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
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
Argument that they do not believe it an Article of Faith as he suggests but only that they want power to do it Princes will not be deposed now nor suffer those to be Censured who deny the Deposing Power But should the blessed Hildebrandtimes return again we should quickly see whether the Deposing Power be an Article of Faith or not What I have now discoursed will abundantly justify an argument which I find our Reflecter much grieved at The Answerer in his Introduction p. 14. lays two passages together which he thinks will oblige them to own the deposing power For in the Papist misrepresented p. 42 the Author saies the orders of the supream Pastor are to be obeyed whether he be Infallible or not and in another place he confesses that Popes have owned the deposing Doctrine and acted according to it and others are bound to obey their Orders whether Infallible or not and consequently by the Doctrine of their Church to act when the Popes shall require it according to the deposing power To this the Reflecter answers That he only made a comparison between Civil and Ecclesiastical power Taht as in the Civil Government the sentence of the supream Judge or highest Tribunal is to be obeyed tho there be no assurance of Inâ—allibility 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 not Now he saies it is as unjust from hence to infer that all the Orders of the Pope must be obeyed as it would be to say that Subjects must obey their Princes in every thing they command whether it be good or bad And I ackowledge his answer to be good if he will grant the deposing Decree to command a sin which he has never done yet and when he does it I would desire him to consider how to reconcile himself to his two Friends Bellarmine and Canus who assert that Popes and General Councils can make no sinful Decrees which shall relate to the whole Church 2 ly Let us now consider what faults the Reflecter finds with the Answerers way of proceeding and they are reduced to Four heads 1 st He saies that in some points the Answerer owns the Doctrine which he has represented to be the Faith of a Roman-Catholick to be the established belief of the Church of England 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 Now here our Reflecter returns to his old trade of Misrepresenting again for every one who will believe his own eyes may soon satisfie himself that the Answerer in these Doctrines owns nothing which is peculiar to the Faith of a Papist as distinguished from the Common Faith of all Christians He might as well say that because Protestants own that Christ is to be worshipped therefore they in part own the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that Christ is to be worshipped by Images This is the very case here The Answerer grants that Christ gave to the Bishops and Priests of the catholick-Catholick-Church authority to absolve any truly penitent sinner from his sins and that such absolution is ratified in heaven Therefore in part he owns the Popish Doctrine of Absolution which is a Judicial and Pretorian Authority to forgive sins tho we think that to absolve as a Minister and as a Judge are two very different things as different as the Kings granting a Pardon and the Chancellors sealing it which is a publick and authentick declaration of the thing The Answerer owns the ancient practice of Canonical confession as part of the discipline of the Church for publick offences that is that those who had been guilty of any publick and scandalous sins were not reconciled tothe Church without making as publick a confession and giving publick Testimonies of their sorrow and repentance therefore he in part owns the Auricular confession of the Church of Rome there being little difference it seems between confessing our sins to the whole Congregation and in the ear of a Priest He owns the use of voluntary confession for the ease and satisfaction of the perplexed minds of doubting or dejected Penitents and therefore he in part owns the Sacramental Confession as necessary to the Remission of Sins before God The Answerer allows A due Veneration to the Bodies of Saints and Martyrs i. e. a Religious Decency to be observed towards them which lies in avoiding any thing like contempt or dishonour to them and using all such Testimonies of Respect and Decency which becomes the remains of excellent Persons And therefore in part he agrees with the Church of Rome in giving Divine Worship to Relicks just as much as a decent respect is a part of Religious Worship The Answerer grants The necessity of good Works in order to the reward of another Life And if he will call this Merit in which large Sense the Fathers sometimes use that word we will not dispute with him about it but is this to own the Popish Doctrine of Merit That the good Works of justified Persons are truly meritorious of the increase of Grace and Eternal Life The Answerer distinguishes between satisfaction to the Church before Absolution according to the Discipline of the Primitive Church which did not use to reconcile publick Penitents till by a long course of Penance and Mortification they had given sufficient Testimonies of the Sincerity of their Repentance and had made some Satisfaction for that Scandal they had given to the Church and Satisfaction to the Justice of God for some part of the Punishment to Sin which is unremitted The first we own as a very useful part of Church Discipline and wish the restoring of it but the second we utterly disown for there is no other Satisfaction to the Justice of God for Sin but the meritorious Death and Sacrifice of Christ whereas the Church of Rome takes no notice of Satisfaction in the first sence but has changed the Ancient Discipline of Satisfaction to the Church into Satisfaction to the Justice of God for Sin The Answerer grants That truly penitential Works are pleasing to God so as to avert his Displeasure but denies the Popish Doctrine of Satisfaction that there can be any Compensation by way of Equivalency between what we Suffer and what we Deserve and is this in part to own his Doctrine of Satisfaction The Answerer owns the right and necessity of General Councils upon great Occasions if they be truly so which have been and may be of great use to the Christian World for setling the Faith healing the Breaches of Christendom and reforming Abuses and that the Decrees of such Councils ought to be submitted to where they proceed upon certain Grounds of Faith and not upon unwritten Traditions But this is no part of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning Councils