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
in the Church of England and in exclaiming against his Adversaries for falling foul upon what he calls the best of Institutions As if either of them were against that which their own Church encourages and which the Preacher himself calls a wholesome Discipline But the beginning of the Paragraph shews what Confession the Preacher thus Censures viz. Auricular Confession as it is practiced in the Church of Rome at this day that Confession which the Apologist elsewhere describes from themselves that requires beforehand a diligent Examination of the Conscience about all and singular mortal Sins even the most Secret with all their circumstances so far as may change the nature of the Sin and then to discover all those they can call to mind to the Priest from whom they expect Absolution and without which Absolution is not to be expected nor can they have any benefit of the Absolution It 's of this the Preacher saith That the Consequence of it is to run an apparent hazard of being undone in many Cases by Knaves for Interest or by Fools out of Levity and Inconstancy and a blabling Humor that lets them into the Secrets of Families c. Besides instead of keeping up a wholesome Discipline it 's the way to corrupt it and tends to the debauching both Laity and Clergy in as many ways as there are Sins to be committed when the Confessor and the Penitent begin to discover and understand one another And this the Apologist confirmed from the Complaints made by good Men of their own Communion from the shameful Cases to be found in their Casuists from the Bulls of Popes Contra solicitantes in Confessione And of which I find a late Instance Tenth Character of a Pulpit-Papist The Churches Interest is the Center of their Religion and their Consciences turn upon the same Pin. Every thing is Pious Conscientious and Meritorious that makes for their Cause What is said as to the first of these by the Apologist That the Churches Interest is the Center of their Religion Our Author has not thought fit to recite and much less to confute As to the latter the Apologist produced a Constitution of the Jesuits but this the Sayer saith is a wrested Interpretation contrary to its plain meaning But why then did not our Author venture to assign this plain meaning of it and to shew the meaning the Apologist thought belong'd to it to be thus wrested Who without doubt would have thought one good Argument of much better Authority than a hundred bare Affirmations tho never so positive But he has two things yet in reserve 1. That after all the Apologist can say He cannot but own it to be a received Maxim among all even the loosest of our Divines and Casuists That no Evil is to be done that God may come of it To speak ingenuously I do not find him so forward to own it but if he did as we cannot think they will interminis run so counter to the Apostle yet the Question is what is Evil and Good and whether that is not Good which makes for their Cause or whether the making for the Cause makes not that which was Evil to be Good. And if so our Author doth but beg the Question 2. He appeals to his Catholicks of this Nation who quitted all rather than do an ill thing take Oaths Tests or go to Church against their Conscience The main part of this lies in the last words against their Conscience for else that many of them did take Oaths go to Church receive the Sacrament is I suppose out of Question Eleventh Character of a Pulpit-Papist This he breaks into four parts 1. He changes Scripture into Legends Hereby the Apologist shew'd was understood either that the Legends are of as good Authority in the Church of Rome as Scripture or that in their publick Offices they used Legends where they should have used the Scripture He shews there is too much occasion given for the former amongst them as when they own in their publick Offices that St. Bridget's Revelations came immediately from God to Her. But here our Author interposes and saith How does the Papist change the Scripture into Legends when he 's commanded by his Church to own the Scripture as the Word of God But if he owns the Scripture as the Word of God because it 's commanded by his Church then wherein is the difference if he be commanded by his Church to believe a Legend to be of Divine Revelation Our Author would have done a kind part if he had set us right in this matter between Divine Revelation and Divine Revelation between the Revelation for Scripture and the Divine Revelation for the Legends But he saith for all this a Person is not alike obliged to assent No! altho the Church requires it But that saith he the Church doth not for tho he may read Legends if he pleases yet he is not bound by his Church or Religion to give assent to or believe any one passage in any one Legend whatsoever If he has no better Authority for the latter Branch than the former for he is not bound to assent than for he may read them if he pleases his Cause is uncapable of his support For how can he be at Liberty whether he will read hear them if he pleases when they are inserted into the Body of their Church-Service and are Lessons chosen out for their Instruction And he can as little say they are not obliged to Assent to them when the Church it self saith in its publick Office They come immediately