/ 8|: '97 [Gother] A Papist Mis-represented, by J. L[ovell, i.e. Gother], s.l, 1685, with 11 others, in 1 vol, 4to, calf, c/iafed,6s 1685-7 Contents : IE. Stillingfleet) Doct. of the Ch. of Rome— [Gothkr] Reflections upon foregoing —[W.Sherlock, D.D.J A Papist not misrepre- sented—[A. Seller] Remarks upon the Reflec- tions—[Gother.] Papists Protesting— (Sher- lock] Answer to foregoing— (Gother. J Amicable Accomodation- [Sherlock] Answer to fore- going— [Gother.] Reply— [VV. Clacett, D.D.] view of the Contioversy. ♦* * • COLLECTION OF PURITAN AND ENGLISH THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY gcction ~> sea i Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/papistmisrepreseOOgo PAPIST Mif-reprefented and Reprcfcnte J : OR, A Two-fold Character POPERY T HE ONE Containing a Sum of the Superftitions,Idolatries,Cru- clties,Treaeheries,and Wicked Principles of That POPERY which hath difturb'd this Nation above an hundred and Fifty Years 5 fill'd it with Fears and Jealoufies,and deferves the hatred of all Good Chriftians. THE .OTHFR Laying open that POPERY which the Papifis ownandPro- fcjfs ; With the Chief Articles of their Faith, and fome of the Principal Grounds and Reafons,which hold them in That Religion. fJarraver/Mt mihi Inicjui Vabulationes ;fed mn ut Lex tua, Pfal.1 19.V.85. „■ - .i To which is Annexed, RomaivCatholick Principles, In Reference to G O D and the K I N G. Printed , Ails 24. 5, 9.) Neither did thefe Calumnies , .thefe wicked Mifreprefemations ftop here j he that faid, The Difciple it not above hit Mxfter ; if they have called the Mafter of the Houfe Be^ebub , how much more full they call them of hit Houfhold? did not only toretel what was to happen to his Followers thea prefect, but alfo to the Fait hful that were to fucceed them, and to his Church in future Ages, they being all to expert the like Fate ; that tho' they fh^d be never fojuft to God and their Neighbour, upright ih their Ways, and five In the Fear of God, arid the obfervahce of his Laws; yetmuft they certainly- be reviled and hated by the Wortld, made a by-word to the People, and have the repute of Ideots, Seducers, and be a f caudal to all Nations. And has not this beeq verify'd in all Ages ? See what was the State of Cbrijlians in the Primitive times, when as yet Vice had not corrupted the purity of the Gofpel. ' Tis almoft impofTible to believe in what Contempt they were,and how utterly abomi- nated. Tertulliatii who was a fharer of a great -part.gives us fo lamentable an account of the Chriftians in his time, that it is able to move compaflion in Stones. He tells us. fo many malicious /landers were difpers'd abroad, concerning the manner of their Worfhip; and their whole Doclrine defcrib'd, not only to be folly, and meertoys, but alfo to be grounded on moft hellijh Principles, and to be fo full of Impieties, that the Heathens believ'd a man could not make profeflion of Chriftianity, without being tainted with all forts of Crimes ; without being an enemy to the Gods, Apolog. c, 2. to Princes, to the Laws, to good Manners, and to Nature. Hence they conceiv'd fuch/>r*j«i/V* againft them, and they were render'd fo impious in the opinion of the Vulgar ; that whatfoever accufations were brought in, tho' never (ofalfe and malicious; whatfoever yillanies were laid to their charge; all was welcom to the enraged Multitude, to which nothing feem'd incredible concerning thofe, that were thus already odious. Upon this it was, that they were brought in „ guilty oiAtheifm, of Superftkion, of Jdolitry, of Cruelty, of Sedition, of Confpiracies, tfTreafons; and bloody Perfections were rais'd againft them, to which the people were exafperated by Fears and Jealoufies : s?uod Pontifices, (as Sp. Anno 286. Spondanus fays) Gentilitia fuperftitionis Chriftianos more folito, ca- .Par. 5. lumviiscircumvem^'nt,quafi aliquid contra imperiummolirentur ; Be-, caufe the Priejls did ufe to divulge it abroad, that the Chriftians were plotting againft the Government. Nor were thefe Crimes the whole Sum of their Charge;For befides,every publick calamiy and misfortune that befell (a) .fyW.An.362. the Commonwealth, was thrown upon them. If (a)lDaphnes Tem- ple was confum'd by Lightning from Heaven, yet muft the (b)fd. Anno 66. Chriftians be condemn'd as the Incendiaries: If (bj the City was laid in A(hes, it muft be reveng'd on the Chriftians ; Nay, as (c) ■(c) Apo. c. 40. Tertullian has it, /'/ Tiber overflowed,if Nile -watered hot the Plains, if Heaven ftopp'd its Courfe, and did not pour its I(ains here below ; if there were Earth-quakes, Famine, or Plague ; tbey would immediately cry out, Chriftianos ad leones, Caft the Chriftians to the Lions, as the caufe of all the Ca- lamities that arrived in the World, and all the evils that People fufFer'd. And now .the Chrift ians being thus reputed Prophane in their Worjbip, Enemies to the Govern- ment, and the undoubted occafions of every misfortune throughout the Empire ; 'tis eafie to conceive, in what contempt they were, and how daejhble a^iongft the Hea- thens The ItXrodvUiotti thens ; But becaufe none can relate it fo to the life, as (d) Tertul- Han has done, 1'le fet it down in his own words, as tranllated (d) Apo. c. 3. by (e) Dr. Howel, in his 'Hiftory of the World. Is it not ftrange (fays he) that the hatred wherewith this name is purfued,in fiuh (e)P. \.pag. 936; manner blinds the minds of mofl Men, that when they wifnefs the probity of a Chriftian, they mix in their Difcourfe a* a reproach, that he hath embraced this Religion. One faith ; Truly,' He of whom youfpeak is an Honefl Man, if he were not a Chriftian, and bit life would be free from blame. Another ; Do you know fucb a one, who had the reputation of a Wife and Difcreet Man ? HeU lately turned Chriftian* (Again) Thefe People, by an extreme blindnefs of hatred, fpeak to the advantage of the name Chriftian, when they ftrive to render it Odious. For, jay they, Howpleafant, and of what a good humour, was that Woman ? How fociable and jovial was that. Man ? TU pity they fyould be Chriftians. So they impute the amendment of their lives, to the Pro- feffm of Chriftianity. Some of them alfo purchafe the averfion they carry againfi tltf name Chriftian, which we bear, with the price of what it mofl precious to them ; rather defiring tolofe the fweetnefs of life, tranquillity of mini) and all forts of Commodities, than to fee in their Hou[es That which they hate. A Man, who heretofore had his mind fuU of Jealoufie , can no longer endure the company of his Wife, what ajfurance foever he ha* of her Chaflity , after once he perceives her to be turn'd Chri* ftian; and parts from her now, when her aft ions full of Modefty have extinguifo'd all fufpicions, wherewith be was heretofore mov'd. A Father, who of a long time endu/d the disobedience of hit Heathenilh Son, refolves to take from him the hope of fucceeding him in hit Inheritance, for turning Chriftian, when at the fame time, executing his Com* mands without murmuring. A Matter that ufed hi* Slave gently, when his Carriage gave him fome eaufe of diftrufl, now puts him far from him, for being a Chriftian, when he hath mofl ajfurance of his Fidelity. 'Tis committing a Crime to correct the diforders of d Man's Life, by the motions of a Holy Converfionto the Chriftian Faith ; and the good which it produced by fo happy a Change, works not fo powerfully in the minds of Men, k the hatred they have conceived againjt m. Indeed this hatred it flrange 5 and when I con* fider, that the Name of Chriftian only, makes it be fo, I would willingly know, how a, name can be Criminal, and how a fimple word can be Accufed? Thus was Chriftianity wholly Infamous amongft the Heathens, contemn'd and detefted by all ; and where Lies were in credit, Calumnies and Slanders confirm'd and back'd by Authority, there" was no other Crime bat Truth. And 'twas thefe Calumnies, thefe fal'e Acc.ifatwns (invented to cry down the Chriftian Religion,) oblig'd Tertullian to write his Apolo- gy, wherein he declar'd to the World, that Chriftianity was nothing like that, which the Heathens imagin'd it to be : That Idolatry , Superjlhion , Impiety, Cruehy , Treachery, Confpiracies, &c. was none of their Dotlrine, but Condemn'd and Detefted by them ; that thefe Crimes were only the malicious invent ions of the Heathenifh Priefls, who finding themfelves unable to withftand Che fores of Chriftianity, had no other way to preferve themfelves in Rgpute, and the People in their Errour, than by forming an ugly, odious, and moft ko'xid Vhor, a damnable Scheme of Religion, then holding this forth to the World, and crying out, This is the Re- ligion of the Chriftians, thefe are their Principles ; Behold their ignorance, their Stupidity \ their Prophanenefs ; Behold their Infolence, their Villanies ; a People u/ifufferable in a Commonwealth, Enemies to their Country and their Prince : And thus Reprefenting it as Monfirous as they pleas'd,they brought an odium upon as many as own'd that name, and condemn'd them for Follies and Crimes^ that were no where, but in their own Imagination. The Introdnftim. Imaginstion, /ml 'twas not only in Tertullian's time, that Chrift ianhy lay under ibis feandal, but alfo in after Ages: And therefore, as for the Vindication of the Chriftian Profelf.on, he was forc'd to Apologize for his time ; fo did after him St. Cyprian, Arnobiiis, and many other Ecclefiaftical Writers ; nay, and under Chriftian Emperors, the Calumnies of the Heathens yet being urg'd with much vigour and confidence, Orofius was oblig'd to write his Hiftory, and St. Auguftine his Chyof God% in defence of the Faith And Doctrine of Chrift. And now, when by the propagation of Chriftianity, and the laborious endeavours of her Profeftbrs, Heathenifm was pretty well extinct ; yet was not the mouth of Malice ftor/d ; the fame Calumnies, which had been invented by the Infidels, being taken up by evil Chiftians. No one .; i '■■. ;,; out from the Communion of the Church of Chrift, but wtjat did,by reviving old. Srinlih-, ('and the addition of frefh ones,) endeavour to make her Infamous, and blacken het with fuch Crimes, as could be thought moft convenient for rendring her odio-'i to alK It being look 'd upon by as many as ever went out of her, the beft means to juftifie their Separation, and to gain to themfelves the credit of Orthodox Chiftians, to paint he r out in all the Antichrifiian Colours, and reprefent her as fr'cll/jh, as wicked nefs could make her. Tis ftrangehow much flje fuffer'd in this Point from the Manic hees, and from the Donatifts, and how much pains it coft Saint A-vghfiinf', to prove their Accusations to be meer Calumnies, principally intended to raife prejudices in the minds of the People againft her ; that fo being convine'd by thefe Helliih Artifices, of her teaching unfound and prophane Dotlrine,wicled Principles^ and human* Inventions inftead of Faith, might never think of going to her, to learn the Truth ; nor even fo much as fufpecl her to be the Church of Chrift. This, Saint Auguftine complains, was the chief caufe of his continuing in the Errour of the Mriichees fo long ; and that he impugn'd with fo much violence this Church. And therefore, after he was come to the knowledge of the Truth, he difcover'd this to the World for the undeceiving others, who were caught in the fame fnare, making it part of his Confeffions, (Confejf.1.6. c. 3. p. i.)When I came to difcover, fays he, that- / mingled joy and blufhes, and was afbam'd, that I had now for fo many years been barking and railing, not againfl the Catholick Faith, but only againft the fitfions of my carnal conceits. For fo temerarious and impious was I , that thofe things which I ought fir ft to have learned from them by enquiry, J firft charg'd upon them by Accusation; readier to' impofe Falfhoods, than to be inform' d of the Truth.— ^ — -And tht'4 I fo blindly ace u fed the Catholick Church ; now fufficiently clear' d to me thatfhe taught not the Opinion I fo vehemently persecuted. And this lie did, deluded and deceiv'd by the Manichees. And now fince 'tis certain, that this has not been the cafe of Saint Anguu he alone, but of as many almoft , as have given ear to the Defeners of thti Church ; nay, is at this day the cafe of infinite Numbers, who following that Great Father, when as yet in his Errors, do not enquire,how this thing is believ'd or underftood by her, but infuhing oppofe all ; at if (0 underftood, as they imagine ; not making any dif- ference betwixt that which the Catholick Church teaches, and what they think ff)e teaches, and fo believing her to be guilty of as many Abfurdjties, Follies, Impieties, &c. as the Heathens did of Old: 'Tis evident, there's as much need now of Apol gies, as ever there was in Tertullian's, or Saint Auguftin's time : Not Apologies to vindicate what is really her Faith and Doilrine; but rather to clear her from fuch Superftitions, Pro- pfianenefs, and Wicfcd Principles, as are malicioufly or ignorantly charg'd upon her. And tho' the number of Calumnies, the infincerity of ' Adverfaries, the obftinacy of a byas'd Education render a performance in this kind, a juft Task for a Tertullian's, or I be btirauuaion. or St. .4^;? /Vs hand j yetbecaufel find no fuch eminent Pen engag'd in this de. fign at prefent ; and the ihewing the true Religion in its or: ■ Colons , feems a Duty incumbent on every one that's a Lover of Truth; Vic endeavour to pall off the Fixer from fufferwg Chrifiiunity, and Apologize tor the Citbolid- imib \ that Faith 1 mean, maintained by thofe Primitive Father s,viith fo much Vigour and Zeal 5 which being firft planted in the Head City of the World by St- Peter, hath been pro- pagated throughout the Univerfe,and derived down to m by many Chriftian Nations, in Communion with that See, under the Protection of the Holy Gbofi, and the charge of A Chief Pafior ; which beginning in that great Apofile, has continued in a rifible Succejfion to thefe our days. This Faith it is, for which at prefent 1 defign to make an Apology, which having been in all ages violently oppos'd, does at this time moll vrrongfully fuifer, under Calumnies and filfe Imputations. Tie endeavour therefore to feparate thefe Calumnies and Scandals from what is really the Faith and Dottrine of that Church ; l'le take off the Black and Dirt, which has been thrown upon her 5 and fetting her forth in her genuine complexion, let the World fee how much fiiret (he is, than (he's painted; and how much (he's unlike that Mwfier, which is fhewn for her. And becaufe the Members of this Church are commonly known by the name of Papifi s ; I think I cannot take a more hncere, open, and compendious way, in or- der to the compleating this defign, than by drawing forth a double Character of a Papifi : The one expreliing a Papijl in thofe very colours as he is painted in the ima- gination of the Vulgar, Foul, Black and Antichriflian ; with the chief Articles of his imagined Belief, and reputed Principles of his Profeflion. The other reprefenting a Pa- pifi, whofe Faith and exercife of his Religion, is according to the Direction and Com- mand of bit Church. Thatfo, thefe two being thus fet together, their difference and dijproportion may be clearly difcerned, and a dilcovery made, how unlike Calumny is from Truth; and how different a Papifi really is, from what he's [aid ts be. The former Character is of a Vapift Mif-reprefented ; the other of a Papifi Repre- sented. The former is a Papifi fo deform 'd and monftrous, that it juftly deferves the hatred of as many as own Chriftianity : Tis a Papifi, that has difturb'd this Na- tion now above an hundred years with Fears and Jealoufies ; threatning it con- tinually with Fire and MafTacres, and whofe whole defign has been, to rob the So- vereign of his Crown, and the Subjetl of his Liberty and Property. ' Tis a Papifi, that is fo abominable, fo malicious, fo unfufferable in any Civil Government, that, for my part, Idetelt him from my heart ; Iconceiv'd an hatred againft him, and all his, from my Education, when as yet a Protefiant ; and now, being a Roman Co- tholick, I am not in the leaft reconcil'd to him, nor his Principles, but hate him yet worfe. 1 am fofar from thinking the Laws too fevere againft fuch Popijh Recufants) that 1 could wifh a far greater feverity were executed againft them^their Favourers, and all fuch as make men fo fottifhly Religious. And it to be a Protefiant, nothing more be requifite, than to proteft againft fuch Popery, to hate and deteft it ; 1 think my felf, and all Roman Catholicks, as good Protefiants, as any whatfoever throughout his Ma\efiies Dominions. And I dare engage, that not only as many Rgrnan Catholicks^ as under the name of Papifi s have feverely fmarted in this Nation, for being the ' Profeflbrs of fuB kind of Popery, but alfo that all Roman Cat hoi ick Nations in the World (hall fubferibe to the condemnation of all fuch Popifh Principles and Doctrines, (hall joyn with all good Protefiants for the extinguilhing it, with all that Profefs or Pra&ile it, and utter rooting it out from his Majeflies three Kingdoms, and the whole Univerfe. The other Papifi is one, that lives and believes according to what is The IntYOwUion. }s prefcribVI in the Council of Trent, in Catecbifms fet forth by Catholicks, and o- (her Spiritual Books, for the Direction and Inftru&ion of all in their Communion, whofe F^j'^and Dotlrinel have here fet down, with fome Grounds and Reafons of it, and will Co leave it to Apologize for it felf. In drawing out the Charafter of the form;ry I have quoted no Authors, but have defcrib'd him exattly according to the Apprehenfion I had of a Papifl, fram'd by me when I was a Protefiant ; with the addition only of fome few points, which have been violently charg'd againft Me by fome intimate Friends of late, to (hew the unreafonablenefs of my choice, after the quitting of that Communion. The latter is wholly copied out from the Papifi that J am now; being the Sum of what I was taught, when reconci I'd to the Church of Home, and which after fixteen years converfation with Men of that Com- munion, in hearing their Sermons, in being prefent at their Catechiiing, in reading their Books, and difcourfing with them, I have found to be their Doctrine. I have done both, I hope, with Sincerity and Truth, and without PaflTion. For as my en- deavours have been, that my Religion mould lofe nothing by Lies, fo neither do I deiire it mould gain by them; And did I but know of any thing in the following Papers, that has any relation to that unchriftUn Artifice, I would ftrike it out im- mediately. And do here oblige my felf, upon information, either from Friend or Adverfary. to acknowledge the miftake, as it (hall be made appear, and.- make a publick Recantation. Bnt it is time, we (hould fee what thefe Papijts are. A r A PAPIST Mif-reprefented and Reprefented. I. Of Praying to Images. j T/rr n ■ Oj. i f~\ nabIe> to Worfhip Stocks and ted, V Vorfhlp dtoc\s j[ \ stones for Gods, to Pray to Pztf- and Stones for Gods, aures or 7*4?« of c*r#,the f«gM Afar;, rj . / .• r or any other Saints ; asalfo, to put any He takes no notice of Truft or Confidence in them. He keeps the Second Commandment,^ them by him indeed, to preferve in his frttino i/fi PiR-nr^ nrtd Imncrp much like as the heart to the Prototypes, and there to im- HeathpMt did in their Wooden PloY ic i" Meditation, Love, Thankfgi- rieawens ata in weir v i> ooaen Ving,imitation,ov. as the Objeft requires: Gods, Jupiter, Mars,VenUS,C^^ As many good Chriftians,placing a Deatk- And for this reafon, He erects *^ before them ; from the fight of it, n . r-Kf *t-7 • /• take occaiion to reflect often upon their Jtately Monuments to I hem in his iaft end, in order to their better pre- Churches, adorns them fumptu- Paring for it ; or by feeing Old Time ~i*aM L..~~ r>~nA\^o *&>*., i„ painted with his Fore-lock. Hour-Glafs OHfly bums Candles, offers In- lndSc>thSj turn their thoughts upon the cenie, and frequently falls down fwiftnefs of Time, and that whofo- proftrate before them, and with f^er negiefts the ^M is in danger of V-Jr? /->! / • . beginning then to lay hold, when there's his Eyes px d on them, cries OUt, no more to come. Thefe Pictures or Ima- Help me Mary,zWt me Aftt ho- «?" having this advantage, that they in- • i _ t . • form the mind by one glance, of what in ny, remember me Ignatius. reading requireb \ chfpter^d roraetimes a Volume. There being no other difference between them, then that Heading repre- fents leifurely, and by degrees ; and a Pitture all at once. Hence he finds a conveni- ence in faying his Prayers with fome devout Figures before him ; he being no fooner diffracted, but the fight of thefe, rccals his wandring thoughts to the right Object ; and as certainly brings fomething good into his mind, as an immodeft Picture difturbs his heart with naughtinefs. And becaufe he is feniible, that thefe holy Pitlures and Images reprefent and bring to his mind fuch Objects, which in his heart he loves, ho- nours.and venerates- he cannot,but upon that account ;love,honour,and refpeel the Ima- ges tbemfelves. As whofoever loves their Husband, Child,or Fwsd,cannot but have fome love and refpeel for their Piftures;dLnd whofoever loves and honours his Xjng will have B ibme •j A Papift Mifreprejented and Reprefented. feme honour and efteem for his Image : - Jjtfifethat he venerates any Image y or Piflure, for any Virtue or Divinity believ'd to be in them, or for any thing that is to be petiti- on'd of them ; but becaufe the honour that is exhibited to them, is refer'd to the Pro- totypes which they reprefent. So that 'tis not properly the Images he honours, but Chrift and his Saints by the Images : As it is not properly the Images or Fixtures of Kings or Dukes we generally refpeft or injure ; but by their Images or Pictures we refpeftor injure Kings or Dukes themfelves. All the veneration therefore he ex- prefles before Images, whether by kneeling, prayingj lifting up the Eyes, burning Candels, Incenfe, C5V. 'tis not at all done for the Image, but is wholly referr'd to the things reprefented, which he intends to honour by thefe a&ions. And how, by Jo doing, he break3 the Second Commandment, he cannot conceive ; for lie acknowledges only one God, and to him alone gives Sovereign Honour ; and is fo far from honour- ing Images as Gods, that for any ones fatisfacHon, he is ready to break or tear a Cru- cifix, or other Image whatfoever, into a thoufand pieces, and caft them into the fire. And what refpett he (hews them, ieeins to him no more injurious to any of the Com- mandments, than 'tis for a Chriftian to love and honour his Neighbour, becaufe he bears the Image of God in his Soul) tokifs and efteem the Bible, becaufe it contains and reprefent s to him God's Word', or to love a good Preacher, becaufe he minds him of his Duty ; all which refpetl s do not at all derogate from God Almighty's Honour ; but are rather Teftimonies of our greater Love and Honour of him, iince,for his fake,we love and efteem every thing, that has any refpeft or relation to him. II. Of Worfhiping Saints. HE makes Gods of Dead IJ'E believes there'sonly one God, and \* ~ r L j ^ JL \ that 'tis a moft damnable Idolatry Men ,Juch as are depar- t0 make Gods of Menj either living or ted hence, and now are no more dead. Hh Church teaches him indeed,(and able to hear, or fee, sunder- ^^rbat h island tvrojftabiew ft- jy- rr - a i i t defire the Intercefiofi Of the Saints, reigning ltand hts necejJlUes. And tho with Chrijl in Heaven ; but that they are God be fo QOod as to invite all Gods> or his Xt&emers, he is no where . * l- J * >.t taught; but detefts all fuchDoclrine. He to come unto him, and to apply conteffes, That we are all redeem'd by themfelves to their only and In- the Blood of Chriji alone, and that he is finite Mediator ]etf Chrift : ^SSS^&S^S^m let J0 jtupld IS tie, that neglect- as we may defire lawfully to pray for us) in?, and, as it were, palfine by 5f d,oes n°c doubt> but 'tis acceptable to / .tr* J 21' i o in Goa, we fhould have many. Moles was bothUod and hts only don, and all fab a Mediator for the Israelites ; fob for their Mercies, he betakes himfelf b*s three Friends ; Stephen for his Perfe- to his Saints, and there pnring ™^h J'defi^- rKm. forth his Prayers, be confides in St. Paul to be his Me- Ep. ad <^ Cor. them as his Mediators and Re- #Vfl# w5?, th& , ' r cM- j j rf th r Corinthians, fo the Eplxpaiis ; fo almolt deemers, and expects no tilej- every fu\ man defires the Congregation to be A Papift Mif-reprefinted and Reprefinted, % fmt, but what is to come tO him behis Mediators; that is, to be reraem- Ji 1l -*/{'* J xt L ber'd in their Prayers. And fo he defires by their Merits , and through the Bkfgd in Heav'en t0 ^ his Mdimn . f jfit/r />rfW/ : -tf*^ ftWWj W/>^- that is, that they would Pray to God for out fcrupteorremorfe, robs God ft" A^ i" 'Wf»J« does not at all n^- w ■ tJ foww,? to God, or rob him of his of his Honour, Honour ; but d irefting all his Prayers up to him, and making him the ultimate Oh je£i of all his Petitions, he only defires fome- tiraes the fuft on Earth, fometimes thofe in Heaven, to joyn their 1 'rayers to his, that fo the number W Petitioners being increas'd, the Petition may find better acceptance in the light of God. And this is not to make them Gods, but only Petitioners to God ; 'tis not to make them his Redeemers, but only Intercefors to his Redeemer ; he having no hopes of obtaining any thing, but of God alone, by, and through the Merits of Chrift; for which he defires the Saint s in Heaven, and good men on Earth, to offer up their Prayers with his ; the Prayers of the Jujl availing much before God. But now, how the Saints in Haven know the Prayers and Neceflities of fuch, who addrefs themfelves to them, whether by the Miniftry of Angels, or in the Virion of God, or by fome particular Revelation, 'tis no part of his Faith, nor is it much his concern it fhould be determin'd. For his part he does not doubt, but that God, who acquainted the Prophets with the knowledge of things, that were yet to come many hundred years after ; That inform'd Elijah of the King of Syria's Council, thoc private, re- folv'd on in his Bed-chamber, and, at a diftance ;(2 Flings 6. i2.Jcan never want means of letting the Saints know the defirs of thofe who beg their InterceffionhQte on Earth : Efpeciatly fince oar Saviour tells, That Abraham heard the Petitions of Dives who was yet at ^greater diflance, even in Hell', and told him likewife the manner of his living, while as yet on Earth. Nay, fince 'tis generally allow'd, that even the very Devils hear thofe defperate wretches, who call on them : Why mould he doubt, that Saints want this Priviledge, in fome manner granted to finful Men, and to wick- ed Spirits ; who, (tho' departed this life) are not fo properly dead, as tranilated from a mortal life, to an immortal one ; where, enjoying God Almighty, they lofe no Per- fections which they enjoy'd, while on Earth, but pofTefs all in a more eminent manner ; having more Charity, more Love, and being more acceptable to God than ever ; be- coming like Angels : And as thefe offered up their Prayers for Jerufakm, and the Cities of fudah, (ZacL 1. 12.) fo undoubtedly they likewife fall down before the Lamb, having every one of them Harps, and golden trials full of Odours, which are the Prayers of 'the Saints, Apoc. 5. 8- %.OfAddre]fing more Supplications to the Virg.Mary thantoChrifl*. HE believes the Virgin Ma- HE believes ic damnable to think the . . 1 1 Virgin* Mary more powerful in Hea- ry to be much more porv- ven than chrli{. Gr t£at fne can in any erful in Heaven than Chrifi0 and tiling command him. He honours her in- that fie can command him to ^^SSS^^^^SJ^Z J . . 141 °) °"> and tie fed amonyl all Women : And do what (tie thinkj good: And believes her to be molt acceptable to God, for This reafon he honours her '***** interceffion for us: But owning J , ft j j r o her fhll as a Creature, and that all {he lias much more than he does her 6on, of Excellency or Blifs, is the Gift of God B 2. proa a.. ; 4 A Papifl: Mifreprefented and Reprefented. Or God the Father } For One proceeding from his meer^i^. Nei- n i r /-» i/* • ther does he at any time lav even fo much Prayer he jays to Kjodfaymg ten as one Prayer to her, but what is direfted to the Holy Virgin. tnore Principally to God ; becaufe offered J & up as a Thankful Memorial of Chrift's Incarnation, and an acknowledgment of the Blefednefs of fefus the Fruit of her Womb. And this w ithout imagining that there's any moredifhonouringof God in his reciting the Angelical Salutation, than in the firft pronouncing it by the Angel Gabriel and Elizabeth : Or that his frequent Repeti- tion of it is any more an idle Superftition, than it was in David to Repeat the fame words over twenty fix times in the 136 Pfjlm. , H IV. Of paying Divine Wbrlhip to Relics. EbelievesakindefDivi- IJE bdifves «* damnable to think . v. . JL n mX there s any Divinity in the Relics mtyto remain in the tve- ot SaintS5 or t0 Adore them with Divine lies of his reputed Saints, and Honour,or to Pray to their rotten Bones, therefore stdoret their Rotten old RaSs> or Shrines, or that they can rnerejore siaores weir ss.onen work any ftrange Cures or MiracleS) by Bones, their corrupted flejh, their any hidden Power of their own. But he old R*es,with Divine Honour 5 bel[eveTsr ic §ood and hfu} 10 keeP tbem -ur ;. 1 1 j -rr with a Veneration, and give them a Re- Kneelmg down to them, t^Jjing ijgj0Us honour and refpett. And this he thent,and QoinQ in Pilgrimage to thinks due to them, in as much as know- *L • QL • 5L O *. 1 L A J ins himfelf oblig'd to refpeft and honour their Shrines & Sepulchres .And Ggel Almighty from his ^art ; he looks he is fo far poffefsd with a con* upon himfelf alfo oblig'd to refpeft and ceited Deity lying hid in thofe honour every thing that has any par- r n rn • / / j? ticular Relation to him : But this with an lenieleis Remains, that he fro- inferiour honour \ as the fern did to the lifhh believes they work greater Ark, to the Tables of the uw.to Afo/w's ■(jr. j j -r * t-r Rod, to the Temple, to the Priefts: So Miracles, and raije mortTto lije, wc generally allow to the Bibk, becaufe than ever Chrifl himfelf did. it contains God's Word ; to the Church, becaufe it is God's Houfe ; to Holy Men and Priefts, becaufe they are God's Ser- vants. And fo he does to Relicks, becaufe they appertain to God's Favourites', and, being imenfible things, are yet very feniible piedgesfitid lively Memorials of Chrift s Servants dead indeed to us, but alive with him in Glory. And more efpecially, becaufe God himfelf has been pleas'd to honour them, by making thera Infhuments of many evident Miracles he has vifibly work'd by them ; as is manifeft upon undeni- able Record. And this he believes as eafie for God Almighty now, and as much re- dounding to the honour of his Holy Name, as it was in the Old Lirv, to woik fuch Miraculous etfecls by Moss's Rod, by Giieons Trumpets, by Elias's Mamie, acterhe was taken up into Heaven ,(2 Kings 2.i4.)£fe's Bon*s,(2 Kjygs 1 }• 21O and infinite other fuch like infenfibU things : And alfo in the Men Lam, by the Bern of his own Garment A Papifl: Mif-reprefented and Reprefented. 5 Garment, (Mat. 9. 21.) by the Shadow of St. Peter, (Atls 5. 15.) by the Napkins and Handkerchiefs that had but touchcd the Body of St. Paul, calling out Devils, and curing Difeafes, (A&s 19. 12.) and fuch like. And thus by having a Veneration and Refpeft for thefe, he honours God: And does not doubt, but that they that con- temn and prophane thefe, do the like to God, as much as they did, who prophan d the Bread of Propojition, the Temple, and Fejfds that belong'd to it. V. Of the EUCHARIST. HE believes it lawful to com- mit Idolatry, and mak$s it his daily pra&ice to Worjkip and Adore a Breaden God, giving Divine Honour to thofe Poor, empty Elements of Bread and Wine. Of thefe he asks Pardon for his (ins i of thefe he deftres Grace and Salvation 3 Thefe he achpswledges to have been his "Redeemer & Saviour, and hopes for no good but what is to come to him by means of thefe houfe- hold Gods. Jnd then for his Apology, he aUedges fuch grofs contradiBions,fo contrary to all fenfe and reafon, that whofoever will be a Papift, #////? be no Man: Fondly believing, that what he adores, is no Bread or Wine, but Chrift really prefent under thofe appearances , and thus makes as many Chrifts, as many Redee- mers, as there are Churches, Altars or Priefts. When, accord- ing to Gods Infallible Word,there is bit one Chrift, and He not on HE believes it unlawful to commie Idolatry ; and moft damnable to Worihip or Adore any Breaden God. or to give Divine Honour to any Elements of Bread and Wine. He worfhips only one God, who made Heaven and Earth, and his only Son Jefus Chrift our Re- deemer; who being in all things equal to his Father Jn Truth and Omnipotency, he believes, made his words good, pro- noune'd at his laft Supper ; really giving his Body and Blood to his Apoftles ; the Subftance of Bread and Wine being by his powerful Words chang'd into his own Body and Blood, the Species or Accidents of the Bread and Wine remaining as be- fore. The fame he believes of the moft Holy Sacrament of the Euchariji, confe- crated now by Priefts ; That i* really con- tains the Body of Chrift, whichwas deli- vered for us; and his Blood,which was (bed for the remiflion of Sins : Which being there united with the Divinity^ he con- fefles Whole Chrift to be prefent. And him he adores and acknowledges his Fj- deemer, and not any Bread or Wine. And for the believing of this Myjlery. he does not at all think it meet for any Chriftian to appeal from Chr'ft's' Words,' to his own Senfes or Reafon, for the examining the truth of what he has faid ; but rather to fubmit his Senfes and Rsafon to Chrift's Words in the ohfequioufnefs of Faith : And that being a Son of Abraham, 'tis more becoming him to believe as Abraham did, promptly, with a Faith fuf^riaur to all Senfe or Reafon, and whither ibtfe could never lead him. With this Faith it is, he believes, every Myjlery fcf his Religion, the 6 y^Paptft Mif-repreftnted and Reprefented. Earth, but at the right hand of *• *g«* *"***■§ *J r wj£!j J* / th t U i^fe he believes that what defcended up- #7/ Father /» Heaven. 0n our tow at his Baptifm in ^onfewj was reajly the //o/y Gfcoff, though Senfes or R§ a'on could difcover it to be nothing but a Dove: With this Faith he believes, That the Mm that tfojkux faw ftanding over againft him with his Sword drawn Cfofr. <;. i^Oand the three Men that Abraham entertain'd in the Plains of Membre, (Gen. 1 8.) were- really and fubftantially no Men; and that notwithstanding all the information and evidence of Senfe from their Colour, Features, Proportion, Talking, Eating, and many others, of their being Men ; yet, without any difcredit to his Senfes, he really believes they were no fuch thing, becaufe God's Word has affured him of the contrary : And with ibit Faith he believes Chrift's Eoiy and Blood to be really prefent in the Bleffed Sacrament, though, to all appearance, there's nothing more than Bread and Wine : Thus, not at all hearkning to his Senfes in a matter where God fpeaks, he unfeignedly confefles, That he that made the World of nothing by his fole word : That cured Difeafes by his Word, That raifed the Dead by his Word: That expell'd Devils : That commanded the Winds and Seas : That multiplied Bread : That changed Water into Wine by his Word, and Sinners into Tuft-Men, cannot want Power to chinge Bread and Wine into his own Body and Blood by his (ok Word. And this without danger of multiplying his Body, of making as many Chrifts as Altars, or leaving the right hand of his Father. But only by giving to his Body a fupernatural manner of Exigence ; by which, being left without extension of parts, and rendred independent of place, it may be one and the fame in many places at once, and whole in every part of the Symbols, and not obnoxious to any corporeal Contingencies. And this kind of Exiftence is no more, than what in a manner he beftows upon every Glorified Body : Than what his own Body had, when born without the leaft violation of his Mothers Virginal Integrity : When he arofe from the Dead, out of the Sepulchre, without removing the Stone : When he entred amongft his Difciples, the Doors being (hut. And though he cannot underftand how this is done, yet he undoubtedly believes, That God is able to da more then He is able to underftand. VI. Of Merits and Good Works. HE Believes Chnft's Death j&gfi**^^* & ra]jwn to be ineffe- effectual and infignificant : And that 'tis &naL and info nificanL andthat the Doctrine of Devils to believe, That ft j j ^ / he has no depemlafnce for his Salvation he has no dependence Upon the upon the Merits of Chrift's Sufferings, or Merits of his Sufftringsi or the the Mercy of Go.l ; but only upon his MercvofGod for the obtaining own Merits and &ood Works* 'ris his mercy ojkjou wr we obtaining Faith t0 beIieve> That of our felves we Salvationybnt that he h to befav d> are not fufhaent, fo much as to think a by his own Merits. And, for this §ood thought that the Grace by which y r j . i n i n • we are luitified, u given us purely griti* reajon he ts very zealoujly bitty in up0n the account of Chrifts Merits moreover A Papift Mifreprefented and Reprefented. 7 Fattine, in Whipping himfel&n moreover, that no man, how juft foevcr, rjrrJ. t. ." . t> j ,/• can Merit any tiling, either in this life, WdChmgjn going in Procejjwn, or inthat t0 come, independent on the in wearing Ha'jr-fhirts,andufing Merits and Pafiionof Jefus Chrift. Nc- tthoufind fob Hie Mortificz- gS$]&^&#&g thns : -d#a having done this, proceeding from Grace, are fo acceptable £c thinks himfelfnot at all be- t0 God> that th?ou§h Us Goodn^s and r /j« \ r> Jt r r- oi *» Promife, they are truly Meritorious of E- «w% * a ^ ju Jge> ^ in z7/g #0B? 07/ duefUpon the account render at the laft day, net oi;iy to Saint of his own Meritorious Atchieve- M?t hx\ alfo tQAMc P»fe fhat ?aI1 J . j rt j have fought a good fight, and confum- ments* without any Kjod-amercy mated their courfe, kept the Faith, and to ChrifPs Paffion, or his Ma' lov'd his coming. Knowing therefore hprc C.aAtfpCt that at ftl day ot JudSment> he is t0 re~ *v/J viv<*/»cyj. cejve Mcortingto his works : He endea- vours by £ood FTorfo w wwfce foy Vocation and Elettion fure. And in following this Gouncel, he thinks he no more offends againft the fulnefs of the Merits of Chrift's, or God's Mercy, than the Apoftle does in giving it. VII. Of Confefljon. HE believes it part of his Religion to make Gods of Men $ foolifhly thinking that thefi have power to forgive fins. And therefore as often as he finds his Confcience opprefsd with the guilt of his Offences } he calls for one of hisPriefis, who are com- monly more wicked than himfelf and falling at his feet, he unfolds to him the whole fiate of his Soulj and having run over a Catalogue of his fins, he asks of him Par- don and Forgivenefi. And what ■ UE believes it damnable^ in any Reli- gion to make1 Gods of Men. How- ever he firmly holds, that when Chrift fpeaking to his Apoftles, laid, (fob. 20. 2\.~) R^cef^ ye the Holy Gho$\ vopotefm ymjldlj forgiv, they arc: forgiven, ar.i rvhofe fns you fbaft reta.ni,. they an', rrtavyx. He gave to them, and their Succeflbrs, the Bifhops and Priefts of the Catholic Church, Authority to Ablblve any truly Penitent Sinner from hishns. And God having thus given them the Mtfiijlry of t\e- conciH.it-ionfind made them Chrift's Legates, (»2Cor. 5.. 18., 19, .21.) 'drift's Mim- Jlers. and the Uifpeafers of the Myfteri^s of Chrijl, anil given them pjtver toloofe on Earth rckitfeevtr mas, to be loofed m Hej- 02, (Matt. iS. 18.) he undoubtedly be- lieves, that .wtibtoever comes to them miking a fincere and humble c-:mfeJfioh of his <8 -A Papift Mifreprefented andReprefented, is mofi abfurd of all, he isCofilln hi3fins> *J?" firm *uJP°f(: rf ?*end- i n J - t §1- *rr -r ment> an ' 3 hearty Refolution of turn- tyjtupidasto believe, I hat, if ing from his evil ways, may from them his Ghoftly Father, after he has receive AbfoMnn, by the Authority gi- ft J lit- T72)l^ -„.iLft- c ven them from Heaven, and not doubt heard ail his ViUames tnhis Ear, but God racifies abovCj ^ fentence pro_ does but proncuttce three Or jour nounced in thatTribunal;£w./fy? in Heaven Latin words, making the /ten ^"Jf™ h S? !oofedby thcm -T Efr!t r r^ r • L r j And tnjt' whofoever comes without the Vja i^TOlS With two fingers and a due Preparation, without a Repentance thumb over his head, his fins are ^om the bottom of his heart, and real rs.L-j.Lr" ft- ul L intention of forfaking his fins, receives forthwith forgiven him, although n0 benefit by th°e AbfoU;ion. but he had never any thoughts of a- adds fin to fin, by a high contempt mendment, or intention to for-. ofGod's Merc^ and abufc of his Sa" ... ? f i r J craments. fak$ his wick$dnefs. VIII. Of Indulgences. HE believes, that his Holy Father the Pope,cangive him leave to commit what fins he pleafeth -, Efpecially, if he can ma^e him d prejent of a round Sum of Money, he never need doubt of an Indulgences Par- don for himfelf and his Heirs forever, for all forts of Crimes or Wickgdnefs, he, or any of his Pos- terity may have convenience of filling into. And having this Commiffion in his Vochgt, under the Pope's Broad-Seal,he may be confident that Chrifi will confirm, and ft and to all that his Vicar upon Earth has granted, and not call him to any account for any thing he has done, although he LIE believes it damnable to hold, that the Pope, or any other Power in Heaven or Earth, can give him leave to commit any fins whatfoever: Or, that for any Sum of Money he can obtain an /«- diligence or Pardon for fins that are to be committed by him, or his Heirs, hereafter. He firmly believes that no fins can be forgiven, but by a true and hearty Rfpzn- tince : But that ft ill, there is a Power in the Church, of granting Indulgence s,whkh concern not at all the R^miffion of fins either Mortal or Venial.; but only offome Tem- poral Punifhments remaining due after the Guilt is remitted . So that they are nothing elfe, but a Mitigation or Relaxa- tion upon juft caufes, of Canonical Pen- nances, which are, or may be injoyn'd by the Fuflors, of the Church, on Penitent tinners, according, to their feveral degrees of demerit.. • And this he is taught to be grounded," on the judiciary Power, left by Cbrift in his Church, of binding and loafing : whereby Authority was given to erecl a Court of Conscience, to afiign Penalties, or releafe them, ascircumftan- ces fhonld require. And this Authority • he A Papift Mif-reprefented and Reprejented. 9 (hould chance to die without the lie kn°ws Saint r*ul Plahlly ,ow"'d ; J, n r z>r> r- D (2Cou 2.6.) where he decreed a Pen- leajt remorfe oflonjaenc, or Ke- nance . ^ckm (fays he) t0 fuch a mj„y IS pentance for his fins, this pmijhmcet : And, \2 Cor. 2. io.) where he releafed one ; For your fake (fpeaking of the Penance injoyn'd the In- ceftuons Corinthian,) I forgive it in the Perfon of Chrift. And what Money there is given at any time on this account, concerns not at all the Pope's Coffers, but is by every one given as they pleafe, either to the Poor, to the Sick, to Prifoners, £5V. where- fore they judge it moft Charity. Andtho'he acknowledges many abufes have been committed in Granting and Gaining Indulgences, through the default of fome particu- lar Perfons; yet he cannot imagine how thefe can in Juftice be charg'd upon the Church, to the pre j ad ice of her Faith and Doftrine; efpecially, fi nee (he has beenfo careful in the retrenching them: As may be feen by what was done in the Council of Trent. Dec. de lndulg. cwnpotejlof. IX. Of Satisfaction. HE believes veryinjurioujly of Chrift's Paffion, being perftoaded, that his. Sufferings and Death -were not Juffciently fitisfa&ory for our fins^ but that it is necejffary for every one to make fatisfa&ion for themfelves. And for this end, after he has been At Confeffion, the Prieft in- joyns him a Penance j by the performance of which, he is tofsL- tisfie for his offences , dndthus confidently relying upon his oven Penitential Works, he utterly evacuates Chrift's Paffion 5 and though he prefeffeshimfilfa Chris- tian, and that Chrift is his Savi- our 3 yet by his little trufting to him, hefeems to thinks him to be no better, than what his Crucifix J-JE believes it damnable, to think in- jurioufly of Chrift's Paffion. -Ne- verthelefs he believes, that tho' condign SatisfaSion for the Guilt of Sin, and the pain Eternal due to it, be proper only to Chrift our Saviour ; yet that Penitent Sinners being Redeem'd by Chrift, and made his Members, may in fome mea- fure (atisfe by Prayer, Falling, Alms, CSV. for the Temporal Pain, which by order of. God's- Juftice, fometimes remains due, af- ter the Guilt, and the Etern.tl Pain are remitted. So that trufting in Chrift a$ his Redeemer, he yet does not think that by Chrift's Sufferings, every Chriftian is difcharg'd of his particular Sufferings ; but that every one is to fufFer fo'mething for himfelf, as Saint Paul did, who by tribu- lation and infuffering in his orvnflejh, did accomplijh thofe things, that rvahted of the Pa/ions of Chrift ; and this not only for himfelf, "but for the-rrM? Church, CCol'f. 1. 24.)artd this he finds everywhere in Scr,ipiurxe\ \v^. People ad monifh'd of the greatnefsof their fins, doing Penance it^ Fafting, Sack-cloa'tb and A]bes, and by volun- tary aufterities, endeavouring to fatif- fie the Divine Juftice. And thefe Perfonal Satif- io A Papift Mif-reprefented and Reprefented. informs htm. that it. a meer ./**">« .Go^ has .efficiently affc .tnimted ,,-t, , 7 p himof,in the punilhments of M,)\es,Aarony Wooden H:i!, bat they confefs, to l>e fent from Heaven for the jw/? cbaftifemems of our ftrts? and which we are to undergo, notwithftanding the Infinite Sit is fitt ion made byChrift, and without any undervaluing it. Now being thus convine'd of fome Temporal Punijbments being due to his ; tins, he accepts of all Tribulations, whether in Body, Name or Eftate, from whence-foever they come, and, with others of his own chunng, offers them upto God, for the difcharging this debt, ftill conceding, that his Offences deferve yet more. But thefe Penitential Works he is taught to be no other- wife f.ttisfx3&ry,th2in as joyn'd and apply'd to that fat isfadim which Jefusmadc upon the Crofs ; in virtue of which alone, all our good Works hnd a grateful acceptance in God's fight. X. Of Reading the Holy Scripture. HE believe* it part of his HE,bevcrf , da™»bk! '***? oneto n l - i i c think, fpeak, or do any thing irreve- UUty to thinks meanly Of rentty toward' tteScripyureiot 6y any me#h the Word of God , to (peak \*ha*foevtfr- to bring it into dif-repute or ±1 r+i o • ■'''.. dfferace.He holds it in the hfgheft Vertera- vrrtverently of the Scripture } to tio* of a„ Men iWing, he profess it to do what he is able, to kffen the be the Dew of Heaven, Oracles of God, /».. j/ . .„ . A t./* Fountain of Eternal Life', thatto prophane repute Of tt,and bring Jt intodlf }t) isto incurthe suilt of Damnation: And grace. And for this end he fays flat we m rather bound to lofe otrr 1 Ives, ... i_r *m „ - i_« than concur any ways to its pttophanatittn. W*TOblCUre, jull of amblgUOUS Tistrue, »* dots not think it fit, to be tXprefftons , plain COntradi&l- read generally by all, without Licence, *" "* J l . , , . or m the ru-fear-Tongaes : Not for any ens, not fit to be read by the difttffreft to it \ But, I. Becaufeheun- Vulgar, nor fit tO be TrattUated derI*3nds> that private Interpretation is not . . rri t tt prbpe'r for the Scripture; i pet. n 20. wto YHlgar Languages : And ir. Btcaufe tbsc in tiie Epifttes of Sakic without refpeU to Chrift, or his %?^?&?Ju&r T*?^Sff A n t t f n ? flood, which the unlearned and unjtable de- ApOltleS, prophanely Preaches, prove, O alfo the refloftb* Scriptures,) that no Ten Booh in the World * *&?»»* &***» % 328* f* # . s> l r. hath given only /owe w fa Apoftles, fome nave done fi much mtjehief to Prophets, oxherform Evangeiifis, and other- Chriftianity as this one i And f£23?S Vd S%SHfeK ' 'm * *««• For thefe Reafons he is taught, That 1 15 Under a Vain pretence ofpreven- not convenient for the Scripture to be read ib'M/y -CrfLy*. 4u*AAUu*iiiavtr.A. „ indifferently to all men, but only fuch as 9>ng farther inconveniences, en- hav?eXprers Licence, and good teftimony from A Papift Mif-reprefented and Reprejented. 1 1 deaVOUTS to deprive all of this from their Curates ; that they are humble, o • .. 1 c*. ^c*i i„ rv • difcreet and devout Perfons ; and fuch as Spiritual comfort, Of thtS Dtvme are wil]ing to obferve direaions in the Food, of thk Heavenly Lights perilling this Sacred Volume : That is take *&z* Co being kept in darknefc, SF2! of a? P^ii2!w' %l5£: r*r**j & y . ' ble examples of Humility, Chaftity, they way be aljo prejerv d in lg- Obedience, Mercy to the Poor, Vc. and norance and Damrid Eter- a!1 M P'aces as are apt to provoke and j, ftir up the hatred of Sin, fear of God's nally. Judgments , love of Virtue, OV. and in en Hard, Obfcure and Disputable Points to refer all to the Arbitrement of the Church, to the judgements, of thofe whom GoA hath appointed Paftors and Doctors : Never prefuming to contend, controul, teach, ©t talk of their oven Senfe and Phavfie in deep Queftions of Divinity, and high Myftericsof Paith ; but expefting the lenfe of theje from the Lips of the Priefl, rvfo jhall keep ^nov* ledge, and from whofe mouth they jhall require the Law, Mai. 2. 7. And this Caution is ufed, left that the Seripture coming into the hands of a prefuming fort of proud,curi- ous and contentious People, be abufed and perverted ; who make it their bufinefs to enquire into Dogmatical, Myftical, High and Hidden fecrets of God's Counfels, into Predeftination, Reprobation, Election, Pre-fcience, and other fuch incomprehenfible Myf- teries', and upon the prefumption of I know not what Spirit, immediately become Teachers, Controllers and fudges of Doctors. Clurch, Scripture and all; and acknowledg- ing no Authority left by Chrift to which they are to fubmit ; under pretence of Scrip- ture and Gods Word, make way for all forts of Prophanenefs, Irreligion and Atheifm. So that 'tis not for the preferving Ignorance, he allows a reftraint upon the reading the Scripture, but for the preventing a blind ignorant Prefumption. And that it maybe done to edification, and not to definition, and without cafting the holy to dogs,orpedrb m frvine. XI. Of Apocryphal Books. HE believes it lawful to LJE believes' it damnable to add l L x AJJ'.* * 1 X any thing to the Scripture. And Mak£ What Additions fc? yet allows.the Books of Toby, Judith Be- Scripture his Party thinJ{f good -, clefiafticus^ Wifdom, Macchabees, t9 be C«- — . J */.„«,» A„„ **L», «„ «„f;™ jtP nonical : becaufe the Church of Chrift has and therefore takes no notice of declar'dttemrK^notonlyin thefe latter the antient Canon approved by Ages, but even in the Primitive times. the Apo(lles,and Primitive Chri- St- GLreZor[ K*V*n™- (orat.de ss. n. / '»/ 1 a ,1 . March.) who lived in the year 3<4. Alfb fiians^but aUom equal Attthori- St. Ambrofe, (lib. de fee*. & vit. beat.) ty to the Books of Tobyjlldith, An. 3 70. Innocent. I. (Ep. ad Exup.) They Ecclefiafticus, Wifdom fdtk Z2£^£ES£&a Macchabees as to the other part thefe Books as Canonical, Can. 47. and cfth Scripture; dthougbtkjc affSSffiSffiS* C 2 £UJl% 12 A Papift Mif-reprefented and Reprefented. were always rejected by the Tews, #?• {& 2; ? Copy 5 the Ca- py,and exprefly condemned by St. "on of the c*n«i> of Chrift being of much t~ ~~,-. i;«ii./»M«««r*il ^.J more Authority with him, than the Ca- Jerome, 1-1 t 1 r "0"» but Dy c'ie A'Moruy and Canon of their Synods, which made theje the Church And this he has learn'd Innovations contrary to thefenfe fr0,11 that great Doaor :>t. Augufii/te, w ho f+L • A tt ■'■* declares his mind plainly in this cafe, o] tneir Ancestors. gyjn& Thar he mufd in[ bdjeve lht Goj-_ pel, except the Authority of the Catholic!: Church movd him thereunto. (Contra Ep. Funiam. c. 4.) Now he is well fatisfied, that many doubted whether thefe Books were Canoni- cal or no ; and amongft others, St. Jerom ; becaufe the Church had not declared them fo : But fince the Church's Declaration , no Catholick ever doubted ; no more than of other Books , vk(. of the Epijlle to the Hebrews , the Epiftle of St. James, the fecor.d of S'. Teter, the fecond and third of St. John, Sr. jude's Epijlle and the Apocalyps-All which were for many years after the Apoftles time doubted of; but afterwards declared and receiv'd as Canonical. This he finds St. Jerome exprefly confeffirtg of himfelf, vi$. That for fome time the Book of "Judith feewei to him Apocryphal ; to wit, till the Council of Nice declar'd it otherwife. Vrxf. in Judith. The like lie affirms of St. J anus's Epiille ; that it was doubted of by many, for leveral years ; Pdulatim tempore procedente meruit author itatem: By lit'le and little inprocfs of time it gaind Authority. De viris illuf. verb. Jacobus. For this reaion he matters not what Books have been reputed Apochryphal by fome, and for feme years: But only what Books are Received and Declar'd by the Church, Canonical, in what year, and at what time loever. For believing the fame [pint of Truth afftfts her mall Ages; he looks upon himfelf equally oblig'd to receife her Definitions of the Year 419. as of any of the precedent years : It not being polible for Chrifl to fail of his Fromife, or the Holy Ghoft to error mijguide the Cburch in that year more than in any other. XII. Of the Vulgar Edition of the Bible. HE makes no Confcience of HE beIieves it a damnable fin, toabufe U C +/, c ' mi tk* Scripture, or any ways to per- aDUling We Scripture, vertit) forthe maintenance of Errours and perverting for the mainte- or Su perflations, and thinks himfelf ob- nance of his Errours and Super- l¥$ rather t0 ^ dow" his fe: *h™ VT J ' . , g. .' . concur to, or approve of any fuch Falfi- ititions. And therefore, though fications or Corruptions, prejudicial to be dares not altogether lay itby\ Faith or Good Manners. For this reafon, ¥1 n u 1 r J "• f r being confeious, that in all Ages, there he Jfjould, by Jo doing, lofe has been feveral Cty/« of this Sacred Vo- aU claim to Chriflianity : Tet he lume, quite different from the Originals in utterly dif approves it, as it *r in man>' PUces> either thr0USh the w'^ ^ Papift Mif-reprefented and Reprejented. 1 3 its genuine Truth and Purity, and of the Transcribers, or malice of others, as allow d in the Church of Eng- land 3 and crying this down, he believes it unlawful to be read by any of his Communion. And then puts into their hands another Vo- lume, which in its Frontis-piece bears the Title indeed of the Word of God, with the names of the Books and Chapters 5 but in the context of it, is jo every where full of Corruptions, Falji- fications,and intolerable Abujes% that it almoft every where belies its Title, and is unfit for any one, who profejjes himjelf a Chriftian. endeavouring by this means to gain credit to their new DocTrines:He is commanded not to receive all Books indifferently fur the Word of God, that wear that Titk ; but only fuchasare approv'd by the Church, and recommended by her L'gitimite. And fuch is that, he daily ufes commonly known by the name of the Fulgar Tr inflation ; which has been the principal of all other Litin Copies in all Ages, iince the Primi- tive times; much commended by Saint A'tgujlinc, and never altered in any thing, but once heretofore by the Holy Studies of St. Hierome : And twice or thrice fmce, being review'd by Authority, and purg'd of fufch mifbkes, as in length of time, had crept in by Tranfcribers, or fyi/iper* faults. And thattib/* Tranflation h moft pure and incorrupt, as to any thing con- cerning matter of Belief, or differences in Religion, is not only the Doclrine of hi* Church; but alfo the Sentiment of many Learned Men of the Reformation, who ap- prove this Verfwn, and prefer it before any other Latins one whatfoever. Be\i in his Preface to the Nero-Teflament, Anno 1559. blames Erafmus for rejecting it, PaulusFagius cries out againft all thatdif- allow it, (Cap. dfVerf. Lit. P.ir.iph. Chul.Q Ludovicus de Dieu, with admiration, con- feffes it to be moft Faithful, (in Not. ad Evang. Pnef.) Caufabon prefers it before the Greeks Text now in ufe ; and acknowledges that it agrees with the Aatient Manuscripts, (in Not. ad Evang. & Aft.) Grotius profeffes to the World, that he highly efteems it, for that it contains no erroneous Opinions, and is very Learned: (nulla dogmata infalubria continet, & tnultum habet in fe eruditions, Prcef. Annot. in vet. Tejl.) And for this reafon, he refers his Annotations generally to this Tranflation, as he declares himfelf. So that, feeing thisTerfion is deliver'd to him with the approbation of his tvhle Church, and is commended by moft Learned Adverfaries; he thinks he has great reafon to receive it, and that he may perule it, without any danger that can come to him, from any Corruptions or Falfift 'cat ions. And becaufe he has not the like affurance of the English Tranflation allowed by Proteftants, or any other made fince the Refor- mation, by any of that Perfwafion;but fees,that there has been almoft as many different Tranflations made and publifh'd by thefe,as there had been .Men of different Humours, different Spirits, and different Interefts ; whereof none haveever approv'd thefer- fwns of any of the reft ; but cry'd out againft, and Condem'd them, of many Alterati- ons, Aiditions , Detractions, and Forgeries ; Bucer, and the Ofiandrians exclaiming aaainft Luther, Luther againft Munfler ; Be^a againft Caftoleo ; Caflako againft Be^a ; Calvin againft Servetus ; Jllyricus againft Calvin and Be\a. Our Englijh Miniders againft Tin- dal and his Fellows : And this, not upon the account of fome overfights, or light mif- takes, or the following of different Copies; but accufing one another of being Ab- Jurd 14 A Papift Mifreprefented and Reprejented, fnrd and fenfekfs, in the irTr an/1 at ions of objuring and perverting the meaning of the Holy Ghoft, ofomifions and Additions, of perverting the Text in eight hundred forty and eight places ; ol corrupt znd falfeTr inflations; all which in exprefs Terms, has been charg'd by great Abettors of the /Reformation againit a Bible yet us'd in England, and ordered to be read in all Churches by Queen FJin'oeth, and to be leen in the A- bridgmentofa Book deliver'd by certain Miniflers to King fMM, nag. n. 12. In Mr. Burg/ s Apology, Se£t. 6. Mr, B*oughtons Advertisement to the Biihops. And in Doftor R>ynold\ refufing before the King at f'mpwn-Conrt, to fubfcribe to the Com- munion-Bock, becaufe it warranted a corrupt and faffe Tranflnhn of the Bible. For thcfe, and fiich other reafons. he is commanded not to read any ofthefe Tranflations-, but on- ly that, which is recommended to him by the Church. XIII. Of the Scripture as a Rule of Faith. HE believes it lawful? nay, that it is his obligation to undervalue the Scripture, and take from it that Authority, which Chrift gave it. For where- as Chrifi left this to the PVorld, as the Rule of Faith, and as a Sacred Oracle, from whence all his Followers might be inflru&ed in the Precepts of a goodliftjearn all the Myfteries of their Faith, and be refoh?d in all difficult and doubtful Points ^/Religion: He is taught flatly to deny all this 5 and to believe that the Scripture is not capable ofdefide- ing any one point tffControver- fie, or reconciling the different Sentiments of Men in Religion: And thus demeans himfelf to- wards the Word of God, in a manner moft unbecoming a, Chriflian. IJE believes it damnable to underva- lue the Scripture , or take from it the Authority given it by Chrift. He gives it all refpeft due to the Word of God ; he owns it to be of greateft Authority upon Earth, and that it is capable of leading a Man to all Truth, whensoever it is rightly underftood. But to any one that mf-tm- derflands it,and takes it in any other fenfe, than what was intended by the Holy Glwfl; he believes it to fUch a one, to be no Scrip- tare, no Word of God ; that to fiich a one, it is no Kule of Faith, nor f tidgr of Cun- troverfies. And that what he thinks to be the Doctrine of Chrift, and Command of Heaven, is nothing but his own Imtgination and the fuggeflionoi the Devil. And fince, by the experience of fo many thou- fand Herefies fince our Saviour's time, all pretending to be grounded on Scripture, he finds that almoft every Text of the Bi- ble, and even thofcthat concern the moft EJfential and Fundamental Points of the Chrislian Religion , may be Interpreted feveral ways ; and made to fignifie things contrary to one another ; and that while tli us contrary meanings are by feveral Per- fbns drawn from the fame Words •, the Scripture is altogether filrnt without dis- covering, nhicbof all thofe fenfes is that intended by the Holy Ghoft, and leading tb Truth , and which are Erroneous and *4 Papift Mif-reprefented and Reprefented. i$ and Antichriftian : He is taught to believe that the Scripture alone can be no Rule of Faith to any Private or Particular perfort ; not that there is any thing wanting on the Scuprure-fide ; but becaufe no private perfon can be certain, whether amonglt all the /Mtfra/ meanings ei>er£Text is obnoxious to, that which he underftands it in, is the Wight, or no. And without this certainty of Truth, and fecurity from Errour^ lit knows, there's nothing capable of being a /(w/c. XlV.Of the Interpretations of Scripture. HE believes that hisCh urch, which he calls Catholic, is above the Scripture \ and pro- phanelr, allows to her an uneon- tro liable authority of being H E believes, that the Church is not above tie Scripture ; but only al- lows that Order between them, as is be- tween the .^K^eand the Law. And is no other than what generally every Private Member of the Reformation challenges to himfelf, as often as he pretends to decide Judge of the Word o£God,And ^y doubt of his own, or his Neighbours bCiHfo«dij*b«sd, into 4 drf. fis^teasffin; trull of the Scriptures and that scripture, or not to relie on it \ but on- he can be certain of nothing even Kt0 dift!;uft his J? Prh*u in^rfT'im „,,_ , J . .2/ >. of it, and not to rely on his ovm judgment Of the r UndattlentalS df Lhrijtl- in the Rejolution of any doubt concerning anity, from what is delivered in thern^ though they fpeak^neverfb plainly^ he is taught to rely wholly upon this Church, and not to believe one word the Scrip- ture fay s, unlefs his Church/iy/ it too. Faith or Religion, though he can produce feveral Texts in favour of his Opinion. But in all fuch cafes he is commanded to re- cur to the Church; and having learnt frOm her the fenfe of all fuch Texts ; how they have been uhderftood by the whole Com- munity of Chriftians, in all Ages fince the Apoftles ; and what has been their Re- deiv'd Doftrine, infuch doubtful and dif- ficult Points ; he is oblig'd to fubmit te this, and never prefume on his own Pri- vate Sentiments, hpwever feemingly grounded on Rsafon and Scripture, to Believe or Preach any New Doftrine oppofite to the Belief of the Church; But as he receives from her the Bool, fo alfo to receive from her trie fenfe of the Booh : With a Holy Con- fidence, that fhe that did not cheat him in delivering a Falfe Book for the True one, will not cheat him in delivering a Falfe and Erroneous fenfe for the True one ; her Au- thority, which is Sufficient in the one, being not lefs in the other : And his own Private Judgement, which was infufficient in the one, that is, in finding out the True Seripture, and difcerning it from all other Books ; being as incapable and inefficient in the other ; that is, in certainly difcovering the meaning of the Holy Ghoft, and avoi- ding all othep Heterodox and Mifttken Interpretations. XV. Of r6 A Papift Mtfreprefented and Rcprefented. XV. Of Tradition. HE believes theSci'wture to Whd[e™5 the ScriPture „n(* t0 be r • r* n_ ^f J r imperfect , nor to want Humane be imperfect.' And for Ordinations, or Tradition sot Men, for the- the fupplyine of what he thinks fupplying any defefts in it : Neither does n //. . .. » j .. rj • he allow the farm Authority to tbefe, as to Defeftive in it, he admits ttu- the Wcrd ofGod . or give them cqual cre, Wtane Ordinations and Tradltl- dit; or e'xacl it of others, that defire to ons of Men, allying equal Ah- gg^t^ffSStlA thority to thele, e Scrip- ought to be given to any thing, but what tures themfelves-, thinking him- few 'Mvfoe RpxYtttik ■ and that^no- r,~ / ,,.).. r i * *. thing is to have place in his Cret^.but what filfas much oblig d to Jubmit to was taught by chrifti and his Al,oftleSj thefi, and believe them with -D/- and has been believ'd and taught in all • I? ut *, L„ Ann« ™U„* -Ages by the Church of God, the Conaie- vine Faith, as he does what- ga?ion;faUTrue Believers, and has been foever is written in the r>\D\e,and fo deliver'd down to him through all Ages. confeffedly fpokenby the Author But now, whether that which has been , J ffry, y f r r^ j r- rir \T • 10 deliver d down to him, as the Doctrine Oj all Lruth, Kjod himjelp i\ei- 0f Chrift and his Apoftles, has been by therwillhe admit of any one to word of Mouth or miring, is altogether L n/T L £ l-rn«,*~*.>~in~ indifferent to him ; he being ready to fol- be a Member of his Communion, low> in this point as jq * Qth^ the although he undoubtedly believes command of .St. raui, that is, To ft and every Word that s written in the f^ft,fndhoidihe Traditions he bis leam'd, / . tr „ whether by Word, or by Epiftle, 2 Thejf. 2. Scripture, unlejs he aljo agents I5, And t0 look upon any oneas A)U. to thefe Traditions,tfW?/ae/ as *«% That ■ jftTtl preach hMifcfe than he x J* * j.L„„* !~ *„ +/.» has (thus) receiv\t Ga\. i. 9. So that as great credit to them, at to the he undoubtedly holds tte Scripture to be VVord of God, although in the Word of God, penn'd by Prophets and That there is not the leafl footftep ^f>^b "JM™ S *%£$* S5S£ . , J j J *■ becaufe mall Ages, from Mofes to Chriit of them to be found. and from Chrift to this time, it has been fc* Taught, Preach'd, Believ'd and Deli-' vei\lfuccefiively by the Faithful ; and never fcruplesthe leaftof the truth of it ; nor fticks to alTent to it, with a ftedfaft and Divine Faith ; altho' they are not nor have not at any time been able to prove what they have thus taught, and deliver'd with oner t'xt of Scripture. In the like manner, he is ready to receive and believe, all that tl is %me Congregation has, together with the Bible, in all Ages fucceff.vely, .vithou: Tnterruptiori, Taught, Preach'd, Reliev'd and Deliver'd as the D. Urine f Chrift and his Apoftles and affent to it with Divine Faith; juft as he does to the iible\ and efteems any one Anathema, that fhall Preach otberwife than he has finis receiv'd. And although fome may ferioufly endeavour to convince him, . .it Several Points of Faith, and other Religious Practices, which he has thus receiv'd. and A Papift Mifreprefented and Represented. v . 17 and believes, are not the Doftrine of Chrift , nor Apoftolical Inftitu- tions, but rather Inventions of Men, and Leffons of Antichrift, and fhould produce leveral Texts of Scripture for the proving it : He is not any thing furpriz'd at it : As well knowing, that he that follows not this Rule, of Be- Hiving all to be of Chrift >that has been universally taught and believed as fuchjby the Church of Chriji ; and of under jtanding the Scripture in the fame fenfe, in which it has in all Ages been underftoed by the fame Church ; may very eafily frame as many Creeds as he pleafes. and make Chrift and his Apoftles fpeak what (hall be moft agreeable to his humour^ and luit beft with his Interejt, and find plain proofs for all: And make no more d if-, fkulty in producing Scripture againft Chrift's Dottrine, than the Jews and the Devil dkl againft Chrift's Perfcn^ who never wanted their Scriptum efi ; (/r is written Owhen 'twas neceffary to carry on their deligns. And if there were any thing in thefe fort of Arguments, to make him doubt of the truth of any Point of Doclrine, thus receiv'd; he thinks it might make him call in queftionthe Truth of the Scripture, and the Bible it felf, as foon as any thing elfe. They all ftanding upon the fame foundation of the Church's Tradition, which, if it fail in one, leaves no fecurity in any, H XVI. Of Councils. E believes that theFakh of HE believes that the F«V* of hfe t'TLL • Church can receive no Additions ; M LtJHTCh may receive ^d tbathe isoblig'd to believe nothing, new Additions every day I And belides that which Chriji taught, and his *U*t Uc i, *.nt /»»,/«, nUliJA #/» Ua- Apoflles ; and if any thing contrary to that he is not only oblt&d to be- g (hould be defin.dy and 5commanded to lieve what Chrift taught, and hk bebeliev'd, even by Ten thoufand Coun- Apoftles, but alfo every Defini- eUt> .hc ^lieves. tjm*m in any one to tion or Decree, of any General Council affembled by the Com- mand of the Pope. So that as often as any thing is iff.ed out by the Authority of any of thefe Church Parliaments, and or- der d to be believed $ he things hhnjelf under pain of Damnati- receive it, and by fuch Decrees, to make Additions to his Creed. However, he maintains the Necef-ty and Right of General Councils lawfully ? flembled;whofe bufmefs it is, not to coin new Articles of Faith, or devife Frefh Tenets ; but only, as often as any Point of Receiv'd Doftrine is impugned or call'd in queftion, to de- bate the matter ; and examine, what hA been the Belief of all Nations (who are there prelent in their Prelates) in that Point. And this being agreed on,to pub- 0»5 immediately bound to receive li(h and make known to the World, which it 5 and having added it to his '*fcJ:*ES! ^T^ywL^™ ^ ■> rfP . and his Apoftles ; and which the new- Creed, to ajjent to It with as bro.xh'd Error. And by this means to Firm, Stedfa/i and Divine a P^ent the lofs of infinite ™mber of r> . V '? 't U A L C Souls, which might otherwife be deluded rAltt), as tj It baa been Lom- and carrjed away after new inventions ; MAnded by Chriji himfelf and not being capable by their own knowledge anJ abilities, to diftinguilh betwixt Truth D and 1 8 A Papift Mif-reprefented and Repnfented. Decreed in the Confifiory of and f# againft thofe Men, who fhould arife from neceffary Confufion > and tho *mng thm[dveSj r,iaking pirverj(: tH/gs w he changes often, yet he fondly draw Difdpks after them. ib. verf.30. And tbinkshimfelfdvajsthefim. ' g**j ^|««*g Prelates^ and to befubjeft to them, who watch, and are to render an account for their Souls, Heb. 13. 17. with an affurance, That, Be that hearetb them, heareth Chrifl ; and he that defpijeth them, defpifeth Chrifi, Luk. 10.16. And withal being taught,that as this way of the Antients of the Church, and Prelates meeting, in cafe of any danger threatning their Flock, or any new Doftrine ari- fing, was the means inftituted by Chrifl, and praclifed by the Apoflles, in the firft planting of the Church, for the preventing Schifms, and preferving vnity among the Faithful, and that they mould fpeakand think the fame thing, and be perfectly joyn'd to- gether in the fame mind, and fame judgement, 1 Cor. 1. 10. So it ought to be the means in all fuceeding Ages, for the preventing Divijions, and conferving Vniry among the Faithful* And that therefore, as that Controverfie concerning the necefny of Cir- (umcifion, (Ail. c. 1 5 •) arifmg in the Apoflle s time, was not decided by any private Perfon, nor even by Paul and Barnabas, who neverthelels, had received the Holy Gfofl-, and one would have thought, might have pretended to the Spirit, and a Heavenly Light ; but by a General Meeting of the Apoflles and Elders of the Church at Jerufalem, who were confuhed by Paul and Barnabas about this Queflion. So all other Difputes and Difficulties of Religion arifing in jucceding Ages, ought to be referr'd to the Succejfors of the Apoflles (whofe Charge, Dignity and Office is to continue to the end of the World, tho' they are dead in Perfon) who are to cmflder of the matter, (Atts 25. 6.) as the Apoflles did ; while all the Multitude keeps filence, ver. 12. without any one pre fuming on any Learning, Gift, virtue, Prayers or Infpiration, to intermeddle in the Dijpute, or put an end to the Queflion : This being none of their bulinefs or ob- ligation, but only with all Patience and Humility toexpeft the Determination of their Prelates and Elders, and receive it with the fame expreflions, as thofe Good Chriftians difi -heretofore, who rejoyced for the confolation, (Aft. 15. 31.) And unlefs this that the- Apoflles did, and their Obfequious Flocks be taken 'as a Pattern in all Ages-, for the ending fuch-like difficulties ; he believes 'tis impoflible that Believers fhould fland f'aft in one Spirit, with one Mind, (Phil. 1. 27O and be not carried away with divers ami firange D08 rines (Heb. 13. 9.} XVII. Of A Papift Misrepresented andReprefented. i§ XVII. Of Infallibility in the Church. HE believes that the Pajiors and Prelates of hk Cmrch are Infallible, and that like Jo many Divine Oracles, or petty Familiar Deities, they are ex- empt from Errours and cannot deceive. But this, ejpecall? when they are met together in a Gene- ral Council, It being a main part of his Faith, That then they are fecure from all mifiakes; and that it is as impojfible fir them to decline either to the right hand or to the left, in any of their De- finitions and Decrees, as it is for God to leave Heaven, and be- come the Author of lies. Thus fondly believing thefe to be af- filed with a neccjjkry Infallibili- ty, like Gods, whom their Igno- rance,illExample,and Debauch d Lives , to a true Confiderer , fcarce fpeah^ to be Men. As if God Almighty did Jo blindly throw his Benefits and Graces amongji his Creatures, that none Jhould have a more powerful ajji- ftance ofGodPs Truth and In- fallible Spirit, than thoje in whom there was Ua3 of God to be found. he believes to be in all General Councils, UE believes that the Paftors and Pre- lates of his Churh are FaBible ; that there is none of them, but may fall into Errours, Herefie and Schifm, and confe- cjuently are fubjeft to miftakes. But that the w holeChurch can fail,or be deceiv'd in any one Point of Faith,this he believes im- poifible ; knowing it to be built on better promifes; fuch as fecure her from all Err our, and danger of* Prevarication. Her Foun- dation being laid by Chrift, againft which the Gates of Hell jhall not prevail^ (Matt. 1 6. 1 8.) The Power that protects her, being Chrift himfelf; Behold I am with you. all days, (Matt. 28. 2C) The Spirit that Guides and Teaches her, being the comfor- ter of the Holy Ghojl ; who Jhall teach her all things, and fuggeft to her all things that Chrift has [aid to her, (foh. 14. 26.) The time that (he is to be thus protetted, taught, and Affifted, being not only while the A- poftles liv'd, or for the firft three, four or five hundred years next after ; but for ever, to the end of the World, Behold I an with you all days, (Matt. 28. 20.) He wiU give you another Paraclete y that he wtay abide with you for ever, (foh. 14. 16.) And the thing, that me is to be thus taught to the end of the World, being all truth ". He Jhall teach you all truth, ("foh. \6. 1 3.) Now being aflured by the Pro- rnifes, that the Church of Chrift (hall be taught all Truth by the fpecial afiiftance of the Holy Ghojl ,to the end of the World; he has Faith to believe, that Chrift will make his Words good; and that his Church {hall never fail.nor be corrupted with An- tichriflianDo&rine, nor be the Miftrefs of Errours ; but (hall be taught all Truth, and {hall teach all Truth to the confum- mation of things ; and that whofoever hears her, hear s Chrift : And whofoever defpifeth her, defpifes Chrift ; and ought to be efteem- ed as an Heathen or a Publican, (Matt. 1; 8. 17.) The like afliftance of the Holy Ghoft, which is the Charch-reprefentative : (as the D 2 Parliamen 20 A Papift Mif-rtprefentcd and Reprejented. Parliament is the jjepre[enrathe of the Nation,) by which they are efpedally protected from all Errour,in all Definitions and Declarations in matters of Faich.So that what the /4/j>y?/^p;-onounc'd concerning the Refult of their Council; (A3. 15. 2%.) It bath feemedgood to the Holy Ghoft, and to us ; He does not doubt, may be perflxM, to all the Determinations in Point of Faith, refolv'd on, by any General Council Lawfully Af- fembled lince that time , or to be held to the Worlds end. The Afijtance being to extend as far as the Promi[\- And tho' 'tis poflible that feveral of the PnLitts and Payors in fuch an Afembly, (as alfo many others in Communion with the Church of Chrift) (hould at other times, either through Pride or Ignorance, prevaricate, make Innovations in Faith, teach Erroneous Doctrines, andendeavour to draw numbers af- ter them ; yet he is taught, that this does not at all argue a Fallibility in the Church; nor prejudice her Faith, but only the Persons, that thus unhappily fall into thefe Er- rours, and cut themfelves off from being Members of the Myftical Body of Chrift up- on Earth: Whilft the Belief of the Church remains pure and untainted; and experi- ences the Truth of what St. Paul foretold , That Grievous Wolves flag enter in among you, not [paring the Fhcb.Alfo of your own [elves jl)all Men arifejpeaking ptrverfe t'.ings,to ' dram away Difciples after them, (A3. 20. v. 29. 30.) which, as it prov'd true even in the Apoftles time by the fall of Nicholas and his followers, as alfo of feveral others : So it has been verified in all Ages lince, by turbulent and prefuming Spirits, broach- ing new Doctrines, and making S-perations and Schijms : But this without calling any nwreafperfionon the Church or Congregation of the Faihful, than the fall of Judo* did on the Apoflles ; or the Rebellion of Lucifer on the Hierarchy of Angels ; which was no more than that fuch wicked and prefuming Spirits, went out from amongft them, and were expell'd their Communion, as unworthy. Neither does it reflect at all on the Churches Authority, or make the truth of her Doctrine queftionable to him; that many of her Eminent Members, Doctors, Prelates and Leading Men, have been, or are great enormous Sinners, infamous for thzir Pride, eovetoufnefs, or other rices, whatsoever : The Promi[es of God's continual and un-interrupted afiftanceto his Church, being not to be fruftrated by the wickednefs of fuch particular Men, tho' in great Dignities. Thefe Promises being made furer to her, than ever the fewify Church : Which neverthelefs flood firm in her Authority, and the Delivery of Truth, notwiths- tanding the frequent Idolatry of the People, Nadib and Abihus CConfecrated Priefts) offering ftrange Fire : Corah, Dathan and Abiram\ making a great Schi[m, and the fins <&Mo[es and Aaron, and other High-Priefts in all her fucceeding Ages. Nay, tho' all things touching Religion and Virtue, were in a manner run to decay, in our Saviour's time, both in Priefts and People ; yet did he maintain the A-ahoriiy of the $-wiJh Church ; and commanded all to be Obedient, and fubmit to thofe who had the fuperi- ority;without calling in queftion their Authority, or doubting of the reafonabtenefs of their Commands. The Scribes and Pharifees, (fays he, Matt. 23. 2.) fit in Mofej'j Chair. All therefore, whatsoever they bid you obferve, that obferve an.ido : But do ye not after their works. If therefore God's Special afiflance, was never wanting to the Church of the $ews, foas to let it fail in the Truth of its DoSrine, or its Authority; notwithftand- wg the Pride, Covetoufhefs, Cruelty, Impiety, Idolatry, 0^" many of her Levites, El- ders, Priefls and High-Prkfts. Why (hould not he believe the fame of the Church of Chrift, which, (as St. Paul (ays) is built on better promifes : and that it remains entire in the Truth of her Doftrine, and her Authority, netwithftanding the vicioufnefs of many of her Governours. F.fpeciaHy, fince he's in a manner confident, that there has been nothing (b infamous acted by any Priefls, Prelates Popes or others, (ince Chrift's time, but what may be follow'd ; Nay, was out-done by the Priefls of the Jews. YVIILOf A Papift Mifreprefented and Reprefintcd. 21 XVIIL Of the POPE. HE believes the Pope to be his great God,and to be far above all the Angels. That Chrift is no longer Head of the Church, but that this Holy Fa- ther hath taken his place 5 and that whatfoever he Orders, Det crees or Commands , is to be re- ceived by his Flock, with the fame r effect, fubmijfion and awe, as if Chrifl hadfpok§n it by his own moHth.For that his Holinefs (having once receivd the Tri- ple-Crown on his Head^)isnow no more to be lool(d upon as Man, but as Chrift's Vicar, whofe Office it is to Confiitute and Ordain fitch things as Chrifl forgot, when he was upon Earth, not throughly confidering, what would be the Exigencies of his Flock in future Ages. And for this intent, he is ajfifted with a certainMy fterwus Infallibility, fitch as hides it felf, when he is upon his own Private Concerns, expofes him to all the Defigns, Cheats, Malice, and Machinati- ons of his Enemies, and let shim be as eafily over-feen, as impru- dent, as filly as his Neighbours. But when he comes into his Chair to hear any Publick Bufinefs,. HE believes the Pope to be none of his God, neither Great nor Z/rr/ tho' for fome particular Vices, they may have little refpeft for the\x: pi-rfom. In this manner is he ready to hehave himfelf towards his cheifPaftor, with all Reverence and Submiffion, never fcruplingto receive his Decrees, and Definitions, fuch as are ilTued forth by his Authority, with all their due circumftances, and according to the law, in the concern of the whole Fhrt: And this, whether he has the afliftance of a Divine Infallibility, or no: Which, tho' fome allow him, without being in a General Council, yet he is fatisfied, 'tis only their Opinion, and not their Faith, there being no Obligation from the Church, of avTenting to any fuch Doftrine. And therefore, as in any civil Go- vernment, the Sentence of the fupreme Judge or Higheft Tribunal, is to be ObeyW, tho* there be no affurance of Infallibility, or Divine Protection from Errouror Mifhke : So is he taught, lhould be done to the Orders of the Supreme Paftors, whetherjie be In? fallible or no. XIX. Of Difpenfation*. HE believes, that the Pope has Authority to difpenfe with the Laws of God , and ah- folve any one from the obligation of keeping the Commandments. So that, if he has but his Holy Fathers leave^he may confidently DilTemble, Lie, and Forfwear himfelf in all whatfiever he pleafis, and never be in danger of being calPd to an account at the laft day, efpecially if his Lying 4/z^Forfwearing was for the common good of the Church: there being then a lure Reward HE believes, That the Tope has no Authority to difpenfe with the Lam of God ; and that there's no Power upon Earth can abfvlve any one from the Obli- gation of keeping the Commandments ; or give leave to Lie or Forfwear; or make, that the breaking of any the Itxfi Divine Precept, fhail not be accountable for at the day of Judgment. He is taught by his Church in all Books of Di- rection, in all Catechifms, in all Sermons, that every Lie is a Sin; that to call God to witnefs to an Vntruth is damnable ; that it ought not be done to favc the whole World ; that whofoever does it, either for his own Perfonal account, or for the Intereft of Church or Pope, or whatfoever elfe.muft of neceflity anfwer for it at the laft day, and expeft his portion with the Devil and his Angels, if un-repented ; And that no one can give leave for Lying, Perjury, or committing any Sin ; or even pretend A Papift Mifirepfefented and Reprejinted. 2 3 prepar'd fir him in Heaven, as a recompence of his good Intenti- ons and Heroit\Atchievements, And if at any time he fljo/dd chance to he catch d in the ma- nagement of any of thefe Publicly mv States and iQrgdcms, to lead to Rebellion, Murder of Princes, and Atheifm it felf. Of which number only three or four were afcrib'd to the fefuits : the reft having men of ano- ther Communion for their Fathers. And this Doctrine was not.iirft condemn'd by Oxford ; What they did here in the Year 16S3. having been folemnly done in Peru in 1626. Where the whole Colledge of Sorbon gave Sentence againft this Propor- tion of SanilareUus ; ("viz.) That the Pope, for Herefie and Schifm, might depofe Princes^ and exempt the Subjects from their obedience ; the like was done by the Vmverfities c*~ Caen, Rhemes, Poittoirs, faience, Bourdeaux, Bourges, and the Condemnation fub- fcrib'd by the Jefuits. And Mariana's Book was committed publickly to the -flames, by a Provincial Council of his own Order, for the difcourfing the Point of J^in£-ffllin£ Doctrine problematically. Why therefore mould this dijloyal Doctrine be laid to his Church, when as it has been writ againft by feveral hundred fingle Authors in her Communion, and difown'd, and folemnly condemn'd by fo many famous Vniyerjities ? And why mould the Ail ions of fome few Popes, with the Private Opinions offense Speculative Dolors, be fo often and vehemently urg'd for. the juft charging this Do- ctrine upon the faith of the Church cf Rome? which, to a Serious, Impartial Con- fiderer, are only meer Fallacies, capable of Libelling all Societies in the Worlfl, of overthrowing all States and Kingdoms, and only fit Arguments for Knaves to die* Fools withal : There Being no Government in the World which might not be eafijf proved Tyrannical ; No Religion, Perfrvafon, or Society, which might not plaufibly be indicted of Atheifm-, If the Actions, Pretences, Claims, and Endeavour-erf" fomr few of their Gcvemours, and Leading Men ; the Opinions, Writings, Phanfies of fome Authors, be allow'd as fujficient Evidence, for the bringing in the Verdict of Guilty upon the whole. When Malice therefore and Envy have done their worft in this point, to render the Papijls bloody and barbarous to the World •, yet 'tis certain, after alL, that Pcpijh Princes fit as fafe in their Thrones, enjoy as much Peace ana Security, as any other Princes whatfoever ; And that the Papijls in England can .give as good proofs of their Loyalty, as the beft of thofe that clamour fo loud againft them. They can bid defiance to their Adverfaries to fhew any one Per Ion ot Ho- nour and Eftate amongft them, or even four of any condition whatfoever, that bore Arms againft Charles the Firft, during the whole time of his Troubles. They can make good, that there was fcarce any amongft them, that did not aflift his Maje/lf either with Perfon or Purfe, or both. And they can fay, that Charles the Firft was murder'd in cold blood by his Proteftant Subjects, after many hundred Papijls had loft their Lives for the preventing that Butchery, and that Charles the Second, be- ing purfued by the fame Suhjefls for his Life, fav'd it amongft the Papijls. XXI. Of Communion in one kind. E believes, that he is no L-J E Sieves, that he is oblig'd to obey » //• > 1 / JL 1 all the commands of Chrift : a«i longer obligcl to obey that neither his Church, nor any other E Potter H 26 A Papift Mifreprefented and Reprefentcd. Chrift's Commands than his Potw upon Earth can limit,alter,or annul ^l !•;/• / • i > J any precept of Divine Injlitutionxontr&tY Church wtllgwehimleave./fnd to the intention of the ict^/iw. Nei- that therefore ,tho* Chrift inftitu- ther is the z?eni.i/ c/"*£ chrift's *'*« "Jj» / n tt» ^ o 1 / tt fufferwq for us, does not hinder or eva- 0J Of. Paul J BWtfJ f# we He- cuateour Wording of God, our Faft- brews, fChap. lO.IA. } where he ing, our Suffering, our Praying for z* +t\ n -n. ZJ- L D • /2 our felres. So neither did his Sacrifice fays, that Chrift our tiigh-FrieJt hinder or evacuate a!1 sacrifices for ever. by one Oblation hath perfect- But as he inftituted Falling, Praying, ed for ever them that are fan- and frffe"ngf<>rllis Followers, that by ed tor ever tnem tnat are lan fo doing they might apply what he ^ Ctlhed: tie thinks he Jhall never to themielves ; fo alfo he inftituted a be fan&ified, but by the Offering sa^ifice > that; by it they might apply ; / ;• m r n- a .. the merits of frw Sacrifice, and make it Wrfsfe *J hfS Mais-PrieitS upon beneficial to their Souls. So that though their Altars, when they fay MafS} he firmly believes, that Chrift offered .«J«L/.«,L//.ML;«„ ~*.*~.+Lim Sacrifice for our Redemption, and by one and thus wholly relying upon this orly ^^ (fpoken of»bvSt p^ Superftition, (an Invention of fetfed by way of Redemption the jvwtftf- We frrfftv Pope, forthe decei- c*tio»°\ ' all thofe that are Shifted: Yet • \i7-i 1 *-* ji he alfo believes.that to receive the bene- ™*£ WldOWS */*rf CredUlOUS fit of this 0jfrr/«? we muft alfodo our Women) he IS taught to negleft />W by our Good Worh concurring +L "0,,/n^ ~£ PL ■(! J * *. * with Chrift, fo becoming Labourers tc- the Paiiion of Chrifi, and to put getber with Godl Cor *9> and in fomc no hopes in his Merits, and the manner purifying our own fefaes, 1 Joh. JVork. of our Redemption. i }:, an^ ****** not omit the beji of v J r all Works, which is Sacrifice, proper to none but God : Which our Saviour $e- fus Chrifi inftituted at his laft Supper, when leaving unto us his Body and Blood under two diftincl Species of Bread and FPine, he bequeathed as a Legacy to his Apo- ftles, not only a Sacrament, but alfo a Sacrifice : A Commemorative Sacrifice . lively Re- prefenting in an unbloody manner, the bloody Sacrifice, which was offered for us upon E 2 the ApAp&MifrepreJeMied and Rcprefentccl. 38 'he Crofs; and by a diftinclion of the Symbols, diftinftly fbevoing his death (GhriftV)*Hri7 he <;#wf.This lie gave in charge to his.-4jw///**,as; to the hrft and Cheif Ptiefu of theAtew Teftamem, and to their Sncceliors to Otrer ; commanding them to do the fame thing he had there done at Iris Ljt Supper, in commemoration of him. And this is the GbUuon, or Siertfce of die Mj[s, which has been obtervrd,perform'd frequented by the Faith- ful in all Ages, attefted by the General Confent of antient Canons, UniverfaA Tradition, Councils, and the practice ofthe whole Church, mention'd and allow'd of by all the Fa- thers Greek and Laiine ; and never call'd into queftion but of late Years ; being that Pure Offering which yVfj/.u'£/,fPix>phefying,ofChrifi!) foretold fhould be offer' d among the Gentiles in everyplace, Mai. i. 1 1. as it is underftood by feveral Fathers, and particularly -Y S. Cypr. 1. i.e. i§. adverf.. $ud. & ferova, S. Tbeodaret, S* Cyril, in their Cbmmeutaries upon this Text : J. Auguiline,\. 18. c. t<^. ieCivit. S. Chryioft. in PfaU 95. and others. XXIII. Of Purgatory. HE believes , ( contrary to all Reafon, the Word of God, tatd ^Antiquity) that (be/ides Heaven and Hell ) there is a third Place, which his Church is pleased to call Purgatory 3 a Place intended purely for thofi fff his Communion, where they may eajily have admittance after this Life, without danger of fal- ling into Hell 5 For, that though Mcll was defigned firfi, for the fmifljment of Sinners , yet (that now, ft nee the blejfed difcovery of Purgatory) Hell may eafily be sfypfd over , and an Eternal Damnation avoided, for an ex- change of feme (hort Penalty undergone in this Pope s Prifbn, where he mver need fear to be detained long 5 for that, if he has but a Friend left behind him, thai will but fay a few Hail- Maries for his Soul, or in his I_JE believes it damnable to admit ofa- ny thing for Faith, that is contrary to Xeafon, the Word of God, and all Antiquity: And that the Being ofAThird Place,(ca\\'d Purgatory,) is fo far from be- ing contray to all, or any of thefe * that it is attefted, conrlrm'd aud eftablifh'd by them all. 'Tis exprefly in the 2d. of the Machzbees,z. 12. where Money wa« feat to Hierfufalem, that Sacrifices might be offered for the flain: And 'tis recom- mended as a Holy Cogitation to Pray for the Dead. Now though thefe Books are not thought Canonical by fome, yet St. An. That* they contain nothing contrary to Faith, and that they were cited by the Antient Fa- thers, for the Confutation of Errors, forming of good Manners, and the ex- plication of the Chriftian Doftrine. Thus were they us'd by Origen for Con- demnation of the Vxlentiniin fieretichs, (Orig.in cap.j.Epbud Jtyw#)thus by St.Q- prian, (Lib. de Exbor.Mm. c.i\.) thus by Eufeb.defarienfis /Lib.Prxptr. Evang. n. c. 1*5.) thus by St'.Grcg. Na^. Ambrof.&c. And he is in a manner certain, that thefe Boohs would never have been put to thefe vfe by thefe Holy and Lear ned Fathers; they would never with fuch confidence have produe'd their Authority, nor would A Pa pifl: M/frepreJevfed and Rtprejented. if Teftament did but remember to JgjJ* *Jg rha*e 7?een rea<* jfS* , C/?«rr*m tfrofe GoM^ times, had this orrfer a fmall bnm to be pejettt- tntdum of a Third pixe, (aid of p, *> ed to Come Mafs-Prieft, he never *r*fi* the Di^ whl'^h thGY maintain,) t i .iA ft • r x> been any Idle Superjtition.ameer Dream. need donbt of being Joon Re- contrary ta j£jg the>>Wof ©M leas'd r ftV that £ Golden Key and Amiauity ; or had it been any Error wiU as infalliely open the Gates of aC ^'Jhe Sg£££ 6f a 5^ Jg J y s. . J & plaiftly intimated bv our Saviour, Purgatory, as of any Other Fri- (Mmh. 12. 32.) where he fays, vrfa foil whatsoever. joeverfpxahs qgtfaji the Holy Gboft, hfiball J not be forgiven him, neither in this World, neither in the rVmU tt\ com?. By which- word's Chri'ft evidently fuppofes, that (though thefe fhall not) yet forae iMS are forgiven m the World to coins : Which iince it cannot be in Heaven, where no/» enters : nor- m Hell, whencethere is no Redemption; it muft neceffarily be fome Middle Jl ate: And in this feme it was underftood by St. Aw gnfiine nigh twelve hundred Years ago, as is manifeft in his Works. (Civ. Dei, /. 21. c. 13, & 24. 0 lib. 6. coin. fUtm •". i^foradfo by St. Gregory the GrsAt,L. 4. DiuU. 39.) fo by St. Bernard againft the Hereticks of his time. In the fame manner does St. ^K£Mj?wo'underftand'thofe words of St. Paul,(\ Cor. 3. i<,.)He bimfelf JM1 be ft- And as for the Reafon of this Tenet, he is bound to think it does not want it, fince he finds it abetted by fuch Virtuous, Learned and Confidering Men, whom he dares not reckon Fools; never hearing, that thefe us'd to Relieve, but upon very good Grounds and fubftantial Reafons. And he thinks he is able to give fo;ne hisilelf, by what he has learn 'd from the Scriptures, and thefe Fa- thers. For having been taught by thefe; Firfi, That when a linner is reconcti'd to God, though the Eternal Punijhnevt due to his fins is alwayes remitted, yet there fometimes remains a Temporal Penalty to be undergone. As in the cafe of the Ifraelites, (Mum. 14.) who by Mofes's Prayers obtain'd Pardon for their Murmuring, and yet were excluded the Land of Canaan. As in the Cafe oi' David, (2 Sam. 12.) who was punifh'd in the lofs of his Child, after his fin was forgiven. Secondly, That there are fome fins, which of their own nature are Light and denial, fuch as cod tne fervour of Charity, but do not cxtinguijh it, from which even Holy Men are not exempt, and of which it isfaid, that the &ufl Man falls [even times, (Auguflin. Enchir c. 70. £5> lib. giLvfi. Oft. tr. 9. 26.) TtirJly, That to all fins, whether great or fmall, fome Penalty is due to the tfktfttce of God ; who as he has Mercy to forgive, hasalfo Juftice to punifh: fo that as St. Auguflin fays , (in Enirr. in Pfal. jO.)Wkofoever feels to God for mercy, mufl remember thai ke. is iuft^and that his fin fhall not pafs unpuniJl>ed.Fourthly, That generally fpeaking $o J? Papift Mifreprefinted and Reprejented. (peaking, few Men depart out of this life, but either with the guilt of fome light of- fenceb and venial jus, or elfe obnoxious to fome Temporal Punijbment due to former fins forgiven. From thefe Heads> DHcourfe leads him immediately to the Neceffay of Tome Third Place. For fince the Infinite Goodnefs of God can admit nothing into Heaven, which is not clean, andTpure from all fin both great and [mall : And his Infinite Juftice can permit none to receive the Reward of Blifs, who as yet are not out of debt, but have fomething in tfufticc to fuffer: There muft of neceffity be fome Place or State, where Souls,departing this life.pardon'd as to the Eternal Guilt or Pain,yet obnoxious to fome Temporal Penalty, or with the guilt of fome venial faults, are Purged jn I Purify' d before their Admittance into Heaven. And this is what he is taught concerning Purgatoty. Which, though he knows not where it is, of what nature the Pains are, or how long each Soul is detuned there ; yet he believes, that thofe, that are in this Place, being the Living Members of Jefus Chrift, arereliev'd by the Prayers of their Fellow-Mem- bers here on Earth and that the Charitable Works performed upon their Death-bed, and the Alms difpos'd on in their Lift Will, are very available afterwards in order to their fpeedier releafe. XXIV, Of Praying in an Unknown Tongue. HE is counfeWd by his Church. HF is „counre,1'd hr hj.s Churfh t0 ** i ' J r • y . 0 prefent at Sermons, fuch as he is able to be prefent at Sermons, to underftand,they being alwaysdeljver'd tut never permitted to hear any in the Tulgar Language of every Country: k is M to underftand : thy J*****" ?£2$*£m being all deliver d in an lin- Englijl). They being purely intended known Tongue. He is taught hr\he good injhu&ion of the Congrega- t-» ; x -7 n i • x • tion prefent. He is taught to Pray, and to Pray, but It mujt be in Latin. always provided of fuch Books of Devo- He is commanded to ajjifl at the tion as he is capable of understanding; fVim.^U di^iiAW -.~J *„ 'tLm every Nation being well furnifhed with ChUlch-SerVlce, and to hear r^Aelps, extant in the Language po- Mais 5 but it mujt be without un- per to the Country. He is commanded demanding a word? it being- all \°*m at theJ Church-Service and to r > i • t >? he-tc Majs; and in this he is mftrucred, perform d in a Language, of not t0 underftand the words, but to which he is altogether Ignorant. 1 df- the huhnefs of the Congregation prefent, m- *D n-LAfT it- L * to imploy their £-G*i ODlerve his Promife given, or made to has wade, tho never jo pfitive any whatfocver : Jan§ that he cannot and firm, with this fort. of Peo- cheat or cozen, whether by dif:mbling, pie, he may lawfully break, and ^^^> or mental r^rv^ons^ r T ' , J J y .7" out 'lenance of his own Confcience, and Cheat and COZen them Without any the violation of God's Ian. This is the fcruple. And tho he muft not do Jjftl^tfian he receives from the Pulpit, *L- L J ~- • L* t „r;«~ J tne Confeftionary, and his Books of Di- this by down-right Lying, and rea;0n/ The holy Francis Sales, in his telling Untruths } for that Would f* rod%&ion to a Devout Life, (p. 1. r.aoj) he a Sin $ yet he may make ufe of ** hf lhin^ Zet ^r Td* ft «>£: . ,. & > ; r\-/ tema* lrjnk' fincerei ph™ in* faithful, any indirect ways^ juch are D11- without double dealing, futtihy or dtfem- fimulation, Equivocations, a nd *%: Thishe is taught to obferve and \/f^v,«.„i v> r„ ..--.: J L practife, and that without this, 'tis not Mpital Refervations 5 and by Jofltole to pleafe God. In the Cate- thefe means draw them into his chifm ad Parochos, compil'd by order of Snares: and this without fear of ;^Sf ^V. T?d1 jt j- *~> j / 11 1 »i toa11 Parifr-Pnefts for the inftruaion ot Offending Qod^who IS well pleas d the Faithful, he is taught, that by the Eighth Commandment he is forbidden all • F dijfmuhtion. 34 d Papifi: Mif-reprefented and Reprefented. tenth thefe kind of Pious Crafts, Emulation, whether in Word or Deed ,- -H-w of thefe ifoly Cheats. ?