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
he limits their power of helping us to Prayers only whereas he grants the Council mentions their Aid and Assistance as well as Prayers And the only vindication he thinks necessary to make for this is that no other means of their aiding and assisting us is expressed in the Council or in the Catechism ad Parochos besides that of their Prayers and it is thus limited by the Bishop of Condom on this Subject with the Pope and Cardinals approbation But though the Council does not specifie what other aid and assistance we may expect from the Saints besides their Prayers yet it mentions Aid and Assistance without limiting it to the assistance of their Prayers and the Answerer P. 25. told him what reason he had to believe that neither the Trent Council nor Catechism did intend any such limitation but this he thought fit to take no notice of for it had been very troublesome to answer it As for the Bishop of Condom though his authority is nothing yet I do not find that he limits their aid and assistance only to their Prayers for us for after repeating the Decree of the Council That it is good and useful to invoke the Saints by way of supplication and to have recourse to their succors and assistances c. he quietly drops the last clause without saying any thing of it and only tells us It is evident that to invoke the Saints according to the intent of this Council is to resort to their Prayers for the obtaining the blessings and benefits of God by Jesus Christ. And no doubt but this is true but the Council speaks not only of invoking the Saints but of flying to their aid and assistance and pray what does that signifie That he had no mind to tell us and when he says nothing of it how comes our Reflecter to know that he limits it to their Prayers As for the point of merit I have already considered that though I do not see upon second thoughts how the Answerer is concerned in it for he does not alledge the 32 Canon to oppose what he asserts that good works are meritorious by the goodness and promise of God but for the sake of the Anathema which it denounces against those who deny that good works are truly meritorious of the increase of Grace and eternal life And therefore his next instance is the Popes personal Infallibility This our Reflecter denys and makes it the Character of a Papist misrepresented to assert it and yet there are as many Papists who believe the Popes Infallibility as there are who deny it and were they to make Characters to deny the Popes personal Infallibility would certainly be one Character of a Papist misrepresented But he says this is only a School-debate and not matter of Faith because not positively determined by any general Council And yet whoever reads Cardinal Bellarmin and several others on this subject would think they made a matter of Faith of it But I would ask him Whether the Infallibility of the Church be an Article of Faith If it be my next question is In what general Council it was defined It seems indeed to be taken for granted in some later Councils but I am yet to seek what General Council has positively defined it I am sure Bellarmin and other learned Divines of the Roman Communion who use all manner of arguments they can think of to prove the Infallibility of the Church never alledge the authority of any Council for it So that it seems infallibility it self was never determined by any General Council and if the Infallibility of the Church be matter of Faith though it were never defined by any General Council why may not the Infallibility of the Pope be so too nay how does our Reflecter come to believe the Infallibility of a General Council for this is no more defined by any General Council than the Infallibility of the Pope is If there must be Infallibility in the Church somewhere I think the Pope whom they acknowledge to be the supream Pastor has the fairest Pretences to it For Infallibility ought in reason to accompany the greatest and most absolute Power If we must have an infallible Judge of Controversies it must be the Pope not a Council because if you place Infallibility in a Council the Church has no infallible Judge any longer than while the Council is sitting For the Definitions and Decrees of Councils how infallible soever they are yet certainly cannot be an infallible Judge which they will not allow to the Scriptures themselves And therefore if the Church can never be without an infallible Judge he who is the supreme Pastor and Judge must be infallible Now this being the Case I desire to know why our Reflecter prefers the Infallibility of a General Council before the Pope's personal Infallibility how one comes to be matter of Faith and not the other or if neither of them be why one makes the Character of a Papist misrepresented the other of a Papist represented For though he pretends not to deliver his own private Sentiment or Opinion concerning this Point but only to relate matter of Fact yet he has so cunning a way of telling his Tale as to let every body know which side he is of For we may guess that he does not over admire the Papist misrepresented and then he cannot be very fond of the Pope's Infallibility which is part of that Character And now I come to the Goliath-argument as he calls it concerning the deposing Power which he puts into this form In my Character of a Papist represented I pretend to declare the Faith of a Roman-Catholick as it is defined and delivered in allowed General Councils and yet though the deposing Doctrine has been as evidently declared in such Councils as ever Purgatory and Transubstantiation were in that of Trent yet still with me it is no Article of our Faith This indeed is an untoward Argument and I wish him well delivered and I think he does very prudently to keep at a distance with a sling and a stone and not venture to grapple with it To this he thus replies I answer it in short that though all Doctrinal Points defined in any approved General Council and proposed to the Faithful to be received under an Anathema are with us so many Articles of Faith and are obligatory to all of our Communion yet not so of every other Matter declared in such a Council there being many things treated of and resolved on in such an Assembly which concern not the Faith of the Church but only some matter of Discipline Government or other more particular Affair and these Constitutions and Decrees are not absolutely obligatory as is evident in the Council of Trent whose Decrees of Doctrine are as much acknowledged here by Catholicks in England or Germany as within the Walls of Rome it self or the Vatican And yet it s other Constitutions and Decrees are not universally received and it may be