from God. Is it at last all come to this that when things are instituted by Inspiration of the Holy Ghost as the Orders of St. Benedict and were received from the Holy Ghost as the Rules of those Orders and that the Popes were moved by the Holy Ghost as in ordaining some Festivals and declar'd others to be divinely inspired as St. Brigit and St. Catherine and to come immediately from God as their Offices Is it all I say come to this that he is not bound to give assent to or believe any one Passage in any Legend whatsoever Nor so much as to believe any one to be a Saint their Church has Canonized no not St. Brigit St. Catherine nor even the Great Xaverius For tho some pretended Reformers as he calls them have been so easy and forward it seems as to have judged those things worthy of Credit which he was Canonized for yet no Member of the Church of Rome is bound to assent or believe but he may believe as well as read the Legends of them if he pleases and if he pleases he may forbear and suspend And this our Author doth abundantly confirm by approving what the Apologist produced out of Bellarmin and Canus That all things contained in the Lives of the Saints tho mentioned even in the Canonization depend upon human Testimony as to matters of Fact and consequently are subject to
without Satisfaction applied by the Pope is not sufficient Romanorum loculos impregnare to fill their Coffers at Rome Hath not the Doctor further prov'd that by this course they compound with Heaven for their Sins But will he say What is this to the purpose Yes it is to him that saith Indulgences are not for forgiveness of Sins But he persists still there is not a word of their being given for unforsaken Sins Not a word What is there then amongst all that List of Pardons as he calls it There is not he saith that the Doctor can pretend makes for this intent excepting that of Boniface 9 which too has nothing in it for his purpose besides his own false Translation and the perverse Construction be puts upon it The Author quoted for this by the Doctor is Theodorick Niem who saith That Boniface the 9th who was an Insatiable Gulph and had none like to him in Covetousness not being content with the Offerings at the Jubilee which by the Death of Vrban he enter'd upon altho they rose to a vast Sum sent his Collectors with Indulgences to many Countrys offering them thereby the same spiritual Advantages which they should have reap'd by coming to Rome upon the depositing so much Money as would have born their charges thither in which they prospered so well that by the vending of them in one Province they carried away above a hundred thousand Florins Quia omnia peccata sine Poenitentia ipsis conâ—itentibus relaxaâ—unt because as the Doctor translates it he gave by them Indulgence for all Sins without Repentance This saith our Author is a false Translation and perverse Construction But why so doth not Poenitentia signifie Repentance Or is Penance truly any other than Repentance If it be then why do the Rhemists translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Penance Matth. 3.8 c But he saith Poenitentia here signifies Penance and not Repentance which is indispensâ—bly imply'd in their Confession which cannot be rightly perform'd without Repentance What he saith upon another occasion may with a little Alteration be fitly return'd to him Marry if Confession was never performed among them but when it was rightly perform'd this would be a good Reason But if Confession among them be perform'd without Repentance as shall afterward be shewn in Char. 14. then this is no Reason But besides this is not to the purpose For when he saith That Poenitentia here signifies Penance and not Repentance he is to fetch his Reason for it from the Author whose Sense is in dispute and to consider the Circumstances of the place that is quoted but of this he has not one tittle so that all that he saith amounts to no more than this that Poenitentia here signifies Penance and not Repentance because it so signifies Which makes me think that he never look'd into the Author or if he had so done he would have seen what Reason the Doctor had for his Translation For 1. It 's plain from the History that the Business in hand was to utter the Pardons to the best Advantage that in Matthew Paris's Phrase they might thereby impregnate the Pope's Coffers 2. That there were no other Conditions requir'd for obtaining the Pardon but Confession and paying what it might have cost them in a Pilgrimage to Rome Repentance being not so much as intimated to be any part of the Condition 3. It 's farther Evident from the very next Clause where it 's said Super quibuslibet irregularitatibus dispensatur interventu pecuniae That provided there was Money they were dispensed with all sorts of irregularities telling the People that they had in this matter all the Power of binding and loâ—â—ing which Christ gave to Peter 4. This is produced by the Historian as a gross Abuse but what was there extraordinary in it if the Indulgence was as our Author holds only for the Relaxation of the Canonical Penances due to Sin upon Repentance 5. This is conformable to what other Authors observe in the like Cases Vspergensis as was shewed in the Apology p. 44. relates that upon the plenary Indulgences then sent forth they said Let me