&&&&&& rf what is in the mind, is abominable and wicked, That no man (hall bear falfe witnefs againft his Neighbour, whether he be Friend or Enemy. And Pope Innocent XI, in a Decree iffbed forth the Second of March, Anno 1679. has ftri&ly commanded all the Faithful in virtue of his holy Obedience, and under pain of incurring the Divine Vengeance, that they never Swear equivocally, or with any mental refervation, upon no account or pretended convenience whatfoever : And that if any prefume either publickly or privately to teach or maintain the Doctrine of Swearing with equivoca- tions or mental refervatim, that they def'a&n incur Excommunication htx Sentextioe, and cannot oe abfblv'd by any, but the Pope himfelf, excepting at the hour of death. He is taught therefore to fpeak plainly and fincerely, without difmulations, equivo- cations, mental refervatiotif, or any fuch like Artifices, which cannot be but very in- jurious to a.\\ Society, and difpleafingtotheFiry?7V»t&. And now if any Authors in communion with his Church, be pi educed as Patrons of inward Referves, and grand; Abettors of thefe mental fuggles, let them hold up their hands, and an fiver for themlelves : Their Church has declar'd for no fuch Doctrine, and is no more to be charg'd with their extravagant Opinion s, than with the unexemplar lives of other her Members, whofe irregularities are not at all deriv'd from their J^l'gicn, but from the neglect of their own corrupt Inclinations, aud giving way to the temptations of their Enemy. XXVII. Of a Death-Bed-Repentance. HE is bred up in a total neg- pjE is bred up in the Service andLove of lea of the Service of God, rGo:1^ ?«&ht fe'woA hi? Salvation T7. J . _- . J «... in fear and trembling, to provide in Of all Vertue and Devotion jvhlle health-time againft the Ujl hour, and by he is well, and in QOod health ; n° means to rely upon a Death-bed.j\- / °r rv™«.u pounce-, for that Men, (generally upon preemption of a Death- {peaking) M they live, ft they die ; bed Repentance, and a COnfi- and 'tis to.be fear'd greatly,, that thole, de.ee that M his Sins Ml he ffij^$£*&S£g5 sertainly forgiven, if he can but him- at their death. So that, (with St. once fay. Lord have mercy Up- Augufiine,) he doubts the Salvation of as \±t 1 n. u A ill- many as defer their Conversion till that On-me,rffWelalthOUr. And Us hour ancihasno encouragement at all a fi/fficient Encouragement to to do it.. However, if any are found, Pm, to reh wholly upon this, to &?^flS1£.&S5 fie that there is no fuch prorli- 0f Eternity to the ujl mimxt : He is gate Villain, none that has livd, Miogfc, that, in Charity,, they, ought *\. / 1 ■ h.t curs- 1 1 r t0 have all i0ance poTible, to put ttem tho to the height h oj Wick$dne]s in mhd of their condition, to excite and Debauchery, of his Com- them to a hearty tleteftation of all their ~,:~r, /„* ^ L;* ,\a*iU Lo fU^ll Ofences: To let them know, that tho' mmion but at his death hejhall they deferve Hcll_fire h puHinittlcnt Oe ajjifted by a ri'lQiT, and jBall of their wickednefs, yet that they ought by A Papift Mifreprefented and Reprejented. 35 receive an Abfolution from all his Sins, with an abfohite Pro- mife of being foon admitted to Bills, and Reigning with ChrisJ, if he can but once lay, he is lor- ry $ or, if his Voice fail him, fig- t0 r without num- nV,,ifa§ her ifi that as many Orders, as there amongft their Religious Orders, all many Religions. And yet they which fay the fame Om/, own the fame . j. r^\ -n." tt 4. Authority in the Church of Chrijl; and in pretend to Cnriltian Unity, a- every thing profefs the fame Faith ; and midli this diverfity growing Up- have no other differences,than as it were n» them everv dav of fo m^y feveral fteps, or degrees, in on wem every aay. the praaics of a Deyout and H(fly Hfe_ Some being of a more Severe and St rift Difcipline, others of a more Gentle and Moderate. Some fpending more time in Pray- ing, others more in Watching, others more in Fafling ; fome being intended for the Catechifing, and breeding up of Youth ; others for taking care of Hofpitals, and looking after the Sick ; others for going amongft MdeJs , and Preach- ingto them theGofpel of Chrijl, and for fuch like Pious and Chnftian Defigns, to the greater Glory and Honour of God. Which differences make no other difference in the feveral Profeffors, than there was between Mary and Martha, who exprefs'd their Love and Service to their Lord in a very different imploy ; but both commendably, and without any danger of prejudicing the vnity of their Faith. XXX. Of Fryars and Nuns. HE is tauoht to have a high TJ E is taught to have a high efteem a JLu .11 *UnranfLi« n forthofe of his Commumon,who efteem for all thoje of his ^ndfItzke thatfortofiife, which accor- Communionjwho cloitteringthem- ding to Chrift's own direction, and his (elves up, become Fryars and Apofties, is pointed out as the M.A fort jti.ua *?}*" j of People, who endeavour to perform all Nuns 5 a Jort OJ feople^WhO call that God has Commanded, and alfo what themfetves RelieiOUS, and are he has CounfelTJ, as the better, and in or- i- ! ,. Ti 5;rr;^no rU*oi- . der to more perfeBion. They hear Chnft mthmgbut a Religious Cheat , declaring t£ danger 0f tpbes; they under the cha\, of riety^tnd pre- therefore embrace a voluntary Poverty, and lay 38 A Papift Mif-reprefented and Reprefented. tenet to Devotion, deceiving the lav alide a11 Titles t0 Wealth and Pofleffi- M7^-/J . J}- • 4. m.L i • L* ons« St.? aid Preaches,That he that givetb WmM\ andhvingtO the height not his Virgin in Marriage, doth betttr than OJ PVickgdnefs, Under the notion be that does ; and that Jhe that is unmarried bot" in "°^ **** Jptrit:ihey there- Foverty andObedlGnce^and Ob- fore chufe a Jingle /late, Coniecrati g Jerve nothing lefs 5 but live in all their Pir&nhy toGodjthat To they may be /z ri r • 1 J r 1 wholly intent on his fervice, and be care. rcjpetfsfo irregular and fcanda- fui how to pieafe him-, while fee that is loilS, that Were ther&^tO be tahgn a married cares for the things of the World, reliqion,and Other Vices, through themfelv^they therefore renounce their j.l 1 1 T/f/ u m 1 t*. t ownwills, and without refpeft to their the Whole World, it might be 0wn proper inclinations, pafs their life modeWd according to what is aU- in a perpetual Obedience. And becaufe the el between anv ofthefe A. Walk World is uxnfrfc that t0 a Pious Soul> ea> oeiween any ojweje 4 vv ans , every bu(mefs is a DiIiMon^ every di_ in Which theje Reclines live , verfion a Tempt at ion, and more frequently without danger of omitting any the provocations to Evil than Exam- #. t . ° . i . 1 / . pies to GW; they therefore retire from thing, that is wicked and unchri- it as much as pofiibie,and confiningthem- (lian. felves to a little Corner or Cell, apply themlelves wholly to Devotion, making Prayer their bufinefs.the Service of God their whole imploy, and the Salvation of their Souls their only defign. And now, if in thefe Retirements, where every thing is or- der'd as it may be moil advantageous for the promoting Virtue and Devotion. nothing permitted that is likely to prove a difturbance to Godlineis, or allurements to Evil, yet fome live [candaloufly, and give HI example to the World : What can be laid, but that no State can fecure any Man ; and that no fuch provifion can be made in order to a Holy Life, but it may be .-tbuf'd ? But yet he does not think that fuch abujes, and the vicioufnefs of fome, can be argument enough to any juft and reafonable Man, to condemn the whole, and the biflhution it felf. Is not Marriage abus'd an infinite num- ber of ways, and many fore'd to embrace this ftate, or at leaft to accept of fuch parti- cular Perfons contrary to their own choice and liking?Is there any ftate in this World, any Condition, Trade, Calling ProfefTion, Degree, or Dignity whatfoever, which is notabas'dby fome? Are Churches exeirp* from abules ? Are not Bibles and the Word of God abus' 'd? 'I s not C hrifli an it y it felf abusMand even the Mercy of God abus'd? If therefore there is nothing fo Sacred and Divine in the whole World, which wicked and malicious Men do not pervert to their ill defigns, to the high difhonour of God, and their own Damnation: How can anyone upon the meer confideration of fome abufes pafs Sentence of Condemnation againft a thing, which otherwife is Good and Holy ? '1 is an undeniable truth, that to embrace a Life exempt, as much as can be, from the turmoils of the World ; and in a quiet retirement to Dedicate ones felf to the Service of God, and fpend ones days in Prayer and Contemplation, is a moft com- mendable undertaking, and very becoming a Cbriflian. And yet, if fome, who enter fuch acourfe of life as this, fall fhortof what they pretend, and inftead of becoming eminent in Virtue and Godlinefs, by their un-exemplar lives, prove a Scandal to their Profetfon : A Papift Mifreprefented andReprefented. 39 Profefm : Is their Ride and Inftitmion to be condemned ; or rather they who fwery'd from it? No let not the Dignity of an Apoftle, fuffer for the fall of fudas: .Nor the Commandments, lie under an afperfion upon the axount of thofc that break them. XXXI. Of Wicked Principles and Pra&ices. E- nut L~~ ~c * nUn^U t-4E is a Member of a Church, which, ac- * Member of a Church H cordingtothe 9th. Arr£le of'the which fS Called Holy } Apoftks Creed, he believes to be Holy ; fo; iT^er Doftrine and Pradi- ^d this not only in Name but : aire .in vmv w»™ Dodnne; and for witnefs of her Sar.tti- ces ^0 Foul j • £, wtt'} ™aT w'-°l' Heart and Soul; aid Chrift S time, appear d m tfa. their Neighbour as themfekes. And that a confi- without World Co black and deform d none flatter themfelves, with . 1 tt nn r ' n 3 Tl * dencetobefav'd by Faith alone, mth Hetofi Crimes as Jhe ? Mas living Scb,rJh ^ and P;w/>; as not (lie OUt done even the mofy 'tis in the Council of Trent, Sejf.6 art. So Barbarous Nations and Infidels, that he doubts not at ^but that as many **T "J ■ . jj as hve according to the Dire&ion ot his !*>/* 0 her Impieties, and drawn a c hurch,and in obfervance of her DoBrine, fcandal Upon the Name of Chri- ItejMty in. the Service of, and Fear of Jn. 1 rr j/injTT' 3 God ; and with an humble confidence m ftian, by her unparalleU d Vices f the Merits and ?a$m of their %demer9 Takfi but a view of the horrid may hope to be receiv'd after this* Life, is rt'„„ fhn. Ih—Lmm— n**n*nyA i*, into Eternal Blifs. But that all in Com- Frances fhe has been engag d in munioa with his ckunh do not livethus of late years «, confider the French Boliiy, and in the fear of God, he know s and Irifa Maffacres, the Mnr- ^is too too evident; there being many _rrT iit J \\r V- ,n ah places, wholly forgetful ot their ders OJ Henry 111 and lV.i\.ings Duty5 giving themfelves up to all forts of France, the Holy League, fta of vice, and guilty of moft horrid J> ~.„J.=~ nr~^nC*t-> tL-n-^ Crimes. And tho' he is not bound to be- Gunpowder-Treafon, the Cru- lieve al] t0 be TrmK that fe charg.d upon elty of Queen Mary, the Firing them by Atherfaries 5 there being no of London, //> but his Apoftles left him, and conform to we tvengion taugm began to fet up for Schi(ln and ^ by their Church. By this way, Conjlantine may be evident- ly condemn'd for an Heathen, becaufe he murdered his Wife and his Son. And the Religion of Theodofms be mark'd out for A:h;i(m, becaufe, by his Order, feven Thoulahd Thefilonians , were Treache- roufly Maflacred in three hours fpace, without diftinttion of Sex or Age,or the Inno- cent from the Guilty. A confident Undertaker would find no difficulty in proving all this; cfpecially if he had but the C7z/rof ex iteming fome things, mif-reprefemir.g others, of finding Authorities and Texts for every idle Story, ofcharging-the extra- vagant Opinions of every fingle Author, upon the Religion they profefs, of raking together all the Wickednefs, Cruelties, Treacheries, Plots, Confpiracies, at any time committed, by any ambitious Defperado's, or wicked Villains: And thenpofi- tively averting, that what thefe did, was according to the Doclrine of that Church of which they were Members ; and that the true meafures of the Svitthy and Coo.i- nefs commit, who neglect to follow it ? If fo, let the Men of that Society, judgment, or Perfwafwn, who are not in the like circumftance, ////.£ the firfi fione. Cer- tainly if this way of pa.Ting Sentence, be once allow'd as juft and reafonable, there never was, nor ever will be, any Religi- on or Church of God upon the Earth. 'Tis but reck'ning up the Idolatries, Superftitions, Cruelties, Rebellions , Murders of Princes, Impieties, and o- ther fuch like Enormities, committed by the Jews, as they ftand Recorded in Scripture^ and 'tis immediately prov'd, that the -ferns were never the cbofen People of God, nor their Lnv, the Di- lates of Heaven. ' Tis but making a Lift of the Mifdim^inours, Irregularities, A'nifes, Exajfes, Treacheries, Simony, Separnicn, D;f ords, Erroneous Doftrines, y^Papift Mif-refrefented and Reprefented. 41 nejs of the Church in whofe Communion thefe Men were, may be juftly taken from the Behaviour of fuch offenders. But certainly no Man of Reafon and Conference can allow of fuch Proceedings. No fober Man would ever go to Tyburn, and Whet- Jlones-Park, to know what is the Religion profeffed in England according to Lira ; Nor would look into all the Sinks, Jakes, Dung-hills, Common-foores about Town, from fuch a Profpeft to give a true Defcription of the City. Why therefore mould the Character of the Church of Rome and her Doctrine be taken only from the loofe Behaviour and wicked Crimes of fuch, who, tho' in Communion with her, yet live not according to her Direction ? she teaches Holinefs of Life, Mercy to the Poor, Loyalty and Obedience to Princes, and the neceflity of keeping the Commandments, (witnefsthe many Books of Devotion and Direction, made Englijh for Publick bene- fit, written- originally by Papifls,) and great numbers there are (God be prais'd) who practice this in their Lives. And now if there be many alfo,who ftop their Ears to good Inftru&ion, and following the Suggeftion of their own ungovernM appetites, of Pride, Ambition, Covetoufnefs, Luxury, £sV. fo lay afide all concern of Salvati- on, and become unchriftian both to God and their Neighbour, that they are a lhame to their Profejf.on ; Why mould the Church be reprefented according to the Wiched- nejs of thofe that negleft her Doctrine; and not rather by the Piety and Exemplar Lives of fuch as follow it I Is not this to deal by her, (if we may u(e fuch a Compan- ion) as 'tis generally done by the Sign of St. Dunftan, near Temple-Bar, (©n which, tho' the Sunt be drawn almoft in the full proportion , and there's no more of the Devil on it , befides the reaching towards him with a pair of Tongs ;) yet 'tis defcrib'd only by the name of the Devil-Tavern, without the leaft mention of the Saint? And is not this partiality unjuft, and thefe piece-meal Dcfcriptions unreafonable ? Let the Charatler of the Church be given according to what (he teaches, and not according to the Writings of every pofitive Opiniator, and the Practices of every wicked Liver, and then there's no fear of its coming out fo ugly and deform d. Neither let any one pre- tend to demonftrate the Faith and Principles of the Papi/ls, by the Works of every Divine in that Communion ; or by the Atlions of every Bijhop, Cardinal, or Pope; For they extend not their Faith beyond the Declarations of General-Councils : And Hand- ing faft to thefe, they yet own, that many of their Writers are too loofe in their Opini- ons, that all Bijhops and Cardinals are not fo edifying as becomes their State ; and that Popes may have their failings too. A Pope is a Temporal Prince, keeps a Court, has variety of Officers about him. And if he has Flatterer s, and Mif-informers too, 'tis nothing but what all Princes are fenfible of, but cannot remedy. And hence he doubts not, but 'tis poflible that he may be engag'd in unlawful undertakings, and invite others to the like. And are not all other Princes lubjeft to this too ? But what then ? Thefe Aclions of Popes concern not the Faith of thofe who are in Communion with them ; they may throw a icandal indeed upon the Religion, but they can never alter its Creed. But what need any other return to the numerous Clamours made daily againft the rvickednefs of the Papifls ? 'Tis a fufrkient vindication of their Chief Pafiors and Popes, (to ufe the words of a Perfon of Quality) that among two hundred and fifty, that have now Succeflively bore that Charge, there are not above ten or twelve, againft whom, their moft malicious Adversaries can find occafion of fpit- ting their Venom ; and that a Challange may be made to the whole World, to (hew but the fifth part of fo many Succejive Governours, fince the Creation, of which there have not been far more that have abused their Power. And as for their Flock and People owning this Authority, 'tis true, many wicked things have been done by Come of them; and too many like, Libertines, neglect the care of their Souls : But how- ever the Generality of them live like Chriflians; few come to them, but with their G Religion 42 A Papift Mifreprefinted And Reprejettted. Religion they change al(b their Manners for the. forrer ; Few iefert them, but fuch who feern to be fall'n oat with all Chriflianity ; And wholbever will look into any of our Neighbouring Popijh Towns, as Paris , Antwerp, Gaunt, Ice. will find in any one of them, more Praying, more Fafling, more receiving the Sacra-m^nts, more vifiting of Prisoners and the Sick, more Alms-giving, than in any ten Towns of the Reformation* XXXII. Of MIRACLES. HE is Co riven up to the HE is not obligV1 t0 bclicve any one z. i- r r-Ji cv • j Af/'w/e,befides what is in the Scrip- belief of idle btones and ture. and for all otherS) he may give ridicilloUS Inventions in favour the credit, which in prudence he thinks of his Saints which he calhMwx- theydeferve; confidering the Honefty ojnts saints, which weans rvnra- of the mmr^ the Auihority of tbe ^it_ cits; that nothing can be related neps, and fuch other circumfhmces. fo every way abfnrd, foolifh, and whichonthe like occafionsufe to gain i a • rrt i t • - n,s anent. And if upon the account of <*//»/. rv»„ doubting, but that as fuch Men, who have wonderful effe&s to Juch Crea- Confecrated themfelves to the Service of tares, which are but in a very in- God, in the Preaching the Go/pel and feriourrank, and able to do no Adminiftrationofthe Sacraments, have ■> t „/• tt 1 \xt . . a particular refpeft due to them, above JUCh things. Holy Water fS tn the Laity ■ As Churches Dedicated to God, great efteem with him So arel&ef- are otherwife to be look'd on, than 0- fedCandleS,HolyOyWHo- SgS&gMSE&S ly Bread, in which he puts Co deputed by the Prayers and BlefTmg of much confidence, that by the Pow- 8? PrieA ?je:f? u/es,for ?od's ow* r.i r t t. 1 1. nrZ> Glory, and the Spiritual and corporal er of thefe, he thinks himfelf fe- goo.1 of Chriftians,ought to be refpetfed cure from all Witchcraft , In- in a de&ree above ocher thinSs- And *L*~*~*»~4. ~ J n j.l n r wnat f'iperjiitions in the ufe of themPHas chantment, and all the Power of not God himfelf prefcrib'd fuch in-ani- the Devil 3 nay, that by the help mate things., and Holy Men made ufe of tf thefe (enfeleA M^iatnrc £» them> for an intcnC above their natural *rr*e/*ienieieis Mediators, he Tmer. and this without any SupsrQM(u9 g 2 Was 44 A Papift Mif-reprefented andRepreJented. may obtain Remiffwn of hk ve- VVas ^ere Suprftitwin the Waters of : I i- /^ O- A J • *.L 'fW)^. 5.17. In the S hue-Bread. mat or lighter bins. And in the in the Tlhli of- /t9^ in the Sxh usV1 b* nfe of thefe things, he is taught by £/#*]** for fweet'ningthe infefted Wa- te Church f^f, ofT,ely %&*£ gLft&J&jS pOJltive, OS if he had the Authority Devil ? Was it Superjlition in Chrilt to wherein\ 'eXplica ed the her, and Come Over to the Truth, rvhole Duty of a Chrifiian, every Myfiery of their FaUb, and all the officesznd Ceremo- nies perform'd in the Church ; that they muft be very negligent, or elfe very meanly parted, who do not arrive to a fufficient knowledge of their Obligation in every refpecL And whofoever has feen the great, pains and care Tome Good Men take abroad, in Explicating Ton Sunday's and Holy-days ill their Churches, and on Weekdays in the Streets.) the ChrijHan Dollriae to the crowds of the ignorant and meaner fort of people, not omitting to reward fuch as anfwer well, with fome fmall gifts, to encourage Youth, and provoke them to a commend- able emulation ; will never fay, that the Papifts keep the poor people in Ignorance, and hide from them their Religion ; but rather that they ufeall means for inftru&ing the Ignorant, and omit nothing that can any ways conduce to the breeding up of Vouth, in 46 A Papift Mifreprefented and Reprejented. in the knowledge of their Faith, and letting them fee into the Religion they are to profefs. Neither dees it fsem to him, even fo much as probable, that if the Cburch- Office and Service, Sec. were perform'd in the P 'ulgar '-Tongue ; that upon this the now- J t% n or ant and bliniled people, would immediately difcover fo many /dfc Superjlitions, fenfelefs Devoxions, and £ro/.f Errors, that they would in great numbers upon the fight become defer ters of that Communion, in which now they are profefs'd Members. For fince there is nothing done but in a Language, which the Learned, Judicious and Leading Men of all Nations do every where underftand, and yet thefe efpy nofuch Ki- diculofuies, which fright them from their rairb: but notwithftanding the feeing all through and tli rough, they yet admire all for fold, holy and Apoflol.ral, and remain fledfaft in their Profeffion : how can it be imagin'd, that the vulgar, weak and unlearn- ed fort,(did they but underftand all as well asthey,) would efpy any fuch Errors and Superftitions,'which thefe others, with all their Learning and Judgment cannot difco- ver ? No, he thinks there's no reafon to fear,that what paffes the Teft among the wife and Learned, can be groundedly call'd in queftion by the Multitude. XXXV. Of the Vncharitablenefi of the Papifts. J-JI S Church teaches him no unckari- tablenefs at all, and the Doftrine (he delivers concerning the defperate Eftate of Hereticks and Scbifmaticks, is nothing but what (he has learnt from the mouth of Chrift and his Apoftles. Among the laft advices, recommended by our Saviour, at his Afcenfion, is found the Sentence of Doom pronounced againft all fuch as would not receive the Do- ctrine preach'd by the Apoftles. Preach the Coipil (fays Chrift, Mark \6. 16.) to every Creature : he that believeth, and U baptised, Jhall befaved: but he that be- leiveth net. Jhall be damned. And this is all his Church delivers in this point, re- peating th° fame Sentence of condemna- tion againft all fuch, as will not receive and believe the Doctrine left by Chrift, and preached by his Apoftles. And if among thofe that believe not, (he com- prehends not only Infidels and Heathens, but alfo all Here t ids and Scbifmaticks ; 'tis nothing but what (he has receiv'd from the Apoftles ; who did not only (hake the duft offtheir Feets in witneft againft thofe who denyed them entrance, and refufed to believe in Jefus ; but alfo denoune'd fuch of the Brethren to ftand guilty of damnation, who notwithstand- ing their belief in Jefus, that he died for the Redemption of Man, and that rifing His Church teaches him to be very uncharitable -, it be- ing her confiant Do&rine, that none out of her Communion can be fived. So that let a Man be never fo honefi in his Dealing, never fojufi to his Neighbour, ne- ver fo charitable to the Poor, and confiant in his Devotion to his Maker , yet all this Jhall avail him nothing, if he be not a Mem- ber of his Church. 'Tis not enough for him to believe in 'jefus Chrifl, to confefs him his Redeemer, t& believe that he died for our Sins, that he rofe again, and afcendtd into Heaven , unlefs he believes and a'ffents to every Article and Tenet declard by any of his Ge- neral Councils \ for that obsti- nately to deny any one of thefe, does as certainly place him at the Left Hand of the Judge, as if A Papift Mif-reprefented and Reprefented. 37 heperverfly flood out dgainfl the ^f^^M^U^^ rr< r zvv n- ■ j j . j did make Divifions amongit the Faith- 1 ruth OJ Lhrijti unity, and denied ft^ or Preached any new Doarinc con- TeftlS Chrift to be God. And by trary to what they had deliver'd. St. Ji . l L- Pwl is very exprefs in this, who fore- this means, as many as by his tel]ing rJotky\lTim, 4. Ij25 s0 of Church are markid out for Schi£ fome, who in latter times would come maticks*rHeretickMrefc>ejc- jgj Prea,ch a Do*J.rine* *%fM t0 niam,ivjV j.*v»»x. Mirry and commanding to abftain from peft nothing but Damnation } Or tfiki. which God hath created to be re- rather are condemned already. *#$ > brands them with the infamous ' Title of Men that depart from the Faith, giving heed to Reducing Spirits, and Dt - Urines of Devils. In thefe words plainly letting him underftand, that though thefe Mea would not deny Chrift, yet that their falfe Doftrine in thofe two other Points were enough to make them Seducers, Deferters of Chrift, arid Leaders to the Bevit, And does not he as exprefly in his 2d Epiftle to Timothy, (c. 2. v. \6, 17, 18.) con- demn ffymemus and Thiktus, for prophme and vain bxblers, increafers of Ungodliness, and overthrowers of the F.iitb, who concerning the Truth erred only in one Point, [.tying that the Refurretlion is p.ifi already? By which 'tis manifeft to him, that the Doctrine now taught him by his Church, is nothing but what (he has learnt from St. Paul, and the reft of the Apoftles ; it being deliver'd by them that he is a Iyer who denied that $efus is the Chrift, (1 tfob. 2. 22.) And that every fpirit that confefes not, that Re- fits Chrift, is come intheflejh, is not of God, (ib. c. 4. v. 3.) And rtot only this, but likewife A man that is an Heretick, after the firft and fecond admonition re jetl ; knowing that he that isfuch, is fubverted and finneth, being condemned of himfelf, (Tit. 3. 10, 1 1.) With this weighty advice to the Brethren, in which they are commanded in the Name of our Lord JeJ'us Chrift, to fpexk all the famethhig, that there be no divifions among them but that they beperfetlly joyned together in the fame mind and in the fame judgment, (1 Cor. 1. 10.) For that having ftrife and divifions among them, they will fiewtkemfelves to be Carnal, andto walk as Men, (ib. c. 3. y. 3.) .That therefore there being but one Body, and one Spirit, one Lord, one Faith, and out Baptifm, they fhoj*ld endeavour to keep the Unity of the Spirit, in the Bond of Peace, and not be tofed to and fro like Children, and earryed about with every Wind of Doctrine, by the fight of men, and cunning Craft inefs, whereby they lye in wait to deceive, (Ephef. c. 4. v. 3, 4, 5, 14.) Who transforming them- felves into the Apoftles of Chrift, are falfe Apoftles, deceitful Workers, (2 Cor. 11, 13.") But certainly accurfed, for that troubling the Faithful, they would pervert the Gofpel of Chrifl , and preach another Gofpel, than that which had been preached by the Apoftles, (Gal. 1 7,8.)And this is the Sum of the Doctrine of his Church, which believing that Faith is necefiary to Salvation, it being impofible without Faith to pleaje God,(L/eb. n. 6.) teaches likewife, that the Faithful ought to hold faft the profeflion of their Faith with- out wavering, for that not only theylofe it, who deny Refits Chrift to be God, as fome have clone : but alfo all thofe, who endeavour to pervert the Go'pel of Chrift^ and in any point of Faith obftinately deny, or teach othcrwife than was taughr by Chrift and his Apojlles, as Hymenem and Philetus did : fo that, that Chriftian makes but a very imperfect and lame profeflion of his Faith, who can only fay, / believe that Refits Chrift is come in the flefl\and that he U God and Man, the Redeemer of the world; unlcfs he can with truth add thislikewife, 1 alfo believe the whole Gospel that he preacFd, and evzry point of F.iitb, that he has taught and deliver d to us by his Apoftles : there be- ing the fame Obligation to obey his Precepts., and hearken to his Words, as to ac- knowledge 48 A Papift Mtfreprefemtcd and Reprefatcd. the Divl :g a fin of tie fame blacknefi, obfti- • to oppo:e my poir.: or' his Zfcftroej as to deny the truth or" his Terfm, 'Tis .erefore any twrhcriubk teft in Ms C I eclare plair.lv this rniferabie uohap- Ote or all inch w ho .<• i nd* from the Dxiri-i of ChriftjdeliverM the CarJbolkrk Church; and of fuchwl. xmk from the Gmxtwrnsm of the - ne Church, which Chrift has Comma arand obey : Butts her Zed fo to do, and the fame folicitude for the fal- ration ofSoofc, theApoftks heretofore, to Preach the like Doctrine tc : .\: Flock : asahothe Primitive Cfariftnns to expd their Communion, and :nematizea!l fhch, ■ sons Tenets, contrary to any poiat orReceiv'd Doctrine, or by dilbbedienoe, did .'■ ilfuily dm&fc chemfelves from the 'or D:\if.iKi of : : Such as were Mdrcicm, t^Oida :-::, who were Goridjenm*d in the Firft Age, for opponr.g that Article oJF our which we believe the f^urtSim r tk Ztaoij fuch the Arcbostuts, Con- l&ewife fb: - .::;>; : Such nouns, Sec for Prea. Sm± tbeijtfi a • for maintaining a thoufand Years -. or" Chrift upon Earth, with his Saints in fenfnal pleafures. And Co in all . c:':.t:i were condemn'd upon the like arronnfc It having been always, a received C ft m, even in the pureft time of the Go. pel. for the Elders and Prelates, to ■ I o .e I _ ze Chrift ccmm.ttcu the care of his Fleck, to oppofe all thofe that by-new Do- ftrine, or by making S;ki >:-JDi;r.: iiturb its peace: sad no: to per any . -ch like means did endeavour to deftrof his Unity, lb much denied and leaxnmended by the Apoftle-s. So that they were equally declar'd Enemies o: C B _ ty, who demed Chrift; ind they. v. ho ;onremng Chrift, did yet contradict and reject any part of his Doctrine. And this upon tbe Principle, that Ckrifiizn Tzhb ourbx to 'a noire. For dot every Article, Myftery and Point of it being de- liver'd by the fame hands md recommended by the fame Aiabmh) ; whofoever did oppofe any one Point of ::. was immediately judg'd guilty of all, in difcreditingthe A.nb:ri:K on which the whole Ah t k that great Truth proclaimed above thirteen bnndred years ago, and now every where read in St. Atb&ufnfs Cjetd. Wh nxrwil tbtmgs lc •"■>' re:*.$iTjtbxt bt btU xbtCzt'a:: \¥du\ WtiebF*rtt\ txcept Aery me Mi hep Wmh aMnicfkii whmn ----- 1 r which weeds was made known to the Chriftian World, the Seme ami Dcctrlr.e cf the then pure and unfpotted Church, as receiv'd from Chrift an Tnat it is in vain for any one to hope for Salvation, - B believe the Cdttdlkk fthb \ and that whofoever does not believe it hall certain ly"perifli everlaftinglv. Which is a Doftrine like that .ervance of the Laws o-"GoJ ; that as :. - -■ he foeye: disbelieves one Ar- ;•' me Catholick Faith, does in a manner disbelieve all. There being no more mionforc rnies obftinately any mc Point of the Catbolkk ' : r tho? he believes afl tne reft • than there sfor one, who keeps Nineo* the Commandments ; with the Ereach of the T-:ntb. An obftinate oppofition againft ere Point of Faith, and a tin againft one Commandment being as certainly damnable, «. • t te againft jZ. There being the f«me reafon, and an equal neceffity that the I . :e of God's Law, and the After.: to the Catfaottdi Faith be - .--* now being convine'd, that none can believe to Salvation, but he that : . Catholift l-a.r.\ thus -xboZj and entirely, by an equal fubmillion to ail : e ' • 'r':r;contam'dinit. w ithour oppoftti :n to any. And being likewife Con- ner no one can arrive to the true kno.-.ledg of this Filth, with u aiTurance of A Papift Mif-reprefinted and Reprejented. 49 ©fits lntegrit)y but by receiving it as propos'd and believ'j by the Church of Chri.i ; Which Church was founded by the Son of God. watred with his Bloud, and by an in- fallible afliftance of the Holy Ghoft (by which it was to be taught all Truth to the end of the World) was fecur'd from the danger of being deceiv'd or deceiving others, to the confummation of things : he does not doubt, but as in the Apoftles • time, fo alfo ever fince, and at prefent, God iddeth to thU Church iiilj 'uch as jbiU he faxd, (A$s 2. 47.) there being no entire fjith neceiTary to Salvation, to be found out of this Church ; and no poflibility, as St. Cjprum fays, that God fhall be a Fader to any, who own not dm Church for his Mother. But now, where and which this Church is, and what Society of Men are Members of it, among fuch variety of Pretenders ; though it may feem a great difficulty to fome to diftinguifh ; yet to him it is nons at all ; for fince there is no other Church, befides the J^ctuvi cixhoJict, which has had a continued and riiible Succeflion of Bifhops and Paftors in all Ages fince the Apoftles; no other that has converted Infidel Nations to Chriftianity : no other that has al- ways preferv'd Peace and Unity amongft its Members, all or" them fpeaking the fame thing, and being perfeftly Joyn'd together in the fame mind, and die fame judg- ment ; no other that by aiTembling the Elders and Prelates, has oppos'd in all ages Herefies and Schifms, and condemn'd a!l thofe, who not (paring the Flock, have fpoken pen'erfe things, endeavouring to draw away difciples after them, no other, that has, in obedience to the command of Chrift, fend Apoftles amongft Infidels and Unbelievers, for the preaching to them the Gofpel, and inftru&ing them in Chrifti- anity, and by this way, without Arms or blood . have fpread their Faith throughout the World : No other, that by evident and undeniable Miracles, have pro v'd the truth of her Doctrine : No other but what has begun by fcfortikm, dthsflc nrft Preachers have zone «trfrom this; the time of their ftrft Preaching, and (hewing themfelves to the World, being upon Record, and their new Doctrine cenfur'd and condemn'd by that Church, from whence they frptritcd. Since, I fay, there's no other Society or Chriftian Congregation in the World, to which thefe certain Marks of the Church of Chrift, does agree; 'tis evident to him, that this is the only true Church; that whofoever denies any Article of her Faith, denies fo much of Chrift's Doclrine ; that whofoever hears her hears Chrift j and whofoever obftinately and wilfully is feparated from her, is in the fame diftance feparated from Chrift himielf; and finally, that God sddetb to this Church diily, fuch & [ •'.; ....-:": 47.) XXXVI. Of Ceremonies and Ordinances. His Churchy Upon the pre- 1_J*S Church has appointed a great r „ . • r 1 • a*. I number and varietf or Ceremo- fimptton of being Apo- £esf0 ^ ufed ip thc &&nsmg Dhmt ftolical and Commijjioncd by Servue, in the ofi,-esy and the AdminiP- Chrifi, has brought in fuch an trationofthe^™r,.Shehaslikewiie infinite number of unnecejjary appertaining to Difa^ine and the Go* Super (litious Ceremonies, that vemraentofthe Hock. And all thefe are ^t t 1 r> r r l D /- • receiv'd, auprov'd or inftituted bv her, the whole txerafe of her Rehgi- evwy one ^hev communion does «n- on COnfiUs in nothing but a vain brace,admit and willingly .fnbmitto,with- Ptmp a„d emfty §k» And Z^SStSSSSSS^SSS.. whereas C hrisfians are command- t.cuiars thus appointed or commanded, H be A Papift Mif-reprefented and Reprefittted. be not to be found in Scripture: Yet there being in the Scripture.an exprefs and ab- folute command giv^n t0 the whole Flock ofChrift, of following and being obedi- ent to thofe,that have thus order'd thefe things, in virtue of that command they voluntarily, and without constraint, ac- cept all that is of their appointment;- without excepting againft any thing,un- lels it be manifeftly linful. And this they loo'< on, as a Chriftian Duty belonging to all fuch, that are, by God's Pleafure, in fubjeition to the Higher Powers, or m? der charge. And therefore, as a Servant having receiv'd a Command from his Matter, is oblig'd to comply with it, in cafe it be not linful, although he cannot find the thing then particularly com- manded, in Scripture ; the general Pre- cept of Strvvns being Obeiiem to Majlerst 5° ed by the Apoftle to ferve the Lord in Spirit and Truth s fhe has made void this Precept \ and negUBing both Spirit and Truth, has refior'd the heavy Tob\e of Jewilh Rites, without the leaft Authority of the Word of God'-) But rather in exprefs oppofition to it, has made thefe her Humane Inventions take place of the Di- vine Law. And then befides her Ceremonies, what an endlefs ac- count is there of other Ordinan- ces, Infiitfitions, Precepts, to which (lye ohlites all in her Com* being fufficient to let him know his obli- . J , Tj i gation, and to remove all fcruple. And MUnion? HOW many are her as children are in Duty oblig'd to per- Fafi-days, Rogation and Ember- form the Win of their Parents, upon the / and Prelates, are not to be obey'd, but the mating themjelves Kareat, oniy in ruch things as are exprefs'd in thought fit to lay thefe Burdens Scripture ; and as for any other parti- *L~ D-„*/„ CV,*~» Lni~~ /r~/2 culars, whofoever upon examination, upon the People, borne being firfl cannoJ find what \ C0Fmmanded by thcnj in A Papifi Mifreprefented and Reprefented. 5 jr instituted by Pape TelefporUS, in Holy Writ-, may lawfully refute futr „, 4la V*Q „f i.Ahf. CV^.- /. million ; nay, he is oblig'd to refift. For " lhe *W 9 MSI 6ome h however this feems to bear much of the CallXtUS) OS the Ember-days: WordofGodinthefaceofit,yetcertain- SomebyPope Nicholas, as the ly 'tis wholly deftrudive to it;and under r» 7 •/ •*.- r -\* a 1 pretence of adhering dole to the Scnp- Prohlbltwn Of Marriage : And ture, undermines the very Author of it. Co all the reft. And yet, for (both, This the Primitive Chriftians underftood „// *LnC, ~»,,rt L» nUC*,„,1>J «~ J„ fo well that they detefted all fuch Ma* all theje mull be obferved under ximSt and foll Jing the Advice of the A. pain of eternal Damnation, as if poftle, chofe rather to truft their Souls in God and the Pope commanding the hands of thofe, whom God had plac'd / 11 j l j tj over them, by an humble SubmuTion were but all one, and had tieaven to the Government, and a peaceable and Hell equally at their difpojure. Obedience to their Decrees •, than by a *' '■+ Jl * prefumptuous queftioning of every thing and railing vain difputes, to take the Rule of the Hock out of the hands of thole, to whom God had providentially deliver'dit, and place themfelves Judges over the Church, their Elders Prelates and Pallors, whom God had commanded them to hear, and be in Subjection to. So that we never read, that they ever pretended to weigh the Ordinances of their Superiors by their own reafoning, or to bring them to theTeft of the Word of God, before the acceptance ; but always judg'd it conform to the Word of God, that their Governors fhould Rule, and they Obey. Thus when the Apoftles obferv'd the Sunday inftead of the Sabbath,zn fomuch, that there is not any one thing fooften repeated in their Writings, as Exhor- tations to this Obedience and Submif Hon : See, how, going through the cities, the de- livered to them (the Faithful) the decrees for to keep, that were ordain' d by the Apoftles and Elders which were at Jerufalem, (Alls \6. 4) See how St. Paul commands the Thejfaloni- ans, to hold f aft the traditions, they had been taught by word, or by Epiftle, (2 Theff.S.15.) See how he comands the Hebrews ; obey them, that have the rule over you. Remember tbem^ which have the rule over you, (Heb. 13. 7. 17.) See with what earaeftnefs St. fohn urges this ; He that InowetbGodheareth us, he that is not of God be tret b us not, (1 J oh. 4. 6.) H 2 hereby 52 A Papift Mif-reprefented and Reprejented. hereby, Inert) we the fpirit of truth, andthe fpirit of errour. And then again, does not St. Paul commend the Corinthians for their Obedience ; Won I praife you, Brethren, ihat you remember me in all things, and keep the Ordinances, as I deliver* d them to pu, (i Cor. ix.2.) And then,having given them directions as to their behaviour in their Af- femblies, he adds ; But if any man \eem to be contentious , We have no fuch cujlom, /wither the Churches ofGod,(i Cor. u. 16.) And now it being thus evident, that die Church of Chrift in the Apoftles time was founded, and prefer v'd by a Submilfion and Obedi- ence of the Flock to their Paftors ; the Papijis teach and believe;that,what was taught and commanded by the Apoftles to the Faithful then living, ought to be receiv'd, as a Do&rin neceflary for all fucceediag Ages, and that Subraiihon and Obedience ought to have been as much the Duty of Believers, ever lince, as it was then; the Commands and Practice of that time, being undoubtedly the beft, and only Pattern for the Faith- ful for ali times, even to the End of the World. And they do not only teach this Do- ctrine of Submiflion in their Books and Sermons, but alfo obferve it in their Lives> having in all Ages depended on their Elders and Prelates in all Matters touching the Difcipline and Government of the Church ; leaving Rule to thofe, whofe Charge and • Office it is to J^ile and never believing, that they who are under Charge and Com- mand exprefly by St. JWto Remember and Obey thofe who have the Rule over them, can upon any pretence whatfoever, nay, tho' an Angel from Heaven fhould come and Preach otherwise, be difcharg'd from this Chriftian Obligation and be exempted from Hem:mbring and Obeying, whom thus by God, fpeaking by his Apoftle, they are Com- manded to Rgmember and Obey. And upon this ground it is, that in things concerning the Order to be obferv'd in the Divine Service jn all Ceremonies, Holy Rites,Ecclefi.iftical ConflHutions, and Ordinances, they have neither Nil! nor Will of their own ; but always receiveand think that the Beft, which is Order'd and Appointed by thofe, to whom, by Divine Lavoy they owe this Submijfion and Obedience, and to whom the Ordering and Appointing thefe things appertains. And therefore if thefe appoint a Day of Hu- miliatkn,foT imploring God's Mercy, or averting his Judgments, they never fcruple to obferve it ; if a Day ofTl:ur:kfgiving in memory of feme fignal Beneht, they like- wife Obey. If thefe judge it fit, that on every Friday fhould be Commememorated the Death and Paflion of our Redeemer in F aping; and Command Lent to be obferv'd, in remembrance and imitation of our Lord's forty days Faft in the Defart, they think it their obligation to do fo. If thefe order fuch and fuch days to be fet apart, and kept Holy in Remembrance and Thanksgiving for the Incarnation, Nativity,Cimmcifion,Re- furreSion and Afcenfion of Chrift, and for other fuch like intentions, they efteem it (in- fill to oppofe it. If thefe judg it decent that the Faithful fhould bow at the Name of $e[us, ftand at the reading of the Gofpel, proftrate or incline themfelves at the Con- Jejfion. If they appoint Tapers and Lamps to be ufed in Churches, to reprefent oar Sa- viour, who came to enlighten the World ; and Jncenfe to be ufed, to mind the People, that their Hearts and Prayers, fhould, like the Smoke, afcend dire&ly toward Heaven: If in the AdminiftrationoftheJ'^i'.rwfwrj', in Exorcijms, in the Offices, and the Cele- bration of the Mafs, thefe determin feveral Rites and Ceremonies to be obferv'd, for more Decency, greater Solemnity, and that by fuch exteriour helps, the minds of the Faithful may be mov'd to the contemplation of the Sacred Myfieries, and rais'd more fenfibly to the apprehenfion of the Majefty of God, in whofe Honour all is perfbrm'd; they look upon themfelves bound to allow and embrace all thefe things without re- luctance or oppofition ; always thinking, that to be mo ft proper, which is inftituted by fuch, who have the Ktile over them. And if any endeavour to raife Difputes, and be contentious concerning the Necejfity of thefe Inftitutions,*^ hive nojuch Cuftom,neithsr the Churches of God. One thing they know to be neceflary, that is, that they fhould be A Papift Mif-repnjented and Reprefented* 5 5 be Obedient ; and that in the Servicrof-Opd, they muft not honour him as the Jews did, (Jfa. 5 8. 13.) by doing their own wtrfs* finding their own ple.ijure, andfpsaking their trwn words • but as Chriftians are Comffianogd— io a true Self-tknyal, a fincere Humi- lity and Obedience, fubmitting to thofe wfiorfexjod has left to Rule and govern the Flock. Neither is there any danger of falling back into the tfewijb L aw, by approving theallow'd Ceremonies of the Church; it being certain, that in the Abrogation of the Old Law, all Ceremonies were not at the fame time extinct ; But only fuch as were meer Types and Figures, of things to come in the New Law, which are now fulfill'd: Whilft others, fit for the raifing Devotion, and exprelling the affections of the Soul, and other fuch ends, are ftill commendably retained as lawful, and equally necef- fary now, as heretofore: fuch are, Kneeling F aft ing* lifting hands and Eyes to Heaven, Sighing^ knocking the Breafl, days of Humiliation, Thanksgiving, Watching Hair-Cloth, Singings Impofitiotu of Hands, Benediilions, ufing Oyl, Spittle, Breathing, CSV. all which areas lawful, convenient and neceflaryfor Chriftians, as they were for Jew. and no more to be neglected, becaufe they were us'd in the Old Law, than Praying, meeting together, Reading the Law, Singing Pialms, Humility and Obedience, £5y.Efpecially fince thefe, with many others, have been recommended to us by the Pradife of Chrift and his Apoftles, and of all Primitive Chriftianity.Neitljer has the ufe of Holy Cere- monies been wholly dif-approved by thofe of the Reformation. The Englijb Prcfef- fwn of Faith, Publiin'd in the year 1562. allows them in the: Thirty Fourth Article, The Bohemiek Confefwn in the Fifteenth Article, Anno 1537* The Auguftin, Tit. de Miff. An. 1 5 30. as it was penn'd by Melanclhon. So that fince Ceremonies are gene- rally look'd on as commendable and lawful amongft Chriftians ; the Papifts judg it proper to thofe, who have the Rule, to Order and Difpofe of them, ancl declare to the Flock, how, when and where they are to be obferved. And if they who govern, judg fit to oblige the Faithful to the obfervance of any in particular, they teach that it is the Duty of the Flock, to Obey. Things indifferent, after fuch Commands, being no longer of choice, but necefary ; and no lefs obliging, than the Commands of a Father to his Child ; where in cafe the thing be not apparently finful, 'tis no perfuafion of the the thing being Superfluous, can excufe an obftinate denyal from Disobedience. It being more fafeand Chriftian-like,for all that are under any Government,whether Natural, Ecclefiaftical or Civil, to perform and comply with fuch things, as they judg in their own private Sentiments, Vnnecefary, meerly upon the account of being Commanded ; than upon fuch confiderations, to difturb the order of Government, and fly in the Face of Lawful Authority ; Than which nothing is more oppofite to the Principles of Chriftianity, and deftruclive of all Human Society. And upon thefe grounds it is, that the Fapifts, founding themfelves upon the fure foundation of Humility ancl qbe- dience, have in all Ages acknowledged Overfeers and Rulers over them to watch and feed the Flock, to whom God hath given Power ; there being no power but of God, and that whofoever refifteth the Power, refifteth the Ordinance of God, and they that refift,JhaU rceeive to themfelves damnation, Rqm. 13. 1,2. XXXVII. Of Innovations in Matters of Faith. His Church has made feves H1 s church has never made any Im°- ,«f„«^ *i • if , vision in Matters of Faith • what fhe ra Innovations mMat- hdkves and teaches novv? b^g the ters of Faith 5 and h0TPjb$Ver fome that the Catholkk Church believ'd and taught, in the firft three or four Centuries fters of Chriftianity. And therefore as the Apoftles in their AtTembly, (Afts 15.) detertnin'd the Controverfie concerning the Ciraimcifwn > and propofed to the Faithful, what was the Doftrine of Chrift in that point, of necejjity to be be- iiev'd ; of which till that deciiion, there had been rais'd (everal Queftions and doubts ; but now no longer to be que- ftioned, without the Shipwrack of Faith. So in all fucceeding ages the Elders of the 54 A l?Aipi9iMif-repreJentedandRepreJented» jbe lap ckimtoKn^mjvith g«ft£<&$g^ *^ a freter.ee of having prejerv d been feveral Decilions touching Toints the Do&rine of the Apoflles in* of Faith ; yet can no one, without an . t it j •*?. A*- • injury to truth, fay that in any of thefe violable and entire 5 yet tis evu ha's b£en coin,d new Anides^ chriftians dent to Any JeriOHsObferver ', that forced to the acceptance of Novelties, the greatefi part of her Belief is ^^£S$£'t&'. meer Novelties,^^ bearing date ftcps ; as often as they have been in the jromChrifior his Avoliles, but like circumftances with them ; doing ex- J % r r ni acily according to the Form and Example only from (owe of her own more lefn t0 the church, by thofe perfeft Ma modem Synods, There fearce having pafi'd any Ageyetfvhere- in there has not, in thefe Ecclefi- aftical Mints, been coind New Articles, which with the counter- feit ft amp ofChriB and his Apo- ftles, are made to pafs for Good and Current, amongft her ere- dnkusand undifieming Retain- %S$%&22£% tf&. ers: And, befides thefe, what a in their Councils have never fcrupled to great number of ErrOUrS have determine all fuch Points, which had 9 . . 1 1 r ^ ^r is 0 been controverted amonsft the Brethren, been introduc d at other times t and t0propofe to them, what of nto&ty How many did Pope Gregory they were to believe for the future ; with Anathema, pronounced againft all fuch, as mould prefume to preach the contrary. Thus in the year 325. the fir -ft Nicenc Council declar'd the Son of God to be Confubjlantial to his Father j Of Rome now, with the Frimi- againft the Arum; with an obligation five times ofthefirli three or four on all to affent to this Doftrine, though l J .J \ *L.~~ — _~ «_~ never till then, propos'd or declar'd in hundred years, there are no two thatForm. Thus inthe year 381. the things fo unlike'-) Jhe is a Garden BoUyGhoJl was declar'd to be God-, a- HOW, but quite over-grown with &af Muedmiusand his Followers in 9 , A . t> it 1 t the mix Conjtantinopoliun Council. And Weeds '^Jhe is a tield, but where in the firft Epkefin, Anno 431. Neftorius the Tares have perfe&ly choakd was condemned, who maintain'd mo j.L \kt\ < J L 1-4.4.1 - Perfons in Chrift, and that the blejedVir- up the Wheat, and has little m gin3m not Mo\her of God \ with, a De- her of Apoftolical , bejidts the claration, that bo^h thefe Tenets were ^sjarne contrary to the Catholick Faith. In the *>a no:. fecond Nicene Council, Anno 78 7. Image- Breakers bring in ? and how many the Ignorance of the Tenth Age ? So that if we compare the Church ^Papift Mif-reprefented and Repre/erited. 5 $ Breakers were anathematiz'd. And fo others at other times ; ' and at Iaft, in the Council of Trent, was dedar'd the Real Prefence, Tranfubfiantiation, Purgatory, the lawfulness of the Invocation of Saints, of keeping Hoh Images, ^c. againft Luther, Calvin^ Be^a, C5V. And now, though in all thefe and the other General Councils, the Perfons condemned took occafion, from thefe New Declarations, to cry out ; Novelties, No- velties, to fright the People with the noife of new coin d Articles, and that the Inven- tions of Men were impos'd on them, for Faith. Yet 'tis evident that thefe Nero De- clarations contain'd nothing but the Antient Faith ; and that there had never been any fuch Declarations made, had not the Doctrine propos'd in them, being oppos'd and contradicted by fome fed ucigg Spirits, who going out from the Flock, endeavour'ci by making Diviilons, to d; aw numbers after them. So that the new Proposal of a Tenet, is but a fallacious proof of the Doctrine being lately invented] but a good Ar- gument of its being lately oppos'd. 'Tis certain from Scripture (Atls i«j.) that the A- poftles had never dedar'd the non+necefity of Circumcifion, bad not certain men come down from fudea and taught the Brethren the contrary. And that the confubftan- tiality of t\ic Son, had never been defin'd by the Nicene Fathers, had not Arius with his Followers, oppos'd this Catholic)^ Dottrine. And as certain it is, that the Council 0^ Trent had been altogether filent has to Tranfubfiantiation, Praying to Saints, Purg~» tory. ffi* had not Luther, Calvin and their Difciples, Once Profeffors of this Doctrine, gone out from the Fleck, and upon the Prefumption of a New Light, endcavour'd to perfwade the Faithful, that thefe Tenets., then believ'd by the whole Chrifiian World, were no longer to be own'd ; but to be quire thrown by, as Antichrifiian and diabolical. 'Twas this oblig'd the Paflcrs to watch and take care of their Flock ; and therefore noi flYin& away, as the Hireling does, when the Wolf cauheth, and fcatte- reththe sheep, they aflembled together into a Body, and declar'd to all, under their charge ; that they ought not to follow fir angers ; that howfoever thefe came pretending to the Shepherd's voice : yet fince they came not by the door into the Jheepfold ; but climb- ing up fome other way, they were nojhepherds ; but thieves and robbers ; fuch whofe bufi- nefs was not to feed ; but to Ileal, kill and deftroy. 'Twas this made them en- courage all under their care, not to waver ; but to ftand faft, and hold the profefli- on -of their Faith, and notwithstanding all pretences; by no means to fuffer them- felves to be deluded, and led away with ftrange Doctrine ; and that they might the better fccure them from falling into Errours, they gave them a Draught of their Chrifiian Doctrine; efpecially of all thofe points, which thefe modern f elf commijfco- nated Apoflles did preach againft, and endeavour to undermine ; particularly declaring, to them, the Faith they had been bred up in, which they had receiv'd from their Forefathers, and been deriv'd even from the Apoftles. Securing them, that whatfo- ever was contrary to this, was Novelty and Err our. And now in the Paftors de- claring this to the Faithful, where was the Innovation ? The Council did nothing but propofe fully and explicately, what, before their meeting, was the Doctrine of all Chrifiendom, and had been fo amongft the Primitive Fathers. 'Twas they made In- novation, who preach'd contrary to the Doctrine thus believ'd and receiv'd ; which Luther was not afham'd to own himfelf guilty of; plainly acknowledging, that he feparatedfrom the whole World, But it feems that the whole World was then corrupted, and the Religion thene- very where Profefs'd, was overgrown with Su-perftitions, Errors and Abominations ; fuch as had crept into the Church, fome five Hundred Years before, fome nine Hundred, and fome a Thoufand ; and 'twas from thefe Luther feparated, intending to Reform Chriftianity, arid bring it to the purity of the Primitive times, of the firfr three Hundred Years. And was it not very ftrange now, that fo many gtofs Foole- ries. 56 A Papift Mrfireprefented and Reprefented. ties, idle Superjlitions, and even down-right JdoUtry, fhould creep into a Church, and fpreading it felf through all Nations, infect the whole World, becoming the publick ProfeflioH of Chriftendom for fo many hundred Years, and be confkm'd and eftablifhed by the Laws of every Kingdom ; and that no body fhould take notice of any fuch thing, either at its firft Rife, or in all its Progrefs of fo many Years : Info- much, that had not Luther made the Difcovery, 'tis likely we fhould never have come to the knowledg of thefe Thoufand Years Errors and Corruptions : No think- ing Men certainly, but judges it impoffible, that the very Fundamentals of Chriftiani- fy fhould be fhaken, and the Religion planted by the Apoftles turned into Idolatry, and yet that no Learned Man fhould any-where appear to contradict thefe Abomina- tions, no Zealous Pallors to withftand them, no Piou# Princes to oppofe them ? Hiftory fufficiently fatisfies any Curious Reader ; that from the firft planting of the Church, there has been in no Age, any Man yet that has Preach'd any Heterodox and Erroneous Tenets, and by introducing Novelties, has endeavour'd to infect the minds of the Faithful with Herefie and Superfiition $ but immediately have ftood up Ver- tuous and Learned Men, in defence of the Truth; in their Writings and Sermons publickly confuting and condemning the Errors, and giving an alarm to the World, to beware of fuch Deceivers, and their wicked Doctrine ; withal, never omitting, to Record their names to Pofterity ; with an account of the Tear when they began to Preach ; under what Emperors, and what was the occafion of their Revolt. Was not aH this, and even more done againft Arms ? How many appear'd againft the Mv i- chees ? How many againft the Donatifls ? againft the Novatians, againft the Mam- donians, the Neftorians, the Eutychians, the Pelagians, the Berengarians, S5V. So that never any thing has made fo much noife in the World, fb many commotions, fo many difturbances ; nothing has been fb impoffible to be carryed on with fecrefie and filence, as the broaching any new Herefie, the making a Schifm, the alteration of Re- ligion, the ftartingup of fomenew Society and Pretenders to Reform. it ion. What Tumults did all the fore-mentioned Apoftles raife, m Preaching their Nero Gofpel? How was the Peace of Chriftendom difturb'd at the Doctrine of Mahomet, and the crying up the Alcoran ? What Stirs and Commotions at the Reformation of Church and Faith, pretended by Luther, Zwinglm and Calvin ? How then can it be judg'd in the leaft probable, that great variety of erroneous Tenets and Antichrifiian Dc- ftrine fhould be introduc'd by the Papijts, contrary to the fenle and belief of all Chriftianity, either in the fourth, fifth, fixth or tenth Century; and yet that there fhould not be the leaft difturbance occafion'd by it, no tumults or oppofition ; but all done with fo much quietnefs, in fuch a profound Peace and Silence, that had it not been for the News brought, fome Ages after, we had never fufpected the Altera- tion? And is this poffible? Is it poffible, that the whole Chriftian World fhould change their Religion, both as to the internal Belief, and external Profeffion and e xer- d[e of it ; and no body be fenfible of the change, fo as to withftand the Abomina- tion, or to tranfinit to Pofterity, even fo much as the leaft Word of its beginning or propagation ? Let any man upon fome confi deration, tell me, whether it be pof- fible, that this one little Kingdom of England fhould fall from this pure Apoftolical Doctrine it now profcfTes, into downright Popery, (or any other way alter the whole Scheme of its Religion) and have the Alteration confirm'd by feveral Alls of Parlia- ment, and continue in the publick Exercife of it for a thoufand, five hundred, or even one hundred years, and yet no one in the .Kingdom, or out of it, fhould be fenfible of the Alteration ; but all to be manag'd with fuch Policy and Craft, that the whole bufinefs fhould be a Secret for many Ages ? And if this befcarce to be thought pof- fible of this one Kingdom; what can be imagin'd/ when 'tis affirm'd of many Na- tions A Papift Mif-reprefentedntmd Reprejented. 5 7 t-ions of the whole Chriftian World ; Can any thing look more like a Fable or Ro- mance ? Or can any Rational Man, barely upon fuch a Report, condemn the Faith and Religion of his Anceft or s, for Novelty and Human Inventions; and quite laying afide this, take him for the Rule of his Reformation, who thus, without Reafon, fu- ftice or Truth, has thrown fuch an Infamy upon all the Chriftians preceding him for a thoufand years ? But not to infift on thefe reafonings, for the wiping off the fcandal of Novelty from the Doctrine of the Church of Rome ; 'twould not be amifs here, to look beyond the Tenth Century, as alfo beyond the time of Pope Gregory. And if in thofe earlier Chriftians, nothing can be found of that Faith and Profejjion, which is charged as Novelty and Errour againft the Church of Rome ; all the Papifis in the World friall joyn with their Adversaries ; and condemning Pope Gregory for a Seducer, and all the Tenth Age for fo many Ignoramus's, (hall in one voice with th'em cry out againft all fuch Dottrine, Novelty, Novelty, Errour, Errour. But if, on the contrary, every Point thus challeng'd of Novelty, fhall appear to have been the Profejjion of the Faith- ful in the time of the Purity of the Gofpel ; if before Pope Gregory we find that Invo- cation of Saints, the Real Preface, Tranfubflantiation, Purgatory, Prayer for the Dead, theVfe of Hoi) Images, Reikis, the Sign of the Crofs, Proceffion, &c. were a receivd Dottrine, and common Prattice of Chrifiiins in thole Primitive times : Then fhall the Papifis remain as they are, as being of the fame Faith and Religion, with thofe An- tient Believers, without any Additions and Alterations ; and all their Adversaries ought in juftice to return again to their Communion, and making up one Quire, cry out with them ; Blejfed are they, who believe as our Forefathers believ'd, who received their Faith from the Apoftles and their Succefors ; and Accurfed be they, who Separate from this Faith, and upon the noife of Novelty and Errour make Divifwns in the Church, and fall from her Communion, believing Lies rather than Truth. In order to this, I intended in this place to have giventhe Reader a fair profpect of the Dottrine and Belief of the Fathers, of the firftfive hundred years after Chrift ; but finding the Matter.to encreafe fo much beyond expectation upon my hands, I have re- ferv'd them for another ©ccafion. But however, upon confidence of what I am able to produce in that Point, I cannot omit to affure the Reader, that the chief and moft material Points charg'd upon the Church of Rome {or Novelty, the Primitive Fathers do fo plainly own to have been the Faith and Profeffion cf the Church in their days ; and to have been deliver'd down and taught as the Dottrine of the Apoftles ; that an impar- tial Confiderer need not take much time to conclude, whether are the greater Innova- tors, thofe that now Believe and Profefs thefe Tenets and Practices j or they that dif- ownor reject them. 'Tis evident, that every Point of thatDoctrin, which is now de- cry'd for Popery, and bafely ftigmatiz'd with the note,of Errour s introduc'd of late.and of a modern invention, is by many Ages older than thofe, who are reputed to be the Authors ; that every particular Article laid to the Ignorance of the Tenth Century, and to the contrivance of Pope Gregory, are as exprefly and clearly ow n'd. and taught fome Ages before, as now at this day. That thofe Great men were as down-right Papifis in thefe Points, as we are now. And that any difiurber of Chrift ianiry might Lave as well defam'd them for believers of Novelties and Errour s, as we are now at this prefent. The Faith that they profefs'd then, we profefs now ; and it-" anvofour Doctrine be Novelty, ctisa Novelty of abovetwelve hundred years ftanding: And who canqueftion it not to be of an older date? If it was the publick belief of the Chri'li . - World, in the fourth Century, who can be better W itneffes of what v\ as be! iev'd before them, even in the third Age, than They ? They tell us that the Doctrine they main- tain and deliver, is the Faith of the Catholich Church, receiv'd from their Eorc-fathei s. I 5 9 A Papift Mif-reprefentcd and Keprefented. and as it was taught by the Apojlles ; and we don't find that in any of thefe Points.they were chaileng'd by any Authority, or oppofed by the Paftors of tiie Church, or any Writ.rs, either then living or tucceeding them; but received always with great ation ; And upon what grounds can any challenge them now ? Is it poflible, that anv living now, can give a better account of what was believ'd and prattis'd in the third Age, than .They that immediately follow'd them ? Which will be more credible Witneffes of what was done in Forty Eight'-, thofe that (hall be alive fifty years hence; or they that are not yet to come thefe thoufand years ? If therefore thefe Holy Men . lare to us the Po&rine they believ'd ; with an affnrance, that it was the Faith of he Catholick Church, fo believ'd by their Anceftors, and as they had receiv'd it from e Apoftles and their Succeffbrs ; do not they deferve better credit.than others, who coming a thoufand years after, cry out againft all thefe feveral Points, that they are nothing but Novelty and Erroitr? Tis evident therefore tohrr:. that tbis noife of Jfa .elty, was nothing but a jir at agent for the introducing of Novelties ; and that thofe that brought an Infamy upon thefe Points, by thisafperfion, might with as great ap- plaufe,and as eafily have laid a fcandal upon every other Article of the Chriftian Faith which they thought fit to retain, and have had them all exploded for Nzvehy. . And tbis has been fo far done already, that even three parts of that Do&rine, pick*d out by the firjl Reformers, for Apojlolisal, and conform to the Word of God, we have feen in our days clamour'd againft for Novelty, and thrown by with a general Approbation, and as clear Evidence of the charge, as ever they laid by Tranfubjlamimon and the Pri- macy. The firjl Reformers caft ofFthe Authority of the firjl Bijhop, as being a Novelty; Others foon after cry'd down the Authority of all Bijhops, for a Novelty. The Firjl did own'd a great part of the Pri;jlly Funttion, as being lately crept in ; the Others dif- own'd all the reft, and even Ordination it felf, as having all crept in together. The Firjl threw out a great number ofcCeremonus, as being not Apojlolical, but of a modern Inftitution : The Others threw out even what they had retain'd, for being no more an Ordination of the Apojlles, than the former. The Firjl laid by fire of the Sacraments ; the Others laid by the other two. And thus Novelty was the Word, whenfoever any re- ceiv'd Doctrine of Chriftianity was to be outed,and way to be made for a Novelty. And he does not doubt, but, that if the noife of Novelty continue long, lo unhappily fucceff- ful as of late, and the liberty be permitted to every pre fuming spirit, to fix this fcandal upon whatfoever Doftrine or Inftitution they fhall think fit; that all Chriftianity is in a fair way of being thrown out of doors: and the Bible, Preaching, Catechifing,Chrift*s Incarnation and Fajfon, &c. are as likely to be caft off for a Novelty, as all the reft have been. Thofe that will but fhew to the People, that even thefe things have been all receiv'd from Rome, and that the Papijls by their Mijionaries, fpread thefe Do&rines over the World, may foon perfwade them, they are nothing but Popijb Inventions,meer Novelties ; that thofe that began the Reformation, did their bufinefs by halves.and that the World will never be throughly Reform'd, till all thefe JRomifh Superjlitions, are laid by with the reft ; they being all of the fame date. He takes no notice therefore of all thefe clamours rais'd againft feveral points of the receiv'd Do&rine of his Church ; his Faith is founded on better Principles, than to be fhaken with fuch a Vulgar Engine. No- velty, Novelty, is a cry, that may fright unthinking Men from their Religion ; but every ferious Man will require better Motives than a Noife,before he forfake any point of. his Faith ; and 'tis im poflible he fhould joyn with any in condemningfuch things for Novelties, which he finds the Profeflion of all Antipity, THE A Papift Mif-nprefinttd dnd Reprefented. 5 9 THE CONCLUSION. THefe are the Characters of the Papift, as he tot Mif-reprefented,<«zd as Reprefented. And as different as the One is from the Other, Jo different is the rapifl", as re- futed by his Maligners, from the Papift, as to what he is in himfelf. The One is fo Ac- fur d and Monjlrous, that 'tis impojjible for any one to be of that Profeffiov, without firfi layingby all thoughts of Chriftianity, and his Reafbn. The Other it juft contradi8p*y to this ; and without any farther Apology, may be expos' d to the perufal of all Prudent and Vnpafumate Confiderers, to examine if there be any thing in it, that deserves the hatred of any Cbrijlian : And if it be not in every Point wholly conform to the Do&rine of Chrift, -and not in the leaft contrary to Reafon. The Former it a Papift, as he is generally appre- hended by thofe, who have a Proteftant Education ; fuck as whensoever reflected on, is conceiv'd to heaperverfe, malicious Jort of Creature, Superftkious, Idolatrous, Atheifti- cal, Cruel, Bloody-minded, Barbarous, Treacherous, and fo Prophane, and every way Unhumane, that 'tis in fome manner doubted, whether he be a Man, er no. Tke other, is a Papift, whofe Faith is according to the Propofal of the Catholick Church ; which by Chrifi's Command, he is oblig'd to believe and hear, and whofe whole defign in this Worhd, is for the obtaining Salvation in the next. And it it not ftrange, that thefe two Characters fo diretlly oppoftte, fo wholly unlike one the other, that Heaven and ffell is not more, Jbottti tgree to the fame perfon : 'Tis certainly a ftrange piece of injufiice, and yet not at all ftrange to thofe, who know, that they that follow Chrift jhall be hated by the World, that thofe ■who ftudy-the Wifdom of Heaven, jb all have the repute of Fools ; and that as many as at- tend the Lamb, jhall be painted in the Livery of Satan. Our Fore-fathers werefo, before us; all the Primitive Chriftians, the Apoftles, and even the Lamb himfelf, our Redeemer. Calumny ever follow' d them, Mif-reprefentation waited on them; and what wonder that Infamy was their conftant Attendance? And now if the Orthodox Chriftians, have thws in all Ages had their double Character ; one of Juftice, exactly drawn from what they really believ'd and pratlis'd', the other of Malice, copied from them, as Mif-reprefented : *Tis not at all ftrange, to find it fo now in our days ; when Calumny, Malice, Igno- rance, &C. are as powerful as ever ; who, though from the beginning of the World, that it above five tkoufati Tears, they have made it their chief bufinefs to Paint, Copy and Re- prefent Things andPerfons ; yet they never did it withfo much Injury, fo altogether un- like, as they do now to the Papifts ; there being fcarce any one Point of their Faith 'and Profeflion, which they do not either blindly miftake, or bafely difguife. The Pa- pifts believe 'tis convenient to pray before Holy Images, and give them an inferrour or relative refpetl. Thefe defcribe the Papifts Praying to Images, and Worfliipping them at Idols. The Papifts believe 'tis good to defire the Prayers of the Saints, and Honour them ax the Fri'nds of Gcd. Thefe Paint out the Papifts, at believing Saints to be their Redeemers, end Adoring them as Gods. The Papifts believe, that Chrift left a Power in the Priefts of hit Church, to Abfolve all truly Penitent Sinners from their Offences, Thefe Reprefent the Papifts as believing, That the Pricft can infallibly' forgive all fuch as ccme to Confejfwn, whether they Repent, or n*. The Papifts believe there's Power in the fupreme Paftor, upon due Motives of granting Indulgences ; that is, of releafing te the Faithful fuch Temporal Penalties, as remain due to their paft fins, already remitted as to ihe\r guilt ; on condition they perform fuch Chriftian Duties as ft\iUbe ajign'dthem, i.e. humble themfslves by Fafting, Confefs their fins with a hearty Repentance, tigctive Worthily, an I I 2 give 6o A Papift Mif-reprefented and Reprejeated. give Alms to the Poor, Sic. Thefe make the Papifts believe, That the Pope, for a fum of Money, can give them leave to commit what fins they full think ft, with a certain Par- don for all Crimes already incurr'd ; and that there can be no danger of Damnation to any, that can but make a large Pre fen t to -Rome, at his death. The Papifts believe, That by the Merits of Chrifi, .the good Works of a juft Man, areacceptablejo God,tand througjb hit Goodnefs and Prcmife, meritorious of eternal happinefs. Thefe report, That the Papifts believe they can merit Heaven by their own Works, without any depen dance on tlx work of our Redemption. The Papifts worfhip Chrifi really prefent in the Sacrament true God and Man. Thefe fxy they fall down to, and worfhip a piece of Bread. Some Papifts maintain the Depofing Power: Thefe will have it to be an Article of their Faith, and rhat they are oblig'd to't by their Religion. Some Papifts have ken Traytors, Rebels, Confpirators, tic . Thefe make thefe FiUanies to be Meritorious among the Papifts, and that 'tis the Dottrine of their Church. And thus there is fear ce any one thing belonging to their Faith and Bxercife of their Religion, which U not wronged in the defer ibing it, and injur ioufly Mif-reprefente.l. And if any be Jo curious, as to de fire to be fatisfied, how this comes about; lit him but flmdby any of the. Undertakers, while they are taking the Copy of Popery, and obferve their Method, and he may foon come to the bottom of the Myftery. He may fee them (erioufly viewing fome of their Tenets, and upon afiort con- fideration, immediately to fall to the making Inferences, and deducing Confluences, then down go thefe for fo many Articles of Popery. They go on, and fee other of her Tenets, and thefe containing Myfteries, fuch as Reafon cannot reach to, when Faith is not affiflant ; they are prefently follow' d with variety of Abfurdities, and feeming Contradictions : And down go thefe to the former, for fo many Articles of Popery. They pafs on to others, and thefe being not conform to the Principles of their Education; fever al Mifconftru&ions . are prefentlyrais'd upon them, and down go thefe for fo many Articles of Popery/ They look forward, and feeing others, in the pratlice of which, many Abufes have been com- mitted ; then down go the Abufes for fo many Articles of Popery. Hence they turn to the Court of Rome, and at many Diforders and Extravagancies as they find there, fo many Articles of Popery. They enquire into the Actions and Lives of her Paftors and Pre- htes,and as many Vkes^x many wicked Defigns m they difcover there, fo many Articles of Popery. They examine the behaviour of her Profeflors, and whatfoever Villanies, whatfoever Treafons and Inhumanities, they find committed by any that own them- J "elves Members of that Communion Jown they aUgoforfo many Articles of Popery. They hear the reports of fuch as have deferted her Authority, and tho* through their extra- vagancies and rafhnefs, they deferve not credit even in a trifle ; yet their whole Narrative Jhallhe accepted, and all their idle Stories be fumm'd upi for fo many Articles of Po- pery. They perufe every fcurrileus Pamphlet and abnfive Libel', and fuch ridiculous Fables, as are only fit for a Chimney-corner, they borrow thence, and fet them down for fo many Articles of Popery. They turn over every Popifh Author, and whatfoever light, loofe or extravagant Opinions, whatfoever Ducourfes carried en either though Flattery, Dif- guft, or Faclion, appear in any of them, they are all marked out for fo many Articles of Popery. And by thefe and fuch like mtans is finijht at lajl a compleat draught of Po- pery, in which fine is render' d fo foul, monftrous and abominable, that there can be no- thing raked from the very finks of Turcifm, nothing borrow' d from the wild Africans, or barbarous Americans, that can make her more odious , or add to her deformity. Why, and is not Popery then, fuch as 'tis thus generally painted ? No 'tis no more like it, than Monarchy is to that which turbulent Republican Spirits fhew for it ; when difplaying to the multitude fome Mifcarriages of State, Frailties in Perfons in Dignities, Abufes of Government, tic. they cry out, Behold this is Monarchy. . By thefe means making h In- famous among the People, that they may more eafily overthrow it. . And are not the Papifts fuch as they are commonly Represented ? No • They are no more alike, than the Chriftians were A Papift Mif-reprefented And Reprefented. &r veere of old under the Perfecuting Emperors, to what they appeared, when chitbed with Lions and Bears Skins they were expofed in the Amphitheatre to Wild Beafts ; under thofe borrow'd Shapes to provoke their Savage oppofites to greater futy ; and that they might infallibly, and with more rage, be torn in pieces. Let Monarchy be fhewn in its own colours ; and the Chriftians be expos'd in their own form, and one witt have but few Maligners, and the others will meet with a more Tame behaviour, even from the wil- deft Beafts. Let any one but fearch into the Councils of the Church of Rome, even that of Trent, than which none can be more Popifti ; let them perufe her Catechifms, that, ad Parochos, or othets fet forth for Paftors to inftrutl their Flock, and for Children, Touth, and others to learn their Chriftian Dottrine, of which there is extant great variety in Englifh. Let them examine Vernon's Rule of Vaith,and that fet forth by the Bijhop of Condom. Let them look into the Spiritual Books of DireiliomThofe of the Bijhop Sa\es,the Following of Chrift, the Chriftian Rules, the Spiritual Combat, Granado's Works, and infinite others of this fort, which Papifts generally keep by them for their Inftruttion : And then let them freely declare, whether the Papifts are fo ill principled, either as to their Faith or Morals, as they are generally made appear. A little diligence in this kind, with a ferious inquiry into their conversation, their manner of Living and. Dyings will tafily dif cover, that that of Beaft, with which they are commonly expos'd to pnblick, is not theirs, but only of the fkin, that is thrown over them. The Papifts own, that there are amongft them Men of very iULives, and thai- if every corner be narrowly fifted, there may be. found great ahttfes, even of the moft J acred things ; that fome in great Dignities have been highly vicious, and carried on wicked Defigns : That fome Authors maintain and publifh very abfurd Opinions, and of ill confequence. But thefe things are nothing of their Religion, they are the Imperfections indeed, the Grimes, the Scandals of fome in their Communion; but fuch they are fo far from being obliged to approve, maintain, or imitate, that they wijb with all their heart there had been never any jitcb things and defire in thefe Pbints a through Reformation. Tho* the Imprudences therefore, the Failings; the Extravagances, the Vices, that may be pick' d up throughout the whole Society of Pa- pifts, are very ^numerous -and' great, and too too fufficient, if drawn together, for the compo- fing a moft Deform'd Antichriftian Monfter ; yet the Popery of Roman-Catholicks is no fuch Monfter, at 'tis painted. Thofe things which are commonly brought again ft them, being as much detefted by them, as by the Perfons that lay the charge in- their dif-favour \ and having no more relation to them, than Weeds and Tares to the Corn amongft which it grows ; or ChafF to the Wheat, with which it lies mix'd in one heap. A Papift therefore is no more than he is above Reprefented ; and wbofoever enters that Commu- Bion, has no obligation of believing otherwife, then as there fpecified. And though in each Particular; J have cited no Authorities; yet for the truth and ex.illnefs of the Chz* rafter, / Appeal to the Council of Trent. And if in any Point it Jhall be found to difi- gree, J again prcmife, upon notice, publickly to own it. And as for the other Part, of the Papift Mi f-reprefented, it contains fuch Tenets as are wrongfully charged 'upon the Papifts; and in dsmpny refpecls, as it is contrary to the other Character ; in fomanyjt is contrary to the Faith of their Church : And fofar, they are ready to difown them, and fubferibe to their C ondemnation. And though any ferious enquirer may be eafdy fatisfied as to the truth of this ', yet for a pnblick fatisfatlion, to Jhew that thofe Abominable Unchriftian Do&rines are no part of their Belie?', (however extravagant fome men may be in their Opinions ;) the Papifts acknowledge that a Faith ajfenting to fuch Tenets, is viholly oppofite to the Honour of God, and Deftruftive to the Gofpel of Chrift, and do publickly invoke God Almighty s Judgments upon that C'.urrh, which teaches either pub- lickly or privately fuch a Faith. And fine e*tis lawful for any Chriftian to anfwer A— men, to fuch Anathema's, as are- pronoune'd againft things apparently finful ; r&'Pa-- pifts% 6a A Papift Mif-reprefinted and Reprejerted. pifts, tojbewto the World that they difovrn the following Tenets, commonly hid at their door', do here oblige themfelves, that if the enfuing Curies be added to thofe appointed to be read on the Fir ft day of Lent; They voill ferioujly and heartily anfwer Amen to them all. I. Curfed is he that commits Idolatry ; that prays to Images or Relicks, or Wor- (hips them for God. %. Amen, II. Curfed is every Goddefs Worfhiper, that believes the Virgin Mary to be any more than a creature ; that Honours her, Worlhips her, or puts his Truft in her,more than in God ; that believes her above her Son, or that (he can in any thing command Mm. J^. Amen. III. Curfed is he that believes the Saints in Heaven to be his Redeemers, that prays to them as fuch, or that gives Gods Honour to them, or to any creature whatfoever, R. Amen. IV. Curfed is he that Worfhips any Breaden God,or makes Gods of the empty Ele- ments of Bread and Wine. R. Amen, V. Curfed is he that believes that Priefts can forgive fins, whether the fmner re- pent, or no : Or that there's any power in Earth or Heaven, that can forgive fins, without a hearty repentance, and ferious purpofe of amendment. R. Amen : VI. Curfed is he that believes there's Authority in the Pope or any others that can give leave to commit Sins : Or that can forgive him his fins for a fum of Mpney. R. Amen. VII. Curled is he that believes, that Independent of the Merits and Paflion of thrift, he can Merit Salvation by his own good Works ; or make condign fatisfa&ion for the guilt of his fins, or the pain Eternal due to them. R. Amen. VIII. Curfed is he that contemns the Word of God, or hides it from the people, on defign to keep them from the knowledge of their Duty, and to preferve them in Ignorance and Errour. R. Amen. IX.Curfed is he that undervalues the Word of God, or that for&king the Scripture, chufes rather to follow Humane Traditions than it. R. Amen. X. Curfed is he that leaves the Commandments of God, to obferve the conftituti- ons of Men. R. Amen. XI. Curfed is he that omits any of the Ten Commandments-, or keeps the people from the knowledge of any one of them, to the end they may not have occafion of dif* ( covering the Truth. R. Amen. XII. Curfed is he that preaches to the people in unknown Tongues, fuch as they nnderftand not ; or ufes any other means, to keep them in Ignorance. R. Amen. XIII. Curfed is he that believes that the Pope can give to any, upon any account ■whatfoever, Difpenfations to Lie, or Swear falfly : Or that 'tis lawful for any, at the laft hour to proteft hirruelf Innocent in cafe he be Guilty. R. Amen. XI V. Curfed is he that encourages fins, or teaches Men to defer the amendment of their lives, on prefumption of their Death- Bed-repentance. R. Amen. XV. Curfed is he that teaches Men, that they may be Lawfully drunk on a Friday, or any other Fafting-day ; tho' they muft not tafte the leaft bit of Flefh. R. Amen. XVI. Curfed is he who places Religion in nothing but a pompous fhew connfting only in Ceremonies ; and which teaches not the People to ferve God in Spirit and Truth. R. Amen. XVII. Curfed is he who loves or promotes cruelty, that teaches People to be Bloody-minded, and to lay afide the meeknefs offefus Cbrifr. R. Amen. XVIII. Curfed is he who teaches it Lawful to do any wkked thing, tho' it be for the A Papift Mif-reprefented and Reprejented. 6$ the Intereft and Good of Mother-Church : or that any Evil action may be done, that Good may come of it. R. Amen. XIX. Curled are we, if amongft all thole wicked Principles and Damnable Do- ftrines,commonly laid at our Doors?any one of them be the Faith of our Church: And Curfed are we, if we do not as heartily deteft all thofe Hellilh Practices, as they that fo vehemently urge them againft us. R. Amen. XX- Curfed are we, if" in anfwering, and faying Amen, to any of thefe Curfes, we ufe any Equivocations, Mental Refervations ; or do not affent to them in the com- mon and obvious fenfe of the words. R. Amen. And can the Papifts then, thus ferioufly, and without check of Confcience,fay Amenw aK thefe curfes t Tes they can,and are ready to it, whenfoever,and as often as itjball be required of them. And what then is to be [aid of thofe, who either by Word or Writing, charge theje Doctrines upon the Faith of the Church of Rome, Is a lying fpirit in the mouth of all the Prophets ? Are they all gone afide ? Do they back-bite with their tongue, do evil to their Neighbour, and take up reproach againft their Neighbour ? Vie fay no [uch thing, but leave the impartial Confiderer to judge. One thing I can fafely affirm, that the Papifts are foully Mif-reprefented, andjhew inpublick as much unlike what they are, as the Chrif- tians were of old by the Gentiles ; that they lie under a great Calumny, and Severely [mart in good Name, Perfons and Eftates, for fuch things • which They as much and as heartily deteft, as thofe who accufe them. But the comfort is, Chrift has faid to his Followers, Ye fhall be hated of all men, (Matt. 10. 22.) and St. Paul, we are made a fpeftacle unto the World ; and we don't doubt, that who bears this with patience, JhaUfor every lofs here, and content, receive a hundred fold in Heaven'. For bafe things of the World, and things which are defpiled, hath God chofen, i Cor. i. 2$. The CONTENTS. i./^Fj 2. Of Praying to Saints, 3. of Paying to the Virgin Mary, 4. . Of Rglicks. 5. Of the Eucharift , 6. Of Merits and Good Works, 7. ofConfeJfon, 8. of Indulgences, 9. Of Satisfaction, 10. of Raiding the Holy Scripture, 11. of Ape: yphal Books, 12. Of the Vulgxr Edition of the Bible, 12 13. of the Scripture as a Rule of Faith,i4. 14. of the Interpretation of Scripture, 15 x5« Of Tradition, \6 16. of Councils, 17 17. of infallibility in the Church > 19 180 Of the Pope, 21 Page 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25- 26. 27. 2S. 29. 30. 31- 32. 33- 34. 35- 36. 37- Of Difpenfations, of the Depofing Power, Of Communion in one kind) Of the Mafs, Of Purgatory,' Of Praying in an Unknown Tongue, Of the Second Commandment, Of Mental Refervations, Of Death-bed Repentance, OfFafting, of Divifwn and Schifms in the Church, 3 6 37 39 42 43 4$ 22 24 25 27 28 30 32 33 34 35 Of Fry/crs and Nuns. Of Wicked Principles and Practices, Of Miracles, Of Holy Water, Of Breeding up People in Ignorance, Of the vncharitablmefs of the Papifts, 46 Of Ceremonies and Ordinances, 49 Of Innova ttons in Matters of Faith, 5 3 F I N I «? Roman^Catholick Principles, In Reference to gOV andthtKlNCj. j»*** i Cor. 1 5. ___ 22. b~] Mark PARAGRAPH I. **«*, Heb.11.0. Of the Catholick Faith, and Church in General. 2$. by the Ho- for the Inftruc~tion of all. (n) Spread for that end through- J Tim# 3> ly Ghft out all Nations, and t^/v continued in the Succeflion of mm. \6. for that Paftors, and People throughout all Ages : From which 18. end' Church(o) Guided in Truth^and fecur 'dfrom Frrour in Mat- Pi Matth. tcrs of Faith) by the (p) promised Affiance of the Holy 3*- 2}' , A Ghofl,}0'H-16- 2 Roman-Catholicl^ Principles, Ghojl, every one may, and ought to (q) Learn both the j] Den. Right Senfe of the Serif tar e, and all other ChrifKan My- *7- 8. /tern and Duties, refpedively neceilkry to Salvation, at.23.2. This VJII. This Church, thus Spread, thus Guided, thus vi- r~\Czn.6.t church is fibly Contimfd, {/) in One Uniform Faith, zndSubordim- Jo. 10.16. th.ehfa"i!e tirn of Government, is that fdf-famc which istcrm'd the R.om.i$.$ Sn« Koman-CatkolichJSh'irch, the Qualifications above-mentio- {^J7* 2^ Catbolick. ned, viz.. Unity, Indeficiency, Vifibility, Succeffion, and V- niverfahty, being applicable to no.other Church, or Affem- .^/y, whatfoever. TdlTrno- *X. From the Teftimony and Authority of this Church, ny of it is,that we Receive, and Believe the Scriptures to be G-aa's which, we #^ .. And as She canfO ^ra//y tcllUs, This or That *-JMat-16- receive g00k js OqcCi Word, lb can flie with the like Ajfurancetcil u Tim. 3, ture tote us a^° tneTrue Senfe and Meaning of it in Controverted 1$. C7oder-Plot,had been exactly true,( which yet the for the mod part are notorioufly mif-rcfated,) neverthc- Church. . jccs Catholic^ (at Catholicks) ought not to fuffcr for fuch 'Offence;, any more than the Eleven Apoflles ought to have iurfer!d for Judas's Treachery. XI. It Roman- Catholick. Principles. 5 No Power XI. It is an Article of the Catholic Faith, to believe,that onnEa^h no Power on Earth cznjjce/fe Men to Li , to forfwear, and rife Men" P^W* themfelves,to Majfacre. their Neighbours, or De- to Lie, ftroy their Native Country, on pretence of promoting For/near, the Catholic Cauje or Religion : Furthermore, all Pardons Munter, m^ Dtfrmfatiom granted, or pretended to be granted, In order to any iuch Ends or I MignSjhave no otherValidity or Eite£t, than to add Jacriledg and blafphemy 'to the a- bove mentiorfd Crimes. Equivoca- XII. The Doctrine of Equivocation or Mental Refer- tion not vation,however wrongfully impos'd upon thcCatholiche- aiiowed Hgim, is notwithftanding,neither taught, nor approved by Church t^ie Church, as any part of her Belief. On the contrary, fimplicity and Godly fwcerity are conftantly recommended 2 Cor. 1. by her as truly Chriftian Virtues, necehary to the confer- 12. vation of Juftice, Truth, and Common-fee urity. SECT. III. « Of fome Particular controverted Points of Faith* I. "C Very Cxthoiichjt obliged to believe ; that when a Sin- *3 Ez* I§* Of Sacra- £» ner 6*) Repents him of his Sins from the bottom * £Gr# mental of his Heart , and (b) Acknowledges hisTranfgreffions to 10. Abfoluti- Qod and his (c) Miwfters, the Difpenfers of the My Series of b~\ Pf 32.5 on* Chrift, refolving to turn from his evil ways, (d) and bring I^0,|,8, 1 3 forth Fruits worthy of Penance ; there is (then, and no other- CA l?' wile)an Authority left by Chrift to Abfohe fuch a Penitent 1 QDr.4.1. Sinner from his Sins •, which Authority Chrift gave his(e) Jam. 5.1^. Apoft'es,znd their Succeffors,thz Bifhops and Priefts of the fl Lu.3.8. Catholic Churchjin thofe words, when he laid, Receive ve e^ J°h;20- the Hoiy G/w/r,*whofe Sins you (hall forgive, they are/w- Matth.Vs. given unto them,<6r. 18. II. Though no Creature whatfoever can make (f)con-f] Tit. 3. 5 ' only of Indulgences being nothing elfe than a(7) Mitigation or Re- r] 2 Cor. Canonical Ration upon juft caufes, of Canonical Penances, enjoy n'd 2. 6. Penances. ^v ^ Pallors of the Church on Penitent Sinners, accor- Abufes (ling t0 their ieveral Degrees of Demerit. And it any tobe cha? a^u^cs or miftakes be fometimes committed, in point ci- gedonthe therof granting or gaining Indulgences, through the Re- Church, mifnefs or Ignorance of particular Perfons, contrary to the ancient Cuftom and Difciple of the Church ; fuch abu- les or miftakes cannot rationally be charged on theChurch, not rendred matter of derilion, in prejudice to her Faith w3 Num. There is and doftrine. J aSS a Turgaxo- IV. Citholicks hold thecc is a Purgatory, that is to fay, I3. sv. r>h°r Sme a ^acc or ^tatcJ wnere $o\\h departing this Life, with »3Pro.24. SouTde- Remidion of their Sins,as to the Eternal Guilt or Pain,or l6* parting yet (m) Obnoxiom to fome temporal Punijbment ftill re- JJJ^p3 * this Life maining due, or not perfectly freed from the Blemifh of 22) 26. with fome fome (^ Dtfefls ovbeordinatiom, (as idle Words, tec. How long each Soul is 4,2. &c. ftions a- detained there/' After what manner the ptffragesma.de in 1 Jo.5.16. gatoryUr" t^r behalf, areapply>d ? Whether by way dt [atisf action r3 J°- **• Of the or fotercejjion, tec. areQueftions fuperfluous, andimpcr- }i^ l6 Merit of tincnt as to Faith. 27. goal yj ^o Man, though j«i7, (r) can Merit cither an In- Cap.$. 12. trough creafe °f Sanc&y or Happinefs in this Life, or Eternal Cap. 10. rh- merits Glory in the next, independent on the Merits and Paf- ^or ofjhift. f Ion of Chrift Jefus, (s) the Good Works of a juft Man, IO# proceed- 2 Tim.4.8 Rotnan-Catholkk^Principles. 7 proceeding from Grace and Charity , are acceptable to God, lo far forth as to be, through his goodneis and Sacred Pro- mife, ttuly meritorious of hternal Life. VII. It is ati Article of the Catholick^Faith, That in Chrift re- t{iemofl: fj0iy Sacrament of the E'icharift, there is truly fentmVhe anc^ really contain'd the (j ) Body of Chrift, which tpjvs de~ r]Mat.2<5. Sacrament liver1 d for «*, and his Bloody which rv'asfliedfor the Remij- 26. of the Eii- flon 0f Sins ; the fubftance of Bread and Wine being by the Mar* 1 4- chariji. powerful Words of Chrift chang'dinto the fnb\\ance of his Lu.22.19. Blefled Body and Blood,the Species or Accidents of Bread x cor.'n! and Wine ftitt remaining. Thus, 23, £&. But after a VIII. Chrift is not prefent in this Sacrament, according UP> lo- 16> Supema- to his Natural way of Exiftence, that k with extenticn turai man- 0f parts, in order to place, {yc. but after a fupernatural ner' manner, one and the fame in many places, and whole in every part of the Symbols. This therefore is a real, fub- ftantialy yet Sacramental prefence of Chrift's Body and Blood, not expos'd to the External Senfes, or obnoxious to Corporal Contingences. wh°k IX. Neither is the Body of Chrift in this Holy Sacra- ^jj*r m ment, feparatedbom his Blood, or his Blood from his Bo- Species. dy,or either of both disjoyn'd from his Soul and Divinity, Hence but all and whole (u) living Jefus is entirely contain'd un- uT\ Jo. 6. Commu- der m/;^r Species; fo that whofoever receives under 0^48.50, 5 h uSerone &*£■> is truly partaker of the whole Sacrament, and no ^ |* kind no- wife depriv'd either of the Body cr Blood of Chrift. True wifede- it is, priv'd ei- x. Our Saviour Jefus Chrift, left unto us his Body and ^e[°^he Blood, under two difti net Species or Kinds; in doing of BlooVof which, he inftituted not only a Sacrament^ but alfo zSa- Chrift. crifice ; (x) a Commemorative Sacrifice diftinclly (y) fherv- *1 Luk/ of the Sa- j„g his licath or Bloody Failion, until he come. For as the y?' * q]^ the Mafs &w^w of the Crofs was performed by a diftin6t Effujion of {u 26.. Blood Jo is the fame Sacrifice commemorated in that of the £3 HeD- (*,) Altar, by a diflinction of the Symbols. Jefus therefore I3'TIO# is here given, not only to ws, but (a) for w 5 and the A^ Lu-32- Worlhip Church thereby enriched with a true, proper, and propi- ' of Images tiatory ifj) facrifiee, ufually terrrfd Mafs. F\ Mai. \, wrongful- XI. Catholiki renounce all Divine fVorfhip , and Adora- »"« JY lmP°" tion of Images or PiBures. (?) God alone n>e worjkip and Q1*^- 4* thoUcksf * a^m ' Nevcrthelefs we make ufe of Pictures, and place * them 8 RoMan-Catholick. Principles. Yet there them in (d) Churches and Oratories, to reduce our wan- XIII. Catholics believe, That the BlefTed Saints in Hea- jnRev> Prayers to ven rcplenifli'd with Charity f£) jfray for us their fellow- g. Saints members hereon Earth ; that they (z) Rejoyce at our con- QLu.1^.7 lawful, verfion; that feeing God, they iX)fee and know in him all K\ l Cor* things fuitable to their happy ftatejbut God is inclinable to }3'E]*\2 hear their Requetfs made in our behalf, (I) and for their , 3> fakes grants us many favours •, That therefore it is good aChron.6. and profitable to Defire their Interceffion ; And that this 42. manner of Invocation is no more injurious to Chrift our w3 Ro* Mediator ,or f up er abundant m itfelfjthanit is for oneChri- !^ns x^' ftian to beg the Prayers and afjiftance of ( m) another in this n~y jam. 2. World.Notwithilandingall whicb,QflWj« are not taught 17.30,^* fo to rely on the/>r in it ? and we dare not break his Law, when we pretend to ho- nour his Word. But IPC think there is forae difference be- tween Reverence and RefpeVt to the Bible, and falling doven before an Image. The Circumftacces of the one declare it to be meer RefpcEi, 2nd a Religions Decency ; and if the other be not External Adoraxvm, we know not what it is. 3. A ( "7 ) 3. A good Treacher is loved, becaufe he minds Men of their Duty. But what fliould we fay to him that fhould therefore kneel down and fay his Players, ar.d barn Candles and Jnccnfe before him, out of a refpeft to his good Doctrine ? Did S. Peter, or S- Paul like this, when Men would have wor- shipped them ? A good Preacher would tell them of their Duty, as they did •, and take Men off from the Worfhip of any Creature, animate or inanimate, and direct them to- worfhip Gcd alone, who made Heaven and Earth. II. Of Wor flipping Saints. FO R the clear Hating this Controverfy, thefe things are to be premifed. i . We do not charge them, that they make Gods of dead Men, i. e. that they believe the Saints to be Independent Deities. For this our Author confefles were a mofi damnable Idolatry. 2. We do not fay, that the State of the Church of Rome, with refpeel: to the Worfhip of dead Men, is as bad as Hea- thenifm. For we acknowledg the true Saints and Martyrs to have been, not only Good and Vertuous, but Extraordi- nary Perfons, in great Favour with God, and highly de- fer ving our Efteem and Reverence, as well as Imitation \ whereas the Heathen Deified Men, were vile and wicked Men, and deferved not the common Efteem of Mankind, according to the Accounts themfelves give of them. And we own the common Doctrine and Advantages of ChrifUa- nity to be preferved in the Church of Rome. 3. We do not deny, that they do allow fome external I Ads of Worfhip to be fo proper to God alone, that they ought to be given to none elfe befides him. And this they cz\\L*tria •, and we fhall never difpute with them about the proper fignification of a Word, when the Senfe is agreed, unlefs they draw Inferences from it, which ought not to be allowed. To this Latria, they refer not only Sacrifice, but all < 18 ) «jil that relates to it, as Temples, Altars, and Priefls : fo that by their own Confeflion, to make thefe immediately and properly to the Honour of any Saint, is to make a God * of that Saint, and to commit Idolatry. 4. They confefs, that to pray to Saints to bellow Spiri- * tual or Temporal Gifts upon us, were to give to them the Worfhip proper to God, who is the only giver of all good Things. For elfe I do not underitand, why they fhould take fo much pains to let us know, that whatever the. Forms of their Prayers and Hymns are, yet the Intention and Spi- rit of the Church, is only to defire them ro pray for us, and to obtain things for us by their Interceffion with God. But two things cannot be denied by them- i. That they do ufe folemn Invocation of Saints in Places of Divine Worlhip, at the fame time they make their AddrefTes to God himfelf, with all the Circumltances of Ex- ternal Adoration, with bended Knees, and Eyes lifted up to Heaven ; and that this Practice is according to the Council Sc&. 25. of Trent, which not only decrees an humble Invocation of them, but declares it to be impiety to condemn mental and vocal Supplication to the Saints in Heaven. 