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-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
we think we should be guilty of Idolatry if we did it and that is the reason why we cannot comply with such practices I would only desire to know whether there be any such thing as External and Visible Idolatry If there be it must consist in External and Visible Actions for we can never know what mens intentions are but by their Actions and then if men do such Actions as are Idolatrous how can the intention excuse them from Idolatry Especially no intention can alter the nature of actions which are determined by a Divine or Human Law for then men might Murder or commit Adultery or Steal or Forswear themselves and yet avoid the sin and guilt of such actions by intending to do no evil in them if then the External Acts of Kneeling or Bowing to or before an Image directing such Actions to the Image be called Worshiping of them and are forbid in the Second Commandment without any regard to what intentions men have in doing so we put no other Interpretation upon such Actions but what the Divine Law puts upon them and if they will venture to Expound them otherwise and think to Justify themselves in doing forbidden Actions by their good Intentions they think they may but we dare not As for what he says that these Actions such as Bowing Kneeling c. are in themselves indifferent and capable of being paid to God and men I readily grant it but is there then no way to distinguish between Civil and Religious Worship between the Worship of God and men I will tell him one Infallible Distinction allowed by all the rest of mankind viz. the Worship of the Invisible Inhabitants of the other World tho with such External Acts as may be paid to Creatures has always been accounted Religious Worship Civil Respects are confined to this World as all Natural and Civil Relations which are the Foundation of Civil Respects are but we have no Intercourse with the other World but what is Religious And therefore as the different kinds and degrees of Civil Honour are distinguished by the fight of the object to which they are paid tho the External Acts and Expressions are the same as when men bow the Body and are uncovered you know what kind of Honour it is by seeing who is present whether their Father their Friend or their Prince or some other Honourable Persons so the most certain mark of distinction between Civil and Religious VVorship is this That the one relates to this VVorld the other to the Invisible Inhabitants of the next But God allows us to Worship no Invisible Being but himself which would unavoidably confound the Worship of God and Creatures If the Reflecter can give me any one Instance of any Nation in the World which did not account the Worship of all Invisible Beings to be Religious I will own my self mistaken And if all Worship of Invisible Beings is Divine and Religious Worship this puts an end to this Dispute and Abigail might fall down on her Face before David and the Beggars in Lincolns-Inn-Fields may beg upon their Knees as the Reflecter argues without any constructive Idolatry but so cannot a Papist who prays to the Virgin Mary to Saint Peter and Saint Paul now they are in an invisible State with all the External Signs of Worship and Adoration excepting Sacrifice which we can give to God himself And as for his Instance of Joshua's falling down before the Angel when he can prove that this was only a created Angel and that Joshua took him for no more we will consider it farther Now if to Worship any Invisible Being be to give Divine Honours to it then to be sure to Worship the Image of such an Invisible Being must be Religious Worship also For if the Worship of the Image be referred to that Invisible Being whom the Image represents it cannot be Civil but Religious Honour 4. The last Complaint is That the Answerer appeals from their Councils and sense of their Church to the sentiments of some private Authors And this I confess were a just Exception against the Answer if it were true but I challenge him to give any one Instance of it wherein the Answerer has set up the judgment of private Authors against the declared Sense and Judgment of their Councils and Church He has indeed quoted several of their Authors and to very good purpose as to give an account of matter of Fact and what the practice of their Church is and what Opinion Wise Men among them had of such practices to which purpose he cites some French Authors Wicelius and Vives p. 27 28. which our Reflecter is so much grieved at or to give an Historical Account of the state of the Controversie what it was before and what since the Council of Trent as about the worship of Images p. 17. about the necessity of Confession p. 61. or about the Sense and Interpretation of some controverted Texts of Scripture or to state the notions of things expressed but not defined by the Council as what Merit is p. 57. for tho the Church has defined the good works of