Supreme God and created Spirits and Glorifyed Souls of dead men and therefore if it be necessary to distinguish between the Worship of God and Creatures we must worship no Invisible Being but only the Supreme God The Protester proposes some ways whereby the different kinds and degrees of Religious Worship may be distinguished as by the intention of the Giver but this is not a Visible Distinction For mens intentions are private to themselves and there is no difference in the Visible Acts of Worship to make such a distinction or by some Visible Representation that is by Images This I grant would make as visible a Distinction between the Worship of God and Christ and the Virgin Mary as the presence of the person distinguishes the Kinds and Degrees of Civil Honour for when we see whose Image they worship we may certainly tell what Being they direct their Worship to but the fault of this is that it is forbid by the Law of God of which more in the next Section or by Determination of other Circumstances but what these are I cannot tell and therefore can say nothing to it The Church of Rome indeed does appropriate the Sacrifice of the Mass to God as his peculiar Worship which must not be given to any other Being and if this be so then indeed we can certainly tell when we see a Priest offering the Sacrifice of the Mass that he offers it to the Supreme God but there are a great many other Acts of Worship which we owe to God besides the Sacrifice of the Mass and in every Act of Worship God ought to be visibly distinguished from Creatures and yet if all the other External Acts of Worship be common to God and Creatures where is the distinction And yet the Sacrifice of the Mass can be offered only by the Priest so that the whole Layety cannot perform any one Act of Worship to God which is peculiar to him and therefore can make no Visible Distinction in their Worship between God and Creatures And yet the very Sacrifice of the Mass is not so appropriated to God in the Church of Rome but that it is offered to God in Honour of the Saints This the Bishop of Condom p. 7. endeavours to excuse by saying This Honour which we render them the Saints in Sacrificing consists in naming them in the Prayers we offer up to God as his Faithful Servants and in rendring him thanks for the Victories they have gained and in humbly beseeching him that he would vouchsafe to favour us by their Intercession Now it is very true according to the Council of Trent the Priest offers the Sacrifice only to God but they do somewhat more than name the Saints in their Prayers for they offer the Sacrifice in Honour to the Saints as well as to God which the Bishop calls to Honour the Memory of the Saints Now if Sacrifice be an Act of Honour and Worship to God it sounds very odly to worship or honour God for the Honour of his Saints which seems to make God only the Medium of Worship to the Saints who are the terminative object of it and that the Saints are concerned in this Sacrifice appears from this That by this Sacrifice they implore the Intercession of the Saints that those whose Memories we celebrate on Earth would vouchsafe to intercede for us in Heaven The Bishop translates implorat by Demand for what reason I cannot tell and makes this Imploring or Beseeching to refer to God not to the Saints whose Patronage Patrocinia and Intercession they pray they would vouchsafe them contrary to the plain Sense of the Council and I think to common Sense too For I do not well understand offering Sacrifice to God that he may procure for us the Intercession of the Saints for if he can be perswaded to favour us so far as to intercede with the Saints to be our Intercessors he may as well grant our Requests without their Intercession and yet the Bishop was very sensible that if we offer up our Prayers to the Saints in the Sacrifice of the Mass it does inevitably entitle them to the Worship of that Sacrifice which they say must be offered only to God He alleadges indeed St. Austin's Authority who understood nothing of this Mystery of the Sacrifice of the Mass and how far he was from thinking of any thing of this Nature is evident to any man who consults the place But the Church of Rome as the Bishop observes p. 8. has been charged by some of the Reformation not only with giving the Worship of God to Creatures when they pray to the Saints but with attributing the Divine Perfections to them such as a certain kind of Immensity and Knowledge of the Secrets of hearts for if they be not present in all places where they are worshipped how can they hear the Prayers which are made to them at such distant places at the same time If they do not know our thoughts how can they understand those mental prayers which are offered to them without words only in our secret Thoughts and Desires for even such Prayers are expresly allowed by the Council voce vel mente Now to this he answers very well that though they believe the Saints do by one means or other know the Prayers which are made to them either by the Ministry and Communication of Angels or by a particular Revelation from God or in his Divine Essence in which all truth is comprised yet never any Catholick yet thought the Saints knew our Necessities by their own power no nor the desires which move us to address our secret Prayers to them And to say a Creature may have a Knowledge of these things by a light communicated to them by God is not to elevate a Creature above his Condition This I grant and therefore do acknowledge that they do not attribute the