2. That they do own making the Saints in Heaven to be their Mediators of Interceflion, but not of Redemption •, al- though Chriit be our Mediator in both fenfes. And upon thefe two Points this Controverfy depends. Let us now fee what our Reprefenter faith to them. pltg. At 1 . His Church teaches him indeed, and he believes that it is good and profitable , to defire the Interceffion of the Saints reigning with Chrifi in Heaven ; but that they are either Gods, or his Re- deemers, ht is no where taught, but detefis all fach Dottrine. There are two ways of defiring the Interceffion of others for us. 1. By way of Friendly ~Requcfti as an Adr of mutual Chari- ty •, and fo, no doubt, we may defire others here on Earth to pray for us. 2. By ( >9 ) 1 2. By way of Humble Supplication, with all the external Ails of Adoration : and we cannot think S. Peter, ©r S. Pant, who refufed any thing like Adoration from Men, would have been pleafed to have feen Men fall down upon their Knees before them ; and in the fame pofture of Devotion in which they were praying to Almighty God, to put their Names into the middle of their Litanies, and to pray them then to pray for them. But how are we fure that their Church teaches no more than this ? I have read over and over the Council of Trent, and the Roman Catechifm about it, and I can find no fuch li- mitation of their fenfe there, where, if any where, it ought to be found. The Council of Trent mentions both the Prayers, and the Help and Ajfiflance of the Saints which they are to fly to. If this Help and Afjlftance be no more than their Prayers, why is it mentioned as diftincl ? Why is their reigning together with Chrift in Heaven fpoken of, but to let us underftand they have a Power to Help and djfifl? For what is their Reigning to their Praying for us ? But I have a further Argument to prove the Council meant more, viz.. the Council knew the common Practices and Forms of Invocation then ufed and allowed,, and the general Opinion, that the Saints had power to Help and All! ft thofe who prayed to them. If the Council did not approve this, why did it infert the very words upon which that Practice was grounded ? They likewife very well knew the Complaints which had been made of thefe things ; and fome of their own Communion cried (hame upon fome of their Hymns. Wicelius faith, one of them, Salve Regina, &c. is futt 0fWkel in Ekn~ downright Impiety, and horrible Superstition, and that others are cho Abu3mm% wholly inexcusable . Lud. Fives had laid, He found little diffe- YweiinAhg. rence in the Peoples Opinion of their Saints in many things^ from dtCivit. Dei. what the Heathens had of their Gods. Thefe things were t. d.c.xj. known j and it was in their Power to have redretfed them, by declaring what the Senfe of the Council was, and that whatever Forms were ufed, no more was to be underftood by them, but praying to them to pray for them. Befidcs, the Council of Trent, in the very fame Seflion, took care about re~ firming the Mijfal and Breviary j why was no care taken to reform ( » ) reform thefe Prayers and Hymns, which they fay are not to be conltrucd by the Senfe of the Words, but by the Senfe of the Church ? There was time enough takea for doing it ; for the Reformed Mijfal was not publifhed till fix Years after the Council, nor the Breviary till four. In all that time, the Prayers and Hymns might eafily have TSntrttUns de been altered to the Senfe of the Church, if that were pbiialetbe & trujy f0. But initead of that, a very late French Writer phi term, pan crjes Qut 0j t^e necejfity 0fi Reforming the Breviaries as to thefe 16s'.1 °'X ^ things \ wherein he confelles, Many Hymns are fill remaining, wherein thpfe things Are asked of Saints, which ought to be asked of God alone-, as being delivered from the Chains of our Sins, being preferved from fpiritual Maladies, and Hell Fire \ being inflamed with Charity, and made fit for Heaven. In good Con- fcience, faith he, is not this joining the Saints with God himfelf, to ask^ thofe things of them which God alone can give .? And whatever Men talk of the Senfe of the Church, he confefles, the very Forms, and natural Senfe of the Words, do raife another Idea in Mens Minds ', which ought to be prevented. But doth not the Roman Catechifm explain this to be the Senfe of the Church? I have examined that too5 with all the care I could, about this Matter. And I cannot find any neceffity r from thence of putting this Senfe upon them. I grant in plT' fT' 0ne P*ace-> wnere it explains the difference of the Invocation of n.2 2 '" ' God and Saints, it faith, We are to pray to God as the Giver, and to Saints that they would obtain things of God for m ; and then it adds, the Forms differ, that to God is, Miferere Nobis, and Audi Nos\ that to Saints is, Or a pro Nobis. Very well ! And is there then no other Form owned or allowed in the Church of Rome to Saints belldes this ? Hold a little, faith the Catechifm, for it is lawful to make ufe of another Form -, and that is, we may pray to Sai/itstoo, Vt noftri mife- reantur. And how doth this now differ from that to God, but only in Number ? But it addc, that the Saints are very pi- tiful ; then furely we are encouraged to pray to them for help and pity. Tes, faith the Catechifm, we may pray to them, that being moved with pity toward us, they would help m with their Favour and Intercefficn with God. But yet this doth not clear the Matter ; for elfewhere the Roman Catechifm at- ( *« ) attributes more to Saints than meer Intercejfion • and we may pray to them for what is in their Power : For where it un- catech. Rom. dertakes to give an exact Account of the Reafon of Invo- parc 3. c. 2. cation of Saints and Angels •, it there parallels them with Ala- "• 4> 6' gijhates under a King ; and faith, they are God's Alinificrs in ^JanP^"" governing the Church ; Invocandi itaque funt quod & perpetuo rtrum mfirarum Denm intuentur, & Vatrocinium Saint is tioftre libentijfime fufci- curam girant. piunt. What is this Vatrocinium Salmis noftr£ f Is it only EeiIarm. de Praying and Intercejfion with God? That cannot be, for it in- fat1^' Beat'lt- fiances preiently in deliverances by Angels^ and JacobV fray- dei^i] 2°av ingtothe Angel to blefs him, and not meerly to intercede for foium ab Aigiik him. But though this is fpoken of Angels, yet from hence it H ttiam a fpi> infers the Invocation of Saints too. But what need we infill ntlbm bejt0' more on this, fince they do own the Miniftry of Saints as r™. h&%T Well as Angels, with refpe& to the Church •, and do Cano- nafi MdesvC nize Saints for particular Countries, as lately S. Rofa for Peru, ventes. id. ib. And where there is fuch a particular Protection fuppofed, »• 18. §.»« what incongruity is it to interpret the Form of their Prayers, Mtm* according to a Doctrine fo received and allowed ? But of this more under the next Head. 2. He confers that we are all redeemed by the Blood of Chrift alone, and that he is our only Mediator of Redemption ; but aifor Mediators of Intercejfion, he doth not doubt but it is acceptable with God we fiould have many. I would ask, concerning this Diitindion, the Queltion which Chnfl asked concerning John's Baptifm, Is tt from Heaven, or of Man ? No doubt there may be fuch a Di- itinftion of Mediators, if God pleafe to make them. But who hath Authority to appoint Mediators with him bcfides himfelf? Is it not ufarping hi^ Prerogative, to appoint the great Officers of his Kingdom for him ? Would any Prince upon Earth allow this, viz.. when he hath abfolutely decla- red his Pleafure, that his own Son mould prefent Petitions to him, that others (hall take upon them to fet up Mafters of Rcquefts themfelves ? Can any thing be plainer in the New Teftament, than that God hath appointed the Mediator of Iolin x4« *?> Redemption, to be our Mediator of Intercejfion f And that his *4»l^»25»a4* Intercejfion is founded upon his Redemption. As the High %-'q\\\ D Pw/Ps 1 JoTi. ' ( ft# ) PrieJFs going into the Holy of Holies to intercede for the- peo- ple, was upon the Blood of the Sacrifice of Expiation, which he carried in with him. If there were no Revelation in this Matter, there might be fome reafon for it. But fince the Revelation is fo clear in it, this diftin&ion looks juft like, the Socinians Diftjn&ion of a God by Nature, and a God by Office ; which was framed on purpofe to avoid the plain Texts of Scripture which called Cnrift God. So doth this look as if it were intended to avoid that clear Text, which iTim.2.5. faith, There is one Mediator between God and Men, the Man Chrijt Jefeus. Which is prefently anfwered with this Di^ ftinction y although there be not the lealt ground in that or any other Text for it. 2>x, faith our Author, Mofes was fetch a Mediator for the. I.fraelites •, Job for his three Friends ; Stephen for his Perfe- cutors : The Romans were de fired by S. Paul to be his Mediator,, and the Corinthians and Ephefians •, fo almofe every feck^ Per/on defer es the Congregation to be his Mediator , that is, to be remem- hred in their, Prayers. P. 4, %. But is there no difference between Men praying for one. another, and defiring others to pray for them here on Earth, and an humble Invocation of the Saints in Heaven to he our Mediators of Jntercejpon with God there ? There is a threefold difparity in the Cafe. 1. Here upon Earth we converfe with one another as Fellow Creatures, and there is no danger of our having an. Opinion thereby, that, we are able to affifl one another any other way than by our Prayers. But the Cafe is very diffe- rent as to the Saints in Heaven, who by being addreffed to there by fuch folemn Invocation, may too ealily be conceived, to have the Power of bellowing fuch Bleffings upon thofe who call upon them. 2.. Heaven is looked on by all. Mankind, who direct their Devotions thither, as the particular Throne of God, where he dwells, and difcovershimfeif after another manner than he doth upon the Earth. And we are directed to pray to our Father in Heaven; where he is reprefented as infinitely a- bove all his Creatures : and the great Concernment of Reli- gion ( 1} ) •gion is, to keep np the apprehenflon of this diitance between him and them. Now it is hardly poflible to keep it up, if in the Publick Offices of Religion, in the folemneit poltures of Devotion, with Eye.> lifted up to Heaven, they do make Addrefles, both to God and to his Creatures. 3. Men are fure, when they pray to others on Earth to pray for them, that they do no more than they can juftify in point of Difcretion, when they fpeak or write to thofe that can underftand what their dellre is : But no Man on Earth can be certain that the Saints in Heaven can do it : For it is agreed they cannot do it without Revelation ; and no Man can be allured there is a Revelation ; and it is not rea- fonable to expect it : for they pray to Saints to pray to God for them •, and they cannot tell what they pray for, unlefs God to whom they are to pray, reveal to them what it is they muft pray to him for. Is it not then the better, the fafer, the wifer way, to make our Prayers to him, who we are fure is able to hear and help us •, and hath promifed to grant what we ask in his Son's Name ? But there is no ether Name, either under Heavtn, or in Heaven, whereby we can be faved, or our Prayers accepted, but his alone. But our Author faith, It is no part of his Faith, how the Saints in Heaven know the Prayers and Neceffities of fuch who addrefi themfeives to them. P. 5 . But how comes it to be any part of his Faith, that they know them ? However he doth not doubt but God can never want means of letting the Saints know them. P. 6. And is this a fuf- ficient Ground for folemn Invocation of Saints ? God doth not want Means to let the Emperor of Japan know a Re- quest any one here hath to make to him ; but is this a rea- fonable Ground, for him at this diitance to make it to him ? God doth not want Means to let the Pope know what a mighty Service it would be to the Chriitian World, to make a wife and truly Chriftian-Reformation in the Church \ but would this be a ground fufficient for me at this Diitance, to make a Speech to him about it ? I knew a Man who un- derftood not a word of Latin,but yet would needs go to hear a Latin Sermon : fome asked him afterwards, what he meant by it ? and the chief Reafon he gave was much like D 2 this, ( *4 ) this, God did not want Means to let him ktiow what the Treacher meant. But after all, Snppofe God fhonld make known to the Saints what v defired of them ; I ask, Whether this be fuflkient Ground for folemn Invocation ? When Socinm was not able to defend the Invocation of Chriji /w'w/W/,fuppollng that he could know our Hearts only by Revelation : And he had nothing material to fay, but only that there was a Command for it ; which can never be fo much as pretended in this Cafe. As to what he alleadges of the Elders falling down before the Lamb, having Vials full of Odours, which are the Prayers of the Saints, Apoc. 5. 8. It mult be (trained hard to be brought to this purpofe, when both Ancient and Modern Interpreters take it for a Reprefentation of what was done upon Earth, and not in Heaven. And if it were in Heaven, Prophetical Vifions were never intended for a Meafure of our Duties. Jf the Angels do fray for Mankind^ Zech. 1. 12. Doth it therefore follow we muft pray to them ? But we fay as the Angel did to S. John, Revel- 1 9. \ o. in a like Cafe \ See thou do it not : worjhip God. III. Of Jddrefsing more Supplications to the Virgin Mary, than to Cbrijl. HEre is no need of farther dating the Queftion ; this only relating tothe extraordinary Service of the blelfed Vir- gin. And therefore we are prefently to attend his Motions. He believes it damnable to think, the Virgin Mary more fower- ful in Heaven than Chrift y or that fhe can in any thing command him. P. 6. But in good earneft, Is it not damnable, unlefs a Man thinks the Blefled Virgin more powerful than Chrift I Suppofe one Ihould think her to have an equal Jhare of Power with Chrift -, Is this damnable, or not ? Is it not fetting up a Creature equal with God ? But ( »5 ) But what thinks he then of thofe who have attributed an univerfal Dominion to her, over Angela Men, and De- vils ? What thinks he not only of P falters, but of a Creed, Litany, and all the Hymns of Scripture being applied to her ? & Bonarent, AH which was done by a Canonized Saint in their Church , °$i' lm* l' and the Books printed out of the Vatican Manufcripts, and A dedicated to the Pope. And there we find fomething more than an Or a pro nobis in the Litany ; for there is Parce nobis, Domina ; Spare us,good Lady : 2.nc\,Ab ornni malo, libera nos, Domma ; From all Evil, Good Lady, deliver us. What thinks he of another Canonized Saint, who faid, s. Bcrnardin. thefe two Propofitions are both true, All things are fubjett to Sen. apud £,>■- God's Command, even the Virgin ; ar|i all things are fibjecJ to vf£*2 « Buftis the Command of the Virgin, even Cod. Was this damnable in ia. SetmTz a Canonized Saint ? What thinks he of the noted Hymn ? O felix Puerpera noftra pians fcelera Jure Matris impera Redemptori ! Was not this damnable ? And I have not only feen it in the old Paris Mi(fal, but Balinghem a Jefuit, faith, it was in the Balingbem. Miflals of Tour nay, Liege, Amiens, Artoit, and the old Roman. Pmaff.Marim. I could produce many other Paflages cited by him out of the p* 268, eld Offices to the fame purpofe •, but I forbear. But I cannot omit the Approbation given to the blalphe- mous faying of S. Bemardin by Mendoaa, (who endeavours to Mendoza. Vi- prove the bleffed Virgins Kingdom, not to be a Metaphorical, but rid. Sacr. I. 2, a true and real Kingdom). And by Salanar, another noted Je- ^r.obJ* *• r^j fuit, who faith, Her Kingdom is m large as her Sons. &^m(UtQgZ^ we have lately feen how far this Divinity is fpread, for not c. 32. many Years fmce, this Propofition was fent from Mexico, Filitu non tantutn tenet hy andire Matrem, fed & obedire ; Hut. Fms d* N.ieros Lapidi- The Son is bound not only to hear, but to obey his Mo- ^5jJ^?* ther. And is it ftill damnable for to fay, {he commands him ? ^. u$l Bu; ( 16 ) Bi.t our Anthor faith, What-ever elteem they have for P Tnat not only the Me(fed Virgin is Mother ^of k- *^e EtnpreJS of Seraphims the moft exalt Original of Pratli- ihs3A.D.i6$$.cal Perfection which the Omnipotency of Cod ever drew^ but that ( v? ) that by innumerable Titles jhe claims the utmost Duty of every Chrifiian, as a proper Homage to her Creatnefs. What can Pag. 4; be laid more of the Son of God in our Nature ? In the Book it felf fhe is faid to be Queen of Angels, Patrcnefs of the Church, Advocate of Sinners ; that the Power of Mary in the Kingdom of Jefns, is fait able to her Maternity, and other Priviledges of Grace ', and therefore by it fhejuftly claims a Ser- Pag. 8, vitude from all pure Creatures. But wherein doth this fpecial Devotion to her confift ? He names feveral Particulars. 1 . In having an inward, cordial and paffionate value of the Maternity of Mary, and all other Excellencies proper to, and infeparable from the Mother of God. 2. In External Atts- of IVorjlrip, of eminent Servitude to- wards her, by reafon of the Amplitude of her Power in the Em- pire of Jefus. And can we imagine thefe mould go no far- ther, than a poor Ora pro nobis?- He inftances in thefe Ex- ternal A els of her Worfhip. (1.) Frequent vifiting holy Places dedicated to her Honour. And are not thofe her Tem- ples then ? which Bellarmine confefles to be a peculiar part Bellarmin.^ of the Worfhip due to God. And the Diftinclion of Bafi- cuitu Sank. 1, lic£ cannot hold here : becaufe he believes the AfTumption 3- c. 4. inif. of the Bleiied Virgin •, and he wifl not pretend to her Ho~ nour is only for Dif rimination. (2.) A fpecial Reverence towards Images rcprefenting her Perfon. (3.) Performing fome daily Devotions containing her Praifes, congratulating her Ex- cellency, or imploring her A4edintion ; and by oft calling upon the Sacred Name of holy Marv, &c. (3.) In having a firm and unjhaken Confidence in her Patro* nage amidfi the great eft of our inward ConfiBs, and outward Tribulations ; through a flrong Judgment of her eminent power within the Empire of Jefm, grounded upon the fmgular Preroga- tive of her Divine Maternity. I have not Patience to tran- fcribe more, but refer the Reader to the Book it felf •, only the eighth Particular of fpecial Devotion is fo remarkable, tnat it ought not to be patted over, viz.. Entring a fokmn Pag. 12. Covenant with Holy Marv, to be for ever her Servant, Client md Devote- under fome fpecial Rule, Society or Form of Life} and thereby dedicating our Perfons, Concerns, Actions, and all the Moments and Events of our Life to Jefus, under the Pro- tcftion ( t8 ) teUion of his Divine Mother , chufmg her to be our Adoptive Mother, Patronef and Advocate ; and intruding her with what wc are, have* do or hop, in Life> Death, and through all Eter- nity. And is all this no more than an Or a fro nobis ? And Pag. 14. it follows, Put your [elf wholly under her Protection. What a pitiful thing was the old Collyndian Cake, in comparifon of thefe fpeciai Acls of Devotion to her ! But there are fome extraordinary ftrains of Devotion afterwards, which it is pity to pafs over. As, / will ever obferve thee as py Pag. 22. Soveraign Lady, Adoptive Mother, and moil powerful Patronef s -, relying on thy Bowels of Mercy, in all my Wants, Petitions, and Tribulations of Body and Mind. Could any thing greater be faid to the Eternal Son of God ? And in the Praife 1 Verf. Open my Lips, O Mother of Jefus. Refp. And my Soul fliall jpeak, forth thy Praife, Verf. Divine Lady, be intent to my Aid. Refp. Gracioufly make hafte to help me. Verf. Glory be to Jefus and Mary. Refp. As it was, is-, and ever [hall be. Then follows the Eighth Pfalm, applied thus to her. Pag. 24. Mary, Mother of Jefus, how wonderful is thy Name, even unto the Ends of the Earth ! AU Magnificence be given to Mary, and let her be exalted above the Stars and Angels. Reign on high as Queen of Seraphims and Saints ; and be thou crowned with Honour, and Glory, &C. Glory be to Jefus and Mary, &c. In the next Page, follows a C antique in imitation of the Te Deum. PJg« 25- Let us praife thee, 0 Mother of Jefus ? Let us acknowledg thee our Soveraign Lady. Let Men and Angels give Honour to thee, the firft conceived cf aU pure Creatures, &c I ( 19 ) I think I need mention no more •, only three things I fhall oblerve, (i.) That this is now printed Permijfu Sh- feriornm •, and we thank them for the feafonablenefs of it, in helping us in true P^eprefenting, what their allowed Dcxftrines and Practices are. (2.) That this is publifhed in Englifh, that our People, as well as theirs, may be convinced how far we have been from unjuft charging them as to fuch things as thefe. (3.) That at the fame time they plead for keep- ing the Bible out of the hands of the People •, wherein their Difcretion is fo far to hi commended, fince the Scripture, and this new Scheme of Devotion, can never Hand toge- ther. There being not one word in the Bible towards it, but very much againft it ; and the Pfalms and Hymns mult be burlefqu'd to found that way. But what faith our Author to their Rofaries, wherein there are ten Ave Maries to one Pater nofler ; which is accoun- ted a fpecial piece of Devotion •, and great things are faid of the Effects of it by Alanus de Rupe, and many others ? 1. As to the Ave Maries, he faith, there is no more Dif- honour to God in reciting the Angelical Salutation, than in the Pag. 7. fifft pronouncing it by the Angel Gabriel and Elizabeth. But it may not be altogether fo pertinent. But doth he really think they faid the whole Ave Maria, as it is ufed among them? Did the Angtl and Elizabeth fay, Santta Maria^ Mater Dei, ora fro nobis yeccatoribus, nunc & in hora mortis noftrj .? If not, to what purpofe are they mentioned here ? 2. As to the Repetition-, that, he faith, is no more an idle Superflition, than David'* repeating the fame words 26 times in the 136 Pfalm. But what is this to the Queftion, why more Supplications to the blejfed Virgin, than to Chrift ? And not one word of Anfwer is given to it. But Alanus de Rape Aiamsde Rupt anfwers it roundly, Fecaufe the blejfed Virgin is our Media- de m[h pfaltirii, trix to Chrifi, the Mother of Mercy, and the fpecial Patronefs L 1. c. 6. of Sinners. This is indeed true reprefenting. iv. of ( *° ) IV. Of faying Divine Worjhip to ^liquet. FO R the right underftanding this Controverfy, we are to confider, i. That there is a due Veneration to the Bodies of Saints- and Martyrs, allowed on both fides ^ and there is an undue Worfhip of them, which is difowned on both fides. The due Veneration is, a Religious Decency to be obferved to- wards them ; which lies in avoiding any thing like Con- tempt or Diftionour to them, and ufing all fuch Teftimo- nies of Refpect and Decency, which becomes the Remains of Excellent Perfons \ provided we are fatisfied of their Sincerity, without having recourfe to Divine Omnipotency to prove them : which Ferrandiu the Jefuit runs fo much to, Ferrandi. pif- to prove the Truth of many Reliques, worfhipped in the. quifitio Reiiqui- church of Rome in many places at once. But that it is poffible to exceed in the Worfhip of true Reliques, even Bellarmm confeffeth, who fays, that God took^ away the Body of Mofes, left the People Jhould give Divine Worjlnp to it. And Vtimti.SMtt. St. Jerom, as hot as he was againft Vigilantim, yet he utterly /. 2. r. 4. denied giving any Adoration to the Reliques of Martyrs. It feems then it is very poflible to exceed that way. 2. The Queftion then is, Whether thofe Ads of Wor- fhip which are allowed in the Church of Rome, do not go beyond due Veneration ? For it is unreafonable to fuppofe thofe who give it, to believe thofe Reliques to be Gods -7 and therefore it rniift be fuch a Worfhip as is given to them, fuppoiing them to be only Reliques of fuch Perfons. The Council of Treat decrees Honour and Veneration to be given to them, but never determines what is due, and what not : it forbids all Excelles in drinking and eating, in the vifiting of Reliques •, but not a word of ExcefTes in worfhipping of them, unlefs it be comprehended under the name of Super- ftition. But Superftition lies in fomething forbidden, accor- ding to their notion of it : therefore, if there be no Prohi- bition ( ?' ) bition by the Church, there can be no SuperfHtion in the Worlhip of them. And if they had thought there had been any in the known Practices of the Church, they would certainly have mentioned them •, and becaufe they did not, we ought in Reafon to look on them as allowed. And yet not only Cajfander complains of the great Superftition about CaffMd.cmfui. them \ but even the WallenbergH lately confefs, that the Art: "•*&«*. Abufes therein, have not only been offenfive to us, but to-J^4' Ct>n~ themfelves too. * m'** But what faith our Reprefenter to them ? He believes it damnable to thinly there1 s any Divinity in the Rcliques of Saints, or to adore them with Divine Honour. P. 7. But what is this adoring them with Divine Honour? A true Reprefenter ought to have told us what he meant by it, when the whole Controverfy depends upon it. Is it on- ly faying Mafs to Reliques, or believing them to be Gods ? Is there no giving Divine Honour by Proftration, burning of Incenfe, &c. Nothing in expecting help from them ? Yes, If it be from any hidden Power of their own. But here is a very hard Queftion : If a Man doth not believe it to be an intrinfick Power in the Relique?, may a Man fafely go to them, Ops impetranda causa, as the Council of Trent faith, in hopes of Relief from them ? Is it not poflible for the Devil to appear with SamnePs true Body, and make ufe of the Relique of a Saint to a very bad end ? Then, fay I, no Reliques can fecure Men againit the Im- pofture of Evil Spirits, who, by God's Permiifion, may do ltrange things with the very Reliques of Saints. Bktt God hath vifibly worked by them, faith our Author, by makjng them Inflruments of many Miracles •, and it is as eafie for him to do it now. p. 8, 9. This is the force of all he faith. To which I anfwer, 1 . It is a very bold thing to call in God's Omnipotency, where God himfelf hath never declared he will ufe his Power \ for it is under his own Command, and not ours. But there is no Reafon to deduce the Confequence of ufing it now, becaufe he hath done it formerly. And that they may not think this is cavilling in us, I defire them to read Rabat. Jy it Pcre Annat\ Anfwer to the Janfenifts pretended Miracle at 7*qf'«/f, A. d. E 2 Port l6S6- ( j* ; Tort Royal-, viz.. of the Cure wrought by one of our Saviour's Thorns. There he gives arother account offuch Miracles than would be taken from us. But where he faith, It n as much for the Honour of God's Name to work fuch Miracles now \ their own Authors will teli him the contrary ; and that there is no fuch Reafon now, as in former times, when Religion was to be confirmed by them •, and when Martyrs fullered upon the fole account of the Truth of it :, and therefore their Reputation had a great Influence upon converting the unbelieving World. 2. Suppofe it be granted, yet it proves not any Religious Worfhip to be given to them. For I ihall ferioufly ask an important Queftion : Whether they do really believe, any greater Miracles have ever been done by Reliques, than were done by the Brazen Serpent ? And yet, although that was fet up by God's own Appointment, when it began to be vvorlhipped after an undue manner •, it was thought fit by Hezekiab to be broken in pieces. What now was the undue Worlhip they gave to it ? Did they believe the Ser- pent, which could neither move ncr underftand, was it felf a God ? But they did burn lncenfe to it. And did that make a God of it ? Suppofe Men burn lncenfe to Reliques •, what then, are they made Gods prefently ? Suppofe they do not, but place them upon Altars, carry them in Proceflion, fall down before them, with intention to fhew the Honour they do them-, are not thefe as much as burning a little lncenfe, which could not fignify fo much Honour as the other do ? and it is hard then to make the one unlawful, and not the other. V. Of the Encharift. THere are two material Points under this Head which are to be examined, becaufe he endeavours to fet them off with all the advantage he can, sk. Adoration of the Holt, and Tranfubftantiation. I. Of ( *i ) I. Of the Adoration of the Heft. i. The Queftion is far enough from being, Whether it be lawful to commit Idolatry ? as our Reprefenter puts it. For the Mifreprefentir faith, That a Papift believes it lawful to commit Idolatry : and to clear this, our Author gravely faith, He believes it unlawful to csmmit Idolatry, pag. 9. As though any Men ever owned it to be lawful : Which is, as if the Queftion were, Whether fuch a Man committed A- dultery, and he Ihould think to clear himfelf by faying, he believed it unlawful to commit Adultery. 2. The Queftion is not, Whether Chrift. may be lawfully adored by us in the Celebration of the Eucharift ; which we are fo far from denying, that our Church requires our receiving it in the poflure of Adoration. 3. The true Queftion is, Whether the Body of Chrift, being fuppofed to be prefent in the Hoft by Tranfubftan- tiation, be a fufficient Ground to give the fame Adora- tion to the Hoft, which they would do to the Perfon of Chrift ? And that this is the true ftate of the Queftion, will ap- pear by thefe things. 1. The Council of Trent firft defined Tranfubftantiation, and from thence inferred Adoration of the Hoft •, as is moil evident to any one that will read the fourth and fifth De- crees of the Thirteenth Seflion : Nulla* itaque dubitandi lo- cus, &c. i.e. If Tranfubff antiation be true, then Adoration follows. It's true, the fixth Canon only fpeaks of Chrift being there worjhipped ; but that ought to be compared with the firft, fecond, and fourth Canons, where the Doctrine of Tranjubft antiation is fully fet down, as the Foundation of that Adoration. 2. The Adoration is not fixed on the Perfon of Chrifr, at feparate from the Hoft, but as making one Objetl of WoriMp together with it. And fo the Council of Trent declares in the fixth Decree ; when it faith, The Sacrament is never the lefts to be adored, becaufe it was inftituted to be received. This cannot be otherwife underftood, than as relating to the Sacrament 1 and fo that what ever it be, muft be granted to> ( H ) be the Object of Adoration. c By the Sacrament, faith Car- Tallavicin.Wj?. ' dinal Pallaviani, is. underltood the Objedt made up of the ConciLTridint. t Bocjy 0f chrift, and the Accidents. The Worfhip then 1. 1 2. c.6. bcing confefled to be Adoration, which is due to God alone, and that Adoration directed to the Sacrament as its proper Objecl; ^ the Question now is, Whether fuch a Suppofition in the Sacrament, doth juftify that Adoration ? Our Author faith, He accounteth it mofl damnable to voor- fljip or adore any breaden God, or to give Divine Honour to any Elements of Bread and Wine. p. 9. Then, I fay, by his own confeflion, if it be only Bread, he commits Idolatry , for the Adoration he cannot deny. But our Reprefenter loves ambiguous Exprefllons, which to the People found very well, but have no fincere meaning : for what is it he underftands by his breaden God? If it be that he worfhips a God which himfelf fuppofes to be no- thing but Bread, we do not charge him with it •, but if it be what we beleive it to be, the Subftance of Bread, but himfelf believes to be turned into the Body of Chrift, then he cannot deny his Adoration to be given to it. All that can excufe them is, the Suppofition •, and whe- ther that will or not, is now to be confider'd. 1. If it be not true, themfelves grant it to be Idolatry. Rofenf. c. Occo- The Teflimonies of Bifhop Fifler, and Coflerus, are fo well lamA.i.c.2. known to this purpofe, that I fhall not repeat them. And c 1 in o " Cat'Mriiim-> a divine of Note in the Council of Trent, con- fefles it is Idolatry to worfhip an unconfecrated Hoft, al- though the Perfon, through a Miftake, believes it Confe- CuthmnJnCa- cra&& And he quotes St.Thomas and Valudanm for his ^Ed?plm\iz\ Opinion-, and gives this Reafon for it •, becaufe Chrtft is net wor flipped /imply in the Sacrament, but m be is under the Spe- cies ; and therefore if he be not fo prefent, a Creature hath Divine Workup given it. As thofe were guilty of Idolatry, who wor flipped any Creatures of old, fuppofing God to be there, as that he was the Soul of tht World. They were not excufed, faith he, that they thought they wor(hipped but one God ; becaufe they wor flipped him as prcfent in fuch a manner, as he was not. A nd L%dan. 1542. this Book of his, he faith, in the Review of it, was feen and approved by the Pope's Order, by their Divines at Pa- ris. 2. If ( 15 ) 2. If the Bread were taken to be God, our Author doth not deny it would be Idolatry, for that were to worfhip a brea- den God. Yet here would be a Miftake, and a grofs one , yet this Miftake would not excufe the Perfbns committing it from molt damnable Idolatry, as he confefles : Why then mould the other Miftake excufe them, when they fuppofe the Subftanceof the Bread not to be there, but the Body of Chrift to be under the Species ? Tes, fay they, then no Crea- ture is fuppofed to be the Objett of Worjlup. But when the Bread is fuppofed to be God, it mult be fuppofed not to be a Creature. There is no Anfwer to be given in this Cafe, but that the Bread really is a Creature, what foever they imagined ; and if this Miftake did not excufe, neither can the other. II. Of Tranfubftantiatwn. Three Things our Author goes upon, with refpett to this, i. He fuppofes Chrift's words to be clear for it. 2. He (hews the poffibility of it, from God's Omnipo- p.9,io,ir,i2. tency. 3. He argues againft the Teftimony or Evidence of Senfe or Reafon in this Cafe, from fome parallel Inltances, as he thinks. 1 . He believes Jefm Chrift- made his Words good, pronounced at his Lift Supper, really giving his Body and Blood to his Apo- ftles j the Sub/lance of Bread and Wine being, by his powerful Words, changed into his own Body and Blood • the Species only, or Accidents of the Bread and Wine, remaining m before. 7 he fame he believes of the Eucharifi confecrated now by Fr lefts. This is a very eafy way, of taking it for granted that the words are clear for Tranfubltantiation. And from no bet' ter Ground, to fly to God's Omnipotency to make it good, is as if one (hould fuppofe Chrift really to be turned into a Rock, a Vine, a Door •, becaufe the words are every jot as clear, and then call in God's Omnipotency, which is as ef- fectual to make them good. I confefs, thefe words are fo far from being clear to me for Tranfubltantiation, that if I had ( }M had never heard of it, I fhould never have thought of it, from thefe or any other words of Scripture, i. e. not bare- ly confidering the found of words, but the Eaftern Idioms of fpeaking ; the Circumftances of our Saviour's real Body at, that time when he fpake them •, the uncouth way of feed- ing on Chrift's real Body, without any Objection made a- gainft it by his Difciples •, the Key our Saviour elfewhere gives for underftanding the manner of eating his Flefli ; and withal, if thefe words be literally and ftriftly underftood, they muft make the Subftance of Bread to be Chrift's Body •, for that is unavoidably the literal fenfe of the words. For can any Men take This to be any thing but this Bread, who attend to the common fenfe and meaning of Words, and the JftricT; Rules of Interpretation ? Yet this fenfe will by no means be allow'd \ for then all that can be inferr'd from thefe words is, that when Chrift fpake thefe words, The Bread was his Body. But either Chrift meant the Bread by This, or he did not-, if hedid,the former Propofition is unavoidable in the literal Senfe •, if he did not, then by virtue of thefe words, the Bread could never be turned into the Body of Chrift. For that only could be made the Body of Chrift which was meant, when" Chrift faid, This is my Body. This feems to me to be as plain and convincing as any Demonftra- tion in Euclid. Which hath often made me wonder at thofe who talk fo confidently of the plain Letter of Scripture,being for this Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation. Butfeveral Divines of the Church of Rome, underftood themfelves better, and have con felfed, That this Doctrine could not be drawn out of the literal fenfe of thefe words •, as it were eafy to fliew, Sr ' l'^oirt' *f '*" ^ not k"en lately done already. It is enough here to An I c < 75' obferve, that f^afqiiez, confefleth it of Scot us, Dnrandm, Palu- damts> Ockam,Cameracenfis •, and himfelf yields that they do not, and cannot fignifyexprefly the Change of the Bread and Wine into the Body of Chrift. For how can, This is my Body, literally fignify, this is changed into my Body ? If that Pro- pofition were literally true, This is my Body, it overthrows the change •, For how can a thing be changed into that which it is already ? 2. He believes Chrift being equal to his Father in Truth and Omnipotencyj can mal$ his Words good. We do not in the leaf! difpute ( 57 ) difpute Chrift's Omnipotency, but we may their familiar way of making ufe of it to help them out, when Senfe and Reafon fail them. And therefore Cajetan well faid *, 'We 'ought not to difpute about Gcd's Abfolute Power in the -cajetan. in 3 1 Doclrine of the Sacraments, being things of fuch conftant Part. ^75, c ufe } and that it is a foolilh thing to attribute to the Sacra- «<**.i»a>3- c ment all that God can do. But we mull confider what he faith againfl Senfe and Rea- fon. For the believing this Myftery, he does not at all thinly it meet for any Chrifiian to appeal from Cbrift's Words , to his own Senfes or Reafon, for the examining the Truth of what he hath faid-, but rather to fnbmit his Senfes and Reafon to ChrifPs Words in the obfquionfnefs ■ of Faith. What ! whether we know this to be the meaning of Chad's Words, or not ? And thus we flia.ll be bound to fubmit to every abfurd Inter- pretation of Scripture, becaufe we muft not ufe our Senfes or Reafon for examining the Truth of what is faid there. Can any thing be plainer faid in Scripture, than that God hath Eyes, and Ears, and Hands ? Muft now every Man yield to this in the obfeyionfnefs of Faith, withoxft examining it by Prin- ciples of Common R afon ? And we think we are therefore bound to put another Senfe upon thofe ExprefTions, becaufe they imply a Repugnancy to the Divine Perfections. Why not then where iomething is implied which is repugnant to the Nature of Chrift's Body, as well as to our Senfes? But the Queftion about judging in this Matter by our Senfes, is not, as our Author is willing to fuppofe, viz.. Whether our Senfes are to be believed, againfl a clear and exprefs Divine Revelation ; but whether the Judgment of our Senfes and Reafon is not to be made ufe of for finding out the true fenfe of this Revelation ? And we think there is great reafon for it. (1.) Becaufe we have no more certain way of judging the Subftance of a Body, than by our Senfes. We do not fay our Senfes go beyond the Accidents :, but we fay, our Senfes, by th- fe Accidents, doalfure us of the bodily Subftance, or elfe it were impoffible for us to know there is any fuch thing in the World. (2.) Becaufe Chrift did himfelf appeal to the Judgment of his Difciples Senfes concerning the Truth of his own F Body ( j« ) S.Luk.24.3p. Body after the Refurrection •, 'Behold my Hands and my Feet, that it is J my [elf: handle and fe, for a Spirit hath not Flejh and Bones, a* ye fee me have. Now we think we have reafon to allow the fame Criterion which Chi ill himfelf did about the very fame Body. Unlefs he had then told hi ■ L?ifciples, that there was to bz another fufematural manner of Extftence of the fame Body, concerning which their Senfe> were not to be Judges. (3.) Some of the molt important Articles of the Chrifli- an Faith do fuppofe the Judgment of our Sen fes to be true. As about the Truth of Chrift/s Body i whether he had re- ally a Body, or only the outward Accidents and Appearance of a Body? if he had not, he did not really fufFer upon the Crofsj and fo the Sacrifice of Propitiation there offered up to the Father for the Sins of Mankind,is loft. There was a great Controverfy in St. Johrfs time, and afterwards, Whether Chrift had any real Body ? Thofe who denied it, brought Revelation for it ; thofe who aliened it, proved it by their 1 S.Joh.1.1,3. Senfes, as S. John himfeif, That which we have feen, andheard-, and our hands have handled, &c He doth not tell Men, they mult fubmit their Senfe and Reafon to the pretence of Re- velation ; but they ought to adhere to the Judgment of their Senfes concerning the Reality of Chriftfs Body. Since there- fore Chrilt himfelf appealed to it, the Apo files made uie of it, without any Caution or Limitation, we have great reafon to rely Hill on the judgment of our Senfes concerning the fame Object., viz.. the Body of Chrifl. 3. But we mull now confider his Inftances to overthrow tlie Judgment of our Senfes and Reafon in this Point. 1 . He believes Chrifi to be God, though to Senfes he feemed no- thing but Man. Do we ever pretend to judg of Chriil's Di- vinity by our Senfes ? How then can this be pertinent, when our only Difpute is about judging his Body, and the Subftance of Bread and Wine by them ? And yet the Senfes were of great ufe as to the proof of his Di\ inity by the Miracles which he wrought ? which if they had been like the pre- tended Miracles in Tranfubftantiatiofi, could have convin- ced no Man, becaufe they could never fee them. 2. He believes the Holy Ghoft defe ended on our Saviour, tho Senfes or Reafon could dif cover tt to be nothing but a Dove. If there ( 39 ) there were no reafon to judg otherwife, the Judgment of Senfe were to be followed : but fince the Scripture declares it was the Holy Ghoft defending as a Dove, we have no reafon to queftion that Revelation. For we do not pretend that our Senfes are fo far Judges of Divine Appearances, as to exclude the poffibility of God's alfuming the fhape and figure of his Creature when he pleafes, by moulding the fub- fcanceof a real Body into fuch a Reprefentation. Thus we do not deny the poflibiiicy of an appearance of the Holy Ghoft under Bread and Wine, if God thought fit, any more than under a Dove j and in this Cafe we do not pretend that our Senfes can exclude the pretence of a Spirit under the Elements :, but that is very different from the prcfent Cafe, for here the Subftance is fuppofed to be gone, and nothing but Accidents remaining •, and no fpiritual Prefence ofChriftis denied, but that of his Body, the very fame Bo- dy which fuffered on the Crofs- 3., He believes the Man who appeared to Jofhua, (ch.^. 13.) and the three Men to Abraham, (Gen. 1 8.) were really and fub- ftantially no Men, notwithftandmg all the Information and Evi- dence of Senfe to the contrary, from their Colour ; Features^ Pro- portionyTalking-, Ealing, and many others. And what follows from hence, but that Spiritual Invifible Subftances may be under the appearance of Bodies, and that our Senfes cannot be Judges of them ? Which is not our Queftion, but, Whe- ther Bodie can be fo prefent after the manner of Spirits, as to lofe all the natural Properties of Bodies? and whether a Material Subftance can be left, under ail the Accidents pro- per to it, fo as our Senfes cannot be proper Judges of one by the other ? But our Author feems to grant this, in a natural way of the Exiftence of a Body : but he faith, Chrtfi gives to his tio- dy a fupernatural manner of Exiftence, by which being left without cxtenfion of Parts, and rendred independent of Place, it may be one and the fame w many P loses at once, and whole in every part of the Sytzbolsj and not obnoxioiu to any corporeal contingencies. This is to me a Myftery beyond all comprehenfion by Senfe or Reafon •, and there is certainly a great difference between governing our Undcrftandings, and giving them up, as we muft do if this Doctrine hold good ; for it overthrows any F 2 fixed C 4° ) fixed Principles of Reafon in Mankind concerning the Nature and Properties of Bodies. For, 1. We muft (till fnppofe the Body of Chrifl to be the very fame individual Body which fuffered upon the-Crofs •, but if it had no extenfion of Parts, and be reckoned inde- pendent upon Place, it ceafeth to be a Body. It is granted, that after a natural way of Exiftence, a Body cannot be in more Places than one : but let the way of Exigence be what it will, if it be a Body, it muft be finite •, if finite, it muft be limited and circumfcribed •, if it be circumfcribed within one place, it cannot be in more places, for that is to make it circumfcribed,and not circumfcribed •, undivided from it felf, and divided from it felf at the fame time. Which is a mani- feft Contradiction, which doth not depend only on Quantity or Extenfion, but upon the eflential Unity of a Body. 2. If it be poflible for a Body to be in feveral places by a fitpernatural Exifience ; why may not the fame Body be in fe- veral Places by a Natural Exigence ? Is it not becaufe Extenfi- on andCircumfcription are fo neceflary toit,thatin a natural Way it can be but in one Place ? Then it follow s that thefe are eflential Properties of Bodies ; fo that no true Body can be conceived w ithont them. 3. This Supernatural Exiftence doth not hinder the Body's being i^di iduahy prefentin one Phce : My n eaningis this; A Pried Confecra'cs an Koft at Eondokflnd another at Torkj is the Be dy of Chrift at London, fo prefent there by virtue of Confecration, 3s to be prefent at TVi^too, b\ this Supernatu- ral Exigence? What then doth the Confecration at Torkjnvc- duce? If it be ror, then its Prefence is limited to the Holt, where the i onfecration is made; and if it be fo limited, then this Supernatural Exiftence cannot take off its Relation to Place. 4. The fame Body would be liable to the greateft Contra- dictions imaginable : For the fame Body after this pjpem*- tnral way of Exiftence, may not only be above and below, within and without, near and far off from it felf : but it may be hot and cold, dead and alive ^ yea, in Heaven and Hell at once. 5. What is it that makes it ftill a Body after this fvperna- taral way of Exiftence, &c. if it lofe extenfion and depen- dency ( 4> ) dency on place ? If it be only an aptitude to extenfion, when that fupernatural Exiftence is taken off, then it muft either be without quantity, or with it. If it be without quantity, how can it be a Body ? if with quantity, how is it poflible to be without Extension ? 6. This confound? all the differences of Greater and Lefs, as well as of Dittance and Nearnefs. For upon t|jis Supposition, a thing really greater may be contained within a lefs : for the whole Organical Body of Chrift, with ail its Parts, may be brought within the cempafs of a Wafer •, and the whole be in every part without any diltance be- tween Head and Feet. 7. This makes Chrift to have but one Body, and yet to have as many Bodies as there are confecrated Hofts. No, faith our Author, This fupernatural manner of Exiftence is without danger of multiplying his Bodyy or making as many Chrifts as Altars. P. 1 1 . But how this can be, is pail all hu- man Underftanding : For every Confecration hath its Ef- fect, which is fuppofed to be the Converlion of the Sub- ftance of the Bread into the Body of Chrift. Now, when a Prielt at London converts the Bread into the Body of Chrift there, he doth it not into the Body of Chrilt at Totl^, but the Prieft there doth it •, therefore the Body of Chrift at London, is different from that at Torf^j or elfe the Conver- flon at London would be into the Body, as at Tork. But if not, what is the fubitantial Term of this fubftantial Change, where nothing but an accidental Mode doth follow ? If there b" any f ch Term, whether that muft not be a Pro- duction of fomething which was not before^ and if it be ib, Chrilt muft have as many new Bodies, as there are Con- fecrations. 8. ThL makes that which hath no particular Subfiftence of its own, to be the Subject of a fubitantial Change •, for this is the condition of Chrift's Body, whatever its manner of Exiftence be, after the Hypoftatical Union to the Di- vine Nature. For, when Bellarmin> Petaviits, and others of their greateft Divines undertake, againft Neftorixs, to Bel,aJ'm- de in- explain the Hypoftatical Union, they tell us it conlifts in ep^y]fej'lca'r. this, that the Human Nature lofeth it proper Sublicence, vatlon'e.p.6. and is alfumcd into the Sublicence of the Divine Nature, e, i.§. 5. From ( 4* ) From whence I i.;fcr, That the Body of Chrift, having no proper Subliftcnce of its own, there can be no fubftantial Change into that which hath no proper Subliftcnce, but into that which hath •, and confeqnently the Change mult be in- to the Divine Nature principally •, from whence it will fol- low, the Elements lo!ing their Sublicence, upon Confccra- ticyi the Divinity malt be united hypolhtically to them, as to the Human Nature \ and fo there will be as many Hypo- ilatical Unions, as there are Confecrations. And fo this Doctrine not only confounds Senfe and Reafon, but the Myfleries of Chrift's Incarnation too : Which 1 think is iu Ancient for this Head. F VI. Of ^Merits and Qood Works. O R the true ftating this Controverfy, we are to ob- ferve \ i. That we do not charge thofe of the Church of Rome, That they Relieve Cbrtfi s Death and Paffwn to be ineffectual and infignificaiit, and that they have no dependence on the Merits of hit Sufferings, or the Mercy of God for attaining Salvation -, but that they are to be fived only by their own Merits and Good Works, as the M'freprefenter faith, Pag. 12. 2. We do not charge them with denying the neceffity of Divine Grace in order to Merit ; or with offer ting that they can merit independently thereupon. 3. We do by no means difpute about the Neceffity of Good Worlds, in order to the Reward of another Lie •, oraifert that Chrili's Merits will lave Men without working out their own Salvation -y but do firmly believe, that God will judg A/en according to their Works. The Queftion then is, Whether the Goods Works of a juft' Man, as our Author exprcfles it, are truly merit ariom of r,% ,,( Eternal Life? Which he affirms, but qualifies with faying, That they proceed, from Grace, and that through God s Good- nefs and Proirafc. t hey are truly meritorious. But theCoun.il cmcli. Trident. Oi Trent denounces an Anathema, againfi thofe who deny the Stf. 6. Can. 32. Good Works of jrfeifed Pcrfons, to be truly meritorious of the iwrextfo of Graces and of Eternal Life. Here ( 4} .) Here then lie the Points in Terence, (iO Whether fuch Good Works can be faid to b? truly meritorious ? (2.) Whether thofe who deny it, cfeferve an Anathema for fo doing ? As to wh lX relates to Gods Acceptance and Allow- ance, and his Coodnefs and Trormfc, we freely own all that he faith about it ; c.rA if no more be meant, what need an Anathema about this matter? There mud therefore be fomcthing beyond thi-,. when. Good Works are not only fr.id to be truly 'meritorious, but we are curled if we do not fay the fame. To make any thing truly meritorious, we muft fuppofe thefe Conditions rcquili'te. 1 . That what we pretend to merit by, be our own free Act. 2. That it be not defective. 3. That there be an Equality between it, and the Reward due to it. 4. That there be an Obligation in point of Juftice, to give that Reward to him that doth it. And from thefe Confidcrations, we deny that Good Works, even of juftified Perfons, can be truly meritorious. 1. It is granted by themfelves, That what is truly merito- rious, muft be a free Ad of the Perfon who doth it. Now J-^'f^ l ;t- the Good Works of juftified Perfons cannot be faid to be their M*°J jJJJJJ own free Acts, if the Power of doing them depend upon exMitia. Co- Divine Affiftance, and there was an antecedent Obligation fter. Encbhid. upon them to perform them : So that they can do nothing de Mr'ltiS ho>i- but what they are bound to, as God's Creatures \ and their °^ra- 7« very Power of doing it is from the Grace of Gcd. If Men pretended to merit at anothers hands by what God gives, u tpmupn there were fome colour for it •, but to merit from God him- **** frtpiavo- felf by what he gives us, feems very incongruous. If I owe liintate f-lCit * a Man an 100/. and another knowing me unable to pay it, ^. ^ J£ gives me fo much to pay the Debt, this is no more than m, dhtpdn what may be called Uriel: Payment, as to the Creditor •, but rtddm debiwn if the Creditor himfelf gives me this ico /. to pay himfelf non $* mrit0~ with, -will any Man call this ftrict. Payment? He may call >*\A**n*^ it fo himfelf, if he - pleafes, but that only lliews his V^^-tfe^rjiXtu nefs ( 44 ) r.efs and Favour •, but it doth not look very modeitly or gratefully, for the Debtor to infill upon it as true legal Pay- ment. Juft fo it is in Good Works done by the Power of God's Grace, which we could never have done without it j and th ' etore fuch cannot be truly meritorious. 2. What is truly meritorious mult not be defective •, becaufe the Proportion is to be equal between the Act, and the Reward due to it •, which being perfect, requires that there be no Defect in the Acts which merit it. But this can never be laid of Good Works of juftified Perfons, that they have no Defects in them. We do not fay, they are not Good Works, but they are not exact and perfect : for altho the Grace of God, as it comes from him, be a perfect Gift \ yet as it acts upon Mens Minds, it doth not raife them to fuch a degree, but that they ha re Imperfections in their belt Actions. And whatever is defective, is faulty •, whatever is faulty, muft be forgiven •, whatever needs forgivenefs, can- not be truly meritorious. But not only their Good Works are defective •, but if they would merit, they ought to have none but Good Works, whereas the mixture of others renders the good uncapable of being meritorious, becaufe there is fo much to be pardoned, as takes away all claim of Merit in the good they perforin. And themfelvesdo not pretend, that Men can merit the Grace of Remiflion •, but it is very ftrange that thofe who cannot deferve to b? for- given, mould deferve to have an infinite Reward bellowed upon them. ,r ■ii'J-isL 3- There muft bean exact Proportion between the Act Mmtum eha- -. ' ' - . *. _; . _ bit tdjramium 3nd the Recompence : tor to merit, is to pay a Price tor a fcut pret'um ad thing •, and in fuch Acts of commutative Juftice, there Mud quod mi- muft; bz an Equality of one thing with another. But what tar. Altlfiodor. j7qna'jty can tnere be between the imperfect Good Works ''Abfo'fJaJq.-ii- °f ^e ^e^- ^cn' anc* tnc mo^ Psr^e^ Happinefs of another Bum b:t;r~ \ncr- World, efpecially when that confifbs in the fruition of the cedm & mri- Beatifical Villon ? For what Proportion can there be be- tm po*it!ir per tween our Acts towards God, and God's Acts towards the mdumJujiitU Bjeflcd in Heaven ? Let the Acts be of what Perfon foever, 'toUluftii*] < or °^ wnat Nature f°"vcr> or from what Principle foever ^ p. , 1 ' as long as they are the Aits of finite imperfect Creiture% it is impoflible there fhould be any Equality, or exact Pro- portion ( 45 ) portion between them and the Eternal Favour of God, which is the Reward promifed. 4. Where A&s are truly mmtonom^ there follows an Ob- ligation of Uriel Juftice, to pay the Recompence due to them. But what ftrict Juftice can there be between the Creator and his Creatures, to recompence the Service they are bound to perform ; when their very Being, Power to act, Afliftance in acting, and Recompence for it, are all from his Bounty and Goodnefs ? But our Author would a- void all this, by faying, that though Good Works are truly meritorious j yet it is through the Merits of Chrift, and as they proceed from Grace, and through h'n Goodnefs and Promife that they are fo , i. e. they are truly meritorious, becaufe it ap- pears from all thefe things they neither are, nor can be me- ritorious. For, (1.) How come the Merits of Chrift. to make Good Works truly meritorious ? • Are the Merits of Chrift imputed to thofe Good Works ? Then thofe Good Works muft be as meritorious as Chrift's own Works ; which 1 fuppofe he will not alFert. Or, is it that Chrift hath merited the Grace whereby we may merit ? But even this will not make our perfonal Ads truly meritorious \ and the nature of Me- rit relates to the Ads, and not to the Power. (2.) How comes the Power of Grace to make them truly meritorious ; when the Power of Grace doth fo much increafe the Obligation on our fide ? If it be faid, That the fiate of Grace puts Men into a Capacity to merit .* we might more rea- sonably infer the contrary, that it puts them out of a Capa- city of meriting •, becaufe the RemilFion of Sins, and the Favour of God, are things for which we can never make him any Recompence. (3.) How comes a Divine Promife to make Acts truly meritorious ? For God's Promife is an Act of meer Kindnefs, which is very different from ftrict Juftice : and although by the Promife God binds himfelf to performance \ yet how come thofe Acts to be more meritorious of Heaven, than the Acts of Repentance are of RemiiFion of Sins ? Yet none will now fay, that there can be any Acts meritorious of that. Yet certainly there is as clear a promife of Pardon upon Re- pentance, as there is of Heaven upon Good Works : And G if (4* ) If the Promife in the other cafe doth not make Repentance meritorious of Pardon *, how can it make Good Works truly meritorious of Eternal Life ? But notwithftanding, we do not deny God's Fidelity to his Promife may be called Jujiice-, 2 Tim. 4. 8. and fo God, as a Righteous Judg, may give a Crown ofRighte- oufnef to all that follow St. PaulV Example, without making Good Works to be truly merit or ions. w VII. Of Qmfeffton. 'E do not charge the Church of Rome, that in the power of Abfolving, they make Gods of Men, P. 14. as our Mifreprefenter pretends. 2. We do not deny, That Chrift gave to the Bijhops and Priefis of the Catholick. Church, Authority to abfolve any truly penitent Sinner from his Sins, ( which he therefore needlefly proves out of Scripture ) andthatfuch Abfolution is ratified in Heaven. 3. We are glad to find that our Author declares, That no Man receives benefit by Abfolution, without Repentance from the bottom of his Heart, and real Intention of for faking his Sins ; P. 1 5, by which we hope he means more than Attrition. But yet there are fome things which flick with us, as to the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome in this mat- ter, which he takes no notice of. 1 . That fecret Confeflion of Sins to a Prieft,is made fo ne- JV/.J4. Can.6. celfary to Salvation, that an Anathema is denounced againft all that deny it, when they cannot deny that God doth for- give Sins upon true Contrition. For the Council of Trent S(ff. 14. c, 4. doth fqy^ fhat Contrition , with Charity, doth reconcile a Man to Cod before the Sacrament of Penance be actually received. But Difl 17. tnen K adds, That the defire of Confejfion is included in Contri- Gx&t.de pxnit. tion: Which is impolfible to be proved by Scripture, Reafon, Vift. 1. c 90. or Antiquity. For fo lately, as in the time of the Mafrer of the fyidaw. Sentenccs^nd Gratiaa. (in the 1 ith Century) it was a very dis- putable Point, whether Confeflion to a Prieft were neceflary. And it is very hard for us to underftand how that mould be- come needfary to Salvation ilnce, which was not then. Some of their own Writers confefs, that fome good Catho- licks ( 47 ) licks did not believe the neceflity of it. I fuppofe the old Ca- Greg.de Vafcn- nonifts may pafs for good Catholicks ; and yet Maldonat tia * Mceftp faith, That all the Interpreters of the Decrees held, that there was CSW' c' J.* no Divine Precept for Confeffion toaPriefi; and of the fame To.^de'plrlt. Opinion he grants Scotus to have b^en. But he thinks it isc.2,'&$. now declared to be Herejy, or he wijhes it were. And we think it is too much already, unlefs there were better ground for it. 2. That an Anathema is denounced againft thofc who do not underftand the words of Chrift, Whofe Sins ye remit, they John 20. 23. are remitted, &c. of the Sacrament of Penance, fo as to im- ply the neceflity of ConfeflTion : Whereas there is no appea- rance in the words of any fuch Senfe ; and themfelves grant, that in order to the Remiilion of Sins,by Baptifm, (of which St. Matthew and St. Mark^ fpeak in the Apftles Commijfwn ) s. Mat. 28. 10. there is no neceflity of Sacramental Confeffion, but a general Mark 16. 16. ' Confeflion is fufficient. And from hence the Elder Janfeni- Janfeit.coxcori us concludes) That the Power of Remiffion of Sins here granted, EvanS' c> H7 doth not imply Sacramental Confeflion. Cajetan yields, There is Sa:etaH in , m Command for Confefpon here. And Catharinus zdds,Tbat Ca- Ed. Park jetan would not allow any one Place of Scripture to prove Auricu- 1540. lar Confeffion. And as to this particular, he denies that there fw**-i« On is any Command for it •, and he goes not about to prove it, i*tMml- * but that Cajetan contradicts himfelf elfe where, viz.. when he 444# wrote School-Divinity, before he fet himfelf to the ftudy of the Scriptures. Vafquez faith, That ifthefe words may be un- Vafquez. h 5 derfiood of Baptifm, none can infer from them the Neceffity of P^t.ThJom.^. Auricular Confeffion. But Gregory de Valentia evidently proves, fw9°* An' l' that this place doth relate to Remiflion of Sins in Baptifm ; GreiTdeVa*" not only from the Comparifon of Places, but from the Te- lem.inTbom. ftimonies of S. Cyprian, S. Ambrofe, and others. Tom. 4.Difp.'7. 3. That it is exprelfed in the fame Anathema's that this Be& &**•*• hath been always the Doctrine and Practice of the Catho- M84« lick Church from the beginning. We do not deny the and • ent practice, either of Canonical Confeffion^ as part of the Difcipline of the Church for publick Offences ; nor of ^*- luntary Confeffion, for eafe and fatisfacton of the perplexed Minds of doubting or dejected Penitents •, but that which we fay was not owned nor practifed by the Church from the Beginning, was this Sacramental Confeflion as necelfary to the Remiilion of Sins before God. It is therefore to no pur- G 2 pofc ( 4* ) pofe to produce out of Bellarmin:, and others, a great num- ber of Citation?, to prove that which we never deny ^ but if they hold to the Council of Trent, they muit prove from the Fathers, that Sins after JBaptifm cannot be forgiven without Confeffion to Men : which thofe who consider what they do, will never undertake, there being fo many Tdtimo- nies of undoubted Antiquity againft it. And it is obferva- Eouavent. » I. ble> tnat Bonaventure grants, that before the Later an Decree ^.Stfit.Difi.i']. of Innocemi us 3. it was no Herefy to deny the NecefTity of p*rt 2. Confeffion •, and fo he excnfes thofe who in the time of Lorn- S^f/7/// T bard and Gratia"> held that °pinion- And all other Chrifti- r. 28? ' *" ans *n t^lc ^or^ belldes thofe of the Church of Rome, do to itinermum On- this day reject the Neceffity of Particular Confeffion to a male. 1. 5.C.8. Prielr, in order to Remiffion, as the Writers of the Church GaUn. coned. 0f Rome themfelves cenfeft. So Godignus doth of the Abyffins ; Tom 2 fiSo*' Pfjilippus * SS- frimtat^ of the Jacobites ; Clemens Galannsof HiftoritOiticr, the Neftorians, who faith, They made a Decree againft the ufe of de la Creancc & Confefjion to any but to God alone. And Alexius Menefes of the de Contains dis Chriftians of S. Thomas in the Indies. The Greeks believe Nations -du Li- Confeffion only to be of Polltive and Ecclellallical Infti- Ctaritofc iSf tution? as tne late Author of the Critical Hiflory of the Faith Reft. 1. Jtrem. *nd Ciiftoms of the Eaflern Nations, prove-. And the very Patriarch, ad Form of their Abfolution declares, that they do not think TbeologWirum- particular Confeffion of all known Sins, neceflary to Pardon : ^a'^'/j'c • therein the Priefl abfolvesthe Penitent from the Sins he wd. Ecchfi* ^4^ not confejfed through forge tfulnefs, or frame. And now let Occident. & o- any one prove this to have been a Catholick Tradition by rient. in 7 Sa- Vincentius his Rules, viz.. That it hath been always received, eve- tram. I. 4. c. 3. ry where, and by All. Goar in Eh- j cktlog. />. 53 1 . ■ •■T VIII. Of Indulgences. 'Hey muft be extream'y ignorant, who take the Power of Indulgences, to be a Leave from the Pope to commit vth.it Sins they pleafe •, and that by virtue thereof they frail efcape Pmifrmentfur their Sins, without Repentance, in another World. Yet this is the fenfe of the Mifreprefentation, which, he faith, is made of it. And if he faith true in his Preface, That ^g- T5> *$• ^ hath defcribedthe Belief of a Papift, cxalHy according to the appre- ( 49 ) apprehcnfon he had when he was a Frotefiant : He /hews how well he underftood the Matters in difference, when I think no ether Perfon befide- himfclf ever had fuch an apprehenllon of it, who pretended to be any thing like a Scholar. 2. But now he believes it damnable to hold that the Pope, or any other Power in Heaven or Earthy can give him leave to com- mit any Sins whatfoever ; or that for any Sum of Mony^ he can . obtain any Indulgence or Pardon for Sins that are to be committed by him, or his Heirs hereafter. Very well ! But what thinks he of obtaining an Indulgence, or Pardon, after they are com- mitted ? Is no fuch thing to be obtained in the Court of Rome for a Sum of Mony ? He cannot but have heard of the Tax of the Apoflolick^ Chamber for feveral Sins, and what Sums are there fet upon them. Why did he not as freely fpeak a- gainil this ? This is publifhed in the vaft Collection of Trails of Traftat.Tnftx- Canon Law, fet forth by the Pope's Authority, where there are tuum. To. 15. certain R-ates for Perjury, Murder, Apoltacy, &c. Now what FMt*i- fl6®' do thefe Sums of Mony mean ? If they be fmall, it is fo much the better Bargain, for the Sins are very great. And Efpencau* £p. Efpenc£us complains, that this Bool^ was fo far from being cal~ a,. l'c' l' led in, that, he faith, the Pope^s Legats renewed thofe Faculties, "' and confirmed them. It feems then a Sum of Mony may be of fome confeq.uence towards the obtaining Pardon for a Sin part, tho not for a Licence to commit it. But what mighty difference is there, whether a Man procures with Mony a Dijpcnfation, or a Pardon ? For the Sin can hurt him no more, than if he had Licence to commit it. 3. He doth believe there is a Power in the Church to grant In- dulgences ; which, he forth, concern not at all the Remijfion of Sins, either Mortal or Venial, but only of fome Temporal Punifli- ments remaining due after the Guilt is remitted. Here now arifes a Material Queftion, viz.- Whether the Popes, or the Repre- fentcr, be rather to be believed. If the Popes, who grant the Indulgences are to be belie' ed ; then not only the bare Re- miffion of Sins is concerned in them, but the Pftnary, and mofi. Plenary Remijfion of Sins is to be had by them. So Boniface the Sth, in his Bull of Jubilee granted, Non folum plenam & lar- Bullar.Chrutin,. giorem, imo pleniffimam veniam peccatorum. If thefe words had in*°*lt J>-204.. no relation to remiffion of Sins, the People were horribly cheated by the found of them. In the Bull of Clement the 6th, not ( 5° ) not extant in the Bullarium, but pu blivhed out of the Zkreckt Manufcript,not only a Plenary Abfolution from all Sins is de- clared to ail Perfons who died in the Way to Rome -, but he Prorpct manda- commands the Angels of Faradife to carry the Soul immedi- m.ts Angdis atly to Heaven. And I fuppofe, whatever implies fuch an Ab- Paraaifi, quan- f0iutionas carries a Soul to Heaven, doth concern Remiffion S r^galo- of Sins- 9mfiu IX, granted Indulgences, a Vomh & a Culpi ; rio pemtus ah- an(l thofe certainly concerned Reirillion of Sins \ being not foiutam h ?*- barely from the Temporal Punifhment, but from the Guilt it rxdifi glir'utm felf. Clement the $th, whom Bellarmine magnifies for his care 1b7i c\ UU 6 ia ref°rrning Indulgences, in his Bull of Jubilee, grants a mofi ultratcti AD,-^^4^ RetniffionofSins; and Vrban the %th, fince him, not 1653. * only a Relaxation of Penances, but Remiffion of Sins ; and fo Gobd. Ptrfon. lately as A. D. 1671. Clement the 10th publifhed an Indul- ■ cofmodr. at. 6. gence upon the Canonization of five new Saints, wherein he Buffirn' notonty grants a Plenary Indulgence of Sins, but upon invo- p-A,To'.4.p'.86. cation of one of thefe Saints in the point of Death, a Plenary Indulgence of all his Sins. And what doth this fignify in the pint of Death, if it do not concern the Remiffion of Sins ? 4. Indulgences, he faith, are nothing elfe but a Mitigation or Relaxation, upon juft Caufes, of Canonical Penances, which are or may be enjoyned by the Paftors of the Church on penitent Sin- ners, according to their f ever al degrees of Demerits. If by Ca- nonical Penances, they mean thofe enjoined by the Peniten- Greg. deVa- ^lQ\ Canons, Greg, de Valentia faith, This Opinion differs not lent, dtlndulg, jirom ^^ 0j- fa Hereticks, and makes Indulgences to be ufelefs Bell", dtlndulg. An^ dangerous things. Bellarmine brings feveral Arguments a- l,i, 'c~,. ' gainfl; this Doctrine. (1 . ) There wouldbe no need of the Trea- fure of the Church •, which he had proved to be the Foundation of Indulgences. (2.) They would be rather hurtful than profitable, and the Church would deceive her Children by them. (3.) They could not be granted for the Dead. (4) They who receive Indul- gences, do undergo Canonical Penances. ( 5 .) The Form of them dothexprefs, that they do relate to God, and not only to the Church. And this, I thifik, is fufficient to (hew how far he is from true Keprefenting the Nature of Indulgences ; for we do not di- fpute the Church's Power in relaxing Canonical Penances to Penitent Sinners upon juft Caufes. IX. Of - • ( 5' ) i X. Of Satitfattion. l . IT£ believes it damnable to think, any thing injurioufly of XX Chrifts Paffion ! But then he diftinguilhes the Eternal and Temporal Pain due to Sin. As to the Guilt and Eternal Pain^ the Satisfaction, he faith, is proper to Chrift ; but as to the Tern' poral Pain, which may remain due by Gods Juftice, after the other are remitted, he faith, that Penitent Sinners may in fome meafurc fatisfy for that by Prayer, Fafting, Alms, &c. p. 1 7. 2. Thefe Penitent tat Works, he faith, are no otherwife fat if- faElory, than as joined and applied to thrift's Satisfaction, in virtue of which alone •ur good Works find a grateful acceptance in Gods fight, p. 19. But for right apprehending the State of the Controverfy,. we muft confider •, 1 . That they grant both Eternal and Temporal Pain due to Sin, to be remitted in Baptifm ; fo that all the Satisfaction to be made, is for Sins committed after Baptifm. • 2. We diitinguifh between Satisfaction to the Church be- fore Abfolution, and Satisfaction to the Juftice of God for fome part of the punifhment to Sin which is unremitted. 3. We do not deny that truly Penitential Works are plealing to God, fo as to avert his Difpleafure ; but we deny catch. Rom*. that there can be any Compenfation in way of equivalency, be- P^t. 2.0.$. tween what we flitter, and what we deferve. ".52,56. The Matter in Gontroverfy therefore on this Head, con- fifts in thefe things. 1 . That after the total Remiflion of Sins in Baptifm, they fuppofe a Temporal Punifhment to remain,when the Eternal is forgiven *, which the Penitent is to fatisfy God's Juftice for •, and without this being done in this Life, he mult go into Purgatory for that End. Of which more under that Head- 2. That this Satisfaction may be made to the Juftice of God, after Abfolution is given by the Prieft. So that altho the Penitent be admitted into God's Favour, by the Power of the Keys, according to their own Doctrine \ yet the Ap- plication of the Merits of Chi lit, together with .the S#ifil| in . ( n ) in the Sentence of Abfolution (according to their Form) do not fet him fo free, but he either wants a new Supply from the Treafure of the Church, i. e. from the fame Merits of Chrift and the Saints •, or elfe he is to fatisfy for the Tem- poral Puniihment by his own Penances. 3. That thefe Penitential Works are to be joined with the Merits of Chrift, in the way of proper Satisfaction to Divine Juftice. And however foftly this may be exprefled ; the meaning is, that Chrift hath merited, that we may merit, and by his Satisfaction, we are enabled to fatisfy for our felves. And if the Satisfaction by way of Juftice be taken away, the other will be a Controverfy about Words. ^fp^'-tRam' 4- That thefe Penitential Works may not only bz fuffici- ft.61. ' P' ent for themfelves, but they may be fo over-done,that a great fhare may be taken from them to make up the Treafure of the Church, for the benefit of others who fall fhort, when they are duly applied to them in the way of Indulgences. And about thefe Points, we muft defire greater Proof than we have ever yet feen. X. Of reading the Holy Scripture. 1 . T_J£ believes it damnable in any one, to thinks ffeakj) «r do Pa& *?• JL _L any thing irreverently towards the Scripture, or by any means whatfoever to bring it into difrepnte or difgrace : but not being contented with this, he adds, That he holds it in the high- eft Veneration of all Aden living. N ow, here we muft defire a little better Reprefentation of this Matter. For certainly, thofe who derive its Authority from the Church •, who fet Traditions in equal efteem with it •, who complain fo much of its Obfcurity,can never be faid to hold it in equal Venera- tion with thofe who maintain its independent Authority, its Sufficiency, and Perfpicuity. And thefe are known and mate- rial Points in Controverfy between us and them: therefore let them not fay, they hold it in the higheft Veneration of all Men living ; tho thofe thought themfelves through Ca- tholicks, who have compared it to a Nofe of Wax, to a Lef- bian RhU, to a dead Letter, nnfenfed Characters, and to other things, not fit to be repeated. But we are well pleafed to find ( 53 ) find chem exprefs fuch Veneration for it. Wherefore then are the People to be kept from reading it ? 2. He faith, It is not out of difrefpell to it. But why then ? (•I.) Becaufe frivate Interpretation is net proper f$r the Scrip' ture, (2 Pet. i. 20.) One would think the Scripture were not kept only from the People, by fuch a Senfe being put upon it *, for any one that would bnt confider that place, will find it mult relate to the Prophets themfelves \ and doth he think the Prophets were to be debarred from reading the Scrip- tures ? But this is playing with Scripture, and not reafoning from it. (2.) Becaufe intheEpifiles of S.Paul are certain things hard to be ttnderftood, which the unlearned and unft able deprave, as alfo the reli of the Script ures,to their own Perdition,^ Pet. 3. 16V) Now in my Opinion, fuch Men deferve more to be debarred from medling with the Scripture, who make fuch perverfe Inferences from it, than ordinary Readers. And if they ufe all other places, as they do this, they cannot be excufed from depraving it. It is granted, there were then unlearned and un- ftable Aden, who mifunderftood, or mifapplied the Writings of St. Paul, and other Scriptures. And what then ? There are Men of all Ages,who abufe the bell things in the World,even the Gofpel it felf,and the Grace of God. Doth it hence fol- low, that the Gofpel muft not be preached to them, or the Grace of God made known to them, for fear of Mens making ill ufe of it ? If this had been the juft Confequence,would not St. Peter himfelf have thought of this ? But he was fb far from making it, that he advifeth thofe Perfons he writes to, to have a mighty regard to the Scriptures, even to the Pro- phetical Writings,** « a Light Jhining in a dark^place^ 1 Pet.i. 19. According to this way of deducing Confequences,S.i>ff«* fhould have argued juft contrary •, The Prophetical Writings are dark^ and obfeure, therefore meddle not with them, but truji your Guides • Whereas the Apcftle, after he had told them what the Apoftles faw and heard, he adds, That they have a more fure Prophetical Word, as the Rhemifts tranllate it. How cowld that be more fure to them, unlefs they were allowed to Tead, confider, and make ufe of it ? (3 .) Becaufe God hath gi- ven only fame to be jipoiUesJome Prophets, other fome Evangeltfls^ and other fome Paftors and DottorS) Ephef 4. 1 1 . Doth it hence follow that the People are not to read the Scriptures ? In the H Uaiver- ( 54 ) . Univer titics, Tutors are appointed to interpret Arijiotle to th.ir Pupils ; doth it hence follow that they are not to read jlrtftotle themfelves ? It is, no doubt, a mighty Advantage to have fuch Infallible Interpreters as the Apoiilcs and Prophets 0 and all Chriftians are bound to follow their Senfe, where they have delivered it. But fuppofe the Queftion be about the Senfe of thefe Interpreters-, muft their Books not be looked into, becaufe of the danger of Error ? This Reafon will itill hold againft thofe who go about to deliver their Senfe ; and fo on, till by this Method of Reafoning, all fort of Books and Interpretations be rejected ; unlefs any fuch can be found out, which is not liable to be abufed or mifunderftood. And if there be any fuch to be had, they are much to blame who do not difcover it. But as yet we fee no Remedy for two things in Mankind, a pronenefs to Sin, and to Miftake. But of all things, we ought not to take away from them one of the beft Means to prevent both, viz.. a diligent, and careful, and humble reading the Holy Scriptures. p. 21 » But, 3. he denies that all Perfons are forbid to read the Scrip- tures, but only fuch as have no Licenfe, and good Te\iimony from their Curats : and therefore th:ir defign is not to preferve Ignorance in the People, but to prevent a blind, ignorant prefumption. Thefe are plaufible Pretences to fuch as fearch no farther j but the Myftery of this Matter lies much deeper- It was, no doubt, the Defign of the Church of Rome to keep the Bible wholly out of the hands of the People. But upon the Refor- mation they found itimpoffible •, fo many Tranflations being made into vulgar Languages > and therefore care was taken to have Translations made by fome of their own Body ; and fince the People of better inclinations to Piety were not to be fatisfied without the B:ble ; therefore they thought it the better way to permit certain Perfons whom they could trull, to have a Licenfe to read it : And this was the true Reafon of the Fourth Rule of the Index Liber .prohibit . rnade in purfuance of the Order of the Council of Trent, and publifhed by Piw IV. by which any one may fee it was not an Original Permif- fion out of any good Will to the Thing ; but an Aftergame to get the Bible out of theHa.idsof the People again : And therefore Abfolution was to be der kd to th< fe who would pot deliver them to their Ordinaries when they were called for : ( 55 ) for * And the Regulars themfelves were not to be permitted to have Bibles without a Licenfe : And as far as I can un- derftand the Addition of Clement VIII, to that Fourth Rule* he withdraws any new Power of granting fuch Licenfes \ and faith they are contrary to the Command and Vfage of that Quod mid Church, which, he faith, is to be inviolably obferved : Wherein inviolate fer~ I think he declares himfelf fully againft fuch Licenfes : And vm&m eft. that Inferior Guides fhould grant them againft the Command CIetn- viil. ad of the Head of the Church, is a thing not very agreeable to j^*4« hdicii the Unity and Subordination they boaftof XL Of apocryphal Books. i. T T 7"E do not charge the Church of Rome with making p. 21. V V what Additions to Scripture they thinly good, as the Mifrepre [enter faitfybut we charge them with taking into the Canon of Scripture fuch Books as were not received for Ca- nonical by the Chriftian Church -, as thofe Books himfelf mQntions,viz*Toby0jHdith,EcclefiafticttsJVifdom,2nd Maccabees. 2. We do not only charge them with this, but with Ana- thematizing all thofe who do not upon this Declaration be- £T g^Z^ lieve them to be Canonical ; flnce they cannot but know,that Ca^n\ script. thefe Books never were in tftejemjk Canon,and were left out by many Chriftian Writers* And if the Church cannot add to the Scripture, and our Author thinks it damnable to do it ; hew can it make any Books Canonical, which were not fo re- ceived by the Church ? For the Scripture in this fenfe is the Canon ; and therefore if it add to the Canon, it adds to the Scripture -, i. e. it makes it neceflary to believe fome Books to be of infallible Authority, which were not believed to be fo, either by the Jewifior Chriftian Church, as appears by abundant Teftimonies to that purpofe produced by a Learned fycofm Scho Bilhop of this Church ; which ought to have been coniidered kftical wifto- by the Reprefenter, that he might not have talked fo crudely J£° 5 LS" ■ 1 • « * huh or ocrip1* about this Matter. turep But however, I muft confider what he faith •, 1 . He produces the Teftimony of Greg. Naz.ianz.en, who Greg. Nazian- is exprefly againft him, and declares but Twenty two Books zen.w Camin, in the Canon of the Old Teftament ^ but how doth he 2 Vol. p. 98. H 2 prove » prove that he thought thefe Books Canonical ? He quotes his Orat.de Mac. Oration on the Maccabees ; where I can find nothing like it > cab. vol. i. and inftead of it he exprefly follows, as he declares, the Book t' 3**» of Jofephus, of the Auth*rity of Reafon concerning them. So that & this proves any thing, it proves Jofephus his Book Canonical, and not the Maccabees. Amhrof. de Ja- 2' ^e ac^s tne Teftimony of St. Ambrofe, who in the place cob. &Vit*E- he refers to,enlarges on the Story of the Maccabees, but faith rat. 1. 2. c io, nothing of the Authority of the Book. Aud even Coccim i * j } *> himfelf grants, th at of old Melito Sardenfis,AmphilochiM,Greg. *tb°oTi Sail! ^BRW' tne Council of Laodicea, St. Hierom, Ruffinus, and Gregory the Great, did not own the Book of Maccabees for Canonical. ScholaflicalJH- 3- Innocentius ad Exupemum fpeaks more to his purpofc. j%, «. 8 j. -And if that Decretal Epiftle be allowed,againfl which Bifhop Cofms h3th made confiderablc Objections j then it mult be granted, that thefe Books were then in the Roman Canon -7 but that they were not received by the Univerfal Church, appears evidently by the Canon of the Council of Laodicea, E1ftb.Ltf.24. c.6o. wherein thefe Books are left out-, and this was re- ong. prf. in cejve^ jn the Code of the Univerfal Church •, which was as Man inSi- G^ear a Pr0°f °f tne Canon then generally received, as can mjfi ' be expected- It is true, the Council of Carthage took them Hilar, p-ef. in in ; and St- Auguftine feems to be of the fame Opinion : But ff*l- . on the other fide, they are left out by Melito Bifhop of Sardis, £*y Ca~ wno nvec* near tne Apoftles times, Origen, Athanafms, S. Hi. Epipb!btf.%.n6 **%$ $*■' cyr^of Jerusalem, Epifhanius^ St. Bafil, Amphilochius^ BaftLWilocal. St. chryfofiom, and efpecially St. Jerom, who hath laboured in *3. this point fo much, that no fewer than thirteen places are Ampbil. Ejtifi. produced out of him to this purpofe, by the fore-mentioned Canon, ad St- Learnecl Bifhop of our Church, who clearly proves there cbryf. bom.±Jn was n0 Tradition for the Canon of the Council cf Trent in a* Gin. ny one Age of the Chrifiian Church. But our Author goes on. Scholaft.Jfifl. 4. ft is of little concern to himjvhether thefe Books were ever in **f*j the Hebrew Copy. I would only askwhethei it be of any concern to him, whether they were divinely infpired or not ? He faith, It is damnable to add to the Scripture ; by the Scripture We mean Books written by Divine Infpiration : Can the Church make Books to be fo written, which were not fo written ? If aot, then all it hath to do, is to deliver by Tradition what was 1 ( 57 ) was fa, and what not. Whence mould they have this Tradi- dition, but from the Jews f and they owned no Divine tn- fpiration after the time of Malachy. Haw then fliould there be any Books fo written after that time ? And he that faith in this Matter, as he doth, It if ofUttlc concern to him whether they ware in the Hebrew Canon-, doth little concern himfelf what ne ought to believe, and what not, in this matter. 5. Since the Churches Declaration, he faith, no Catholicks e- p w doubted. What doth he mean by the Churches Declara- tion, that of Innocent, and the Council Ol Carthage t Then the fame Bifhop hath fhewed him, that lince that time, there have been very many, both in the Gree^and Latin Church, of another Opinion. And a little before the Council of Trent, Catharinus faith, That a Friend of his, and a Brother in Chrifl, CMr. A&vtr. derided him as one that wanted Learning, for daring to ajfert pf!^; thefe Books -were within the Canon of Scripture ; and it is plain, Card. Cajetan could never be perfwaded of it : But if he means fince the Council of Trent, then we are returned to our Difficulty, how fuch a Council can make any Books Ca- nonical, which were not received for fuch by the Catholick Church before? For then they do not declare the Canon, but create it. XII. Of the Vtdgar Edition of the Bible- si TT TE do not difpute about the Vulgar Edition, whe- p. 24,25; W ther it may not be preferr'd before modern Latin Editions, becaufe of its great Antiquity in fome parts of it, and its general Reception fince the time of Gregory I : But our difpute is, whether it be made fo Authentic^ fince the . ^ Council of Trent, that no Appeals are to be made to the Originals, i.e. whether that Council by its. Authority could make a Verfion equal to the Originals out of which it was made ? Efpecially fince at the time of that Decree, the Vul- gar Edition was confelled to be full of Errors and Corrupti- z£tLmvif*X ons by Sixths V. who faith, he took infinite pains to correct fmt nonnuUx them, and yet left very many behind, as appeared by Cle- mutanda, qux mem VIII. who corrected his Bibles \n very many places, and tmfulta mntata grants fome faults were left uncorrected ftill : Now, how ,™{Hn.t'»1???' ( 58) was it poffible for the Council of Trent to declare that Edi- tion Authentick, which was afterwards fo much corrected ? And, whether was the correct Edition of Sixtus V. Authen- tic^ or not, being made in purfuance of the Decree of the Council ? If not, how comes Clement his Edition to be made Authentick, when the other was not, fince there may be Luc.Brugenf. Corruptions found in that, as well as the other ; and no one invaiis Lett, can tell, but it may be reviewed and corrected llill ; asfome of their own Writers confefs it fla?)ds in need of it ? Nat. Alexand. 2. Our Controverfy is not fo much about the Authority d^T fV?' °f tne ^u^gar £*ft»> above other Latin Ver lions to triofe" who vaf. qnxj . 6. underftand them •, but whether none elfe but the Latin Ver- flon mult be ufed by thofe who underfland it not ? And here our Reprefenter faith, That be is commanded not to read P. 26. any °f f^efe Tranflations ((peaking of TindaPs, and that in Q.. El ZabethV time) but only that which is recommended to him by the l hurch. If this relate to the Vulgar Latin, then we are to feek, why the common People fhould have none to read, but what they cannot underitand -0 if to Tranjlations of their own, then we doubt not to make it appear, that our Tran- flation allowed among u% is more exact and agreeable than any they can put into their hands. XIII. Of the Scriptures as a Ifyle of Faith. THE only thing infilled on here is, That it is not the Words, but the Senfe of Scripture is the Rule ; and that this Senfe is not to be tak^n from Mens private Fancies, which are va- rious and uncertain ; and therefore where there is no fecurity from Errors, there is nothing caftble of being a Rule. To clear this, we mutt conhder, 1. That it i-; not neceffary to the making of a Rule, to pre- vent any pofiibility of miltake, but that it be fuch that they cannot miltake without their own fault. For Certainty in it felf, and Sufficiency for the vScr of others, are all thene- cellary Properties of a Rule •„ but after all, it's pollible for Men not to apply the Rule aright, and then they are to be blamed, and not the Rule. 2. If no Men can be certain of the right Senfe of Scrip- ture, ( 59 ) ture, then it is not plain in neceflary things •, which is con- trary to the defign of it, and to the cleareft Teftimonies of Antiquity, and to the common fenfe of all Chriftians, who never doubted or difputed the Senfe of fome things revealed therein -, as the Unity of the Godhead, the making of the World by him, the Deluge, the Hiftory of the Patriarchs, the Captivity of the Jews, the coming of the Meflias, his fending his Apoftles, his coming again to Judgment, <&c No Man who reads fuch things in Scripture, can have any doubt about the fenfe and meaning of the Word?. 3. Where the Senfe is dubious, we do not allow any Man to put what Senfe he pleafes up:>n them •, but we fay,there are certain means, whereby he may either attain to the true Senfe, or not be damned if he do not. And the firfr. thing every Man is to regard, is not his fecurity from being de- ceived, but from being damned. For Truth is made known in order to Salvation : If therefore I am fure to attain the chief end, I am not fo much concerned, as to the pofllbility of Er- rors, as that I be not deceived by my own fault. We do not therefore leave Men either to follow their own fancy, or to inter- fret Scripture by it ; but we fay, They are bound upon pain of Damnation to feek the Truth fincerely, and to ufe the belt means in order to if, and if they do this, they either will not err, or their Errors will not be their Crime. XIV. Of the Interpretation of Scripture. 1. *T^H E Queftion is not, Whether Men are not bound to 1 make ufe of the belt means for the right Interpreta- tion of Scripture, by Reading, Meditation, Prayer, Advice, a humble and teachable Temper, &c. i. e. all the proper means fit for fuch an end ? but whether after all thefe, there be a neceffity of fubmitting to fome Infallible Judg, in order to the attaining the certain Se.Te of Scripture ? 2: The Queftion is nor, Whether we ought not to have a mighty regard to the Senfe of the whole Chriltian Church in all Ages fince the Apoitles, which we .profefs to have , but, Whether the prefem Roman C hnrch^ as it (band* divided from other Communion:, hath fuch a Right and Authority to inter- pret ( 60 ) pret Scripture, that We are bound to believe that to be the Infallible Senfe of Scripture which fhe delivers ? And here I cannot but take notice how ftrangely this mat- ter is here mifreprefented : for the Cafe is put, P. 29. i* As if everyone who rejetls their pretence of Infallibility, had nothing to guide him but his own private Fancy in the lift erpr fi- xation of Serif tare. 2. As if we rejected the Senfe ;put upon Scripture by the whole Community of Chrifiians in all Ages Jtnce the Apoftles times. Whereas we appeal in the matters in diiference between us, to this univerfal Senfe of the Chriftian Church, and are veri- ly perfwaded they cannot make it out in any one Point where- in we differ from them. And themfelves cannot deny, that in feveral we have plainly the confentof the firft Ages, as far as appears by the Books remaining, on our fide •, as in the Wor- ship of Images, Invocation of Saints, Papal Supremacy, Communion in both kinds, Prayer and Scripture in known Tongues } and I may fafely add, the Sufficiency of the Scripture, Tranfubftantiation, Auricular Confeffion, Publick Communions, Solitary Mafies, to name no more. But here lies the Artificer We mult not pretend to be ca- pable of judging.eithcr of Scripture, or Tradition } but we mult trult their Judgment what is the fenfe of Scripture, and what hath been the Practice of the Church in all A^es, alcho their own Writers confefs the contrary : which is very hard. But he feems to argue for fuch a fubmiflion to the Church; r . Becaufe we receive the Bookjof Scripture from her •, therefore from her we are to receive the fenfe of the Book^ An admira- ¥.2?. bit Argument! We receive the Old Tefiament from the Jews ^ therefore from them we are to receive the fenfe of the Old Tefiament? and fo we are to reject the true Me fiat. But this is not all : If by the Church, they mean the Church of Rome in diftinction from others, we deny it : if they mean the whole Chriftian Church, we grant it *, but then the force of it is quite loft. But why is it not poflible for the Church of Rome to keep thefe Writings, and deliver them to others, which make againft her felf ? Do not Perfons in Law-Suits often produce Deeds which make againft them ? But there is yet a farther Reafon; it was not poflible for the Church of ^omtto make away thefe Writirtgsjjdngib universally fpread. 2. Be- [ 6l ] 2 Becaufe the Church puts the difference between true and fa lie Books , therefore that muft be truftecL for the true fenfe of them. Which is juft as if one fhould argue, The Clerks of the Rolls are to give an account to the Court of true Records, therefore they are to fit on the Bench,and to give Judgment in all Caufes. The Church is only to declare what it finds as to Canonical Books ; but hath no Power to make any Book Canonical which was not before received for fuch. But ( confefs Stapleton faith, the Church if it pleafe may mdkt Hermes hisPaftor, and Cle- mens his Conftitutions Canonical : but I do not think our Author will therein follow him. Coritrov. 5. he beli.ves it dam- nable in any one to receive it, and by fuch Decrees to make Addi- tions to his Creed. This feems to be a very good faying, and it is pity any thing elfe mould overthrow it. But here lies the Mifreprefenting \ he will believe what Chrift and his Apoftles taught, from the Definitions of Councils, and fo all this goodly Fabrick falls to nothing ; for it is but as if one (houid fay,If Art* fiotle mould falfly deliver TJlatoy% fenfe, 1 will never believe him, but I am refohed to take Viators fenfe only from Jriftotlt's words. So here , he firft declares he will take the Faith of Cfirift from the Church ; and then he faith, if the Church Re- prefentative fhould contradict the Faith of Chrift, he would ne- ver believe it. a. Wedifpute not with them, the Right and NecefTiry of Ge- neral c uncihy (upon great occasions) if they be truly fo, right- fully called, lawfully aflembled, and fairly managed ; which have been, and may be of great ufe to the Chrifrian world, for feiling the Faith, healing the Breaches of Chriftendom,and re forming Abufes And we farther fay that the Decrees of luch Councils ought to be fubmired to, where they proceed upon certain Grounds of Faith, and not upon unwritten Traditions', Which was the fatal {tumbling at the Threfhold in the Council of Trewr, and was not to be recovered after wards, for thek fetting up Traditions equally with the written Word, made it eafie for C *3 1 for them to define, and aseafie for all ochers to rejeft their De- finitions, in c^ie there had not been Co many other Objections againft the Proceedings of that Council. And fo all our Difpute concerning this matter is taken elf from the general Notion, and nans into the particular Debate concerning the Qualifica- tions and Proceedings of fome which were called Free, General Councils; but were neither General, nor Free ; and therefore cou'd not deliver the fenfe of the CathMck Church , Which our P. 33' Author requires them to do. XVII. Of Infallibility in the Church. 1 TTE do h not pretend this belongs to the Pa ftors and Prelates p. 50. JlJL of his Churchy who way fall, he faith, into Herefe and Schi'm ; but that the ivhole Church is Jecured by Divine Vromifes frrm all Error and Danger of Prevarication ; which he proves from the Vromifes of the New Tt /lament, Mat. 16.18 28. zo. [fohn 14. f6, 26. But however the former feems to take away' In- fallibility from the Guides of the Church, yet that this is to be underflocd of them Jharately, appears by what follows. t. The like Affiftance of the Holy Ghoft he believes to be inallGe- "• 3^° nera! Councils ,v'hirh is the Church Ret>re(entative', by which they are ft) eci ally prcteclcd from all error m all definitions and declaratt- '' ons in matters of Faith. Now here are two forts of Infallibility tacked to one another by vertue of thefe general Promifes, which ought more diftinct* ly to beconfidered. 1. To preferve Chrifts Church Co as it (hall never ceafe to be a Church, is one thing ; to preferve it from all F.rror is another: The former anfwers the End of Chrifts Promifes as to the Dura- tion of the Church } and the latter is not implied in them. i. The promifeof teaching them allTrub, Joh. 16. 13. is not mideto the whole Church, but to the Apoftles : And their cafe was Co peculiar and extraordinary, that there csn be no juft in- ference from the .' Se- ttlors of the Roman Communion have taken fo great pains, not only to prove the Popes Supremacy to be an Incroachment and Ufurpation in the Church, but that the laying it afide is necef: fary to the Peace and unity of it. And until the Divine Inftitu- tionof the Papal Supremacy be proved, it is to no purpofe to p 4^. debate what manner of Afftflanct is pn.mil ed to the Tope in his Decrees. Our Author is will ng to decline the debate about his pergonal Infallibility, as a matter of Opini.n, and no t of Faith \ and yet he faith, he doubts not bat God doth grant afpcc'al Aff fiance to the High Priefi, for the good of the whole Flock, under the New Law, as he did wide' the Old, and produces the Inftance of Caiaphas, Joh. 1 1. 5-1. This is a very furprizing way of Rea- foning •, for if his Arguments be good from Scripture , he muft hold the Popes pt?jonal Infallibility as a matter of Faith ; \ and yet one would hardly think he fhculd build an Article of Faith on the inftance of Caiaphas . For what confequence can be drawn from Gods over-ruling the mind of a very bad man, when he was carrying on a mpit wicked defign, to utter fuch words, which [ 6% ] ch in the event proved true hi another fenfe than he meant th^ni that therefore God will give a fpecul .ffiirance to the Pope in determining matters of Faith ? Was not'Caiaphas him- felf the man who propofed the taking away the Life of Chrift at that time ? Was he aflifted in that Council ? Did not he de- termine afterwards Chrift to be guilty of blafphemy, and there- fore worthy of Death ? And is not this a rare Infallibility which is fuppofed to be confident with a Decree to criieifie Chrift ? And doth he in earneft think fuch Orders are to be obeyed, whether the fupreme Paftor be infallible or not? For fo he concludes, That his Sentence is to be obeyed^ whether he be Infallible or no. De ConcefT Pr«bend. e propol'uit. Abb.c.propo- fuit de Cone. Praebend. G. 15.Q6.C. AUwtoritate. Sum- Angelic v.difpenfatio. XIX. Of Dtfpenfations. ERE the Mifreprefenter faith, ThataPapift believes that the Pope hath Authority to difpenfe with the Laws of God, and abfolve any one from the Obligation of keeping the Com- mandments. On the other fide, the Reprfenter affirms, That the Pope has no Authority to difpenfe with the Law of God, and that there*s no power upon Earth can abfol'veany one from the Obligati- on of keeping the Commandments : This matter is not to be de- termined by the ones affirming, and the others denying : but by finding out, if poflible, the true fenfe of the Church of Rome about this matter. And there are Three Opinions about it. 1. Ofthofe who after t, That the Pope hath a power of di- fpenf.ng in any Divine Law, except the Articles of Faith. The Glofs upon the Canon Law faith, Tha t where the Text feems to imply, that the Pope cannot difpenfe againft the Apoftle, it is to be underftood of Articles of Faith. And Panormitan faith, This Expofition pleafes him well ; for the Pope may difpenfe in all other things : contra Apoftolum difpenfat, faith the Glofs on the Decree : And the Roman Editors in the Margin, refer to 34 Dift. c. LeBor to prove it: And there indeed the Glofs is very plain in the cafe,/*c ergo Papa dfpenjat contra Apoftolum : And the Ro- manCorreCters there juftitie it, and fay it is no abfiird Doctrine astopofitive Tnftitutions , but the former notable Glofsy as Pa- normitan calls it, fets down the particulars wherein the Pope may difpenfe. As 1. Againft the Apoftles and their Canons. 2. A- gainft [ 69 J gainft the Old Teftament. 