act what wickedness I will I shall by these be delivered from Punishment And Espencaeus saith That it was evident from their proceedings That they rather sought their Money than their Repentance By this time I hope the Doctor is clear'd from false Translation or perverse Construction However our Author saith That there is not one Pardon the Doctor can pretend makes for his intent besides that of Boniface But if this be for his intent there needs no more yet methinks there are others look broadly this way What thinks he of the Indulgence granted to him that saith or heareth or beareth about him the Prayer which is there said to be shewed to St. Augustine by the Revelation of the Holy Ghost that What he asketh of God he shall obtain if it be to the Salvation of his Soul and when his Soul shall depart from his Body it shall not enter into Hell Here is mention made only of hearing or reading or bearing about him that Prayer And because he may be assured that it shall not so be with him as not to hear or read it it 's there said further that he shall not dye of sudden Death and that no expedient be wanting if he but beareth it about him he is sure to escape Damnation What can we think again of the Prayer which they tell us St. Bernard daily said and was written in a Table that hang near to the high Altar in St. Peter's Church at Rome which Whoso devoutly and daily saith with a contrite heart and we know what was meant by that in those days if he be that day in the state of Eternal Damnation then this Eternal Pain shall be changed him into Temporal Pain of Purgatory c. and all his Sins shall be forgotten and forgiven through the infinite Mercy of God. And how backward soever our Author is to acknowledg it yet this was no strange Doctrine in those merciful days for so Clement 6. grants a plenary Indulgence to all that died in the way to Rome and commands the Angels of Paradise to carry the Soul immediately to Heaven Before I leave this I shall offer these Considerations in Confirmation of what the Doctor asserted 1. That Sin is unforsaken which is unrepented of That Sin is not repented of for which according to them due Satisfaction has not been made Due Satisfaction has not been made when for a Million of years of Punishment due according to our Author's notion the reciting of three Prayers shall be sufficient for Pardon 2. That Sin is not forsaken which a Person commits in hope of an Indulgence and which notwithstanding he Sins in the Expectation of he shall not forfeit his interest in it 3. That Sin is not forsaken which a Man dies in and which he is encouraged to live in
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
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-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
from the hopes of that Indulgence Such was the state of those in the Maccabees as Bellarmin salves it And such Indulgences have been often granted to Persons at the Point of Death as Clement the 10 th did give plenary Indulgence to those that in that hour call'd upon any of those five Saints he had newly Canonized 4. Sins cannot be presumed to be truly repented of or forsaken or could it be thought necessary so to forsake them when they encouraged themselves to it from an Expectation of an Indulgence as Vspergensis relates 5. Indulgences do not suppose Sins to be forsaken or that therein Persons are injoyn'd to forsake them when they respect the time to come Which brings me to the 2 d Branch of his Charge 2. They have granted Indulgences even for what they call deadly Sins for many thousand years to come Here are two things asserted by the Doctor 1. That Indulgences were granted for what they call deadly Sins 2. That they were granted for many thousand years to come Here the Doctor complains of our Author for leaving out the Proof that he produced in his Sermon for it from the Horae B. Virginis but our Author has here forgot to give any recompence to the Doctor for that Injury However upon this Argument it must be confess'd that he has acquitted himself beyond all Contradiction having produced no less than three Indulgences out of that very Book for deadly Sins totiens quotiens as the words are What Reply doth the Sayer make to this for his own or his Friend Mr. Pulton's or his Church's Vindication The matter is drop'd and the Charge therefore stands in full force upon Record against them Pass we therefore to the next 2. Indulgences were granted for many thousand years to come Here the Doctor insists upon the same Authority and produces Instance after Instance of Indulgences granted for such a term of Years as that of Pope John 22. for 3000 years for deadly Sins and 3000 for Venial That of St. Peter and thirty other Popes for 6000 years of Alexander the 6th for 10000 years of Sixtus 4. for 32755 years and another of John 22. for 1000000 years And what 's this but for years to come To this our Author replies 1. This looks like an asserting of the Vulgar Reproach to wit That the Pope can give the Papists leave to Sin for many years to come and is the thing he seems willing to imprint on his Readers in all the Instances he has brought by the way that he handles them But here the Doctor imprints no more on his Reader than the Instances themselves will imprint for they are in order nakedly proposed But supposing