Divine perfections of Omniscience and Omnipresence to the Saints either in thought or word but yet actions have as natural a signification as words and if we give them such a worship as naturally signifies Omniscience and Omnipresence our worship attributes the incommunicable Perfections of God to them For it is unnatural and absurd to worship a Being who is not present to receive our worship to speak to a Being who does not and cannot hear us and since God has made us reasonable Creatures to understand what we do and why he interprets our Actions as well as words and thoughts according to their natural signification And herein the natural evil of creature-worship consists That every act of religious worship does naturally involve in it a Confession of some excellency and perfection which is above a created nature and thereby whatever the worshipper thinks or intend does attribute the incommunicable Glory of God to creatures If the Saints are not present in all places to hear those Prayers which are made to them and if they cannot hear in Heaven what we say to them
Imprimatur Martii 29. 1686. C. Alston R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. Ã Sacris Domesticis AN ANSWER TO A DISCOURSE INTITULED Papists Protesting against Protestant-Popery Being a VINDICATION of Papists not Misrepresented by Protestants And Containing A Particular Examination of Monsieur de MEAVX late Bishop of Condom his Exposition of the Doctrine of the CHURCH of ROME in the Articles OF INVOCATION of SAINTS AND THE WORSHIP of IMAGES Occasioned by that Discourse LONDON Printed for John Amery at the Peacock and William Rogers at the Sun both against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet MDCLXXXVI AN ANSWER TO Papists Protesting AGAINST Protestant Popery SINCE the Protester thinks my Answer to his Reflections so great a Complement I am resolved to oblige him a little farther and to complement him very heartily and I see no reason but Complementing may be as good a word for Disputing as Representing is The Reply consisted of two parts 1. Concerning the Misrepresentation of a Papist 2. Concerning the Rule of true Representing and I shall consider what the Protesting Papist says to each of them As for the First a Misrepresenter is so foul a Character that no Man can wonder if we think our selves concern'd to wipe off such an imputation and therefore I expresly denied the charge and made it appear from comparing his own Characters of a Papist Misrepresented and Represented together that we had not charged them falsly in any matter of Fact and therefore are no Misrepresenters for if we charge them with believing and doing nothing but what they themselves confess to be their Faith and Practice wherein is the Misrepresentation Thus I particularly showed that all matters of Fact excepting some points wherein they disown the Doctrine of their own Church in the Character of the Papist Misrepresented are confessed and defended in the Character of the Papist Represented and the Protester himself acknowledges that I have learnedly as he is pleased to speak distinguished between matters of Dispute and of Representation and if so then he ought to own that we do not Misrepresent them and this is all I undertook to prove in the first part of my Reply and for that reason gave it the Title of A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants wholly with relation to his Character of a Papist Misrepresented which I had proved to contain nothing in it which in a strict and proper sense can be called a Misrepresentation We truly relate what the Faith and Practice of the Church of Rome is and this is true Representing and though we say their Faith is erroneous and their Practices corrupt or superstitious contrary to the Laws of God and the usages of the Primitive Church yet whether this be true or false it is no matter of Representation but Dispute though we believe thus of their Faith and Practice we do not charge them with believing so and therefore do not Misrepresent a Papist Whether they or we be in the right is matter of Dispute and not to be determined by Character-making but by an appeal to the Laws of God and the dictates of right Reason and the Authentick Records of the ancient Church While we agree about matter of Fact there can be no Misrepresenting on either side for there is a great deal of difference between a Misrepresentation and a false Judgment of things and thus I hoped the talk of Misrepresenting would have been at an end But our Author though he confesses I am in the right will have us to be Misrepresenters still He says I declare plainly that Popery is really that Antichristian Religion which Protestants say it is that it teaches and practises all those fopperies superstitions and non-sense which have at any time been charged against it by Protestants But I never said any such thing yet but only said and proved that all matters of Fact complained of in the Character of a Papist Misrepresented are owned by himself in the Character of a Papist Represented and this I thought was proof enough that we were no Misrepresenters But the Title of my Reply offends him A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants which he says is a condemnation of the Religion to all those horrid shapes and monstrous forms it has been at any time exposed in by Members of the Reformation by no means If there have been other Misrepresentations of them which our Author has not yet given us an account of I can say nothing to them till I see what