3. In Vows. 4. In Oaths. The Summr Angelica faith, the Pope may difpenfe as to all f' : Pre- cepts of the Old Teftament. And Clavafius founds r Power up mi rhe plenitude of the Popes Power, according to that Expreffion in the Decretal mentioned, that he can, ex plenitw dine Voteftatis de Jure fupra Jus difpenfare ; and without fuch a Power, he faith, God would not have taken that care of his jacobar de Church, which was to be expected from his Wifdom. Jaco- Conciliis 1. 5; batius brings feveral inftances of this Power in the Pope, and p. 215. refers to the Speculator for more. Jac. Almain faith, That all the Canonifts are of Opinion, that the Pope may difpenfe againft Almain. de the Apoftle ■ and many of their Divines, but not all : For, £° * ^fcle" %. Some of their Divines held that the Pope could not difpenfe •with the Law of God, as that implies a proper relaxation of the Law, but could only Authoritatively declare that the Law did not oblige in fuch a particular cafe ; becaufe an Inferior could not take away the force of a Superiors Law *, and other wile there would be no fixed and immutable Rule in the Church • and if the Pope might difpenfe in one Law of God, he might difpenfe in the reft. And of this Opinion were fome of the molt eminent School-Divines > as "Tloomas Aquinas ■, Bonaventare, Ma- jor j Soto,and Catharinus, who at large debates this Question, and denies that the Pope hath any Power to difpenfe with Gods Law : But then he adds, that the Pope hath a kind of Propheti- Catharin. c calPower to declare in what Cafes the Law doth oblige, and in CaJetan- 6- what not ; which he parallels with the power of declaring p' 524' the Canon of Scripture ; and this he doth not by his own Autho- rity, but by Gods ; He confelTeth the Pope cannot difpenfe with thofe precepts which are of themfelvesindifpenfable \ nor alter the Sacraments ; but then, faith he, there are fome Div ry Laws, which have a general force, but in particular cafes ma; be di- fpenfed with • and in thefe cafes the Law is to be relaxed, fo that the Relaxation feems to come from God himfelf: But he confeiles this power is not to be often made ufe of; f. that, he makes this power to be no ACt of Jurifdiction, but of 1 r pheti- cal Interpretation, as he calls it ; and he brings, the Initance of Caiaphas to this purpofe : And he adds, iliaVthe difference be- tween the Divines and Canonifa was but in Terms, for the Cano- ni(ts were in the right as to the power, and the Divines in the manner of explaining it. K 9. Others [ 70 ] 3. Othetshave thought this too loofe a way of explaining the Popes power, and therefore they fay, That the Pope hath not a bare declaratory Power , but a real Power of difpei^fing in a pro- per fenfe' in particular Cafes : for fay they, the other is no adt of Jurifdiction, but of Difcretiort, and may belong to other men as well as to the Pope ; but this they look on as more agreeable to the Popes Authority and Commillion ; and a bare declaratory power would not be fufficient for the Churches Neceffiry ; as Sanchez, (hews at large, and quotes many Authors for this Opi- nion } and Sayr more ; and he faith the Praclice of the Church Mtttrim '1% cannot ^e 1uft*fie(l without it. Which Suarez, much infifts upon 5 Dif. 6 n. 5. ' and without it, he faith, the Church hath fallen into intolerable Er- Sayr. Clavis rors\ and it is evident, he faith, the Church hath granted real Dif Reg. 1.6. c.i 1. penfations, and } not meer Declarations. And he founds it upon Suarcs[.de vot. Chrifts promife to Peter, To thee will I give the Keys, and the 8 9 C,'79' n' 7' charge to him, Feed My Jheep. But then he explains this Opini- on, by faying that it is no formal Difpenfation with the Law of God, but the matter of the Law is changed or taken a- way. Thus I have briefly laid together the different Opinions in the Church of Rome about this power of difpenfing with the Law of God, from which it appears, that they do all con- fen t in the thing, but differ only in the manner of explaining it. And I am therefore afraid our Reprefenter is a very unftudied Divine, and doth not well underft and their own Doclrine, or he would never have talked fo boldly and unskilfully in this-, matter. As to what he pretends, that their- Church teaches that every Lye is a Sin, &c. it doth not reach the cafe ; For die Queftion is not, Whether their Church teach men to lye, but, \\ nether there be not fuch a power in the Church, as by altering the Na- ture of things, may not make that not to be a Lyey which other- wife would be one : As their Church teaches that Men ought not to break their Vows ; yet no one among them questions, but the Pope may diflblve the Obligation of a Vow, altho it be. made to God himfelf. Let him fhew then, how the Pope comes to have a power to releafe a Vow made to God, and not to have a power to releafe the Obligation to veracity among men. Again, C 7i ] Again, We do not charge them with delivering any fuch Do- ctrine, That men may have Difpenfations to lye andforfwear them- P. 4y. fehes at pleafure ; for we know this Difpenfing power is to be kept up as a great Myftery, and not to be made life of, but up- on weighty and urgent caufes, of great confeqnence and benefit to the Church, as their Doctors declare. But as to all matters of fad!:, which he alludes to, 1 have nothing to fay to them ; for our debate is only, whether there be fuch a power of Difpenfa- tion allowed in the Church of Rome, or not ? XX. Of the Depofmg Pviver. TO bring this matter into as narrow a compafs as may be, I (hall firft take notice of his Conceflions, which will fave us a labour of proofs. i. He yields that the Depofmg and King-killing power hath been P- 4 6. maintained by fome Canonifts and Divines of his Church, and that it is in their opini n Imwful, and annexed to the Papal Chair. ^. That fome Pcpes have endeavoured to aft according to this Paver. But then he denies that this Doctrine appertains to the Faith of his Churchy and is to be believed by all of that Communion. And more than that, he faith, The affirming of it is a malicious calumny, a down-right falfity. Let us now calmly debate the matter, Whether according to the received principles of the Church of Rome, this be only a par- ticular opinion of fome Popes and Divines, or be to be received as a matter of Faith. The Queftion is not, Whether thofe who deny it;do account it an Article of Faith ; for we know they do not : But whether upon the principles of the Church of Rome they are not bound to doit. I (hall only, to avoid cavilling, proceed upon the principles owned by our Author himfelf, viz. i. T7j at the fenfe of Scripture, as under flood by the community of p. z they could not maintain their Churches Authority without it. And he reckons upthefeill Confequences of denying it. "• 9°> yf* i.That the Roman Church hath erred for at leaft five hundred years,in a matter fundamental as to Government, and of great Moment: Which is worfethan an Error about Sacraments, as Penance, Extream Unction, &c. and yet thofe who deny the Church can err in one,hold that it hath erred in a greater matter. 4.. That it hath not only erred, but voluntarily and out of Ambition, perverting, out of Defign, the Doctrine of the Pri- mitive Church and Fathers concerning the Power of the Church, aud bringing in another contrary to it, againft the Right and Authority of Princes ; which were a grievous fin. 3. That it made knowingly, unrighteous Decrees, to draw perfons from their Allegiance to Princes ; and fo they became the canfes of many Seditions and Rebellions, and all the ill confequences of them, under a fhew of Piety and Religion. 4. That the Churches Decrees, Commands, Judgments and Cenfures may be fafely contemned as Null, and containing in- tolerable Errors. And that it may require fnch things which good Subjects are bound to difobey. y.That Gregory Vll. in the Canon Nos SanBorum^&c.Urban II. Gregory IX. the Councils of Lateran under Alex III. and Innocent lll.the Councils of Ly on s, of Vienna %o£ Con stance, o{ Later an under Leo X. and of Trent, have all grievoufly and enormoufly erred about this matter ; For that it was the Doctrine of them all, he fhews at large ; and fo Seven General Councils lofe their In- fallibility at one blow. 6. That the Gates of Hell have prevailed againft the Church: For the true Church could never reach fnch pernicious Doctrine as this mult be, if it be not true. And if it erred in this, it might as well err in any other Doctrine, and fo Men are not bound to believe or obey its 7. That Princes and all Laymen have juft Caufe to withdraw from their Church ; becaufeit (hewed it felftobe governed by a fpirit of Ambition, and not by the Spirit of God ; and not on- ly tni ] ly fo.but they may juftly profecute all that maintain a Doctrine fo pernicious to Government, if it be not true. Let us now. fee what our Author faith to clear this from being a Doctrine of the Church of Rome. i. That for the few Authors that are abettors of this Doctrine, there are of his Communion Three times the number that publtckly difown all fuch Authority. If this be true , it is not much for the Reputation of their Church, That there mould be fuch a number of thofe who are liable to all thefe dreadful confequences, which Lejjius urges up- on the deniers of it : But is it poifible to believe there mould be fo few followers of fo many Popes, and Seven General Coun- cils, owned for fuch by the difowners of this Doctrine, except DifcufTDifcufl". the Later an under Leo i o ? The poor Eaftem Chriftians arc Part^SecV-3* condemned for Hereticks by the Church of Rome, forrefufing p- '• to fubmit to the Decrees of one General Council, either that of Ephefus, or of Chakedon : and they plead for themfclves, That •there was a mifinterpretation of their meaning, or not right underftanding one another about the difference of Nature and Philip, a SS. Ptrfon, which occafioned thofe Decrees. I would fain know, Tnmt. Itmer. Aether thofe Churches which do not embrace the Decrees of Ciem^Galan^ tllofe Councils» are m a ftate of Herefie or not? If they be, Concii. Eccl. then what muft we think of fuch who reject the Decrees of Se- ArnvQa. 2. ven General Councils, one after another, and give far lefs pro- .ss. 3 p 92. bable accounts of the Proceedings of thofe Councils in their Definitions, than the other do. "i. He faith, Thofe who have condemned it , have not been in the haft fufpefted of their Religion? or of denying any Article of Faith. Let any one judg of this^y Lejjius his Confequences : And the Author of the firft Treatife againft the Oath of Allegiance faith in plain Terms, That the Opinion that the Pope hath no ju:h Power, lefuits Lo-ttl- is erroneous in Faith, as well as temerarious and impious ; And he ty, firft Trea- proves it by this lubltantial argument ; Becaufe they who hold ■ tife.yp. \y&L:. it} nuiftfuppofe that the Church hath been for fometimein a damnable Error of Belief, and Sin of Practice; And he not only praxes that it was defined by Popes and Councils,but for a long time -tiniverfally received; and that no one Author can be pro- duced before Cahins time, that denied this Power abfolutely, or in any Clie whatlbe.ver. But a few Authors tk.it are Abettors t 75 ] cf it, faith our Reprefenter : Not cne total DijJ'enter for a lefig Time, faith the other : And which of thefe is the true Reprefenrer ? The denier s of it not in the leafi fufpetledof their Religion, faith one : Their Opinion is erroneous in Faith, temerarious and impious, faith thf other. And a Profeffor of Lcvain, now living, hath undertaken to fhew, that the number is far greater of thofe who aflert this Doctrine, than of thofe who deny it. 3. If we charge their Church with this Opinion, may not they as well charge ours with the like ; Jincc Proportions as dangerous were ' ^l"7,4 ' condemned at Oxford , July 26. 168 5. as held not by Jefuits, but disapofhlic* by fome am,and none can be Rebels to their Prince, but they mult be falfe to our Church. As to the perfonal Loyalty of many perfbns in that Church, as I havenoReafon to queftion it, fb it is not proper for me to debate it, if I did ; fince our bufinefsis not concerning Perfons, but Doctrines •, and it was of old obferved concerning the Epi- cureans^Y\\sx tho their principles did overthrow any true Friend- ihip, yet many of them madeexeellent Friends. XXI, Of C 7^ ] XXI. Of Communion in One Kind. FOR our better proceeding in this Controverfie , I {hall fee down the State of it as clearly as I can. i. The Queftion is not, Whether the firft Inftitution of the Sacrament of the Eucharift by Jefiis Chrifr, were in one Kind, or two : for all confefsit wasunder both Kinds. x. It is not, Whether both Kinds are not ftill necefifsry for die due Celebration of it ; for it is granted that both Kinds are ne- cefTary to be upon the Altar, or elfe there could be no compleat Sacrifice. 3. It is not, Whether the people may be wholly excluded from both Kinds, and ib the Sacrifice only remain : for they grant that the people are bound to communicate in one Kind. 4. It is nor concerning any peculiar and extraordinary Cafes, where no Wine is to be had, or there be a particular Averfion to it, or any fuch thing, where pofitive Inftitutions may be rea- sonably prefumed to have no force : But concerning the pub- lick and folemn Celebration, and participation of it in theChri- ftian Church. 5-. It is not concerning the meerdifufeor negle&of it, But concerning the lawfulness of Excluding the people from both Kinds, by the Churches prohibition, notwithftanding the Infti- tution of it by Chrilt in both Kinds, with a command to keep up the celebration of it to his fecond coming. Here now confifts the point in Controverfie, Whether the Church being obliged to keep up the Inftitution in both Kinds, be not equally obliged to distribute both as our Saviour did, to as many as partake of it ? Our Author not denying the Inftitu- tion, or the continuance of it, faith, Our Saviour left it indif- ferent to receive it in one 'Kind, or both. And that is the point to be examined. I. He faith, Chri/l delivered it to his Apofiles, who only were then prefent, and whom he made Priefts juH before: yet he gave no command that it (hould be fo received by all the Faithful. But were not the Apoftles all the Faithful then preferrt? I yray in what capacity did they then receive it ? As Priefts ? How r 77 1 How did they receive the Bread before the hocfacite ? As Priefb or as faithful ? It is ridiculous to fuppofe the hoc facite changed their capacity ; and if it did, it only relates toconfecrat; and not to receiving .« but if Chrift gave- it only to the Apofties asPriefts, then for all that! can fee, the People are not at a!! concerned in one kind or other ; but it was intended only for Prfefts : if the people be concerned , how came they to be (b ? V\ here is there any command but whit refers to the firft Inftl- tutibn ? And it had been more plaufible, according to this An- swer, to exclude the People Wholly, than to admit them to one Kind, and to debar them the ether. 2. Chrift attributes tLe obtaining Life Ever la ft in ;, the end of the Inftituti-v, (cmetnnts to receiving under both Kind., fometimes under . enc, John 6. 5M»57i 5-8. He could not eafily have thought of any thing moreagainft himfelf ; for our Saviour there makes it as neceflary to drink his Blood, as to eat his Flefh, Verily, vz partakers of the whole Sacrament. This is a new way of Con- comitancyiwe ufed to hear offVbole ChriB under either Species* and that Whole Christ was therefore received : But how comes it to be the whole Sacrament ,which confilfs of two diftincft Parts ? And if it be a Sacrifice , the Blood mult be feparaced from the Body, elfe the Blood of Chrift is not confidered as fhed,and Co the Notion of the Sacrifice will be loft; Which is our next Head. XXII. Of the MA S S. UNder this Head, which is thought of fo great Confequencc in the Roman Church, I expected a fuller Reprefentation than I here find ; as about the Opus Operatum, i. e. how far the meer Acl: is effectual : About their Solitary MaJJes, when no Perfon receives but the Prieft : About the People having fo little to do, or underftand, in all the other parts of the Mafs : About the Rites and Ceremonies of the Mafs, how ufeful and impor- tant they are : About reconciling the prefent Canon of the Mafs with the prefent Praftifes : About offering up MaJJes for the ho- nour of Saints. All which we find in the Council of Trent, but are omitted by our Reprefenter ; Who fpeaks of the Mafs, as tho there were no controverfy about it, but only concerning the Sacrifice there fuppofed to be offered up, and which he is far from true Reprefenting : For the Council of Trent not only affirms a true proper propitiatory Sacrifice to be there offered up for the quick and dead, but denounces Anathema's againft thofe that Sefl! 22.cap2. deny it. So that the Queftion is not, Whether the Eucharilt can,i,2,3s£2c. may not in the fenfe of Antiquity be allowed to be a Commemo- rative Sacrifice, as it takes in the whole Attion : but whether in the Mafs therebe fuch a Reprefentation made to God of Chrift's Sacrifice, as to be it felf a true and Propitiatory Sacrifice for the fins of the Quick and the Dead ? L 2 Now, [ 80 ] Now, all chat our Reprefenter frith to the purpofe,is, P. 5 2. i . T hat ChriSl bequeathed his Body and Blovdat his las} Supper, under the Species of Bread and Wine-, not only a Sacrammt, but aljb a Sacrifice. I had thought it had been more proper to have of- fered a Sacrifice, than to have bequeathed it. And this ought to have been proved, as the foundation of this Sacrifice , viz,. That Chrift did at hislaft Supper effer up his Body and Blood as a Propitiatory Sacrifice to God. And then what need his fuf- fering on the Crofs ? 2. He gave this in charge to his ApoBles, as the fir ft and chief Priests of the New-Testament, and to their Succejj'urs> to cjfer: But Where? When? and How? For we read nothing a all of it in Scripture. Chrisl indeed did bid them do the fame thing he had there done in his lasl Supper. But did he then offer up rnmfelf»or not ? If not, how can the Sacrifice be drawn from His action ? If he did, it is impofiibJe to prove the neceflity of his dying afterwards. 3. This Sacrifice was never quefiioned till of late years. We fay, it' was never determined to be a Propitiatory Sacrifice, till of late. We do not deny the Fathers interpreting Mat 1. 1 i.of an Of- fering under the Gofpel • but they generally underftand it of Spiritual and Euchariftical Sacrifices : and aitho fbme of them, by way of accommodation, do apply it to the Eucharift, yet not one of them doth make it a Tropititaiory Sacrifice, which was the thing to be proved : For, we have no mind to difpute about Metaphorical Sacrifices when the Council of Trent 10 po- fitively decrees it to be a True, Proper, and Propitiatory Sacri- fice. XXIII. Of P V KG A TO R T. HEre our Author begins with proving from Scripture and Antiquny,and then undertakes to explain the Doctrine of Purgatory from fiibftantial Realbns. k As to his Proof from Scripture. 1 . Is that from z Maccab. c. 1 i.where he faith, Money ivasfient t>> Jerufalem, that Sacrifices might be offered for thefiain : and 'lis rtcomrmndidas a Holy Cogitation^ to pay fir tht dead. To [ 8i ] To this, which is the main foundation of Purgatory, J anfwer, i. It can never prove fuch a Vurgatory a& our Author- afierts • For he fuppofes a Sinner reconciled to God, as to eternal punifbmenf, before he be capable of Vurgatory ; but here can be no fuch p. $y, fuppofition ; for thefe men died in the fin of Achan, which was not known till their bodies were found among the flain. Here wasnoConfeffion.otany fign of Repentance, and therefore if it proves any thing, it is deliverance from eternal punifoment, and for fuch as dye in their fins without any fhew of Repen- tance, i. Wemuftdiftinguifhthe Fact of Judas from the in- terpretation of jafon, or his Epitomizer. The Fact of Judas was according to the ftrictnefs of the Law, which required in fuch cafes a Sin Offering; and that is aH which the Greek im- plies. AwishKiv **{ 'U& 1. i.e. *.- ply [ 82 ] ply what related to the Law, to their Platonick Notions. So here the Law appointed a Sin-offering with refpect to the Living; but J^:£ j1.1 about it, as underftanding it of this World. And therefore " l ' 4' he * I 84 ] he hath little caufe to boa A: of St. Auguflns authority about Purgatory , unlefs he had brought fomething more to the purpofe out of him. His other Teftimonies of Antiquity are not worth confidering, which he borrows from Natalis Alexan- der : that of Di onyfim Areopag.Eccl. Hierarcb.c 7. is a known Counterfeit, and Impertinent, relating to a Region of Reft and Happinefs: and (b do Tertullians Oblations for the dead, De Cor. Mi! n. c. 3. For they were Euchariftical, as appears by the anci- ent Liturgies, being made for the greateft Saints. St. Cyprian Ep. 66. fpeaks of an Oblation for the Dead: and he there menti- ons the Natilitla of the Martyrs : but by comparing that with HxsEpift. 33. it will be found that he fpeaks of the Anrnverfary Commemoration of the Dead, which fignifies nothing n Purgato- rv, for the beft men were put into it : and St. Cyprian threatens ir as a punifhment to be left out of the Dyftichs : but finely it is none to efcape Purgatory : Amobius 1. 4. only fpeaks of praying for the Dead, which we deny not to have been then u fed in the Church, not with refpect to any temporary pains in Purgatory, but to the Day of Judgment : and therein lies the true irate of the Controverfie, with refpect to antiquity ; which is not, Whe- ther any folemn prayers were not then made for the dead : But whether thole prayers did relate to their deliverance out of a itateof puniiliment before the Day of Judgment. For what- ever ftate Souls were then fuppofed to be in, before the great Day, if there could be no deliverance rill the Day of Judgment, it fignifies nothing to the prefent Queftion. As to the Vifion of Perpetua concerning her Brother Dinocrates who died at Seven Years old, being baptized , it is hardly recon- cilable to their own Doctrine, to fuppofe fuch a Soul in Purga- tory: I will not deny that Perpetua did think (he faw him in a worfe condition, and thought likewife that by her Prayers (he brought him into a better, for (he faw him playing like little children, and then (he awaked, and concluded that (he had gi- ven him eafe : But is it indeed come to this, that fuch a Doctrine as Purgatory muft be built on fuch a Foundation as this ?ldo not call in queftion the Acts of Perpetua, nor her fincerity in re- lating her Dream ; but muft tke Church build her Doctrines upon the Dreams or Virions, of Young Ladies, thovery devout ? for Ubia Perpetua was then but Twenty Two, as (he faith her felf : but none are to be blamed, who make ufe of the beft fup- ports their Caufe will afford. It 1 85 ] It is time now to fee what ftrength of Reafon he offers for Purgatory. 1. He faith, When a ftnner is reconciled to God, tho the Eternal puni(ljment due to his fins is always remitted, yet there feme times remains a temporal -penalty to be under? rne ; a: in the cafe p. r- j. of tbr Ifraelites, W David. But doth it hence fojlfcw, that there is a temporal penalty that muft be undergone either here or here- after, without which there wili be no need of Purgatory ? Who denies, that God in this Life, for example lake, may 'punifti thofe whole fins he hath promifed to remit as to another World ? This is therefore a very (lender Foundation. 2. There are fame [ins of their own nature light and venial. I Will not difpute that ■ but fuppofe there be, mil ft men go then into Purgatory for mere Venial Sins? What a ftrange Doctrine doth this appear to any Mans Reafon? That God mould forgive the greater fins, and re- quire fo levere a punifhment for fins in their own Nature veni- al, i. e. lb inconfiderab!e in their Opinion , that no man is bound to confefs them -which do not interrupt a (tare of Grace ; which require only an implicite deteftation of them ; which do s. Th. part -\ not deferve eternal punifhment; which may be remitted by q- 87. art 3. Holy Water, or a Bifhops Blefling, as their Divines agree. i«* cor. .v. Mar- 3. That to all fins fome penalty is due to the Juftice of God. And h'£^T* what follows from hence but the necefllty of Chrifts Satisfacti Se^Tc'0!.' on ? but how doth it appear, that after the Expiation of Sin n. 32 SedV 3. byChrift, and theremiflion of eternal punifhment, there mil c.2. n. 15.29. remains a necefllty of farther fatisfaction for fuch a temporal c-3 "• i-Beii. penalty in another World ? 4. That generally freaking few ^n]ctnSa~f,' men dspart out of this Life, hut either with the guilt of venial feCund0; finst or obnoxious to \om? temporal pu?ii(hme?it ; No doubt all men are obnoxious by their fins to the punifhment of another World j but that is not the point, but whether God hath de- clared, That altho he remits the eternal punifhment, he will not the temporal ; and altho he will forgive tboufands of pounds, he will not the pence and farthings we owe to him : But if Mortal Sins be remitted as to the guilt, and Venial do not hin- der a State of Grace, what room is there for vindictive Juftice in Purgatory. Yet this is the Dodtrine which 10 much weight is laid upon ; DePurorcrio that Bellarmine faith, They muft-go directly to Hell, who do not ]. 1. c. 11. SS. belitv* Purgatory. If this be true, why was it not put into the Hxc. mm. M Representation [ 84 ] Reprefentation, th&t we might underftand the danger of not be- lieving fo credible, fo reafonable a Doctrine as this ? But we be- lieve it to be a much more dangerous thing to condemn others for not believing a Doctrine which hath lb very flender a pre- tence either to Scripture or Reafon. T XXIV. Of Fraying in an unknown Tongue. H E Queftion in fhort is, Whether the Church Service, at which perfons are bcund to affift, ought not to be in a Language underftood by thole who are bound to affift ? For our Author grants, That a P apt ft is bound to affift at the P. 5-9. Church-Service, and to hear Mais \ but he is not bound to under- ftand the Words there fpoken. This is a plain Irate of the cafe ; and one would have thought St. PWj Difcourfe about Edification in the Church-Service, and a known Tongue, and the Primitive practice, had deferved a little confideration, but not a Word is faid to either of them j and the whole is fo managed, as tho there had been no Rule, or any appearance of practice to the contrary. But I muft confi- der what he doth fay, 1. The Mafs is a Sacrifice : And what then? Have they no o- ther Church Service but the Mafs? What then becomes of their Breviaries, Litanies, and all other Offices ? But fuppofe the Priefts Office in the Mafs , be to offer the Sacrifice • are there no Prayers in the Canon of the Mafs, wherein the people are concerned ? Why muft not they underftand what P. 6*1. they are required to gflift in Pwywfcr? If they have Englijb Books, as he faith, to teach them every part and Ceremony oftheMz/f, why not as well the Prayers in the Mais, where- in they are to join? They tell us, It is unfeafonable then for the People to fay their Beads, and other Dcz'tions : And I fuppofe as unfeafonable to talk, or think of other matters. Why then mould not they know what it is they are to do, and what Petitions they are then to make to God ? Are there no Refponfes to be made ? No Leifons to be read ? No Creed to be profefled ? Doth not the Pr;eii Ipeak to the People to pray, and they antwer him ? Is there no Thankfgiving after the Communion which the people is con- cerned [ 87 ] cerned in? We are as much for their Devout Affections $$ they can be, but we think they are not hindred by underftanding what P. 60. they are about : We cannot but wonder, that any man (hould fav, Tha f it nothing crneiimhii Devotion, that the Mafs is in La- P 6 1. ti 1, if he under ft and it not. Is it no part of Devotion to joyn in the pnblick prayers, not meerly by rore, but from adueap- prehenfion of the matter contained in them ? He requires, That ~ they accompany tie cPri.jl in Prayer and Spirit: And why not in underftanding alfo ? But the Church hath fo ordered it : And that is the thing we complain of, as done againftSt. Paul, againft the Primitive Church, againft the natural fenfe of Mankind, who think it is fit for them to know what they do, efpecially in the Worfhip of God: But it is to prefrve Unity : Methinks however U- nity in Spirit and Underftanding is better than without it : There are other good Re a fun s : I know not one good one ; and if there were more, he would have produced them : The greatefi fart is [aid in a low voice y that it is not poffible he foould hear it : And to what purpofe mould it be fpoken louder, if they are not toun* derftand it ? But why fo low in publick ? Yet the people might have Books , and joyn , if they underftood what was faid. But why (hould not the reft be underftood , which is fpoken as if it were. a. As to other Offices, hefaithi He is taught, that he may per- p. 61. form them in a Language which he underfiands not, with great be- nefit to his Soul, and the acceptance of God, if at thofe cccafions he endeavours to raife his thoughts to Heaven , and fix his heart upon his Maker. But the Queftion is not, Whether a Man may not have devout Thoughts at that time, but whether he can perform his part in the publick Offices, with true Devotion, without Un- derftanding ? For the publick Offices of Devotion were defigned for the uniting the Hearts and Defues of the people in the fame things. It is not, Whether one Man may not pray for Heaven,and another for fair Weather, and another for pardon of hisSins,and a Fourth for Patience,and fo on,in the fame place,and at the fame time;for all this might be done as well in afilent Meeting,where not a Word is fpoken : But there being one Form of Praying for all to join together in,that with the united force of rhe whole Congre- gation,their Petitions may go up to Heaven ; The Matter nowin difpute is,Whether it be not neceflary in order to this united De- M % votionj .V [ 88 ] votion, that the people all know what they pray for? And one would think nothing need to be (aid to prove this : But what our Author adds in jnftification of this,overthrows all publick Devo- tion ; For he faith, It is notnecejjary to have attention on the lVordsy er on the Senfe vf Prayers-, but rather purely on God-: Which is to makeatt publickForms unneceffary.and to turn all Devotion in- to Prayer of Contemplation : For if this be true, all Forms whatfb- everarenot only ufelefs, but burdenfome •, and by the (tinting the Spirit, do hinder the nimbler flights of the Soul, in pure fi- lence towards God : And this principle mult lead men to En- tbufiafms , and unintelligible Unions \ aud make them defpife Forms as a mean and dull Difpeniarion. But at laft he faith, A Petitioner may accompany his Petition with an earneji d.Jire of obtaining ity tho the Language in which it is writ- ten, be unknown to him. Very true, if he indited the matter of the Petition, and trufted another to put it into that Language, which the Perfon to whom he makes it, doth underftand, but not his own : But all Languages are alike to Gods Infinite Wif- dom, and fo there can be no pretence on that account, to keep only to fbme particular Tongues, tho unknown to the Parry ;and if it werefo to all men,no man would have a Petition preiented in a Language which he did not know : But in prayer to God , the defign of it is not to acquaint him with fomething which he knew not, but to excite the hearts and affections of men to an earneft defire of the things which are (it for them to ask : Now let any man undertake to prove, that mens affeclions are as eafily moved by words they do not underftand, as by thofe thev do; and I will give up thisCaufe. T XXV. Of the Seccnd Commandment. lH E Difpute about this, is not, Whether the Second Commandment may be found ina- ny of their Rooks, but by what Authority it comes ro be left out £_, in any : As lie confelTes it is in their jh art Cateckifms and Manuals : but not only in thefe , for I have now before me the Reformed Office of the Bleffed Virgin , Printed at Salamanca , A. D. 1588. publifhed by Order of Pius V. where it is (b left out.-Anq (o in the Englifti Office at Antwerp > A. D. 1658. I wi(h he had told [ 89 ) to!d us in what pablick Office of their Church it is to be found : but himfelf pleads for the leaving it out, when he faith, The "People are in no danger of Super ftition or Idolatry by it ; fmce the Fir ft Commandment fecures them from it \ and there is nothing in P, 6a, this-, but what is vert ually contained in the Fir ft) and is rather an Explanation, than a new and dtfiincl Precept. But is this fo plain and clear, that a Mans Confcience can never make asy jufi: and reafonable Doubt concerning it? There is a terrible fanction after it j and men had need go upon very good Grounds in a matter of fuch moment. Hath God himfelf any where declared this to be only an Explication of the Firft Commandment ? Have the Prophets, or Chriftand his Apoftles ever done it? How then can any mans Confcience be fafe in this matter ? For it is not a trifling Controverfie, whether it be a diftin and think it no Lie or Per jury , as in that of confejjion ; but if it be really Co in any one Cafe, then it maybe fome other fault ; but it is not a Lie or Perjury in any other, when a Man doth not think himfelf bound to fpeak all he knows. I. That as we highly commend the Popes condemning fuch Doctrines and Praetifes now j fo we have Reafon to think the contrary "' the laft-' 1 . That if any are fatrprtzed, they ought in charity to have all pojfible ajjiflancty to put them int& the be(t way for their Salva- ' tion. Bat yet there may be fome particular Do&rines owned in the Church of Rome, which may give men too much encourage- ment to put off true Repentance ; as i. The eafinefs of being put into a itate of Grace by the Sacrament of Penance ; for which no more is required than removing the impediment ; as ap- pears by the Council of Trent. SefT. 7. Can. 6. and afterwards it defines that bare Attrition doth fujjiciently difpofe a Man to receive Grace in that Sacrament, Self. 14. c. 4. So that altho a Man hath led a very bad Life, if he hath- but this Attrition for his fins when he doth confefsthem, he is put into a ftate of Grace by this Sacrament. And what can any Man expect more, and what can he do lefs ! I do not mean a bare natural Attrition, the fufficiency whereof is condemned by Innoceut XI in the fame Proportions ( Fifty leventh ) but that which the Council of Trent calls imperfetl contrition, i. e. a good Motion in a Mans mind to forfake his fins for fear of punifhment, if really no more be required for a Irate of Grace but this, it is no wonder if men put off the doing of that which may be done at any time Co ea- iily by the help of a Prieft. 2. The Treafure of the Church is another thing which is very apt to hinder Mens fpeedy Repentance ; for by that they believe there is a ftock ready of fo many Merits and Satisfactions of others, if duely applied to them by Indulgences, that they need not beat fuch pains to work out their own falvation with fear and trembling. When a Man by the Sacrament of Penance is put in to '[ 92 ] into a ftate of Grace, the Eternal Punifhment is difcharged, and nothing remains but fome Temporal pains: andtoeafehim of thefe he hath many helps, but especially theTreafure of the Church, which the Pope hath thedi'penfing of, as he is bound to believe : and by Indulgences he may eafily get off fbme Thou- fands of Years of Purgatory Pains; and if thefe (hould fail him, there is another help yet left, which is leaving a flock for Prayers for his Soul when he dies 5 which) even our Author auiires him, fire very available towards his fpecdier rcleafe cut of Purgatory , P. 58. XXVIII. Of F A S t I N G. TH E Qiieftion here is, Whether a Man doth not obferve their Churches Command about Faffing who forbears all forbidden things, but takes liberty in thofe which are not for bidden ? Iris not, Whether they may not break the Commands of' God , againff. Gluttony and Drunkennefs : But whether they break the Law of the Church about Faffing ? And notwkh- ftanding what our Author hath Paid, IfeenoReafon for the Af- firmative. 1 do not deny, i. That it is a very indifferent fort P. £9. of Faffing, to abfiainfrom Flefo, unlefs all other forts of Excejfes at the fame time be carefully avoided. 2. That Excejfes on Juch day$ are morefcandalous, becaufe there is a pretence of Fafting. 5 • That P. 71. Goo" s Command doth at all times forbid Intemperance. Which are the chief things he infifts upon. Rut yet this doth not reach the point, which is about their Churches Command. For their Cafuifts diftinguifh Fafting into 1. Natural: which is total Abftinence : and this is required only in order to receive the Eu- charift. 1. Moral : which is the fame with Temperance, or Fafting for Health. 3. Ecckfiaftical : which is defined by them to be, An Abftinence from Food forbidden by the Church. And if this Definition be true, it cannot be broken but by eating what the Church hath prohibited. And therefore their Cafuifts, as far as I can find, are agreed in thefe things, i. That I 93 ] i. That a Man may eat a full Meal of what is not forbidden, and not break the Churches Precept of Fafting, provided Vef- pers be firft faid. And the later Cafuifts blame Covarruvias for making any fcruple about it. If a Mans Excefs comes to be a Reginald. -Mortal fin ; yet for all that, faith Reginalds, He Jhall not be Praxis 1. 4. e. judged as a breaker of his Faft. Nay, Lejfuts goes further, and 1* ^n- 16\. faith, He doth not lofe the Merit of Fafting* Quamvis aliquk mul- j ^e J^' turn excedat non folvit Jejunium, fahhCard.Tolet. And Paulus 2. n. 10. " * Zacchias faith, ibis is the common Opinion ; and he thinks the In- Inftrucl Sa- tention of the Church is fufficiently anfwered. And fo doth Pafi cred- '■ 6. c*. qttaligus in his Praxis of Fafting. JJ-.4- 2. A Man may drink Wine, or other drink, as often as he Medico, ieea. pleafeth, without breaking his Faft. He may toties quoties bibe- ies 1. 5. tit. 1 * re, faith Diana. Zach. Vafaualigus, who hath Written mod fully Qu, 1. p, 29, on this Subjeft, (hews, That it is the general Opinion ; that no 3°, 3r- quantity of Wine or other drink, tho taken without any Necejfity, is P*fql,a,-Decif. a violation of the Precept of Fafting ; no, not although the Wine be rjjan, Stun, v. taken for nourifloment, becaufe the Church dcth not forbid it; but Jejun.n. 7. this lafty he faith, is not the general, but the more probable Opi- 2ach. Pafqtu- nion. ljgi. Praxis Je- . 3, A Man may eat fomething when he drinks, to prevent its 9™!^ n' ones are allowed at Rome by the Popes Connivence ; even in the Court of Rome, faith Reginald?/*. And now I leave the Reader to judge of the feverity of Fafting required in the Church of Rome. N XXIX Of T [ 9\ 1 XXIX. Of Divrfions and Schifms in the Church. *W O things he faith upon this Head. i. That they are all agreed in matters of Faith. i. That they only differ in fome School Points ; from whence he infers, That they have no Schifms or Separations among them. But that this is no juft confequence', will appear by the Schifms and Separations among us,made by fuch who profefs to agree in all matters of Faith. Yet let us fee how he proves that they agree in all matters of Faith ; becaufe they agree to fubmit P. y%» equally to the Determinations of the Church. Now this very way evidently proves that they do not all a- gree, becaufe they do not equally fubmit to the Churches de- terminations. For, i. Some fay they are bound to fubmit to the Churches Deter- minations, as it reprefents the Univerfal Church ; Others fay no : but as the Churches Power is virtually lodged in the Guides of it. Now this is a very material Difference : For if it be on the former Account, then not the Popes and Councils Declara- tions are to be regarded, but as they exprefs the fenle of the Univerfal Church ; and fo the Majority of Votes, and Numbers in the Reprefentative andDiffufive Church is chiefly to be regard- ed. And on this Ground fome reje&the Depofing Power , tho plainly decreed by Popes and Councils : but they unhinge their Churches Authority by it. Now how is it poffible for them to agree about matters of Faith, who differ fundamentally about the way how any things come to be matters of Faith ? If they be decreed by Popes and Councils, fay fome ; and fo the Depo- fing Power is become an Article of Faith. No fuch matter, fay others * for a greater Number in the dirfufive Church oppofe it, as in the Gallican Church, and elfewhere. Very well! But how then can thefe Parties be faid to agree in matters of Faith, and an equal Submiffion to the Determinations of the Church ? 2. Some again fay , That it is not the content of the prefent Church can make any Article of Faith> but there muft be an Univerfal [ PS ] Univerfal Tradition from the Apoftles times. And fo they tell us the Depofing Power can never be an Article of Faith,becaufe it wants the Confent of all the Ages before Gregory VIL So that upon this Ground there can be no Article of Faith which cannot be proved to be thus delivered down to us. Others again fay, this is in effect to give up their Caufe, knowing the impoffibility of proving particular Points in this manner : and therefore they fay, the prefent Church is wholly to be trufted for the fenfe of the foregoing. Now thefe differences are ftill on Foot in their Church ; and from thefe do arife daily difputes about Matters of Faith, and the Seat of Infallibility, whether in the Guides, or the body of the Church : if the former, whether in the Church Reprefenta- tive, or Virtual ? whether the Perfonal Infallibility of the Pope be a matter of Faith or not ? Our Author faith, Not *, others fay yes : and yet he faith, they are agreed in matters of Faith: So that by his own Confeffion they differ about other things than mere School-points. But fuppofe they were agreed in Articles of Faiths can there be no Schiims or Divifions in their Church ? What thinks he of all the Schifms between Popes and Popes ? Of all the Schiims between the Popes and the Emperors Parties ? Which were as notorious, and fcandalous, and milchievous, as ever were in the World. What thinks he of the Schifms between the Bt- ibops and the Regular Orders, which were as crofs and peevifh towards the Bilhops and Secular Clergy, as our Diflenters themfelves ? And among the Regular Orders, what Heats and Contentions have been, Not about the Yraclice of a devout Life, I affure him, but about matters of Doctrine : and which both Parties feverally plead to be matters of Faith? As in the noted Controverfies of this Iaft Age, about the Immaculate Concepr tion of the Bleued Virgin, the power of Grace, and the Popes Perfonal Infallibility ; and they cannot fay they are as yet agreed about thefe things. g 2 pXOf [ 96 ] XXX. Of Friars and Nuns. Oil R Difpute is not, About the lawfulnefs of retiring from the World by fuch Perfons who are rendred unfit for do- ing Service in it; and the more they fpend their time in Devo- tion and Contemplation; fomuch the better. But it lies in thefe Things, i. Whether the Perfection of a Chriftian State of Life lies in being cloyirered up from the World, or labouring to do good in it ? For this was the great fnare made ufe of, to draw men into it, becaufe they reprefented this as the moft perfect ftate; whereas according to the Doctrine and Example of Chrift and his Apoitles, the active Life of doing good, is far beyond it. i. Whether, altho fuch a retirement be allowed , it be a thing pleafing to God, to tye fuch Perfons up by indifpenfable Vows, whatever their Circumitances may be, not to alter that State of Life ; who either in Youth, or through Force, PaiTion, or Difcontent, have entred into it? And this may be fomuch rather queftioned, becaufe thofe who aflert the Pope may di- fpenfe, go upon this Ground, Becaufe Circumftances may alter the Obligation of a Vow ; and when a greater good is to be at- tained, itceafeth to oblige ; which to myapprehenfion doth not prove the Popes power to difpenfe, but the difpenfible Nature of the Vows themfelves. 3. Whether all things of this nature being liable in continu- ance of time, to great Degeneracy and Corruptions ; and the numbers of fuch Places being unferviceable either to Church or State, it be not in the power of the King and States of the King- dom, to difib/ve and reduce them to ways more fuitable to the Conveniences of both ? As to what he difcourfes about Councils of PerfeBion, the Di» Bratlions of the World y the Corruptions of the best Things, &C They reach not the main points, but are only general To- picks, which we are not concerned to debate. XXXI. Of [ 97 3 XXXI. Of Wicked Principles and Pratt zees. TH E Mifreprefenter charges the Church of Rome with ma- ny horrid Practices, as the French and In(h MaflTacres , the Murders of Two Kings of France, the Holy League, the Gun- powder- Treafon, &c. And charges thefe as being done ac- cording to the Principles of that Church. But in anfwer to this he faith, i. In General, That the Do- P- 77. Brine of it is holy, teaching the Love of God and our neighbour, and that nme can be faved by Faith alone, in which Doctrine we heartily concur with them. . z. That alt bo many uncertain things pafs for certain, and falfe for true, yet he cannot deny that all ranks P. 79. and degrees of men have been corrupted among them , being [can da- lous in their Lives,wicked in their dejtgns, without the Fear of God in their hearts, or care of their own Salvation. This is a general ac- knowledgment, but no particular Anfwer to the things objected. 3. "That the whole Church is not to be charged for the fake of fuch p q viUanies. Very true, unlets fome Doctrine owned in that Church gave encouragement to them : As fuppofe any mould ever have fallen into Rebellion upon the belief of the Depofing Power j is not that Doctrine chargeable with the Confequences of it? They are extremely to blame who charge a Church with what her Members do in direct Oppofition to her Doctrine ; but it is quite another Cafe, when the main Ground we alledge for their Actions is fome allowed Principle in it. 4. They are not accoun- P. 8i. table for the Aclicns of every Bijlwp, Cardinal, or Pope ; for they extend not their Faith beyond the Declaration of General Councils. But fuppofe General Councils have declared fuch Doctrines , and Popes act but according to them j is not their Church then accountable for their Actions ? ^. There is more Fraying and Fa- p, 83, fling, and receiving the Sacraments, more vifiting the Vrifoners, and the Sick, more Alms-giving in any of our neighbouring Popifli Towns, as PariS) Antwerp, Gant, &c. than in any Ten Towns of the Re- formation. And is there more charity too ? It doth not appear, if they be as ready to cenfure others, and admire themfelves, as our Author, who fo freely gives his Judgment about a matter it is impoffible for him to know.- We [ j>3 ] We fee no reafon to admire or imitate the manner of their Pray- ing, and Farting, and receiving the Sacraments ; (or to pray with- out under Handing, to fafi without Abfi-inence, to receive a maimed Sacrament* are things we do not envy them for • but altho our Devotion be nor fo pompous, and full of mew, yet We may pray and fart in fecret, according to our Saviours Directions, far more than they do ; however our People are mightily to blame if they do not underftand what they pray for, if they do not receive more of the Sacrament than they ; and we verily believe there are as great and remarkable In ftances of true Cha- rity among thofeof the Church of England, as among any Peo* pie in the World. XXXn. Of MI R AC LES. ?. 83. i. •"X U R Author faith, He is not obliged to believe any one Ml- \^_J rack be/ides what is in Scripture. 2. He lees no Reafon to -doubt the truth of many Miracles, which are attefied by great numbers of Eye- witntffesy examined by Authority, and found upon Record, with all the Formalities due to fuch a Trocefs. Now, how can thefe two things ftand together ? Is not a Man obliged to believe a thing fo well proved ? And if his other Arguments prove any thing, it is, that he is bound to believe them. For he thinks there is as much Reafon to believe Mi- racles ftill, as in the time of the old or new. Law. If he can make this out, I fee no reafon why he mould not be as weU obliged to believe them now, as thofe recorded in Scripture. But I can fee nothing like a proof of this. And all Perfonsof Judgment in their own Church, do grant there is a great ditTe1- rence between the Neceflity of Miracles for the firit eftabhfliing a Religion, and afterwards. This is not only afferted by Tofia- Moyens Surs tus* ^ra[mus9 Stella, Andradius. and feveral others formerly ; & Honeftes. but tne very late French Author \ have feveral times mentioned, See. To. 2. p. faith it in exprefs Terms. And he confeifes the great Imp.fhires U9-, of modern Miracles, which, he faith, ought to be fevefely pu^ nifhed \ and that none but Women and weak People think them- felyes bound to believe them. And he cannot underjtand what they [ 99 1 they are good for : Not to convert Hereticks ; becaufe not done among them : Not to prove there are no corruptions or errors among them, which is a thing incredible ; with much more to that purpofe, and (o concludes with Monfieur Pafchal, That if they have no better ufe, we ought not to be amufed with them. But Chrifi promifed, that his Afo files jhould Jo greater Miracles than himfelfhad done. And what then ? Mu ft therefore S. Fran- cis, orS. Dominic, or S. Rofa, do as great as the Apoftles had doYie ? What Confequence can be drawn from the Apoftles times to latter Ages? We do not difpute God's Omnipotency, or fay his hand is ftortnedj but wemuft not from thence infer , that eve- ry thing which is called a Miracle is truly Co ', or make ufe of God's Power, to juftifie the moft incredible ftories. Which is a way will ferve as well for a falfe as a true Religion ; and Ma- homet might run to Gods Omnipotency for cleaving the Moon in two pieces, as well as others for removing a Houfe over the Seas, or any thing of a like nature. But, he faith, their Miracles are not more ridiculous and abfurd than fome in the Old Tefiament. Which I utterly deny ; but I {hall not run out into the examination of this Parallel, by (hewing how very different the Nature, Defign, and Au- thority of the Miracles he mentions, is from thofe which are believed in the Roman Church. And it had been but fitting , as he fet down the Miracles of the Old Tefiament , fo to have mentioned thofe of the Roman Church which were to vye with them ; but this he was willing to forbear , for certain good Reafbns. If mofi of poor Man's impcffibles be non? to God, as he concludes, yet every thing is not prefently true which is not impoflible ; and by this way of Arguing, there can be nothing objected againft the moft abfurd and idle Fictions of the Golden Legend, which all Men of Underftanding a- mong themfelves, not only reject for want of Authority, but of Credibility. XXXIII. Of T [ ioo ] XXXIII. Of Holy Water. H E Mifreprefenter charges bim with approving fuperfiitious ufes of inanimate things,and attributing wonderful effects to them; as Holy- Water, Candles, Oyl, Bread, Vc. In Anfwer,our Author i. declares, That the Paptfl truely re- prefented, utterly difapproves all forts of Super (lit ion- But if he p 26 ^ac* defigned t0 have reprefented truely, he ought to have told us what hemeantbySuperftition, and whether any Man whoob- ferves the Commands of the Church can be guilty of it. x. He faith , That thefe things are particularly deputed by the Tray en and Bhjfing of the Frieft to certain ufesfor God's Glory, and the Spiritual and Corporal Good of Chrifiians. This is fbmewhat too general ; but Mar films Columnar Arch- bifhop of Salerno, who hath taken moft pains in this matter, Hydragiolog. fums them Up ; I. As to Spiritual, they are Seven. I. To fright «2 d. a* Devils, 2. To remit Venial fins. 3. To cure DiftraFtions 4. To elevate the Mind. 5. To difpoje it for Devotion. 6. To obtain Grace. 7. To prepare for the Sacrament. 2. As to Corporal. 1. To cure Barrcncfs. 2. To multiply Goods. $. To procure Health. 4. To putge the Air from pe (I lit; >u a I Vapours. And now, as our Author faith, What Superfiition intheufeif it ? He names feveral things of Gods own appointing to Parallel it; as the Waters of ' JeaUufy^the Shew-bread, the Tables of Stone; but the rlrft was miraculous, the other had no fuch effects that we ever heard of Ettjhah Salt for fwettn'ing the Water , was un- doubtedly a Miracle. Is the Holy-Hater io? As to the Liver of t'je Fifhfor expelling the Dtvil, in the Book of Tvbit t he knows the Book is not owned for Canonical by us i and this very place is produced as an Argument againft it ; there being no Ground from Scripture, to attribute the Power of expelling Devils, to the Liver of a Fifh, either naturally or fymbolically : Vallejhti offers at the only probable account of it, that it muft be a Di- Vallef s v*ne P°wcr g|ver* t0 if3 which the Angel Raphael did not difco- Phiiofooh. c, vcr 5 anc* }ec 1C 's fomewhat hard to conceive, how this Liver i8. p- *29, ' fhould [ 101 ] fhould have fuch a power to drive away any kind of Devil, as it is there exprefled, unlefs by a Devil there, no more be meant than fome violent Difeafe, which the Jews generally believed to a rife from the poffrffion of evil Spirits : But however here is an Angel fuppofed,who made this known ro Tob-r^bin we find not Rdfhaelio difcover the virtue of Holy Water again ft Devils. As ro Chnft u(in% Clay to open the Eyes of the Blind , it is very improperly applied, unlefs the fame miraculous Power be fuppofed in it, which was in Chnft himfelf : And fo is the Apoftles laying on of Hands, and ufingOyl for miraculous Cures ; unlefs the fame Gift of Miracles be in every Prieft which confecrates Holy Water , which was in the Apoftles : And Bellarmine himfelf confe(Tes,7l^ no infallible effect doth follow the ufe of Holy Water, becaufe there is no- Promife of God in the cafef but only the prayers of the Church. But thefe are De Culm fufftcient to fanclifie the Water y faith our Author: And to what Sand', l.^-c 7. end ? For all the fpiritual and corporeal benefits before mention* ed ? Is no promife of God neceflary for fuch purpofes as thofe ? How can any Church in the World difpofeof Gods Power with- out his Will ? It may appoint fignificant and decent Ceremonies, but it can never appropriate Divine Effedts to them ; and to fup- pofe any Divine Power in things which God never gave them, is in my Opinion, Superftition ; and to ufe them for fuch ends, is a fuperftitious ufe. St Cyril, whom he quotes, fpeaks of the Confecration of the Water of Baptifm, Catech. 3. St. Auguflme only of a confecrated Bread , which the Catechumens had (De Peccat. Merit. & Remijf 1. 2. c. z6.) but he attributes no Divine Effects to it. Pope Alexanders Epiftle is a notorious Counterfeit. Thofe PafTages of Epiphanius, ffieodoret, zndS.Jerom, allfpeak of miraculous effe&s ; and thofe who had the power of Miracles, might foraetimes do them with an external- fign, and fometimes without, as the Apoftles cured with anointing, and without: But this is no ground for confecrating Oyl by the Church, or Holy Water, for miraculous Effedts. If thefe Effects which they attribute to Holy Water, be miraculous, then every Prieft muii: have not only a power of Miracles himfelf, but of annexing it to the Water he confecrates ; if they be fuper-natural,but not mira- culous, then Holy Water muft be made a Sacrament to produce thefe Effects ex opere operato \ if neither one nor the other, I know not how to excufe the ufe of it from Superftition, O XXXIV. Of T [ 102 ] XXXIV. Of breeding up People in Ignorance. 'He Mifreprefenter charges rhem with this , on thefe Ac- counts, i. By keeping their Myfteries of Iniquity from them. i. By performing Divine Service^ in an unknown Tongue. 3. By an implicire Faith. To which the Reprefen* P. 80. ter answers. 1. That tbry jriv* encouragement to Learnings and he inftances in their Univerfities and Ccnvcntual Libraries \ But what is all this to the common People ? But their Indices Extwga- tcr'u. and prohibiting Books [ofev&ely, which are not for their turn, (as we have lately feen in the new one of Tarts) argues no great confidence of their Caufe, nor anv hearty love to Learning : And if it could be rooted out of the World, their Church would fare the better in it ; but if it cannot, they mult have fome to be able to deal with others in it. 1. As to the common People he faith, They *' 9°* have Books enough to infirucl them. Is it 10 in Spain or Italy? But where they live among Hereticks, as we are called, the Peo- ple muft be a little better inftructed to defend themfelves, and to gain upon others. 3. If the Yeiple did know their Church-Offices and Service, &C. they would not find juch faults, fincc the Learn- ed approve them. Let them then try the Experiment, and put the Bible and their Church-Offices every where into the Vulgar Tongues : But their fevere Prohibitions (hew how much they are ef another Opinion : What made all that Rage in France againit Vcifms Tranflation of the MiJJaH Such Proceedings of the Af- femhly of the Clergy againft it ; fnch complaints both to the King and the Pope againft it, as tho all were loft, if that were fuffer- ed ? Such an Edict from the King, fuch a Prohibition from the ., Pope in fuch a Tragical Stile about it ? Such a Collection of Au- rhorumVuie" thors to be printed on purpofe againft it? Do thefe things fhew, Verfi nci ' even in a Nation of (o free a Temper,in Comparifon as the French, intium any mighty Inclination towards the encouraging this Knowledg Jufi,i. ac an- jn the People? And fince that, what Stirs have there been about datoCIen the Afoiw Teftamem? What Prohibitions by Biftiops? befides a ta. Luret. Pa- Bull ^rorn r^is verv P°Pe againft it. What vehement Oppofition ri$. 1661. by others? So that many Volumes have already been written on the occafion of that Tranflation. And yet our Author would perlwade C ro3 ] perfwade US, That if we look abroad., we (Ijall find wonderful care taken to keep the Peple from Ignorance j bat wecan difcern much greater to keep them in ic. XXXV. Of the Zincharltallenefs of the Papifts. THe Mifreprefenter, (as he is called) charges this Point home, Bccaufe they den/ Salvation to thofe who believe all the Articles of the Cbrijlian Faith in the Ape files Creed, and lead veriuous and good Lives, if they be not of their Communion. To this the Reprefenter anfwers in plain terms , That this is nothing but what they have learnt from the mouth of Chrifi and his p Apvfilis. And to this end he mutters up all their fayings againlt ' 92, Infidels, falle Apoitles, Gnnft'icks, Cennthiansf as tho they were point-blank levelled againft all that live out of the Communion of the Church of Rome. But this is no Uncharilablenefs, but pure zeal, and the fame the p Primitive Church jhejved againft Hereticks, fuch as Marcion, Bafi- ' ^° lides, and Bardefanes, who were condemned in the fir (I Age for deny- ing the Refurreclion of the dead, &c. What in the firft Age ! Me- thTnks the Second had been early enough for them: But this is to let us fee what Learning there is among you. But do we deny the Refurre&ion of the Dead ? Or hold any cne of the Herefies condemned by the Primitive Church ^ What then is our Fault, which can merit Co fevere a Sentenced We eppofe the Church: What Church ? The Primitive Apoftolical Church ? The Church in the time of the four General Councils ? I do not think that will befaid,but I amfureitcan never be proved : What Church then t The prefent Church? Is it then damnable to oppofe the pre* fent CRurch? But I pray let us know what ye mean by it; The Univerfal Body of Cbriftiar, s in the World i No, No, a- bundance of them are Hentich and Schifmaiicks, as well as we : ;'. e. All the Chriftians in the Eafiem and Southern parts,- who are not in Communion with the Church of Rome: So that two parts in three of Chriftians, are lent to Hell by th:s Principle • and yet it is no Uneharitablenefs. But fuppofc the Church of Rome be the only true Churchy mu(t men be damned O z prefentlv [ 104 ] prelently for oppofing its Doctrines ? I pray think a little better on it, and you will change your Minds. Suppofe a Man do notfubmit to the Guides of this Church in a matter of Doctrine declared by them • Muft he be Damned ? \\ hat if it be the De- posing Power? Yet his Principle is, If a Man do not hold the P. 96. Faith entire, he is gone But Popes and Councils have dec^red this to be a point of Faith ; therefore if he doth not hold it, he muft be damned. There is no way of anfwering this, but he muft abate the feverity of his Sentence againft us. For upon the fameReafon he queftions that, we may qneftion many more. And all his Arguments againft us, will hold againft himfelf; For, P. 07, faith he, he that disbelieves one Article of Cathc/ick Faith, does in a manner disbe'ieve all. Let him therefore look to it, as well P. 98. as we. But he endeavours to prove jhe Roman Catholick Church to be the true Church , by the ordinary Notes and Marks of the Church. Although he is far enough from doing it • yet this will not do his bufineTs. For he muft prove, that we are con- vinced that it is the true Church ; and then indeed he may charge us with Obftmate Oppoftion, but not before. And it is a very ftrange thing to me; that when their Divines fay, that In- fidels (hall not be damned for their Infidelity, where the Gofpel hath not been fufficiently propofed to them ;and no Chriftian tor not believing any Article of Faith till it be fo propofed ; that we muft be damned for not believing the Articles of the Roman Faith, which never have been, and never can be fufficiently propofed to us. Methinks fuch men fhould Study a little better their own Doctrine about the fufficient Propofal of matters of Faith, before they pafs fuch uncharitable and unlearned Cenfures. XXXVI. Of Ceremonies and Ordinances. HIS Difconrfe on this Head is againft thofe who refufe to obey their Superiours in things not exprelTed in Scripture, which is no part of our Conrroverfy with them- But yet there are feveral things about their Ceremonies we are not Satisfied in : As i.l he mighty Number of them,which have fo much muffled up the Sacraments > that their true fa A cannot be difcerned. ^ The Efficacy attributed to them, without any promise from [ io5 ] r om God • whereas we own no more but decency and fignifi- cancy. 3. The Doctrine that goes along with them, not only of Obedience, but of Merit ; and fome have afferted the Opus Operatumof Ceremonies as well as Sacraments, when the Power of the Keys goes along with them ; i. e. when there hath been fome Aflofthe Church exercifed about the Matter of them ; as in the Confecration of Oyl, Salt, Bread, Alhes, Water, &c. XXXVII. Of Innovation in matters of Faith. ^He Subftance of his Difcourfe on this Head may be reduced to thefe things. 1. That the Church in every Age hath Fewer p « to declare what is necejjary to be behevedi with Anathema to thofe ' >io9« who Preach the Contrary ; and Jo the Council of Trent, in decla- ring Tranfub(lantiatioht Purgatory , &C. to be necejjary Articles, did no more than the Church had done before on like Occajims. 2. That if the Dotlrines then defined had been Innovations, they D mufi have met with great Oppofition when they were introduced. ' l *'*' &c; 3 That thofe who charged thofe points to be Innovations, might as well D have laid the fcandal on any other Article of Faith which they retained. I Thefe are things necefiary to be examined, in order to the making good the charge of Innovation in matters of Faith, which we believe doth ftand on very good Grounds. 1. We are to confider, Whether the Council of Trent had equal Reafbn to define the neceflity of thefe points, as the Coun- cil of Nice and Conftantincple had to determinthe point of the Trinity • or thofe ofEphefus and Chalcedon, the Truth ofChrift's Incarnation. He doth not afTert it to be in the Churches Power to p. x 0p# make new Articles of Faith, as they do imply new Do&rines re- vealed j but he contends earneftly,Thar the Church hath a Power to declare the neceflity of believing fome points which were not fo declared before. And if the Neceflity of believing doth depend upon the Churches Declaration, then he muft aflert, that it is in the Churches Power to make points neceflary to be bel'eved which were not fo ; and confequently to make common Opinions to be- come Articles of Faith. But I hope we may have leave io enquire in this Cafe, fincethe Church pretends to no new Revelation of matters of twDoclrine, therefore it can declare no more than [ 10* ] than it receives, and no otherwife than it receives. And Co no-. thing can be made necefiary to Salvation but what God himlelf hath made Co by his Revelation. So that they muftgo in their De- claration either upon Scripture, or Univerfal Tradition ; bat if they define any Doctrine to beneceflary without thefe Grounds, they exceed their Commifllon, and there is no Reafon to fubmtt to their Decrees, or to believe their Declarations. To make this more plain by a known Inftance : It is molt certain that feverai Popes and Councils have declared the De poling Doctrine, and yet our Author faith, It is no Article of Faith with him. Why not, fince the Popes and Councils have as evidently delivered it, as the Council of Trent hath done Purgatory, orTranfubfian- tiation ? But he may fay % There is no Anathema joined to it. Sup- pole there be not j But why may it not be. as well as in the other Cafes? And if it were, I would know, whether in his Conscience he would then believe it to be a neceftary Article of Faith, thohe believed that it wanted Scripture and Tradition ? If not, then he fees what this matter is brought to, viz,. That altho the Council of Trent declare thefe new Doctrines to be neceflTary to be believed ; yet if their Declaration be not built on Scripture and Univerfal Tradition, we are not bound to re- ceive it. %. As to the impojjibility of Innovations coming in without notori- ous oppofition, I fee no ground at all for it, where the alteration is not made at once, but proceeds gradually. He may as well prove it impoflible for a Man to fall into a Dropfy or a HeHick- Fever, unlefs he can tell the punctual time-when it began. And he may as well argue thus, Such a Man fell into a Fever upon a great Debauch, and the Phyficians were prefently fent for to ad - vife about him • therefore the other Man hath no Chronical Di- ftemper, becaufe he had no Phyficians when he was firlt fick j as becaufe Councils were called againft fome Herefies, and great Oppolition made to them, therefore where there is not the like, there can be no Innovation. But 1 fee no Reafon Why we mould decline giving an Account, by what Degrees, and Steps, and upon whatOccafions, and with whatOppoficion feverai of the Doctrines defined at Trent were brought in. For the matter is not 16 obfcure as you would make it, as to molt of the Points in difference between us. But that is too large a Task to be here undertaken. 3. There t 1^7 ] g. There is no Colour for calling in Queftion the Articles of Faith recei- ved by us on the fame Grounds thative reject thofe defined by the Council of Trent ; for we have the Univerfal Content of theChriftian World for the Apofties Creed ; and of the Four General Councils for the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation1, who never pretended to determine any Point to be neceiTary which was not revealed in Scripture \ whole fenfe was delivered down by theTeftimony of the Chrifrian Church from the Apofties times. But the Council ot .Trent proceeded by a very different Rule ; for it ftrftfet up an Unwritten Word -to be a Rule of Faith., as $tff. Quarra. well as the Written ', which altho it were neceiTary in order to their Decrees, was one of the greareft Innovations in the World ; and the Foundation of all the reft, as they were there eftablifhed. An Anfwer to the C 0 N C L V S I 0 N. HAving thus gone through the feveral Heads, which our Author complains have bten (b much Mifrepnfented ; it is now fit to confider what he faith in his Conclufon, wh'ch he makes to anfwer his Introduction, by renew- ing therein his doleful Complaints of their being Mifreprefented ju (I as Qhrift and his Apofties, and the Yrimitive Christians were. I P iio,. hope the former Difcourfe hath (hewed their Doctrines and Practi- ces are not fo very like thofe of Chrift and his Apo(l!es, and the Yrimitive Chri~ (liam, that their Cafes (hould be made fo parallel: but as in hisConclufion he hath fummed up the fubftance of his Representations-, fo 1 (hall therein fol- low his Method, only with this difference, that I (hall in one Column let down his own Reprefentations of Popery, and in the other theReafons, in fhort, why we cannot embrace them. Wherein Popery confifts as Repre- Our Reafons againft it in the feveral fented by this Author. Particulars. i, IN ufingafl external Acts of A- j. IT Ecu flmlt net make to thy felf J. doration before Images , as I any graven Image-, or any like- Kneeling, Fraying-, lifting up the Eyes, nefs of any thing in Heaven, or Earth, burning Candles, Incenfe , &C. Not &C. Thcu flialt net bow down to them, merely to worfhip the Objects before nor worflnp them. Which being the them , but to worfhip the Images plain, clear, and exprefs Words of themfelves on the account of the Ob- the Divine Law, we dare not worfhip any Popery as Reprefented. [ 108 ] Oar Reafons againft it. jeds reprefented by them i or in his own Words, Becaufe the Honour that is exhibited to them, is referred to the Yrototjpes which they represent. P. j. 2. In joining the Saints in Heaven together -with Chrift in Inter cejjion for us , and waking Prayers on Earth to them on that Account. P. 5. any Images, or Reprefentation?, left we be found Tranfgrellbrs of this Law. Efpecially llnce God herein hath declared him'.elf a Jeakns Gcd\ and annexed fo fevere a Sanction to it.And fince he that made the Law is only to interpret it, all the Diftinftions in the World can never fatisfie a Mans Confcience , unlets it appear that God himfelf did either make or approve them. And if God allow theVVorfliipof the thing Reprefent- ed by the Reprefentation, he would never have forbidden that Worfliip absolutely, which is unlawful only in a certain refpeft. 2. We have an Advocate with the Father , Jefut Chrift the righteous 3 1 John a. I. And one Mediator between God and Men, the Man Chrift Jcjusy 1 Tim. 1. 5. For Chrift is entred into Heaven it felf9 now to appear in the Trefence of God for us , Heb. p. 14. And therefore we dare not make o- ther Interceffors in Heaven befides him : and the diftance between Hea- ven and us, breaks off all Communi- cation between the Saints there, and us upon Earth *, fo that all Addrefles to them now for their Prayers, are in a way very different from deiiring o- thers on earth to pray for us : And if iiich Addrefles are made in thefolemn Offices of Divine VVorftiip, they join the Creatures with the Creator in the Acts and Signs of VVorftiip, which are due to God alone. 3. Call [ 10? ] Popery as Rcprefented. 3. In allowing more Supplications to be ufed to the BlejJ'ed Virgin, than to Chrifi ; For he denies it to be an idle Superfiition, to repeat Ten Ave Ma- ria's for one Pater Nofier, 4. In giving Religious Honour and RerpeB to Relicks. Such as placing them upon Altars, burning Wax- Candles before them, carrying them in Proccflions, to be feen, touched, or numbly kilTed by the People: Which are the known and allowed Practices in the Church of Rome, P. 8. Our Reafons againfi it. 3. Call upon me in the Day of Trou- ble, I "will deliver thee, and thou (lialt glorifie me, Pfal. 5-0. 15:. When we pray to Our Father in Heaven , as our Saviour commanded us, we do but what both Natural and Chriftian Re- ligion require us to do : But when men pray to the Blefied Virgin for Help and froteblion now, and at the Hour of Death, they attribute that to her, which belongs only to God, who is our Helper and Defender: And altho Chrift knew the Dignity of his Mother above all others , he never gives the leaft encouragement to makefuchAddreflfes to her: And to fuppofe her to have a (hare now in the Kingdom of Chrift in Heaven, as a Copartner with him, is to advance a Creature to Divine Honour, and to overthrow the true Ground of Chrifts Exaltation to his Kingdom in Heaven, which was, His fufferingon theCrofs for us. 4. And no man hnoweth of the Se- pulcher of Mofes unto this dayt Deut. 34. 6. Why mould God hide the Body of Mofes from the People, if he allowed g'ving Religious Honour and Rejpecl to Relicks ? Why mould Hez>ekiah break in Pieces the Brazen Serpent, becaufe the Children of Ifrael did burn Incenfe to it ? 2 Kings 18.4. Efpecially when it was a Type or Reprelentation of Chrift himfelf, and God had wrought many Miracles by it. P S'Whom [ no ] Popery as Reprefented. Our Reafons again ft it* ' 5. In adoring Chrift as prefent in the Eucharift on the account of the Sub- fiance of Bread andW.ne being changed mo that Body of Chrift which fuff'ered en theCrofs. P. iO. 6. In believing the Subftance of Bread and Wine by the Words of fynfe- cration, to be changed into his own Body and Blood, \ the Species only or Accidents of Bread and Wine remaining as before. P. 10. 7. In making good Works to be truly meritorious of Eternal Life. P. 13. 5. Whom the Heaven muft receive until the times of the Reft 1 tut ten of all things, Acts g. 21. And therefore in the Eucharift we adore him, as fitting on thert^ht hand of God ; but we dare not diiect our Adoration to theCon- fecrated Hoft, which we believe to be the Subftance of Bread and Wine, ( tho confecrated to a Divine Myfte- ry ) , and therefore not a fit Object for onr Adoration. 6. The Bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Chrift, 1 Cor. 10. 16. This is fpoken of the Bread after Confecration , and yet the Apoftle fuppofes it to be Bread ftill, and the Communion of his Body is interpreted by the next Wlords, For we being many, are one Bread, and one Body -, for we are all Partakers of that one Bread, V 17. Which is very different from the Bread being chan- ged into the very Body of Chrift ; which is an Opinion that hath no Foundation in Scripture, and is re- pugnant to the common Principles of Rea'bn, which God hath given us, and expofes Chriftian Religion to the Reproach and Contempt of Jews9 Turks, and Infidels. 7. When ye foall have done all tho fe things which are commanded jou, jayy We are unprofitable fervants, we have done that which was our duty to do, St. Luke 17. 10. And therefore in no fenfe can our belt Works be truly Me- ritorious of Eternal Life : Which con- fining [ III ] Popery as Reprefentech Our Reafons again/? if. $. In waking Confejftm of our fins to aTrieJi in order to Absolution* P. 14. 9. In the ufe of Indulgences for taking away the Temporal Punishments of Jin, remaining due after the Guilt is remit- ted. fifting in the enjoyment of God, it fs impoflible there mould be any juft Proportion, or due Commenfuration between our bell Actions, and fuch a Reward. 8. And the Son faid unto himt Father I have finned againft Heaven, and in thy fight, St. Luke 15-. ar. Where Confefllon to God is requi- red becaufe the Offence is againft him, but it is impoflible for any Man upon earth to forgive thofe whom God dotk not forgive : And he alone can appoint the neceflary Conditions of Pardon, among which true Con- trition and Repentance is fully decla- red J but Ccnfefiion to a Prieft, tho it fnay be ufeful for the eafe of the Pe* nitent, is no where in Scripture made neceflary for the Forgivenefs of Sin. 9. I faid,' I will cmfefs my Tranf- greffions unto the Lord; and thou for- gave f the iniquity of my fin, Pfal.gi-^. If God doth fully forgive the Guilt of fin, there remains no Obligation to punifhment ; for whereever that is, the guilt remains: It is true, God may not fometimes fully pardon ; but he may referve fome temporal punifhment here for his own Honour, or the Chaftilement of a penitent Sinner : But then what have any men to do, to pretend that they can take off what God thinks fit to lay on ? Can any Indulgences prevent pain or Sicknefs, or fudden Death? But if Indulgences be underftood only with. P x refpect [ 112 ] Popery as Reprefented. iO. »J» fuff'fing that Penitent Sin- ners may in fome meafure fatisfy by Prayer, Faffing, Alms, &C. for the 7emporal lain, which by order of God's Juftice fmetimes remains due, after the Guilt and the Eternal Pain are remit- ted. P. 17. .. I. In thinking the Serif ture not fit to be read generally by all, without Li- cence9 cr in the Vulgar Tongues. P. 19. Our Reafons tgainfi it. refpeft to Canonical Penances, they are a moft notorious and inexcufable Corruption of the Difcipline of the Ancient Church. 10. For if when we were E/iemies% we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son *, much more , being recon- ciled, we fliall be faved by his Life9 Rom. ? 10. And therefore no Satis- faction to the juftice of God is now required from usr for the Zxpiation of any remainder of Guilt. For if Chrift's Satisfaction were in it felffuf- flcient for a total Remifllon, and was fo accepted by God ; what Account then remains for the Sinner to dif- charge, if he perform the Conditions on his part ? But we do not take a- way hereby the Duties of Mortifica- tion, Prayer, Faffing, and Alms. &C. but there is a difference to be made between the Acls of Chriftian Duties, and Satisfaction to Divine Jufiice for the Guilt of Sin, either in whole or in part. And to think to joyn any Sa- tisfactions of ours, together with Chrifts, is like joyning our hand with Gods in Creating or Governing the World. 1 1 . Let the Word of Chrifi dwell in you richly in all Wifdom ; teaching and admonishing one another, Sec. Ce- loff.i. 16. How could that dwell richly in them, which was not to be commu- nicated to them, but with great Cap- tion ? How could they teach and i memfi) f "3 ] Popery as Reprefented. 12. hallowing the Books of Tobit, Judith, Ecclefiafticus, Wifdom, Mac- cabees, to be Canonical, P. a 1 1 J 3. In preferring the Vulgar Latin Edition of the Bible before any other , and not allowing arty Tranjlations into a Mother Tongue to be ordinarily read, P. 24. 26. Our Reafons againfl it. monijh one another in a Language not underftood by them ? The Scriptures of the New Tefiament were very ear- ly perverted j and if this Reafon were fufficient to keep them out of the Hands of the People, certainly they would never have been publiflied for common ufe , but as prudently di- fpenfed then, as fome think it necefc fary they fliould be now. But we efteem it apart of our Duty, not to think our felves wifer than Chrift or his Apoftles, nor to deprive them of that unvaluable Treafure which our Saviour hath left to their ufe. 1 1. All Scripture is given by Infpi- ration of God, 2 Tim. 3. 16. Holy men of God fpake as they were moved by the Holy-Ghoft, 2 Pet. i.zi. Therefore, where there is no Evi- dence of Divine Infpiration , thofe Books cannot be made Canonical.* But the Jewifh Church, To whom the Oracles of God were committed, never deliver'd thefe Books as any part of them, being Written when Infpira- tion was ceafed among them. And it is impoflible for any Church in the World to make that to be divinely in- fpired, which was not fo from the Be- ginning. 1 3. But I fay, Have they not heard ? Tes verily, their found went into all the Earth, and-their Words unto the ends of the World. Rom. 10. 18. Therefore the Intention rc God was,thac the Gofpel fhou: i rfer- . [ ii'4 3 popcrK as Reprefented. 14. In believing that the Scripture a- lone can be no Rule of Faith to any Fri- gate or particular Ferfin. P. 2.3. 1 5. In relying upon the Authority of the prefent Church for the Senfe of Scrip' >>re. P« 29. Our Reafons again/1 it. flood by all Mankind ; which it could never be, unlefsit were tranfla red in- to their feveral Languages iSu: (till the difference is ro be obferved, be- tween the Originals and Tranflations ; and no Church can make zTranflati- cn equal to the Original. But among Tranflations, thole deferve the grea- teft efteem which are done with the greateft Fidelity and Exactnefs. On which account our laft Tranflation deferves a more particular Regard by us ; as being far more ufeful to our People, than the Vulgar Latin, or any Tranflation made only from it. 14. Thy Word is a Lamp unto my Feet, and a Light unto my ?ath% Pfalm 119. Which it could never be, unlefe it were fufficient for neceflary direction in our way to Heaven. But we fup- pofe Perfons to make ufe of the bell means for underftanding it, and to beduely qualified for following its Directions: without which, the belt Rule in the World can never attain its End. And if the Scripture have all the due Properties of a Rule of Faith , it is unconceivable why ic fhould be denied to be fo ; unlets men find thev cannot juftify their Doctrines and Practices by it, and therefore are forced to make Tradition equal in Authority with it.- 1 f. Wo unto you Lawyers , for ye have taken away the Key of Knowledg -9 ye [ ii5 1 Popery as Reprefented. 1 6. In receiving and believing the Churches Traditions as the DoBrine of Chrift and his Apoftles, and ajj'enting to them -with Divine Faith, jufi as he doth to the Bible. P. 31,31. Our Reafons againft k. ye entred not in your felvei, and them that were entring in, ye hindred.S. Luk. 1 1. $i. From whence it follows, that the prefent Guides of the Church may be fo far from giving the true Senfe of Scripture, that they may be the chief Means to hinder Men from right un- derftanding it. Which argument is of greater force, becaufe thofe who plead for the Infallibility of the Guides of the prefent Church, do urge the promifes made to the Jewifti Church at that time ; as our Author doth from thofe who fat in the Chair ofMoCcs, and from Caiaphas his Tro- phejying. 1 6. We have alfo a more fure word of Frophejie ; whereunto ye do-well that ye take heed, x Vet. I. 19. And yet here the Apoftle fpeaks of fomething delivered by the Teftimo- ny of thofe who were with Chrift in the Holy Mount. From whence we infer, that it was not the Pefign of Chrift to leave us to any Vocal Tefii- mcny, but to refer us to the Written word, as the molt certain Foundati- on of Faith. And it is not any Per- rons afluming the Title of the Ca- tholick Church to themfelves , can give them Authority to iinpofe any Traditions on the Faith of Christi- ans ; or require them to be believed , equally with the Written Word. For before any Traditions can be a (Tented to with Divine Faith , the Churches Audio- Popery as Reprefented. Our Reafons again]? it. Authority muft be proved to be Di- vine and Infallible, either by a writ- ten or unwritten Word; but it can be done by neither, without over- throwing the neceflity of fuch an In- fallibility in order to Divine Faith; becanfe the Teftimony on which the Churches Infallibility is proved muft be received only in a way of Credi- bility. 17. In believing that theVrefent 17. Alfo of your own [elves {ball Men Guides of the Church being ajfembled in arife, fpeaking perverfe things to draw Councils for prefervmg the Unity of the away Difciples after them, Acts logo. Church, have an Infallible Afjt fiance in Which being fpoken of the Guides their Decrees. P. 38. of the Chrifiian Church, without Li- mitation of Number, a poITibility of Error is implied in any Aflembly of them ; unlefs there were fome other Promifes which did allure us, That in all great AfTemblies the Spirit of God (hall always go with the calling Voice, or the greater Number. 18. In believing the Tope to be the xg. Andhe gave fome Apoftles, and. Supreme head of the Church under Chrift, fme ?rofiets , and fome Evangelifts, being SuccejJ'or to S. Peter to whom he an^ fime paftors and Teachers for committed the care of his Flock. P. 40, t^e edifying of the Body of Chrift 4 L till we all come in the Unity of the Faith, &c. Ephef 4. 13, 14, 15-. Now here being an account given of the Officers Chrift appointed in his Church, in order to the Unity and Edification of it , it had been unfaithfulnefs in the Apoftle to have left out the Head of it, in cafe Chrift had appointed any. Becaufe this were of more confequence than all the reft ; being declared neceflary to Salvation Popery as Represented. I 1*7 ] Our Ren fans again fi it. 19. In believing that Communion in both Kinds is an indifferent thing ; and was fo held for the firft four hundred years after Chrift ; and that the fir ft Precept for Receiving under both Kinds, was given to the Faithful by Pope Leo I. and confirmed by Pope Gelafius. P. Salvation to be in fubjefrion ro him. But neither this Apoftle, nor S. Peter him(elf,give the leaft intimation of if, V\ hich it is impoifible to conceive (hould have been left out in the A^o- ftolical writings upon fo many occasi- ons of mentioning it,if ever Chrift had inftituted a Head (hip in the Church, and given it to S. Peter and his Sue- ceilors in the See of Re me. 1 9. For as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup , ye do flew the Lord's death till he come, 1 Cor. 1 5-. 7.6* The Apoftle fpeaking to all Com- municants, plainly (hews, that the In- ftitution of Chrift was,That all (hould partake of both Kinds, and fo to con- tinue to do as long as this Sacrament was to (hew forth the Death of Chrift, viz,, till his Second coming. And there is no colour for aliening the Chriftian Church ever looked on ob- (erving Chriftslnftitution in this mat- ter as an indifferent thing ; no not for a thoufand years after Chrift. Altho the Practice and the Obligation are two things, yet when the PracYife was fo agreeable to the Inftitution, and continued fo long in the Church ; it is hardly poffible for us to prove the fenfe of theObligation,bya better way than by the continuance of the Pra- ftife. And if fome Traditions ran ft be thought binding , and far from be- ing indifferent, which want all that Evidence which this pracYife carries a- long with it,How unreafonableis it in this Cafe to allow the Praftife, and to deny the Obligation ? Q^ 20. In I "8 ] Popery as Reprefented. Our Reafons againft it. io. In believing that the Doctrine of to. And whom he juftified-, them he Tur^atory is founded on Scripture, Aw alfo glorified, Rom. 8. 30. tbority , and Reafin. P. 5-4, &c. But whom God juftifies, they have the Remiflion of their Sins as to Eter- nal Punifhment. And if thofe who are thus juftified, muft be glorified, what place is there for Purgatory ? For there is not the leaft intimation of any other ftate of Punifhment that any who are juftified muft pafs through before they are admitted to Glory.' We grant they may,notwithftanding, pafs through many intermediate trials in this World j but we fay, where there is Juftification, there is no Con- demnation; but where any part of guilt remains unremitted, there is a Con- demnation remaining fo far as the pu- nifhment extends. And fo this diftin- ction as to Eternal and, Temporal Pains, as it is made the Foundation of Purgatory, is wholly groundlefs ; and therefore the Do&rine built upon it can have no Foundation in Scripture or Reafon. ii. In believing that to the faying %i. I will pray with the Spirit, and of Prayers well and devoutly, it is not I will pray with the Under Handing al- necejjary to have attention on the Words, fo, 1 Cor. 14. 1 5*. *r vntheSenfe of Prayers, P. 61. What need this Praying with the Under/landing, if there were no necef- flty of attending to the fenfe of Pray- ers? For then praying with the Spirit were all that was required : For that fuppofesfcw attention of the Mind upon God. And 1 can hardly believe any Man that thinks with understanding, can juftifie praying without it: Efpe- daily when there are Exhortations and Popery as Reprefented. [ up ] Our Reafns again Ft it\ iz. In believing that none, w! of the Communion of the Church of Rome i « be faved't and that it is no Unchanta- bUneft to think fo. P. $>*• and Tnvirarions to the People to joyw in rhofe Prayers, as ins plain there are in the Re wan Offices. 1.%. Then Peter opened his mouth* andfaid. Of a truth I perceive that God ts no refpetler of Per fens y hut in every Nation, be that fear eth Godt and work- eth Right eon fnefsy is accepted with him% A&sio. 34) 5$. Whereby we perceive, that God . doth not limit the polfibility of Salva- tion under theGofpel to Communion with the See of Rome ; for if S. Peter may be believed, the capacity of Sal- vation depends upon Mens fearing God and working Righteoufnefs ; and It is horrible Uncharitablenefs to exclude thofe from a poflibility of Salvation, whom God doth not exclude from it. 2.3. In believing that the Church of *3- Thatyefrould earnestly contend Rome, in aU the new Articles defined for the Faith which was once delivered at Trent, hath wade no Innovation in to the Saints , Jude v. 3. matters of Fatth. P. 107. Therefore all neceflary DocVines of Faith were at firft delivered ; and whatever Articles cannot be proved to have been delivered by the Apoftles, can never be made neceflary to be be- lieved in order to Salvation. Which overthrows the additional Creed of Pius lV.afterthe Council of Trent ^and puts them upon the neceflity of pro- ving the Univerfal Tradition of thofe DocVines from theApoftolical Times: And when they do that, we may think better of them than at prefent we do ; for as yet we can fee neither Scripture^ nor Reafon, nor Antiquity for them. Q 2, Thus [ 120 ] TH U S I have Rcprefented that kind of Popery which our Author, ( who complains 16 much of Mfreprefentir.g ) allows ; and I have in mort, fet down how little ground we have to be fond of it j nay, to (peak more plain- ly, it is that we can never yield to, without betraying the Truth, renoun- cing our Senfesand Reafon, wounding our Conferences, difhonouring God and his Holy Word and Sacraments, perverting the Doctrine oftheGofpel as to Chrifts Satisfaction, lnterceflion and Remifiion of Sins ; depriving the People of the Means of Salvation which God himfelf hath appointed, and the Primitive Church obferved, and damning thofe for whom Chrift died. We do now in the fincerity of our Hearts appeal to God and the World, That we have no defign to Mifrepre(e?it them, or to make their Doctrines and Practifes appear worfe than they are : But take them with all the Advan- tages even this Author hath fet them out with, we dare appeal to the judg- ments and Confciences of any impartial men, whether ( the Scripture being allowed on both fides)our Doctrines be not far more agreeable thereto than the new Articles of 7re»/, which are the very Life and Soul of Popery ? Whe- ther our Worfhipof God benotmorefuitable to the Divine Nature and Per- fections, and the Manifestations of his Will, than the worfhip of Images, and Invocation of Fellow-Creatures ? Whether the plain Doctrine of the necefiity of Repentance and fincere Obedience to the commands of Chrift, do not tend more to promote Holinefs in the World, than the Sacrament of Penance, as it is delivered and allowed to be practifed in the Church of Rome, i. c.with the eafnefs and efficacy of Abfolution, and getting otf the remainders by In* du!gences, Satisfactions of others, and Prayers for the dead? Whether it be not more according to the Inftitution of Chrift to have the Communion in both Kinds, and to have Prayers and the Scriptures in a Language which the People un- derhand ? And laftlv whether there be not more ofCbriftian charity in believ- ing and hoping the beft of thole vaft Bodies of Chnftians, who live out of the Communion of the Church of Rome, in the Ea (Itrn, Southern, IVL fern, and .Ncrt.hern Pam. than to pronounce them all uncapable of Salvation on that Account ? And therefore out of regard to God and theHo'y Religion of our BlefTed Saviour ; out of regard to the Salvation of our own and other Souls, we cannot but very much prefer the Communion of our own Church: before that of the Church of Rome. But before 1 conclude all, I muft take Come notice of his Anathema's : And here I am as much unfatisfied, as inany other part of his Eook, and that for thefe Reafons. i. Becaufe he hath no manner of Authority to make them, fuppofethey were [ 121 ] were meant never fo fincerely : And if we fhould ever object them to any others of that Church, riiey would prefenriy fay, What had he to do to make Anathema s ? It belongs only to the Church and the General Councils to pronounce Anathema* s> and not to any private Perfen ivhatfocvcr. So that if he would have publifhed Anathema's with Authority, he ought to have printed thole of the Council of Trent *, viz,, fueh as rhefe, Cur fed is be that doth not allow the Vfor(hip of Imager. Cur fed is he that f aft b Saints are net to be Invocated. Cur fed is he that doth not believe Tranfubftantiation, Purgatory, &C. 2 Becaufe he leaves om^n Anathema in a very material point, tiz. As to the D>pi fng Doclrtne. We do freely, and from our Hearts Anathematize all fueh Doctrines as tend to diifolve theiJonds of Allegiance to our Sove- raign, on any pretence whatfoever. VV hy was this paft over by him, with- out any kind of Anathema ? Since he feems to approve the Oxford Cenjures, P. 48. Why did henothere (how his zeal againft all fueh dangerous Do- ctrines ? If tie Dtpofing Dothine be falfly charged upon their Church, let us but once fee it Anathematized by publick Authority of their Church, and we have done : But inftead thereof, we find in a Book very lately pub* lifted with great Approbations, by a prefent ProfeJJcr at Lo-vain Fr. D*En- ghient all the Cenfures on the other fide cenfured and defpifed, and the holding the Negative as to the Depofing DocJrine, is decla- red by him to be Here fie jr next to Here fie: The Cenfure Auctoritas Sedis of the Sorbon againlt Sanclarellus, he faith, was only done p° . ^'"d aIo*' by afatlionj and that of Sixty Eight Doilor sphere were but Eighteen Vrefent \ and the late Cenfure of the Sorbon,he faith5uvw con- demned by the Inquifition at Toledo, Jan. 1 o. 1683. as erroneous and P. 5^49, Schifmatical ; and fo by the Clergy of Hungary, Oct. %\. 1682. We do not queftion but there are Divines that oppofe it; bin we fear there are too many who do not; and we find they boaft of their own num- bers , and defpife the reft as an inconfiderable Party ; "This we do notAlif- reprefent tLem in, for their moft approved Books do {hew it. However, we do not queftion, but there are feveral worthy and Loyal Gentlemen of that Religion, of different Principles and Practijis : And it is pity fueh be not diftinguifhed from thofe who will not renounce a Doctrine fo dan- gerous in the Confequences of it. 3. Becaufe the Anathema's he hath fet down,are not Penned fo plainly and clearly, as to give any real Satisfaction : but with fo much Art and Sophiirry, as if they were intended to beguile weak and unwary Readers, who fee not into the depth of thefe things,and therefore may think he hath done great matters [ 122 ] matters in his Anathema's, when if they be ftri&ly examined, they come to little or nothing ; as l. Curfed is he that commits Idolatry. An unwary Render would think herein he difoWned all that heaccufes of Idolatry, bat he d >th not curfe anything as , but what himfelf thinks to be fo. So again, Curfed is he ( noc that gives Divine Worfhip to Images, but ) that frays to Image , or Relicks as Gods, or V Vor (hips them for Gods. So that if he doth not take the Images themfelves for Gods, he is fafe enough from his own Anathema. %. Cm-Jed is every goddefs worflupper, i.e. That believes the BlelTed Virgin not to be a Creature. And fo they efcape all the force of this Anathema. Curfed is he that Honours her, or puts his truth in her more than in God. So that if they Honour her and truft in her but juft as much as in God, they are fate enough ; Or that believes her to he above her Son: But no Anathema to fuch as fuppofe her to be equal to him. 3 . Curfed is he that believes the Saints in Heaven to be his Redeemers, that prays to them as fuch. What if men pray to them as their Spiritual Guardi- ans and Proteffors? Is not this giving Gods Honour to them? Doth this de- (erve no Anathema ? 4. Curfed is he that worjhips any breaden God, or makes Gods of the empty Ele- ments of Bread and Wine : viz,. That fuppofes them to be nothing but Bread and VVme, and yet fuppofes them to be Gods too. Doth not this look like nonfenfe ? And yet I am afraid our Author would think it a fevere Anathema in this matter, to fay, Curfed is he who believes Nonfenfe and Contradictions. It will be needlefs to fet down more, fince I have endeavoured by clear ftating the feveral Controverfies,to preventthe Readers being impoled upon by deceitful Anathema's. And yet after all he faith, Curfed are we, if in anfwering and faying Amen to any of thefe Curfes, we ufe any Equivocations or Mental Refervations, or do not affent to them in the common and obvious ufe of the Words* But there may be no Equivocation in the very Words, and yet there may be a great one in the intention and defign of them : There may be none in faying Amen to the Curfes fo worded ; but if he would have pre- vented all fufpicion of Equivocation, he ought to have put it thus, Curfed are we if we have not fairly and ingenuoufly exprefjed the whole Meaning of our Church as to the Points condemned in thefe Anathemas 5 or if we have by them defigned to deceive the People : And then 1 doubt he would not fo readily have (aid Amen. THE THE CONTENTS. A N Anfwer to his Introduction. Page I. i. Of Praying to Images. p. 10. z. Of Wor {hipping Saints, p. 17. 3. Of Addr effing more Supplications to the Virgin Mary than to\ Chrift. S{XZ4' 4. Of Paying Divine Worfhip to Relicks. p. 30. 5. Of the Eucharifl. p. 32. 1. Of Adoration of the Hoft. p. 33. %. Of Tranfuhflantiation. p. 35% 6. 0/ Merits and good Works. p. 42. 7. 0/ ConfeJ/lon. p. 46. 8. 0/ Indulgences. p. 48. 9. 0/ Satisfaction. p. ji. 10. 0/ Reading the Holy Scriptures. p. 52. 11. 0/ Apocryphal Books p. 5 5*. ix. Of *-/;£ Vulgar Edition of the Bilk. p. 57. I}. Of the Scripture as a Rule of Faith. p. 5-8. 14. Of the Interpretation of Scripture. p. 5-9. 15. 0/ Tradition. p. 61. 16. 0/ Councils. p. 62. 17. Of Infallibility in the Church. p. 63. 18. 0/ the Pope. p. 65-. 19. Of Difpenfations. p. 68. 20. 0/ the Depojing Power. p. 71. zi. Of Communion in one Kind. p. 76. 22. Of the Mafs. p. 79. 23. 0/ Purgatory. p. 80. 24. 0/ Praying in an Unknown Tongue. p. 86 2^. Of the Second Commandment, p. 88. - z6. Of Mental Refervations. p. 89. 27. Of a Deathbed Repentance. p. 91. 28. Of Fafling. p. 92. 29. Of Schifms and D'cvifions in the Church, p. 94. 30. Of Friars and Nuns. p. 96. 71. Of Wicked Principles and Practices, p. 97. 32. 0/ Miracles. p. 98. 23. 0/ £fr^ Water. p. 100. "34. Of Breeding up People in Ignorance. p. 102. 5r Of ^ Vncharitahlenefs of the Papifts. p. 103. 26. Of Ceremonies and Ordinances. p. 104. 