he did assert that Vulgar Reproach our Author was once ask'd and I don't remember he ever answer'd it What mighty difference is there whether a man procures with Money a Dispensation or a Pardon For the Sin can hurt him no more than if he had a Liccense to commit it If a Malefactor be sure of a Pardon after he has committed the Crime it 's as to himself the same as if he had a Dispensation before-hand for it And so it has been determined among themselves That he that willingly commits a Sin in hope of a Jubile or an Indulgence afterwards to be granted doth not lose the benefit of it This is a case propos'd by Bellarmin and which like a cautious Person he would not interpose in Here our Author declares This is most contradictory to the Doctrine we are taught and to the received Notion of Indulgences amongst Catholicks who are so far from presuming upon leave to Sin upon the grant of Indulgences that they don't think that any one Sin that is past can be forgiven by an Indulgence But this is protestatio Contra factum where he has been taught his Catholick Doctrine I know not but the time has been when his Catholicks were taught otherwise Or else what needed it to have been complain'd of Thus we are told that the Popes both have given and their Pardoners have thus told the People and the People have thus believed that Indulgences were as well for the time to come as the time past And surely the Bulls of the Popes Paul 3. and Julius 3. to the Fraternity of the Sacrament of the Holy Altar contains what is Equivalent to it in which it 's provided that the Brethren may have a dormant Faculty for a plenary Pardon to be used when they please But for all this if our Author be to be credited They don't think that any one Sin that is past can be forgiven by an Indulgence And in Confirmation of this he saith Indulgences are only for the Relaxation of Canonical Penalties due to Sin which being assigned by the Church may likewise by the same Authority be releas'd The whole of this matter will be determined by considering what Indulgences are and to what ends they were design'd and are esteem'd to serve in their Church But here I observe that the Account given by our Author of Indulgences is the same that is own'd by Luther and Calvin and the rest of the Hereticks who saith Bellarmin held that an Indulgence amongst the Ancients was nothing but a Relaxation of the Punishment which the Church commanded And which he therefore disputes against by several Arguments as 1. There would be no need of the Treasure of the Church 2. That then an Indulgence would be rather hurtful than profitable and the Church would deceive her Children 3. That they could not be granted for the dead 4. That many of them who receive Indulgences do often and are sometimes obliged to undergo Canonical Penance 5. The form of them proves it This I remember has formerly been put to our Author and I should be glad to find him to confute Bellarmin or to reconcile Bellarmin to him To this I may add 6. That Relaxation of Penances and Remission of Sins are distinctly provided for in the Indulgences So in the Bull of Vrban 8. is a grant not only of Relaxation but Remission But here our Author interposes and saith That they are so far from presuming upon leave to Sin that they don't think any one Sin that is past can be forgiven by an Indulgence And for this he will be giving a Reason because saith he We are taught that no Sin is forgiven even in the Sacrament of Confession without a sincere Repentance Whether the latter be true will remain to be considered under the next Character but what will a Reason signify against Matter of Fact For it 's still a question whether Sin is not pretended to be forgiven by Indulgence And what more common in Indulgences than a promise of Remission and plenary Remission As for that saith he Whoever considers that they were many times forgiven for many hundred years nay as the Doctor hath it and surely he hath it from themselves for many Thousand years to come he must soon
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
their Obedience to their Sovereign I have now done with our Author 's 14 Characters which consist partly of matter of Fact and Observation partly of Doctrine of their own and partly of Inferences from and Arguings upon them In the two former of which which are the proper Subject of Representation I have shew'd there has been nothing charged upon them by the Preachers as to Principle Practice or Fact which they had not good Evidence for and was so far from being a Fiction of their own that they condemn them out of their own mouths As for the latter it belongs not to the Case before us but yet that nothing might be wanting to give our Author satisfaction the Arguments produced by the Preachers against the Church of Rome have been considered and justified So that in Conclusion I may here challenge him to shew that there is any Principle or Doctrine which is not a Principle of theirs or a Practice which is not a Practice or a Consequence which is not truly inferr'd from them I do not think that a Misrepresentation can be justly chargeable upon a mere Mistake no more than it is upon the inconsequence of an Argument But it 's a Wonder to me that amongst the Ten thousand Pulpits as he reckons them and the multitude of Writers in the