they are but my Title related only to my Book and that related only to the Character of a Papist Misrepresented which our Author had given us and I undertook for that then and will defend it still that there is no Misrepresentation in it Of the same nature is what he adds That I tell my Reader in the name of all my Brethren we charge them the Papists with nothing but what they expresly profess to believe and what they practise and thus says the Protester in this one assertion vouches for the truth of all that infamy and prophaneness which is laid at their doors and thus for ought I see I am drawn in for a great deal more than I intended I spoke with reference to his Characters and now I must discharge the scores of all Protestants since the beginning of the Reformation but when a Man 's in he must get out as well as he can but would not one wonder that there should not be one word of his own Characters all this while that instead of defending his own Misrepresentations which he has so unjustly father'd upon us he should be hunting about to pick up some new Misrepresentations for me to answer There must be a reason for this and I believe I can guess what it is But however he takes this occasion to ransack the Writings of Protestants and to see what fine things they have said of Papists and to collect a new Character of a Papist Misrepresented out of them For since all that proceeds from a Popish hand of this nature is suspected and challenged and the double Character of a Papist Misrepresented and Represented about which as the Replier says there is so much pother and noise is questioned as to its method its sincerity and exactness we 'll now follow our Author's call and learn what Popery is from the Pens of Protestants and especially from some of those who are supposed to know what Popery is And thus our Author makes as many turnings and doublings as ever any poor Hare did which was almost run down Because I have proved that his Character of a Papist Misrepresented contains no Misrepresentation in it properly so called therefore forsooth we will not take Characters from a Papist because we confute them as soon as they make them which is not very civil and therefore hoping that we will be more civil to Protestant Characters he turns off the Dispute to them never did any Man take more pains to defend Popery than he does to
prove a Papist to be Misrepresented it seems there is something in the World called Popery which he is very much ashamed of and it is well if it does not prove to be his own beloved Popery at last I had told him as plainly as I could in Answer to his Character of a Papist Misrepresented what I called Popery and what I take to be the general sense of Protestants about it and shewed him evidently that what he calls a Misrepresentation is none nay in most cases I have allow'd his own Character of a Papist Represented and surely there is no Misrepresentation in that unless he has misrepresented a Papist himself and why is he not satisfied with this why so much Zeal to prove us Misrepresenters when we are willing to fall with the Market and to abate as much in the Notion and Idea of Popery as they are pleased to lower it Why must we be bound to justifie that Representation of Popery which some Protestants have formerly made of it when Popery was quite another thing than the Bishop of Condom and the Representer have now made it any more than they are bound to justifie every thing which Thomas Aquinas or Bellarmin or Vasquez have taught for Popery But let us consider that Character he has made of a Papist out of the Writings of Protestants only I must put him in mind that he must still distinguish between matters of Representation and Dispute If the matter of Fact they charge them with be true they are no Misrepresenters as for their Reasons and Arguments I will no more undertake to defend all the reasonings of Protestants than I suppose our Protester will all the reasonings of Papists The first Misrepresenter he brings upon the Stage is John Lord Archbishop of York in his Manual or three small and plain Treatises written for the use of a Lady to preserve her from the danger of Popery And all that I shall say to this is that if what he transcribes out of his Book be a Misrepresentation it is not a Protestant but a Popish Misrepresentation For the Archbishop cites his Authors for what he says as the very Title of the Chapter tells us which I shall here present to the Reader with all the References and Authorities as they are Printed in his Book and leave the Protester to consider of a good Reason why he left all these Authorities out CHAP. VI. Reasons of refusal to leave the Romish Religion collected out of Printed Authors I cannot leave my Religion I. Reason BEcause we must simply believe the Church of Rome whether it teach true or false Stapl. Antidot in Evang. Luk. 10. 16. pag. 528. And if the Pope believe there is no life to come we must believe it as an Article of our Faith Bulgradus And we must not hear Protestant Preachers though they preach the Truth Rhem. upon Tit. 3. 