17* Of Innovations in matters of Faith. p. ioy. Ji* Anfwer to his Cottclujion. p. 107. FINIS. ADVERTISEMENT. A Difcourfc againtt Tranfubftantiation , Printed for W. Rogers. (x) REFLECTIONS Upon the ANSWER To the PAPIST §Mt rep?efenteu, $t* Directed to the ANSWERER/ ^VV( OF PR/i^ SrT 28 192E '•WML ^ SI R, I have perus'd your Anfwer, and am glad to find it fo moderate and calm : You make here and there fome Perfonal reflections in- deed ; but this being done foberly, without heat and paflion, I am flill bound to thank you, if not on my particular, yet on the Publick (core; For having by this convinced the World, that Men of different judgments may now jreat of matters of controverfie, without making ufe of Satyr and Scurrility, or letting Cavil fill up the place of Judg- ment and Reafon. This method I cannot but ap- prove as mofl agreeable to Chriftianity ; And If I purfue the fame,in giving a farther explication of fome moll material Points, you have been pleas' d toquefti- on in my fmall Treatife , as alfo in letting you know my farther fence of Yours ; I hope it may be A done v\, til U) done without oflence, and that the fhortnefs I mall uie, will be eafily pardon'd, if it be but to the put- pofe. Sir, You let me know, my Firfl Character of a Papift Mifrepre[ented\s not fatisfactory,as not found- ed on the fenfe of a Party, and the quotations of Au- thors, but being rather my own Falfi Apprehenfionsy my Ignorant, my Childifk, or Willful Millakes. Indeed had I been bred up in a Wood, and jumpt forth into the World, with this Character in my head, I mould Anfwerpag. have had reafon to fubferibe to you: But becaufe, lo>11- upon examination, I find I was educated in a well- peopled Town , at the foot of the Pulpit , and Jiv'd always in Company and Converfation, I cannot imagin this Character Jo my ow»t as you feem to un- derftandit, but rather my owny as 1 receive! it. And you need not wonder that I did not heretofore by the help of Books or Friends, receive better information, and correal: my falfe Apprehenfwns of Popery. For indeed , were I even at this time to be rui'd by the pag. si. greatefi: number of thefe, the Character of a Pap/Ji would be with me much blacker yet, than I have there drawn it. There would be, but few ftrokes of reafonof Chfiftianity in it, But Be aft and Barbarous all over. And pray do you fee, Sir, what weighty proofs are urg'd againft me,to ihew how foul and mon- JLrous a Religion I have chofen. They ihew me the Book of Homilies laying a good foundation , Mr.- Pox's Book of Martyrs, Biihop Ridlys Writings-, The Publick Tefty A Manuel ot Three fmall Trea- tifes , by John late Arch-Bilhop of Pork , for the 5 °':.^ ufe of a Lady, to preferve her from the danger of &c Popery. Printed London 5672. Then a large Def- Voi. 3 p. jij. crjpcion given by 'Mr. Sntclrffe in [\\s Survey of Poperjy m Popery, wbere he undertakes fo draw its Several fea- tures; as Uhap. 10.) That Popery is a fink of Hea- thenifb Idolatry, (chap. 27.) That 'tis a moji abfurd and foolifh Religion, {chap. $2.) That it is a Do- Brine of Devils, (chap. 47.) That in many points 'tis wore abfnrd and abominable then the Dotlrine of Ma- homet\ Then the Anatomy of Popery Printed at Lon- p3g , 8., - don 167 j. in which an Argument is ihewn between Paganijm and Popery in Six and twenty Points ,- and with the Jews and Pharifees in other ten. Then Mr. Julian Johnfon who has again fet forth this Compari- son of Popery and Pagan if m, especially as to Polttheifm p2s $9. and Idolatry ; With the approbation of his Anfverer Jovian, who a flu res him that He, with all the rejl that have fo t hundred of late with the Ihebean Legion, like it well, and are as well jatisfied with it, as he jQ7. MfoH bimfelf is, bating fome irreverent Phrafes. Nor Sir, Pa§-+« amidft thefe Authentick proofs, befides a great num- ber of other Authors, who undertake to draw Popery in its own Colours ; what convenience or even pofiibi- lity had f, of framing any better apprehenfion of this Religion , then was here laid before me : Efpecially fince my friends were not wanting to vouch the truth of all this, and to allure me; they had heard ail this over and over from Men 0$ Char after, and in Places, which gave it reputation beyond ail queftion ? Nei- ther does it appear to me, had it been my fortune to have confulted you in this affair, that I mould have been much rectified as to thefe my Childifh ox Wilful Miftakes concerning Popery, as is evident from the Character you give of it throughout your Anfwer, and efpecially at the end pag.161.) viz. " That it is 41 that you can never yield to, without betraying the "truth, renouncing yourienies and Reafon, wound- A 2 " ing (4) w ing your Confcience, difhonouring God, and h:s " Holy Word and Sacraments ; perverting the DocT- " rineof the Gofpel, as to Chrift's Satisfaction, Inter- " ce/Iion and Remiflion of fins ; depriving the People " of the means of Salvation,whichGod himfelf hath " appointed,and the Primitive Church obferv'd, and " and damning thofe for whom Chrift died. But however I will nAtinfift upon this point; He rather yield, than be contentious : and becaufe you fay that my Character of a Papifl Mif-reprefented, is made up of Falfe Apprehenfions, Ignorant, Child' ifh, and Wilful Miflakes, Tie own it to be no better : But then, Sir, you mud give me leave to make ufe of your Authority with my Friends and acquaintance, in alluring them, that wherefoever they mail for the future either hear, or read fac\i things charg'd upon, the Papiftsj they muft give it no credit, and efteem in no better than the Falfe Apprehenfions, Ignorant, Childijhj and Wilful miflakes of the Relatours. Upon this condition Iclofethis point; only adding, that in laying down the Colours of a Pap/ft Mif repre- sented, I never thought of declaring the Articles of your Church; or by Mif-re presenting the Papifl , to p. 9. Reprefent you ; as you feem to miftake me : But only to fhew the many Miflakes and Errors to be found amongft P rot eft ants of what kind foever, concern- ing the notion of Popery, for Debitor fumfapientibus & In/ipientibus. And tho you feem willing in your Introdutlion, that your Reader fhould efteem this our p _ complaint of being bafely Mif-reprefented, no better than a meer Pretence, or a Defign offuch who go about to deceive, by comparing it with the Complaints of the Arians, Pelagians, Neflorians, &c, Yet we are P- 9- beholding to you loon after ; when finding fome of the.. the dirt thrown at us, to fall upon your own Face., by your (landing fo near us, you then own it to be ground- ed, and Real) pitying the iVeaknefs and Folly of thofe who call it (pag.io.) And therefore I believe you will clofe with me in this Point, that Mif-reprefenting is Mif-reprefenting, tho from thofe who diffent from your Church. But we go on to the other Character of the Papift Reprefented. And this too, it feems, affords you as little fatis- faction, as the former, on feveral accounts. And Firft you move a Scruple by the by, ( pag. 9. ) by your having no mind to ask How the Council of Trent fhouldcome to he the Rule and Meafure of Doctrine to any here, where it was never receivd ? As if in this Character I had obferv'd a Rule, which ought to be none Here , nor is own'd as Such. And as to this, I need only enform you ; that the Council of Trent is receiv'd here and all the Catholick World over, as to all its Definitions of Faith; altho it be not wholly receiv'd in fome places, as to its other Decrees,which relate only to Discipline. And therefore in appealing to this Council, for the vindicating all I have there aliened, to be the Doctrine of Catholicks , I have done nothing but what I was oblig'd, and is juftifi* able before the whole World ; And on the truth of what I have faid concerning the Councils being univerfally receiv'd as to Docirines of Faith , Tie allow the whole caufe between us to depend. But this only as to your miflake. Now fuppofing this to be the Rule of fuch Points of Faith, as are there fet down for the Belief of the Papiflsy you raife your difficulty pagai.) becaufe Ifhew no Authority 1 have to Interpret that Rule in myown fence 1 It being a thing exprefly forbidden by Ftus (O j\jj 4th. And becaufe feveral of my Reprefentations depend upon my own private Senfe and Opinion. Truly Sir, had I, in undertaking to ftate the Belief of our Church, Interpreted the Council of Trent in my own private Senfe, or Obtruded any Opinion of mine for an Article of our Faith, you might •juflly have Arraign d meat that Barr. But you muft give me leave hereto tell you, thatyou Wrqngme, and Im- pole upon your Reader. For fo far was I from com- mitting this Fault of Interpreting the Council of Trent in my own Senfe : That I have only deliver'd it, as it is Interpreted to me and to ali our Church, in the Catechifm ad Parochos, compofed and fet forth by Order of the faid Council and Pius ^th. for the In- ftru&ion of the Faithful in their Chriftian Duty touching Faith and Good Manner sy in conformity to the Senfe of the Council. And for this reafon in my 5pag. izv Conclufwn, I appeal'd to this Catechifm, for the jufti- fying of what I have reprefented to be the Faith of the Papijl, to be really fo. And that you may fee, how vainly you have charg'd me with the Tranf- grefiion of Pope Pius's Bull: Remember I appeal'd again in my Conclufion to Veron'* Rule of Faith, and to that fet forth by the Bijhop of Condom, for main- taining the Character of the Papijl Reprefented, to btjujL Now you muft know the Latter of thefe, drew up a like Character in Paris, of the Belief of a Papift, and it being conlorm to the Principles of Piety and Chrillianity, it quite overthrew the foul charge of its Adverfaries There, from their Bocks and Pulpits ; and this fo home , that they had no other way of preferving their Credit with their -Flock, then to declare to them, that the the Charatler iet forth by the Bijhop was not £x>;rf' and True $ but only • ( 7) only vampt up by him into that Form for the Bene- fit of the Piiblick caufe. Upon which he Publiihed another Edition with feveral diftintSr, atteflations of many Bijhops and Cardinals, and of the prefent Pope himlelf, wherein they at large approve the Doctrine contain'd in that Treatife, for the Faith and Dotlrine of the Church of Rome , and conform to the Council of Trent. And now Sir, in propofmg the Faith of oiir Church, as I- found it deliver'd by this Reverend Prelate, and fupported by fuch Authentick approba- tions, wherein have I Entrenched upon the Priviledg. of the Apoflolkk See, of Interpreting the Council of Trent 1 Or what neceflity of relying upon. a pri- vate Mans Judgment ; as you Phrafe it, of no Namer and no Authority, inftead of that of the Pope and Council, The Faith of a Papift I have deliver'd ac- cording to the Catechifm Publifh'd by Order of the Council ? or as Explicated by a Prelate, who brings along with htm the Authority of the See Apoflolkk ; and which part of ail this is my private Senfe or Opi- nion ? But you offer to make good this charge in fomeln- flances. As in the Invocation of Saints, I feem to li- mit their Power of helping us to Prayers only, which Limitation is not to be found in the Council of Trent. J cannot but acknowledge, Sir, that the Council men- tions their Aid and Affiflavce,. which we may reafon- ably expert. B-ut there being no other means, of their Aiding and Aflifting us exprefs'd in the Council, or Hi thoCatechifm ad Faroe hos, besides that of their Prayers to God to obtain benefits for us, through- our only Saviour and Redeemer Jefus Chrift. And it being thus limited by the Bifhop of Condom on -this Subj^di (pag. ?} ?. Edit. Fa. 1.6S1.) with the Pope- and.: pas 2|s. (8 )• and Car Aha? s approbation ; I think I need no far- ther vindication to (hew, that in the propofal of that Point, I followed not my own private Jenje or Opi- nion, as you endeavour to prove. In the Point of Merit you urge this again 'pag. 5-6.) as if I had qualified this Doftrine with the dependence on Grace, on God's poodnefs and promife, without the Authority of che Council', there being no fuch quali- fication exprefs'd in Can. 32. read and cited by you. 'Tis true, 'tis not in this Canon. But if you pleafe to look bzckto Can. 26. Seel. 6. you'l find it there clear enough to acquit me from the fcandal of puiifhing my own private fence or Opinion. You inftance again (pag. 11.) in the Point of the Popes perfonal Infalibillity , which I represent to be no matter of Faith : (pag 42.) and what reafon have you, you fay, to adhere to my reprefentation, ra- ther then to that of many others, who afTert the con- trary } But this difficulty is nothing but your mi- Hake : For I do not in the lead deliver here my own private fentiment or opinion touching this point, in oppofition to other Authors : But I only by way of Narrative relate, that whereas fome Divines endea- vour in their School debates to prove and maintain this Perjonal Infalibillity y yet it is not receiv'd a- mongft Catholicks as any matter of Faith, becaufe not pofitively determin'd by any General Council, and propos'd to the Faithful to be embraced as fuch. And this, Sir, again is not my private fenfe or Opinion, but a bare Narrative of Fa ft. But I am now to encounter your Argument, which fhews it felf throughout your Anfwcr , and ieems to defy all the Hofts of Ifrael. If I can find ne- ver a Scone to fling at it, I mud e'en lie at its mercy. And (9) And it appears thus. In my Character of a Papifl P l2# l43# Reprefented I pretend to declare the Faith of a /?o»?fl« Cathotick, as 'tis defln'd and delivered in allow'd-G^ neral Councils ; and yet though the Depoftng Dpclrine h2s been as evidently declared in fuch Councils, as ever Purgatory and Tranfuljlantiation were in that of Trent, yet (till wi/£ w£ '/« »0 Article of our Faith. This is the main ftrength of it, as urg'd by you on feveral occafions. I anfwer it in fhort ; That tho' all Dotlrinal Points defin'd in any approvd General Council , and pro- posal to the Faithful to be receiv'd under an Anathe- ma, are with us fo many Articles of Faith, and are obligatory to all of our Communion : yet not fo of every other Matter declar'd in fuch a Council : There being many things treated of, and refolv'd on in fuch an Aflembly, which concern not the Faith of the Church, but only fome Matter of Difcipline, Go- vernment, or other more particular Affair. And thefe Conjlitutions and Decrees are not abfolutely Obliga- tory, as is evident even in the Council of Trent ^ as is before hinted ; whofe Decrees of Dotlrine are as much acknowledg'd here by Catholicks in England and Germany, as within the Walls of Rome it felf, or the Vatican : And yet its other Conjlitutions and De- crees are not univerfally receiv'd, and it may be never will. Now, Sir, altho' we allow fome Councils have made Decrees for Depofing in particular Cafe *,yet the Power it felf not being declar'd as a Dotlrinal Point ; and the Decrees relating only to matter of Difcipline and Government, it comes fhort of being an Article of our Faith, and all that in your Anfwer depends on it, fails to the ground. I have no place here to give you a B diftincl do) diftinft account of the feveral matters treated of in Councils, a ad of the difference between Decrees of Faiths and others which are not fo ; yet becaufe you feem to require fome fatisfaction in thefe Points, I re- mit you to fuch Authors, who treat of them at large, and mod particularly the Confederations upon the Coun- cil of Trent , Canus, Betlarmine and others. This that I have here faid may be fufficient to evince, that in my declaring the depoftng Power to be no Article of Fait ky I have not folio w'd my own private Opinion, or meerly the number of Authors, but rather the fenfe of the whole Church, Councils, and Popes themfelves, who plainly enough own this,in letting fo many open and Pofitive Aflertors of the no-depojftng Power, to pafs without any Cenfure of Here fie : It being certain that, were this Doctrine any Article of our Faith, as likewife that mention'd in the preceding Paragraph, of the Popes Perfonal Infallibility, the obftinate Op- pofers of them would no more efcape without that brand, than thofe that deny other Articles of our Faith, as Purgatory and Tranfubflantiation. Thefe Instances I look upon as the mod Principal throughout your whole Reply , becaufe in them you have made ufe of a Medium directly oppofite to the In- tent of my Book, and which, if it had been effectual, would have Ihew'd, that I have not Reprefented the Faith of the Papifl according to the Rule of approv'd General Councils, as I pretend ; but rather according to my own private Apprehenfion or Opinion ; which I confefs would have been zfutlAnfwer to it as.to fuch particulars. But how far yob have fail'd oT your endeavours even in this Point, I leave now to the Prudent Confiderer to Judge. But the way you take in («■) in all other Parts of your Book, feems to me not to anfwer your defign, nor to agree with the Title of it. For whereas I undertake to propofe the Faith of a Roman Catholick, as he is really taught to believe in Conformity to the Definitions of Oecumenical Coun- cils : Bating thofe Points I have already fpoke to, in your Anfwer. You either own the Doctrine, to be the eftabliuYd Belief of your Church, as in part that of the Power of Priefily Ahfolution£onfeffton,ol due veneration to the Relicks of Saints, of Merit , of Satisfatlion, of the Authority of the Church, of General Councils , Sec. Or you fhew the Doctrine I have deliver'd, not to be the Faith of our Church, by appealing from the Definitions of our Councils, and fenfe of our Church, pag. H, 3y. to fome exprefiions found in Old Mafs-hooks, Rituals, &c, as if this were a ferious way of truly Reprefent- ing the Doctrines of the Church of Rome. Can any Religion (land this Ted ? Will not many exprefiions in all forts of PrayerSyPreaching^nd Devotions, if fe- parated from the \ fenfe of the Church, prove unjuftifi- able and Ridiculous ? Let but an Atheift take this li- berty even with the Scripture it felf,and thus feparate infinite number of exprefiions there,and fee what will be prefently the colour of all Religion, and whether Chriftianity will be better than Turcifm : and efpeci- ally whether the allowed Pfalms in Meeter will prove the devotion of Men of fenfe and reafon ; tho all may be reconcileable to Piety and Religion, if taken in the fenfe of the Church. Or you appeal again from the Declarations of our Councils, and fenfe of our Church to fome external Atlion , as in cafe of refpeel: fhewn to Images and B z Saints, (12) p. 2i. Saints, upon which from our External Adoration, by Conflruclion of the Fatly'iz Kneeling, Bowing, &c. you are willing to conclude us guilty of Idolatry : As if a true judgment could be made of tbefe Aft ions, with- out refpect to the Intention of the Church, that directs them, and of the Per(on, that do's them. As if they were not in themfelves Indifferent, and capable of being paid to God, or to Men. Or as if your Meafures being follow'd, Abigail ought not to come in, and fhare with us in our conflrutlive Idolatry, becaufeyfo i Sam.*?. 24. fell before David on her face, and bow d her felf to the ground, and fell at his feet. Jofhua likewife, becaule jo£ s, i4. he fell on his face to the Earth, and did worfhip the Angel. And as many who on their Knees pay their Reipects to thz£ing and bow before him: As like- wife all the Beggars in Lincolns-lnn- Fields , who on their Knees, with their Hands lifted up, ask an Alms of PafTers-by : Mud not all thefe by Conflruttion of Fatt come into the Lift of your Idolaters ? Or finally, not being willing the Doctrine fhould pais for ours, in the form I have flated it, you appeal again from our Councils and Senfe of the Church, which I follow, to the Sentiments of fome of our own Private Authors, and io you come often with, This French Author fays this, Fives fays tlnt,lVkelius faysanothertthing, and Leffnis another; by this Me- thod endeavouring to convince your Reader, that the Belief of a Papift is much different from what. I have Reprefented it. But, Sir, this way may do well enough with the unwary ; but it ill fuits with what you pretend. The Frontispiece of your Book puts us upon expecting The Dotlrines and P radices of the Church of Rome truly Reprefented. And when we d3) we come to perufe it, we find feveral Doctrines pro- pos'd, but without any Authority of Church or Court' cilsy but This Author fays this, and That Author fays that; as if the Senfe of every Author, jwere imme» diateJy the Doctrine of our Church. The Church fpeaks to us in her approved General Councils, and from them you might have truly Reprefented her Be- lief and Doclrine ; but from particular Authors, fome of which may Write upon a Pique, othtrs upon a Paf- fion, others upon fome other Biafs, nothing more can be Collected befides their own Opinion, and with underftanding Men it pafles for no more. So that nothing can be more unjuftiflable, than to make a Collection of private Mens Sentiments, and obtrude them for the truly Reprefenting the Doctrine of the Church in whofe Communion they are. And this is not the Cafe of our Church alone, there's no Church or Congregation in the World will (land this Teft. And if it come a little home to you, it may be you will be more fenfible of this truth. For altho' you feem to' maintain in your Anfwer, that good works ofjuftiftd?*& 57. Perfons are not Free ; yet 'tis not juft, this Doclrine fhould be immediately charg'd for the Belief of your- Church. Altho Mr.Thorndike feems to allowPrayersfor theDead,yei 'neither from him are we to take a true re- prefentation of the Doclrin of his Church.Tho 2l worthy Divine declares/ to in cafe aPopiJb]u\[a,n indeed fhould Pag. i>-2. Reign over us, he fhould believe him uncapable of Repen- tance,and upon that Juppoftion fhould he tempted to pray for his Deflruclion ; yet would it not be honeft hence to blacken his Church with this Difloyal Principle, as if flie allow' d her Members, tho not to Fight againlt, yet to pray for the Deflruclion offuch a Prince. The like may c S (14) may be faid of King James the Firfl his holding Chrift to be truly prefent in the Sacrament, and there alfo to be truly ador'a^maintaining in his Epiftle to Cardinal Perron the Doctrine of the Real Prefence to be the Doctrine of the Church of England : And again what the aforefaid Mr. Thorndike delivers of the fame Real Prefence and Adoration of Chrift in the Euchar/Jl9 Epift. l. 3. practis'd in the Ancient Church from the beginning ; and thereupon owning the Eucharifltcal Sacrifice to be truly the Sacrifice of Chrift upon the Crofst in as much as the Body^and Blood of Chrift are contain'd in them ; and then farther adding, That the Sacrifice of the Crofs being neceflarily Propitiatory and Im- petratory both, it cannot be deny'd, that the Sacra- ment of the Eucharifi, in as much as it is the fame Sacrifice of Chrift upon the Crofs, is alfo both Pro- pitiatory and Impetratory. Will you give me leave from hence to infer, That becaufe thefe are the Sen- timents of fuch Eminent Perfons in the Communion of the Church of England, that therefore they are the Doctrine of that Church, I fuppofe you will not ; and therefore in the true Reprefentation of the Doctrine of yours or our Church, I fuppofe, you will eafily grant, that no Appeal ought to be made to fuch Private Aw thors ; but the Undertaker is oblig'd to keep clofe to the fenfe of either Church, declar'd in their Councils and Decrees, and as explicated by their Authority : And as far as you have effectually prov'd this againft what I have Reprefented for the Faith of a Papifl, io far will I allow you have given me a jufi Anfwer ; And as much as you fail of this, fo much you come Ihoi t of what you undertake, which I recommend to your own perufal to examine. But (i5) But for any of thefe ways, they are infignirlcant to your Defign, and deferve not to ftand under the Title of an Anjwer. For how do's your acknowledging our Doctrine to be yours, your producing fome bro- ken Expreflions out of Mafs-Books, your putting Ob- jections from external Aftions, from private Author s9 as your own Opinion, any ways prove, that the Faith of a Papift, as I have Reprefented, is not according to the Council of Trent, and what really he is bound, as a Papifl, to Believe ? And yet this is the thing you ought to have prov'd, to make good your Title . But infiead of this, you generally let your Reader underftand, that I have indeed dated the Matter a- right, and only tell him, that you have fomething to fay againft the Dodrine, and do not like it. But your laying, I hope, (or if it could be proving) that Catholicks do not do well to Believe, as I Reprefenty is no Argument to prove that I do not Reprefent well. This as to the Reprefenting the Doctrine of our Church. I ihould fay fomething to your concluding Argu- ment, which comes fo home 'p. 14.) I allow it feems, the Orders of the Supream P aft or are to be obey'd, whe- ther he be Infallible or no. I confefs likewife in ano- ther place, that fome Popes have ownd the Depofing Doftrine, and Acled according to it. And here you infer, Therefore the Papifts are bound by the Do- ctrine of their Church to Ad, when the Popes iliall require it, according to the Depofing Power. And do's this bring the matter home 1 Why then, Sir, you mull e'en give me leave to make another Inference : That, What brings the matter home, is nothing but an ordinary piece of Sophiftry, and let the Reader judge. judge. The Reprefenter (pag. 42.) fpeaking of the Pope's Authority, fays, That as in any Civil Govern- ment, the Sentence of the Supream Judge or Higheft Tribunal is to be Obey'd, tho there be no aflurance of Infallibility, or Divine Protection from Error or Mif- take : So is he taught ihould be done to the Orders of the Supream Paftor,whether he be Infallible or no. Where a Parallel is made between the Orders of Pope s and Civil Powers, as to the Obedience due to them from their Subjecls.Now^ Sir, if it be your Opi- nion that this Authority and Power in theje Supream Governors is fo Abfolute and Vnconfind, that like to CWhimfelf, there can be no juft Exception made to any of their Aclions or Decrees, whatfoever they be : then indeed your Reafoning anfwers your Intent. But if the Cafe be poflible, that thefe m&yfo Actor Com- mand,that the not-following or not-obeying in Inferiors may be no Crime ; then you come but ftiort of home, and prove jufl: nothing. Now change but the matter of your Argument, and fee how far it goes. The Or- ders of a Prince, being Supream Governor, are to be Obey'd,whether he be Infallible or no : YiWtfome Prin- ces have done thus and thus ; therefore the People by the Law are bound to A&fo and fo ; Does this hold in every Action or Order of a Prince, without Limit or Exception ? Tho a Prince be to be Obey'd, yet it follows not that his Word is the Law ? So that who- foever takes this for a concluding Argument, muft neither underfland Law nor Logick. I need not put the Reader in mind, how often you make your Digreilions amongtt the Schoolmen, and leave not fcouting among them, till you have loft the matter in hand ,• and difpute about their Opinions in- ftead (,7) . {teed of matter of Faith ; how in the point of dif pen- fat ions, where we fpeak of the Moral Law ; and af- fert the Pope cannot difpenfe with it, as give leave to break the Commandments, to lie or for-fwear : You fhew your learning, in proving he can difpenfe with other Laws and Pofitive Inftitutions , a thing fcarce to be doubted of, and nothing to our purpofe. Fie fay nothing of the admirable dole of Your Chap- ter of Difpenfations, in which, tho you have not pro- duced one proof of Difpenfations, for lying or for- fwearing being allow'd in our Church on any account whatfoever,you yet give this alTurance to your Rea- der ; We know this Difpenfing Power is to be kept upas a great Myflery, and not to be made ufe of, but upon weigh- ty and urgent Caufes as their Doctrines declare : Where certainly one proof of the Who, the Where, and the When,had been much more Satisfactory, than the Pofitive We know, and Their Dotlrines delcars : For tho many are willing to take this upon truft, yet it would have gone farther, if you had prov'd it down right, without taking Sanctuary in a Myflery. I'le pag. I;7. pafs by your dexterity wherewith you have manag'd the Hiftory of St. Perpetua in the Chap.of Purgatory : Where after you have difguis'd it to your purpofe in the Relation, and droll'd the Vifion of a Martyr, and fo efteem'd by St. Auguftin , into a young Ladies Dream ; you at laft fet it forth for the Foundation of our Churches Doclrine , and would perfwade your Reader, that our Tenent of Purgatory is built upon it ; when 'tis us'd by me for no more,than a Margi- nal Citation; amongft feveral others : And yet this is our Foundation, and our Doctrine is built on it: Here I fear,you had forgot your promife made in the C begin- (i8) tag. 9. beginning of being fincere, and ufing no Tricks. But I tor bear ; And will only conclude, That if you have truly Reprefented the Dotlrines of the Church of Rome, I would as foonbe a Turk as your Papifl ; whofe Cha- racter you have drawn at large throughout your Book, and in little in pag. 16 1. Which, however you may call truly Reprejenting, I can look upon no better than truly Mifreyrefenting. And by what I fee, I think I might with as good reaibn go to a Pha- rifee, to be inform'd of Chr/ft, and receive the Cha- racter of a Chriftian from a Mahomet an ; as come to you, to know what a Pap/ft is, what his Belief and Dothine. Neither do I wonder, that you come thus wide of what you pretend to : The method you take would bring a Scandal even upon the Apoftles them- felves, and render the Church of thofe purer Times, of the fame colour with ours. Obferve but the fame, in drawing the Features of your own Church, and then tell me whether this be the way of truly Reprefenti-ng. If a man were but to bring into publick your School- Debates, the differing Opinions of your own Authors, concerning the Scriptures, Pre deft inat ion, Free-will, the Authority of the Church, the Reformation, Tra- ditions', &c. all Expreflions of Sermons, Prayers, &c. and out of thefe, and all others of this kind, pick out and patch up a Religion according to the belt contri- vance of the Undertaker, and then fhew it forth to the World, do you think this would be yours truly Reprefented > Why then muft fuch another Jumble as this be expos'd to the World for ours I If you'l let your Flock fee what our Religion is, fend them to the Council of Trent, the Catechijm adParochos^ this we'l own own and ftand by : But for you to pick here a bit and there a bit, to patch as you pleafe, to make you In- ferences and Applications at pleafure, and then tell your Reader, thefe are the Doctrines of the Church of Rome truly Reprefented ; this is to abufe the World and your felves, and to render us infamous for Prin- ciples which are nothing of our Religion. And in cafe you do not judge what I have here faid fuflicient to convince you, that the Faith, as I have Reprefented it, is really the Faith of a Papi/l, Tie be content all thefe Reafons at prefent pafs-for nought, and that the Decifion of this whole Affair depend upon an -Expe- dient. Do but you, (or any Friend for you) give your Ailent to thofe Articles of Faith, in the very Form and Manner, as I have dated them, in the Cha- racter of the Papift Reprefented ; and if upon requeft, you are not admitted into the Communion of the Roman Catholicks, andown'd to Believe aright in all thofe Points, Tie then confefs, that I have abusld the World, that my Reprefenting is Mifreprefenting the Faith of a Papift, and that my Defign has been not to undeceive, but to deceive the People. But if on the contrary it mall appear, that the Faith, as I have Reprefented it , is the approv'd Doctrine of that Church, and fufficient for any one to be receiv'd a Member of it, I may then juftly renew my Com- plaint of its being Mifreprefentea, that the Religion of the Papift is nothing like what 'tis commonly render'd ; and that 'tis a hard fate, that the Profefc fors of it fhould be fo injur'd in their Reputation, and by this means become fo Odious, that even amongft Fellow-Chriftians, Atheifts and Jews, mall be tole- rated with lefs regret than they. FINIS. IMPRIMATUR. C. Aljion R. P. D: Hen. Epfc. De,ce68' 29' Lond. a Sacris Domefticx. 1 — " ^—— — - - ■ ■- ■-■■■■'■ »■- -■■— Ml. „,, PAPIST Not Mifreprefented by PROTESTANTS- BEING A REPLY T O THE REFLECTION Upon the Anfwer to [A PapftMif refrefented and Re])refented.^\ NN^W^WV LONDON: Printed for 5^'c. Chifwel, at the Rofe and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard. MDCLXXXVI. ■ R, :"" r i > ) A REPLY to the Reflecti- ons upon the Answer to the Tapift. Mifrcfrefented, &c. I Do not love to be behind-hand in Civility with any Man, and therefore, in the Name of the Anfwerer, I return the Reflecter his Complement, and that with ibme advantage : For I heartily thank him for the Civility of his Language, and more for the Civility of his Arguments ; and having done this once for all, I fhall apply my felf to confider his Reflections, and will complement no more. His Reflections confift principally of two general; Heads. I. What concerns the Mifreprefentation of a Papift. II. Concerning the Rule of true reprefenting. L The Mifreprefentation of a Papift. And here I confefs, he has iliewed fome Art, but very little Honefty. He Mas told in tlie Anfwer, that ibme of thofe Mifreprefentations which he had made of a Papift, and given out for the Proteftant Character of Popery, were hu own. ignorant •, or childifb, or wilful A 2 Mifiakes ( * ) Doftrincs and Miftakes. As that Papift s are never permitted to hexr the church1' of $cr),KQnst vhidl they are able to under ft and;, or, that they Romcfrc.p.iQ.helditJawful to commit Idolatry, or^ that a Papift believes the Pope to be his great God, and to be far &- bove all Angels. Thefe,, 1 think. anay mG for .Mit- re p. dentations, and very childifh and ignorant one* tec ■.: and hence .the Refle£ter craftily infmuates, that we grant all his Mifreprefentations of a Papift, to be ignorant, childifh, or wilful Miftakes.; and is willing to end this Difpute ( and I very much commend him for it ) upon thefe terms, that his Character of a Pa- Rtjtctt.p.^. pi ft mifreprefented, jhould be confeffed to be ma J? up of falfe Apprehensions, ignorant, childiftj, and wilful M f- takes ', and that he may ufe the Authority of the An- fwerer to affure his Frie-nds and Acquaintance, that rvherefoever t'hey jhall for the future, either hear, or read fuch things charg M npon the Papifts, they mufl give it no Credit, and efeem it no better than the falfe Appre- henfims, ignorant., childijh, and wilful Miftakes of the Relators. This would be a great Point gained in- deed, and I am ferry we cannot oblige him in it. Efpecially, fince he has taken the Pains to prove by great and good Authorities, that his Character of a Papift mifreprefented, is not made up of Rich chil- difh Miftakes ; but is indeed what the belt and wifeft Men have believed of them; and this we thank him for, He alfeadges the Authority of the Homilies, a • ?H* • Book which we greatly reverence. Fox's Book of Martyrs, where we read, *how many were burnt for not believing, as his Papift mtfreprefented believes. liijhop R idly' j Writings, a very learned and holy Man, who may be fuppofed to have underftood what Popery was, and that he was not fo fond of mifre- prefentmg, as to burn for it. The publtck Teft} a ve- ry ryautftenrick and lading Proof of this Matter r with feveral other good Authors he mentions, whofe Credit is never the; worie, becaufe heliath xhruir one bad Man into the Company... May,, lie hasbeera> ib civil, as-to grarit.theAnfwerertobe.as. very a Mifre- prefenter as the reft (and heliad been a very ftrange Anfwerer, if he had not;) which argues- great Mo- Pa°' 3' defty in lrim, to defire leave to ufe liis Name and Authority to condemn the Mifreprefentation ; that is, to confute his own Book, (which in all the material Points, proves what he calls the Mifreprefentation (I wo'nt fay not to be ignorant Miftakes, but) to be the avowed Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome ) which is the only way I know of, that it can be confuted ; for unlefs he condemn it himfelf, I am fare this Reflecler can never confute it. Well, but what then is the meaning of all this pother and noife about this double Character of a Pa- pift mifreprefented and reprefented f Why are we fb angry with what he calls the Mifreprefentation, if it be true ? or, what is the fault of it ? This is a Myfte- ry which ought to be explained : and I doubt, our Reflecter will have no reafbn to glory, that he gave die occafion of it. And I fhall do thefe two things. I. Show you what are the Faults of the Mifre- prefentation. II. That allowing for fuch Faults, the Papift re- prefented (excepting fome very few cafes) pro- feiTes to believe all that the Papift mifreprefen- ted is charged with. I. As for the Faults of the Mifreprefentation, they are briefly thefe. i. That C 4 1 i. That he puts fuch things into the Chara&er of a Papift, as no : Man in his Wits ever charged them with ; and thefe the Anfwerer calls childifb, and ignorant, or wilful Mift ah s. 2. That the Opinions of Proteftants concerning Popifli Doctrines and Practices, and thofe ill Confe- quents which are charged, and juftly charged upon them, are put into the Character of a Papift mifre- prefented, as if they were his avowed Doctrine and Be- lief; which is mifreprefenting indeed, but is his own, not our M if representation. We charge them with nothing, but what they exprefly profefs to believe, and what they prac~tife,and we tell them what we think of fuch Doctrines and Practices, what their Nature, and what their Confluences are ; but do not charge them .with believing as we believe, concerning thefe Mat- ters ; and therefore it is not fair to put fuch things in- to a Protectant Character of a Papift mifreprefented. As to give an Initance of a like nature ; There are fbme dilTenting Proteftants, who think it lawful to reflit their Prince, and take up Arms againft him: this we fay is Rebellion ; and yet it would be a very ridiculous Mifreprefentation of fuch Men, to fay, they are thofe, who believe it lawful to rebel ; for no Man believes Rebellion, no more than Idolatry, to to be lawful : and they no more believe taking up Arms in fuch cafes to be Rebellion, than the Papift thinks his Worfhip of Saints and Images to be Idola- try ; which ihows how unjuft it is, to put the Inter- pretations and Conferences of Mens Opinions and Practices, which they themfelvesdifbwn, into their Character. And tho we never do this, the Mifrepre- fenter has done it for us ; which makes it a falfe Cha- racter, tho every thing which is faid in it may be true. ?. It ( 5 ) fi It is ftill fo much the worfe, when the In- terpretations and Confequences, which are charged upon Mens Practices and Opinions, are fet in the front of the Character, as firft and Original Princi- ples. As, to keep to our former Inftance. To fay, that Men believe Rebellion to be lawful, and there- fore make no (cruple of taking up Arms againft their Prince ; is a very different thing from faying, that Men believe they may lawfully take up Arms in fome Cafes, and in doing fo are guilty of Rebel- lion. Thefe are fbme of the principal Arts our Author has ufed in drawing* the Character of a Papift mifre- frefented, as I will prefently fhow in particular. But then on the other hand, to draw a fair Character of a Papift reprefented ; He, (i.) as eafily he might, denies that he believes thofe Interpretations and Confequences, which we charge their Doctrines and Practices with, and which the Mifreprefenter has put into their Character, and charges them with be- lieving. But, (2) he generally owns the Doctrines and Practices, which we charge them with, and at- tempts to vindicate them, and to put new Colours on them ; fb that the main difference between us is not in the Character, but whether their Doctrines and Practices be of fb hainous a nature as we fay they are, which is matter of Difpute, not of Reprefenta- tion. Though, (3.) in fome Cafes he difowns that to be the Doctrine and Belief of their Church, which manifestly is fo, and has been proved on them, be- yond all poffibility of a fair Reply, by the Learned Anfwerer. B That That this is the true State of the Cafe, with refe- rence to the two-fold Character of a Papifl mifrepre- fented and reprefented ; I come now to ihow, which I fhall do in thefe Characters, which he himfelf has given us of them : Only I muft defire the Reader, For his own fatisfa&ion, to compare what I write with his Characters, ' for I fhall not tranfcribe them at large, both to fave my Labour and Paper. I. Of Graying to Images, THe Mifreprefentation here* as to the Matter, is every word true ; but yet is a falfe Character by the fecond and third Rules of Mifreprefentation. A Papifl mifreprefented, worfhip s Stocks and Stones for Gods. We only charge them with worshipping Ima- ges ; and the fault of that, we fay, is, (though we never charge them with faying or thinking fb) that they worfhip Stocks and Stones for Gods. But now to mifreprefent us in the Character of a Papifl mifrepre- fentedy he makes us charge a Papifl: with believing his Images of Wood and Stone to be Gods ; and that this is the reaibn and foundation, (not meerly the true Interpretation) of their Image- worfhip ; as he adds, And for this reafon he erects fiately Monuments to them in his Churches falls down proftrate before them y and with his eyes fixed on them, cries out, Help me Mary, &c. Whereas we only charge them with worfhipping Images, and do lay, and prove too, that in the Scripture-NotioH, this is to worfhip Stocks and Stones for Gods. Now ( 7 ) . Now comes the Reprefenter, and he lays, That a, Papift Reprefented, believes it damnable to worfhip Stocks and Stones for Gods : That is, he does not be- lieve, that worshipping Images, (as we fay, it is) is worfhipping Stocks and Stones for Gods : And who- ever laid that they did believe this? But does he worfhip Images or not ? This he grants, when he lays, That the honour which is exhibited to the Images , is referred to the Prototypes, which they reprefent '-> which is all that can be poflibly meant by worfliip- ping Chrift, or his Saints, by Images ; that they re- fer all that worfhip, which they pay to Images, to Chrift, or the Saints, whom thole Images reprelent. Now if they refer that worlhip, which they give to the Image, to Chrift, they rnuft worlhip the Image ; and this (Image-worfhip) is all we exprefsly charge them with owning. What the nature and true Inter- pretation of this worlhip is, which we fay, is worfhip- ping Stocks and Stones for Gods, we will dilpute with them when they pleale. II. Of Wor[kifting Saints. THus the Papift Mifreprelented, is faid to make Gods of dead men : Whereas we only charge them with Praying to the Virgin Mary, and Saints departed ; and this we lay, is to make Gods of them, luch Gods as the Heathens made of their Inferior Daemons, and IntercerTors between God and Men. And does the Reprefenter deny that they pray to Saints ? No, but owns and defends it, as well as he can; and there we are ready to joyn IiTue with him. B 2 Well, - (8 ) Well, but he Confides in Saints as his Mediators and Redeemers, and expecJs no Bleffing, but what is to come to him by their Merits, and through their hands. That they truft in Saints, as their Redeemers, no under- ftanding Proteftant ever yet faid, though they think it a great injury to the Interceflion of our Saviour, to apply to any other Advocates, of what nature fbever, cfpecially to think, that Chrift, who died for us, and is our Advocate with the Father, needs any other Advocates to make him merciful and propitious to us ; or that he, who merited with his own Blood, needs any additional Merits of the Saints to make his Inter- ceflion the more efficacious. But I am not to Dis- pute now, but only Reprefent ; and the Papift re- prefented. owns all that we Proteftants charge them with. His Arguments and Colours muft be dif- mifled, till there be farther occafion to confider them. III. Of Jddrefsing more Supplications to the Virgin Mary, than to Chrift. WE charge them with nothing, but what is their daily practice, of faying ten Ave Maries for one Pater nofier, or ten Prayers to the Virgin Mary for one to God. And this we think (if Prayer be a fign of Honour) is to honour lier ten times more, than they do her Son, or God the Father ; and if Prayer fignifie bur belief of the power, or intereft of that Being, to whom we pray to help us, the fre- quency of our Prayers to the Virgin muft fignify, that we expect more help and relief from praying to her, than from directing our Prayers immediately to God ( 9 ) God or Chrirt ; for it is natural to pray oftenefr. to thcfe, from whole power or interceflion (which is power too) we expect moil. But now our Mifrepre- fenter has made a very falfe Character of this, by putting thele confequential charges into the Chara- cter, and fetting them in the firlr. place as the Rea- fbn, not the Confluences or Interpretation of their frequent Prayers to the Virgin. That he believes the Virgin Mary to be much more powerful in Heaven than Chrift, and that floe can command him to do what (he thinks good ; (which is not a Proteftant but a Popifh Mifreprefentation, if it be one, it being found in fome of their old MifTals, and Modern Poets) and for this reafon he honours her more than he does her Son,or God the Father, for one Prayer he fays to God, Jaying ten to the Holy Virgin. And now the Reprefenter might fafely deny, that they believe the Virgin more powerful than God, or that they intend to honour her more ; for we pretend not to know their private Belief and Intentions, and therefore never made this a perfbnal charge, but only a charge upon their Pra- ctice ; he owns the Practice, and we'll make good the Charge, when he pleales, not by inquiring into their private Intentions, but from the natural Inter- pretation of fuch Actions. IV. Of paying VlVmeWor pip to ^elich. WE only charge them with giving Religious Honour to the Rehcks of Saints and Martyrs, by falling proftrate, kneeling down to them, kiffing them, and going in Pilgrimages to their Shrines and Sepulchers, and expecting aid and help from them,. to, ( io ) to go to them opts impetrand^ causa, as the Council of Trent directs. This is Matter of Fact, and own- ed by the Reprefenter. Now we think this is to as- cribe Divinity to them, if Religious Worfhip figni- fies any Divinity in the Object of Worfhip. This the Mifreprefenter puts into the Character of a Pa- pift, which we never did ; and the Reprefenter on the other hand denies, that they believe any iuch thing, which for ought I know, may be true : but the Queftion is, Whether they do not give a Divinity to them by worfhipping them ? And this we anert 3hey do, and this they may do without believing any Divinity in them. V. Of the Eucbarift. AS for worfhipping the Hoft, we only charge them with worfhipping the Confecrated , Bread, which we fay is Bread ftill \ but which, they fay, is the natural Body of Chrift, which was born of the Virgin, and fufiered on the Crofs : and for fo doing, lome Proteftants charge them with Idolatry in worfhipping a Breaden God ; and fbme Papifts ac- knowledge it would be Idolatry, if what they wor- shipped were only Bread, and not the natural Body of Chrift : but no Proteftant ever gave fuch a Cha- racter of a Papift, That he believes it lawful to commit Idolatry, that he worfhip s and adores what he believes only to be a Breaden God, and the poor empty Elements of Bread and Wine. The Queftion is not, what a Papift believes, but what the truth of the thing is ? not whether he believes the Hoft to be only Bread, but whether it be fo or not ? not whether he believes Idolatry Idolatry to be lawful, but whether he be not guilty of Idolatry in worshipping the Hoft ? and therefore this ought not to be put into the Character of a Papift ; for thofe who believe that he worships nothing but Bread and Wine, and is guilty of Idolatry in it, do not charge him with believing fb. And therefore, the Reprefenter, who acknowledges the worfhip of the Boil, might very truly deny all the reft. As for Tranfubftantiation, we charge them with believing no more, than what they themfelves own, That the Confecrated Bread and Wine is changed into the natural fubftance of Chrift's Flefh and Blood ; which the Mifreprefenter very fallacioufly calls Chrift's being- really prefent under thofe appearances ",. that our People may not perceive the difference be- tween Tranfubftantiation, which the Church of Eng- land denies, and a real prefence, which fhe owns, not under the appearances of Bread and Wine, but in the ufe of the Confecrated Bread and Cup ; which differ as much as a Bodily and Sacramental prefence. ' Now if this Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation be true, befides many other Abfurdities, we fay, Chrift muft have as many Bodies, as there are Confecrated Hofts ; and that his Body muft be on Earth, and that in fifty thoufand diftant places at the fame time ; though the Scripture aim res us, That he afcended in his Body into Heaven, and is to continue there till he come to Judgment. But we do not charge the Papifts with believing thefe Abfurdities, (for we canaot guefs what they believe) ; much lefs do we charge them with believing, that there are as many Chrifts, as ma- ny Redeemers, as there are Churches, Altars, or Pr lefts, For there is (we grant) fome little difference be- tween Chrift's having many Bodies, and there be- ing ( Vi ) iiig many Chrifts. What an cafy Task has the Re- prefentcr to take off fuch Characters as thefe. VI. Of Merits and Qood Works. HEre we only charge them with faying, as the Council of Trent does, That the Good Works of j nft [i fed Perfonsy are truly meritorious of the in- crease of Grace, and of Eternal Life : And though we think this is too much for any Creature, efpeci- ally a Sinner, to pretend to Merit, and know not how to reconcile Grace, and Ariel: Merit together ; yet we never charged a Papift with believing ChrijFs Death and PaJJion 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 Chrift, and the Merits of Good Works. The Reprefenter indeed qualifies this by laying, That through the Merits of Chrifl, the good Works of a juft Man proceeding from Grace, are fo acceptable to God, that through his Goodnefs and Promife, they are truly meritorious of Eternal Life. The Anfwerer al- leages the T>id Canon, Seff. 6. of the Council of Trent, where no fuch Qualification is ufed, which yet is the Canon purpofely defigned to eirablifh the Merits of goods Works. This the Refle&er grants, (pag. 8. ) and refers us to the 26th Canon of that Seflion, where there is not one word of the Merit of good Works ; and therefore, how we mould learn from that Canon, in what fenfe good Works are faid to merit, I cannot tell ; but in the fixteenth Chapter a, of ( m > of that Seflion, this Do&rine is explained at lame and there we may expect the fulleft Account of it' which in fliort is this. That that Divine Vertue which flowes from Chrifr into juftified Perfbns, as from the Head to the Mem- bers, and from the Vine to the Branches, makes the good A&ions of fiich Men acceptable to God, and meritorious ; and that fuch good Works which are done in God, do fatisfy the Divine Law, and truly and properly merit Eternal Life. That this is called our Righteoufnefs, becaufe we are juftified by its inhering in us ; and the Righteoufnefs of God, be- caufe it is infufed into us by God, through the Merits of Chrifr : and that the Goodnefs of God as to this matter, confifts in this, that he will have his own Gifts to be our Merits : 'And therefore in the } 2d Ca- non, they pronounce an Anathema againft thole, who fhall fay, that the good Works of a juftified Man are fb the Gift of God, as not to be his own Merits. So that though they do indeed own the Grace and Pro- mife of God, and the Merits of Chrifr, as the Caufe and Foundation of their own Merits ; yet they do affert, that the inherent Righteoufnefs and good Works of a juftified Man, have that intrinfick Ver- tue, as to fatisfy the Divine Law, and to be truly meritorious of the increafe of Grace and Eternal Life. This we think injurious to the Grace of God and the Merits of Chrift : they think it is not, and we never faid they did. Vii. of ( 14) VI f. Of Confefsion* WE charge them with making a particular Con- feflion to a Priefb of all our Sins committed after Baptifm, neceiTary to obtain Pardon and For- givenefs, and with attributing a Judicial and Praetori- an Authority ( fuch as is exercifed by Judges and Magiftrates ) to the Prieit to forgive Sins. And tho we do not lay, that he believes it fart of his Religion to make Gods of Men ; yet we fay and prove it too, that this is a Power, which God has referred wholly to himlelf. We do not charge them with faying, that the Abfolution of the Prieft is valid without any thoughts or intentions of Amendment in the Penitent : but they do fay, that Attrition, which is but an imperfect degree of Sorrow for fear of Hell, and can prcduce only fbme faint and fudden thoughts of Amendment^ does qualifie Sinners for Abfoluti- on ; and we fay, whatever the Doctrine of their Church teaches, the conftant Practice of abfblving all that confels, without any apparent figns of Re- pentance, and purpofes of a new Life, and that after many and repeated Relaples, is apt to teach Men to place their Confidence in the Prieft's Abfolution, without any ferious intention to foriake their Wic- kednefs. VIII. Of ( H ) 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 thofe Sins which are committed ; that is, for the re- mitting thofe Temporal Punifbments, which are due to Sin in Purgatory. The Abfblution of the Prieft remits the Eternal Punifhment of Sin, and keeps Men out of Hell ; but ftill the Temporal Punifhment in Purgatory remains due : and this muft be taken oft) either by humane Satisfactions and Penances (of which presently ) or by the Pope's Pardon, which fiirely is a different thing from the Relaxation of Cano- nical Penances, as the Reprefenter ftates it; for I never heard before, that Purgatory Fire was a Ca- nonical Penance* enjoyned by the Church ; for fore the Decrees of the Church did not kindle Purgatory, and it is ftrange the Church fbould grant fb many thoufand Years Pardon of Canonical Penances, ( if they concern this Life ) as fbme Indulgences contain, when few Men live an hundred Years in this World, and then' have no need Of all the reft. We fay the Popes have, and do to this day fell thefe Indulgences, at different rates, according to the na- ture of the Crime ; and Men who have Mony, need not fear the Purgatory Fires, and Men who have none, muft be contented to endure them : this wc grant with the Reprefenter to be a great Abufe, but it is an Abufe of their Popes, and hardly feparable from the Doctrine and Practice of Indulgences. C 2 IX. Of ( t6 ) IX. Of SatisfaEiion. WE charge them with making human Penances neceffary to fatisfy for the Temporal Punifh- ment which is doe to Sin in Purgatory, when the Eternal Punifhment is pardoned for the Merits and Satisfaction of Chrift ; which we fay is injurious to the Satisfaction of Chrift : for all Men muft grant, that Chrift had been a more perfect Saviour, had he by his Death and Paflion delivered us from the 7 em- poral Punifhment of Sin in Purgatory, as well as from the Eternal Pains of Hell. Yet we do not fay, that they believe very injurioujly of the Paffion of Chrift, that his Sufferings and Death were not Effici- ently fat is factory for our Sins ; and therefore think it neceffary to make Satisfaction for themfelves ', 'but that they believe, as their Church teaches them, that they muft fatisfy themfelves for the Temporal Pu- nifhment of tjieir Sins, and this is injurious to the Satifaftion of Chrift. We do not charge them with evacuating ChrijFs Paffion by relying on their own peni- tential Works \ but that they rely on Chrift to fatisfy for the Eternal Punifhment of Sin, and on their own Satisfactions for the Temporal Punifhment ; which afcribes indeed the better half, but not the whole, to» Chrift ; and all this the Reprefenter owns. X. Of ( ft ) X. Of reading the Holy Scriptures. WE only charge them with denying the Peo- ple the ufe of the Bible 'in the vulgar Tongue, as every body knows they do, and as the Reprelenter owns, and defends it. And to juftify this Practice, we lay, many of their Divines have charged the Scripture with being a very dark, ob- fcure, unintelligible Book ; and that it is of very- dangerous confequence to grant a liberty to the Peo- ple to read it ; and dais we think is not much for the Credit and Reputation of the Holy Scriptures. But we do not, as the Mifreprefenter fays, charge the Papift with believing it part of hk Duty, to think meanly of the Word of God, and to fpeak irreverently of the Scripture. Whether denying the People the ufe of the Bible in a Language they underftand^ be an Argument of their Refpect or Difrepect to the Scriptures, let any Man judg; but for whatever reafon they do it, the Effect is plain, that it keeps People in great Ignorance ; and as we fear, oceafions the eternal Damnation of many Souls ; though we do not fay, as the Mifreprefenter does, that they do it with this defign, That Men may be preferved in Ig- norance, and damned eternally. But tney kjaow their own Defigns beft. XI. Of ( »8 ) XL Of Jpocryphal 'Books. HEre can be no pretence of mifreprefenting, un- lefs it be in the firft claufe, which he ufually takes care fhall contain fbme Mifreprefentatjon. That he believes it lawful to make what additions to Scripture his party thinks good. For, as for their re- ceiving flich Apocryphal Books, as Tobit, Judeth, Ecclejtaftieus, Wifdom, and the Maccabees, into the Canon of Scripture, which is all we charge them with, the Reprefenter 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 pleafe ; for we believe they have fb much Wit, as to know it fafer to do it, than to fay 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 fb Authentick, as not to allow of any Appeals to the O- riginals for the Interpretation of doubtful places ; and we know not what Authority can make a Tranfla- tion more Authentick than the Original. That this is truly charged on them, the Reprefenter cannot de- ny, though the Mifreprefenter makes tragical work with it J as any one may fee, who will divert him- felf with reading that Chara&er ; which though in feme parts it may have too much Truth in it, was never ( «? ) never before made the Character of a Papift ; but we mull give them leave to (peak fome blunt and bold Truths of themjelves. XIII. Of the Scripture as the (Zfyfe of Faith . XIV. Of the Interpretation of Scripture. WE do not charge them with denying in exprefs words the authority of the Scripture to be a Rule, but with faying that which is equivalent to it, That the (enfe of it is fo various and uncertain, that no man can, be fure of the true meaning of it in the moft neceflkry and fundamental Articles of 'the Faith, but by the Interpretation and Authority of the Church, which does effe&ually diveft it of the au- thority of a Rule: for that ismv Rule, which can and mull direct me, which (it teems) is not the Scripture considered in it ielf, 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 com- plain of Mifreprefentation ? When the Reprefenter owns and juftifies every particular of it ; except it be, thole goodly Introductions ; That he believes it lawful, nay, that it is his Obligation to undervalue the Scripture, and take from it that Authority which Chrijl gave it ; and that he believes his Church to be above the Scripture, and profhanely allows to her an uncontroul- able Authority of being "Judge of the Word of God. For though there may be fome truth in fiich Confe- rences as thefe from their Doctrine,,, yet they were never never charged upon them by us, as their Principles, or Faith : Which is the chief Art he uies in drawing up thefe Mifreprefentations. XV. Of Traditions. WE charge them with making fbme unwritten Traditions of equal authority with the Scrip- ture, and believing them with a Divine Faith. This we fay, derogates from the peiiedion of the Scrip- ture, 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 fay, That thefe unwritten Traditions are but humane Ordinations, and Traditi- ons of men : but we do not fay a Papift believes them to be Humane, but Divine, though unwritten, Tra- ditions : and therefore, though we affirm, that they give equal authority to fiich Traditions as are in truth no better than humane Ordinations, as to the Scriptures themfelves ', yet we do not fay, that they admit what they believe to be only humane Traditi- ons, to fiipply the defects of Scripture, allowing equal authority to them, as to the Scriptures them- felves ; which is the only Mifreprefentation in this Character, all the reft being owned by the Reprefen- ter himfelf, who then had very little caufe to com- plain of Mifreprefenting. XVI. Of ( *I ) XVI. Of Councils. THe difference between the Mifrepref enter and Re- pref enter in this Article, is no more but this, That the Papifi Mijreprefented is (aid to receive new Additions to his Creed from the Definitions and Au- thority of General Councils, and to embrace them with a Divine Faith. The Paptft Reprefented, owns the Authority of General Councils, as well as the other, and receives all their Definitions, and believes them as firmly j but though they define fuch Do- ctrines for Articles of Faith, as were never heard of in the Chriftian Church, at leaffc were never put in- to any Chriftian Creed before, yet he-will not believe them to be Additions to his Faith, or to what was taught by Chrift and his Apoftles : But Pope Pins the 4th his Creed muft be the Faith of the Church from the Apoftles days. Now here I fancy our Author miftook his fide, for the Papift Reprefented has much the worfe Character, that he is fb void of all fence, that he cannot tell which is moll, twelve, or four and twenty Articles in a Creed. This is a hard cafe, that Men muft believe all the Definitions of their Councils, but though they fee their Creed increafc every day, muft never own that their Faith receives any Additions. However, I think, he has no rea- ibn here to complain of Mifreprefenting, fince he owns all that any Proteftant charges him with, fuch an Implicit Faith in General Councils, as receives all D their ( *l ) their Definitions, and rather than fail in defiance of Senfe and Hiftory, will believe that to be the old Faith, which was never defined till yefterday. XVII. Of Infallibility in the Church. THe Mifreprefenter fays, a Papift believes that tfie Pafiors and Prelates of his Church are infallible : which, if it be underftood of every particular Paftor and Prelate, no Proteftant ever charged them with, and therefore the Reprelenter might very fafely deny it ; and this is all the difference between them, ex- cept it be this, That what the Mifreprefenter barely affirms, the Refref enter endeavours to prove, viz. the Infallibility of the Church, at leaf!:, as affembled in General Councils; and yet this muft be called Mifreprefenting too : a Word, which ( I fiippofe ) muft have fome fecret Charm in it to Convert He- reticks. XVIII. Of the Pope. HEre the Mifreprefenter is very Rhetorical and facetious, and we may give him leave to be a little plealant with his own Univerfal Paftor. He fays, the Papiit believes the Pope to be his great God \ how great I cannot tell, but fome Flatterers of the Papa] greatnefs, have given the Title of God to the Pope, ( »J ) • Pope, and poflibly fome Proteftants have repeated the fame after them, but never charged the Papifts with believing it ; much lefs do they charge them with denying Chrijl to be the Head of the Church, or with faying, That the Pope has taken his place ', but we do charge them with making the Pope the Univerfal Paftor and Head of the Church under Chrift : and this (I hope) is no Mifreprefenting ; for it is avert- ed and proved after his Fafhion, by the Reprefen- ter. But why is the Pope's perfbnal Infallibility put into the Character of a Papift Mifreprefented ? Why not as well the Infallibility of General Coun- cils? Since he grants fome Papifts do believe the Pope's Infallibility, and fuch Papifts are not Mifre- prefented 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 Papift ; but in whom this Infallibility is feated, whether in the Diffulive, Reprefentative, or Virtual Church, in Pope or Council, or the whole Body of Chrifti- ans, is not agreed among them. But neither of thefe are Mifreprefentations of a Papift, unlefs you tell, what particular fort of Papifts you reprefent ; and then, I am fure, you mifreprefent a Jefuit, if you make him deny the Pope's Infallibility. D z XIX. Of ( *4 ) XIX* Of Difpenfations. HEre, I confefs, the Mifreprefenter and Reprefen- ter do flatly contradict each other ; and I am heartily glad to hear the Reprefenter fb fully difbwn thofe Principles, which are deftru&ive to all Reli- gion, as well as to Humane Societies ; and fhould be more glad ftill had there been never any foundation for what he calls the Mifreprefentation. However, this he does very ill in, to charge Proteftants with this Mifreprefentation of a Papilt ; for I know no Protectant that charges thefe Principles upon Papift s in general : but I hope it is no Mifreprefentation to charge thoie Men with fuch Principles, who charge themfelves with them ; and I fuppofe our Author will not lay, that thefe Principles were never taught or defended by any Papift. Whenever he is hardy enough to lay this, I'll direct him to fuch Popilh Authors as will fatisfy him about it. XX. Of ( M ) XX. Of the Depojing Power. HEre the difpute between the Mifreprefenter and Reprefenter, is only this, Whether the Depo- fing Power be the Do&rine 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 Canonifts ; but that it has been condemned by other Divines, and fbme famous Universities, tho I do not hear, that it was ever condemned by any Pope. But what does he think of this being de- creed by General Councils ? Does not this make it the Doctrine of their Church ? This he fays nothing, to here, butwefhall meet with it by and by in his RejleBwns, and therefore will difmils thL> Caufe till then. XXI. Of Communion in one kind t HEre we charge the Church of Rome with alter- ing the Institution of Chrift in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ; for Chrift inftituted it in both kinds, but the Church of Rome denies the Cup to the Layity : but yet we do not fay, That a Papift believes that he is no longer obliged to obey ChrijFs Commands, than his Church will give him leave J but we ( i6 ) we fay, that herein he tranfgretfes the Inftitutions of our Saviour, to comply with the Innovations of his Church. And does the Reprefenter deny this ? Yes, he denies, that they alter the Inftitution of Chrift; for (he fays) Chrift did not command them to receive in both kinds, but left it indiffe- rent. But does he deny, that the Church of Rome takes away the Cup from the People ? No, this he owns and juftifies. Wherein then do we Mifre- prefent them ? For we charge them only with ta- king away the Cup: whether this be agreeable or contrary to the Inftitution of our Saviour, is 'not Matter of Reprefentation, but of Difpute. XXII. OftbeMafs. TJEre we charge them with making the Sacra- i1 m^of the Lord's Supper (as the Council of J rent defines i) a true proper propitiatory Sacrifice for the Quick and the Dead. And this, we fay inters an m/ufficiency in the Sacrifice, made by Chrift upon the Crofs For if Chrift by his Death upon tne Crois had made a complete and perfeft Atone ment and Propitiation for fins, by his once offering W^A what occafioncan there be for the repetiti- on of fuch a Propitiatory Sacrifice ? for the only rea- fon the Apoftle affigns, why the legal Sacrifices were fo often repeated, was, becaufe they could not make the Comers thereunto ferfetf, Hebr. 10. But we do not charge diem with believing an infufoiency in the Sacrifice, made by Chrift on the Crofs. Much jefs do ( *7 ) do we fay, that they are taught, wholly to rely on the Sacrifice of the Mafs, and to neglect the Paffion of Chrifl, and to put no hopes in his Merits, and the Work of our Redemption. The ,firit is a Confe- quence which we charge upon their Doctrine and Practice, but do not charge them with believing it. The fecond was never charged on them, that I know of before. So, that if there be any Mifre- prefentation here, it muff be in charging them, That they believe the Sacrifice of the Mais to be a true proper propitiatory Sacrifice for the Quick and Dead. But this is the very definition of their Coun- cil, and an Anathema pronounced againft thofe, who deny it : and this the Reprelenter acknow- ledges, though he conceals as much oi it as he can, calling it a Commemorative Sacrifice, reprefenting in an unbloody manner, (what, when the Blood of Chrift is actually fhed in the Sacrifice of the Mafs, is it ftill an unbloody Sacrifice ) the bloody Sacrifice which was offered for ut upon the Crofs : But is it a Pro- pitiatory Sacrifice or not ? Does it make an actual Propitiation for our Sins ? If they do not own this, then indeed we mifreprefent them ; if they do ( as they muft, if they own the Council of Trent ) we reprefent them truly ; and whether the Confluences we charge upon this Doctrine, be true or falfe, that is no part of the Reprefentation : we may argue ill, but we reprefent right ; though we are ready to jufti- fy that too whenever they pleafe. XXIII. Of ( »8 ) XXIII. Of Purgatory. TO carry on the humour of Mifrcprefcnti*gt he complains of Mifreprefenting here too ; when all that is charged on them is, the belief of Purgatory, a middle place between Heaven and Hell, where Souls departed , who are acquitted from the 'Sen- tence of Eternal Punifhment, muft undergo a Tem- poral Punifhment for thofe Sins, which were not ex- piated in this Life. That there is flich a State, the Reprefenter moft induftrioufly and zealoufly proves : Why then is the belief of Purgatory thruft into the Character of a Papifl mifreprefented ? All that I can perceive is, That the Mifreprefentation confifts, not in charging them with believing a Purgatory, but with believing it contrary to all Reafon, the Word of God, and all Antiquity ; for the Reprefenter fays, he believes it damnable to admit of any thing for Faith, that is contrary to Reafon, the word of God, and all Antiquity. Damnable is a very dangerous word, e- fpecially when it. is applied to believing things con- trary to Reafon ; and therefore though it mayferve now and then to blufter with, I would advife him to ufe it fparingly; but though I muft confefs, we think, that they do believe a Purgatory, and a great many other things, which are contrary to Reafon, Scripture, and Antiquity ; yet we do not fay, that they admit any thing for Faith, which they believe contrary to Reafbn, Scripture, and Antiquity ; and tlierefore this is no part of their Character, and therefore no Mifreprefentation. XXIV. Of ( *9 ) XXIV. Qfpw/m£ m <*n mkmwH Tongue. HEre indeed I meet with fomewhat of Mifre- prefentation. For he lays, He (the Papift mit reprefented ) if counfelled by his Church to be prefent at Sermons, but never permitted to hear any he is able to underftand', they being all delivered in an unknown Tongue. This is mifreprefenting with ■ a witnefs. But noProteftant ever charged them with preaching, as well as praying in Latin : but the meaning of this is eafily underftood, to perfwade thofe People, who place all their Religion in hearing Sermons, that it is no matter what Language their Prayers are in ( which they care not much for hearing when they are in English) if 'they have but Englifh Sermons to entertain their Curiofity and itching Ears. And it is, I confefs, a cunning Suggeftion, and I hope will warn all fbber Chriftians to joy n more devout- ly in the Prayers of the Church, which they do un- derftand, and that will teach them the difference between an Englifh Liturgy, and Latin Mafs-Book. The reft of the Character only charges them with praying in Latin, a Language which .the People do not underftand .; and therefore, whatever other de- vout Thoughts they may have, they cannot joyn with the Prieft in offering up the fame Petitions to God, when they do not underftand what it is he (ays : All this is granted on atll hands to be true, and yet this alfo which the Reprefenter ownSj is called mifreprefenting. .... . ■ ■ i e xxvf ty ( 3o) XXV. Of the Second Commandment. WE charge them with making the fecond Commandment, which forbids the Worship of Images, only a part and branch of the firft, which torbids the Worship of other Gods, which is defigned to obfcure the true fenie and interpretation of that Law, and to excufe all Men from the Sin of Image- worfliip, who are not fo lenflefs to believe the Images to be Gods. And yet not thinking themfelves fafe in this, they dare not trull the People with the fecond Commandment, but leave it out of their Catechifms and Manuals, and fuch Offices as are like to come into Peoples hands. Is this charge true, or is it not ? The Reprefenter grants the whole, and excufes it ; thinks the fecond Commandment too great a burden to Mens Memories, and a needlefs Explication of the firft : but whatever may be faid for or againft it, if the Charge be true, why is this called mifrepre- fenting ? XXVI. Of JMental ^eferVations. THE Reprefenter himfelf grants all that we charge them with ; not that this Do£trine was ever defined by any general Council, or that it was univerfally received and pra&ifed by all of that Com- munion, but that it has been taught and defended by great ( J» ) great numbers of their Divines, and Cafuifh ( not to take notice of any greater Authorities now ) and practifed, as occafion ferved, by them- (elvcs and their Difciples. To charge all Papiifs in general with this, would indeed be a Mifrepre- (entation, but I hope it is none to charge thofe who are really guilty. XXVH. Of * Death-bed Repentance. \7"T7E do not think fo ill of any Sect or V V Profeffion of Chriftians, but that they will all grant, that Men ought to live, as well as die in the Faith and Fear, and Obedience of God ; nor did we ever charge the Church of Rome with teaching otherwile : but then, we fay, that Men may teach fiich Doctrines, as may. give great encouragement to Sinners to take their fill of Sen- fual Lufts, and to put off the thoughts of Repen- tance to a Death-bed ; and this indeed we think the Church of Rome has done ; but do not charge her with teaching her Children to make flich an ill ufe of thefe Doctrines, or with encouraging them to live wickedly in their Health, and to re- pent when they are fick. This is no part of the Character which we give of a Papift ; but we alleadg it only to convince Men, how dangerous the Communion of fuch a Church is, which has found out (b many eafy ways to keep good Ca- tholicks out of Hell, as without her teaching any fuch Confequence, is very apt to incline Men, who E 2 be- ( V)) ; I believe tjiem, to take greater liberties thaa are .confident with the fafety of their Souk I XXVIII. Of Fa/ling. \ WE do not blame the Church of Rtme for enjoyning Failing, which is a very ufe- ful Duty, -when it fervesthe true ends and purpo- fes of Religion ; nor do we deny, that a Papift may fail very devoutly and religioufly \ but we (ay the common Practice of Fafting among Pa- pifts, is far enough from being religious ; an Eccle- fiaftical Faft being very reconcilable with the greater!: ExcefFes : and though this be the fault of the Men, and we charge none with it, but thofe who are guilty, which, I fiippofe, is not mifre- prefenting, yet their Church has given occafion to it by making Falling to fignify Eating, fo they do but abftain from all Meats forbidden by the Church ; and their Cafuifts have ftated this matter lb loolely, that no Men who have not an Anti- pathy to the beft Fiih, and molt delicious Wines and Sweet-meats, need do any great Penance in Fading ; and it is hard we cannot be allowed to complain of thefe Abufes without being charged as Mifreprefenters. XXIX. Of i m ft ■ ... .' . - ■ XXIX. OfDiviJions and Scb'tfms in the Qhurch. IN this Point we are not the AtTaflant?, but are only on the defenfive part ; when they make it an Argument againft the Reformation, that there are fo many Divifions and different Opi- nions among us : We defire them to look home, and to the. eternal fhame of a pretended Infallibility, confider how many different Opinions there are among themfelves. We are all agreed in follow- ing the fame Rule of Faith, as lie fays they are, only our Rule indeed differs ', we take the Scrip- ture to be the fafeff. Rule, and we all agree, that it is fb ; they the Senfe, and Judgment, and Faith pf their Church ; and I doubt not, but we fhall as fbon agree in the Senfe of every Text of Scrip- ture as they will, what that Authority in the Church is to which they muft yield, what thefe Traditions are they mull: receive, and what is the true Senfe aridlnterpretation of the Definitions and Decrees of their Councils. We agree in the Articles of the Apoftles Creed, which was the ancient Faith of the Church ; and our Differences as to matters of Faith, are as meer School-Difputes, as they fay theirs are, and in moft cafes the fame ; as about Predeff ination,. Election and Reprobati- on, the Efficacy of Grace, and Free-will. We have fbme indeed which they have not; and they have ( ?4 ) have fbme that we have not ; as about the the immaculate Conception, the Infallibility of the Pope. &c. They have a way indeed to confine thefe Difputes to their Schools , which we have not, and that is to keep the Common Peo- ple in Ignorance, which will effectually cure their difputing ; but we think it better that our People fhould underftand their Religion, tho they difpute a little about it. Now we are lb far from mifreprefenting in this cafe, that we do not think this a reafbnable Objection againft either fide ; but if they will needs be talking of our Di* vifions,to perfwade People for Peace and Unities fake to take Sanctuary in an Infallible Church, they muft give us leave to tell our People, that In- fallibility, tho it founds big, does not do fuch feats in the Church of Rome as is pretended. Their Common People indeed do not difpute about Reli- gion, becaufe they know little of it ; and their Divines and Scholars agree juft as our Divines do, or it may be not fo well : And this is all the mii- feprefenting we are guilty of in this matter. XXX. Of Friers and Num. VV1 Herein the Mifreprefentation he complains of here confifts, I cannot guefs ; Is it, that Papifts are taught to have an higlj efteem of Friers and Nuns? This he himfelf owns ; Is it, that many who enter into this religious courle of Life, live very irreligiously ? this he alfo con- fefles, 05> feftes, and apologizes for ; and theft two things make the Chara&er : I fuppofe he forgot fome- thing elfe, which was to be the Mifreprefenta- tion. XXXL Of Wicked TrincifUs and frailices. HEre alfo I cannot find wherein the Mifrepre- fentation confifts. There are a great many ill things faid to be committed by lome Perfbns of the Roman Communion ; this the Reprefenter grants, and excufes the Church ' from the fcan- dal of fuch Examples ; how well is not my bufi- nefs at prefent to enquire, who am no farther Con- cerned, than to fee Right done them, that they be not mifreprefented. XXXII. Of JMiracles. HEre the Papift is charged with' believing a great many idle Stories, and ridiculous Inventions, in favour of his Saints, which he calls Miracles. And if this be a Mifreprefentation, they them- felves are guilty of it; forthefe Popifh Miracles were not invented by Proteftants, but publifhed by themfelves, who are the only Perfbns that ever law them ; but their believing fuch Miracles (which I hardly think awife Man among them does, tho they are willing the People fhould ) is the lead thing tif.\ thing ia it : &r hare . Credulity., which docs no hurt, is very innocent, though very My ; but to- recommend fuch Miracles as credible, which are- no better thanlmpoftures, is an injury to commoa Chriitianity, and makes Men fufpecl: the Mir- acles of Chrift and his Apoftles to be Cheats too ; and it is a horrid abufe of Chriftianity to coin foch Miracles to riurfe Men lip InSuperftition,' which' is the general defign of them : So that here the mat- ter is not represented fo bad as it is, which is the only Mifreprefentation I have hitherto met with. XXXIII. Of Holy Water. ■' • e , TTHe Papift mifeprefented, is faid highly to ap- * prove the fuperflitiotis tife of many inanimate things, and to attribute wonderful Effects to Holy War ter, Bleffed Candles, Holy Oil, and Holy Bread. The Papift reprefented, difprozes all ft rf of Super- ■ft it ion, but yet is taught to. have an ejU\ m for Holy Water, Sec. So that when we charge them with ufing fuch Religious Charms as thefe, we do not mifreprefent them, for they own. tliey dofbj but the Mifreprefentation is in charging^ thefe ufages with Superftition ; but if this be miTreprefenting, it is not to mifreprefent a Papift, but to, mifreprefent Popery : We charge them with nothing but what t;hey own and juftify, but we charge their Do- ctrines and Practices with fuch Guilt, as they will not own ; but this is not matter of Reprefenta- tion, but of Difpute. XXXIV. Of ■ '■'■'■ ■ t}7) "XXXIV. Of hfetdmg up Veqle in ■ fanorame, WE do indeed charge them with breeding peo- ple up, and keeping them in Ignorance, becaufe they d?ny them the means and opportunity of knowledge ; will not furFer them to read the Bible, nor fay their publick Prayers in a Language, which they underftand, and forbid them to read fuch Books as might inform them better. Is this true or not ? If it be, then though they may- have a great many Learned Men among them , their Learned Men may keep the People in Ig- norance. We deny not, but they do inftruct Peo- ple after a.fafhion, , but yet they take care to. let them know no more, than they are pleated to teach them, and they may be very ignorant for all that. But I think, though this be a very great foult, it belongs neither to the Character of a Papift mifc reprelehted nor reprefented ; but is the fault of their Governours, their Popes, and Bifhops and Priefts, and I charitably hope, it will be fome excufe to the Ignorant and deluded People. F XXXV. on XXXV. Of the Unckrkablenefs of the a like character in Paris of the belief of a Papijl. And what is the authority of this Bifhops character ? For Bifhops have no more authority to expound the Council of Trent ( which is intirely refer ved to the Apoftolick See) than private Doctors. Yes, the Bifhop of Condoms Book has all requifite authority, becaufe the fecond Edition was published with fever al difiincl p3ge 7- attefiations of many Bifhop and Cardinals , and of the prejent Pope hiwfelf wherein they at large ap- prove the Doffrine contained in that Treat if e for the Faith and Doftririe of the Church of Rome, and con- form t o the Council of "Trent. I fhall take it for gran- ted , that it is, as the Reflefter fays, but what then ? Had not Cardinal Hellarmins controverfies as great r an atteftation as the Bifliop of Condom's Exf opti- on of the Dottrine of the Catholick Church ? Did he not dedicate them to Pope Sixtus V. and that with the Popes leave and good liking, Te annuente, as he himfelf fays ? and how much inferiour is this to a Teftimonial under the Popes hand ? And why then are not Bellarmins Controverfies as authentick m a rule ( 45 ) a rule for the expofition of the Catholick Faith , as the Bifhop of Condoms ? But Melchior Cams, to whom the Refle&er re- fers us, would have taught him , that the Popes private approbation is as little worth, as any other Bifhops. That the name of the Apojlolick See does SedkApoftoli- not fignifie the Pope in his per fonal capacity, but a-]tlmj]mmZ* fiing as it becomes the Chair ', that is, not giving Fontif cm fig- hts own private fenfe, but proceeding in Council, w&bf^jj^fjfa the advice of good and learned Men, And therefore ea, qua ad that is not to be accounted the judgment of the A- £*«^tr1* poftolick See, which is given only by the Bifiop 0/Rome eft, qualms Privately and inconfiderately, or with the adv'ce only non ex Jf?» fed of fome few of his own mind, but what he determines norm vimum upon a due examination of the thing, by the advice & dotiorm and counfel of many^ wife Men, And therefore I/X%jfo3£ doubt, notwithstanding the prefent Popes appro- aejudida *> bation, he is a little out, when he calls this the ^>»??* Authority of the Apojtolick oee, se, inconfuite, per folum Ro- manian Epifcopum , aut etiam cum panels fibi fazentibas, profer untax, fed qu pofing Heretical Princes, erroneous, or only becaufe lie don't like the Practice of it ? If the flrft, then it feems this is a Doctrinal Decree, as well as a Decree of Difcipline and Government : If he only condemns . the Practice of it, without renouncing the Doclrine ; let him fay forand fee how Princes will like it. When Pa pifts difpute among themfelves about this Depofing Decree ; thofe who are for it , vindicate the Popes Power to depofe Princes ; thofe who are againir. it, de- . ny that the Pope hath any fuch Power; which mows, that they think it a Doclrinal Difpute ; for there is no- other difference between them, but whether the Pope lias, or has not, Power to do it, which is a point of Do- ctrine : But when they difpute with us Hereticks, then the Ghurch has not-decreed it as a Point of Doclrine, but only of Difcipline and Government : But let them tell me then, if this Decree do not involve a Doclrinal Error, what is the fault of it ? 3. But fuppofe this . Decree mud: be only ranked among the decreta morum, which concern the Difcipline .a,nd Government of the Church, Is not the Authority of the Ghurch as facred in feet matters, as in points of Doclrine 4 Is not the Church guided by an infalli- ble. - ( 55 ) ble Spirit in making fuch Decree's as concern the whole Chriftian World, and the propagation and fecu- rity of the Chriftian Faith ? At leaft , Is not the Church fecured from making wicked and finful De- crees ? The only Example they have in Scripture, where- on to found the Authority and Infallibility of General Councils, is the Conncil of the Apoftles at Jerufalemy Acts 1 5-. 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, with- out defining any point of Doctrine, whereon that De- cree is founded : It feemed good to the Holy Ghoft, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than thefe neceffa- ry things ; that ye ahflain from meats offered to Idols^ and from Bloody and from things ft r angled^ and from For- nication, from which if you keep your felves^ye Jhalldt •well ; fare ye well. They might as well object here, as they do againft the depofing Decree, That there is no Point of Doctrine determined in it, but it is only a De- cree to direct them what to do ; and yet we find the Holy Ghoft a/lifting in fuch Decrees ; for indeed the rules of Difcipline and Government, to direct the lives - and manners of men, is the only proper fubject of Ec- clefiaftical Authority; and therefore we may mod reafonably expect, that God mould aflift and direct his Church in fuch matters. The Church has no Authori- ty to make new Articles of Faith; the Gofpel was preached by Chrift, and what Chrift could not per- fectly inftruct them in, becaule they were not able to bear it at that time, was fupplied by the Holy Spi- rit, who led the Apoftles into all truth ; and now we muft expect no farther Revelations. And therefore as to matters of Faith , the Authority H % of ( 5* ) of General Councils was no more than the* Authority of Witnefles, to declare what Doctrine they received from Chrift and his Apoflles ; and therefore their Au- thority could reach no farther^ than we may reafon- ably prefume them to be credible Witnefles , that is, While the Tradition might be fuppofed clear and ftrong, which I doubt, will go no farther than the four firfi: General Councils, which are Received by the Church of England ; but the Authority of the Church in Decrees relating to Difcipline and Government is perpetual ; and therefore in all Later Councils (if there be any Infallibility in the Church } I Ihould more fe- curely rely on fuch Decrees than on tlicir Definitions of Faith. And therefore Bellarmin for the Pope, and Beliarm. de MelchiorCanus for General Councils(the t wo Authors to Rom. Pontif. whom our Refiecter refers us)declare,that they cannot Cani^de err in thofe Decrees which relate to manners, if they Au6t. Condi, concern the whole Church, and are in things necef- L 5* fary 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,muft. acknowledg the Lawfulnefs of depofing Heretical Princes ; for if it were Unlawful to do it, Popes and Councils could never Command it. 1> g< Our Refle&er indeed proves, That fuch Decrees and Conflitutions as concern Difcipline and Government, are not abfolutely obligatory from the Example of the Council of Trent, whofe decrees of Dotlrine are as much acknowledged here hy Catholicks in England, and Germa- ny, as within the Walls of Rome itfelf or the Vatican ; and yet its other Conflitutions and Decrees are not ?Jni- ver filly received, and it may be never will. But pray can he tell me, for what reafon this is ? Let him fay, if he dare, that it is for want of Authority or Infalli- bility ( 57 ) bility in the Council to make Decrees to oblige all the Ghriftian World ; and if Chriftian Princes will not .fubmit to the Decrees of Councils, and the Church dares not compel them to it, does this juftify fuch a . refufal ? The truth is, fuch Decrees ought not to take place, nor become Laws in a Chriftian Nation,without the Confent and Authority of the Soveraign Prince ; and therefore the Reman Emperors gave Authority to the Decrees of Councils, and made them Laws ; but fince the Church has pretended to ad: Independently on the Secular Pov ers, and to give Laws to them without their confent ; no wonder that Princes, who underftand their own Authority, and have power to defend it, take what they like, and reject the reft. And for the fame reafon (as our Refiecter obferves) the Popes fufTer fo many Pofitive ajfertors of the no- depofing power to pafs without any cenfure of Herefy. Which is no Argument, that they do not believe it an Article of Faith, as he fuggefts ; but only that they want power to do it. Princes will not be depofed now, nor fufTer thofe to be Cenfured, who deny the Depofing Power ; But mould the blefled Uildebrand- times return again, we mould quickly fee, whether the Depofing Power be an Article of Faith or not. What I have now difcourfed will abundantly juftify an argument which I find our RefTecter much grie- ved at. TheAnfwerer in his Introduction (p. 14.) lays two paflages together, which he thinks will ob- lige them to own the depofing power : For in the Pa- pift mifreprefented ( p. 42. ) the Author faies, the or- 'ders of the J up ream P aft or are to he obeyed, whether he le Infallible or not ; and in another place he confelles, that Popes have owned the depofing Dotlrine, and afted according P. 1©, (58) according to it ; and others are bound to obey their Or- ders, whether Infallible or not, and confequently by the Doctrine of their Church, to act when the Popes fhall require it, according to the depofing power. To this the Reflecter anfwers, That he only made a com- , parifon between Civil and Ecclefiaftical power , That as in the Civil Government the fentence of the /up re am Judge or highefi Tribunal is to he obeyed, tho there be no affurance of Infallibility or Divine protection from error or miftake ; fo is he taught fhould be done to the orders of the fuprream Paflor , whether he be Infallible or not. Now he faies, it is as unjufl from hence to infer, that all the Orders of the Pope mufl be obeyed,as it would be to fay that Subjects muft obey their Princes in eve- ry thing they command, whether it be good or bad : And I ackowledge his anfwer to be good, if he will grant the depofing* Decree to command a fin,which he has never done yet ; and when he does it, I would de- fire him to confider how to reconcile himfelf to his two Friends Bellarmine and Cams , who afiert that Popes and General Councils can make no finful Decrees which mall relate to the whole Church. ily. Let us now confider what faults the Reflecter finds with the Anfwerers way of proceeding,- and they are reduced to Four heads. tjtl He faies, that in fome points the Anfwerer owns the Dotlrine (which he has reprefented to be the Faith of a Roman-Catholiclz) to be the eftablifhed belief of the Church of England; as in part, that of the power of Prieft- ly abfoltttion, confeffion, of due veneration to the Relicks of Saints, of merit, of fatisfatlion, of the authority of the Church , of General Councils. Now here our Re- flecter returns to his old trade of Miireprefenting again; ( 19) again ; for every one who will believe his own eyes, may foon fatisfie himfelf , that the Anfwerer in thefe Doctrines owns nothing which is peculiar to the Faith of a Papiit, as diftinguifhed from the Common Faith of all Chriftians. He might as well fay, that becaufe Proteflants own that Chrift is to be wor (hipped , therefore they in part own the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, that Chrift is to be worshipped by Images. This is the very eafe here. The Anfwerer grants, that Chrift gave to the Bifbips and Pr lefts of the Catho- lick-Church, authority toabfolve any truly penitent finner *ag»&?» from his fins, and that fuch abfAution is ratified in hea- ven. Therefore in part he owns the Popifli Doctrine of Ablolution, which is a Judicial and Pretorian Authority to forgive fins ; tho we think, that to abfolve as a Mi- nifter and as a Judge, are two very different things; as different as the Kings granting a Pardon, and the Chan- cellors fealing it, which is a publick and authentick de- claration-of the thing. The Anfwerer owns the ancient practice of Canonical confejfion , as part of the difcipline Pag,6a> of the Church for publick offences ; that is , that thofe who had been guilty of any publick and fcandalous fins, were not reconciled to theChurch without making as publick a confeflion, and giving publick Testimonies of their forrow and repentance; therefore he in part owns the Auricular confeflion of the Church of Rome* there being little difference it feems, between confer fing our fins to the whole Congregation, and in the ear of a Priefl. He owns the ufe of voluntary confef- fion, for the eafe and fatisfattion of the perplexed winds 0/doubting or dejetted Penitent s;m& therefore he in part owns the Sacramental Confeflion, as neceflary to the RemuTion of Sins before God. ( 60 ) P. 4©. The Anfwerer allows, A due Veneration to the Bo- dies of Saints and Martyrs , i. c. a Religious Decency to bz obfe'rved towards them , which lies in avoiding any thin? like contempt or di [honour to the,n, and iij all fich Teflimonies of Refpecl and Decency , wpich be- comes the remains of excellent Perfons. And therefore in part, he agrees with the Church of Rome in giving Divine Worihip^to Relicks, juft as much as a decent refpecl: is a part of Religious Worfhip. „ The Anfwerer grants, The necejjity of good Works in order to the reward of another Life. And if he will call this Merit (in which large Senfe the Fathers fometimes ufe that word) we will not difpute with him about it ; but is this to own the Popilh Doctrine of Merit > That the good Works of juftffied Perfons , are truly meritorious (f the increafe of Grace, and Eter- nal Lije. The Anfwerer diftingui flies between fatisfatlion to #• 67 > the Church before Abfolution, (according to the Difci- pline of the Primitive Church, which did not ufe to reconcile publick Penitents, till by a long courfe of Penance and Mortification, they had given fuificient Teflimonies of the Sincerity of their Repentance, and had made fbme Satisfaction for that Scandal they had given to the Church) and Satisfaction to the Ju- ft ice of God , for feme part of the Punifhment to Siny which is unremitted. The firft we own, as a very ufe- ful part of Church Difcipline, and wifli the refloring of it ,- but the fecond, wTe utterly difown ; for there is no other Satisfaction to the Juftice of God for Sin , but the meritorious Death and Sacrifice of Chrift ; whereas the Church. of Rome takes no notice of Satif- . faction in the firft fence, but has changed the Ancient pifcipline of Satisfaction to the Church, into Satisfa- ction to the Juftice of God fox Sin. The '(■Si ) The Anfwerer grants, That truly penitential Works are pleafing to God, fo as to avert his Difpleafure, but -'denies the Popifli Doctrine of Satisfaction, that there ■ can be any Compenfation by way of Equivalency, between what we Suffer, and what we Deferve : and is this in part, to own his Doctrine of Satisfaction ? The Anfwerer owns the right and neceffity of Ge- neral Councils, (upon great Occafions) if they be truly fo; which have been, and may be of great ufe to the p ^ - Chriflian World , for fetling the Faith , healing the Breaches of Chriftendom, and reforming Ahufes ; and that the Decrees of fuch Councils ought to be fubmitted 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, which owns the Authority of all Councils called by the Pope, and confirmed by him , tho (as we fay) neither Free nor General; and alcribes- an un- erring Infallibility to them, and fo puts an end to all inquiries into the Grounds of their Faith. We are forry we are at fuch a diftance from the Church of Rome$\&t there are few things befides the common Principles of Chriftianity, wherein we can own any part of their Doctrine ; and if we own no more than the Anfwerer has done, I think the Reflecter has no great Reafon to Glory in it. zly, The Reflecter charges the Anfw erer, with ap- pealing from tlie Definitions of their Councils, and fenfe of their Church, to Jome Expreffions found in old Mafs- Books, Rituals, &c. what this &c. means, I cannot p« "« tell.,* for I find but one inflance of this in the whole Anfwer, relating to the Worihip of the Virgin Mary, That famous Hymn, ( *2 ) 0 /if lix ptterpera noftra pans fcekra Jure Matris 'wiper a Redemptori \ P. 35, 0 happy Mother i who deft expiate oar fins / ly the right of a Mo i her command oar Redeemer, blu- ing found in the old Paris Miflal, which the Anfwercr himfelf has feen , and as Balinghem a Jefuit faith , in the Miffals of Tournay , Liege , Amiens , Artois, and the 0/<^-Roman. Now I confefs , I fhould not have thought it fo great a fault, to have taken the fence of their Church from their Miflals, be they never fo old : for their Miflals are not like private books of ^ devotion, but are the allowed and approved worfhip of their Church, as our Liturgy is ; and therefore is either the fence of their Church at prefent, or once was fo ; and if it be damnable to own that the Virgin is more powerful than her Son (or can command him, which feems to bean argument of greater power) it is very hard to charge it upon an Infallible Church, that her publ'ick Offices did once contain damnable Errors ; for furely, She was not Infallible then; which may bring her Infallibility into queflion ftilL And therefore old Miflals have fo much Authority frill , that nothing contained in them ought to be thought damnable. And yet the Anfwercr does not appeal from the De- finitions of Councils, to old Mais-books ; for the Church of Rome has never condemned this Hymn, nor the Do&rine of it. The Council of Trent, in her Decree for Invocation of Saints, faith nothing in par° ticular of the Worfhip of the Virgin Mary, and yet all Roman Catholicks make a vaft difference between the Worfhip of the Virgin, and other Saints ; how then fliall we learn the Senfe of the Church, but from her Practice,- from her publick Offices and Hymns ? And tfatQ P. 3* tho , fmce Heretieks have been Inquifitive into thefe matters , they have reformed fome of their Hymns, yet they have never condemned the old ones. And if he remembers , the Anfwerer in the fame place told him a notable Story, whereby he might guefs at the Senfe, at lead, of the governing part of their Church {till ; That a Book, which was writ by a Gentleman ten Tears fince, to bring the People to a bare Ora pro nobis, to the bleffed Virgin, was fo far from being approved, that it was condemned at Rome, and vehemently oppofed by the J e frits in France, and a whole Volume puhlifhed againft it. "$ly, He complains, that the Anfwerer appeals from the Declaration of their Councils , and Senfe of their Church, to fome External Aclion , as in cafe of refpetl jhewn to Images and Saints, upon which, from our Exter- P. n, 12. ■nal Adoration , by confiruclion of the Fact , Viz. Kneel- ing, Bowing , &c. you are willing to conclude us guilty of Idolatry : As if a true Judgment could be made of thefe Attions , without refpetl to the Intention of the Church, who diretls them, and of the Perfon that does them. The Paragraph in the Anfwer Qp. 21.) to which the Reflecter refers us, is but a fiiort one, and if he had thought fit to anfwer it , it would have cleared this point. He faies , To Worfhip Stocks or Stones for Gods, (as far as we charge them with any fuch thing) fignifies, to give to Images made of Wood and Stone, the Wcrjhip due only to God, and fo by con- firuclion of the Fall, to make them Gods, by giving them Divine Worfhip. And if they will clear themfelves of this , they mufi either prove that External Adora- ti"n is no part of Divine Worfhip (notwithftanding the Scripture makes it fo , and all the reft of mankind look upon it as fuch, even Jews, Turks and Infidels) or that I z their U4) their External Adoratim hath no refpetl to the Images (\vkich is contrary to the Council of Trent) or that Di^ ■ vine Worfhip being clue to the Being reprefented, it may he likeivije given to the Image ; and how then could the Gnoflicks be Condemned for givinr Divine Worfhip to the Image of Chrift, which belhrmin confejfes, and is affirmed by Irenceus, Epiphanius, St. Auflin,' and Da<- mafcen ? Wherein now does • the Anfwerer appeal from the Declarations of their Councils, and (enfe of their Church, to External Atlions i Does the Council forbid fucfr. External Acts of Adoration, as Kneeling, Bowing", Offering Incenfe, &c. to be paid to Images ? No it injoynsit. Does the Council then deny, that the Worihip which is paid before the Image, lias • regard to the Image? No, both the Trait Council and Ca- techifm teach the Worihip of Images. The whole My fiery of this pretended Appeal from their Church and Councils to External Actions, is no more thair this; that they do not believe the giving fuch Worihip to Images, to be. giving the Worihip due to God to Ima* ges; and the Anlwererconfidering the Nature of -thole • External Acts of Adoration, knows not how to ex- cufe them from- it, but ■ has • put him into a way of doing it, if he can ; if he can either prove, that External Adoration is no part x)f Divine Worihip, or that they do not give this External Worihip to Images, or- that Divine Worfhip being due to the Being Reprefented, it may likewife be given to the Image; then he will grant that they are not guilty of Worfhiping Stocks and Stones -for Gods ; but till he can do this, he muft give us leave to Inter* pret'fuch Actions, as aU Mankind befides themfelvcs in^erpretthenu Us) But our Refiecter did not like this; he is for Judging of Actions ly the intention of the Church that dtretts them^ and of the Per/on that dees them. Well, and what is their intention in it ? Is it not to Worihip Images ? Yes, this is the Intention, and the exprefs Declaration of their Church. Right! but • their Church does not intend to break the Second Commandment, and to commit Idolatry in the Worihip of Images, and therefore ycu ought net to charge this upon them. Very, true 1 nor did ever any man in the World intend to commit Idolatry. We charge them not with- any fuch Intention,- but i£ they Worihip Images, we defire to knew- how they excufe them felves from breaking the Second Commandment , and committing Idolatry ? Whe- ther they are Idolaters or not, iet God Judg j but we think we ihould be guilty of Idolatry if we did it, and that is the reafony why we cannot comply with firch practifes. I would only defire to know, whether there be any fuch thing as External and Vifible Idolatry .? If there be, it muft confift in External and Vihble Actions, for we can never know what mens inten- tions are , but by their Actions ; and then if men do fuch Actions as are Idolatrous, how can the intention excufe them from Idolatry ? Efpecially no intention can alter the nature of Actions, which are determin- ed by -a Divine or Human Law ; ,for.6i. or about the Senfe and Interpreta- tion of fome controverted Texts of Scripture ; or to flate the notions of things exprefled, but not defined by the Council ; as what Merit is; (/>. 