Church of England and under all the Provocations they have met with and in the heat of Argument there can be nothing material produced against them notwithstanding the utmost diligence could be used and the reading of Volumes of Sermons on purpose to make a Discovery Were they indeed guilty of Misrepresentation and that there was No praying to Images in the Church of Rome No compounding with Heaven for Vnforsaken Sins No worshipping Bread and Wine as God himself No saying Prayers without Attention No Divisions among themselves No renouncing their Senses c. Yet we know where these would be match'd when our Adversaries tell us The Protestants have no God no Faith no Religion but are meer Atheists and worship the Devil as Possevine and Prateolus teach That to run down Popery tho he know nothing of it is to be a true Son of the Church of England That Interest and Passion puts the Preachers upon arguing in Defiance to their own Conscience which our Author it seems knows better than themselves Or as a late Author That Libertinism is the sole Profession and the very soul of all Sectaries that is those that are not in Communion with the Church of Rome That the false Church that is all but themselves and Religion hath no other but vile Hypocrites That it Professeth the broad and large way leading to Destruction granting Libertinism to the highest degree of Wickedness in one kind or another Into which whoever enters for saking the true begins presently to leave all Goodness and becomes an outcast and scum of the Earth as to all Wickedness and Prophaness That it enjoys no true Spirituality but brainsick Phancy and there was never any sound Spiritual Book written by them They have the Lord in their Mouth but their hearts are far from him That by reason of its wicked Obstinacy and Libertinism it brings all the Professors thereof to Disobedience and takes away all neighbourly Love and just Dealing one with another and hereby bringing Ruin and Confusion upon all Commonwealths c. If so much had been said of the Church of Rome what a rout had here been What a mustering up of Misrepresentations Calumnies and Abuses What arguing in Defiance to their own Conscience But I will here excuse the Author of the Mirror for he that can be so ignorant as to tell us that the Creed of Pius 4 th which he at large rehearses was the constant Profession of Faith in the days of Austin the Monk An. 596. and can quote that Monk's Letter to Pope Gregory for it may for ought I know think as he writes and so his Representations of the Sectaries and of the Profession of Pope Gregory's Faith be equally true and what he equally understands But our Author is not alike excusable For whatever he may know concerning the Days of Austin the Monk I know not but what he writes about belongs more to his own and so if he falls in with Misrepresentation his Conscience must be the more concerned And which after all he is so far from making good that he is forced to use all the Shifts that one conscious to himself of infirmity and subtle enough to conceal it can contrive which for a Conclusion to the whole I shall now a little enquire into 1. The first Artifice he uses is Disclaiming and Renouncing after this manner If to be a Papist is to be that which is describ'd in these Characters I declare I am none and that I am so far from undertaking Apologies for men of such Practices and Belief that I here profess a hearty Detestation of all such Engagements If this was so I concluded I had certainly fall'n into the very mouth of Hell-Doctrines I as much abhor as Hell and Damnation it self If this be to be a Papist then certainly to be a Papist is to be the worst of Men. And 't is so far from being a doubt whether he be a Christian that 't is certain he can be none and that if he be bound to believe and live according to the Principles here laid down he can have no right to Salvation Whatever Church would receive him with the Profession of all those scandalous Doctrines the Pulpits charge against us I would be sure to be no Member of it and if there were no other but that Church amongst Christians I would then begin to look towards Turky Nay he advances further Whoever will be a good Papist must instead of assenting to disclaim every point that is here set down by the Pulpits as Articles of his Religion Let us now try our Author in some one of these Scandalous and Abominable Doctrines who comes thus arm'd Cap-a-pie with Detestations Abhorrencies Disclaimings and see whether he be invulnerable What thinks he of the first of those he calls Follies and Abominations viz. praying to Images and attributing Satisfaction and Expiation to a Crucifix of Wood and Stone What doth he think of the Office of Consecration where it 's pray'd that God would bless the Wood of the Cross that it may be a saving Remedy to Mankind a Stability of Faith the Redemption of Souls c How would he behave himself in the Company of Cardinal Capisucci who maintains that the Worship is to the Image How in the presence of the Arch-Bishop of Bourdeaux who defended the Curate's to the Word the Wood against Imbert's to Christ and not to the Wood Could he bear up to them and tell them it 's Infamous that they are no Christians and have no right to Salvation Which doth he think would there be the Misrepresenter our Author that