10. And for your Scripture we little weigh it For the Word of God if it be not expounded as the Church of Rome will have it is the word of the Devil Hosius de expresso verbo Dei II. Reason You rely too much upon the Gospel and S. Paul's Epistles in your Religion whereas the Gospel is but a Fable of Christ as Pope Leo the tenth tells us Apol. of H. Stephen fol. 358. Smâ—ton contra Hamilton pag 104. And the Pope can dispense against the New Testament Panormit extra de divortiis And he may check when he pleases the Epistles of S. Paul Carolus Ruinus Concil 109. num 1. Volum 5. And controul any thing avouched by all the Apostles Rota in decis 1. num 3. in noviss Anton. Maria in addit ad decis Rotae nov de Big n. 10. And there is an eternal Gospel to wit that of the Holy Ghost which puts down Christs Cirellus a Carmelite set it forth III. Reason You attribute all your Salvation to Faith in Christ alone Whereas He is the Saviour of Men only but of no Women Dial. of Dives and Pauper compl 6. cited by Rogers upon the Artic. and Postellus in Jesuits Catech. l. 1. cap. 10. For Women are saved by S. Clare Mother Jane Som. in Morn de Eccles. cap. 9. Postellus in Jesuits Catech. Lib. 8. cap. 10. Nay to speak properly S. Francis hath redeemed as many as are saved since his days Conformit of S. Fran. And the blood of S. Thomas à Becket Hor. Beat. Virg. And sometimes one man by his satisfactions redeems another Test. Rhem. in Rom. 8. 17. IV. Reason In your Church there is but one way to remission of sins which you call Faith in Christ but we have many For we put away Our Venials with a little Holy Water Test. Rhem. in Rom. 8. 17. Mortals by 1. Merits of the B. Virg. Hor. B. Virg. 2. The Blood of Becket Ib. 3. Agnos Dei or Holy Lambs Cerem l. 1. t. 7. 4. Little parcels of the Gospel Breviar 5. Becoming Franciscans conf l. 1. fol. 101. 6. A Bishops pardon for 40 days a Cardinals for an 100. days and the Popes for ever Taxa Camer apud Esp. in 1 ad Tim. V. Reason You stand too precisely upon your Sacraments and require a true Faith in the partakers Whereas with us to become a Monk or a Nun is as good as the Sacrament of Baptism Aquin. de Ingres Relig. l. 2. c. 21. And the very true and real Body of Christ may be devoured of Dogs Hogs Cats and Rats Alex. Hales part 4. q. 45. Thom. parte 3. q. 8. art 3. VI. Reason Then for your Ministers every one is allowed to have his Wife or else inforced to live chastly whereas with us the Pope himself cannot dispense with a Priest to marry no more than he can priviledge him to take a Purse Turrianus found fault withal by Cassan. consult art 23. But Whoredom is allowed all the year long See Sparks 's Discovery pag. 13. and constitut Othen de concubit Cleric removend And another sin for June July August which you must not know of Allowed for this time by Sixtus Quartus to all the Family of the Cardinal of S. Lucie Vessel Grovingens tract de indulgent citat à Jacob. Laurent Jesuit lib. pag. 196. vide Jo. Wolâ—â—i lection memorab centen 15. pag. 836. For indeed the wickedness of the Church-men is a prime Argument of the worthiness of the Roman Church Bellar. l. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 14. artic 28. And the Pope can make that righteous which is unrighteous l. 1. Decretal Greg. tit 7. c. 5. And yet can no Man say unto him Sir why do you so In extrav tom 22. titul 5. c. ad Apostolatus VII and last Reason You in the Church of England have cast off the Bishop of Rome whereas the Bishop of Rome is a God Dist. 96. c. satis evidenter Panorm cap. Quanto Abbas The Use and Application of this Doctrine you may find in the next Chapter and a particular proof that some Doctrines of the Roman
and hope Aqui. p. 3. q. 7. art 4. So that which they falsely objected to Calvin doth rightly fall upon the Papists that they blasphemously make Christ c. That Christ is not the Redeemer of all Mankind They affirm the Virgin Mary to be conceived without original Sin c. of which it follows that Christ is not the Redeemer of all Mankind for what needed they a Redeemer who were not born sinners p. 41. They make Christ inferiour to Saints and Angels They say Masses in honour of Angels and Saints but he in whose honour a Sacrifice is offered is greater than the Sacrifice doth it not then appear that while they offer Christs Body and Blood in honour of Saints and Angels they make Christ inferior to Saints and Angels p. 42. They prefer the Pope before Christ. They prefer the Pope before Christ for Christ's Body when the Pope goeth in progress is sent before with the Baggage and when the Pope is near goeth out to meet him while all the Gallants of Rome attend on the Pope p. 43. To the Images of the Cross and Crucifix they give as much honour as is due to God p. 14. To the Images c. teaching their followers that it is but one honour given to the Image and the thing Represented by the Image p. 74. They fall down like Beasts before the Pope and worship him as God ascribing to him most blasphemously the honour due to Christ. They fall down c. Paulus Aemilius l. 2. telleth how the Ambassadors of Sicily cried thus to the Pope Thou that takest away the sins of the World have mercy upon us Stapleton to Greg. 13. calls him supremum numen in terris They call him Vicar of Christ the Monarch of the Church the Head the Spouse the foundation of the Church ascribing to him most blasphemously the honour due to Christ. p. 72. They give divine honour to Images which they themselves cannot deny to be Idolatrous They confess is Idolatry to give divine honour to Creatures But they give divine honour to the Sacament to the Cross and to Images of the Trinity which I hope they will not deny to be Creatures The Romish Church consists of a Pack of Infidels p. 15. Faith is of things as the Papists say in their Catechism only proposed to us by the Church so that if the Church propose not to us the Articles of Faith we are not to believe them if these Men teach truth Further this sheweth the Romish