57. ) for tho the Church has defined the good works of juflified Perfons to be truly meritorious, yet it has not told us What true and proper Merit is, and therefore we mu ft learn this from the allowed and received definitions of their Divines. Thus the Council has determined due Honour and Worlhip to be given to Images, but has not determined what this due Honour and Wor/hip is; and therefore we have no way to know it, but by appealing to the general Practice of the Church, and the Dodtrine of their Divines ; which is not to oppofe the fentiments of private Authors to the judgment of the Church, but where the Church has not explained her felf, to learn her fenfe as well as we can, from their moft approved Divines. Thus the Council has de- creed the ufe of Indulgences, but has not defin'd in what cafes and to what purpofes they may be ufed ; and therefore when the Reprefenter fays confidently, that it is only a relaxation of Canonical Penances, the Authority, and efpecially the argument of Grer. de Valent. ( *9 ] . Valent. and Bellarmm are good agaitift him, tho not againft their Church, had their Council defined it. £/>. 66. ) When he aHerts that Indulgences are not fold, the Tax of the Apoftolick Chamber is good Au- thority again ft him ; efpecially, if thofe who fell In- dulgences receive the Money only under the notion of Alms, which is allowed by the Council ; and when he denies, that Indulgences do concern the remiflion ei- ther of mortal or venial fins, the Anfwerer might ■well appeal to the very form of the Popes Bulls, which not only grant the remiflion of fins, but in fome cafes the plenary, and moft plenary remiflion of fins. Thus in wfrat cafes the Pope can difpenfe, and in what not, is not determined by the Council, and there- fore there is no other way of knowing how large this power is, but by appealing to the practice of Popes in granting Difpenfations, and the Opinions of their Di- vines and Canonifts about it : And I cannot imagine what mould make the Reflecter fo angry with the An- fwerer for ftating this matter, as he feems to be (7U7.) but that he rebukes his confidence by difcovering his unskilfulnefs in fuch difputes : Nor do I difcern the Anfwerers fault in faying, We know this difpenftng power is to be keptasa^great Mystery, and not to be made ufe of but upon weighty and urgent caufes of great confequence and benefit to the Church, as their Dotlrines ( tho the Errata, which a Refleclrer ought to have confulted, would have told him it ihould be Dottors ) declare ; for if their Doctors, who may be prefumed beft to un- derfland the intrigue, do fay this, what fault did the Anfwerer commit- in faying it after them ,• and thus it is in feveral other cafes ; the Anfwerer has alledged the Opinions of their Divines and Cafuifts,Notto or- ppfe thcra to the Authority of the Church, but to R learn ( 7° ) 'earn from them what is the mofl received and currant Doctrine in fuch matters as are not exprefly defined by their Councils ; and is this like picking up fome particular fayings out of private Authors, to charge them upon any Church ? I do not think my felf con- cerned to examine his citations out of fome of our Au- thors, there being fo great a difparity between thefe two cafes ; but it he have dealt by others as he has done by the Anfwerer, he is a very Mifreprefenter flill. He fays, The Anfwerer feems to maintain, that good works of juftified perfo?is are not free. And the Anfwe- rer indeed does fay, that they are not free, as freedom is oppofed to a Divine afliftance in doing them, and to an antecedent obligation to do them, which freedom is neceflary to merit ; but does this deftroy the liberty of the Will as aflifted by the Divine Grace ? Or will the Reflecter own fuch a freedom as the Anfwerer denies * Page 17. Thefe are all the material Exceptions the Reflecter has made againfl the Anfwer , wThich come to little more than lome popular talk; for I do not think the Vifion of St. Perpetua worth difputing about ; and if he did not think this Vifion gave fome Credit to the Doctrine of Purgatory, I would know why he men- tioned it. The Anfwerer does not ch?wge them with making fuch Vifions and Apparitions, the only Foun- dation of Purgatory ; but certainly thofe who have taken fo much pains to tell, if not to invent, fuch Sto- ries, and to father them upon ancient Writers, did think that they would do fome fervice to propagate the belief of it in the World .• and if they be true, I know no reafon they have to be afhamed of them, and notwithltanding all their other arguments, I confels I think they want them. And O ) And now I know nothing in his Reflections un- anfwered but fome Popular Harangues and Infinuati- ons; but plain truth, ILke a true Beauty, needs no Paint and Varnifhjand therefore I fliall only for a Gonclufion aflure our People,That the Anfwer is every way agree- able to its Title, the Doftrines and Prattifes of the Church §f Rome truly Reprefented '; and when this Re- fleder, or any one for him, mall think fit to examine any part of it as it becomes men, and Scholars, they fliall either have a fair Reply, or a Recantation. FINIS. TH E APOLOGY of the Church of England $ And an Epiftle to one Signior Scipio^ Venetian Gen- tleman, concerning the Council of Trent. Written both in Latin, by the Right Reverend Father in God, JOHN JEWEL Lord Biiliop of SaristuryMa.de Englifh by a Perfon of Quality. To which is added, The Life of thefaid Biiliop ; Collected and Written by the fame Hand. Printed for Richard Chifwell at the Rpje and Crown m St. Pauls Church-Tar d. 1685. IMPRIMATUR/ Z. Ifham R. P. D. Henrico Epfc. Lone/, a Sacrit, April 6. i6%6. - REMARKS UPON THE REFLECTIONS Of the Author of Vopery Mifreprefented, &c. ANSWERER; Particularly as to the Bepofttts feoctttne. In a Letter to the Author of the Reflexions. Together with fome few Animadverfions on the fame Author's Vindication of his Reflexions. LONDON, Printed for Sam. Smith at the Prince's Arms in St. Tmh Church-Yard. i6$6. ro S I R, IT is not any diftruft of the Abilities of your former Adverfary (which have fufficiently made him known) nor an overweening Opinion of my own undertaking, that hath engaged me in this Controverfie, but a defign to ferve the Interefts of Truth, and to aifure you, that you have not yet convinc't the World, that your Character of your Religion, as you/eprefent it, isfojuft, and exact, or your Reafonings fo cogent, but there is fomething [perhaps material, and of weight] to be objected to both 5 and I (hall follow the Method, that * you pro- * Rcfl. p. i. fefs to like, to reafon as clofely, as I can, with all moderation, and calmnefs, without making any Re- flexions, but fuch as cannot be avoided,when I treat of fome Subjects, among which, I dare undertake, none lhall perfonally concern you 5 tho you will allow me to tell you, you have not fo carefully fol- lowed your own prsefcriptions, when you impeach our f Church in general, reckoning her Booty of Ho- fRefl.p.*. milks among thofe Books, that have mifreprefented Fopery 3 and in particular charge your learned, and modeft Adverfary with the * lame crime, and too * P# , l9t liberally beftow your Characters on him, charging him f with wrongingyou, and impofing upon his Reader, f Refl.p.<$. with * Sophiftry, With, wi der ft anding neither Law, nor *ptl6l7% Logic^, and with being infincere, and ujing tricks, *t. but probably the Anfwer hath made you angry, and men in a paflion cannot forbear hard Language. A 2 I do (a) I do acknowledge, that it is fevere dealing to pick up all the extravagant paflages in private Authors, and to father them on the whole Church(no Church, of whatever denomination, being without both evil men as to their Morals, and opinionative men as to their Tenets) but withal I mult fay, that it is one thing to cite Quotations from all forts of Authors, and another thing to cite Men of Eminence, and Au- thority in your Church, ( and fuch, whofe Station, Learning, and Repute, were as great, as ever the Bijbop of Condom's, or Monfieur Veroris, whom yet you rely upon, as you alfo fometimes quote other men of your Communion to confirm your Opinions ) whofe Books alfo have come into 'the World with Licence, and Priviledge, and Commendations of the Authors, and whofe Affertions have never been con- demned, after they have been publiiht, (and fome of them probably Members ox that very Trent-Coun- cel, which you ftick to for the Articles of your Faith) and in matters of facl:, which cannot be for- reign to the Controversies between your Church, and ours, there is a neceflity f having recourfe to fuch Writers, as I fhall be often forct to do in thefe Remarks. And that I may confider every thing methodical- ly, that belongs to this Topick*., I cannot but obferve * Rcfi. p. 1 3, your * Reflections on the Opinions of fome Eminent *f men in our Communion, which, fay you, we are unwilling to have chargd upon our Church. For the firft, which you charge on your Antagonift, that, good works of juftified perfons are not free, I muft lay, tjiat either I mifunderftand your Adverfary, or you do (3) do mifreprefent him-, for when the fays, That, what fch.5.p.4$. we pretend to merit by, mufl be our own free ab~l -, ( for Ed# 3" thefe are his words, and not as you quote them) citing for it the Authority of the Jefuit Cofters En- chiridion, and adds, That therefore the works ofjuftified perfons cannot be J aid to be their own free afis, becaufe the power of doing them depends upon Divine ajjiftance y and being done by the power of God's grace, which could never have been done without it, cannot be (for that reafon) truly meritorious, he is fo far from giving an account of the Do&rine of our Church, that he proves from the principles of your own, that, if good works be done only by the Grace of God, and made acceptable only through the merits of Chrift, they cannot be truly faid to be meritorious, becaufe not the free a&s of them, that do them. When Mr. Ihorndyke allows of prayers for the Dead (though you quote no Book of his for that Af- fertion) he does no more, than in fome fenfe our Church allows, when it prays for a joyful Refur- re&ion in her Office at Funerals ? and whatever the good man might add elfe of his own, was but his private Opinion (as is alfo his notion, that the Eu- chariflical Sacrifice is truly the Sacrifice of Chrift upon the Crofi propitiatory, and impetratory, m well as the other, which I take upon your credit, not having the Book by me, out of which you cite the Opi- nion) however we aflert, that Mr. Thorndjke never owned Prayers for the Dead, as you do ( but in the fenfe of fome of the Antients) for he denied Pur- gatory, upon which you ground your Prayers for the Dead, and that our Bleffed Saviour is really prefent in the Sacrament, is the Doctrine and Belief of the Church (4) Churl England, and did not you limit that Real I) Iranfubflantiation, there would be no difference between you, and us in that point. I car lot but obferve your difingenuous manner of treating the Author of Jovian, in charging him with a difloyal principle, who hath given as many Inftances of his Loyalty, in the moft difficult times, as any man of his ftation •, and were there no other, the writing of that excellent Treatife, in that criti- cal juncture, is an undeniable evidence of it, when by defending the Succeffion, and the Doctrine of Non-refiftance, he acquired the ill will, and difplea- fure of all the difloyal Party. Why did not you, nor any other of the Englifh Roman Catholicks, write then in the defence of thofe Doctrines, againft the difloyal and rebellious Doctrines of Julian * The Prefs was open for you, and perhaps there prafa. Bd was reafon for your not anfwering of them, * be- ^rMaufapo caufe the generality of the Writers of your Church Muufmm agree with that Author in his principles of difloyalty. G°.t'jfiayfus Well, but you have found out one difloyal principle in Jovian, but are you fure of it ? It is not your faying, It is a difloyal principle, that makes it to be fo, and therefore I muft defire you, and thofe that perhaps are mifled by you, to read the Book from p. 1 3 p. to p. 152. out of which you have cited the paflage, and then you will find it to be fuch a dif- n cod. ^Mo^^] to pray for the death of a Nero, Diockfian, (though he fet up Infcriptions, oh deletum nomen Chrijiianum,) Conftantius, or Valens, but only for (s) for a Julian, whofe Apoftafie and Wickednefs is An- gular in Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, and the like of whom in all probability can never be expected again. Nay Sir, this difloyal principle will not let Chri- ftian fnbje&s pray, for the death of a Julian, though he tyranizes never fo much over their bodies, goods and liberties, if he do not blafpheme Chrift,and per- fecute the Church of God, with a diabolical fpite, againft the evidence of Divine Miracles. It leaves the Chriftian fubje&s of all Tyrants, but fuch as are Julians indeed, under the obligation of praying for them, according to the Apoftle's direction, and the pra&ice of the Primitive Chriftians, which the Au- thor of Jovian hath fo much infifted upon, and com- mended •, and his Prince muft be a Julian indeed, a Julian in all circumftances, before he can be fo much as tempted to pray againft him *, for he doth not fay, that he would pray, but that he fhould be tempted to pray for the deftruttion of a Julian indeed. And it had been happy for the Chriftian world, if the chief Paftors, and Bifliops, and Councils, and Doctors , and Cafuifts, of that which you call the Catholick Church, had never taught any principle more dif- loyal than this. Now Sir, I befeech you, to tell me, how much difloyalty there is in this principle,which fecures all Infidel, Heretical, and Apoftate Princes againft the Prayers of their Chriftian fubjeCts, unlefs they be in all degrees as bad as Julian, and fecures even Julians th mfelves againft all refiftance ? and how much difloyalty there is in a man, who by his principles will pray for all Tyrants, but fuch an one as Julian was, according to the Author of Jovian ? Sir I would to God you, and your Do&ors would declare CO declare as much Loyalty as this •, and I defire you to tell me, that fuppofe a Roman Catholick Prince fhould become a Julian indeed, and take up the me- thods of that Apellate, whether you think his Ro- man Catholick Subjects would be tempted to pray for his deftru&ion ? and if they fhould do fo and no more,do you think they would tranfgrefs any rule of Chriftian Loyalty ? Anfwer me thefe two queftions ilncerelyand positively •, and if your anfwer to the laft, be affirmative, give your arguments for your O- pinion, and I dare engage, the Author of Jovian fhall fubmit to your reafons, or anfwer them. For I am confident he hath no fondnefs for his Opinion, to which it is evident he was led, by his great Charity for the Bifhop, and Church of Nazi- anzum. And though in apologizing for them, he hathafferted, that he fhould be tempted to pray for the deftru&ion of a Julian indeed, yet he is fo Loyal a Perfon, that I believe he would overcome the temptation, and only forbear praying for him, as having finned the fin unto death. After which Apology you will fuflfer me to tell you, that your Reflections will hardly be called an anfwer to the DoBrines, and Practices of the Church of Rome, becaufe in them you have not faid a word ta lbme material -points of Controverfy between you, and us, ftated in that Book out of the Trent-Council and Catechifm, as if either the right were on your Adverfariesfide [which, I fuppofe, you will be loath to acknowledge] ox his reafonings were unworthy your fecond thoughts [which, I fuppofe, you will not own, and if you do, few wife men will acquiefce in (7) in your Sentiments] for you wholly pretermit re- flecting upon the Chapters of the Eucharift, of Indul- gences, of fatisfatlion ex condigno, of keeping the Scriptures, and Prayers in an unknown Tongue, of com- munion in one kind, and of adding the Apocrypha, and traditions to the holy writ, with fome others -, which, being fome of the mofl material points in difference between your Church, and ours, will either deferve fome new thoughts, or you will allow us to fay, that that book cannot be thought an anfwer, which in filence paffes by, or leaps over fo many weighty things, that make up fo much of the Controversy. You allure us, * that the Council of Trent is recei- * Red. p. $. nor the reft of the Eaftern Chriftians are in your fenfe any more Catho- licks, than the Church of England, and the reft of the Frotefiants ('though antiently any man, or Church of men, were called Catholick, becaufe they agreed with the whole Catholick, Church in Faith 5 but now the holy Catholick.Church of Chrifi muft lofe its name, if it agree not with the particular Church of Rome) but I would willingly know of you, whence any particular Church hath that power, that it may re- ceive a general Council ( as you call that of Trent) in B fome fome things, and not in others ? I thought, that the higheft authority of the Church on Earth had been a general Council, and if fo, why its definitions in matters of difcipline fhould not be received, and obferved by all particular Churches, is to me a great queftion , fori cannot but fee, that one of theie two things muft follow from your Opinion, either that Councils, and Popes are fallible ( for if they are de- ceived in one Opinion, fuch as that of the power of the Church to depofe Princes, why may they not be deceived in another, fuch as tranfubftantiation, or "Jrurgatory}) or elfe, that they are infallible in grea- ter matters only, and then to me it is a great won- der, that they fhould erre in things of lefs moment; and I never yet underftood, but that if general Coun- cils could decide matters of Dottrine, but that they had alfo as great a power in matters of difcipline ( for if it be a lawful preface to the decrees of all Councils, as your men fay, Vifum eft fpiritui ftintto, & nobis, then the holy fpirit is doubtlefs their guide in matters of difcipline, as well as in matters of Dollrine.) I am fure, that the Antient Councils took upon them to de- cide both by their authority, and all Chriftians thought themfelves oblig'd to follow their dictates $ fo thofirft general Council of the Apoftles bound up all Chriftians from eating things fly -angled, and Blood ; fo the Council of iV/ce determine! the precife day, when Eafter fhould be celebrated, as well as the Confub- ftantiality of the Son with the Father 5 and fo alfo the fecond general Council made Conftantinople a Patriarchate as well as Rome 5 to go no further. And I find no perfons difputed thofe conftitutions ( though only in matters of Difcipline, and Government) till the Topes began to affert their Authority in opposition to gene- ral Councils, And (9) And whereas * you fay, that your Adverfary * Refl. p. 6, -. wrongs you, and impofes upon his Reader, by laying, that you give your private fenfe, and Opinion only of the Articles of your Religion contrary to the Bull of Pius 4. pleading in your own behalf, that you expound the Canons of the Trent-Council according to the Catechifm fet forth by the order of the Council, and the Pope, as if both of them allowed of it 3 I mull fay, that this cannot be, for the Council never faw the Catechifm, and confequently could never approve, that they ne- ver faw, unlefs they alfo were bound to exercife an implicite Faith ; for though they ordered a * Catechifm * $(jj. } s. & to bepublilht (having obferv'd, how much theT'ro- StSJ- 25- t eft ants prevailed againft their Church by their con- ftant Catechizing) they left it wholly to the Pope to fee it done, and to give it authority 5 and this the Author of the prolegomena to the Paris Edition of that Catechifm, An. 167 1. fairly acknowledges *, affirm- * prottg. 2. ing, that after the dififolution of the Council, An. 1 563. & 3- feveral Fathers wTere fummon d to Rome to make this Catechifm, among whom the principal man was & Charles Barromee (as you call hxm)Archbi(bop of 'Millan-, we are alfo told, that Cardinal Seripandm made the explanation of that Article {one holy Catholic/^ Church) Michael Medina of another, &c. and that after it wasfinifht, itwasifw. 1566. offered to Pope Pius 5. for his approbation, who committed the examinati- on of it to Cardinal Sirlet, who taking to himfelf the afliftance of other learned men, examined both the matter, and language of it, after which the Pope gave his approbation^ and ordered it to be printed by Paulus Manutius, confirming it by his Bulls. And Poffevine tells us, that Gregory the 13. made thisCz- techifm the rule, by which he reformed the Canon B 2 Law-, (io) Refl. p. 6. Law ; fo that if* you interpret the Canons of the Coun- cil by the Catechifm, then the Canons depend upon the Catechifm for their meaning, and the fenfe of the Catechifm upon the Pope, who gave it authority, by which deduction it appears, that your Religion is ftill built not on the Council, but on the Pope 3 and perhaps it was for this reafon, that the Italian Bijbops in their Synods ( as do the Synods of Roven, and Aix in France ) call it not the Trent, but the Roman Cate- chifm, for in truth fo it is. Againft all which I know only this to be obje&ed, that the fame men, that made the Canons, made the Catechifm(which is hard- ly true, as to every particular perfon ) but to that I anfwer, that I believe, you will, not averr % that the fame men have the fame aififtances in a Council, and out of it-, fo that were the affertion true, yet the one being done in Council, had the affiftance of the Bleffed Spirit (as you hold ) to affift the Com- pilers -, which, I prefume, you will not fay, that the fame men had, when out of the CounciL And if this be fo, then does not this make the Tope judge of Controverfies of Faith ? For, fay you, the Church muft interpret Scripture, and interpret Arti- cles ef Faith declared in Councils, which Church muft either be the Church Reprefentative, or the Tope -7 now to hope for a general Council upon every emer- gent difpute in matters of Faith, is a vain exfpe&a- tion, and if fo, you will do well to fhow us any other judge infuch cafes, but the Tope ^unlefs every particular Church muft judge for it felf, or every private perfon be his own director, and then, where is the interpretation of the Church Catholicity Now (II) Now if the Pope be the Judge, how know we,but the next Pope may require the belief or the Depofing Do&rine, and expound the paflages of former Coun- cils that look that way, as Articles of Faith ? what would you do in that cafe, efpecially if the generality of the Ecclefiafticks fhould fide with him [as they did in the cafe of the Emperour Henry 4. and of our King John] and in their Synods declare for the Ecclefiaftical Monarchy ? — and upon this fuppofition, how know we, but that, although the prefent Pope hath confirm d the Bifbop of Conaorris Book, another Pope may condemn his mincing the Articles of Faith ? for we do not want Infrances of Popes, who have refcinded, not only one anothers ABs, and Or- dinWions, but one anothers Decrees, even in what they have called matters of Faith 3 although I muft confefs, what is very obfervable, that though very many Popes have aflerted the Ecclefiaftical Power over Princes, and their Right of Depofing them, we never read of one of them, that condemned the Doctrine. You further fay, * that though the Trent Council Refl, p, 7j mention the Aid, and AJfi fiance of the Saints, and Angels ever and above their Prayers, yet it means no other Aid, but that of their Prayers , which feems to me not fo agreeable to the words of the Council f, which St^ 2 # are, That it is good, and ufeful ad fanBorum orationes, opem, auxiliumque confugere, to fly to their Prayers, Aid, and Affifiance. Now I cannot believe, that the Fa- thers of that Council would have explained a parti- cular ad by two more general words, nor when they had mention d in particular, Prayers, would they, I believe, have afterward i nfer tea in general thek r«2) their Aid, and AJJifiances, unlefs the Aid, and 4^- jiances were diftindt from their hiterceffion ; and this is agreeable to your allowed Prayers in your Mijfal, * D«. 6. in where you beg God, * ut ejus mentis, & precibus, &c. fin. s. Nicoi. t}jat lyy tfo merits, and prayers of St. Nicolas, you may be f yttL6.08av. deliver d from the flames of Hell. And again, t That *pjj"n* & by the merits of St. Peter, and St. Paul, you may attain the glories of Eternity, where the Merits, and Inter- ccjjhns of the Saints are manifeftly diftinguifht, as * Part. 5. they are alfo in the Trent-Catechifm, * where in the praapt. 1. Margin there is thft Note, The Saints help m with 24' their Merits 5 and in the body of the Catechifm thefe 5 They always pray for the happinefs of men, and God con- fers many benefits upoyt us, eorum merito, &* gratia, for their merits, and fake-, and truly, were we aflkred that the Guardian Angels could hear us, I fee no reafon why we mould fcruple any more to pray them to prated us againft the Devil, and all other Enemies that may hurt us, than to beg them to in- tercede for us to God-, and this alfo is agreeable to fVHftpr. the Catechifm f. r.. 1 P- 8- Your next RefleBion * is about the merit of good works, and your felf, and adverfary are agreed, that Can. 32. Sejf. 6. of the Council of Trent there is no mention of the qualification of Merit with refpecl: to dependance on God s grace, goodnefs, and promi- fes-, but both in that Canon, and Can. 26. the words are plain, qua ab eo per Dei gratiam (mifericordiam) & Jefu Chrifti meritum, &c. And if fo, the Contro- verfie feems to me eafily decided •, for if it be of grace, how is it then of works ? where is the merit ? Your Anfwer to the Goliah Argument of your Ad- verfary, as you are pleafed to call it, I remit to be confider'd confider'd towards the end of thefe Remarks, be- caufe it ought to be fpoken to more largely, and by it felf, and proceed to take notice, that * you blame * RCfl.p. n. your Adverfary for taking the fenfe of your Church fromfome expreffions in your old Miffals, and Rituals, [tho I am apt to think, that the' Church of England will be contented to be judged by her Liturgy, and Ri- tuals in the like cafej but perhaps you are not dif- gufted at the ufe 01 your Miffals, but at the ufe of old Miffals -, and I am perfuaded, that you have rea- fon fo to be, becaufe the fubtilty of the modern Church hath made it felf appear in your prefent Miffals, and Breviaries, as well as in your Edition of the Vulgar Translation of the Bible, and in other Trea- tifes. For inftance, in the old Roman Breviary print- ed at Venice An. 1482. and at Paris An. 1 5 43. Jaw. 2 8. le£l.2.no&. 2. & Leonis, the words run thus, In eo Concilio damnati funt Cyrus, & Sergius, Honorius, Pyrrhus, Paulus, &c. in that Synod Cyrus, and Sergius, Honorius, &c. were condemned-? but in the new Bre- viary the name of Honorius is left out, which, had it been left there, would have reflected too much on the Papal Infallibility, and inform'd the World, that even Popes themfelves have fallen into Herefie^ while in the fame Office they take care to keep up the me- mory, that that Pope Leo 2. fregit fuperbiam Ravenna- tum, brought the Archbijbop of Ravenna to acknowledge the Roman Supremacy ', which before that time that See did not. A fecond Inftance may be this : In all the antient Miffals in Cathedra, S. Petri Antioch, Feb. 22. (as alfo in the old Diurnale printed at Antwerp 1553.) the Prayer is read in thefe words, Deus qui B. Tetro Apo- jlolo m. (14). jlolo collatis clavibm regni cceleflk animas ligandi, at que folvendi pontificium dedifii, i.e. O God, who having given thy bkjjed Apoftle St, Peter the Keys of thy hea- venly Kingdom, gaveft him Epifcopal power of binding, and loofing Souls -, but they have now left out the word Animas, i.e. Souls 5 for with that limitation the Topes power was only Prieftly to ufe the Keys in binding, and loofing mens Souls, but without that limitation every man is at liberty to believe that St. Feter s Keys may be imployed in temporal affairs alfo, in binding Kings, and letting up a Pontifical Monarchy, to which I fhall add one Inftance more 5 that whereas in the Sacrament arium of St. Gregory the Prayer for St. Leo runs thus, Annue nobis, Domi- ne, &c. Grant, O Lord, that this Oblation may be ad- vantageous to the Soul of thy Servant Leo ; now the words are altered into, Annue, &c. Grant, Lord, that by the inter cejjion of thy Servant Leo, this Oblation may be profitable to us 3 the firft being an Inftance of the Antients Prayers for the Dead, for Saints, as well as others -, the latter an endeavour to countenance Prayers to Saints by averting their interceffion. And whereas to requite us for quoting your Miffals *, you object to us all the expreffions ofTrayer, 'Preaching, and Devotion in our Church, the parallel doth not hold, unlefs you mean our authoriz'd Li- turgy, in whofe collects we are ready to vindicate, whatever is aflerted. Nor is it fair to fay, that an Atheift may make himfelf fport with Scripture, if he may be allowed to fepar ate' an infinite number of expreffions there, i. e. as I underftand you, to make ufe of bro- ken Sentences ( for if an Atheift ufes Scripture in the fenfe, to which the coherence leads him, he can ne- ver ,(i5) ver makeChriftiamty ridiculous, muchlefs as ridicu- lous at Turcifm ) and for the paflfages quoted out of your Mi/fals, they are quoted in the fenfe, in which they are meant, and if you deny this, you may right your felfby flie wing the contrary. Nor do you do well with the Church of England to fay, * (he allows the 1? J alms in Meeter. I dare be *R«fl. p»'n. confident to averr, that the Singing Pfalms ( as they are ulally called ) were never* commanded by our Church to be ufed, and are no part of our fervice,as our Rubrics will inform you, where there is not the left mention of them $ though we acknow- ledge, the cuftom was brought in through the con- nivance of our Governors, who at that time were intent upon matters of greater moment 5 nor do we fay, that the fenfe of the Church will help out the non- fenfe, or ill expre/Jions of any ofthofe Rhymes ( which is a fubtle inlinuation ) but withal we fay, that iince cuftom hath brought in the ufe, no Prieft of our Communion, that I know ojj is fo weak ( I am fure, no one ought to befo ) but he knows how to choofe out of that great number fome few Pfalms, that are pertinently enough tranflated, and incentive of De- votion, by finging of which neither God is difhonor'd, nor the Congregation engaged to any thing, that is either evil, or ridiculous ; which Apology cannot be made for any of your Mi/fals, which your Priefts were obliged to ufe without any power left them to choofe what Collects, or Antiphona's, &c. they pleafed. And now you will allow me to fmile, when f you t R£fl- p- I2- fay, that if we conclude a Vapift guilty of Idolatry, be- caufe he bows down, kneels, &c. to an Image, we may C as (t6) as well fay, that Abigail was guilty of conflrutthe Ido- latry, when floe fell on her face before David, and fo are Subjetls, when they Jqieel to their Frince, and the Lin- colns-Inn-Field Beggars, when they kneel for an Alms to thofe, who pafs by. For thefe inftances do not reach the cafe, that we are talking of * for if Abigail fhould have kneel'd before the Pi&uve of David, or a Sub- ject before the Picture of his Prince, or a Beggar be- fore a Gentleman's Picture, and begg'd with earneft- nefs, and feeming devotion any bleiTing, there is no fober man, but would believe, that they were either very mad, or very foolifh ♦, but if they thought them fober, and in their right fenfe,(as we do believe your people at Church to be) they cannot be acquitted of Idolatry, if fo be the honour be Religious (as you ac- knowledge, your veneration of Images is more than civil honour ) fo that by thefe inftances you feem to > Mtf, Aq. run into the errour of thofe * Schoolmen,that the fame Bonxv.&c. honour ( let it be Latria, hyper dutia, or dulia) is due T2J&2, t0 the Image, that is, due to theperfon reprefented; e. ao.$ 2. and if any Law be to be judg'd of by the common opimo. practice ( as the Maxim faith, Lex currit cum praxi ) this is very plain from the ufages of the generality of people in your Church. And lam fure, ( to con- firm this your way of arguingjthatl have fome where read ( though I cannot now readily light on the place) that Scribanius affirms, that Adoration of Saints, and Images is very lawful, becaufe Abraham bowed down to the Children of Heth,Gen. 23. 7. Surrexit Abraham, &* adoravit populumterra,filios, viz. Heth. As it is in the Vulgar Latine. And if I muftnot judge of any man's Idolatry by his outward aBions ( which is your excep- tion) then I can never know any man to be an Idola- ter $ for a Heathen may fall down before one of his Idols, Idols, and call upon it for help, and yet fay, that his intention is juft, and that he only meant there- by to worihip the True God, which is the excufe made by the men of your Church. After this, * you compare the Tower of the Tope*^. p. l6t to that of Civil lowers, as to the Obedience due to them from their Subjects $ but, pray deal candidly, Do you believe the Pope to have no more Authori- ty in commanding Obedience, than Civil Powers have ? Doubtlefs you do believe him to have more Authority, or elfe, why do fo many of your Church refufe to take the Oath of Allegiance, which yet you f allow to be a lawful Oath ? for you fay, f Calh, ^ they refufe it, not for any unlaw fulnefs in the Oath/eft**. § 4- but becaufe the Doctrine ofDepofing Trinces is there-?'*' hi called Heretical, which they cannot allow of, as the word is under food in a Catholic/^ fenfe (where you will allow me to obferve, that for the true notion of Herelie, you depend on the Tope's Breve, and fo allow the Tope to be a Judge in matters of Faith $ for Herefie is contrary to the Faith, and confequently the Depofing Power, which the Tope hath determin'd, is a matter of Faith ) and why do they follow the Tapal Dictates in thofe things, wherein by the Laws of God, and Nations they are bound to fubmit to their Supe- riours ? Here alfo I obferve, Ithat when * you Treat of* popty mf- the Topeys Power, you give your felf a gr£at lati- rePre^te^ tude, when you fay, That you never fcruple to re- 4 ' ceivehis Decrees, and Definitions, fuch as are ijfued forth by his Authority, with all their due Circumftances, C 2 and f<8) and according to haw 5 but never tell us, what thofe Circumjlances are ( as your Adverfary well remarks) which puts me in mind of fomewhat, *n.v iifp. which your * Authors fay concerning the Bull of \J£d' V Sixtus 5- prefixt to his Edition of the Vulgar Iran f compk*'.- h* lotion, which was afterward recalled by Clement 8. zzMf.22. § 5. Xhat it was true the Bull ivas printed with the Bible, but that it was not affixt to the Gates of St. Peter'/ Xlhurch, and in the Campo fiore fo longx as it ought to have been according to. the Laws of the , Romijh Chancery, as if fuch little things as thofe made Ecclefiaftical Decrees more, or lefs valid. And now to fhew you, that your Anfwerer did not mow his Learning in difcovering, that the Popes have difpen't only with pofitive Injii tut ions, but not with the Moral haw, with hying,, and For- /wearing, fas if he fought a knot in a Bull-rufh, and took^ Sanctuary in a Myjiery, as you term it, by talk- ing only in general terms) what think you of the many Difpenfations, that have been given by for- mer Topes to the Subjects of this, and other King- doms, to break their Oaths of Allegiance, and Duty to their Soveraigns ? (the relation between Princes, and their Subjects, being not grounded on their be- ing Chriftians, but on the Obligation of Civil So- ciety, fo that a difpenfing with the Oath of Allegi- ance, is a difpenfing with a Duty of Natural Reli- gion,which binds Subjects to obey their Superiours.) For either Subjection to Princes is a Duty of the Fifth Commandment, (as we reckon them) Honour thy Father, and Mother, &c. or it is not -, if it be not, you will do well to aflfert it, and we (hall take care to prove it to be a Duty of that Commandment,not only (sf) only from the Authority of the Antients, and from Reafon, but from the Authority of your own Ca- techifm, which f fays, That all perfons, who are pof- f Fart. ?. fejfors of power, or dignity ', are included under the term P™c' 4\ 1 3' parents, which is afterward explain'd by thofe, who &! have Empire, Magiftracy, or power committed to them, who govern the Commonwealth. But if to obey Prin- ces be a duty of that Commandment, then to dif- pence with that duty, is to difpence with a Moral Law, and to difpence with Oaths, that bind to that duty, is to give men a difpenfation to be perjur'd, and to forfwear themfelves. And becaufe you tell us *, that the Papift is taught in all Books, that to Lye * PaP- riPYit' is a fin, and to call God to witnefs to an untruth, is dam- 'm'^ 4/>4 ' nable, and that the praBices of your Church are accord- ing to thofe pr and that Oath ^ fo that the intention of the Swearer among thefe Cafuifts, makes the Oath valid, as the intention of the Prieft makes the Sacra- ment. Some other of the fame Order, have given * neoi. mor. difpenfations for the breach of the Moral Law** Efco- to. i. i.je.20. yar fayS pofitively, virtute bulU pot eft votum non pec- candi mutari, i. e. that a man may break^his Vow of not finning by virtue of a Bull, and he inftances in the t Tr. 7. ex. 4. committing of Fornication 3 he f alfo fays, That a ». 118. man may Lye even to his ConfeiTor, that a man may promife a general Confefjion, and yet not confefs all his mortal fins, quia quamvis mentiatur,id tamen parum refert ad ConfelTarii judicium, i. e. for tho he Lye, yet that hath little or no relation to the Judgment of his Confejfor. Now to thefe proofs probably you will object, that this is not the Opinion of the Church, but of private men •, to which I anfwer, that had it not been the Opinion of your Church, when thofe Books were written, fuch men would ne- ver have been allowed to be Confejfor s ( which no man can be unlefs by the allowance* of the Tope, the {21) the Bifhop of the Diocefs, &c. ) though it is well known, that the Jefuits then were, and ftill are as Eminent for being Confejfors, as any other Order in your Communion, and perhaps more, and this notwithstanding their owning thefe damnable Doctrines, as both you, and I agree to call them. Nor is it enough to fay, that the Book of Efcobar, after having been 39 times prin- ted for an excellent Book ( which is an argu- ment, it was much bought, and much valued ) was the 40th time printed only to be cenfured, and condemn'd by the French Bifhops ( which the poor Janfenijls lookt upon to have been a condemnation both of the Author, and his Opi- nions, whereas they found at laft to their coft, that themfelves were cenfured at Rome, as the criminals ) nor that the prefent Tope ( being more wife, and moderate than fome of his Pre- deceflbrs ) hath condemn d thofe Doctrines ( which vindicates us, that we have not unjuftly charg'd the men of your Church with fuch Doctrines ) among which propofitions if you confult the 26 and 27, it is aflerted, That a man may either ', being ash$, or of his own accord fay, and fivear, that he did not do a thing, which he really did, and yet by vert ue of a fecret meaning, be neither a lyar, nor per- jured. And that this he may do, as often as it is ne- cejfary, or profitable to fave his Body, Honour, or EJlate, or for any other good end. For this is to ac- knowledge, that your Church for a long time heretofore conniv'd at, or allow'd of the breach of ^ plain moral commandments, fince the man in au- thority, that doth not prohibit the fin, that he may hinder, feems to injoyn it. I alfb obferve, 1. That. i. That according to your Opinion, whatever the Pope, and Cardinals, or other Bifhops do either al- low, or condemn, is not binding as to the Faith, fince the infallibility is lodg'd no where, but in a general Council. 2. If we look into the Cenfure, there is nothing relating to the breach of Oaths given to Princes, which is the higher!: truft in tempo- ral matters, and withal, that the proportions are not condemn'd as contrary to the Laws of God, and Na- ture, as affertions, that promote impiety, and in- juftice --, but ut minimum tanquamfcandaloj as, &praxi perniciofas, [ which is the manner of expreffion that Alexander 7. makes ufe of in his cenjure, An. \6 6 j. ] as at leaft Jcandalous, and pernicious to practice, and therefore to be condemn'd, which whether this doth not look like a tricky, and juggle ( becaufe you have encouraged me to ufe the word ) you your lelf fhall be the judge-, for notwithstanding this .cenfure, whenever the fcandal ceafes ( which no one knows, how foon that maybe ) and they are judg'd no lon- ger pernicious, the proportions may be again owned, and maintained. 3. It is moreover obfervable, that whereas former Popes have allowed thefe Te- nents, and Practices without condemning them, who knows, but the Succeffors of the prefent Pope may, when they pleafe, licence anew the propor- tions, which are now condemn'd ? 4. That fome ¥ ch. -n6. tn. fuch thing hath been formerly done, your * Adver- p.50. fary jj^ given y0U an inftance, which you did not think fit to meddle with, nor to reflect upon, out f P. 11. of Archbijhop Abbot's * Treface to his fix Ledlures, " where you will find, that Pius 5. the fame Pope,m " who authoriz'd the Trent-Catechifm, gave his refo- " lution to fome of the Englijh Miffionaries, that " whenever (*3) " whenever any of them were called before a judge in " England,he might either refufe the Oath, or Swear }and " anfwer fophiftically, poteft Catholicm tra&us coram ha- reticis vel recufare jur amentum ( quod eft prudentiws ) vel fophiftici jurare, & fophiftice refpondere juii inter- rogationibus. And if you look into the Book called Foxes, and Firebrands, you will fee there, that Heath the Jefuit had a Bull with him dated An. i. of the fame Pius 5. allowing him to preach what Doctrine the Society of the Jefuits mould order him for the dividing of the Proteftants, and not to in- ftance in the difpenfation given by Eugenius 4. and his J^egate Card. Julian to Ladijlaus King of Hungary to break his League with the Grand Signior, for which he was fo feverely punifht in the unfortunate Battel of Varna, and fome other fuch examples, the Examination of Mr. Garnet is a very plain proof of this our affertion •, for though fome men call thefe little arts equivocation, and mental reservation, as if they were fmall, or no fins, yet you fairly, and ho- neftly condemn both alike, and I know few wife, and good men, but look upon both as alike (Infill, and perhaps the equivocation the more fo, becaufe the defign is more cunningly laid to deceive. And now lam talking of the Jefuits, I think fit to mind you, that whereas you feem to fay, * that it * p*pmfrtpre. is a fcandal upon your Church to affirm, that 'tis M?>7c more lawful to be drunk on a Faffing day, than to eat flefh, I have met with a Cafuiji * of your commu- f Efiebar. munion, who will not allow a man to eat Flefh on tr- iex- li- a Fatting day, but as to drink gives great indul- "'74'75'" gence, when he fays, that a man may drink}Vine even in great quantity, and if he happen to be drunk, im- D moderatio (24) moderatio poteft temper ant t am violare, fed non jejtinium He may tranfgrefs the haws offempetaffce, but he does not t ranfgrefs the Laws of i'aji iw. After this I will not decide the controverfy be- tween your Adverfary, and your felf, whether the ftory ofS. Perpetuus Vifion be ferioufly related, or droll'd on (who pay a great veneration to all Anti- ent writings, and can hardly think, that a Martyr in view of an Eternal Crown of happinefs would in- dulge to any thing, that is light, or deferves to be expofed) but I have fome things to fay relating to that Vifion. As, i. That it is very probably belie- ved by moft learned men, that SS. Perpetua, and Ftflicitas were Montanifts, among whom there were many vifions, which the reft of the World gave no credit to ^ but this I fhall not difpute. But, 2. I averr, that it is very difputable both from the vifion it felf, and from the quotations in St. Auftin, whe- ther Vinocrates were baptiz'd, or no. I know, your t Chap. 23. . -j- Adverfary fays, he was baptized, and St. Auftin f' 4# would fain have it fo, but there is no convincing proof, that he was fo v and the filence of the Writer of that tPaffion feems to imply, that he was not fo. Now then I urge you with this Dilemma, either Vi- nocrates was baptiz'd, or not -, if he were not bap- tiz'd, (as it is very probable, becaufe his Father was a very violent Heathen, and fo in all likelihood would not fuffer his Son, being fo young, to be bap- tiz'd) then you have nothing to do with him in Tur- gatory-, for, tho you have allotted an appartment there for the unbaptiz'd Children of Chriftian Pa- rentS; yet you allow no place there to the unbap- tiz'd Children of Heathen Parents, who with their Pagan (25) Pagan Progenitors are condemn'd to Hell -, unlefs we muft reckon this ftory with thofe other of St. Thecla's bringing the Soul of Falconilla out of Hell, or St. Gregorys praying thence the Emperour Trajan, which later ftory the * Jews, who themfelves * v. tomRtr. allow of a fort of Purgatory, make fport of b but if he s^^nk**] he were baptiz'd, (as I profefs, I cannot believe, tho Heb$.io\ St. Auftin fays fo) then it feems very hard, that a Child of feven years old, (when few Children are capable of underftanding enough to chufe to be wicked) fhould be fent to Purgatory for {ins, which he knew not of ^ for, if that be true, which St. Au- ftin fays, that his Father probably carryed him to the Heathen Temples, as we will fuppofe it to be, this was the Father's tin, and not the Child's, and fo I cannot fee, why Vinocrates fhould be punifht. And to confirm my conjecture, that he was not baptiz'd, I- am apt to think, that in the Vifion the Water, * which Perpeiua faw her Brother endeavou- * Paff.f.Perp ring to drink of, but could not come at, was an f- *$• Ed' Emblem of the Waters of Bapttfm, which he feem'd to endeavour after, and at laft Perpetua her felf fays *, that fhe her felf was a Catechumen, when fhe ^ 0# 5# was apprehended, and that at that time fhe had two Brethren both Catechumens 5 now if we reckon t)i- nocrates for one of thofe two brethren of hers, or al- low him to be dead fome time 1 -afore, (jas I rather conjecture) lam ftrongly incLr^d to believe, that while the Father was an obftir. it$ Pagan, the Sifter, and the other Brothers only Catechumens, that this younger Son, who was but feven years old when he died, was not baptiz'd, before he went out of the World-, now if he were not baptiz'd, the Fathers D 2 tell (26) tell you, there was no hopes of Salvation for him \ for to omit St. Auftin, and the African Father sy I Will * Dr Ttag. ^Y iljftance in two remarkable pafTages, the one Ecu. f, yt. tor the Weflern Church out of * Gennadi us, Nullum Catechumennm, &C 'that no Catechumen, tho he die in a flate of good works (which is more than St. A uftin fays of Dinccrates, for he accufes him of Idolatry) can attain to Eternal life, unlefs he be a Martyr, And f To.4.Kbyy. for the Eaflem Church out of St. Chryfqftomf, y.Ato put them in mind to be fubjeEh toprincipali- tiesy (35) ties, and powers, to obey Magifirates, and to be ready to every good work) Is theic alio nothing injthe Father*, that looks this way? doth nor Tertuilian fajf, that a Prince is inferiour only to God I cloth not Irevicem aver, that by the fame power that men are made, are Princes conftituted? Doth not Origen teWCelfus, that amongthe Chriftians he Jhould not find any a& of /edition, or tumult, (notwithftanding all their prefiures,and per fecutions) and doth not St.Ambrofe iky to the Emperor, ire inireat thee, O Prince, we do not fight I not to multiply quo- tations. And, before I leave this head, I cannot but remark, that whereas the * Trent Catechifm allows, that Em- *P^rt.^pr^ perors, and Magiftr ate \r are called Fathers, and fo are "?' 4'§ "' included in theCommandment^iftwoar thy Father ,&c.) which ismore,thanyou acknowledge-, yet they quote no place of Scripture to make this good, but the Hi- ftory of Naaman, (fie Naaman a famuli* pater vocaba- turj where his Servants call him Father, which docs not look like fair dealing, for the Example does not reach the Do&rine, unlefs the Fathers of that Council prevaricate, Naaman being a Subject to the King of Syria, whereas they might have found without much feeking, that * David calls Saul, my Father, who was * i Sam. 24, his King 5 and in truth, the title was fo proper to Princes, that the Kings of the Philifiim were always called Abimelech, i.e. my Father the King by a general name, whatever their proper name was. Now I am loath to judg, that thofe Fathers made ufe of an in- flance of a Subject called Father by his Servants, that the Example might limit the Do&rine .to fubje&ion to inferiour Magiftrates, when, had they inferted the Example of David, it would plainly have proved the Obedience of Subjects to Soveraign Princes. And 1 1. ( 3« ) And whereas the Fathers of the fame Council, who were concern'ci in the Catechifm, ufe to quote fuch places of the Ant tents, as they thought pertinent to * ibid. § 17. the Subject treated of,they having * quoted Rom. 1 3.1. to prove that men ought to be obedient to the Higher Powers, confirm the Doctrine only by the teftimony of Tertuliian, (who it is true, fpeaks plain, and to the purpofe) omitting St. Chryfoflom,Tbeodoret, Tbeophylall , and others on the place, who have told the World, that by every Soul, in St. Paul, are meant Priefls, and Eijhops, as well as Laymen, nay the Pope himfelf, as fays St. Bernard-, but this probably would have unriddled the Myftery,and expofed a Do&rine, which they were not willing to difown* the Cate- cbifin, like the Canons, leaving every man, in many fuch things, a great latitude -, fo that in fliort, I de- fire you to anfwer this Queftion 5 Either Rebellion is againft a Moral Law, or not $ if it be, then the Pope cannot difpence with it, and then, how happens it, that fo many things of letter moment were de- cided in the Trent Council, while this was forgotten, or pari: by ? If it be not againft a Moral Law, then by your own principles, the Pope may difpence with it, and what then becomes of all Obedience, when another Gregory 7. or Sixtus 5. fhail fill the Chair ? And tho the Council would not condemn the Depo- fmg Doclrine, yet why had not the Authors of the In- dex Expurgatorius cenfured fuch dangerous Books ? for if we may judg of the fenfe of the Trent Coun- cil by its Catechifm, ( tho made after the Council broke up) why may we not judg of its fenfe by the Index, which was ordered to be made at the fame time, &c . by the fame men, who compofed the Ca- techifm ? In which Index more than a few paiTages are (37) are expunged, that interfere with the Papal Gran- dear, but not one poor fentence condemn d, that is deftru&ive to the Rights of Princes. Here alfo, pray, fuffer me to mind you of a held affertion of a private man, as you are, and which, I am fure,as things are now, you cannot accompiifh % *Ltrod.p.i r. for you undertake, that all Roman Catholick^ Nations in the World fhail fubfertbe to the condemnation of all fuch principles, and prallices (i. e. in your own v ords, of fuch principles as deftroy the peace of Nations with Fires y and Maffacres, and rob Soveraigns of their Crowns, and Subjects of their Liberties) for I am Cure, there was a time, when all Roman-Catholicks were not of that mind, when the League was rampant againft Henry 3. and 4. of France, in which one of them actually fell, and by the principles of which the other alfo was murthered ■, (not to mention, what the Emperors Henry 4. and 5 . and our King John fuffered) and when the Varifian, and lrijb Maff acres were fufficient proofs to the contrary. Nor is it poflible, even now, to make good your promife, fince I have told you already, what the belief of the Spanijh, Netherlands and Hungarian Churches are in this point, beiides what the Italians hold. Now againft all this Do&rine you have nothing to objett, but that this Doctrine hath been con- demn'd * in France by the Ecclejiafticks there, and * p4« »$»!*• by the Univerfities ofCaen,Rhemes, Voi flier s,&q. all *"" 5'' which Unherfities are within the one Kingdom of France, fo that (tho there be no need of coniidering the Argument, becaufe it is only the fentiment of one National church againft the reft of what you call Catholic!^ Chriflendom) if I make it appear, that the French Church hath not always been of this belief, and (38) and perhaps is not fo now, then all, that you fay up- on that Topickj will be far from proving your affer- tion ', while withal I profefs, that if what I am a- bout to fay doth not reach fo far as a convi&ion,and be only a well-meant Lfiay, yet the caufe, which I maintain ought not to be prejudiced by it, becaufe the main polition about the rights of Princes hath been already proved by other arguments, and autho- rities. And to evince this, I mall purfue the method * Caivinifmt, which the famous* Monfieur Jurieu hath laid down, &fa^Vfs adding here, and there my own obfervations. p!zrul lb. 3. If therefore this be, and always hath been the Dodlrine of 'the Gallican Church, then you havefta- ted your argument aright, but if it hath not been al- ways their belief, then the prefent Gallican Church may be as well miftaken, as the former, and if fo, where is its authority ? befides,ifthe.Fm2c£ Church do condemn the Depoiing Dodtrine, and all the reft .of the Qatholick^ World do affert it, then the Tradi- tion is not on the fide of the French Church, though never defin'd as a matter of Faith by a general Coun- cil Now to prove, that the Depofing Do&rine hath been the Opinion of the Gallican Church, I fliall pro- duce one remarkable lnmfnce, and that is, the de- pofitionof Qhilderick^ and the introducing of Tepin I the fit ji King ofthefecond race ) into "his Throne, * Gi*ard. di and I iliaLl briefly tell the ftory out of the. French HMandt- ^ Hi fieri an ^ that I have now ■ by me, who relates, u^uitfrc. " $BM &5K* after his Conqueft.of the ' Sarazhis did ' fo honour, and reverence the Clergy, and repair'd t( fo many of their Temples, that had been ruined, '■ tl -iat the moft holy men of that time thought him ""a Saint, whereupon aiming at the C 'rewn, and ■" finding rioting flick in his way, but the Oath, " which (39) Ct which the French had given to their King, he feat *k to the Pope ( whom he had before obliged) for " his difpenfation ( Pepin having already gained the '• greateft part of the Nobility, EcclefiajticJ^s, and '* Commons to his party ) the Pope readily granted a 44 difpenfation, the ( lergy, as well as the Nobility, " and ommons acquiefc't in what was done, ac- " knowledging Pepin for their rightful King, and u thrufting Childerick^ into a Monajiery ; and fo do Paulas ^Smilius, and others alfo relate the (lory, and among them Cardinal Perron, and * Monfieur Meze- * Cb. chiik- ray fays, that this was very likely done in that gene- ™*3'**ii** ral AJfembly held in March, An, 751. The Eijhops being there in great numbers, and Boniface Arch- Bijbopoi Mentz in the head of them, who declared to the reft of the AfTembly the validity of the Popes anfwer j and he intimates the reafon, why they complied fo readily with Pepin, becauie he gave them a great (hare in the Government. It is true, what our King f fames obferves, that f Decumh the elder Hifiorians, Ado Viennenfis, &c. fay, that Pnjtoriy* the States had dethron'd Qhilderick^ and only got the 19' i opes confent to it, and confirmation of it, and fo does * Mezeray, and Monfieur f Maimbitrge, who is * VU fupr. zealous in the cafe againft the Papal power of depofing; \^^r'ch but which way foever Childeric^wei'Q depofed, his ofRoxe, and depofition is a confirmation of what I undertake to h^r Biftops. prove -, for if thePope did it, and the French Clergy c confented, or the three Eftates in France did it ( of which the Clergy are the firft ) and the Pope con- fented, it is all one, the matter of Faclt being plain, that they both thought it lawful to depofe their Prince ( for alefs crime than Hereiie ) becaufe he was dull, and unfit for Government. And we alfo know, F that (4o) that when the Line of Pepin was laid afide, and Hugh C apet ( the firfl King of the third Race ) came to the Crown, there was aright Heir of the Carolo- vinian, or fecond Race of Kings alive, viz. C harles Duke ofAuftratia, or Lorrain, who was alfo laid aiide by the confent of the States, of which the Clergy * vb.fipr.an. were thechiefeft ■■, it being * Monfeeur Mezerays ob- 752. fervations, that Charles of Lorrain, the laft Male of the Line of Pepin, was deprived of the Crown, as^ + #. «. 987. Childerick. had been 5 and the fame t judicious Hifto- rian elfewhere gives an account, how it was done, that Charles being a Vaffal to another King, and a ftranger to his own Country, Hugh Capet being ve- ry powerful, and efteemed, was Proclaimed King at Noyon in anAnembly of theLordSjand in a little while after Anointed, and Crowned by the Archbijhop of Rheims, not one of thofe, who were prefent at either Solemnity, claiming for Charles, but all giving their Oaths as well in writing, as by word of mouth to his Enemy $ and when Archbijhop Arnold, Brother to Charles was taken with him, the Bijhops of France AfTembled in Coumil at Rheims, degraded him of his Prelature for breaking his Oath to King Hugh,where- as all his crime was the aflifting Charles of Lorrain, who was his lawful Prince. But to come nearer home.Inthe time of the League it is very plain, that the Ecclefiaflicks generally de- clared for the Leaguers, and allowed of the depo- (ition of the two Kings, Henry 3. and 4. And whereas you may objed, that fome Popijb Bijhops, and many of the Vopijh Nobility continued with Henry 3. to his death, and after that execrable parricide, with his * An. i58p. Succeffor Henry 4. yet D'AvilaftheBifhop of*' Rh" ez, and * Mezeray, to name no other Hiftorians, fay, that after O) *' after that barbarous affaflinate, the Catholicks, who ** were the greater part of the Army,met,and,though " fome few were for adhering to the King without 44 any conditions, yet the greater! part thought them- " felves bound to obferve Divine, before humane Laws, " (as they phras'd it) and at iaft both parties united " in one upon thefe terms, that they would declare l< the King of Navarre King of France upon conditi- " on, that he would change his Religion, iince it " would be ftrange to their confciences, and to the " whole hriftian World, that one (hould be efta- u blifht King of France, who wasnoC^0//c^where- " upon ( many Prelates in the Camp declining even u this moderate courfe ) the agreement was made by " a writing mutually figned,wherein the King fwears, " and promifes upon the word of a King, to caufe " himfelf to be inftrucled in the Catholic/^ Reli- " gion within fix Months &c. and to maintain the " Catholick.Religion, &c and yet at laft this did not " pleafe all,but many went over to the Leaguers.Now here you fee all the Bijhops of France ( for they were all either of the party of the league, and it is not doubted,what their Opinion was,or of the Court par- ty,) were of Opinion,that the King of France (hould not be acknowledg'd, their rightful Soveraign, un- lefs he declared for the Roman Catholick,. Religion, nor would his own party admit him, till he had fo pro- mift, and fworn, as the Leaguers would not admit him, when he had fo done •, and this is worth the re- membring, that his own party, thinking he would dally with them, fet him a certain number of days, wherein to give them his refolution-, and in all their conferences with the Leaguers, the I'opjjh Lords, who wereFriends XoHenry 4.made this their Apology. And F 2 upon r4o upon thefe terms, fays D'Avila, the Duke of Mayenne- himfelf promift by J'tlieroy his Agent to acknowledge him the King of France, though at the fame time the v opes Legatejdnd the Sorbon had made a Decree, that no agreement fhould be made with the Hereticks,axv\ particularly with Henry of Bourbon, by which paflage you may fee, what was the Opinion of the Society of the Sorbon at that junc1:ure,as by what elfe was done you may know the Opinion of the Prelates. And further theBifbop of Rhodez confefTes/ That if l' the Duke of Mayenne the head of the Leaguers had 41 upon the importunity of the Pope, &c. declared a- " nother King of France, upon that nomination there " was much appearance,and likely hood, that all the r( CatholickPoteni ates of Qbriftendom would have ac- " knowledg'd that King,whom the States mould have 41 Elected, that the Clergy would have done the like, " and the Nobility ;and People, who followed not Hen- *' ry 4. But becaufe he had the Title of Kmg, and " would have made no confcience to have quitted him *c for another, to whom the States had granted it. And at laft hefubjoins, " That it was high time for 4< Henry 4. to enter into the bofom of the Church,or " to refolve on a War, of which pofllbly he might ' never fee the end. Thefe things fucceeded the death of Henry 3. But there were many remarkable accidents,that preceded it,which give, you an account of the Opinion of the French Church of that Age. We know, the Sorbon is, and hath always been accounted the defender of the * v. UAvxi GaMican Liberties,and yet in the * time of the League &c the wholeColledge(exceptJohannes Faber the Dean?md two Senior Doctors ) unanimoufly determin'd, that Henry 3. by reafon of the Murther of the Duke, and Cardinal (*3) Cardinal of Guife had forfeited his right* to the Crown,and that hisSubje&s were free from their CW/> of Allegiance j nor were Fiber, und the other two Dif- fenters(fays jfor*V«)diiiatisned as to the point of Law. i. e. Whether the King were depcfMe, or not, but as to the matter offaft, whether the crimes charged on him were true, or not, or if true, whether they deferv'd fo heavy a cenfure $ and when the Ambaila- dor of the King of France urged the Pope,Sixtm 5. to condemn the determination of the Sorbon with this argument, that fuch a burinefs did belong to CbrijFs Vicar, and not to a petulant Colledge coniifting of a few paflionate corrupted perfons j yet the Pope liked the cenfure too well to condemn it. Befides, two or three diflenters in fo great a body, fignifie nothing 5 for, had it been in an Affembly of the Clergy, or in a General Council, the majority would eafily iiave out- weighed fo fmall a number of contrary Votes -, (and if the Syndic /{.Ether's averting the Right of Princes, makes this no Decree of the Sorbon, then the Syndic^ Richer 's afTertion, An. 161 1. in his Book de Ecclejia- flica, tsf politico, poteftate is enough to prove, that the Sorbon does not acknowledge the Government of the Church to be Monarchical) nor were the Sorbonijh wanting to countenance this their affertion, order- ing Boucher, and others to preach up the Authority of the Vope in fuch cafes,and the Jultice of the Kings Depofition 5 and there was a Book written in de- fence of the Cenfure ( the Author of it believed to be our learned Stapleton, by others more likely, to to be the above named Boucher) de jufia abdicatione Henrici 3. and to make it appear, that the Aili- ftants of the League lookt on it as a quarrel on the behalf of Religion 3 it is remarkable, that the DM? of (44) of Parma left his own, and the publick concerns in Flanders in a very ill pofture* only that he might re-enforce the League, and relieve Paris, which was likely to have fallen into the hands of Henry 4. who beiieged it. And now we are come to the Times, that fuc- ceeded the Parricide of Henry the Great, ( who, tho never fo heartily reconciled to the Church of Rome, was never forgiven the fin of his firft Apoftafie, as they called it, till his death ) in the minority of whofe Son Lewk 13. When the third Eft ate would have pa ft a Law, that the King was depofable for no caufe whatever, the Clergy violently oppofed it, and ordered the Cardinal de F err on to make a Speech againft it, which after they had examin'd, and ap- proved of in the Chamber Ecclejiaftic^, they attend- ed him to the convention of the three Eftates, where he pronounc't it An. 161 5. (which Speech our King James learnedly anfwerd in his declaratio pro jure re- gio, where you may fee it proved, that the Cardinal took upon him to afTert,that the Pope or the Church had power to depofe Princes, and that it was uni- verfally owned in France ever frnce their Schools had been opened $ and the event made it appear, what the deiign of the Speech was, after which the third Eft ate faw it impoffible to go on with their defign fuccefsfully, and fo declin'd it) and whatever * vb. par. c. F*Maimburge fays to the contrary ,yet his own ar- uu. gument confirms what I aflert, kk That when this tl difference happened between the Clergy, and the 4 third Eft ate ( the tivo Chambers, as he calls them ) " the Clergy inform'd Pope Paul the 5. in their an- " fwer to his Breve of Jan. 31. 161 5. Angebamur non u mediocriter, &c That they were troubled above " meafure (~4S) " meafure to fee Qatholicks tranfported with an un- " difcreet Zeal meddle with matters of Faith ( where " you may obferve that the depofing power is acknow- " kdg'd by them to be a matter of taith,earumreritm, u quxadfidem pertinent, though you deny it to be fo ) " which did not belong to the third Ejlate, who were " Lay-men, and Lawyers, but withal, they confefs, " that the determination of this point did belong to 11 the Church,/, e. to themfelves, and the Vopejmmem ••' banc authbritatem penes Ecclefiam, eofquefolos effe,quos " ilia fidelium gregi pr lifht, among which this Speech of Cardinal de Verron is printed, and approved, the whole fcope of which, Maimbourge himfelf confelles, is inconfiftent with the independent right of Princes, and their exemption from any depofing power. It is true, this Speech, that fo few years fince, was Printed among the Memoirs with fo much ap- plaufe, and approbation, is now ordered to be left out of them •, which is fo far from being an argu- ment to incline any man to acquiefce in the judgment of fuch a Church, that it may juftly affright him from confiding in fuch volatile changeable men, who in fuch weighty matters vary their Opinions fo fo often from one extreme to another. And the reafon is plain, the French Bijhops following the dictates of that Court; fo that iince the quarrel about the Regale, they have fought to ftoop the Fope, and probably to make his Election depeudon the prefent French King, as it did antiently on Charles the Great. And of this I could give fome likely proofs, but that the digreilion would be too long. But againft all this it is objected,That under the pre- fent King Lewis 1 4. the Sorbon, An. 1663. condemn'd even the indirect Forcer of the Fope over Trinces, and aflerted, that the King of France hath no other Su- periour but God ; to which we anfwer,that the fame Colledge did in the days of the League maintain the contrary, - as I have formerly proved •, and at laft the Sorbon is not the Reprefentative of the French Church; * cb. 5. p. 1/. nor can it be imagined, fays the * Author of the fecond Treatife againft the Oath of Allegiance, " That thofe u men, who took upon them to vary from the Cen- " fures, Decrees, or Definitions of Rome, would ever " go about to fet up an independent, or infallible " Chair in the Sorbon, and deliver their Opinion ei- " ther as an Article of Faith in it felf, or as a Rule of " Faiih to others. But the Objection is ftrengthened, That the Archbijhops, and Bijhops affembled at 'torts, An. 1682. as Representatives of the French Church, +r. Juruukbi did decree the fame $ to which we f anfwer, that ffr. the Decoration was made but by thirty or forty Tre- lates within the verge of the Court, whereas in a free National Council the contrary might have been determined. But put the cafe that this had been decreed in a full, and fee National Synod, yet neither could this have eftablifht an indefeaiible right j for I (47) I remember, that in the Convocation under Henry 8. the Kings Supremacy was decreed and eftabliiht by our Biihops ( even by Gardiner, Bonner, &c. who in all other things were zealous Catholicks) and yet I fup- pofe you will be loath to grant, that for that reafon the King had a juil Right to that Supremacy. And this alfo ferves to anfwer your Objection from the Deter- minations of the French Vniverfities againft the Depo- sing Doclrine, becaufe not onely the greateft part of the Vniverfities of Chriftenclom did allow of Henry the Eighth's Divorce from his firft Wife, which the Pope, and perhaps you, would not allow to be lawful ; but withal, the two moil famous Vniverfities of England, ( which to us are equivalent to all thofe in France ) and the mod famous Monafleries of the Kingdom, when this Queftion was propos'd to them, An aliquid Autoritatis in hoc regno Angliat Pont, Romano de jure competat, plufquam alii cuicunque Epifcopo extero ? Whe- ther the Pope had any lawful power in this Kingdom, more than any other forreign Prelate ? The Anfwer was generally return'd in the Negative. Beftdes, who knows not, that the generality of men fpeak as their hopes of Preferment lead them ? and that there was a great truth in that Obfervarion oi /Eneas Sylvius \ That many men wrote in vindication of the Pope's Authority, and few for the Authority of a Council, becaufe a Council gave no Dignities nor Be- nefices ; but the Pope&d. And I mould be glad to fee the prefent French Clergy deal with the prefent Pope (when he meddles out of his Sphere with the Crowns of Princes ) as their PredecefTors did with Gregory the Fourth, who under the pretext of being a Mediator between the Emperour Lewis the Debo- G naire, (48) uaire, and his Sons, promoted the Rebellion, and was fufpe&ed to come with a defigne to excommunicate tlie Emperour and his Biihops ; for they protefled, f Ant. A- -f Si excommunkaturus ad veniret, excommunicato a- Luio-.ici blret • L e« That if the Pope came to excommunicate PH. them, they would excommunicate him for atling contrary to the Authority of the ancient Canons. * Nouvci. And at lad we have Advice given us, * That June deLetcrts 2^- ^.1683. at Clermont in Auvergne, the Jefuits An. i62$.y pubhekly maintain'd four Thefes, in oppofition to the p. 71 5,&c. decifion of the French Clergy, An, 1 6 8 z. i . That al- though they call their Thefes Explanations of the Doclrine of the Gallican Church, the iirft Article of the Decree did not diminiih the fpccial Authority of the Churchover Kings and Princes Chriftian. 2.That the fecond Article was not intended to weaken the Monarchick Primacy of the Pope over the Church, 3. That by the third Article, they intended not to take from the Pope the Soveraign Power of difpenfing with Canons, &c. 4. That by the fourth Aiticle, they intended not to deprive the Pope of all Infallibi- lity in matters of Faith. Which Thefes, as far as I know, yet pafs uncenfured. And the Janfenift, who goes under the name of Rene Clerc Tonfure a I'Arche- vefque de Paris , in his Syjiem of the Theology of the Gallican Church extracledfrom their Memoires, proves, that the French Bijhops are not fuch Friends to Crown- ed heads, as they would appear to be ; and that they take the Power from the Pope onely to place it in themfelves' : affirming, That the French King cannot he judged Ly a Council except the French Bijhops be there, (implying, that then he may be judged ) as if the laft re fort were to them ; and that the Declarations of the (4?) the Pope againtf their King, ought not to be obeyed, till the Kingdom, confetti thereunto ; fo that if the Kingdom confent, the Depofition is lawful : with other fuch Portions. And the fame Author affirms, That where- asfome Englifh Gentlemen, Decemb. i. An. 1679. ad- dremng themfelves to fome Doclors of the Sorbon, had inclined them to decide for the lawfulnefs of our Oath of Allegiance the Archbijhop of Paris fent to them, that it was the King's pleafure they mould not decide it : which makes it plain, that the Allegiance of the French Church is founded on the Catholici Religion, and that an Heretical Prince hath not the fame Right with the mofl Chrifiian. And though fince that time f the Sorbon, An. 1686. ty.cauf. hath given its approbation of the Oath of Allegiance append!'<5, with the word Heretical in it, yet this is onely an ho- ned acknowledgement of the Rights of Princes, by one Colledge of learned men ; while in the fame year the Jefuits at Gaunt, in their Provincial Congregation, expreily condemn'd the taking of the faid Oath. And who knows, but the Sorbonifis of the next Age may do as their PredecefTors of the laft did in the time of the League, contradict all that hath lately been aflerted. Nor does the Condemnation fignifie any thing in your fence, fince even a General Council can- not define any thing to be heretical, unlefs it be de fide, and the belief required under the penalty of an Ana- thema : and when all this is done, if the matter be of Difcipline or Government you profefs, you may fafely refufe to obey the Council. To which Obfervation I will adde one Remark *Apobgie more : That though Monfieur +Arnald hath written in ckrgit G x vindi- (5°) vindication of the French Church, that they never owned the Depofing Dottrine, yet if he b« the Author of the Jefuits Morals, ( for though Monfienr PafchalhiS Nephew have the honour of the 13ook, yet all men be- lieve that Arnald had a great hand in the contriving it ) he hath not dealt fo ingenuoufly in this cafe, as he might : for when he quotes fo many PafJages out of the Moralifls of the Society, what liberty they give to violate Sacraments or Oaths , to Lye and Equivocate, and to break all Trufls,Vows, and Tromifes, he never fo much as touches on the many palpable Propofitions in their Books, which encourage and allow of the breach of Allegiance to Princes. I have little more to fubjoyn, but this: That whereas you appeal to the Council of Trent for the Faith of your Church, I have obferved in that Council fome things ( how cunningly foever the Decrees were contrived, and how warily foever they were penn'd) which feem not to accord fo well with your Catholick fSeff. 22. Principles. For inftance : i. + The Council fays, Si deSacrif ^ujs Jjxerit, &c. If any man fhail fay , that the Canon ' of the Mafs contains any Err ours in it, let him be Ana- *cap. 4. thema. And in another place * the Mafs is faid to be free from all Err our. Now if it be fo, I fuppofe fome of your Doctrines muft fall to theground, being con- futed by your Mafs. As, 1. The Doctrine outran- fulftantiation : for after the Confecration, the Prieft calls the Sacrament Bread and Wine; Offerimm panem fantlem vital azternaz, & calicemfalutis perpetual : And afterward defires God to look down upon it, as he did on the Sacrifices of Abel, Abraham, and Melchizedeck : And prays, That thofe things might be carried by the hands of the holy Angels of God into Heaven. For how are are thefe Exprefiions fuited to ChrhTs Corporeal Pre- fence ? 2. All the Prayers of the Mafs relate to a Communion, and fo are a confutation of private Mafs; and yet the Priefl in a private Mafs, when no one but himfelf receives, fays, Vt quotquot ex hac altaris, Sec. That as many of us as have received the moH holy Body of thy Son, &c. 3 . To inftance in no more, the Prayer for the Dead in this Canon doth not relate to Turga* tory : for the Priefl fays, Memento, Domini, &c. Re- member, 0 Lord, thy Servants, and thy Handmaids ( and then names the Perfons whom he is to pray for ) who have gone before us with the mark of Faith, and flee p in the fleep of Peace. Which are plain demonft rati- ons, that thofe Prayers were made before thofe new Doctrines and Practices were the Belief and Cuftoms of your Church, or elfe there are Errours in the Mafs, which the Council under an Anathema forbids any man to affirm. 2. The Council declares, f Epifcopos in Apoflolorum f sefl 25. locum fucceffiffe ; That Bifhops are the Succeffors ofthe^P 4- Apoflles : and if fo, then there being an equality a- mong the Apoflles , fo there is alfo among Bifhops ;. and where then is the Pope's Supereminent Power as SuccefTor to St. Peter > and how is he above his fel- low-BiQiops, if they all fucceed the Apoflles, to ufe St. Cyprian's Phrafe, Pari confordio & potejlatis, & ho- noris ; In an equal right to power and honour > 3. The Council * commands the interpretation of* Sett 4. Scripture according to the unanimous confent of the Fa- thers: and if fo, we are well aflured, that the Con- troverfies between us will be eafily decided on the fide of the Church of England, for to the Fathers we are ready to appeal. And CjO* And now after all this,fuffer me to aflure you, that though I love your generous dealing in the affix- t ropery ing y0ur Anathemas at the end of your f Book, f . 1 1 7^1 1 8." C wherein you deal much more candidly than many of your Brethren) yet I cannot but mind you, that you have left your felf and others, by reafon of the generality of your Expreflions, liberty to explain your meaning ; and therefore I have added fome Anathe- mas agreeable to your own notions of things, (if I underftand you aright ) to which I fhould be glad to find that you fincerely fay Amen; and it is as lawful for me, who am but a private perfon in the Englifh Church, as it is for you to do fo in the name of the Church of Rome. And withal, I do engage to make good, that all thefe Opinions which I propofe to be condemn'd, are maintain'd by fome Writers of the Church of Rome. i. He who pays true and proper Religious Worfhip to ' Images, let him he Anathema, Amen, 2. Whofoever confides in the Inter ceffion of Saints and Angels, as much as in that of J ejus Chriff,for Sal" vation, let him be Anathema. Amen. 3 . Whofoever believes the bleffed Virgin to have as much power in Heaven as her Son, and prays to her to command him, and begs from her, pardon of Sins, and the affurance of Salvation, let him be Anathe- ma. Amen. 4. He who does not believe that the Merits ofjefus ChriFi are the onely meritorious caufe of our Salva- tion, let him be Anathema. Amen. $. He who believes that a Papal Indulgence doth re- mit Sins, or deliver from eternal Death, let him be Anathema, Amen. 6* He (53) 6. He who believes that the performance of Ecclefi* I afikal Penances makes fatisfaclion for eternal ?u~ ■ nijhment due to his Sins, let him be Anathema. Amen. 7. He whofpeaks irreverently of Holy Scripture, and calls it JEiop's Fables, a Nofe of Wax , andunfensd Characters, &c. let him be Anathema. Amen. 8. He who believes that the Church hath power ( in a General Council, or otherwife ) to make additions to the Chriftian Faith , let him be Anathema. - Amen. 9. He who believes the Pope to have any perfonal In- fallibility, either e Cathedra, or in Conclave, let him be Anathema. Amen. 10. He who afferts, that the Pope, or any other, hath any power to depofe Princes, to difpence with their Subjecls Allegiance, and to authorize them to take ■ up Arms again H them, either upon the account of Herepe, or for any other caufe, let him be Anathe- ma. Amen. 1 1. He who afferts, that the Pope, or any other, hath any power to d/fpenfe with any Moral Law of God, and to give men a Licenfe to Murther, Forfwear, Lye, or Equivocate , let him be Anathema. A- men. 11. He who believes any thing contrary to the Word of Gcd, to Reafon, and Antiquity, let him be Ana- thema. Amen. 13. He who fays, that men are not bound to the obli- gation of the Ten Commandments , ( and among them, of what we call the Second, you a part of the FirH ) under pain of eternal Damnation, let him be Anathema, Amen. i\He (54) 1 4. He who thinks that Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks, and that Mental Refervation may be ufed with men of another Perfwafion, let him be A- nathema. Amen. 1 5. He who thinks that Attrition is enough to fit a man for Abfolution , let him be Anathema. A- men. 1 6. He who thinks that any thing befides a fincere and true Repentance, can bring a man to Heaven, let him be Anathema. Amen. 1 7. He who believes that the modem Miracles of the Blefjed Virgin, &c. are to be credited, as he cre- dits the Miracles of our Bleffed Saviour and his Apojiles recorded in Scripture, let him be Anathe- ma. Amen. 1 8. He who thinks Ignorance to be the Mother of De- votion, and wilfully hides the Holy Scriptures from the fight and knowledge of the People , let him be Anathema. Amen* 1 9. He who fays a man ought to obey his Superiours ( whether Civil or Ecclefiaftical) in things that are (inful, let him be Anathema. Amen. 2,0. He who maintains any other Doclrines , than what were eft ab lift d by ChriH and his Apoftles, and believd in the Primitive Church, let him be Ana- thema. Amen. Thefe I give you as a Specimen ; and when thefe are condemn'd, I fhall think my felf much more in- clinable to be reconciled, than now I am. And becaufe you are a private Perfon, and whate- ver you fay, is but one Dottors Opinion ; and becaufe your Writers differ where your Infallibility is fixt, whether in a General Council, or the Pope , and if in the (55) the Tope, whether in his (ingle Perfon, or m Conclave ; you will oblige the World, if you ufe your intereft to get thefe Doctrines Condemn'd by the Pope, ex Cathe- dra, ( and fo you will bind the Jefuits and others, who believe the Perfonal Infallibility) and by the. Con- clave of Cardinals, (for this will bind others of your Communion )and by ^Council of all the Prelates of your Church, ( and this will bind you, the French Church, and all others that call themfelves Roman Catholicks : ) for unlefs this be done, we are dill where we were. And I fhall tell you, that the regaining fo confiderable a part of the Proteftants, as the Church of England is, out of a (late otSchifm and Herefie, (as you are plea- fed in your great Charity to call it ) is a Reafon weighty enough to fummon fuch a Council, and to do what is required towards an Accommodation : and till this is done, all that you fay elfe, is but the fprink- ling of a little Holy Water, and gratis dittum. And this I write to you, becaufe you appear the Advocate of your Party, while I acknowledge that I make thefe Propofals onely as a private Perfon ; though I doubt not, but all the Prelates of the Church of England would rejoyce to fee (o much done towards the heal- ing of the Breaches of Chriflendom. Amen. And here I thought to have put a period to this Ejfay, had not your Vindication of your Reflections come to my hands ; upon which I cannot but bellow a few Remarks, while your learned Adverfary will take care of a more full Reply. In which, among o* ther things, you undertake to f prove, by feveral f Proteft, in (lances, That our Church is guilty of mifreprefenting V£?cal\t, yours, becaufe it impeaches the Papifis of Idolatry in the worfhipping of Images : and we acknowledge that (he H does does fo impeach you; but withal we affirm, that there is a great difference between what is fpoken by any man, or any Society of men, in a Homily or Ser- mon, and what is thetically laid down as an Article, or maintained in difputation, ( you your felves, as well as we, being often forc'd to make ufe of this diftinfri- on to falve many Sayings of the Fathers, that they wrere fpoken not Dogmatically, but Rhetorically; ) but we need not depend on this Anfwer, for our Homily does not fpeak of the Canons of your Councils, but of the received Opinions and Practices of your Church. Now that 'tis a current Opinion among many of your School-men, That the Image ought to have the fame Wor- fhip with the Prototype, I have already proved, out of Cardinal Bellarmine ; and that the Practice of the Common People in this cafe, was very difallowable, and much like the Idolatry of the Heathen, as I un- f SdT. 25. derftand the Trent-Council, is the Complaint in f ge- neral of thofe Fathers, and of fome other of your Writers in particular : fo that herein the Homily fpeaks but the fence of your own Authors, and with Juftice, cenfures the Ufages of the People of your Commu- .^ ibid. nion. And if what your * Council fays, be true, That the Idolatry of the Heathens did conftft in their putting their truH in their Idols> he who confiders how much more Worfhip there is paid to the fame Images of the Bleffed Virgin, ( at Loretto, Monferrat, &c. ) than to other her Images elfewhere, ( which can as well put the People in mind of the Mother of God, as thofe fa- mous Shrines ) will be perfwaded, that the generality of your Communion put their trufl alfoin the Image, as did the Heathens in their Idols. Now, to vindicate your Church from Idolatry in this (57) this cafe, though you f acknowledge, Tliat you do J protcft\ give Religious Honour to Images ', yet you fay , That that Honour cannot he called Idolatry, unlefi it makes a God of that to which it is paid. But does not the Se- cond Commandment ( as we reckon them ) forbid the worshipping of the true God by an Image > And do not the word of Idolaters fay, That they do not wor- fhip the Image, but the God, who is reprefented by if? Doth not Celfits fay fo much on the behalf of the Gentile Idolaters to Origen * , 77* $ x) «W, &c. Who, * Lib. 7. but a perfecl Fool, thinks an Image made of Stone or^-}il- Timber, ofBrafi or Gold, to he a God > 6cc. And for ceif. the Jews, when they fell into Idolatry in the Wilder- nefs, by worfhipping the Golden Calf, they onely wor- ihipt it as a reprefentation of the true God : for the Feaft that was let apart for it, is called f a FeasJ heldf Exod. to Jehovah, which is the incommunicable Name of 32, 5* the onely true God. ( And the like might be faid of the Calves in Dan and Bethel. ) But perhaps you are of the opinion of fome men of Eminence in your own Communion, ( and whofe Books have never been, that I know of, condemn'd ) who think that the Worlhip of the Golden Calf was not Idolatry : for fo Moncoeus in his Aaron Purgatm exprefly affirms , as * Greg, de Valentia in his Apologetic for Idolatry, ( a *c.7.p.49r bold Title for a Book written by a Chriftian Prieft ! ) argues from 1 Vet. 4. 3 . that becaufe the Apoftle doth forbid unlawful Idolatries, ( ahominahle Idolatries, as our Tranflation renders it ) that therefore there is fome Idolatry that is lawful, which is that of the \Vor- /hip of Images. But you object, f that we our/elves are hy this Ar- f Proteft. gument guilty of Idolatry, hy bowing to the Altar , and Pop' ^ 34' Hz to (58) to the Name efjefus, and by kneeling at the Sacrament, Whereas, I mult tell you, that we bow not to the Altar, but towards it, toward the Eatfy where the Chriftian Altar always ufed to (land, ( and toward which part of Heaven the Primitive Chriftia'ns ufed to direct even their private Devotions ; ) nor do we bow to the Name, but at the Recital of the Name of our blefled Saviour : fo that we pay no Religious Worfhip to the Altar, or to the Syllables of that Ve- nerable Name, ( as you confefs you do to Images ) and when we kneel, we profefs we do not worfhip the Sacramental Elements, nor the Body and Bloud of Chrift hid under the Accidents of Bread and Wine ; but we kneel, becaufe then we pray, and we worfhip God, to whom we direct our Prayers : fo that thefe actions are not external acts of Adoration to any thing that is feen, or heard, but onely to God. But by this way of arguing, I perceive, theCaufe wants afliftance, when you borrow Arguments from our Diflenters to aflault our Church with : for thefe are their little Ob- jections that have been fo often hift off the Stage. You further tell us, That it is the intention of the Per/on who pays the Worfhip, that makes the Worfhip either idolatrous or lawful. And if fo, pray tell me, if a Chriftian in the Eaft Indies mould go into a Pagod, and bow down before one of their Images, and pay it in all refpects the fame outward Adoration that its molt bigotted Votaries offer it, and at the fame time intend his Worfliip towards the blejfed Trinity, does this man, by virtue of his intention, efcape the guilt of: Idolatry > And I put you this Queftion the more willingly, becaufe fome of your Jejuits have determi- ned it in the affirmitive, and acquit the votary of Ido- latry, (55>) tatiy> and I would willingly know your Opinion : for if you confult the + Provincial Letters, the Author oft *■«• *■ them will tell you, that the Jefuits in China, and o- LacCoion! ther places of the Indies, taught the People that they An. 1658. might publickly worihip the Idols of the Country, Cacin choan, and Keumfucum, fo they directed this A- doration of theirs intentionally to the Image of our blefled Saviour hid under their Cloaths ; and that this is no Calumny, the fame Author fays*, That the* p. 6u- Practice was complain'd of, and cenfured at Rome , July 9. An. 1646. But notwithftanding that Cenfure, if your" way of arguing be good, the Practice is ftill. lawful. Now to evade your Adverfaries Argument, That intention cannot alter the nature of aft ions, which are de» termind by either Divine or Humane Law ; you lbift the force of the reafoning,by making a Plea from the fame Principle for the Quakers, ( and probably it is well done of you, to turn. Advocate for a Setl which owes its Original, to the Jefuits, and other Emiffaries of your own Church ) becaufe, 'tf intention cannot al- ter the nature of atlions determined by Law., no Oaths can be lawful, nor the payment of civil Honour al- lowed of, becaufe the Scripture fays, Swear not at all, and let your communication be yea, yea, nay, nay, and you fhall not be called Mafler, &c. And the Anfwer would fignifie fomething, if you could mew us any place of Scripture where fuch Worfhip hath been paid to Ima- ges, notwithftanding the divine determination to the contrary, as we can fliew you for the allowance of thofe things which you object : for we there read, that notwithftanding the prohibition, the Apoftles did allow of the Title Lord, or Sir, or Mafler; for St. lip. O) t johan. phllip exprefl no diflike, when + the Greeks gave him *Atfs 16. ^lat appellation ; nor St. Paul and Silas, * when the .30. Jaylor at Philippi treated them with the fame Lan- guage. And by Swear not at all, &c. the Holy Writ onely forbids vain and rafli Swearing, and Perjury, and double Dealing, &c. for it in other places tolerates and requires Oaths, which, fays the Apoflle, are the end ofaliftrife. After which, you will do w7ell to fhew any place of Holy Scripture, that countenances the Worfkip of Images, and we (hall willingly acknowledge the parity of Reafon : for it is not the intention of the Perfon commanded,but of theLawgiver,that makes an adion lawful : for did a mans own intention legi- timate his actions that are otherwife forbidden by any Law divine or humane, then a man may do evil, that good may come there of exprefly againfl St. Paul ; a man may commit Murther, Sacriledge, and every other grofs fin, as fome men have done, and plead for him- fcif, that he intended nothing but Reformation, and the advancement of Religion ; as the men in our Sa- viour's time perfecuted the Apoflles to death, with an intention to do Godfervice : but the intention of the Lawgiver, when made known, is that which legiti- mates the adtions of the fubjecl: either in matters purely civil, or in matters of Religion, of which latter fort is the Worfhip of Images-, which I mall acknow- ledge to be lawful, when you ihall have fhewn that it is agreeable to the intention of our fupreme Law- giver. But the further management of this Argument, I leave to your other Antagonift, while I oblerve, that tProteft. f you fliift him off' with no other Anfwer, but this : Pop.;. 