justified Persons to be truly meritorious yet it has not told us what true and proper Merit is and therefore we must learn this from the allowed and received definitions of their Divines Thus the Council has determined due Honour and Worship to be given to Images but has not determined what this due Honour and Worship is and therefore we have no way to know it but by appealing to the general Practice of the Church and the Doctrine of their Divines which is not to oppose the sentiments of private Authors to the judgment of the Church but where the Church has not explained her self to learn her sense as well as we can from their most approved Divines Thus the Council has decreed the use of Indulgences but has not defin'd in what cases and to what purposes they may be used and therefore when the Representer says confidently that it is only a relaxation of Canonical Penances the Authority and especially the argument of Greg. de Valent. and Bellarmin are good against him tho not against their Church had their Council defined it p. 66. When he asserts that Indulgences are not sold the Tax of the Apostolick Chamber is good Authority against him especially if those who sell Indulgences receive the Money only under the notion of Alms which is allowed by the Council and when he denies that Indulgences do concern the remission either of mortal or venial sins the Answerer might well appeal to the very form of the Popes Bulls which not only grant the remission of sins but in some cases the plenary and most plenary remission of sins Thus in what cases the Pope can dispense and in what not is not determined by the Council and therefore there is no other way of knowing how large this power is but by appealing to the practice of Popes in granting Dispensations and
the Opinions of their Divines and Canonists about it And I cannot imagine what should make the Reflecter so angry with the Answerer for stating this matter as he seems to be p. 17. but that he rebukes his confidence by discovering his unskilfulness in such disputes Nor do I discern the Answerers fault in saying We know this dispensing power is to be kept as a great Mystery and not to be made use of but upon weighty and urgent causes of great consequence and benefit to the Church as their Doctrines tho the Errata which a Reflecter ought to have consulted would have told him it should be Doctors declare for if their Doctors who may be presumed best to understand the intrigue do say this what fault did the Answerer commit in saying it after them and thus it is in several other cases the Answerer has alledged the Opinions of their Divines and Casuists Not to oppose them to the Authority of the Church but to learn from them what is the most received and currant Doctrine in such matters as are not expresly defined by their Councils and is this like picking up some particular sayings out of private Authors to charge them upon any Church I do not think my self concerned to examine his citations out of some of our Authors there being so great a disparity between these two cases but if he have dealt by others as he has done by the Answerer he is a very Misrepresenter still He says The Answerer seems to maintain that good works of justified persons are not free And the Answerer indeed does say that they are not free as freedom is opposed to a Divine assistance in doing them and to an antecedent obligation to do them which freedom is necessary to merit but does this destroy the liberty of the Will as assisted by the Divine Grace Or will the Reflecter own such a freedom as the Answerer denies These are all the material Exceptions the Reflecter has made against the Answer which come to little more than some popular talk for I do not think the Vision of St. Perpetua worth disputing about and if he did not think this Vision gave some Credit to the Doctrine of Purgatory I would know why he mentioned it The Answerer does not charge them with making such Visions and Apparitions the only Foundation of Purgatory but certainly those who have taken so much pains to tell if not to invent such Stories and to father them upon ancient Writers did think that they would do some service to propagate the belief of it in the World and if this be true I know no reason they have to be ashamed of them and notwithstanding all their other arguments I confess I think they want them And now I know nothing in his Reflections unanswered but some Popular Harangues and Insinuations but plain truth like a true Beauty needs no Paint and Varnish and therefore I shall only for a Conclusion assure our People That the Answer is every way agreeable to its Title the Doctrines and Practises of the Church of Rome truly Represented and when this Reflecter or any one for him shall think fit to examine any part of it as it becomes men and Scholars they shall either have a fair Reply or a Recantation FINIS Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome c. p. 10. Reflect p. 4. Toid pag. 2. Pag. 3. Page 19. The Introduction Page 5. Page 6. Page 7. Sidis Apostolicâ—e nomen non sâ—lum summuon Pontificem significare sed ipsum ut facit ea que ad Cathedram spectant hoc est quaâ—â—â—us non ex suo sed ex consilio bonorum virorum doctorum procedit Iâ—a sedis Apostolice juâ—â—icia intelligi non que occulte malitiosâ— inconsultè per solum Romanum Episcopum aut etiam cum paâ—cis sibi faventibus proferuntâ—r sed quae ab â—o ex consilio plurimorum virorum sapientium plâ—nè prius re examinata prodâ—unt Canus de Auct Concil libr. 5. Page 7. Page 8. Page 9. De auct Conc. 1. 5. Concil To. 13. p. 510. Lubb. Ib. p. 530. Vindicat. of Dr. Sherlock's Serm. p. 18. Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. 1. 4. c. 5. Canus de Auct Concil 1. 5. P. 9. P. 10. Pag. 15. 16. Pag. 60. Pag. 62. P. 40. P. 55. P. 67. P. 91. P. 11. P. 35. P. 36. P. 11 12. P. 12. Page 17.