never will Now Sir although we allow some Councils have made Decrees for deposing in particular Cases yet the Power it self not being declared as a doctrinal Point and the Decrees relating only to 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 Now in answer to this I must inquire into these three things First Whether nothing be an Article of Faith but what is decreed with an Anathema Secondly Whether the deposing Decree be a Doctrinal Point or only matter of Discipline and Government Thirdly What Authority General Councils have in decretis morum or such matters as concern Discipline and Government First Whether nothing be an Article of Faith but what is decreed with an Anathema Now here we must 1 consider what they mean by an Article of Faith For an Article of Faith may be taken in a strict or in a large Sense In a strict Sense it signifies only such Articles the belief of which is necessary to Salvation in a large Sense it includes all Doctrinal Points whatever is proposed to us to be believed There are Articles of both these Kinds both in Scripture and in some General Councils and the difference between them is not that we must believe the one and may refuse to believe the other when they are both proposed with equal Evidence and Authority but that a mistake in one is not of such dangerous consequence as it is to mistake the other Whoever refuses to believe whatever is plainly taught in Scripture and which he believes to be taught there is an Infidel and guilty of disbelieving God though the thing be of no great consequence in it self but what he might safely have been ignorant of or mistaken in and thus it is with General Councils if we believe them to be infallible though their definitions are not all of equal necessity yet they are all equally true and therefore we must not pick and chuse what we will believe and what we will not believe in the Definitions of a General Council but we must believe them all if not to be equally necessary yet to be equally true and therefore to reject the belief of any thing plainly taught in the Council as points of Doctrine is to disown the Authority and Infallibility of the Council Whatever is defined in the Council is the Faith of the Council and therefore of the Catholick Church which is both represented and infallibly taught by a General Council and if we will give Men leave to distinguish they may soon distinguish away all the Council for it is easie for every Man to find a distinction to excuse him from believing what he does not like And I believe this is the true reason of this Dispute about the Marks and Characters of Articles of Faith that Roman Catholicks must maintain the infallibility of their General Councils and yet meet with some things in them which either they do not believe or dare not own and therefore though it may be they do not believe the Infallibility of Councils themselves yet they are put to hard shifts to find out some Salvo to reconcile the Infallibility of their Councils with their disowning some of their Decrees But this will not do for though Men who believe these Councils to be infallible are not bound to believe all their Definitions to be Articles of Faith in such a strict Sense as to make the belief of them necessary to Salvation yet they are bound to believe all their Definitions to be true and therefore we have no need of any other â—â—â—k of the Roman Catholick Faith than to examine what is defined in their Councils whether with or without an Anathema it is all one for all Doctrines decreed by the Council must be as infallibly true as the Council is and must be owned by all those who own the Authority of the Council Secondly and therefore the use of Anathema is not to confirm Articles of Faith but to condemn Hereticks and does not concern the Faith but the Discipline of the Church Anathemas relate properly to Persons not to Doctrines The Faith of the Church is setled by the Definitions of Councils and must be so before there can be any place for Anathemas For till it be determined what the true Faith is how can they curse or condemn Hereticks The infallible Authority of the Council to declare the Faith gives Life and Soul to the Decree the Anathema signifies only what Censure the Church thinks fit to inflict upon Hereticks who deny this Faith And therefore even in the Council of Trent the Decrees of Faith and the Anathematizing Canons are two distinct things the first explains the Catholick Verity and requires all Christians to believe as they teach and this establishes the Faith before the Anathemas are pronounced by their Canons and whether any Anathema had been denounced or no. And thus it is even in the Council of Trent which decrees the Doctrine of Purgatory without an Anathema and yet asserts it to be the Doctrine of the Scriptures and Fathers and Councils and commands the Bishops to take care this Doctrine be preached to all Christian People and believed by them which Melchior Canus saies is a sufficient mark of an Article of Faith without an Anathema and I suppose 〈◊〉 Reflecter will grant that the Doctrine of Purgatory is an Article of Faith The validity of the Anathema depends upon the truth and certainty of the Decree or Definition of Faith not the truth of the Definition upon the Anathema for it is strange if the Church cannot infallibly declare the Doctrines of Faith without cursing that the most damning Councils should be the most infallible which if it be true I confess gives great Authority to the Council of Trent I do not deny but that there is great reason for the Church in some cases to denounce Anathema's against great and notorious Hereticks but I say this belongs to the Discipline not to the Faith of the Church and it is very unreasonable to think that when a Council defines what we are to believe in any particular point they should not intend to oblige all Christians to believe such definitions unless they curse those who do not In the Council of Florence they decreed the Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son the Doctrine of Purgatory the Primacy and Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome without an Anathema which I suppose the Church of Rome owns for Articles of Faith and the Council intended should be received as such And in the same Council Pope Eugenius IV. in his Decree for the Union of the Armenians delivers them the whole Faith of the Church of Rome all their Creeds seven Sacraments c. without any Anathema which shows that tho Anathema's have been anciently used yet this is but a late invention to distinguish Articles of Faith from some inferior Theological Truths by