25. That a Quedion or two is (in his opinion) a confuta- tion (6t) tion of the Reflefter, becaufe you are ask'd, Whether all your Reprefentations are conformable to the fenje of the Trent-Council and Catechijm ? which I have al- ready proved they are not , particularly in the Do- ftrine of the ajfiftance of Angels and Saints, which you fay, confifts onely in their Prayers, while the Council and Catechifm, beiides their Interceffion, mention their Merits and Aid. And whereas, when he objects a- gainft the Pope's licenjing the Bijliop of Condom's Book, that Canus with judgment avers, That whatever the Pope determines privately, malicioufly, and inconfi- derately, is not to be accounted the judgment of the Apo- (lolick See; you rejoyn, that the Pope's private deter- mination of any Opinion, doth not hinder it from be- ing the judgment of the Apoftolick See, unlefs it be alfo determined malicioufly and inconfiderately ; I cannot underftand Canus in that fence, but that, whatever is determined either privately, or malicioufly, or hconfir derately, is not the judgment of the Apojhlick See ; for if this be not fo, then a private determination, how malicious foever it can be, fo it be upon due confede- ration, may be {.he judgment of the Apoftolick See. And who knows, but the prefent Popes allowance of the Bijhop of Condoms Book, may be the product of malice, of his fpleen againfl the French Hereticks, as he calls them, for whofe Extirpation he hath fo fo- lemnly by his Letters thanked the French King ? And if Malice may invalidate the Papal Judgment , why may not Favour, Ajfeclion, or Fear, when they inter- pofe in fiich Determinations, render them equally in- valid ? And if fo, why may not the reafon of the pre- fent Popes not cenfuring the French Clergie in the matters relating to the Papal Power over Princes, be his fear, left that Victorious Prince (hould either fet up up a Patriarch of liisown in France , or by an Army eftabliih his Right in Italy, and make the Pope depend on him for his Ele&ion. But to confirm the Authority of the B/Jhop of Con* doms Book, you fay, That it was printed at Rome, tranflated into divers Languages, and attefled ly the Pope and divers Cardinals, Sic. Will you allow of all that hath been publilTi'd for Catholick Doclrine at Rome, with the fame or the like approbation ? Were not Cardinal Earonims Annales ( to inftance onely in one Book ) printed at Rome in the Prefs belonging to the yatican-PahcQ? Did not Pope Sixtus V. prefix a very large Epiftle in commendation of the Author, and the Work ? Was it not magnified by the Roman Cardinals ? Was it not tranflated into Italian, German, Polifh, and other Languages, and the two fir Ft Tomes of it into Arabick > Now if fuch a Recommendation be fuffi« cient to make known the Sentiments of your Church, then how comes it to pafs, that thofe Ecclefiaftical Annals are not received in France in thofe things re- lating to Regal Power, nor in Spain in what relates to the Right to the Kingdom of Sicily? And if you do allow of the Annals, you muft not onely interfere with the fore-named Churches of your Communion, but you muft alfo acknowledge, what you will be loath to own, that the Pope hath a right to difpofe of his Ma- jefties Kingdoms, as in truth that Cardinal hath inti- tuled him to almoft ail the other Kingdoms of the World by name. t p. $o. ft is a^° obfervable, that the Bifliop of f Condom, Edit. No- when he fpeaks of the Pope, mentions the Primacy ; rifl: but for the Depofing Doclrine, he fays, It is not ncceffary to to /peak of it ; adding in general, That atl Catholicks acknowledge a Head efl alii ft) d by God to conduct his whole Flock in his paths, which thofe who love Concord among Brethren, and Ecclejiaftical Vnanimity, will moH wil- lingly acknowledge. By which expreffion every man is left to his own Sentiments in that point ; and it is no wonder, that the Pope ( though he does believe his own Power of Depojing Princes ) doth approve of this Book, for the Phrafe of conducting the whole Flock of Christ, is as eafily to be conftrued, zspafce ozes meas, to fignifie the Depojing of Princes whenever the Pope pleales. So that we fee, that even this feeming Enemy of the Depojing Doftrine, dares not openly condemn it, but leaves it as a probable Opinion, and what 'tis not neceffary to /peak of ; fo that every Pope hath Hill his liberty to declare any Prince a Heretick, and then to proceed to Excommunicate, and toDepofe him; af- ter which, a Clement > a Ravilliac, or any other Ada- fine, may proceed to murther him, becaufe he him- felf alfo is left at liberty to believe that the Pope is in the right, when he hath depofed a Prince, and that he ought, as much as lies in him, to obey him in bring- ing fuch Criminals to condign puniffiment. At laft f you tell us, That a man may he admitted t Proteft. into your Church, notwithftanding his refufal to admit the op' ^ ' Depojing Dotlrine, and the Pope's Infallibility, but as they are ftated by the Reprefenter, i. e. not as Articles of Faith. But this feems to imply, that no man of your Communion lhall dare to condemn the Doctrines, which muft {till be look'd on as probable and difpu- table ; fo that the fafety of Princes and Kingdoms, and the guidance of the Church in matters of Faith ( which depend on the plain {taring of the Popes Power and I /»- Infallibility ) muft ftill be left at the mercy of opini- onative men, who may take liberty to difpute and write about thefe great and weighty points pro and con, as themfelves think fit. And whereas your Adverfary quotes Betlarmim, and Canw, That General Councils cannot erre even in De- crees of Difcipline and Government ( decrera morum ) when they relate to things neceffary to Salvation, and con- * Proteft. cern the whole Church, you * deny, that the Depofmg Pop. p. 32. Q0ftrine JS 0f that nature. But are not the plain Offi- ces of Morality neceffary to Salvation, as well as Ar- ticles of Faith ? If not, then nothing but Infidelity damns a man ; and if a man's Faith be Orthodox, it is no matter for his Converfation : If they are neceffa- ry, is not Obedience to Princes one of the moral Com- mands of God ? And if fo, is not the practice of that Obedience neceflary to Salvation? and is not Difobe- dience ( which neceflarily follows the Depofing Do- Brine ) a great fin ? And if fo, deflrucf ive of the hopes of Salvation. And that it concerns the whole Church, is eafily proved, becaufe Princes are its Nur- fing-Fathers ; and what Evils have fallen upon your own Church by fuch rafh Attempts, fome of your own Authors will tell you, is plain from the inftance of Henry VIII. Befides, the whole Chriftian Church and its Welfare, is concern'd in the Doctrine : for though all the Princes of Chriflendom have never been depoled at once, yet what is done in one Country, may be done throughout all Chriflendom, and fo the whole Church actually concern'd in the fad effects of the Doctrine : And had the Empire been as intire un- der Henry IV, as it was under the elder Ernperours, his Depofition had actually concern'd the whole Church. And (H And becaufe you call that aflertion, that the Pope hath not condemn d the no-depofing Powert becaufe he wants power fo fo do , an Oracle, and fay, you look for an Argument to prove it. ft is plain from Hiftory, that thole Popes who have been rich, and flout, and pow- erful, have adventured on the practice of Depofmg ( while others of lower Spirits, lefs Wealth and Hauglv tinefs, have been afraid of the Attempt ) we are not ignorant what the Vitiates of Pope Gregory VII. are, and how bufie he was, being back'd by the Countefi Maud, who fupported him with her interest ; nor what Innocent III, Sixtits V, and fome others have done in imitation of him. Nor is it unknown to the World, what Pope Paul V. thundered againfl the Republick of Venice, What Phis V. did here in England, and InnocentX. in Ireland during the Rebellion there: for what was it that encouraged thofe hot Popes to go fo far, but that they thought their interefr, at leafl in the Church-men, fo great, that the Countries would immediately have fhaken off their Soveraigns ? And what is it that caufes the prefent Pope to fpare the French King about the Regale, but that he is afraid of him, and knows he wants power to compel him? Nor need the Argument feem fo ridiculous to you, fince Cardinal Bellarmine ( a man from whom mofl of your Writers borrow all their Materials ) doth not onely affirm, that the Primitive Chriflians under the Heathen Emperours, did not take up Arms againfl them, becaufe they wanted power , but avers againfl Barclay f,that the ancient Popes did not exert their Aw> f Tom. ?. thority again ft the EmperoursConfaniius and Valens>°Per,5-6» &c. not becaufe they bad no right , fed quod Reges, &c. &c. but becaufe without great damage the Church could I i not (66) not compel them ; but that the Popes did exert their Authority againH Leo Ifauricus, Henry IV. and Chil- deric, becaufe they were able to compel them. That Ju- lian was very powerful, and attended with many armed , Legions, againH which an unarm d Multitude fgnifed nothing ; that it was afalfhood that all his Army were Chriftians , and that St. Gregory affirms , that the Church made ufe of no other Remedy but her Tears, quia decrant vires , becaufe jhe wanted Jlrength to re /iff the Tyranny. So that, pray anfwer your own Cardinal, .or el fe acknowledge, that your Adverfary fpeaks fuch Oracles as may be confirm'd from fome other Topick, befides the authority of the Ailertor. And now I (hall put a period to thefe Remarks, when I have minded you of two things which are your own Concefiionsv *Proteft. i. 77;.?/ * upon the consideration of what is here nPi8 '?' dargd, the falvation of every Roman CatholiclCs Soul depends, that their Eternity is at flake ; and that if Popery be guilty of what your Anfwerer fays it is, it can- not enter into your thoughts, that there is any room for it ( or its Followers ) in Heaven :. That all our Mar- tyrs died for a good Caufe, and are doubtlefi in Heaven : That fuch Tenents bid open defiance to true Hon eft y and Chri/lianity, jlrike at the Worlds Redeemer, and are impoffible to be entertain d by any, who is one degree a- bove a BeaH. Thefe are the Conclufions I acknow- ledge, of a wife, a modeft, and a good man ; but then it behoves you ferioufly to confider whether this Charge be not true, and whether your Adverfary be not to be acquitted of wronging your Church, ( of which the impartial Reader will be the mod compe- tent C*7) tent Judge ) and withal to think, whether thofe School-men, and other Writers of your Communion, that do own all the Doctrines charg'd upon you, be not by your own Verdict, Men of no Honefty, no Reli- gion, and but one degree above Beafts : For by this ConcefTion every unbyaft perfon is able, to fatisfte himfelf which is the true Religion, that which allows its Followers toafiert the Doctrine of Depojing Princes, to pay Religious Worfhip to Irnqgfs, to expect more than interceffion from Saints, Angels, &c. or that which is directed by the Revelations made in Holy Scri- ptures, and by the unanimous Interpretations made of thofe Scriptures by the ancient Fathers, as. the Church of England exprefly doth. 2. That you follow, the methods of the French Church [ which is fo far from being the Cat ho lick Church, even in your fence of the word, that it is but a fmall part of it] from them you. take your Principles, from the Bijfcop of Condom, and Monfieui "Veron ; and after their Example, you make your complaints of being mifreprefented': for fo the Gallican Bijhops did in their late general A [femblies, \\e\6Jitly 1 1. An. 1685*. complain oi being mifreprefented '. and of t he Calumnies, Injuries, and Falfities, which the Reformed Churches lay to their charge ; denting that King, in their Petition prefixt to the Acls of thit Affembly, to revoke all the Editls made in behalf of the Hugonots, becaufe permit- tedonely in times of difiurbance, and for reafons which no longer fubfiH : which though they afterwards modifie and limit onely to the palling an Editl to forbid the calumniating their Religion , yet every confidering man fees what they aim at. And upon this Addrefs the King pad an Editl, Augi}. forbidding all the Reformed Reformed to preach or write any thing againft the Ca- tholick Religion, either dire&ly or indirectly, arKl to allow them the liberty of the Prefs oneiy for printing the Confejfion of their Faith, their Prayers, and the Rules of their Difcipline, but no other Books written by the Reformed Divines of that Kingdom ; and what the clefts of that and other Editts have been, every wife Obferver hath feen. " May our blefled and holy Saviour, the true and " undoubted Head of the Catholick Church, heal all " the Breaches thereof, convert all Hereticks to the " knowledge of the Truth ; fhame, and bring back " all Schifmaticks into the Unity of his Myftical Body, " that we may be one Sheepfold under one Shepherd, " the Bifhop of our Souls. Amen. FINIS. Advertifement of BOOKS Printed for Samuel Smith at the Princes Arms in St, TauFs Church- yard. TH E Vanity of all Pretences for Tolleraticn, wherein the Late Pleas for Tolleration are fully anfwered ; and the Popular Arguments drawn from the Practice of the United Netherlands are dated at large, and fhewn to be weak, fallacious, and ineffi- cient. Quarto. The Book of Bertram or Ratramnus, Prieft and Monk of Cor bey, concerning the Body and.Bloud of the Lord, in Latine: With a New Englim Tranflation more exaft than the former. Alfo an Hiftorical Difc fertation concerning the Author and this Work, where- in both are vindicated from the Exceptions of the Writers of the Church of Rome. Proteftancy proved Safer than Popery, by a late Convert to the Church of England. Mifcellanea in qui I us Continentur pramonitio ad Letlorem de infantum Communiene apud Graicos. De- fenfio Libri de Graicaz Ecclef.Jlatu contra Objecl. Autho ris Hift. Critical) fuperfde @ Ritibus orient ahum. Bre~ vis & fuccintla Narratio de Vita.ftudiis Geftis, & Mar- tyrio D. Cyrilli Jjucarii , Patriarchs Conflantinopoli- tani. Comment atio de Hymnis matutino & Vefpertino Gr&* coram. Exercitatio Theologica de Caujjsremediifque dijji- diorutn Books fold by Sam. Smith. diorum qua orbem Chrifiianum hodie affligunt. Authore Thoma Smith, Ecclef.Angl. Presbyt. 1 686. O&avo. Hiftory of the Original and Progrefs of Ecclefiafti- cal Revenues. By the Learned P. Simon. O&avo. Enquiry after Happinefs, by the Author of Prafiical Chrifliamty. O&avo. The Duty of Servants : containing,, i. How Pa^ rents ought to breed up their Children, that they may be fit to be employed and trufted. 2, How Servants may wifely chufe a Service, 3, How they are to behave themfeJves in it, in difcharging their Duty towards Gcd, their Matter, and themfelves, with Prayers fuited to each Duty. To which is ad- ded a Difcourfe of the Sacrament, intended chiefly for Servants. By the Author of Practical Chriftianity. Otlavo. ' . ■ Miracles, Works above and contrary to Nature: or, an Anfwer to a Jate Tranflation out of Spiwfas Trattatus Theolog. Politicus, Mr. Hobbs's Leviathan^ &c. Quarto. A Sermon about Frequent Communion. By Dr. fho. Smith. Quarto. ^W w niHcl, PAPISTS PROTESTIN cT Againft l^otettmtt ^opetp* I N Anfvver to a Difcourfe Entituled, A Tapift not Mif-reprefented by Troteftants. BEING A VINDICATION Of the Tapifi Mifreprefented and Keprefented, And the nothing , but what they exprefl/ profefs to believe, and what they praciife : And in this one AfTertion vouches for the Truth of all that Infamy, and profanenefs which is laid at their doors. And fo gives allurance, that their complaint of being Mifcreprefented is but vain and idle ; for that, what they call a Mifreprefentation, is in rea- lity a Reprefentation in all the material Points, of the avowed, Doffrine and Practice of the Church of Rome. P> 2 That the Papi/l Represented (excepting fbme very few cafes ) profenes to believe all that the Papift Mifrepre- fented is charg'd with. This the beft and Iwifeft Men, hep. 2. fays (viz,.oftht Reformation,) have believed of them. And in Fox's book of Martyrs we read how many were burnt for not believing, as the Papifl Mifreprefented believes. This is the General Character of a Papift according to the frefheft and moft Modern draught or our Adverfary ; So that now to receive a true information of the Papift*s Creed, we are not to confiilt the Council of Trent, or the Catechifm ad Parochos, but the writings and Ser- mons of Proteftants ; For however Papifts may not know P. 3. (8) • know what they believe themfelves ; yet Protejlatttj give a true and exact account of them, and are fo far .Infallible, that the Papifts certainly are, what they fay they are ; believe what they fay they believe, fince they charge them with nothing, but what they exprejly profefs to believe, and what they practice. Upon the 'aflurance of this Affidavit, me-thinks, 'twill not be amifs here to receive the fa'isfactionof knowing, what a Fapifi real- ly is,and what he certainly believes,beyond the potfibili- ty of all exception. For fince all that proceeds from a Popifli hand of this nature, is fufpected and challeng'd, and the double Character of a Papifl Mifrtprefented and Reprefented ( about which, as the Replier lays, there is fb much i other and noife ) is queftioned as to its Method, its Sincerity and exactnef^we'l now follow our Authors call, and learn what Popery is, from the Pens of Prote- ftants: and efpecially from fbme of tho(e,who are fuppo- fed to know what Popery is ; but for the bad man, which the Replier excepts againft, we'l make no advantage of him, but let a better Man take his room. What Papifts are according to the Character given by the mod Reverend Father John, fomtime Lord Arch' bifhop of Tork, in his Book Written for the ufe of a Lady, to preferve her from the danger of Popery, where he brings in a Papift thus declaring the Belief and Doctrine of his Church. WE muft Believe the Church of Rome, whether it teach true or falfe. If the Pope Believe there is no Life to come, we mu(l Believe it >ts an Article of our Faith. We teach that the Gofpel is but a Fable of Chrifl. That the Pope can d>fpenee again jl the New Teftament, that he may check when he pleafes, the Epiftles of St, Paul, and (9) and controle any thug avouched, by all the Apojlles. That there is an eternal Go/pel, to wit, that of the Ho- ly Ghofl, which puts downChrifis. IhatCbriJl is the Saviour of Men only, hut of no Wo- men : For Women arefavedby St. Clare and Mother Jane. That we put away Mortal fins, by becoming Francifcans, by a Bijbops Pardon for Forty days, and a Cardinals for a Hundred, ai:dthe Popes for ever. That to become a Monk or a Nun, is as good as the Sa- crament of Baptifm. That Whoredom is allowed all the Tear long, and another fin fur June, July, Auguft, which you mofi not know; Allowed for this time by Sixtus Quartus to all the Family of the Cardinals of St. Lucie. That the Pope can make that Righteous, which is Vn- righteous. That the Bifhop of Rome is a Cod. That the Pope may dif pence with all Duties, and that our Principles Jet Men loofefrom all obligations, in all rela- tions whatfoevsr, between Magijl rates and Subjects, Lords and Tenants, Husbands and Wives, Parents and Chil- dren, Mafiers and Servants, Buyers and Sellers. That there is not any fin, but is or may be Indulged amongfi us ; and fcarce a known fin, but there is a known price for it, and at our Market-rate you may commit them when you will. What is the Belief and Doctrine of the Papifts, as 'tis deliver'd by Tho. Beard, D. D. in his Book intituled Antichrifi the Pope of Rome. THey Believe that Saints departed ought to be Wor- (hipped and invocated with truft and confidence as God himfelf. That the Pope can Canonize them to this Worjhip at his pleafure. B . That That Images are to be adored with the fame degree of honour as is due to their Patterns, contrary to an exprejs precept of the Law. |j 'I hat the Pardon of fins here in this Life, and delive- rance out of Purgatory in the Life to come, may be bought for Money, and where no Money there no remiffion. They make their unwritten Traditions, not one, but the principal part of Gods word. They place divers counterfeit Books, difguifed under the Name offome of the Jpofiles, or their Difciples,fullof Fables, BUfphemies, and Contrarieties, and yet commend them to the World as parcels of the written word of God, and Believe in them as Holy Scripture it ftlf, as the Gofpels of St. Nicodemus, of St. Thomas, &c. ihe Pope hath fet up a new God in the Church, namely a piece of Bread in the Mafs ; and to their Breaden God they afcribe power to forgive fins , to defend from evil both Men and Beafi7 and to bring to Heaven ', when as in the mean while mofl horrible BUfphemies againfi Cbrifl him- felf are tolerated and flighted over. The Pope is above Angels and Magijl rates, he exalte th hi mfelf above all that is called Gody yea, above God him f elf. They prefer their Saints before Chrijl : They rely more upon the mediation and inter ceffion of Saints, than upon the mediation of Chrijl, They not only equal St. Francis and St. Dominick nntoChrifl, hut in fome things prefer them before him. They affirm that whoever dies in St. Francis V habit cannot be .Damned, and that it is as forcible for the remiffi- on of fins as the Sacrament of Baptifm* What What the Papifts are as Reprefented by Mr. Sudclifjc in his Survey of Popery. THere is no point almoft , wherein the Papijls vary not from the ancient Church, the Article concerning the holy Trinity only excepted. They teach Novelties andfalfe Doctrines concerning the very grounds of Faith j for they believe the Church to be built upon the Pope. They fpeak what they can in difgrace of the Holy Scri- pture. They give the Office of Chrifi* s mediation to the Virgin Mary, to Angels and to Saints ; they make al[o Saints our Redeemers, Sec. For God they Worfh'ip Creatures, not only giving divine honour to the Sacrament, but alfo to Crucifixes and Images of the Trinity, made of Wood, Sec. and they do adore not only Saints, hut rotten bones and rags, they know not of whom. They overthrow grace, and afcribe the merit of our Salva- tion, not to Godys mercy through Chrifi, nor to the merit of his pafjion^ but properly to our own works and merits. They cut out the Second Commandment, becaufe it can- not (land with the Popifh worship of Images. They pray before Stocks and Stones, nay they put their truft in them. They make n$ Confcience to cut Chrifiian mens throats for not yielding to all their Abominations, and think it Confcience to obey the Popes Decrees, tho very unlawful. 1 he Fourth Commandment concerneth the fancTifying the Sabbath^ but the Papijls profane it by W ' orfhiping Jdols, and frequenting the Idolatrous M*fs. B 2 Papifls Papifts think they do God good fervice, when they mur- der true Chriftians. Amongfl Papifis, Adultery and Fornication are reckon- ed amongfl leffer Sins, By the Doftrine of Papifis the Devils of Hell may he faved To this purpofe they fay, that not only wicked and reprobate Men, but alfo the Devils of Hell may have true and juftifying Faith. Papijls blafphemoufiy make Chrift not ony a dtfperate Man without Hope, hut alfo an Infidel without Faith. They deny Chrift to be a.v7v'fc&, and affirming that his Divine EJJence had a beginning from feme other , they fall within the compafs of the Error of the Tritheites, which Here fie doth tear the Unity of the Godhead in pieces , And plainly makes more Gods than One. Papijls do diminifjj the Merit of ChrifPs Satisfaction, and enervate, as much as in them l.eth, the Crofs of Chrift, and the Effect of his Death and Paffwn — ■ 7 hey are Teachers of Antichrift, oppofite to Chrift, and Enemies of his Crofs. That Chrift is net the Redeemer of all Mankind. They make Chrift infer/our to Saints and Angels, and prefer the Pope before Chrift. PapiftsmakeSt. Francis WDominick equal to Chrift in divers things, and in fome things fuperi our. They give equal honour to a Crofs of Wood and Metal, andto Chrift, and looking on a Wooden Crucifix, they fay, Thou haftRedeem'd us. They fuppofe the Virgin Mary more merciful than Chrift. Papifis account it a J mall Sin to ufe Common Women. Papifis believe divers were by their Saints fetched out of Hell. Papifts by their irregular Doctrines and Traditions, have have not only corrupted, but alfo dif annul? d, for the mo[l ttart, the Law of God. 7 hey deny the Go/pel to be a Rule of Perfection, but they doubt not to give that honour to the Rules of Ben- net, &TC. They fpeak more Rlajphemonfly of the Holy Scri- ptures, than the Turks or Saracens. To the Images of the Crofs and Crucifix, they give as much honour as they do to God. They fall down like Beajls before the Pope, and Worfhip him as God, afcribing to him mofl bUfphemouJly the ho~ nour due to Chrifl. Popery as a Jink, hath together with Herefie received into it felf mofl grofs and Heatheniffj Idolatry. Papijls fay they put no trufl in Images, but never did the Gentiles trufl fo much in the Images of Juno or Ju- piter, as the Papijls trufl in the Images of our Lady of Loretto, James of Compoftella, &c. They give divine honour to Images, which they them-* felves cannot deny to be Id,olatrom. They afcribe mans yuflifcation to this Work, and exclude iujlification, both by Chrifl'' s cfujlicei and by Faith, &C. The Papijls teach their difciples to diflrufl Gods grace, — and to trufl rather in their own Works and Merits. Popery is nothing elfi, but a pack of old and new He- refits. Papijls defpife Marriage as Pollutions and flefhly life. Bennet, Dominick, Francis, and other authors of feigned Religions took not their Rules from the Gofpely but thought thej could frame a more perfeff Religion than the Gofpel. o^j the Gentiles had one principal God, and divers de- my and- inferior Gods, fo have the Papifls. As the Gentiles believed that every one had his good and bad Genius, fo the Papijls affign to every Chrifl tan a good and bad Angel. The («4) The fecond Council of Aries, cap. 2}. (hewethh to be a en (lorn of Pagans, to worfhip Trees or Stones , or Foun~ tains, yet our Englifh Papifis ceafe not to go on Pilgri- mage to St. Winifrides well, nor to tvorfhip Stocks and Stones. The RomifJj Church confifis of a, pack of Infidels. They forbid honefi Wedlock. The Papifis Preachers ftldom teach the People, And when they do it, they preach their own inventions, and tell idle tales without edification. Both Priefis and People are mofi ignorant of Matters of Faith, where Popery is profefs'1 d. The Scriptures and Fathers they read not. In a member of the Catholick Church \ Qtheyfay) neither inward Faith nor other vertue is required, but only that he profefs outwardly the Romifh Religion , and be fubjeci to the Pope. The Papifis promife Heaven to their followers, fo they profefs and fet forward the Popes caufe, whether they be Murderers of K^ings, or Maffacrers, or Rebels, or filthy Whoremongers, or Sodomites. They make more confidence to abflain from fiejb on Fri- day, than to murder Chriflians. ' Divers points of Popifh doctrine are fpecially [aid to proceed from the Devil. It is a common practice amongfl Papifis to give divine Worfiip to dead men. The Popifh Church hath no true Bifhops. The Pope is Antichrifi. The PopifJj Synagogue hath no true Priefls. Popery in many points is more abfurd and abominable, than the doctrine of Mahomet. Papifis, that pofitively hold the heretical and falfie doctrines of the modern Church of Rome, cannot poffibly befaved. What fi5> What Papiflsare according to the Book of Homilies. I Mages in Churches and Idolatry go always both toge- ther Images m Churches have been, be, and ever will be none other but abominable Idols. Oenomaus and Hefiod {hew that in their time, there were Thirty thoufand Gods ; 7 think we had no fewer Saints to whom we gave the honour due to God ; and they have not only [polled the true living God of his due ho- nour in Temples, Cities, &"C. by fuch devices and inventi- ons that the Gentile Idolaters have done before them, but the Sea andWater shave as well fpecial Saints with them, as they had Gods with the Gentiles, &rc. Papijls make of true Servants of God, filfe Gods, and attribute to them the Power and Honour which is Gods, and due to him only. Image maintainers have the fame opinion of Saints ? which the Gentiles had of their falfe Gods. Image maintainers Worfhip Stocks and Stones ; they give alfo the honour due to Cod to their Images, even as did the gentile Idolaters to their Idols. Who cm doubt but that our Image maintainers agreeing in all Idolatrous opinions , agree alfo with them in com- mitting mofl abominable Idolatry ? In many Points our Image maintainers have exceeded the Gentile Idolaters in all wickednefs , foolijjjnefs, and madnefs, and if this be not fufficient to prove them Image- Worfhippers, that is to fay, Idolaters, Loyou jballjiearfac. The Learned and Unlearned , Laity and Clergy , all Ages, Seels and Degrees of Men, and Women> and Chil- dren of whole Chrijtendom, have been at once drowned in abominable Idolatry } the /pace of Eight hundred years and more, This (i6) This is the Proteftant Character of a Papift , and fuch as I always Iook'd upon no other, than of a Papift Mif- reprefented) and whoever will take the pains to com- pare it with what I let down under that Title, will find there's little other difference between them, but that this is the Fouler. But now it feems it muft be P. 2. no longer a Papift Mif-reprefented, but Reprefented, and 'tis what the Beft andrv/Jeft Men have believ*dcf them. And here now what fhall I fay ? Our Replier fays, thefe areGre^ and Good Authorities, and we may well fuppofe they knew what Popery was. And for my part becaufel love not quirrelling, I fhall fo far joynwith them ; that if this be the Popery they have hitherto pro- fecuted with fb much Fervour and Zeal ; if this be the Popery , from whole Infe&ionthey havefo induftrioufly labour'd to deliver the Chriftian World,they have done nothing but what is the duty of every true Believer. And if 'twas for the not Embracing this Popery, thofe Martyrs recorded by Pox pafs'd the Fiery Trial, their Caufe was furely a Glorious Caufe ; and Iqueftion not the Triumphs and Crowns of Glory that waited for them in Heaven, were not inferior to what thofe en- joy'd, who fuffer'd under Decius or Diocltfun. And for my part, I am fo far in earneft, had I a Thoufand Lives, I would rather chufe, by the afliftance of Heaven, to lofe them all at the Stake, than in the leaft afTent to fb much Heathenifm,to fb Foul and Monftrousa Religion. And what need now of any longer difagreement? What neceffity of keeping up Names of Divifion ? Proteftant and Papift may now fhake hands, and by one Subfcri- ption clofe into a Body, and joyn in a fair and amicable Correfpondence. Popery has been hitherto the only caufe of Separation ; one part Teeming to avow and fup- port it, the other as zcaloufly endeavouring its Over- throw. (•7) throw : And all the ftrife it feems has been about a Word. For now we have been inform'd from Great and Good Authorities, what this Popery is ; what Papift in the World is there, that will not fo far become Prote- ft ant, as to give his hand for the utter fiipprefling this kind of Popery ? And when Protefiants and Papifts con- cur for the rooting out of Popery, what pombility of Farther Divifions ? But if, on the other fide, this Character of a Papijb be intended for the fetting forth the Doctrines and Pra- ctices of the Church of Rome ; if this be defign'd as a True Reprefentationof the Faith and Religion of Roman Catholics : Then returns afrefh my Complaint of their being Mif-reprefented ; that they fiiffer under the great- er!: Injuftice imaginable ; that they are expcs'd in Bears and Tigers Skins, fo to become a Bugbear to the Multi- tude ; that they are malign'd and render'd odious for the maintaining fiich Do£t-rines,which they as heartily detefT, as thofe that urge the Charge ; and that 'tis no. wonder \S\2xPapifis are put in the Lift with Turks and Infidels, fince their Religion is thus injurioufly loaded with Calumnies, and they made the ProfefTors of fuch Tenets,which bid open defiance to Truth,Honefty,and Chriftianity, which ltrike at the Worlds Redeemer^ nd are impomble to be entertain'd by any Creature,that is one degree above a Beaft. I will not deny, but whofbever will look into the Church of Rome, as the Scavenger do's into the City, who flops no where but at a Dunghil, may rake toge- ther fb much as to defame her with the Inconfiderate and unwary ; alas ! the Vices of Men in her Commu- nion, their Abufes of the moft Sacred things, too abun- dantly furnifh Matter of this kind. But yet whofbever /hall expofe this for the Doctrine and Practice of their C Church, OS; Church, and defcribe her, and all in her Communion, by thefe Rubbifli Collections, cannot poffibly avoid the fcandal of being unjuft, and might with as gi.od reafbn decipher London by thole loathlbm Heaps where all her Filth is emptied. And now fince'tis evident,the Adver- faries of the Church of Rome do generally thus deal by her, fcraping out of every corner of that vaft Commu- nion, and in every Age, whitfbever can poflibly con- tribute to make her Infamous ; there is too too much reafbn to complain of her being Mtf-reprefented, and no juft exception can be made againft the Character of the Papifi CMifrepreftnted , which lays open to the World the Artifice of thefe unwarrantable Proceedings. But here now ftrikes in the Replier, who undertakes to explain a Myftery in this Character ; and the Refle- Ber, he fays, will have no reafon to glory , that he gave the ^3. occafion of it. And this Myftery, it feems, are fome Faults he has difcover'd in the Mifreprefentation. Firft, He fay s,fiich things are put into this Character of a Papifi, as no man in his wits ever chargd them with • And yet thofe very things almoft in exprefs terms, and others far more abfiird, wef.echarg'd (as is fhew'd above ) by the Befi and Wifefi of Men, of great and good Authority with the Replier, %s he confeffes himfelf, ( p. 2 .) And this too is to me a Myftery, as well as to him ; that what no Man in his wits ever urg'd, and what the for- mer Anfwtrer calls Childtjh, and Ignorant, or Wilfd Mi- flakes , fhould be now feenFather'd upon Men of fb high . a Character. Secondly, and thirdly, He complains, that the Opini- P. 4, 5. onsof Proteflants, and the Confequences they draw from Popifh Doctrines, are put into the Character of a Papijl Mif-reprtfented, as if they were his avow'd Do- £trin.' and Belief. This is a pretty fpeculative Quarrel, I. («9) 1 confefs, and might defervedly find room here, were it our bufinefs to confider the due method of Mifrepre- fentation in tho abftratf : But as our prefent concern ftands, here's a quaint Conceit loft, for coming in a wrong place. For what hid the Author of the Papift Mif-reprefented to do with thefe Rules ? He did not in- tend to Mifreprefent anybody. His Province was on- ly to draw forth the Character of a Papift, as 'tis com- monly apprehended by the Vulgar, or the Multitude, with the common Prejudices and Miftakes that gene- rally attend fuch a Notion. Now I would fain know, whether this Character, as it lies in the Peoples Heads, is diftinguifh'd into Antecedents and Confequents : Whe- ther they ,when they hear one declaiming againft Pope- ry, for committing Idolatry, as bad or rvorfe than that of the gr off eft Heathens, Worshipping Stocks and Stones for G^,diftinguifh between the Dofifrtneof the Papift s, and thefe Interpretations and Conferences charged againft it. Alas ! they fwallow all down greediiy,and in the lump ; Antecedents and Confequents go down with them all at once. Neither do I find much care us'd to prevent this Mifunderftanding in the People. For who is there, in laying open the Folly, as they will have it, of the Pa- pifts, and pofitively charging them, that They make Gods of Stocks and Stones, that they make Gods of dead Men, and raife the Virgin Mary to be Co-partner with Chrift in Heaven, Src. do's afterwards tell his Auditory, that This is not what the Papifts themfelves Believe and Teach ; but only what himfelf Believes and Infers from their Doctrine, as the Confluence or Interpretation of it, but they deny. Truly were our Adverfaries fb flncere as to tell their Hearers, that all their Charge againft Fopery is nothing morc,than what they think of our Faith and Doctrine"; C 2 I (20) I would fb far agree with the Replier, that this ought nottobecall'dMifcreprefeming, but only faying ot us what is not true. But they go beyond this, and in ftead of faying we think fo} they pofitively fay fo it is : And poffcfs as many as take Idea's from their Words, not barely that they think we Teach and Pra&ife Idolatry, v.g. butabfblutely,that wedo.Nay,our Image- worfhip is worfhipping Stocks and Stones for Gods, fays the Replier in his very next Leaf,with.out remembring his thinking. And when the People read Books, intended as Pre- fervatives againft the danger of Popery, they are frill ex - pos'd to the like Deceit. For what ordinary Reader is there, that finds it pofitively afTerted as above by the Arch-bifhop of Tork ; Papifts believe the Church 0/Rome, whether it teach true or fife. And if the Pope believes there is no Life to come, they mttfl believe it as an Article of their Faith. What ordinary Reader, I fay, is there,, that will not fwallow this prefently as the Faith and Doilrine of the Papifts ; when at latter end 'tis only what he thinks^ndz. Conference far fetch'd to difcredit Popery with the Vulgar ? And when he's told by ano- ther hand, that the common Anfwer of Catho'ics to excufe themf elves from Idolatry in their Adoration of the Eucharift, is becaufe they believe the Bread to be God :. Has not he here a fair oceafion again of taking this for the Belief of a Papift $ and that he worfhips what he believes tobezBredden God? Certainly he mud be no fmall Logician that can discover, whether this be an An- tecedent or Confequent ,whethzr it be the Faith of the Pa- pift, or only a Conference of it. For my part, when L fee Popery defcrib'd, as if none could be of that Com- munion, but he that can bring his Mind to believe the Word of God to be writ but for a few Tears only , and afterwards to be abrogated and annulled: That what foe- v.er (li) ver God fays, (hall be null and void, nnltfs the Bifbop of Rome will and command the f*me, When I hearthaC the Pope is Antichrift. and Rome the Whore o$ Babylon, that the Papijls hive taken away from the People the Holy Communion , the Word of God, the true Worfhip of the Ddty, the right life of the Sacraments and Prayers, and in fiead of themy have given to pleafe them, Salt, Water, Qyl, Spittle, Bulls, Jubilees . Indulgences, Crojfes, lncenfe, and an infinite number of ?neer Toys and Baubles, and that in thefe they have placed all Religion ; when I hear, I fay, Popery thus delcrib'd to the People by emi- nent Apologizers for the Church of England, I cannot conceive, but 'tis to let them know, what Notion to frame of it. And yet whofoever (hall fuppofe,that after fuch Directions, they'l conceive a regular Idea of it, without a confufion of Faith with its Interpretations, of Doctrine with its Charges, muft conclude them to be better at Separating than the Chymijls, and that in fubtle Difl 'motions they are able to out-do Arijlotle himfelf. But 'tis too much to be fear'd, that thole who expofe Toferyt® the People after this way, are not willing they fhould apprehend it in its genuine Purity, and as free from this difingenuous mixture : 'lis fo like thofe who impofe upon the Multitude with artificial Mon- gers, by putting the wrong end forward, and fhewing the Tail for the Head ; that if they are not deluded in- to a Miftake, 'tis becaufe they are not fb credulous as they fhould be, and fufpecl ibmething of a Trick in him that makes the Shew. And has not the Reflecttr now reafbn to repent after all, that he gave occafion to the Replierol explaining the Myfteries , he has difcover'd in the Character cf the Papift Mif-reprefented ; fince the faults he endea- vours to lay open, are not in the Mif reprelentation^ but. but inthofe, who by Mif-reprefenting the Papift^raisM a falfe Idea of Popery in the Peoples heads ? The Cha- racter of the Paptft Mtf-reprefented, was intended only, as the Author expreiTes himielf in his Introduction, for a. Copy of Popery as painted in the Imagination of the Vulgar : And being conform to that, 'tis exact and perfect : And if there be any faults in it, the blame muft full on thole who drew the Original. But however we'll compound here ag^in for this ; if the Replier will but undertake to undeceive the People, and give them a more exact Notion of Popery, the ReftecJer will under- take to reform the Character accordingly. But till then the Character of the Papift Mif-reprejented ftands good ; and till the abus'd people are taught to diftin- guifli between Antecedents and Confequents, between the Faith of Papift s and the Conferences charg'd againft it ; the Character muft remain as it is ; and any Re- formation in it would but make it irregular, and unlike that from whence it was taken. The Replier therefore might very well have fpar'd the almoft t orty pages he has fpent on this Subject ; in which, tho' he has learn- edly diftinguifh'd between matters of Difpute and of Reprefentation : Yet this diftinction being not to be found in the Notion the People have of Popery, 'tis no- thing to our purpofe. And the only end it can poflibly lerve for, is to let the World underftand,how much the Papifts are generally wrong'd in their reputation ; whilft fb many grofs absurdities, which are often pofi- tively expos'd for Articles of their Faith, are here ac- knowledged by the Replier himfelf,not to be their Faith, but only the Interpretations and Confequential charges of their Adverfaries. Thefe are the Mif-reprefenting Arts and Faults he mentions. For the Reprefenting Faults he alledges. i. That r. That I deny the Belief of their Interpretations. And the reafbn is, it may be, becaufe he thinks, no body charges us with that Beltef:Which if it be but true, then I have not fo much as contradicted any body, and there is no fault, I hope, in that. 2. 1 generally own the Do- ctrines and Practices, which they charge us with. And how could this poflibly be otherwife, if they charge us with none,but what we exprefly profefs to own ? 3 . That in fome cafes I difown that to be the Doctrine and Belief of our Church, which manifeftly is fo and has been proved on thim. Then for all his word to the contrary, we are in fome cafes charg'd with more than we exprefly pro- fefs to Believe. As for his manifeftly, and his proving, let that go for no more than what it is, his Opinion : 7 lis none of mine, and I think 'twill be no bodies elfe, whin the matter comes to a Tryal. And here now we muft turn over fb many leaves till we meet with fome other matter in the Reply. And the firft that occurs, f re fome exceptions againft the Rule obferv'd by the Reprefenter in declaring the Faith of a Papift, who to clear himfelf from the Scandal of Inter, preting the Council of Trent by his own private fenfe and opinion, alledges the Catechifm ad Par ochos, which he had follow'd in delivering the fenfe of the Council, This the Replier could not pafs by without an Anfwer, and therefore gives a fatisfa&ory one. And is he fure, fays he, that all his Repreftntations are conformable to the fenfe of this Catechifm ? May he not play tricks with the Catechifm^ and expound that by a private Spirit , as well as the Council ? Thus a Queftion or two is a full Confutation of the Reftecter. He alledgM again the Bifhop of Condom's Expofition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, which being ap- prov'd and attelted by the Pope himfelf,by feveral Car- dinala , dixials and Bifhops, brought along with it the Autho- rity of the See Apeftolic. But this, it feems, works nothing upon the Replier : Canus has put a icruple in his head ; and becaule he finds in this Author, that That is not to be accounted, the judgment of the Apojlo- lie See, which is given only by the Bifhop of Rome pri- vately, malicioufy, (a word flipt over by the Replier ) and inconftderattly, or with the advice only offome few of his own mind ; he cannot therefore think, but that the Bifhop of Condom's Expofition comes fhort of the Au- thority of the Apoftolic See \ and that the Rcfitcler is out, in taking flicker under one, whole Authority is nothing, as he fays downright, p. 46. This is anfvvering, I confefs, with a witnefs, thus to endeavour to overthrow fo considerable and Reverend an Authority, without any Authority at all, befides that of an ungrounded and ill-turn'd confequence ; viz. Becaufe that is not to be accounted the Judgment of the Apoftolic See, which is given orriy by the Pope, pri- vately, maliciouflyy and inconfiderately, or with the advice only of fome few of his own mind ; therefore this Learn- ed Prelate's Expofition of the Catholic 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, malicioufly, inconfiderately ■, or elfe with the advice only of fome few of the Popes own mind, otherwife the Confequence will not hold. But to fhew how little the Rep'ierhas weighed this matter, and with how little pains he can undervalue any thing when he pleafes , I need only remit the Reader to the perufalot the Book it (elf, which is lately publifhed in Englidi ; the Adver- tifements affixt to it will fatisfie him, that there has not a Book appear'd in this Age fupported by greater Au- thority O?) thority thin This. He'l find it examin'd with all due deIiberatioa,ppprov'd with all (blemnity imaginable,by Men of known Integrity ,Piety and Learning,by Abbots, Cardinals,Bifhops,and by this prefent Pope himfelfand recommended by his Holinefs to be Read by all the Faithful. He'l find it not only thus approv'd, but even twice Printed at Rome it felf, and in thePrefs of the Congregation de Propaganda, F/^Tranflated out of the Original French into divers La.nguages,dS Latin, Italian, EngliJhJrifh^lemifbiHigh-Dutch&nd this done by Emi- nent Men of thefe Nations : So that befides the Attefta- tionsof thofe great Men there fpccified, it may be faid to have the General Approbation of all thefe Catholic Prelates, who in propofing it to their Flock, fufficient- ly recommend it for a True Expofitionof the Doctrine of the Catholic Church. And yet notwithftanding all this, with the Replier, it has not the Authority of the Apojlolic See ; Nay its Authority is juft nothing. Now methinks, I would willingly here know of the jR<^//er,whetherThofe Great and Good Authorities above mention'd, who pretend to make a Survey of the Faith and Doctrines of Catholics, have better Authority and Grounds for whit they afTert and charge, than this Re- verend Prelate for the Expofition which he gives. And whether it be not a great Myftery, that every Divine of the Reformation fhall be thought to have Authority fufficient3for defaming the Church of Rome with, what- fbever extravagant Opinions he can but find in one or two Writers of what condition fbever : And yet a Ca- tholic Prelate, Eminent in the Church for his great Vertue and Learning, in expounding the Faith of his Church,with the Content, Approbation,and Authority of the Greater!: Men of his Communion,and even of his Supream Pallor, fhall be flighted, and thrown by as of D m t*0 no Authority at all. For my part I cannot underfhind this uneven kind of Juftice, and reafoning: Or why thofe who profefs a Religion, and depend on it as to their Salvation, fhall be thought lefs to underftand it, than others who proteft againft it,and look no further into't, than to render it Ridiculous. But it muft be foin an Age, in which a Papifi is not to pals for a Chriftian,and muft not be believ'd;we'l therefore go on to the other points. And for the clearing the moft material of them, we need not look beyond the Expofition delivered by this Pre/ate. i/?.As to the Invocation of Saints he declares exprefly, that They have no other capacity of affifting us, but only by their Prayers. And thothe Rentier pretend sphere's no fuch limitation found in this Author ; yet mechinks he fhould not have been fb pofitive, in a cafe,in which he's foeafily difprov'd. The French Edition Printed at Paris, 1 68 1. has it exprefly, /^g. 32. TheFirit Englifti Editi- on Printed likewife in Paris \6']2. p*g. 29. And now this laft Correct Edition, which came forth the Iaft Week, fag. 9. So that, tho the Jnfverer has made fbme little objection ; yet the Reprefenter is fuificiently vh> dicated, in thusdeclarinj the Faith of a Papift : Since what he (aid is founded hot upon his own private fenfe, but upon an Authority beyond all exception, befides that of meer Cavil. 2ly. And ^ly. As to the Popes Perfonal Infallibility, and the Depofing Power, the Reprefenter declar'd, that, tho there were Men of his Communion maintaining thefe Points by way of 0\inkn, yet that they were no part of the Catholic Faith ; and that Papifis had no ob- ligation from thGitCh/trch ofalTenting to fuch Doctrines. And for thus delivering a matter of Fatfy\\z has the Au- thority again of this Great P 'relate ..who having declar'd the (*7> the Primacy of St. Peter, and acknowledged the fame in his Succeffors in the See of Rome, immediately adds, As for thofe things, which rve know are dijputed of in the N«w Edit. Schools, the? the Minijlers continually a Hedge them to rcn- p" <5°' der this Power odious, it is not nectary we /peak of them here, feeing they are not Articles of the Cat hoi c Faith. It is fujficitnt we acknowledge a Head eft abliflfd by God to conduct his whole Flock in his Paths, vchich thofe, whz love Concord amongfl Brethren, andFccleftaflicd Unani- mity, trill moft willingly acknowledge. And is not this a fufficient difcharge of the Reprefen- ter from all the exceptions of his Ad verfaries?For if this learned Author,having propos'd the Primacy of St.Pe- ters Chair to be acknowledged as the common Center of all Catholic Union , do's purpofely wave all other Points relating to the Authority of ihztChair, as being no part of the Catholic Faith: And his Book in this form is own'dand appro v'd by the Pope himfelf,by the moft eminent of the Cardinals, and other great Prelates of the Church after a moft ftricl: examination , what ground of quarrel with the Reprefenter in his following this fo Authentic a Rule? 'Twas the main defignof the Bifhop ofCondom'm that Treatife to feparate the opi- nions of Divines and School Debates from the Doctrine of the Catholic Faith. And fince he omitted to ex- pound thofe Points of the Popes Perfonal Infallibility and the Depofing Power as not belonging to the Catholic Faith, with fo full and Authentic an Approbation, as has been declared ; where is the crime of the Reprefen- ter in not allowing them a place in that Lift ? And here I cannot but run the venture of another fmile from the Replier, upon the reinforcement of my former Propofal. I defir'd that the Decifion of the Quarrel with the Reprefenter might depend upon the D 2 Experiment f*3J Experiment of any ones being judg'd capable of being receiv'd into the Catholic Church, upon his affenring to matters of Faith, in that form as delivered by the Reprefenter. The Replier, having fmil'd firft, thought it not fit to put it to that iflue ; but chofe rather to own p> 40, that the Faith, as declar'd by the Reprefenter, was real- ly the Faith of a Papift, excepting the Depofwg Dottrine, and lome other few Points. Here then let him make the Propofed Trial, if he pleafes, or any Friend for him ; and if, notwithstanding his refufdl to admit the Depo- fwg Dotfrine and the Popes Infallibility, but as (rated by the Reprefenter, (that is, not as Articles of Catholic Faith)he be not judg'd fufficiently qualified as to thofe Points, to be receiv'd into the Communion of the Ro~ man Catholics, 1 will grant he has reafbn to charge the Reprefenter not to have done his part in thofe Particu- lars. This will be a much fhorter and furer Conviction than twenty Jnfwers and Replies, fit only to caft a Milt before the Readers Eyes^ and which fuch a Trialas this will quickly diflipate. And this now is all that is requifite for a full Vindica- tion of the Reprefenter. For it being frankly own'd by T^c. the Replier himfeif, that he has made a true Reprefentatu en of the Faith of a Popifl ; with the exception only of fbme few Points. And it being here made evident,that what the Reprefenter deliver'd as to thofe very Points, is according to the Senfe of the See ^poftolic, of the greateft Prelates, nay,I may fay of the whole Church : The Papifl Mif-reprcfented and Reprefented ftands un- touch^ : And all. that has been faidagainft it, have been nothing more, than fb many artificial Endeavours to perfwade the World, that the Protejlant under/lands better what the paithofi. a Papifl is, than the Papi y? do's himfeif; which will be eafily anfvver'd after his manner, wkh a fmile. What (*9) What the Replier adds after this, belongs not to the Reprefentery who being to Reprefent^nd not to Difpute, is not concern'd with thofe tedious Arguments ; how- ever, not to be uncivil, we'l go fo far with him, tho' it be out of our way. i . He proves at large, that all Definitions of faith, declar'd in General Councils, are not concluded with Anathemas ; and in this we willingly agree with him : p. 5 Ie But this do's not at all prove, that whatfoever is de- clar'd in fuch a Council without an Anathema, is an Article of Faith ; and therefore nothing againft us de- fer ving any farther anfwer. 2. He endeavours to prove the Depofing Power not to be a matter of Difcipline and Government^ but to be a P. 530 Point of Doctrine ; and this from a Principle lately pub- lifh'd in the Vindication of Dr. Sherlock's Sermon, viz. that To decree what fh all be dox,e, includes a virtual Defi- nition of that Doctrine on which that Decree is founded. And this he fays, as we hxve been lately told. But what refped: can I poflibly have for what has been lately told us by another hand,fince the Replier himfelf,however he urges it in one Page, plainly undervalues it and contra, p. $$, difts it in his very next ; where he tells us, that in the Council of the ApofHes at Jerufalem there was a Decree of Manners, yet // contained no Definition of Faith. And for my part, I think the Replier in the right, and mull needs ftand with him againft the Vindicator of the Ser- mon ; that to Decree what ffiall be done , do's not include a. virtual Definition ofD.otfrwe, And the Example pro- duc'dby the Replier evidently fhewsit: For tho' the Apoftles in their Council ( Acts 1^) decree'd abflinence from Blood and JlrangPd Meats : yet this Decree of what was to be done, did not include a virtual Definition of that Dctfrine on which the Decree rvas founded : For-, if if it had: then the Doctrine of ah/laming from Blood and ft rangl'd Meat shad been an Article of Faith ; which I am fiire is not agreeable either to the Principles or Pra- ctices of either of our Churches. And the Reafon of this maybe, becaufe Decrees of what [ball be done, are often made with relation to particular Circumftances, of ' TimeyPerfons,Place7 &c. and not built upon Definiti- ons ofFaith,but upon Prudential Motives, upon Proba- ble Opinions upon the Teftimonies and Informations of Men ; and fo may be fufpended or quite abrogated, as alio confirm'd anew, or wholly chang'd, according to the alteration of Circumftances : Nothing of all which can (land with Articles of Faith, which being the in- difpenflble Dodlrine ofJe/i&Chrift, are not iiibject to change or alteration. p. 54. 1. But fuppofe this Decree to be rank'd only among the Decreta Morum, which concern only the Difcipline and Government of the Church;yet our Adverfary here urges out of C anus and Bellarmine,That General Councils cannot err even in fuch Decrees, when they relate to things neceffary to Salvation, and concern the whole Church.And when the Rentier has prov'd the Depofing Decree to be of this Nature,and efteem'd as fuch by our Church,he may then deferve a farther Confederation. What the Replier adds of this Subject, (.p.57.) That the Pope permits the pofitive AfTertors of the No-depo- fing Power to pals without any Cenfure of Herefie, be- caufe he wants Power to do it, is fpoke like an Oracle I confefsjbut becaufe thefe are ceas'd now adays,we may very well fufpend our Aflent, till we have fbme better Argument, than his bare AfTurance of what the Pope would do if he had Power. *.*3« The laft Argument is concerning the Veneration of Images. And tho' the Jnfwercr was willing, without any (v) any more ado, to condemn the Papifts of ConftruCfive Idolatry from feme external At~ts of Adoration us'd be- fore Images ; yet our Rentier readily grants, that thole Actions are in themfelves indifferent, and capable of be- ing paid to God and Men, and to be us'd as the Exprefc fions either of a. Civil or a. Religious Honour. But he has given us an infallible Mark,by which to diftinguifh between Civil and Religion Honour, notwithstanding the very fame external AcJionsbelng us'd in both ; an*d P. 66, 'tis, that Civil relates to this World, and Religious t9 the Invisible Inhabitants of the next. This, he fays, is a Di- ftin&on allow'd by all the reft of Mankind \ and tho' by all the reft he feems willing to exclude me, yet fince he has given his Word for it, Fie come in for one of that number, at leaft Co far as to fuppofe it. So that here we have it now laid down as a Principle by common agreement , that External Actions of Honour paid to things relating to this World,is a Civil Honour fRefpeff, Veneration, or Worfljip. And when they are paid to things relating to the Invifible Inhabitants of the next, 'tis a Religions Honour, Refpecf, Veneration, or Worfhip. And hence 'tis concluded by him , That thefe External Acts of Honour exprefs'd to any Image, that has Relation to fbme Invifible Being, muff of ne- ceflitybe a Religious Honour. This is what the ReJ** plitr proves, and we atprefmt agree to. But if he- thinks, as he lays, that this puts an end to the Difpute, I think him miftaken, we being as yet only in the be- ginning. For tho' it hence follows that Papifts give a Religious Honour to Holy Images, yet till it be proved that all Religious Refpecl: and Honour, is fo a Divine Honour ,as to make a God of the thing to which it is paid, at leaft conflruUively ; he has not concluded Papifts co be Idolaters, or guilty of conftru&ive Idolatry ; which is. is the thing he intended and undertook. And that he cannot poflibly prove it from thele Principles, without proving toomuch,and bringing himfelf in for a fliare, I think may eafily be made appear. For if Papifts muftbe condemn'd of thisconftru&ive Idolatry, becaufe they ufe External Acts of Adoration to an Image,which has a Relation to fome invifible Be- ing: muft not all thofe come into the fame Lift, who ufe the like Extern d Atts of Adoration to other things, which have a like Relation to the fame invifible Being? What excufe fhall there be for him, who Bows to the Altar, or Communion Table ,to the Name of Jef/xfac. All thefe things Relate to the invifible Inhabitants of the next World, and all External A£b exprefs'd to them muft by confequence be a Religious JVorJbip : Then, in P. 6-j. the words of our Replier, If to Worjjjip any Invifible Be~ in& be to give Divine Honours to it ; then to befure, to Worfhip the thing Relating tofach an Invifible Btingjnuft be Religious Worship alfo. For if theWorjbip be refer* d to that Invifible Being, which the thing relates to, it cannot be Civil, but Religious Honour ; and whofbever gives Religious Honour to a thing, do's immediately afcribe Divinity to the object of that Worfhip, and in our Re- pliers Phrafe, by con/lruffionofFaff is an Idolater. «• And now how many here are included in this confe- quence ? Certainly as many as admit of any Religious Refpeft befides to God ; which yet the Replier himfelf was not unwilling (p.So.Jto give to Reliques,alIowing a due Veneration and Religious Decency to the Bodies of Def.p.S62, Saints and Martyrs : And the Learned Dr. Stillingfleet 603 ' is well enough difpos'd to acknowledge a Reverence and Religious Refpefi due to Sacred Places and Things. So that I believe the Replier has overfhot himfelf in this Argument : And that upon confideration,he will admit of (33 J of fome Degrees in Religious .as well as in C&ui Hon And that everything is not immediately fetup fora (7(?i, which is honoured with a Religious Refpett,how- ever this Honour may be ultimately tenr io Gcd. And this thought now brings into my mmd a dole piece of Arguing us'd by the Reflkr, in urging this matter ; and ic lies thus : (p. £6 .; Civil refpecls are con- fin d to this Werld; Bet rve have no intercourft with the other IVcrid, but what is Rdigicus : Therefore as the different kinds and degrees of Civil Honour are difi ■ guijht by the fight of the Object, to which they arepad^ tho* the External Acis of the Jame : 60, 'fays he) the weft cer- tain mark of difiinction between Civil and Rtliaicus IVor- fijip is this, that the one relates to this World, the other to the invifible Inhabitants of the next. Here we have a Confequenct and a Cornpanfon, and both fo excellent in their kinds, that if any better connexion can be found in them, than betwixt the Monument and the May-pole, it muft be by one, who has found one trick more in Lo- gick, thm ever Arifiotle knew. It inftead of his So in the end of his Conclufwn, he had made this application, So are the different kinds and degrees of Religious Honour diftinguijht by the Intention of the Givers, or by fome vi- able reprefentafion, or determination of other circumfian- ces. This might have been inferr'd with fbme depen- dance on the Premifes : And by it we might have com- pounded for the matter in hand : But as the Replier has it, it neither proves, nor is anything. Another Argument we have juft before this, which proves again too much, and is fo unlucky as not to harm us, without cutting the Throat of his own Caufe : The force of it may be thus exprefs'd : No intention can al- ter the nature of Actions , which are determined by a Divine or Humane Lw, Therefore (met the External E (H) Acts of knitting or boxing to or before an Image, are de- terminate/}? forbidden by the Divine Law , the intention of doing no evil in them, cannot excafe them from Sin. For do's not this as feverely ilrike at the Boning down to the Altar, and f^neeling to the Sacrament as at us ? For thofe very Actions arj part of the Dvine IVorjJjip, and Bowing down is the very Idolatrous Action exprefly forbid in the Commandment : And then, if there be. any fitch thing, ( as the Replier lays here,1 as ExUmal and Vifble Idolatry, it mufl cvnfifl in External and Vifibk Actions y for we can never know what Mens intentions are, but by their Actions ; and then ( fays he) if Men do fuel) Actions as are Idolatrous, how can the intention exenfe them from Idolatry I So that by this way of rea foiling he can never ihrow us down, but we muft fall both to- gether. For tho' the Sacrament, or the Altar are not exprefs'd in the Commandment ; yet fince the Exter- nal Att ion of Adoration is a Religious and Divine Wor- fbip ( according to the Repliers Principle before efta- blifh'd J the Bowing down and Kjieeling to them cannot be excus'd from the guilt of Qonfiruflive Idolatry. And whatlbever hole the Replier can poflibly find, to get out at with his Altar, the Reprefenter will eafily follow him at the fame with his Image. But that thcReplier may fee, how far his Argument concludes, 1 would fain know whether a Quaker might not as reafonably makcufe of the fame, for the juiti- fying hisT^'/and his Nay's, and his other points of Quaker ifm ? For if he fhould lay ; No intention can alter the Nature of Actions, which are determined by a Divine Mat. 24 vr Humane Law .« But Swear not at all, Neither be ye call-. Mat. 23 io. ed CMa/lers, and let your Communication be Tea, lea, Nay9 Mat. 5. 37. A^, are Anions or things determined by the Divine Law : Therefore the Intention of doing no evil in them s cannot canot excufethe doing otherwife than is there deter- mine from the guilt of fin. This has equal force from a Quaker as from a Replier, and makes evident, that the fame Arguments which pcrfwade to a Reformation from Popery, do upon the fame grounds plead (till for a farther Reformation. Thus far have Ifollow'd the R flier beyond my bu- finefsof Repreftnting, and I hope I have fo far obliged him in it, that however he has Queftion'd my Honefty, lie will not at leaft, now call me Uncivil. Before I take my leave, I will be lo free as to off.r him a Requeft or two, which will not be thought unreafonable, I hope, fince he himfelf has put them into my Mouth. i. That he will ufe his intereft with Protefttnts, to hold to what he fays they do, and charge us with no- thing, but what we exprefly Profefs to Believe and Prafiife. 2 . That they pick not up the Abufes of fbme,the VL ces and Cruelties of others, the odd Opinions of parti- cular Authors5and hold thefe forth for the Doctrine and Practice ofour Church. And that in charging any Pra- ctices, they charge them upon no more than are con- c^rn'd. 3. That as often as they tell what they think ofour Doctrines and Practices, They would likewife at the fame time inform their Hearers, that thofe Thoughts are, as the Replier fays, Opinions^ Interpretations and Confequences of their own, concerning our Doctrine, and not our avowed Doctrine ; But that we think as ill of thofe Crimes which they charge, as they themfelves do ; and that we, our Doctrine and Practices, are as free from them, as they think of their own \ and that in this confifts the Difference betwixt us. Thefe Thefe are but very Reafonable Requefts, I think,and what every Man may very well expect from his Chrifti- an Neighbour ; they being not fb much Favours as Du- ties : And what every one, who underftands that Golden Rule, of Doing as they would be done by, will comply with without long entreaties. This is defir'd by thofe of the Reformation too, who require in their Sy- Con. S)n. nod of Dort, that None judge of the Faith of their Chur- ches, from Calumnies picked up here and there, or faffages of Particular Authors, which are often falfly cited, or wrejled to a fenfe contrary to their Intention : But from the Confeffions of Faith of their Churches, and from the Declaration of their Orthodox Doctrine unanimoujly made in that Synod. And this is a caution of fb greatimpor- tance, that where 'tis not obferv'd, 'tis no wonder to fee Men contending for the Truth ofChriftianity,and to lofe it amidft their Uncharitable DifTentions. 'Twas my intention not to increafe, but to diminifh thefe heats,and for this end I put forth the double Cha- racter of a Papifi Mifreprefented and Reprefented. 'Twas this was the defign of the Bifhop of Condom in his £jc- pofitionof the Faith of the Catholic Church, and of the Clergy of France, in the Acts of the General Affembly lately publifh'd. The method is inoffenfive, and free from provoking Reflections ; and if by this I have let the World know what our Church Believes and Teaches, 'tis what I intended : And as for diiputing I leave that to fuch, who think it worth their while. FINIS. A N ANSWE T O A DISCOURSE INTITULED, ^apifts $?ottfting agaftttt #?otcttant*i&optcv ; Beinga VINDICATION of Papiflx not Mifre^refented by Protejianfs : And Containing A Particular Examination of Monfieur le MEAVX, late Biihop of Condom, his Exposition of the Doctrine of the CHURCH of ROME, in the Articles O F INVOCATION of SAINTS, AND THE WORSHIP of IMAGES, Occafioned by thatDifcourfe. \M^hpr\of,tr, : LONDON: Printed for John Amery at the Peacock , and William Rogers at the Sun ; both againft St. Dttnftaris Church in Fleet Jlreet. AAV\m YYYVT • i Imprimatur, Martii 19; 1686* C. Altton, R> P. D. Hen. E$k Lond. a Sacris Vomeflicis- ( I ) A N ANSWER TO Papifts Protefting r) AGAINST SINCE the Protefter thinks my Anfwer to his Re- flexions fo great a Complement, I am refolved to oblige him a little farther, and to complement him very heartily, and I fee no reafon, but Complemen- ting may be as good a word for Difputing, as Represen- ting is. The Reply confided of two parts, i . Concerning the Mif- reprefentation of a Papift. 2. Concerning the Rule of true Reprefenting, and I mail confider, what the Protefting Pa- pift fays to each of them. As for the Firft, a Mifreprefenter is fo foul a Character, that no Man can wonder , if we think our felves con- cerned to wipe off fuch an imputation : and therefore I ex- prefly denied the charge, and made it appear from compa- ring his own Characters of a Papift Mifreprefented, and Re- prefented together, that we had not charged them falfly in any matter of Fad, and therefore are no Mifreprefenters : for if we charge them with believing and doing nothing, but B what \i ) what they themfelves confefs to be their Faith and Practice, wherein is the Mifreprefentation ? Thus I particularly (bow- ed, that all matters of Fad (excepting fome points, where- in they difown the Doctrine of their own Church ) in the Character of the Papift Mifreprefented, are confefTed and defended in the Charader of the Papift Reprefented -, and the Protefter himfelf acknowledges, that / have learnedly ( as he is plea fed tO fpeak ) diftinguifhed between matters of Difpute, and of Reprefentatien *, and if fo, then he ought to own, that we do not Mifreprefent them : and this is all I undertook to prove in the firft part of my Reply, and for that reafon gave it the Title of, A Papift not Mifreprefented by Proteftants, wholly with relation to his Character of a Papift Mifreprefented, which I had proved to contain nothing in it, which in a ftrid and proper fenie can be called a Mifreprefentation. We truly relate what the Faith and Pradice of the Church of Rome is, and this is true Reprefenting •> and though we fay their Faith is erroneous, and their Practices corrupt or fuperftiti- cius, contrary to the Laws of God, and the ufages of the Primitive Church 3 yet whether this be true or falfe, it is no matter of Reprefentation but Difpute -, though we believe . thus of their Faith and Practice, we do not charge them with believing fo , and therefore do not Mifreprefent a Papift. Whether they or we be in the right is matter of Difpute, and not to be determined by Character- making, but by an appeal to the Laws of God, and the dictates of right Rea- fon, and the Authentick Records of the ancient Church. While we agree about matter of Fad there can be no Mif- reprefenting on either fide, for there is a great deal of dif- ference between a Mifreprefentation, and a falfe Judgment of things -, and thus I hoped, the talk of Mifreprefenting would have been at an end. But our Author, though he confeffes I am in the right, will have us to be Mifreprefenters ftill 3 He fays, / declare plainly, that Popery is really that Antichriftian Religion, which Pro- u ft am s fay it is, that it teaches and prablifes all thofe fopperies, fu- ferft'uions and non fenfe, which have at any time been charged again ft it by Pmeftams. But I never faid any fuch thing yet, but only laid and proved, that all matters of Fad complained of in the ( 3 ) the Character 01 a Papift Mifreprefented,, are owned by himfelf in the Character of a Papift Reprefented \ and this, I thought, was proof enough, that we were no Mifreprefenters. But the Title of my Reply offends him, A Papifi not Mifrepre- fented by Protefiants, which he fays, is a condemnation of the Re- ligion to all thofe horrid fhapes and monfirous forms, it has beevt at any time expofed in by Members of the Reformation ; by no means i If there have been other Mifreprefentations of them,which our Author has not yet given us an account of, I can fay nothing to them, till I fee what they are •, but my Title related only to my Book, and that related only to the Character of a Pa- pift Mifreprefented, which our Author had given us, and I undertook for that then, and will defend it ftill, that there is no Mifreprefentation in it- Of the fame nature is what he adds, That J tell my Reader in the name of all my Brethren, we charge, them ( the Papifts) W*A nothing , but what they exprefly profefs to believe, and what they frattife ?, and thus fays the Pl'Otefter, in this one ajfertion vouches for the truth ef all that infamy, and prophanenefs, which is laid at their doors: and thus, for ought I fee, I am drawn in for a great deal more than I intended ••> I (poke with reference to his Characters, and now I muft difcharge the fcores of all Proteftants fince the beginning of the Reformation*, but when a Man's in, he muft get out as well as he can : but would not one wonder, that there (houldnot be one word of his own Characters all this while ? that inftead of defending his own Mifreprefentations, which he has fo unjuftly father a upon us, he mould be hunting about to pick up fome new Mifreprefentations for me to anfwer ? There muft be a rea- fon for this, and I believe, I can guefs what it is. But however he takes this occaiion to ranfack the Wri- tings of Proteftants, and to fee what Hne things they have faid of Papifts, and to collect a new Character of a Papift Mifreprefented OUt of them. Forjince all that proceeds from aPo- pifh hand of this nature is fufpetled and challenged, and the double Character of a Papifi Mifreprefented and Reprefented ( about which, as the R.eplier fays, there is fo much pother and noife ) is quefiioned as to its method, its fmcerity, and cxatlnefs, we'll now follow our Author s call, and learn what Popjry is, from the Pens of Prcte- B z ftants. C4 ) jtattts, and efpeelallj from fome of tho(ey rvho are fupfofed to tyon what Popery is. And thus our Author makes as many turnings and doublings as ever any poor Hare did, which was almoft run down. Becaufe I have proved, that his Character of a Papift Mifreprefented, contains no Mifreprefentation in it, properly fo called, therefore forfooth we will not take Cha- racters from a Papift, becaufe we confute them, as foon as they make them, which is not very civil y and therefore hoping that we will be more civil to Proteftant Characters, he turns ofTthe Difpute to them •, never did any Man take more pains to defend Popery, than he does to prove a Pa- pift to be Mifreprefented $ it feems there is fomething in the World called Popery, which he is very much afhamed of, and it is well if it does not prove to be his own beloved Popery at laft.. I had told him as plainly as I could in Anfwer to his Cha- racter of a Papift Miireprefented, what I called Popery, and what I take to be the general fenfe of Proteftants about ir, and (hewed him evidently, that what he calls a Mifreprefen- tation is none --, nay in moft cafes I have allow'd his own Cha- racter of a Papift Reprefented, andfurely there is no Mifre- prefentation in that,unlefs he has mifreprefented a Papift him- felf 5 and why is he not fatisfied with this ? why fo much Zeal to prove us Mifreprefenters, when we are willing to fall with the Market, and to abate as much in the Notion and Idea of Popery, as they are pleafed to lower it? Why muft we be bound to juftifie that Reprefentation of Popery, which fome Proteftants have formerly made of it, when Popery was quite another thing, than the Bifhop of CWw», and the Reprefenter have now made it, any more than they are bound to juftifie every thing, which Thomas Aqninai^ or Bellarmin, or Vafquez. have taught for Popery ? But let us conhder that Character , he has made of a Papift out of the Writings of Proteftants , only I muft put him in mind , that he muft ftill diftinguifh between matters of Reprefentation and Difpute. If the matter of Fact they charge them with be true , they are no Mifre- prefenters j as for their Reafons and Arguments , I will m more undertake to defend all the reafonings of Pro- teftants (5) tenants, than I fuppofe, our Protefter will all the reafon- ings of Papifts. The firft Mifreprefenter, he brings upon the Stage, is John Lord Archbifhop of York, in his Manual or three fmall and plain Treatifes, written for the ufe of a Lady, to pre- ferve her from the danger of Popery. And all that I mall fay to this, is, that if what he transcribes out of his Book, be a Mifreprefentation, it is not a Proteftant, but a Popifh, Mifreprefentation. . For the Archbifhop cites his Authors for what he fays, as the very Title of the Chapter tells us, which I (hall here prefent to the Reader, with all the Re- ferences and Authorities as they are Printed in his Book, and leave the Protelter to coniider of a good Reafon, why he left all thefe Authorities out. CHAP. VI. (fieafons of rcfufal to leaVe the (fiomijl? Religion, collected out of Trinted Authors, I cannot leave my Religion. pa* I. Reafon. . BEcaufe we mufl: (Imply believe the Church of Rome, whether it teach true or falfe. Stapt. Antidot in Evan%* Luk. io. 1 6. fag. £28. And if the Pope believe there is m life to come, we mud believe it as an Article of our Faith. Bulgradus. And we muft not hear Proteftant Preachers, though they preach the Truth. Khcm. ufonTit. 3. 10. And for your Scri- pture, we little weigh it. For the Word of God, if it be not expounded as the Church of Rome will have it, is tlie Word of tlie Devil. Hofins de exfreffo verbo Dei. II. Reafon, . ( 6) I I. Reafon. You rely too much upon the Gofpel, and S. Pants Epiftles in your Religion 5 whereas, the Gofpel is but a Fable of Chrift, as Pope Leo the tenth tells us. Apol. of H. Stephen fol, 358. Smeton. contra Hamilton pag 1 04. And the Pope can difpenfe againfl the Nerv Teftament. Pa- normit. extra de divortiis. And he may check, when he pleafes, the Epiftles of S. Paul, Carolus Ruinm Concil. 109. num. 1. Volum. £. And controul any thing avouched by all the Apoftles. Rota in decif, I. num. 3. in novijf. Anton. Maria in addit. ad decif. Rot a nov. de Big.n. 10. And there is an eternal Gofpel, to wit, that of the Holy Ghofl, which puts down Chrift s. G- reftus a Carmelite fet it forth. I I I. Reafon. You attribute all your Salvation to Faith in Chrift alone. Whereas, He is the Saviour of Men only, but of no Womc»+ Dial, of Dives and Pauper, compl. 6. cited by Rogers upon the Artie, and PoftelltiS in Jefuits Catech. 1. 1 . cap. 1 o. S. Clare. -\ Som. in Morn, de f Ecclef, cap. 9. For Women are faved by ^ C Foftellns in Jefu- \its Catech. Lib. 8. Mother Jane. 'cap. 10. Nay to fpeak properly, S. Francis hath redeemed as ma- ny, as are faved fince his days. Conformit. of S. Fran. And the blood of S. Thomas a Beckct. Hor. Beat. Virg. And fometimes one man, by his fatisfa&ions, redeems an- other. Teft. Rhem, in Rom. 8. 17. IV. J (7) s Our> } \ Mortals, by 5- 6. I V. Reafon] In your Church there Is but one way to remiflion of fins, which you call Faith in Chrift ■> but we have many. For we put away Vemals,mth a little Holy Water ,Teft. Rhem. in Rom.8. 1 7. '•" 1. Merits of the B. Virg. Hor. B. Virg. 2. The Blood of Beckett lb. 3. Agnos Dei, or Holy Lambs, Cerm. I. l.t. 7. 4. Little parcels of the Gofpel, Breviar. Becoming Francifcans,conf.l. 1 .fol. 1 01 . A Bifhops pardon for 40 days, a Cardinals for an 100. days, and the Popes for ever. 1 I Taxa Camer.apud. Eft. in 1 ad Timl V. Reafon, You (land too pre'cifely upon your Sacraments and require a true Faith, in the partakers. Whereas with us, to become a Mon\, or a 2V#/*, is as good as the Sacrament of Bapti/m. Aauin. d? Ingref. Relig. I. z.c.zi. And the very true and real Body of Chrift may^ be de- voured of Dogs, Hogs, Cats and Rats, Alex. Hales, fart, 4- ?• 45* Thorn, farte 3. q. 8. art. 3. VI. Reafon. Then for your Minifters, every one is allowed to have his Wife -, or elfe inforced to live chaftly. : whereas with us, the Pope himfelf cannot difpenfe with a Prieft to marry, no more than he can privi ledge him to take a Purfc. Tw- rianm found fault withal by Caffan. cottfttk. art. 23. But Whoredom is allowed all the year long. ^Sparks* Difcovery, pag. 13. and conftitnt, Othen. de cwcxbit, Cleric, re- movend. And (8) And another fin for June, Inly, -dugufl, which you muft not know of: Allowed for this time by SixtUS QuartUS to all the Family of the Cardinal of S. Lucie, Vejfel. Grovinqenf trail, de indulgent, citat. a Jacob. Laurent. Jefuit, lib. fag. i$6. vide Jo. Wolfii leclion. memorab. centen. fry. fag. 836. For indeed the wickednefs of the Church men is a prime Argument of the worthinefs of the Roman Church. Bellar. I. 4. de Rom. Font. caf. 1 4. artic. 28. And the Pope can make that righteous, which is unrighte- ous, I. 1 . Decretal. Greg. tit. 7. c . y. And yet can no Man fay unto him, Sir, why do you fo ? In extrav. torn. 22. titul. <$.-c. ad Afoftolattt*. VII. and laft Reafon, You in the Church of England have call off the Bimopof Rome, whereas the Bifhop of Rome is a God. Lift. 96. c. fatis evidenter, & Panorm. caf. Quanta Abbas. The Ufe and Application of this Doctrine you may find in the next Chapter, and a particular proof that fome Do- ctrines of the Roman Church deftroy juflice towards Men in all relations •, at the Pofes power of diffenfmg with the duties of all relations : their Dollrines of probabilities, of mental refer- vat ions, that the intention regulates the aHion, that no Faith is to be kept with Hereticks *, that the Pope may depofe Princes, and diffofe of their Kingdoms, far don, nay canonize King- killers, and ab- folve Subjects from their Allegiance, &C. I know our Author calls all this Mifreprefentation, but that is not our Difpute now 5 'but whole Mifreprefentation it is. It is plain, this is not Proteflant but Popijh Pofery 5 for not Proteftants, but Papifts, were the Original Authors : And I doubt not, were it worth the while, it might eafily be proved, that the grolTeft Mifreprefentations , which this Author charges on Proteftants, are only tranferibed out of Po- pifli Authors --, and this he feems to own, when he is fo angry with us for proving thefe Mifreprefentations, as he calls them, by appealing to their own private, but approved, Doctors, who have in plain terms afTerted thofe things, which poor Pro- teftants muft not repeat after them, without incurring the Cenfure of Mifreprefenters. Now (9 ) Now though we 'grant, that every DocVme, which we find in Popiih Authors, ought not to be accounted an Article of the Romim Faith, yet if fuch Books be publithed by the authority of Superiors, and when they are publifhed and known in the World, efcape the Inquifition and the Index txpurgatorius, the Doctrines contained in them ought at leaft to be looked on, as licenfed and tolerated Doctrines, and therefore confiftent with the Romifh Faith, not a Mifre- prefentation of it For will a Church fo ftrict and fevere in its Difcipline, and fo jealous of Herefies, which cenfures all the Ancient Fathers, and expunges out of their Wri- tings every paflage, which in the leaft favours of Here- fie •, which will not entruft the People to ufe the Bible for fear of their learning Herefie from it •, I fay will fuch a Church fufTer their own Doctors to publifh fuch Opinions to the World, as Mifreprefent her own Faith and Wor- ship, without condemning, or pafling the leaft cenfure on them ? And therefore though we cannot prove from thefe pri- vate Doctors, what the Faith of the Church of Rome is , and what all are bound to believe, who are of that Com- munion, yet by their Authority we may confute the^harge of Mifreprefentation. For no Proteftant can be juftly ac- cufed of Mifreprefenting the Doctrines of the Church of Rome, who charges them with no Doctrines, but what are allowed to be taught in that Church, as all thofe Doctrines are, which are allowed by publick Authority to be Printed and Read in the Communion of that Church, efpecially, as 1 obferved before, where the Prefs is kept under fuch ftrift Difcipline, as it is in the Church of Rome We muft not indeed charge all Papifts with believing fuch Doctrines, becaufe all are not bound to believe them, as they are to believe the Decrees and Definitions of their Councils '-, but we may fay, that they are not contrary to the Faith of the Church, becaufe all Papifts are allowed to believe them, who will \ for I prefume all Men are allow- ed .to believe that, which any Man among them is allow- ed to teach. However I hope, it may be fome excufe to the Arch- biihop, that he Mifreprefents only at fecond hand, (fmce C our ( 10 ) our Author will have it to be a Mifreprefentation ) and (ays no more than fome Papifts themfelvesfay , and re- folves all into the Credit and Authority of his Authors 5 and I Cannot think it a greater fault in a Proteftant to give an account of fuch pernicious Doctrines and Opinions, as are owned by fome of their own Writers, than it is in the Church of Rome to fuffer them to be publimed by Autho- rity, and to pafs without any Cenfure, if they diiiike the Doctrine. As for what he tranfcribes out of Doctor Beard and. Mr. Siitc/if, I prefume, he intended we iliould take it all upon his Authority •, for he has not directed us? where to find any of thofe pafTages he has cited, and it is a little too much to read two great Books in Quarto to pick them out. With- out looking on the Books we might eafily perceive, that thofe fayings he has tranfcribed out of them, do not con- cern Repreienting but Difputing, and I never undertook to juftifie every ■ faying in Proteftant Writers againft Popery ♦, but yet fome things founded fo harlh, that I vehemently fufpected foul play, and therefore had the cuiiofity to exa- mine, and found it to be, as I fufpe&ed. Some pafTages for which they produce their Authorities, and that very good Authorities as the World went then, are cited by the Pro- tefter, without any Authorities, as he dealt before with the Archbifhop *, or what they prove by variety of reafons, is na- kedly Reprefented without any reafon to back it j or their words are curtailed, or tranfplaced, which alters their fenfe and (ignification. I fliall give fome kw inftances of this out of Mr. Sutdiffj. to let the World judge, who are the Mif- reprefenters. Quotations out of Mr. SutclifT in the Papifts Protefting, &c Mr. SutcliffV Survey of Popery. THey fpeak what Clnally they fay, they are obfcure they canindifgrace JT and hard to be underftood, of the Holy Scriptures. they fpeal^what they can in difgrhce of the Holy Scriptures. P. 6. They give the Office of Chrift's They give the Office, &c. teaching mediation to the Virgin Mxrfr to that by their Merits Chriftians ob~ rain ( II ) Angels and to Saints, they make alfo Saints our Redeemers. They overthrow Grace, and af- cribe the merit of our Salvation not to Gods mercy through Chrift, not to the merit of his Paffion , but properly to our own Works and Merits. They cut out the Second Com- mandment becaufe it cannot (land with the Popiih worihip of Images. They pray before Stocks and Stones, nay they put their truftin them. Papifts think they do God good fervice, when they murder true Chriftians. By the Do&rine of Papifts the Devils of Hell may be faved. Papifts blafphemoufly make Chrilt not only a defperate Man without hope, but alfo an Infidel without Faith, p. 1 3. That Chrift is not the Redeemer of all Mankind. tain their defires, and are delive- red out of Purgatory. Ibid. Albeit they exclude not Grace from the work of our Salvation , yet making Grace a Habit or Ver- tue, they overthrow Grace, &C. p. 9. They cut out the Second Command- ment in the Offices of our Lady and their Primers, becaufe, &c. lb. Nay they put their truft in them : for if this were not fo, why fhould they hope for better fuccefs at the Image of our Lady of Loretto or Monferat, than at any other Image or form of our Lady.? p. 10. Proved from the cruel Executi- ons in England, France, Germany , Spain, p. 23. They teach, that the Devils of Hell may have true Faith, but our Saviour faith John 3. that whofoever believeth in him fhall not perifh , but have everlafting life. So it follow- eth by the Dottrine of Papifts, that the Reprobates, and Devils in Hell may be faved. p. 28. Jhey take from Chrift both Faith and hope. AquL p. 3. q. 7. art. 4. So that which they falfely obje- cted to Calvin doth rightly fall up- on the Papifts— that they blafphemouf' ly make Chrift, &c. They affirm the Virgin Mary to be conceived without original Sin, &c.f of which it follows, that Chrift is not the Redeemer of all Man- kind, for what needed they a Rc- deemer,who were not born nnners? *. 4i. Q z They. ( II ) They make Chiift ints and Angels. inferiour to They prefer: the Pope before irift.. To the linages of the Crofs and ucifix, they give as much ho- ur as is due to God. p. 14. They fall down like Beaits be- e the Pope, and worlhip him God, afcribing to him molt blaf- emoufly the honour due to Chiift. They give divine honour to Ima* >, which they them felves cannot ly to be Idolatrous. They fay MafTes in honour of Angels and Saints, but he, in whofe honour a Sacrifice is offered , is greater than the Sacrifice: doth it not then appear, that while they offer Chrifls Body and Blood in honour of Saints and Angels, they make Chrifi inferior to Saints and An- gels ? p. 42. They prefer the Pope before Chrifi, for ChriiVs Body, when the Pope goeth in progrefs, is fent before with the Baggage, and when the Pope is near, goeth out to meet him, while all the Gallants o[Rome attend on the Pope./>. 43. To the Images, &C. — teaching their followers, that it is but T)ne honour given to the Image, and the thing Reprefented by the Image. />. 74. They fall down, &c. Paulus J£ml- lius 1 2. telleth, how the Ambaffa- dors of Sicily cried thus to the Pope, Thou that takeft away the fins of the World have mercy upon us. — Stapleten to Greg. 1 3. calfs him fu- fremum numen in terris : They call him Vicar of Ghrifr, the Monarch of the Church , the Head , the Spoufe , the foundation of the Church, afcribing to him mofl blaf- fhemottfly the honour due to Chrifi. p. 72. They confefs it Idolatry to give divine honour to Creatures. But they give divine honour to the Sa- cament, to the Crofs,and to Images of the Trinity, which, I hope, they will not deny to be Creatures. The ( >3 ) The Romifh Church confifts of a Pack of Infidels, p.i$. Scripture and Fathers they read not. In a member of the Catholick Church (they fay ) neither inward Faith nor other virtue is required , but only that he profefs outwardly the Romifh Religion, and be fub- je& to the Pope. They make more Confcience to abftain from fleih on Friday, than. to murder Chriftians. Divers points of Popifh Do- ctrine are efpecially laid to proceed fi:om the Devil. Faith is of things ( as the Papi/is fay in their Catechifm ) only pro- pofed to us by the Church 5 fo that if the Church propofe not to us the Articles of Faith, we are not to believe them, if thefe Men teach truth. Further this fheweth , the Romifh Church confifls of a pack, of In- fidels 5 for if the fame believed not without the authority of the Church, then (he did believe nothing of Chrift, feeing the Papifts acknow* ledge no other Church but that of Rome, and no Church can teach it felf. p. 178. Spoken of the Schoolmen ( not of all Papifts) upon the authority of Ferdinando Vellofillo.p. 20O. This Opinion he attributes to Cardinal Bellarmn and cites de Ec- c/ef. miiit. cap. 2. They mah^e more Conference, Sec. as their curiolity in keeping the Faft, and their cruelty in malTacring Chriftians declares. ?. 20^. Hennftances in-forbidding Mar- riage, and commanding to abftain from meats, which he fays are called in Scripture Doctrines of Devils., f.- 213. That the Popifh Church hath no true BifJyops, that Popery in many points is more abfurd and abominable than the DoRrine c/MallOmet: That Papifts , that pofitively hohd the heretical and fa/fe Dotlrines of the modern Church of Rome, cannot pojfibly be favea\ are the Titles of feveral Chapters, in which he en- deavours to make good thefe charges, how well let our Author confider h but all men .will, fee, that this is not Reprefenting but Difputing. This ( i4 ) This is abundantly enough to give the Reader a tail of the Protefters honefty in Reprefenting, and how little I am concerned in thefe Quota- tions. If fome Proteftants have charged the Do&rines and Practices of the Church of Rome vvith iuch confequences as they cannot juftifie, wi- fer Proteftants difown it, and Papifts may confute it, if they pleafe, which will be a little more to the purpofe, than to cry out fo Tragically about Mifreprefenting. But to make good this charge of Mifreprefenting againftus, he con- cludes with feveral paflages out of the HomftHes,concerning the worfhip of Saints and Images. Now if our Church be guilty of Mifreprefenting in her very Homilies, which we are all bound to fubfcribe, we muft acknowledge our felves to be Mifreprefenters. But wherein does the Mifreprefentation confift ? Do they not fet up Images in Churches ? And do they not worfhip them ? Have they not a great number of Saints,wh©m they worfhip with Divine Honours ? The matter of fact is plain and confefled, and therefore our Church does not mifreprefent them. So that the only Mifreprefentation he can complain of, is, that he does not like the judgment of our Church about theworjhip 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 Mifreprefenters in this, if he can -7 for that'is not proved meerly by his calling it Mifreprefenting. Only I would gladly know of this Author, what he takes the judg- ment of the Church of England to be about the worfhip of Images ? Whether it be Idolatry or not? If he thinks our Church charges them with Idolatry in worshipping Images, (which I fuppofe he means when he complains of Mifreprefentation, and picks out fome paflages, which look that way ) there is the authority of Doctor Godden againft him (un- lefs he has changed his mind lately) who accufes Dr. St, with contradict- ing the Church of England in his charge of Idolatry upon the Church of Rome , and makes it a certain mark of Fanaticifm to do fo : and then how- ever we may be thought to mifreprefent the Church of Rme in this charge of Idolatry, we do not mifreprefent the Church of England in it, which is fome fatisfa<5tion to us, that we are not Mifreprefenters en both ndes. _ But thefe Men take great liberties in Reprefenting 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 5 though their Articles and Homilies be the fame {till: but they deal with the Church of England no worfe than they do with their own Church s in one Age a BdLirmine truly Reprefents the Doctrine of their Church, in an- other a Bilhop of Condom •, and though the Council of Trent be but one one and the fame, the Faith ofit alters very often, as it may beft ferve the intereft of the Catholick Caufe. Our Author having expofed the Proteftant Character (as p -ft p he calls it ) of a Papifl, which he always looked upon mo other \ ^j^ &cX. ' than of a Papifl Mifreprefented, he falls a commending the zeal 17. ' of Proteftants againftfuch Popery with great earneftnefsand paflion, and therein we agree with him, as believing it to be very commendable 5 and do not doubt ( as he fays ) but thofe Martyrs recorded by Fox, who for not embracing this Popery pajfed the fifty Tryal , had furely a glorious Caufe, and that the Triumphs and Crowns of Glory, which waited for them in Heaven , were not inferior to what thofe enjoyed . who fuffered under Decius or Diocleiian. I agree with him alfo, that there is no need of any longer dif agreement, that there is no necejfity of keeping up names of divifion ; that Proteflant and Papifl may now floakc hands, and by one fubfcription clofe into a Body, and joyn in a fair and amicable cor- refpondence : For if (as he fays ) there is no Papift, but will give his hand for the utter fuppreffing this kind of Popery, I fee 110 P' x%' reafon, why they may not joyn in Communion with the Church of England which has fuppreiTed it. But I am not of his mind, that all the Strife has been about a word -, for the Difpute has been about the Worship of Saints, and Images •, about Tranfubftantiation, worshipping the Holt, Commu- nion in one kind, Service in an unknown Tongue, the au- thority and theufe of the Holy Scriptures,the Sacrament of Pe- nance, Indulgences, Purgatory, the Popes Supremacy, and feveral other material differences =, which are fomething more than a meer Word -, will they now part with all thefe Do- ctrines and Practices, fince they have been informed by great an& good authorities ,what the nature and evil tendency of thefe things is ? No ! by no means, they will retain all thefe Doctrines and Practices ftill,but will renounce and abhor ail chat evil, which Proteftants charge rhem with • They will pray to Saints, and worlhip Images frill, but they will abhor all Heatheniih Idola- try in fuch Worlhip, &cb\xi what reafon is this for Proteftants; to joyn with them in one Communion, while they retain the fame Faith and Worlhip, which at firft made a Reparation ne-- celTary, and we retain the fame opinion of their Faith and Worlhip, which ever we had ? If Papifts be the fame, & Pro- teftants the fame, that ever they were, if Separation were oncer ( I* ) once neceflliry, furcly ic is fo. ftill. What change is there now in Papifts, which was not before, that flioiild now in- vite us to embrace their Communion ? Yes they abhor all that which Proteftants call Popery. This is good news, but let us a little better underftand it. Do they abhor the YVor- iliip of Saints and Images, and the Hoft ? Do they abhor the Doctrines of Tranfubftantiation, Penances, Indulgences, Purgatory ? Do they renounce the Popes Supremacy, &c no fuch matter / but they abhor thole Opinions, which Pro- tectants have of thefe things •, did they then ever believe that thefe Doctrines and Practices were fo bad, as Proteftants al- ways did, and to this day, fay they are ? if not, what change is there in them, that mould invite us now to a reconciliati- on ? Did Proteftants feparate from Papifts, becaufe they be- liered, that Papifts thought Idolatry lawful? If not, why is their abhorring Idolatry, while they do the fame tilings, that ever they did, a fufficient reafon for a re- union? Sup- pofe fome Common-wealths-men, who take up Arms a- gainft the King, mould tell the Royalifts, who fight for him, that they have all this while miftaken one another, that for their parts they hate Rebellion, as much as they can do, and have been greatly mifi eprefented by thofe who have called them Rebels-, the firife has been only abom a word , and there- fore it is time for them now to joyn all together, not in their duty to their Prince, but in oppofing him 3 though I dare not fmile at our Author for fear of his difpleafure again, yet I fancy a good Subject would entertain fuch a propofal with a very difdainful fmile. And therefore as for mifreprefenting, our Author may complain on till he is a weary, but he can never prove us ro be Mifreprefenters, while they ftill own that Faith and Worihip, which we charge them with, and if henhinks we cenfure their Doctrine and Worfhip too feverely, let him vin- dicate it, when he can. In my Reply I coniidered, what were the faults of his two- fold Character of a Papift mifreprefented, and reprefented, and -(hall now briefly examine, what he fays to it. As for the Character of a Papift mifreprefented, I obfer- ved, I. That l.e put fuch things into the Character, as no A fan in ■kis veils ever charged tljem with: As that Papifts arc not permitted t* fl7 ) to hear Sermons, -which they are able to under ft and, or that they held it lawful to commit Idolatry, or that the Papift believes the Pope to be his great God, and to be far above all Angels, which the Anfwerei' calls Childifb and wilful miftakes. And yet ( fays the PrOtefter, p. 19, ) thofe very things almofi in exprefs terms, and others far more abfurd, we fee charged on them, as isfiewed above; that is in the Quotati- ons out of the Archbimop and others.. But I can fee no fucli thing, unlefs the Supremum numen in tcrris ( as Stapleton calls Greg. 1 3. ) fignifie that the Pope is their great God, and then I muft beg his pardon, that I did not think any Man in his wits fo filly, as it feems Tome of their own great Divines have been, for this is not a Proteftant, but a Popifh reprefentation of them. 2. I found fault, That the Opinions of Proteftants concerning Po- Repiv p.A. pifh Doctrines and Practices, and thofe ill confequents which are charged and juftly charged upon them, are put into the Character of a Papift mifreprefented, as if they were his avowed Dotlrine and Belief. For whofoever gives a Chara&er of a Papift, ought only to repre* fent, what his Faith and Practice is, not what Opinion, he, who gives the Character, has of his Faith and Pra&ice: for this does not belong to the Character of a Papift , but only fignifies his own private Judgment, who gives the Character: while we charge Papifts only with matter of Fact, what they believe and what they pra&ife, this is a true Character, and no Mifrepre- fenting-, but if we put our own Opinions of his Faith and Pra- ctice into his Character, this is Mifreprefenting, becaufea Papift has not the fame Opinion of thefe things, which we have, and this makes it a falfe Character. To this -the PrOtefter anfwerS- p. ^0. This is a pretty fpeculative quarrel, I confefs, and might defervedly find room here, were i; our bufinefs to confider the due method of mifreprefentation in the abftracl : But as our prefent concern ft ands, here s a quaint conceit left for coming in a wrong place. For what had the Author of the Mifreprefentation to do with thefe Rules ? He did not intend to mifreprefent any Body. This is very pleafant ! 