Church consists of a pack of Infidels for if the same believed not without the authority of the Church then she did believe nothing of Christ seeing the Papists acknowledge no other Church but that of Rome and no Church can teach it self p. 178. Scripture and Fathers they read not Spoken of the Schoolmen not of all Papists upon the authority of Ferdinando Vellosillo p. 200. In a member of the Catholick Church they say neither inward Faith nor other virtue is required but only that he profess outwardly the Romish Religion and be subject to the Pope This Opinion he attributes to Cardinal Bellarmin and cites de Eccles milit cap. 2. They make more Conscience to abstain from flesh on Friday than to murder Christians They make more Conscience c. as their curiosity in keeping the Fast and their cruelty in massacring Christians declares p. 205. Divers points of Popish Doctrine are especially said to proceed from the Devil He instances in forbidding Marriage and commanding to abstain from meats which he says are called in Scripture Doctrines of Devils p. 213. That the Popish Church hath no true Bishops that Popery in many points is more absurd and abominable than the Doctrine of Mahomet That Papists that positively hold the heretical and false Doctrines of the modern Church of Rome cannot possibly be saved are the Titles of several Chapters in which he endeavours to make good these charges how well let our Author consider but all men will see that this is not Representing but Disputing This is abundantly enough to give the Reader a tast of the Protesters honestly in Representing and how little I am concerned in these Quotations If some Protestants have charged the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome with such consequences as they cannot justifie wiser Protestants disown it and Papists may confute it if they please which will be a little more to the purpose than to cry out so Tragically about Misrepresenting But to make good this charge of Misrepresenting against us he concludes with several passages out of the Homilies concerning the worship of Saints and Images Now if our Church be guilty of Misrepresenting in her very Homilies which we are all bound to subscribe we must acknowledge our selves to be Misrepresenters But wherein does the Misrepresentation consist Do they not set up Images in Churches And do they not worship them Have they not a great number of Saints whom they worship with Divine Honours The matter of fact is plain and confessed and therefore our Church does not misrepresent them So that the only Misrepresentation he can complain of is that he does not like the judgment of our Church about the worship of Saints and Images and we cannot help that This is the belief of our Church and this is our belief and let him prove us to be Misrepresenters in this if he can for that is not proved meerly by his calling it Misrepresenting Only I would gladly know of this Author what he takes the judgment of the Church of England to be about the worship of Images Whether it be Idolatry or not If he thinks our Church charges them with Idolatry in worshipping Images which I suppose he means when he complains of Misrepresentation and picks out some passages which look that way there is the authority of Doctor Godden against him unless he has changed his mind lately who accuses Dr. St. with contradicting the Church of England in his charge of Idolatry upon the Church of Rome and makes it a certain mark of Fanaticism to do so and then however we may be thought to misrepresent the Church of Rome in this charge of Idolatry we do not misrepresent the Church of England in it which is some satisfaction to us that we are not Misrepresenters on both sides But these Men take great liberties in Representing the Faith and Doctrines of Churches In one Kings Reign the Church of England does not charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry in the next it does though their Articles and Homilies be the same still but they deal with the Church of England no worse than they do with their own Church in one Age a Bellarmine truly Represents the Doctrine of their Church in another a Bishop of Condom and though the Council of Trent be but one and the same the Faith of it alters very often as it may best serve the interest of the Catholick Cause Our Author having exposed the Protestant Character as he calls
and he has endeavoured to make his Readers believe that there is yet in truth there is none in most parts of the Character For what does strictly belong to Representation that is all matter of Fact is the same in both For 1. He having put the Opinions of Protestants concerning Popish Doctrines and Practices into the Character of a Papist Misrepresented as if they were his avowed Doctrine and Belief in the Character of a Papist Represented he denies that he believes those Interpretations and Consequences and this he might very easily do because as he observes p. 24. no body charges him with that belief and whereas he says then he contradicts no Body and he hopes there is no fault in that he is so far in the right but his fault is that he imposes upon his Reader with an appearance of a Misrepresentation when there is none and by his denying that they believe such things would perswade the World that Protestants charge Papists with believing all these ill things themselves which we say of their Faith and Worship a sign that he was hard put to it to find out some Protestant Misrepresentations of Papists And 2. As for matter of Fact