it that Authority which Christ gave it and that he believes his Church to be above the Scripture and prophanely allows to her an uncontroulable Authority of being Judge of the Word of God For though there may be some truth in such Consequences as these from their Doctrine yet they were never charged upon them by us as their Principles or Faith Which is the chief Art he uses in drawing up these Misrepresentations XV. Of Traditions WE charge them with making some unwritten Traditions of equal authority with the Scripture and believing them with a Divine Faith This we say derogates from the perfection of the Scripture or the written Word of God For if our Rule be partly the written partly the unwritten Word then the Scripture or written Word is but part of the Rule and part of a Rule cannot be a whole and perfect Rule And we say That these unwritten Traditions are but humane Ordinations and Traditions of men but we do not say a Papist believes them to be Humane but Divine though unwritten Traditions and therefore though we affirm that they give equal authority to such Traditions as are in truth no better than humane Ordinations as to the Scriptures themselves yet we do not say that they admit what they believe to be only humane Traditions to supply the defects of Scripture allowing equal authority to them as to the Scriptures themselves which is the only Misrepresentation in this Character all the rest being owned by the Representer himself who then had very little cause to complain of Misrepresenting XVI Of Councils THe difference between the Misrepresenter and Representer in this Article is no more but this That the Papist Misrepresented is said to receive new Additions to his Creed from the Definitions and Authority of General Councils and to embrace them with a Divine Faith The Papist Represented owns the Authority of General Councils as well as the other and receives all their Definitions and believes them as firmly but though they define such Doctrines for Articles of Faith as were never heard of in the Christian Church and least were never put into any Christian Creed before yet he will not believe them to be Additions to his Faith or to what was taught by Christ and his Apostles But Pope Pius the 4 th his Creed must be the Faith of the Church from the Apostles days Now here I fancy our Author mistook his side for the Papist Represented has much the worse Character that he is so void of all sence that he cannot tell which is most twelve or four and twenty Articles in a Creed This is a hard case that Men must believe all the Definitions of their Councils but though they see their Creed increase every day must never own that their Faith receives any Additions However I think he has no reason here to complain of Misrepresenting since he owns all that any Protestant charges him with such an Implicit Faith in General Councils as receives all their Definitions and rather than fail in defiance of Sense and History will believe that to be the old Faith which was never defined till yesterday XVII Of Infallibility in the Church THe Misrepresenter says a Papist believes that the Pastors and Prelates of his Church are infallible which if it be understood of every particular Pastor and Prelate no Protestant ever charged them with and therefore the Representer might very safely deny it and this is all the difference between them except it be this That what the Misrepresenter barely affirms the Representer endeavours to prove viz. the Infallibility of the Church at least as assembled in General Councils and yet this must be called Misrepresenting too a Word which I suppose must have some secret Charm in it to Convert Hereticks XVIII Of the Pope HEre the Misrepresenter is very Rhetorical and facetious and we may give him leave to be a little pleasant with his own Universal Pastor He says the Papist believes the Pope to be his great God how great I cannot tell but some Flatterers of the Papal greatness have given the Title of God to the Pope and possibly some Protestants have repeated the same after them but never charged the Papists with believing it much less do they charge them with denying Christ to be the Head of the Church or with saying That the Pope has taken his place but we do charge them with making the Pope the Universal Pastor and Head of the Church under Christ and this I hope is no Misrepresenting for it is asserted and proved after this Fashion by the Representer But why is the Pope's personal Infallibility put into the Character of a Papist Misrepresented Why not as well the Infallibility of General Councils Since he grants some Papists do believe the Pope's Infallibility and such Papists are not Misrepresented by charging them with it and there are others who do not believe the Councils Infallibility without the Pope which therefore cannot be an inherent Infallibility in them The truth is the Infallibility of the Church is the Faith of a Papist but in whom this Infallibility is seated whether in the Diffusive Representative or Virtual Church in Pope or Council or the whole Body of Christians is not agreed among them But neither of these are Misrepresentations of a Papist unless you tell what particular sort of Papists you represent and then I am sure you misrepresent a Jesuit if you make him deny the Pope's Infallibility XIX Of Dispensations HEre I confess the Misrepresenter and Representer do flatly contradict each other and I am heartily glad to hear the Representer so fully disown those Principles which are destructive to all Religion as well as to Humane Societies and should be more glad still had there been never any foundation for what he calls the Misrepresentation However this he does very ill in to charge Protestants with this Misrepresentation of a Papist for I know no Protestant that charges these Principles upon Papists in general but I hope it is no Misrepresentation to charge those Men with such Principles who charge themselves with them and I suppose our Author will not say that these Principles were never taught or defended by any Papist Whenever he is hardy enough to say this I 'll direct him to such Popish Authors as will satisfy him about it XX. Of the Deposing Power HEre the dispute between the Misrepresenter and Representer is only this Whether the Deposing Power be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome For it 's granted on all hands that it is or has been the Doctrine and Practice of many Popes Divines and Canonists but that it has been condemned by other Divines and some famous Universities tho I do not hear that it was ever condemned by any Pope But what does he think of this being decreed by General Councils Does not this make it the Doctrine of their Church This he says nothing to here but we shall meet with it by and by in his
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
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