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
them opis impetrandae causâ as the Council of Trent directs This is Matter of Fact and owned by the Representer Now we think this is to ascribe Divinity to them if Religious Worship signifies any Divinity in the Object of Worship This the Misrepresenter puts into the Character of a Papist which we never did and the Representer on the other hand denies that they believe any such thing which for ought I know may be true but the Question is Whether they do not give a Divinity to them by worshipping them And this we assert they do and this they may do without believing any Divinity in them V. Of the Eucharist AS for worshipping the Host we only charge them with worshipping the Consecrated Bread which we say is Bread still but which they say is the natural Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin and suffered on the Cross and for so doing some Protestants charge them with Idolatry in worshipping a Breaden God and some Papists acknowledge it would be Idolatry if what they worshipped were only Bread and not the natural Body of Christ but no Protestant ever gave such a Character of a Papist That he believes it lawful to commit Idolatry that he worships and adores what he believes only to be a Breaden God and the poor empty Elements of Bread and Wine The Question is not what a Papist believes but what the truth of the thing is not whether he believes the Host to be only Bread but whether it be so or not not whether he believes Idolatry to be lawful but whether he be not guilty of Idolatry in worshipping the Host and therefore this ought not to be put into the Character of a Papist for those who believe that he worships nothing but Bread and Wine and is guilty of Idolatry in it do not charge him with believing so And therefore the Representer who acknowledges the worship of the Host might very truly deny all the rest As for Transubstantiation we charge them with believing no more than what they themselves own That the Consecrated Bread and Wine is changed into the natural substance of Christ's Flesh and Blood which the Misrepresenter very fallaciously calls Christ's being really present under those appearances that our People may not perceive the difference between Transubstantiation which the Church of England denies and a real presence which she owns not under the appearances of Bread and Wine but in the use of the Consecrated Bread and Cup which differ as much as a Bodily and Sacramental presence Now if this Doctrine of Transubstantiation be true besides many other Absurdities we say Christ must have as many Bodies as there are Consecrated Hosts and that his Body must be on Earth and that in fifty thousand distant places at the same time though the Scripture assures us That he ascended in his Body into Heaven and is to continue there till he come to Judgment But we do not charge the Papists with believing these Absurdities for we cannot guess what they believe much less do we charge them with believing that there are as many Christs as many Redeemers as there are Churches Altars or Priests For there is we grant some little difference between Christ's having many Bodies and there being many Christs What an easy Task has the Representer to take off such Characters as these VI. Of Merits and Good Works HEre we only charge them with saying as the Council of Trent does That the Good Works of justified Persons are truly meritorious of the increase of Grace and of Eternal Life And though we think this is too much for any Creature especially a Sinner to pretend to Merit and know not how to reconcile Grace and strict Merit together yet we never charged a Papist with believing Christ's Death and Passion to be ineffectual and insignificant and that he has no dependance on the Merits of his Sufferings or the Mercy of God for attaining Salvation For it is plain the Council of Trent owns both the Grace of God the Merits of Christ and the Merits of Good Works The Representer indeed qualifies this by saying That through the Merits of Christ the good Works of a just Man proceeding from Grace are so acceptable to God that through his Goodness and Promise they are truly meritorious of Eternal Life The Answerer alleages the 32 d Canon Sess. 6. of the Council of Trent where no such Qualification is used which yet is the Canon purposely designed to establish the Merits of goods Works This the Reflecter grants pag. 8. and refers us to the 26 th Canon of that Session where there is not one word of the Merit of good Works and therefore how we should learn from that Canon in what sense good Works are said to merit I cannot tell but in the sixteenth Chapter of that Session this Doctrine is explained at large and there we may expect the fullest Account of it which in short is this That that Divine Vertue which flowes from Christ into justified Persons as from the Head to the Members and from the Vine to the Branches makes the good Actions of such Men acceptable to God and meritorious and that such good Works which are done in God do satisfy the Divine Law and truly and properly merit Eternal Life That this is called our Righteousness because we are justified by its inhering in us and the Righteousness of God because it is infused into us by God through the Merits of Christ and that the Goodness of God as to this matter consists in this that he will have his own Gifts to be our Merits And therefore in the 32 d Canon they pronounce an Anathema against those who shall say that the good Works of a justified Man are so the Gift of God as not to be his own Merits So that though they do indeed own the Grace and Promise of God and the Merits of Christ as the Cause and Foundation of their own Merits yet they do assert that the inherent Righteousness and good Works of a justified Man have that intrinsick Vertue as to satisfy the Divine Law and to be truly meritorious of the increase of Grace and Eternal Life This we think injurious to the Grace of God and the Merits of Christ they think it is not and we never said they did VII Of Confession WE charge them with making a particular Confession to a Priest of all our Sins committed after Baptism necessary to obtain Pardon and Forgiveness and with attributing a Judicial and Praetorian Authority such as is exercised by Judges and Magistrates to the Priest to forgive Sins And tho we do not say that he believes it part of his Religion to make Gods of Men yet we say and prove it too that this is a Power which God has reserved wholly to himself We do not charge them with saying that the Absolution of the Priest is valid without any thoughts or intentions of Amendment in the Penitent but they do say that