which alone is proper for a Character he generally owns the Doctrines and Practices we charge them with and his saying how could this possibly be otherwise if they charge us with â—ore but what we expresly profess to own in which he reflects upon what I had said in my Reply that we charge them with believing nothing but what they expresly profess to believe is nothing to the purpose for it is not absolutely what we charge them with but what he himself makes us charge them with in his Character of a Papist Misrepresented and calls us Misrepresenters for doing so that he owns in the Character of a Papist Represented as I particularly shewed in my Reply now the question is why he calls one Character a Misrepresentation and the other a Representation when the matter of Fact is the same in both But then 3. I observed that in some cases he disowns that to be the doctrine and belief of their Church which manifestly is so and has been proved on them beyond all possibility of a fair Reply by the learned Answerer To which he Answers then for all his word we are in some cases charged with more than we expressly profess to believe But he must know we do not take the profession of the Roman Faith from every private Character-maker but from the authentick Records of their Church and if they deny what their Church teaches and requires them to believe it is not indeed their Faith but yet it ought to be so and though he may huff at manifestly and proving I suspect he will take a little time before he brings it to the Tryal This is a sufficient answer to his fresh complaint of Misrepresentations I now proceed to the second part of the Reply The rule of true Representing or the Rule whereby the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is to be known He appealed to the Council of Trent and the Catechism ad Parâ—chos and these I acknowledged to be authentick Rules but since Catholick Divines differ about the sense of the Council and Catechism the question is Why we must prefer his sense of the Council and Catechism before Cardinal Bellarmin's or any other Divines of Note and Eminency in the Church of Rome who lived since the Council of Trent and may be presumed to understand the meaning of it as well as the Representer and therefore to remove this difficulty in his Reflections he appealed to the Bishop of Condom as the Authentick Expositor of the Council and Catechism and told us how his Book had been approved by many Bishops and Cardinals and by the present Pope himself and therefore has the authority of the See Apostolick To this I answered in my Reply p. 44. that the attestation given to Cardinal Bellarmin's Controversies was not inferior to that given to the Bishop of Condom's Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church that it was Dedicated to Pope Sixtus 5. and that with the Popes leave and good liking which is not much inferior to a testimonial under the Popes hand and why then are not Bellarmin's Controversies as authentick a rule for the Exposition of the Catholick Faith as the Bishop of Condom's But to this he thought fit to answer nothing And whereas he pretends that the Popes approbation gives it the authority of the Apostolick See I acquainted him out of Melchior Canus That the name of the Apostolick See does not signifie the Pope in his private capacity but in his Chair or doing such things and in such a manner as belong to the Papal Chair that is not giving his own private sense but proceeding in Council with the advice of good and learned Men and therefore that is not to be accounted the Judgment of the Apostolick See which is given only by the Bishop of Rome privately maliciously and inconsiderately or with the advice only of some few of his own mind but what he determines upon a due examination of the thing by the advice and Counsel of many wise Men. To this the Protester answers that it is only an ungrounded and ill-turned consequence that because that is not to be accounted the judgment of the Apostolick See which is given only by the Pope privately maliciously and inconsiderately or with the advice only of some few of his own mind therefore this learned Prelates Exposition of the Catholick Faith is to be thrown by as of no Authority so that our Replier has here concluded without any more ado that the approbation of this Book was only given privately maliciously inconsiderately or else with the advice only of some few of the Popes own mind otherwise the Consequence will not hold But I thought Canus had told us what was necessary to make the Popes approbation the judgment of the Apostolick See as well as what hinders it from being so That the Pope must give judgment according to the due form and method of proceedings belonging to the Apostolick Chair in full Council after due examination and with the advice of many wise Men. Now I only desire to know whether the Pope in a full Council of Cardinals did give judgment ex Cathedrâ that the Bishop of Condom's Book was a true Exposition of the Catholick Faith For if he did not though the Pope and all his Cardinals should singly for themselves give their own private judgment and approbation of it according to Canus his rule it is not the judgment of the Apostolick See for it is a private judgment whether it be malicious or not which I was so far from concluding without more ado that as the Protester observes I did not so much as translate it though I put it in the Latine Quotation in the Margin which is an argument I did not designedly conceal it because I thought it