer For how does your acknowledging our Doctrine to be yours your producing some broken Expressions out of Mass-Books your putting Objections from external Actions from private Authors or your own Opinion any ways prove that the Faith of a Papist as I have represented it is not according to the Council of Trent and what really he is bound as a Papist to Believe And yet this is the thing you ought to have prov'd to make good your Title But instead of this you generally let your Reader understand that I have indeed stated the matter aright and only tell him that you have something to say against the Doctrine and do not like it But your saying I hope or if it could be proving that Catholicks do not do well to Believe as I Represent is no Argument to prove that I do not Represent well This as to the Representing the Doctrine of our Church I should say something to your concluding Argument which comes so home p. 14. I allow it seems the Orders of the Supream Pastor are to be obey'd whether he be Infallible or no. I confess likewise in another place that some Popes have own'd the Deposing Doctrine and Acted according to it And here you infer Therefore the Papists are bound by the Doctrine of their Church to Act when the Popes shall require it according to the Deposing Power And does this bring the matter home Why then Sir you must ee'n give me leave to make another inference That What brings the matter home is nothing but an ordinary piece of Sophistry and let the Reader judge The Representer p. 42. speaking of the Popes Authority says that as in any Civil Government the Sentence of the Supream Judge or Highest Tribunal is to be Obey'd thô there be no assurance of Infallibility or Divine Protection from Error or Mistake So is he taught should be done to the Orders of the Supream Pastor whether he be Infallible or no. Where a Parallel is made between the Orders of Popes and Civil Powers as to the Obedience due to them from their Subjects Now Sir if it be your Opinion that this Authority and Power in these Supream Governours is so Absolute and Vnconfin'd that like to God himself there can be no just exception made to any of their Actions or Decrees whatsoever they be then indeed your reasoning Answers your intent But if the Case be possible that these may so Act or Command that the not-following or not-obeying in Inferiors may be no Crime then you come but short of home and prove just nothing Now change but the matter of your Argument and see how far it goes The Orders of a Prince being Supream Governour are to be Obey'd whether he be Infallible or no But some Princes have done thus and thus therefore the People by the Law are bound to Act so and so Does this hold in every Action or Order of a Prince without Limit or Exception Tho a Prince be to be obey'd yet it follows uot that his Word is the Law So that whosoever takes this for a concluding Argument must neither understand Law nor Logick I need not put the Reader in mind how often you make your digressions amongst the School-men and leave not scouting among them till you have lost the matter in hand And dispute about their Opinions instead of matter of Faith how in the Point of dispensations where we speak of the Moral Law and assert the Pope cannot dispense with it as give leave to break the Commandments to lye or for-swear You shew your learning in proving he can dispense with other Laws and Positive Institutions a thing scarce to be doubted of and nothing to our purpose I le say nothing of the admirable close of Your Chapter of Dispensations in which tho you have not produc'd one proof of Dispensations for lying or for swearing being allow'd in our Church on any account whatsoever you yet give this