3. Man, who undertakes to make Characters, is not bound to con- fider, what a Character is, nor what belongs to reprefenting, nor mifreprefenting. Any Man would have thought fo indeed, who had read his Characters, but I never expected, that he mould have faid fo But he did no^ intend to mifreprefent any Body, and therefore had nothing to do with thofe Rules-, but he intended, it feems,' to give an account, how Papifts are mifreprefented by Proteftants, and theiefore ought to have underftood, what is Mifreprefenting, and not have called disc Mifreprefenting, which is not. D But ( i8 ) But his Province ( he fays) was only to draw forth the Char after tf a Papift, as it is commonly apprehended by the Vulgar or the Multitude, with the common prejudices and mi flakes that generally attend fuch a no- tion. Now I would fain know, whether this Char abler , as it lies in the Peoples beads, is diftinguifhed into antecedents and confequents; whe- ther they, when they hear one declaiming again f} Popery for committing Idolatry, as bad or worfe than that of the grejfeft Heathens, worfbipping Stocks and Stones for Gods, diftinguifheth between the Doctrine of the Papifts, and thefe interpretations and conferences charged again ft it.. Thus in fhort he tells US, The Character of a P dpi ft Mifrepre- fented was intended only, as the Author express him f elf in his intrs^ dull ion, for a Copy of Popery as painted in the imagination of the Vulgar,, and if it be conform to that, it is exatt and perfect ; and if there be any faults in it, the blame mu ft fall on thofe, who drew the Original. This is the fiim of hisexcufefor putting fuch things into the Cha- racter of a Papift Mifreprefented, as do not belong to Chara&er- making, nor are in a ftritt and proper fenfe Mideprefentations. That the common People, who do not diftinguilh between An- tecedents and Confequents, have fuch an idea and notion of a Papift, as he has defcribed in the Character of a Papift Mifte- reprefented. Well, fuppofe this, how does this mend the mat- ter? If his Character of a Papift Mifreprefented, be no mifre- prefentation, then our People, who have this notion of a Pa- pift, arenot Mifreprefenters. Now this is that, which I under- took to prove in my Reply, That there is nothing of mifrepre- ientation, properly fo called, in his Character of a Papift Mifre- prefented •, It is a falfe Character indeed, becaufe it contains fuch things, as arenot matters of Reprefentation, but ofDifpute, and therefore do not belong to aChara&er^but feparate matters of Fa£t from matters of Opinion and Difpute,as I have particularly done in my Reply, and the Character of a Papift Mifreprefented contains no matter of Fad, excepting fome very few things, butwhat the Cha- ra&er of the Papift Reprefented owns. And therefore as far as it can be called a Chara6ter,it is a true one. And if this ( as he fays ) be a Copy of Popery as painted in the imagination of the Vulgar, the Original cn have no more of mifreprefentation in it, than the Copy has. But though the Protefter does acknowledge, that there is a real difference between Reprefenting the Doctrines and Practices of Papifts , and declaring our own Judgment and Opinion »:ao. concerning them , he fufpe&s the People do not diftinguifh be- tween Antecedents and Confequents , between the DoSlrines of the Pa^ifls and thefe interpretations and' confe-quer.ces charged on it. 1 hep ( 19 ) They ftvtillmv all down greedily in the lump, Antecedents and Con- ferments go down with them all at once. But what does he mean by this > that any Proteftant People are fo filly as to think that Papifts believe as bad of their own Religion, as they be- lieve of it ? That Papifts believe Idolatry to be lawful, as he tells us in the Character of a Papift Mifreprefented h or that they believe the Worihip of an Image to be Idolatry > no, I affure him, our People are taught, what Popery is »i its genuine purity, as he fpeaks* tliey know in the moil: mate- rial points, what the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is, and are taught, what to think of it •, and when they hear or read our Dilputes againft the Church of Rome, they are not fo weak as to believe, that we and Papifts have the fame Opinions about Worshipping Saints and Images, and the Hoft, &c and therefore are not in danger of affixing fuch Opinions on Papifts,as they hear us charge on Popery. So that this is a very needlefs fear he is in, and if nothing el fe hinders, he may fas he promifes) reform hisCharacter of a Papift Mifreprefented. I muft confefs we are pretty pofitive in declaring to our People the evil and danger of Popery. We tell them what we think of it, not as thinking Signifies doubtfulnefs and un- certainty, but an allured perfwafion founded on Reafon, Scri- pture, and the be/t Authorities : as he complains, that we go P 2r# beyond thinking, and inflead of faying nv thinks fo, me pofitive ly fay, foit is. But if we are in the right, there is no hurt in this, and we (hall believe fo, till they can prove, that we are in the wrong s we do not indeed pretend to Infallibility, but we think our lelves as certain, as thofe who do. This is the fum of what he fays in defence of his Cha- racter of a Papift Mifreprefented, that though he acknow- ledges my diftinction to be good between Matters of Difpute and of Representation-, and confequently that his Character ef a Papift Mifreprefented has nothing of mifreprefentation in it, truly fo called -, yet he fays, this is the Idea of a Papift, as it is commonly apprehended by the Vulgar, who do not diftinguilh between Antecedents and Confequents, but what- ever they hear faid of Popery, they take to be the Faith of a Papift, without diftinguiining what it is the Papifts own, and believe, and practife, and what guilt Proteftants charge them with for thus believing and doing : that when they hear the Papifts charged with Idolatry for Worfhipping Images, they as verily think, that Papifts believe Idolatry to be lawful, as D z they. ( 20 ) they do, that they believe it lawful to Worfhip Images. If there be any among us fo very filly, I dare fay, they can nei- ther Read nor Write, and therefore lie might have fpared his pains in writing and printing Characters for them •, and if his Character of a Papift ( as he fays) be what he thought of a Pa- pift, while he himfelf was a Proteftant, it feems he was in a very low difpenfation then, and could not himfelf difiinguijh between Antecedents and Conferments, but /wallowed all doven toge- ther, though he is now improved into a Writer of Characters --, and may they never have any wifer Converts. However this does plainly yield the cauie, that the Proteftant Clergy, and undemanding Gentry and Laity, who can diftinguifh between Antecedents and Confequents, are no Mifrepreienters , and as for others, we fear, they have a great many more Mifreprefen- ters on their fide, than we hope, we have on ours. Let us now confider his Character of a Papift Reprefented, and what the faults of that are. Now the general fault is, that whereas one might reafonably expect, that there fhould be fome difference between the Character of a Papift Miirepre- fented, and of a Papift Reprefented, and he has endeavoured to make his Readers believe, that there is, yecin truth there is none in moft parts of the Character. For what does ftrictiy be- long to Representation, that is, all matter of Fact, is the fame in both. For, i. He having put the Opinions of Proteftants concerning Popifh Doctrines and Practices into the Chara- cter of a Papift Mifreprefented, as if they were his avowed Doctrine and Belief 5 in the Character of a Papift Repre- fented he denies, that he believes thofe Interpretations and Confequences •, and this he might very eafily do, becaufe (as he obferves,/>. 24.) no body charges him with that beliefs and where- as he fays, then he contradicts n» Body, and he hopes thne is ro fault in that, he is fo far in the right •, but his fault is, that he im- pofes upon his Reader, with an appearance of a Mifreprefen- tation, when there is none ■■> and by his denying that they be- lieve fuch things , would periwade the World, that Prote- ftants charge Papifts with believing all thefe ill things them- felves, which we fay of their Faith and Worfhip* a iign that he was hard put to it, to find out fome Proteftant Mifreprcien- tations of Papifts. And 2. As for matter of Fact, which alone IS proper for a Character, he generally ovens the Dotlrines and Practices we charge them- with; and his faying, here could this pcf- $l4y be tthtrwife, if they charge us with ncr.Cy bat what we ex- ( ii ) frejly frofefs to own (in which he reflects upon what I had faid in my Reply, that we charge them with believing nothing,buc what they exprefly profefs to believe) is nothing to thepur- pofe j for it is not abfolutely what we charge them with, bat what he himfelf makes us charge them with in his Character of a PapiftMifreprefented, and calls us Mifreprefenters fordo- ing fo, that he owns in the Character of a Papift Represented, as I particularly (hewed in my Reply 7 now the queftion is , why he calls one Character a Mifreprefentation, and the other a Reprelentation, when the matter of Fact is the fame in both? But then (3 ) I obferved, that in feme cafes he difowns that to be the doctrine and belief of their Churchy which manifefily is fo, and has been f roved on them, beyond all pojfibilitj of a fair Reply, by the learned Anfwerer. To which he Anfwers : then for all his wordy we are infome cafes charged with ?nore than we exprefly pro- fefs to believe. But he mud know we do not take the profeffi- on of the Roman Faith from every private Charadter-maker, but from the authentick Records of their Church 3 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 fo : and though he may huff at manifefily and proving, I fufpect, he will take a little time before he brings it to the Tryal. This is a fufficient anfwer to his freih complaint of Mifre- prefentations. I now proceed to the fecondpart of the Reply, The rule of true Reprefenting, or the Rule whereby the Do- ctrine of the Church of leme is to be known. He appealed fo the Council of Trent^vA the Catechifm ad Parochos, andthefe I acknowledged to be authentick Rules 3 but fince Catholick Divines differ about the fenfe of the Council and Catechifir,. rhequeftion is, Why we mult prefer his fenfe of the Council and Catechifm before Cardinal Bellarmins, or any other Di- vines of Note and Eminency in the Church of Rome, who lived iince the Council of Trent, and may be prefumed to understand the meaning of it, as well as the Reprefenter ■, and therefore to remove this difficulty in his Reflections he appealed to the Bithop of Condom, as the Authentick Expo- fitor of the Council and Catechifm, and told us, how his Book had been approved by many Bifliops, and Cardinals , and by the prefent Pope himieif, and therefore has the au- thority of the See j4poftolic\. To this I anfwered in my Reply (p. 44.) that the atten- tion given to Cardinal Bellarmins Controverfies was not infe- rior rior to that given to the Biihop of Condom 's Expofition ofthe Dottrine of the Cadiolick Church-, that it was Dedicated t© Pope Sixtus 5. md that with the Popes leave and good li- king, which is not much inferior to a teftimonial under the Popes hand 5 and why then are not Bellarmins Controverfies as authentick a rule for the Expofition of the Catholick Faith, as the Biihop of Condoms ? But to this he thought fit to aufwer nothing. And whereas he pretends that die Popes approbation gives it the authority of the Apofiolk\ See : I acquainted him out of Aiekhior Caws ', That the name of the Apoftolick^ See does notjtjr-. nife the Pope in his private capacity, but in his Chair, or doing fuch things, and in fuch a manner, as belong to the Papal Chair, that is, not giving his own private fenfe, but proceeding in Council with tlx advice of good and learned Aien 3 and therefore that is not to be Accounted the Judgment of the Apofiolich^ See, which is given only by the Bifhop of Rome, privately, malicioufly, and inconfideratelyy or with the advice only of feme few of his own mind, but what he determines upon a due examination of the thing , by the advice and Counfel of many wife Men, To this the Protefter anfv\ ers that it is only an ungrounded Pag- $• and ill-turned confequence, that becaufe that is not to be accounted the judgment of the Apofi click. See, which is given only by the Pope , • privately, malicioufly, and inconfiderately, or with the advice only of fome few of his own mind, therefore this learned Prelates Expofiti- on of the Catholick^ Faith is to be thrown by, as of no Authority ; fo that our Replier has here concluded without any more ado, that the approbation of this Bookwas only given privately, malicioufly, in- confiderately, or clfe with the advice only of fome few of the Popes own mind, otherwife the Confequence will not hold. But I thought Comet had told us, what was necelTary to make the Popes ap- probation the judgment of the Apoftoiick See, as well as what hinders it from being fo. That the Pope muft give judgment according to the due form and method of proceedings be- longing to the Apoftoiick Chair, in full Council, after due exa- mination, and with the advice of many wife Men.^ Now I only defire to know, whether the Pope in a full Council of Cardinals, did give judgment ex Cathedra, that the Bithop of Condoms Book was a true Expofition of the Catholick Faith* For if he did not, though the Pope and all his Cardi- nals mould fingly for themfelves give their own private judg- ment and approbation of it, according to Canus his rule, it is not not the judgment of the Apoftolick See, for it is a private judgment , whether it be malicious or not, which I was fo far from concluding without more ado. that, as the Protefter obferves, I did not fo much as tranflate it, ( though I put it ' in the Latine Quotation in the Margin, which is an argument I did not defignedly conceal it) becaufe I thought it was need- lefs to my purpofe : and yet the Confequence holds good without it,if it be not a judgment ex Cathedra,\t is not the judg- ment of the Apcftolkl^ See, which was all I intended to prove 5 and our Author in his long harangue has faid nothing to prove that it was, nay is fo far from that, that he avoided the very mentioning of that, becaufe he knew not what to fay to it. Malitioujly and inconfideratelj were pretty words to defcant up- on, but the Cathedra choaked him. The truth is the principal Commendation, which is given to the Biihop of Condoms Book, is, that it is a new way of dealing with Hereticks, and that which they hope may be more effectual than Difpucing has been i but there is none of them, that make it the Rule, much lefs the only Rule of the Catholick Faith. Cardinal de Bullion acquaints Cardinal Btna, that there are fame (and he fpeaksof Catholicks) who find- Card. -Bono's. fome' fault in it t, and Cardinal Sigifmond Chigi in his Letter to Ietcer* the Abbot of Dangeau, though he highly commends him , yet is far from allowing his Book to be the Standard of the Catholick Faith, or the Authentick interpretation of the Council of Trent, when he tells the Abbot, certainly it was never his ( Condom'/) intention to give the interpretation of the Tenets of the Council, but only to deliver them in his Bookjright- bj explicated, infuchfort, th°\t Hereticks may be convinced : that is, he did not allow him to interpret the Council, but com- mends him for dealing with Hereticks in a new, and, as he thought, more advantageous method, than had been former- ly ufed 5 and to this purpofe the Pope commends him, that bis Expo/it ion of the Catholic^ Faith contains fuch Doffrine, and is com- fofed in fitch a method, and with fo much prudence-, that it is thereby rendred proper to infirutl the Readers clearly in few words, and to extort even from the unwilling, a confeffton of th' Catholick^ Faith. Now to me this feems to fall very fhort of making the Bilhops Exposition the Authentick interpretation of the Council of Trent -^ that what ever the- Biihop of Condom fays, is the fenfe of the Council, muft be acknowledged to be fo, though other, as good Catholick Divines, as famous in. their Generation? and. ( M") and whofe Bocks have been received with as univerfal appro- bation, are of another mind *, and which fignifies a little with us Protectants , where the plain words and reafon of the Council is againft him. I would defire our Author to tell me,whether the Pope,when he approved the Bifhop of Condoms Book,did at the fame time condemn Cardinal BelUrmins, or thofe other Divines and Schoolmen, who give fuch a different explication of the Coun- cil of Trent, from what this Bifhop does ; if he did not, what authority has he given to this Expofition, more than any other Catholick Doctor may challenge > Why may we not, if we pleafe, follow Bellarmin, or Suarez, or Vafquez, or Cajetan, as well as Condom ? Our Author thinks it the ihorteft and cafieft way to decide this Controjrerfie whether he have truly Repre- fented the Faith of a PapiiT , by making an experiment : Thus he concluded his Reflections, p. 19. Do but you, or any Friend for you ( though I did not know before , that the Church of Rome would admit Proxies in the profeflion of our Faith ) give your ajfent to thofe Articles of Faith, as I have Reprefented it, in the very form and manner as I have fiat ed them, in that Char abler of a Tap ft Reprefented ; and if upon your re- queft, you are not admitted into the Communion of the Roman Ca- tholicks, and owned to believe aright in all thofe points, fie then confefs, that I have abufedthe World, that my heprefenting is Mif- prefenting the Faith of the Papift. To this I anfwered in my Reply, p. 40. that I did believe that his Reprefentation was the Faith of a Papift, excepting what concerned the depofing Doctrine, and fome few other points, which I had before particularly remarked ( not that this is the whole of what Papifts believe, but that it is right as far as it goes ) but we did not like his Faith io well, as he had Reprefented it, as to make the experiment. This I thought had been anfwer enough for any reafonable Man, but in his Anfwer to the Re- ply, he is (fill for new experiments, as being much eafier than Difputing,which he does not like, and now the trial is, That if Ptpijls Pro- notrpithftanding my rcfufal to admit the depofing DoUrir.c, and the teJL p. 2 po^s irfaiiiyjiity, but as ftated by the Repref enter ( that is, not as Articles of Faith ) I be uot judged fufficiently qualified as to thefe points, to be 'received into the Communien of the Roman Catholicks, then he will grant, that I have reafon to charge the Reprefentcr not to have done his part in thefe particulars, that IS, not tO have truly Reprefented the Faith of a Papift. Now ( 1 5 ) Now in anfwer to this, I beg his leave,that I may take my turn too in making Propofals, and I will do it very gravely, without the leaft Smile, fincel fee he is offended at it, and>thatisthis. Suppofe I mould refolve to be a thorough-paced Papift, and in- Head of aifenting to his Reprefentation, mould rather chufe that Reprefentation, which Cardinal Bellar mine has made of the Faith of a Papift, who does not mince the matter, as to worftiipping Images, and praying to Saints, and trufting in their aid and affifl:ance,(£T. who makes the Popes Infallibility and his Depofing Power an Article of Faith ; mould I be thought fufficiently qua- lified, as to thefe Points ( wherein the Cardinal exprefly contra- dicts and condemns our Authors, and the Biihop of Condom's Re- prefentation ) to be received into the Communion of Roman Ca- tholicks? Ifl mould (and I will venture the Proteftorto fay, that I mould not) then if his Argument from Experience be good , it is plain, That Cardinal Bellarmine has made a true Reprefen- tation of the Roman Catholick Faith \ and thus we have Expe- rience for both fides, for Cardinal Bellarmine, and for the Bifhop of Condom, and our Reprefenter j andyetitisfomewhatftrange, they mould be all true Reprefenters, efpecially in thofe points, wherein they contradict each other. This the Biihop of Condom was aware of, and therefore con- cludes his Book with a Caution againft it to thofe, who mould think fit to anfwer it. That it would be a quitting the defign of this Treatife, to examine the different Methods which Catholick^ Divines make ufe of, to efiablifli or explicate the DoSlrine of the Council of Condom VEv- Trent, and the different Confequences, which particular Doctors have Pfv- 5r« drawn from it. Which is a plain Confeffion, that other Catholick Divines do not agree with him in this Method, nor allow of thofe narrow Bounds, which he has fet to the Catholick Faith \ and therefore it was wifely done of him to perfuade his Anfverers, to take no notice of any fuch Difagreement, and it will be a great piece of Civility and good Breeding in them not to do it j but how other Catholick Divines will take this, I cannot tell. This is enough in all Confcience concerning the Bifhop of Con- doms Authority, which 1 muft ftill fay is nothing, when we fpeak of an Authentic k Rule of expounding the Catholick Faith, in which fenfe our Author appeals to him ; though we will allow him the Authority of a wife and prudent man, whofe writings are publifhed and approved by Publick Authority, as the writings of . other Catholick Doctors are, which is all the Authority we Pro- E teflants Ci6) teftents give to our beft Writers ; and therefore the Protefter has no reafon to complain (as he does p. 27. ) of an uneven kind ofjuftice and Re« fining in this matter, and w hoever delires a more particular account of the Bifhop of Co«*Ws Authority, and thofe Glorious Teftimonies which are given to his Book, if he be a reafonable man, may find Satisfaction in the Preface to the late Anfwer to the Bifhop of Condom. But the truth is, 1 know no reafon there is for all this Difpute. I told the Reflector before, that 1 did not like his Faith, though it were as he has reprefented it j mould we allow the Bifhop of Condom % Expofition, and his Character of a Papift reprefented, to contain the true Catholick Faith, and that this is the whole of what the Council of Trent has determined, yet I can never be of this Religion } and fince he was not fatisfied with my bare telling him fo, I will now give him fome Reafons for it, and par- ticularly (hew him, what it is I diflike in Monfieurde Meanx the late Bifhop of Condom his Expofition of the Doctrine of the Church about the Object of Worfhip, Invocation of Saints, and worlhip of Images, and take the flour ifnes of his Introduction in- to the bargain. And I chufe thefe Heads, becaufe thefe are the matters, wherein he principally appeals to the Biihop of Con- dom, and about whichonly he has offered any thing like an Ar- gument, in his anfwer to my Reply : And I am as glad to take any opportunity of ufeful Difcourfe, as our Author fecms cautious not to give any. And that neither he nor the Biihop may have any occaflonof Quarrel, I (hall obferve the Directions the Bifhop has given to thofe, who think fit to anfwer to his Treatife. He tells us} To urge any thing [olid againfi this Treatife ( the Condom's Ex . E-^'P0^011 ) ^d which may come home to the point, it mufi be pro- tlf p. 5 r. zc^i l^at the Churches Faith is not here faithfully expounded, and that by Alls, which the fame Church has obliged her felfto receive j or el ft ;t tnufi be jhewn, that this Explication leaves Jl the Objections in their full force, and all the difputes untouched; or in fine it mufi be precifcly jhewn, in what this Doclrine fubverts the foundations of Faith. As for the firfl of thefe, it is done already to my hand,in the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly reprefented, in anfwer to the Papift mifrcprefented and reprefented. And he mult be as bold a man, who will attempt to mend that Author, as who attempts to confute him. The other two 1 will have in my eye in exa- mining, as far as I am now concerned, Monfiexr de Afeaux late Bifhop Bifaop of Condom his Expofition of the iDodlrinc of the Church in matters of Controverfie. . S E C T. I. The 'Defign of this Treat if e. TTTEre it poffible to reconcile the Differences between us VV and the Church of Rome0on\y by a fair Reprefentation of matters in Controverfie between us \ I lhould think it an admira- ble Deiign \ and this being all the Author profefies to intend, I cannot but highly commend his good Meaning in it; whether hahasfhewn fomuch Skill and Judgment, in undertaking a De- figriin its own nature impracticable, I (hall leave to the Reader to judge, when he has fairly heard both fides. Had I known no more of the matter, but that the Reformation was begun by men brought up in the Communion of the Church of Rome, and inti- mately acquainted with the Doctrines and Practices of that Church ; that fomeofthefe Corruptions, both before andfince, have been complained of by men of that Communion j that the Council of Trent j which was convened upon this occafion, con- demns many Doctrines of the Reformers , as contrary to the Catholick Faith, and guilty of Herefie j that both before and after this Council, there have been many Volumes written, and many fineDifputes between Popifli and Proteftant Divines, who have been men of as great Learning and true Under Handing in thefe matters, as any the Age has bred, who did all this while be- lieve,that there was areal and fubftantial difference between them: 1 fay, when I confider thefe things, I fhould not venture,for the re- putation both of Papifts and Proteftants, efpecially of the Coun- cil of Trent, to fay,That the Difpute has been only about Words; that Papifts and Proteftants, even the molt Learned men among them, have miftaken each others Proportions; and that the only way to reconcile this Difference, is fo to ftate the matter in dif- pute, that Papifts and Proteftants may underftand each other. I doubt not, but fierce men on both fides, may have made this diffe- rence much wider than it is : but yet fuch a difference there is, as no Reprefenting can cure, as I believe will appear by confidering Particulars. E2 SECT, (i8) • - SECT. II. Ihofe of the Reformed fyligion acknowledge, that the Qttholick Church embraces all the Fundamental Arti* cles oj the Qmflian %ellgton. THat the Church of Rome does profefs to believe all the Prin- cipal and Fundamental Articles of Faith, as the Biftop affirms, I readily grant -, but yet (he may hold Fundamental Er- rors, and deftroy that Faith (he profiles, by other Doctrines de- ftructiveofthe true Catholick Faith. That this is poflible, he cannot deny, for men may believe inconfiftent Propolitions ; and the Defign of his Book is fo to explicate the peculiar Doctrines of the Church of Romey as to reconcile them with the Fundamen- tal Articles of Faith, which the Proteftant Explication of Popifh Doctrines contradicts and overthrows-, which had been a very needlels Undertaking, were it impoflibleformen, who believe all the Fundamental Articles of the Chrifrian Faith, to believe any thing contrary to it. He might then have fpared his pains in vin- dicating and explaining particular Doctrires } for it had been evidence enough, that fuch Doctrines and Practices do not over- throw any Fundamental Article of Faith, becaufe they are own* ed by that Church, which profefles to believe all Fundamental Articles. And therefore I cannot well guefs, what advantage hepromifed himfelf from this. We may fafely grant, that the Church of Rome believes all Fundamental Articles, and yet charge her with fuch Doctrines and Practices, as deltroy and tear up Foundations. Heobferves indeed from M. Daille, that we ought not to charge men with believing fuch Confequences, as they themfelvesdo for- mally reject^ nor do we charge any fuch thing upon the Church of Rome, but M. Drill* never faid, that we may not charge mens Doctrines and Practices with fuch Confequences, as they, who teach thefe Doctrines, difown \ for M. DaUle himfelf, in the place quoted by the Bi nop, charges the Opinion of the Lutherans,and of the Church of Rome, about the manner of Chrifl's Prcfence in the Sacrament, with inferring the deftrnElion of the Humanity of Jefas Chrifi : and therefore the Bi(hop concludes too much, when he he infers ; It is then a certain Maxime eflablijhed among]} them, that they nutft not in thefe cafes look^upon the Confequences, which may be Pag. 4* drawn from a Doclrine, but purely upon what he propofes and acknow- ledges^ who teaches it. But the ule M. Daille makes of it, is only this. That when fuch ill Confequences, as mens Doctrines are juftly chargeable with, have no ill influence upon Worfhip, or as he fpeaks, nopoyfon in them ; if they difown fuch Confequences, this ought not to break Chriftian Communion. And therefore, though no man ought to be received into the Communion of the Church, who denies the Humanity of Jefus Chrift ; yet the Na- tional Synod at Charenton admits Lutherans to the Holy Table -, becaufe whatever might be inferred from their Doctrine, yet they exprefly owned the Humanity of Chrift \ andthis Doctrinal Con- fequence was a meer Speculative Error, which made no change at all in Acts of Worfhip \ but when the Confequences are not meer- ly fpeculative, but practical, and do not fo much concern, what other men believe, and think, as what we our felves are to do, as it is in the Worihip of Saints and Images, and the Holt, . &c. to fay, that we mull have no regard to Confequences, if the Church difowns them, is to fay, that we muft not coniider the nature and tendency of our Actions, nor what they are. in Gods account, but only what the Church thinks of them .• and therefore though we will not charge the Church of Rome, with believing'any Con- fequences, which (he difowns ; yet if her Doctrines and Practices corrupt the C hriftian Faith and Worfhip, it is fit to charge her with fuch Corruptions ", and if the Charge be juft, though fhe di£ own it, it will juHifie our Separation from her Communion. SECT. 1 1 1. Religious Worjlnf is terminated in §od alone. THE account the Bifhop gives of that Interior Adoration which is due to God alone, is very found and Orthodox ; that it con- a& 4" fifis principally i?i believing he is the Creator and Lord of all things, and in adhering to him with all the powers of on, Souli, by Faith, HopCj and Chat ity, as to him alone, who can render hs happy by the Commu- nication of an infinite Good, which is himfelf. But there are two things I except againft in this Section, as not fairly ft a ted ; Firft, con- cerning terning the exteriour marks of Adoration. Secondly, concerning the terminating of Religions Worfirip. Asfor the firftjhe tells us: This interiwr Adoration , which we ren- der umo God in Sprit and in Truth Jbas its exterior marks, of which the principal is Sacrifice, which cannot be offered to any but to God : And with refpect to the fecond, he telis us } The fame Church teaches us, that f.ll Religions Worflrip ought to terminate in God, as itsneceffary E.J ■, and that tfthe Honour, which jhe renders to the Bfcjfed Firgin, andto the Sims, may in fome fence be called Religious, it is for its nextffaty rdnion to God. The Bifhop very well knew, that this is the main Seat of the Controverfie between us, and had he intended by his Expofition, to have put an end to our difputes ? he mould have taken a little more care about this Point ; for as he has now ftated it, he has left the matter juft as he found it. We fay, that all Religions W0r- fliip ought not only to terminate in God, as its neceffary End ; but that God is the fole and immediate Object of all Religious Worlhip, and that we mull worlhip none belides him, as our Saviour e*- Sec a late pounds the La W. Thou jhalt worfrip the Lo,d thy God, and him only Trail bf the jhalt thou ferve, Matt h. 4. We have always denied any relative object of j which it is given j and in this fenfe, If all Religious Worfhip muff; terminate in God, then all Religious Worfhip mnft be given t God, and to none elfe \ which is the true Catholick Faith, that God is only to be worshipped. But then what becomes of that Re- ligious Worfhip which is given to the Virgin Mary^ and Saints, in relation to God} Does not this Worfhip, which is given to them, terminate in them, and not in God ? Are not they the immediate and proper Objects of that Worfhip, which is given to them? And does not the Object terminate the Worfhip ? Is God the Ob- ject of that Worfhip, which they give to the Saints and Blefled Virgin ? Then they either give that inferior Degree of Worfliip to God, which is proper for Creatures, which is an affront to hts Majeity and Greatnefs } or they give that Worfhip to Crea- tures, which is proper to God, which is Idolatry. Which plainly mews, that that Worftiip, which is given to Creatures, is termi- nated in thofe Creatures to which it is given j and therefore if any degree ofReligiousWorfnip be given to Creatures, all Re- ligious Worfnip does not terminate in God, as he faid it mult} and if all Religious Worthipmult terminate in God, then no Re- ligious Worfhip muft.be given to Creatures, as he grants it may, to the Virgin Mary and Saints. . Yes, you will fay, that Worfhip, which is given to the Saints and Blelled Virgin, terminates in God, becaufe it is given them upon account of their Relation to God \ but this is a great miftake j their Relation to God can only ferve,for a Reafon why they are worlhipped \ but cannot terminate that worfhip on God which is given to them '-, becaufe not God, but they themfeives are the Ooject, and the ultimate Object of that Worfliip, which is given to them, Though we fhould grant, that God is honouredby that Wor- fhip, which is given to fome excellent Creatures, who are his Friends and Favourites, yet the Honour we do to God in this, is of a very different nature from that Worfhip, which we pay to Creatures j it does not conlift in this, that the worfliip wc give to Creatures is terminated on God, for it is terminated upon thofe Creatures whom we worfliip ^ but the Honour mult con- fin: in the Reafon of our worfhip, that we worfhip them for God's fake : It is an honour to God by Interpretation andConfequence, as we intend it for God's Honour, or as God is pleafed to think hirafelf honoured by it i but it. is no act of Worfhip to God, and there- therefore not terminated on him. The Worfhip can go no fur- ther than its proper Object, though the Reafon of the Worfhip may : For there is a great deal of difference between an Object, and a Medium of Worfhip ; a Medium of Worfhip, which is only a reprefentative Object, receives our Worfhip, but does not ter- minate it, but convey it to that Being it reprefents ^ becaufeit is worfhipped only in the place and ftead of another, as it is in that Worfhip, which is given to the Images ofChrift: and the Saints ; which fome Divines of the Church oiRome tell us, is not terminated on the Images, but on Chrift or the Saints reprefen- ted by thofe Images \ but a proper Object of Worfhip, which re- ceives worfhip in its ownproper perfon, for whatfoever reafon it is worfhipped, it terminates the Worfhip \ the Worfhip, which is given to it, goes not beyond it felf, though the Reafon of the Worfhip may reach farther, and be thought to reflect fome Ho- nour upon God, and to teftifie our Love and Reverence for him, by that Worfhip we pay to thofe, who are dear to him. So that if we do give Religious Worfhip to the Virgin Mary 2nd Saints, fuch Worfhip is terminated on them, and then all Religious Worfhip is not terminated on God, as he fays the Church of Rome teaches it muft be, which yet teaches alfo the worfhip of Saints and the BlefTed Virgin. Methinks he fhould have taken care, to have flatedthis matter a little plainer : For if he cannot reconcile the Doctrine and Practice of the Church together, I fear his Ex- pofkion will rather increafethan end Controverfies. Thus how doubtfully does he fpeak ^ // the Honour foe renders to the Blejfed Virgin and to the Saints, may, in fome fenfe, be called Religious, it is for its necejfary Relation to God. Why does he not tell us plainly , whether this Honour the Church of Rome gives to Saints and the Virgin be Religious, or not, and in what fenfe it may be called Religious Honour ? If he undertake to expound the Catholick Faith, why docs he not do it ? Why does he fpeak lb cautioufly ? As if he were afraid to own, what the Faith of the Church is in this point? Which yet is a very material one, and very necefTary to be truly ftated. Thus I can underftand, how the Honour , which is given to Creatures, may have Relation to God, viz.. becaufe we honour them for God's Sake, and upon ac- count of their Relationto him , but I do notunderftand,how this relation to God, makes the Honour of Creatures a Religious Ho- nour. For though we honour Creatures for God's Sake, yet the Honour we give to Creatures mufl be futable to their own Na- tures, Hi) tures, and therefore not that Religious Honour, which is proper to God only : As when we honour a man for the fake of our Fa- ther, or our Prince , we do not give him that Honour, which is proper to our Father, or our Prince, though we honour him for their Sakes. And therefore if the Church of Rome does give Reli- gious Honour to any Creatures, it will not juftifie her, in giving religious Honour to Creatures, that me honours them for God's Sake \ for Creatures are Creatures ftill, though never lb nearly re- lated to God, and therefore not capable of Religious Honours. So that I do not fee, how this Explication, if it may be fo called, takes ofFany Objection, that was ever made againft the Church of Rome^about the Object of Religious Worihip. For if by all Reli- gious Worfiip being terminated on God, he means, that no other Be- ing muft be religioufly worfhipped but only God j then this is an invincible Objection againft that Religious Worihip, which the Church of Rome gives to the Bleifed Virgin, and to Saints and An- gels. If he means by it, that Religious Worfhip may be given to other Beings befides God, fo it be all terminated in God, then all the other Objections,againft worlhippingany other Being befldes God, are in full force ftill, notwithstanding his Explication : their Relation to God will not juftifie the Religious Worihip of Crea- tures, and it is contrary to all Senfe and Reafon to fay, That the Worfliip, which is given to Creatures, is terminated on God. SECT. IV. Invocation of Saints. T Here are two great Opinions againft that Worfhip, which the Church of Rome gives to Saints departed, who now reign with Chrift in Heaven, as the Council of Trent teaches, i . That ic is to give them that Religious Worfhip, which is due only to God. 2. That it makes them our Mediators and Intercef- fors in Heaven, which is an Honour peculiar to Chrift. Now M. de Meaux, and after him, the Author of the Character, think to remove thefe Objections, only by explaining the Doctrine of their Church about this matter j and I ihall diftin&ly confider, what they fay to each of thefe. 1 . As for the firft, That in praying to Saints they do not give them that Worihip, which is due only to God, they think is evi- F dent (J4> dent from hence, That the Council of Trent and the Catechifm ad Parochos teaches them only, to pray to Saints to fray for them : The Bifhop takes great pains to prove this to be the fenfe of the Pas. 6. Council, and therefore, that in what terms foever thofe Prayers, which ve addrcfs to Saints, are couched, the Intention of the-Clmrch, and of her Faithful, reduces them always to this Form. Now I will not difpute this matter at prefent, but refer my Reader to the Anfwtr to .1 Fapift mif eprefvntcd. But iet us fuppofe,that this is all the Church oiRome intends by it, that we fhould only pray to the Saints to pray for us, what advantage can they make of 'this? Yes, fays the Advertifement before the Bifhops Exposition, p. 1 2. Topray to Saints only to pray for us, is a kind of Prayer, which by its own nature, is fo far from be- ing referred by an Independent Being to himfelf, it can t.ever be ad- dreffedto him : That is,«we muft never pray to God to pray for us} and therefore fitch a Prayer is no part of that Worfhip, which is due to God. And he adds, If this Form of Prayer, pray for us, di- minip.ed thetrufwe hate in God, it would benolejs conaemnable to ufe it to the Living than to the Dead', and St. Paul would not havefaidfo often, Brethren, pray for us : the whole Scripture is full of Patni} mure- ^ra)crs °f this nature. Thus the Author of the Character, tells us. pejented % 3 *n f^s ^e does mt at a^ **ib8 coming to Cod, or rob him of his honour, Ed. 2. but duelling all his Prayers up to him, and mating him the ultimat Ob jilt of all his Petit ions, He only defres fotne times the jitft on Earth, fometimes thofe in Heaven to joyn their Prayers to his, that fo the number of Peti- tioners being increafd, the Petition may fnd better acceptance in the fight of God : ar.d this is not to make them Gods,, but only Petitioners to God : He having no hopes of obtaining any things but of God alone. This is the leaft that can pofliblybe made of thatWorfhip,they giveto Saints, which is not reconcileable with their practice nei- ther j ar.d if it mould appear, that this fas little as it is thought to be) is to give that Worfhip to Creatures, which is due to Godjihey muft e'en reject praying to Saints to pray for them, as they now do, truftirg in their aid and affiftances, and power to keep them. Now 1 only ask, whether Prayer be not an Act of Religion,and a worfhip due to God? if it be not, why do they pray to God? if it be, then they give the worfhip of God to Saints, when they pray to them. For it is not fo much, the marter of our Prayer, as the nature of Prayer, which makes it an Act of Religion. We may pray to God for thofe things, which men can give, viz.. Food and C?5) and Raiment, and yet thefe are as religious prayers, as when we askfuch things of God, as none can give but himfelf} and by the fame reafon, though we pray to Saints only to do that for us, which a creature can do, that is, only to pray to God for us-, yet onr very praying to them is an Ad of religious worfhip, which is due only to God. The truth is, I am fo dull, that I cannot fee, what makes thefe new Reformers of the Roman-Catholick Doctrine and Worfhip, fo fhy of owning any other aid and affiflance, which they expect from the Saints, but only their Prayers for them : for this makes no alteration at all in the nature of that worfhip, they pay to them. For fuppofe the Saints in Heaven (who now reign with Chrift, as the Council affirms ) were intruded with the G uardian- fhipofmen, and the care of Saints on Earth, as Cardinal Be/lar- wweexprelly fays they are j might we not as lawfully pray to Myw.dc them to imploy that power, God has committed to them, for our jancc- beaW- good and happinefs, as to ufe their intereft with God for us by c ^ lQ' their prayers? Does one exalt you more above the condition of creatures than the other? May we not beg our Friends on Earth,to relieve our wants and neceflities,as well as to pray for us? And if begging the prayersof our Friends on Earth,will juftirieour pray- ing to the Saints in Heaven, to pray for us ; our asking an Alms on Earth, will equally juftifie our begging the aid and aiilftance, as well as prayers, of the Saints in Heaven ', and then we are jult where we were. And if ever there were any good Arguments a- gainfl: praying to Saints, they are all good frill, though they pray to Saints only to pray for them : which is my only bufinefs at pre- fent, to mew (according to the Bifhop's defirej that bis Explication leaves- all the Objections in full force, and all the Difputes untouched. So that fettingafide the matter of onr prayers, or what it is we ask, which makes no alteration in this cafe, the inquiry is, Whe- ther when we pray to Saints , we do not give that worfhip to them, which is peculiar and appropriate to God ? Now the Church of Romejsfo far from thinking fu'ch prayers to be the peculiar worfhip due to God, that fhe thinks it as inno- cent to pray to the Saints in Heaven to pray for us, as it is to de- fire theprayers of our Chriftian Brethren on Earth. The Bifhop fays, i be Church in teaching us, that it is prop able to pray to Saints, teaches m to pray to them in the fame (pint of Charity , and according to ™aS- ^- the fame order of fraternal Society, which moves us to demvid affiftance of onr Brethren living on Earth. The Character to the lame purpofe F 2 makes makes our de firing fo me times the Saints on Earth, fometimes thofe in Heaven? tojoyn their prayers with ours, to be Actions of the very- fame nature, and equally lawful. This is the true Pinch of the Controverlie , and here it is we part with the Church of Rome \ that we think , there is fome difference between Ipeaking to our Chriftian Brethren on Earth, whom we lee, and converfe with, and praying to the Saints in Heaven, with all the external ex- preffions of religious worfhip and adoration : The firft is to con- verfe with them as men ; the fecond is fuch a manner of Addrefs, as is proper only for a God. To pray to Saints, is fomewhat more than to deflre our Chri- ftian Frienu* to pray for us •, it is fuppliciter eos invocare , as the Council of Trent fpeaks,to invoke them, or call on them, in the manner of Supplicants ; fo that this rnuft be acknowledged a wor- lliipof the Saints •, and then it mull be either a civil or religious worfhip} and which of thefe two it is, mult be known by the manner of paying it. And therefore when all the circumftances of worfhip are religious, we mult acknowledge the worfhip to be religious too : Such as praying to them in religious Places, in Churches and Chappels, and at confecrated Altars with bended knees, and hands and eyes lifted up, in a very devout manner, when they fee no body to fpeak to, or to receive their Addrelles, unlefsk be the Image of the Saint they worfnip. Thus fome Nations worfhip their Gods, but no People ever paid their civil refpe&s to each other in this manner. But as I obferved in my Reply ( p. 65.) There is one infallible di- fiinftion bet-ween civil and religious worfiiip, between the worfiiip of Gcd and men : That the worfiiip of the invtfible Inhabitants of the other World, has always been accounted religious worjhip. Civil refpetls are confined to this World, as all natural and civil Relations, which are the foundation of civil refpetls, are ; but we have no intercourfe with the other World, but what is religious. And therefore as the different kinds and degrees of civil honour, are difiinguifiiedbythe Sight of the Objeff, to which they are paid, though the external acls and expreffions are the fame ; as when men bow the body, and are uncovered, you kyow what kyid of honour it is, by feeing who is prefcnt, whether their Father, their Friend, or their Prince, or fome other Honourable Per fen : So the moft certain mark^ of difiintlion between civil and religious worfiiip is this, that the one relates to this World, the other to the invifible Inhabit ant £ tf the next. In this laft Paragraph the Pro teller fays ( p.3 5 .) We have aConfequence and Comparifon^andboth fo excellent injhek kinds, that (17) that if any better connexion can be found in them, then between the Mbv nuinent and the May- pole, it muft be by one, who has found one trick, more in Logick, than ever Ariftotle knew. Sometimes indeed Ari- fc/e'sLogick does not do fuch feats, as one would expect ', but a little natural Logick, called common fenfe, would have shewed him the connexion. Fori think, there isfome fence in faying, that as the different degrees of civil honour, though molt of the external ligns of honour be the fame, fuch as kneeling, bowing the body, uncovering the head, may yetbediitinguifhedby the prefence of the Object, to which it is paid j whether it be our Father, or our Prince: So though the external iigns of civil and religious honour, are in many inflances the lame, yet civil and religious worfhip may be vilibly diftinguifhed, by the abject to which it is given : For civil worlhip can belong only to the Inha^ bitants of this World -7 but whatever worfnip is given to the invi- sible Inhabitants of the other World, is religious. Now if this be fo, then to pray to Saints, now they are re- moved out of this World into an invifible ftate, is to give reli- gious worfhip to them; which makes a vail difference between praying to the Saints in Heaven to pray for us, and fpeaking to ourfellow-Chriftians on Earth to pray for us. The Protefler is willing to grant, or at lead fuppofe, that the honour or worfhip, which is given to the invifible Inhabitants of p .„ the other World, is religious worfhip; but ftill he fays, it re- jf ^ re~- mains to be proved, that all religions refpetl and honour isfo a divine honour, as to make a God of the things to which it is paid, atleaftcon- ftrutlively : This I think, is no hard matter to do ; but I fhall firffc confider his Arguments againft it, and all thathefays,is, Thatif it be true,z> proves too much, and will bring myfelfinfor ajhare with them, in* giving religious worfhip to creatures, and fo making Gods of them, atleaft conftructively. He inflances in that Cnftom of bowing to the Altar, or Communion Table, as he calls it, and bow- ing at the name of f efts -, but this fhall be confidered, when I come to the worfhip of Images. His other inflances concern that religious refpetJ, which we allow due to facred places and things, and a religious decency to the bodies of Saints and Martyrs ; but what is this to a religious worfhip. Therefpect we fhew to fuch things and places.* is no more than a civil refpect, which confifts in a decent ufage? in feperating them from vile and common purpofes j and it is called a religious refpect, not from the nature of the re- fpect, but from the reafon, why we give it, vfc, out of reverence to (;8) toGod,lo whofe wot ftip they are feperated. Thus that loveand honour wc \ny to a living Saint, though it rife no higher than the cxprclljons of a civil refpect, may belaid to be religious, when we love acdhonour them for Gods fake^ but this is an external deno- mination from the Caufe and motive, not from the nature of the Act,and therefore cannot make Gods of them, becaufe it is not reli- gions worfhip-, buttp give proper religious wormip to any Being, is to give it that worfhip, which is proper only to God, which is the only way to make any Being a God, which is not a God. Now if this be a true notion, that all worfhip, which is given to the inviiible Inhabitants of the other World, is religious wor- ship, I will eafily prove, that we mult worfhip no other invifible Being, but God alone, and therefore cannot pray to Saints in Hea- ven, without giving the worihip of God to them. And my reafon is this, Becaufe God challenges all religious worfhip to himfelf j as our Saviour tells us, Thou (halt wormip the ■Lord thy God, and him onlyjluilt thouferve. Matth. 4. It feems to me a very needlefs difpute, what is the peculiar and incommuni- cable Wormip,whichmuft be given to none but the Supreme God, when God has appropriated all Religious Worfhip to himfelf, whatever act of religious Worfhip God requires us to pay to him- felf, muft be given to none elfe } and therefore if all worihip paid to invifible Beings, be in its own Nature religious Worfhip, we mull worfhip uo Invifible Being, but only God. For if all Wor- ship of Inviiible Beings be religious, and God challenges all reli- gious Worfnip to himfelf, then we mult worfhip no Invifible Being but only God j for to worfhip any other Invifible Being, is ■ to give religious Worfhip to that, which is not God. But the Protefter thinks I ought to have ailowcd,for the diffe- rent Kinds and Degrees of Religions ^as well as Civil Honour. Such I VA8 35- fuppofe as they call their Latria or Dxlia, Supreme or Subordi- nate Abfolute or Relative,Terminative or Tranfient Worlhip-,but there is no place for thefe different Degrees and DifHnetions of religious Worfhip, if we muft worihip no other Invifible Being, but only God } for if there be but one Object of religious Wor- fhip, there is no need to diftinguifh this Worfhip into different Kinds and Degrees, as Civil Worfnip is, which has very nume- rous and very different Objects. If we muft give no Worfhip to any invifible Being befides God, it is ridiculous to difpute, what Degree of Worfhip we may lawfully give them, when we mult give them none. And C?9> And it is a good Argument, that there are no difFerent Kinds of Religious Worfhip; one which is Supreme and Soveraign,anddue to the one Supreme God ; other lnferiour and Subordinate De- grees of Worfhip, which may be paidtothofe Excellent Spirits, which are very dear to God, and the Minifters of his Providence; becaufe there are no external and vifible Signs, todiftinguifh be- tween fuch different Degrees of religious Worfhip. As Civil Wor- fhip is confined to the Inhabitants of this World, and is thereby diltinguifhett from religious Worfhip ; fo the Different Degrees of Civil Honour, though the External Signs and Expreffions of it are the lame, are diftinguifhed by the vilible Prefence of the Ob- ject to which it is paid ; for when a man bows or uncovers his head, we know what kind of Honour it is, by confidering the Re- lation, or the Quality, of the Perfon, to whom it is paid, whe- ther he be a Father, a Prince, or a wife and good man.But if there were more Invifible Beings than one to worfhip, though there might be different Degrees of Internal Honour and Worfhip paid to them, according to the different Appreheniions men had of their feveral Degrees of Perfection ; yet the External Signs of Worfhip mult be the fame in all. And thus there would be no vilible diltinetion, between the Worfhip of the Supreme God,and created Spirits, and Glorify ed Souls of dead men ; and therefore if it bs neceffary to diflinguifh, between the Worihip of Qod and Creatures, we muff worfhip no Invifible Being , but only the Su- preme God. The Protefter propofes fome ways, whereby the different kinds and degrees of Religious IVorjhip may he difiingitified ; as by the inten- p. 35, Hon of the Giver ; but this is not a Vifible Dillinction : For mens intentions are private to themfelves , and there is no difference in the Vilible Acts of Worfnip, to make fuch a diffinction, or by fome nflble Reprejentati&n ; that is,by Images : This I grant, would make as vifible a Distinction between the Worfhip of God, and Chrifl, and the Virgin Alary ,as the prefence of the perfon diftin- guiihes the Kinds and Degrees of Civil Honour, for when we fee, whofe Image they worfhip, we may certainly tell what Being they direct theiF Worfhip 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 ef other Ciratrnfiances^ but what thefe are, 1 can- not tell, and therefore can fay nothing to it. The Church of £w«f indeed does appropriate the Sacrifice of the Mafs to God, as his peculiar Worfhip, which mult not be given to '( 40 ) to any other Being; and if this be fo, then indeed we can certain- ly tell, when we fee a Prieft offering the Sacrifice of the Mais, that he offers it to the Supreme God ; but there are a great many other Acts of Wor (hip, which we owe to God, befides the Sacri- fice of the Mafs, and in every Ad of Worfhip, God ought to be vi- fibly diftinguifhed from Creatures ; and yet if all the other Ex- ternal Ads of Worfhip be common to God, andCreatures, where is the diftindion ? And yet theSacrifice of the Mafs can be offered only by the Prieft, fo that the whole Layety cannot perform any one Ad of Worihip to God, which is peculiar to him, and there- fore can make no Vifible Diftindion in their Worihip between God and Creatures. And yet the very Sacrifice of the Mafs, is not ^o appropriated to God in the Church of Rome , but that it is offered to God in Honour of the Saints. This the Biihop of Condom ( p. 7.) endeavours to excufe by faying ; This Honour which we render them See D. Stii- ( f^e Saints ) in Sacrificing, conjifis in naming them in the Prayers ws lingfleet'j d»- offer up to God, as his Faithful Servants , andin rendringhim thanks fence of the for the Victories they have gained, and in humbly befeechmg him, that difcourfe con- fa Would vouch fa fe to favour us by their Interceffwn. U?"n^ 2 6 ^0VV lt ls very true> accorc^n§ t0 tne Council of Trent, the ^ p' 1 ' Prieft offers the Sacrifice only to God, but they do fomewhat more than name the Saints in their Prayers,for they offer the Sa- crifice in Honour to the Saints, as well as to God, which the Bi- ihop calls to Honour the Memory of the Saints'. Now if Sacrifice be an Ad of Honour and Worfhip to God, it founds very odly to worfhip or honour God for the Honour of his Saints, which feems to make God only the Medium of Worfhip to the Saints, who are the terminative objed of it; and that the Saints are con- cerned in this Sacrifice appears from this , That by this Sacrifice they implore the Intercejfion of the Saint j5 that thefe vchofe Memories ire celebrate on Earth , would vouch fafe 10 intercede for us in Heaven* The Bifhop'tranflates^/om by Demand , for w hat reafon I can- not tell ; and makes this Imploring or ,c:ejceching, to refer to God, nottotheSaints,whofe Patronage,P*/miww,and Interceflionthey pray,they would vouchfafe them,contrary to the plain Senfe of the Council, and I think to common Senfe too : For 1 do not well un- der ftand offering Sacrifice to God, that he may procure for us the Interceffionofthe Saints; forifhecanbeperfwadedtofavourus fofar, as to intercede v ith the Saints to be our intercellbrs , he may as well grant our Kequefts without their lnterceflion ; and yet t40 yet the Bifhop was very fenfible, that if we offer tip our Prayers to the Saints in the Sacrifice of the Mafs, it does inevitably entitle them to the Worfhip of that Sacrifice, which, they fay, muftbe St. kat.de a* offered only to God. He alleadges indeed St. Auflins Authority, vrt. Dei p. 8. who underftood nothing of this Myftery of the Sacrifice of the c- *7- Mafs, and how far he was from thinking of any thing of this Na- ture, is evident to any man, who confnlts the place. But the Church of Rome ( as the Biihop obferves p. 8. ) has been charged by fomeof the Reformation, not only with giving the Worfhip of God to Creatures, when they pray to the Saints, but with attributing the Divine Perfections to them, fuch as"*« certain kjnd of Immenfity and Knowledge of the Secrets of hearts ', for if they be not prefent m all places, where they are worfhipped, how can they hear the Prayers, which are made to them atfucii diftant places at the fame time? If they do not know our thoughts, how can they underftand thofe mental prayers, which are offered • to them without words, only in our fecret Thoughts and De- fires ? for even fuch Prayers are exprefly allowed by the Coun- cil, vocevelmente. Now to this he anfwers 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 Miniflry and Communication of Angels^ or by a particular Revelation from God, or in his Divine Effence, in which all truth is comprifed, yet never any Catholic\yet thought, the Saints knew our Neceffuies by their oven power, no nor the de fires which move us to addrefs our fecret Prayers to them. And to fay a Creature may have a Knowledge of thefe 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 Omnifcience and Omniprefence to the Saints, either in thought or word, but yet actions have as na- tural a /Tgnification as words ; and if we give them fuch a wor- ship, as naturally fignifies Omnifcience and Omniprefence, our worfhip attributes the incommunicable Perfections of God to them. For it is unnatural and abfurd to worfhip a Being, whois not prefent to receive our worfhip } to fpeak to a Being, who does not, and cannot hear us ', and fince God has made us reafo- nable Creatures, to underftand what we do, and why, he inter- prets our Actions, as well as words and thoughts, according to their natural fignification. And herein the natural evil of.crea- ture-worfhip conlifts, That every act of religioir worfhip ooes G naturally (40 naturally involve in it a Confeffion of fome excellency and per- fection, which is above a created nature, and thereby (whatever the wovfliipper thinks or intend ) does attribute the incommu- nicable Glory of God to creatures. If the Saints are not prefent in all places to hear thofe Prayers which are made to them, and if they cannot hear in Heaven,what we fay to them on Earth, by their own Power, then Prayer is a worlhip, which is not due to their nature, even in a glorified ftate. For no Being can have a right to our Prayers, who can- not hear them } and though we mould grant, that God reveals our Prayers to them, yet to know by Revelation is not to hear. In this cafe all that can be reafonable for us to do, is only fecretly todefire, that the Saints would Pray for us, which God can re- veal to them, if he pleafes, as well as our Prayers \ but it can ne- ver be reafonable to Pray to thofe, who cannot hear us. And if Prayer cannot be due to a created nature in its moll exalted ftate, becaufeno creature can be prefent in all places to hear our Prayers, then if it be a proper worfhip for Creatures, it mult be fo by a pofitive Inftitution of God } but then they muft (hew an exprefs command for it, and when they can do that, we willdifpute thereafon of the thing no longer. And thisis a manifeftreafon, why we mould worfhip no other invifible Being befides God, becaufeno other invifible Being is ca- pable of our Worfhip. God alone fills all places, and therefore may be worfhipped, though we do not fee him, for he is prefent every where to hear our prayers j but we cannot know, that any Being, of a limited prefence, is prefent with us, unlefs we fee it j and it is unnatural to pray to any Being, who is not prefent to hear us. And though the Church oiRome does not directly and pofitive-* ly attribute any divine perfections to Saints, yet mankind are fo naturally prone, to afcribe a kind of Divinity to immortal and in- vifible Spirits, that this is a fufficient reafon, why God mould not allow the worfhip of any invifible Spirits. For after all that can be faid to the contrary, it is a mighty temptation to men, at leaflto make inferior Deities of thofe, to whom they conftantly pay divine honours. And though they do not attribute to Saints,a natural power to know our Thoughts, and to hear our Prayers, and to anfwer them : yet if this mpernaturalgift and power, whereby they do it, Lw as conftant, and act as certainly as nature does, it is as great great and adorable a perfection, as if it were natural: for flnce all created Excellencies are the gift of God, what mighty difference is there between a natural and fupernauiral perfection, or gift, if that which is fupernatural, be as certain and lafting, and that which they can as conftantly ufe, as that which is natural. As to take their own inftance : Were the gift of Prophelie, which God beftowed on forae in former Ages, as conftant and certain, as natural knowledge } that they could ufe this gift, whenever they pleafed, and as conftantly foretel things to come, as they could reafon and difcourfe •, what difference would there be in this cafe, between a natural and fupernatural knowledge of future things : truly no more but this ; That a natural knowledge is a perfection , which God did originally beftow upon our na- ture : fupernatural knowledge is an additional Perfection, but yet upon this fuppofition , as infeparably annexed to our na- tures, as natural knowledge, and always as ready for ufe as that 'y which I think, would make fuch a Prophet as truly venerable, as if Prophefie were natural to him. Thus it is in this prefent cafe. If the Saints know our prayers, by what means foever they do it, it muft be as conftant and lad- ing a gift, as if it were natural ; that is, they muft as certainly know when, and what we pray for, every time we pray, as if they were prefent to hear us. For if they do not always know our prayers, we can never know, when to pray, and can never have any fecurity of their interceffion for us ; many.thoufand Ave Marks may be every day loft, and turn to no account ; and if they do conftantly know this by a fupernatural gift, it is as glo- rious a perfection,as if this knowledge were natural. Mankind do not fo critically diftinguifh between natural and fupernatural gifts} in whomfoever thefe perfections are, they are divine, and fuch creatures have a fupernatural kind of Divinity annexed to their natures ; they are made Gods, though not Gods by nature, which is as much as any people believe of their inferior Deities, who believe but one Supreme and Sovereign God, who is a God by nature. And yet the Author of the Character of a Papift reprefen- ted , gives fome inftances, which would perfwade us, that the Saints have a natural knowledge of our Prayers. Thus he tells us, That Abraham heard the petitions of Dives, who was yet At a greater diflance, even in Hell, and t eld him like wife his man- Mr of living, while as yet on Earth, (p. 4. .) Now not to ask, how G2 he This is the leaft that can be made of it, that the Mediation and Interceflion of theSaints for us in Heaven,is no more than one Chri- ftians praying for another on Earth •, and I fear this is not recon- cileable with the practice of the Church of Rome in this matter. For can this (if it be no more) be thought a fufficient foundation, for all that pompous worfhip of the Virgin Mary, and other powerful Saints? Is this a good reafon to erect Temples and Al- tars, confecrated not only to their Memory, but to their Honour; to fet up their Images in Holy Places, and pay our humble Ado- rations before them i becaufe they pray for us in Heaven, juft as Chriftian Brethren pray for one another on Earth ? And therefore I mult needs fay, the Bifhop has not truly ex- pounded the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in this Point, which makes the Saints to be our Mediators in Heaven^ not indeed Media- tors of Redemption, which Ihe acknowledges none to be but 'Chrift, who has purchafed us with his own Blood \ but Media- tors of In terceflion, who have fo much intereft, and favour, in the Court of Heaven, as powerfully to recommend thofe to God, who put themfelves under their Patronage. This I confefs makes a great difference between the Mediation of Chrift, and of the Saints, and yet leaves a great diftance between the Prayers of Saints in Heaven for us, and the mutual Interceffions of Chriftians for each other on Earth, and the Church of Rome never taught, that they were of the fame nature; for though the Catechifm endeavours to prove, that the Mediation and Interceflion of the Saints in Heaven for us, is not injurious to the Mediation of Chrift} becaufe the Prayers of Chriftians for each other on Earth, are very reconcileable with the Honour of Chrift's Interceflion : yet it never teaches, that there is no difference between ihe Pray- ers of Saints in Heaven, and Chriftians on Earth \ and I think we ought to diftinguifh,between the Doctrine and the Arguments of the Church. What fhe declares to be her Doctrine we mutt own to be fo, but I think we muft not grant every thing to be her Do- makes which ought to be fuppofed to make her Arguments good; becaufe there is no neceffity of granting, that all her Arguments muft be good. This Argument indeed, that the interceflion of the Saints in Heaven, is no more injurious to the Mediation of Chrift, than the Prayers and Interceffions of the Saints on Earth for each other, cannot be good without fuppofing, that the Interceflions of She Saints in Heaven are of the very fame nature, with the Pray- ers (47) ers of Chriftians for each other on Earth \ and the Bifliop takes the advantage to reprefent this as the Doctrine of the Church, that fhe teaches us to pray to Saints in the fame fpirit of Charity, and according to the fame or der of fraternal fociety, which moves us to demand affifiance of our Brethren living uponEarth. But this I think is not reconcileable with the expreis words of the Council of Trent, which founds the invocation of Saints upon their reigning with Chrift ; which makes avail difference between their intereft and authority in the Court of Heaven, and the humble fuppli- cations of Chriftians on Earth. And 1 think the fpirit of Charity, and the order of fraternal fociety, does not require nsfuppliciter in- vocare, to pray to our fellow Chriftians on Earth as humble Suppli- cants to pray for us, as the Council teaches us to addrefs our felves to the Saints in Heaven. Chriftians indeed on Earth, and Saints in Heaven (fince the Bi- fhop has limited all their aid and afliftance to their prayers ) can do no more than pray for us^ and are thus both of them diftinguifh- edfrom Chrift, who is our Mediator of Redemption, who has bought us with his blood : But then we ought to conflder, that there is a vaft difference in prayers, and prayers may prevail upon fuch different Reafons, as may quite alter the nature of the Interceflion. For is there no difference between the power and intereft of a favourite, to obtain whathedefires of his Prince, and the Petition of an ordinary Subject? A Prince may grant the Peti- tion of a Subject for himfelf, or of one Subject for another, where there is reafon and equity in the cafe, without any more power- ful interceffion ; but acts of grace and favour muft be difpenfed by the interceflions of favourites j and yet it is all byway of prayer and Petition to the Prince \ but though it is all but Peti- tion and requeft, yet thofe who have any requeft to make to their Prince, place more confidence in the intereft and power of one^fa- vourite, than in the joynt Petitions of many ordinary Subjects. Thus it is here } Chriftians on Earth pray for each other as common Supplicants, and the benefit they expect from fuch Prayers and inter ceffions, is only from the prevalency of Faith and Charity, which infpire fuch prayers, and make them efficacious. God has commanded n.s to pray for one another, and has promifed to hear our united, fervent, and importunate Prayers, for the merits of our common Saviour Jefus Chrift : But thofe who pray, to Saints in Heaven, pray to them as Favourites and Mediators, who prevail not meerly by the force and efficacy of Prayer, but by (48 ) Ly their perfonal Merits and Interefls with God; and this makes them juftfuch Mediators as Chrift is, who by their Power and Intereft can recommend us and our Prayers to God's acceptance, rvo you'll fay, Chrift purchafed us with his Blood, and mediates in the vertneofhis Sacrifice, which makes his Mediation of a different nature from the Mediation of Saints, who mediate only bythcir intereft with God, upon account of their perfonal Merits. But thisalters not the cafe , for the general notionof a Mediator, is one who has Power and Intereft with God, effectually tore- commend us to his favour ', and whether he mediates with, or without a Sacrifice, if his Mediation be powerful and efficacious, he is a true and proper Mediator ; and to fet up fuch other Me- diators belides Chrift, muft be injurious to his Mediation, for then Chrift is not our only Mediator ; and after all the Apologies that can be made for it, it argues fome diftruft, either of Chrift's Po- wer, or good Will to help us, when we fly to other Patrons and Advocates. 2. And therefore Monfieur de Meaux has another Refer ve; for in the fecond place he tells us from the Council of Trent, That to invocate Saints, according to the fenfe of this Council, is to have re- con* fe to their Prayers, for obtaining be?iefits from Cod through Jt fits Chrift, fo that in reality we do not obtain thofe benefits, which we re- ceive by the Intercejjion of the Saints, otherwife than through Jefus ■Chrift, and in his Name \ feeing thefe Saints themfelves pray in no other manner than through Jefus Chrtft, and are not heard but in his Name, u4ftcr which we cannot imagine, that anyone fliould accufe us of for- fakintr Jefus Chrift, when we befeech his Aicmbers, who are alfo ours, his Children, who are our Brethren, and his Saints, who are our fir ft - fruits, to pray with us, and for us, to our common Mafter, in the name of our common Mediator. As for for falling Jefus Chrift, this we do not charge them with; tho whoever coniiders, how much more frequent addrefles are made in the Church of Rometo the Virgin Mary, and fome other powerful Saints, than to Chrift himfelf, will be tempted to think, that it looks very like forfaking him ; but we only fay, that they rob Chrift of the glory of being our only Mediator and Advocate, by having recourfe to the Prayers, and interceffions of fo many Saints. But how can the Interceflion of Saints be injurious to the Me- diation of Chrift, when they themfelves intercede in the Name and Mediation of Chrift ; which neceflarily referves to Chrift the (4?) the glory of his Mediation entire, fince the Saints themfelves arc not heard but in his Name} Now rightly to underftand this, we muft confider the Nature of Chrifts Mediation, which is to offer up all thofe Prayers to God in Heaven, which we make to God in his name on Earth. He is our Mediator in Heaven, our High- Priefi, who is faffed into the Heb. 4. 14. Heavens \ who is made not after the law of a Carnal Commandment, but Heb. 7. 1 6.16, after the fower of anendlefs life, who is made higher than the Heavens, Heb. 9. 24. who is not entred into the Holy Place made with hands, which are the figures of the true, but into Heaven it felf now to affear in the f re fence of Cod for us. So that as the High-Prieft under the Law entred once a year into the Holy Place, which was a type and figure of Heaven, to make expiation and interceffions for the People \ fb thepffice of Chrift, as our High-Prieft and Mediator, is toafcend into Heaven with his own Blood, and there to appear in the prefence of God for us. His mediatory Office is confined to Heaven; there he prefents our Prayers to God, in vertueof his own Blood j and this is as peculiar and appropriated to him, as it was to the High-Prieft under the Law, to offer the Blood of the Sacrifice, and make Attonement, and Interceflioninthe Holy of Holies. So that to prefent our Prayers to God in Heaven is the pecu- liar officeof Chrift, who is our great High-Prieft, and only Me- diator in the immediate prefence of God in Heaven ; and to ap- ply our felves to any other Mediators in Heaven, to prefent our Prayers to God, in what manner, or upon what pretence foever it be, is injurious to the Mediation of Chrift, whofe proper Office it is to prefent our Prayers to God in Heaven. And that pretence that the Saints pray for us only in the Name and Mediation of Chrift, is no Apology in this cafe , for in what name foever they . pray, they offer up our Prayers to God immediately in Heaven, whi ;h is the Office of our great High-Prieft, for there is and mnit be but be but one Mediator in Heaven. And if we confider, what is meant by Praying to God in the Name and Mediationof Chrift, we fhall fee reafon to think, that this is very improperly attributed to the Saints in Heaven. For when we pray to God in the Name of Chrift, though we addrefs our Prayers immediately to God, yet God does not receive then?, as coming immediately from us, but as prefented by the hands of our Mediator \ which is the true meaning of Praying to God in the Name of Chrift, that we offer our Prayers to God, not di- ll redly (5°) redly from our felves, for then wc mould have no need of a Me- diator, but by his Hands, whofe Office it is to prefent them to God, to appear in the Prefence of God for us, which is therefore Heb 7 25 called coih'wgtoGodby him. Now this is very agreeable to the flate and condition of Chri- ftians on Earth, who are at a great diftance from the immediate Throne and Prefence of God, to offer their Prayers by the hands of a Mediator, who appears in the prefence of God lor them^ and thereafon, why we want a Mediator to appear for us, isbe- caufe we are not yet admitted into God's immediate Prefence our felves. But could every ordinary Prieft, or Jew, have been ad- mitted into the Holy of Holies, as the High-Prieft was,they might as -well have offered their Prayers and Sacrifices there immediate- ly to God, without the Mini/try and Mediation of the High-Prieft \ and thofewhoare in Heaven in theimmediate prefence of God, if they offer up any Prayers to God for themfelves or others,they offer them immediately and directly to God, becaufethey offer them to God in his immediate Prefence; which is the true notion of Chrift's Mediation, that he appears in the prefence of God for us: And therefore whatever uie there may be of the Name of Chrift in Heaven •, Saints in Heaven, who live in the immediate Pretence of God,have no need of a Mediator to offer their Prayers to God, as Saints on Earth have, becaufe they are admitted to the immediate Vilion of God themfelves. To offer up our Prayers to God, in the Name and Mediation of Chrift, fuppofes, that we are at a diftance from God, and not admitted into his Prefence to fpeak for our felves \ but thofe Prayers, which are offered to God in his immediate Prefence, need no Mediator to prefent them. And yet to fay, that the Saints in Heaven offer their Prayers to God in the Name and Mediation of Chrift, is to fay, that when they are admitted to the immediate Prefence of God themfelves, they ftil] need a Mediator \ that the Prayers they offer to God, in his immediate Prefence,thcy do not offer immediately to him, but by the hands of a Mediatory which if it be Sence, I am fine, is no good Divinity, as neither agreeing with the Types of the Law, nor with the Gofpcl-account of Chrift's Mediation. And therefore if glorified Saints appear for us in the prefence of God in Heaven, they areas much our Mediators as Chrift is \ fortius is the moft elfential Character of this Mediation, that &£rf/>f&zrj it the prefence of God for us. The only Objection I can fore-fee a- gainft this, is, that fome of the ancient Fathers, though they did not In} not pray to Saints to pray for them, yet were inclined to believe, that Saints departed did Pray for the Church on Earth, efpecially for their particular Friends, which they left behind them, and therefore to be fure did not think this any injury to the Media- tion of Chrifr. But then we mull confider, that as they fpoke doubtfully of this matter, fo thofe very Fathers did not believe, that Saints departed were received up into the higheft Heaven, into the immediate Prefence and Throne of God ; though they thought them in a very happy itate, yet not perfect, till the re~ furredtion •, and therefore they prayed for Saints departed, as well as believed, that Saints departed prayed for them. Novr any Mediation and lnterceffion on this fide Heaven, is very con- fiftent with the Mediation of Chrift: in Heaven j but to intercede in Heaven is his peculiar Office, which no other Creature can fhare in, fince his Refurre&ion and Afcenfion. This, I think, is fufficient to prove, that Monfieur de Meaux his Expofition cannot reconcile Praying to Saints to Pray for us, either with the peculiar Worlhip of God, or with the Glory and Dignity of our great and only Mediator and Advocate Jt fits Chrift. The Char after of a Papifl Represented. 3. Of addr effing more Supplications to the Virgin Mary than to Chrift. P^-4- Monfieur de Meaux takes no notice of that peculiar kind of Worfhip, which is paid in the Church of Rome to the Virgin Mary, as being fenfible how hard it is to reconcile this with his bare Ora pro nobis -, but the Reprefenter, who pretends to follow the Bifhops Pattern, but wants his Judgment and Caution to ma- nage \U undertakes to Apologize for this too j and it is worth the while to confider what he fays. The Papifl Mif-reprefented is faid to believe the Virgin Mary,f Maria fuch a Prayer,and do they principally pray to God inthofe Prayers, which are immediately directed to the Virgin Mary} When they pray to the Virgin Mary to pray to them, is this Prayer princpaUy directed to God Almighty ? What when the Virgin is only named -, And the matter of the Prayer is fuch, that it cannot be directed to God Almighty, unlefs they think it pro- per to pray to God to pray for them ? Yes, thefe Prayers to the Virgin are offered up as a thankful Memorial of Chrift's Incarnation, and an acknowledgement of the Blejfednefs of Jefus the fruit of her Womb. The meaning of which can be no more than this, That when they Pray to Mary the Mother of Jefus, it is a tacite ac- knowledgement, that Jefus was born of her, and that the Son mufl be a very Glorious Prince, when the Mother is fo highly exalted upon account of her Relation to him, as to have fomany devout Prayers and Hymns offered up to her. But does this prove, ( 53 ) prove, that the Prayers* which are immediately dire&ed to- the Virgin Mary, are principally d.: iced to Chrift, becaufe Mary was his Mother *, which is the .- ; Myilery of thebui-inefs. Suppofe Chrifl ihould think himielf honoured by thofe Prayers, which are offered to his Mother, yet is there no difference between praying to Chrift, and that Honour we do him in praying to his Mother? A late Author indeed tells us, that the Feneration, which we gii e «., to Mary, redounds to Jefus: AH Honour given to the Mother, tending. p' 5* to the Glory of the Son; for as he communicates with her in Flefli and Blood ) foalfo doth he partake with her in her Qualities and Perfections, and therefore he is a Jlarer in that Homage and Obfervance, that is made to her. This is a new fort of Confubftantiation, and Commu- nication of Properties •, but yet how much foever we honour Je<- fus, when we pray to Mary, yet we do not pray to Jefns, when we pray to Mary ; and therefore thefe Prayers are principally and immediately directed to Mary, not to God or Chrift •, and there- fore to offer ten Prayers to Mary, for one-to God, look very like honouring Mary much more than her Son, or God the Father. Well, but fie is the Mother of God, and Blejfed amongft Women', . but how does her being Chrifts Mother entitle her to a grea- ter fhare in our Prayers and Devotions than Chrift himfelf ? It is indeed a great Honour to her to be the Mother of Jefus, but does this entitle her to that Worlhip and Homage, which is due to her Son? She is the happielt Mother among Women, but does this advance her above Angels and Arch- Angels ? For my part I fee no reafon to think, that her bearing Chrifl in her Womb, which was a lingular Favour conferred on her, but has nothing of Me- rit in it, mould advance her above the molt Eminent Apoftles and Martyrs, who with undaunted Courage and unwearied Induflry propagated the Gofpel throughout the World, and were the great Minifters of his Kingdom : 1 am fure our Saviour does not ' feem to attribute any fuch mighty Vertue to the Maternity of Mary,, when a certain Woman faid unto him, Blejfed is the Womb that bare thee, and the Paps which thou haft fucked; he anfwered, yea , i .,--... rather Blejfed are they, who hear the Word of God and k,eep it. And Matth. 12. 46. in another place, when fome told him^ behold thy Mother and thy &c. Brethren ft and without de firing tofpeak with thee, he anfwered and faid unto him, that told him, who is my Mother} And who are my Bre- thren t and he Jiretched forth his hand towards his Difciples, faying, behold my Mother and my Brethren, for who fever foatl do the Will of my Father , which is in Heaven, tbej-ame is my Mother, and Sifter, and (54) and Brother. Which prefers his meaneft Difciplcs before the Mo- ther of his Flclh, conlidered only as his Mother , which he would not have done, had the bare Maternity of Mary advanced hera- bove all other Creatures. Well, but fie ismoft acceptable to God in her Intercejfion for us. Did the Angel tell them this too, as well as that (he is Blefled a- mong Women? Whence then do they learn it .? Is it only becaufe fhe is a Mother? Have all Mothers then fuch a natural Authority over their Sons, even when they areSoveraign Princes ? Cannot the Eternal Son of God chufe an Earthly Mother, but he muft admit her into the Throne with him, and govern his Kingdom, if not by her Commands, yet by her Importunities and Requefts? This is thought a great weaknefs in Earthly Princes, and ufually proves fatal to their Government; and yet it is much more tole- rable in Earth thanin Heaven. What has the Mother of his Flefh to do,to intermeddle in the affairs of his Spiritual Kingdom,which fiie is not capable of managing? She had no Authority in the •Church, while (he was on Earth, which methinks her Maternity might give her as much Right to, as to be Queen-Regent of Hea- ven. When Chrift was a Child he lived in Subjection to Mary and Joftpb, though he began early to give them a Specimen of a Su- periour Power he had, and fuch a work to do, as difcharged him fromSubjection to Earthly Parents. When he was but twelve Luke i. 48. years old, he told his Mother, how was it, that ye fought me, wift .49. ye not that I muft be about my Fathers bufinefs} When his Mother at the Marriage in Cana of Galilee acquainted him, that their Wine was fpent, and infmuated her delrre, that hefhould help them, he rebukes her for it, Woman what have I to do with thee} my John 2. 3, 4. hcurisnotyet come. She was not to direct him, what to do in fuch matters \ and can we think then, that now he is advanced to the Right Hand of God, he will fuffer her to intermeddle in the adminiirration of his Kingdom. But our Author believes ittdamnablcfothinktheVtrgin Mary wore powerful in Heaven than Chrift , or that fie can in any thng command him. It is well the Impcra Rcdemptori, command the Redeemer \ is at lafl difowned by them, though it may be fomemay think it a little too much to call it damnable; becaufe whatever Papifts believe flow, there' was a time, when this was ufed in the Millals of the Roman Church} and will he fay, that it Was damnable then to ufe- that Hymn? \ believe no Papiftever thought the Virgin Mary to be- Omni- potent, (55) potent, much lefs, that fhe can do more than Chrift can, or can command him by a direct and Superior Authority, nor did any man, that 1 know of, ever charge them with this : and if it be only in this fenfe, that he denies the Virgin to be more power- ful in Heaven than Chrift, it is nothing to the purpofe } for it is poffibie for a Subject to be more powerful than his Prince , though he cannot command him, and can do nothing but by his Princes favour:, but if he have fo much the afcendant of his Prince, that he can deny him nothing, that he does whatever he will, have him, and fuch things as no other confideration mould in- cline him to do, but the defire of fuch a powerful Favourite} this man is really more powerful than the Prince, becaufe he has the direction and Government of the Princes Power : He has the Prince himfelf in his Power, and therefore is more powerful than he. And if this be the cafe of the Blefied Virgin, that fhe has the Difpofal of Chrift's Grace and Mercy , though not by a direct Authority, yet by her Intertft in her Son, if he never de- nies that which (he asks, but grants that at her Interceffion , which he wrould not grant without it •, if the Papifts beHeve this , they believe her to be more Powerful than Chrift, and they have then good reafon, as they do, to put up more fre- quent Prayers to her, than to God or Chrift himfelf. And whe- ther they do not believe this, and that at this very day, let any one judge, from thefe paffages in the Contemplations of the Life and Glory of the Holy Mary, which is lately publifhed in En- glim, VtYmifn Superior urn. " There p. 7. he tells us, that God 41 hath by a Solemn-Covenant pronounced Mary to be the Trea- Pag. 7;. "fury ofWifdom, Grace, and Sanctity under Jefus. So that 4c whatever Gifts are bellowed upon us by Jefus,we receive them- " by the Mediation of Mary : No one being gracious to Jefus, 4C who is not devoted to Mary, nor hath any one been fpecially "confident of the Patronage of Mary, who hath not through " her received a fpecial Blelling from Jefus. Whence it is one i& Sfiritus -\- SanUi, & benedittio illius ligni in quo «is. membra fan&a fahatoris fufpenfa fimt^ fit in ifto ligno -T ut 0- rantei inclinantefa-, fe fropttr Deum ante iflam crucem inveniant Gor$Qris& jinim* Jamtatem. Let this Wood be fanUtped in the name ( 77 ) name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghofl ; and let the Bleffmg of that Wood, on which the holy Members of our Saviour hung, be on this Wood -, that thofe, who pray and bom them- J elves before this Crofs, may obtain Health both of Body and Soul, This peculiar Virtue which Confecration beltows on Images to obtain the Favour of Chrilt and his Saints, to thofe who pray and worfliip before them, is all that the Heathens in- tended in calling down their Gods to attend their Images to hear and receive their Prayers and Sacrifices. They did not believe their Images to be Gods> but Silver, or Gold, Wood, orBrafs, or Stone, according to the Materials they were made of, as the Church of Rome does ; but they thought their Gods were prefent to hear the Prayers they made Dea- fer e their Images •, as the Church of Rome alfo believes, that Chrift and his Saints have a peculiar regard to thofe Prayers which are made before their Images,. as is evident from their forms of confecrating Images to fuch an ufe. The Heathens did not put their truft in an Image of Wood and Stone, but in that God, who was reprefented by that Image, and was there prefent to help them. And thus, tho the Church of Rome does not demand any Favour of Images, nor put any Truft in them, yet fhe expects the Relief and Acceptance, of Chrift and the Saints for that Worlhip fhe pays to their Images •, and I would defire any Man to fhow me the difference be- tween thefe two, efpecially when we confider how much greater Vcrtue is attributed to fome Images of the Blefled Virgin in the Churchof Rome, than there is toothers •, as to the Image of the Lady of Loretto, dec. which can fignify nothing lefs, than that the Virgin is more pleafed with, and will more gracioufly accept our Worfliip before fuch an Image^han any other ; or elfe me-thinks the Devotoes of the Virgin fhould not go fo many Miles in Pilgrimage to the La- dy of Loretto, as they often do, if they bdievedrtheTmages of the Virgin which they had at home to be of equal Power t which is as much truftingin Images, and attributing a Divine Virtue to them, as ever the Heathens were guilty of. For me-thinks thofe who ftriftly adhere to the Letter of Scripture to prove that the Heathens believed their Images to be Gods, and did put their Truft. in them, becaufethe Scrip- ture ( 78 ) turc exprefly fays fa, fhould confider alfb, that the Scrip- ture exprelly tells us, that the Idols of the Heathens are Silver and Gold^ the Workjof Mens hands ; they have Months, but they Ffalmi3$. 15, fj>*ak not » Eyes ^ave f^V> ^m T^ey fee not '■> they have Ears, 1 6, 17. but they hear not, neither is there any Breath in their Mouths .* and therefore we have as much reafon to conclude, that the Heathens did not out their Truft in the material Images, which they knew to be no better than ftupid fenfelefs matter, which could not of themfehes hear or help them, as to confefs, that in fome fenfe they made Gods of them. For if the Heathens did rot believe them to be dead fenfelefs Images, which could neither fpeak, nor fee, nor hear, but that they were really animated by invifible Spirits ♦, they were not fuch dull and fottifh Idolaters, as the Pfalmift re- prefents them ; and if they did ( as the Pfalmift takes it for granted they themfelves acknowledged) than it i cer- tain they could not believe the material Images to be Gods, nor the Objects of their Hope and Truft, and therefore might ( as fome of their Philofophers in effect did ) as fafe- ly renounce believing any Divinity or Vertue in their Images, for which they ought to be reverenced^ or demanding any Favour of them, or putting any Truft in them, as the Council of Trent does. So that their not believing any Divinity in their Images, does neither excufe them from the Breach of the fecond Commandment, nor fufficiently diftinguifh the Church of Rome^s worfhipping Images, from that Worfhip which the Heathens gave them ; at leaft th: Bifhop has faid nothing to anfwer or prevent thefe Objections againft Image-worthip, which he pretends to be the defign of his Expofition. 2. As a fuller Exp'ication of the Doctrine of the Church about Image worfhip, Monfieur de Meaux adds, that the Council of Trent ordains, That all the Honour xohich is given to them ( Images) fooa'd be referred to the Saints themfelves, which arereprefentedbythem: Or, as the Council exprefles it, The Honour we render to Images has fuch a reference to thofe they re- frefe nt , (ad Prototypa qux ilke reprefentant, to the Prototypes which they reprefent) that by the means of thofe Images (per Ima- gines, by thofe Images} we kifs, and before which we kneelt we Adore J e fits Chrift, and honour the Saints, who ft Types they are. Quorum ( 79 ) Quorum illag fimilitudinem gerunt j Whefe Ukemfs they arey #r whom they reprefent. Hitherto we have no Expofition at all of the Doctrine of the Church about I mage- worfhip, but only a bare relation what the Council fays, that Images muft be worlhipped only upon account of their Reprefentation \ and that the Wor- fhip which is given to the Image, is referred to the Proto- type : This all Roman-Catholicks agree in j but yet there is an endlefs Difpute among them, about the Nature and De- gree of this Worfhip, and it will be neceflary to take a Ihort view of it. They are all agreed, that at leaft the external Ads of A- doration are to be paid to Images, fuch as Kiifing, Kneeling, Bowing, Proftration, Incenfe •, this Dnrandus, and Holcot, and Vims MtrandnU allowed ; they all agreed, that the Worfhip which was given to Images, is upon account of Reprefentation,or as Chrift and his Saints are reprefented by them, and worlhipped in that Worfhip, which is given to their Images •, but then there was a threefold difference be- tween them. i. That fome would not allow this Worfhip in a proper fenfe to be given to the Images, but improperly and abn/ively ; becaufe at the prefence of the Image, which excites in us the remembrance of the Object, we worfhip the Object re- prefented by it, Chriit or his Saints, as if they were actual- ly prefent *, this was the Opinion of DnrandHs, Holcot, and Pichs MiranMa, who could hardly efcape the cenfure of Herefy for it \ and that which excufed them, as Vafquez. Vafqw^Ufy-. fays, was, That they agreed with the Catholick Church in i°6. & *• performing all external Ads of Adoration to Imager, and that they differed only in manner of fpeaking from the reft. ' 2. Thomas Aquinas, and his Followers, and feveral great Divines fince the Council of Trent, teach, That the fame Worfhip is to be given to the Image, which is due to the Prototype •, and therefore as Chrifl muft be worlhipped with Latria, or a fupream Worfhip, fo muft the Image of Chrift, becaufe the Image is worlhipped only on account of its Reprefentation, and therefore muft be worlhipped with the ( 80 ) the fame Worfhip with the thing reprefented : and the roo^ tion of the Mind to an Image, as an Image, is the fame with the motion to the Thing reprefented. Which feems the moll reafonable Account •, for if I worfhip Chrift by his Image, I muft give that Worfhip to the Image which I in- tend for Chrift, becaufe in that cafe the Image is in Chrift's place and ftead to me. 3. The third Opinion is, That though we muft worfhip Images, yet we muft not give the Worfhip of Latria to them, no not to the Image of Chrift himfelf, but an infe- rior degree of Worfhip. This fome Divines aflerted on the Authority of the Council of Nice, which exprefly deter- mined, that Latria is not to be given to Images. But this is the molt abfurd Opinion of all \ for if we muft worfhip Images only upon the account of their Reprefentation, we muft give that Worfhip to them, which is due to the thing reprefented by them \ and if we give any other Worfhip to them, we muft worfhip them for their own fakes. And what is that Worfhip which is due to them as feparated from the Prototype ? What Worfhip is due to caned and polifhed Brafs and Stone ? Whoever defires to fee thefe three different Opinions, with the proper Reafons of them, ex- plained more at large, may confute Dr. StiHw°fleet\ learned Defence of his Difcourfe of Idolatry, Part 2. Chap.i. fag. 575, &c. Now the Council of Trent only determines, that the Honour we give to Images, muft be referred to the Pro- totypes that we muft adore Chrift and his Saints in that Worfhip which we give to their Images : which teems to countenance the fecond Opinion, That the Worfhip of La- tria is to be given to the Image of Chrift, becaufe that is the Worfhip which we muft give to Chrift : But then the Coun- cil refers to the fecond Council of Nice ^ which determines the quite contrary ; and I dare not undertake to reconcile the Council with it felf, fince the Fathers of that Council would not plainly decide this Controverfy among their Divines. Let us then try, if we can difcover, what Monfieur de Meaux thinks of this Matter \ what Worfhip that is which ne allows to be given to Images, Now, ( 8t ) Now, as far as I can guefs, he is of Darandm his Opinion, That all External Ads of Adoration are to be performed before the Image, but that the Image is not to be properly worfhipped, but only Chrift in the prefence of his Image, as representing his Perfon to us, and exciting in us the re- membrance of him. Thus he tells us, That while the Image pag, ^, of Chrifi crucified, being prefent before our Eyes, caufes fa pre- cious a remembrance in our Souls, we are moved to tejiify by fome exteriour figns, how far our gratitude bears us -, and by hunt' bling our fehes before the Image, we jlww what is our fubmif- fon to our Saviour. So that he allows of humbling our fehes before the Image, that is, of paying the External Ads of Worfhip before it. Well ! but is this to worfhip the I- mage ? For that he tells us, te fpeak^ property, and according to the Ecclefiafltcal Stile, ( I fuppofe he means a new Modern Stile, for the old Eccleflaftical Stile did fomewhat differ) when we honour the Image of an Apofyle or Martyr, our Inten- tion is not fo much to honour the Image, as to honour the Apofile or Martyr in the prefence of the Image : that is, this is not pro- perly, but improperly and abufively called the Worfhip or Ho- nour of the Image : but Chrift, or his Saints, are properly worfhipped before, or in prefence of their Imager, as re- prefenting them to us j which was exadly the Opinion of Durandus. This certainly is the leaft that can be made of the Wor- fhip of Images ; and yet as far removed as this Opinion feems to be from the Opinion of St. Thomas, who affirms, that the Worfhip of Latria is to be given to the Image of Chrift •, I take them to be the very fame, though very diffe- rently expreffed. The right ftating of this,will mightily tend to clear this perplexed Controverfy ; and therefore I ihall do it with all the plainnefs I can. i. Then I obferve, that to pay the external Ads of Ado- ration to, or before, or in prefence of a reprefentative Ob- jed as reprefenting, fignify the very fame thing •, it is all one kind of Worfhip, becaufe the formal Reafon is the fame in all ; and that is, the Reprefentation. When I bow to the Image of Chrift, I bow to it as reprefenting Chrift to me, who is the ultimate Objed of my Worfhip j when I K bow ( tl ) bow before, or in the prefence of the Image, I do the fame thing, tho I give it a new Name •, I bow before it, as repre- fenting ChrLt to ire, as if he himself were there perfonal- ly prefent in the Image. When I bow to the Image, ldo not bow to the Wood or Stcn :, bttt to t hrift as reprefen- ted in the Image : when I bow to Chrift before the Image, I do the fame thing, I bow to Chrilt as reprefented in the Image which ftrrds be'orc me. For fnppof: (Thrift wetv there prefent inftead of the Image, would it make any diffe- rence in my Worfhip, to fay, That I bow to C hriir, or be- fore hi: i, or in his prefence, when they all ftgnify, that I direct my Worfhip to him as perfonaliy prefent:, no more difference is therfc in bowing to, or before- or in the prefence of the Image, when I direct m'y Worfhip to Chrift as re- prefented by the Image. There may indeed be a great dif- ference between bowing to my Prince, and in the prefence of my Prince, when thefe Expreflions fignify different Ob- jects : for I may bow to another Man in the pre fence of my* Prince, and in that Act 1 do not bow to my Prince •, but whenft>, and before, and in prefence, do not diitinguifh the Objects, the Act is the fame : If the prefence of the Image were an accidental thing, and had no relation to that Wor- fhip which we pay to Chrilt or the Saints, where fuch Ima- ges are prefent, there would be a great difference between bowing fo, and in prefence of the Image \ but if thefe Ima- ges be on purpofe letup in Confecrated Places,and arethem- felves confecrated for that ufe, to reprefent Chrift and the Saints to us*, whether we fay we bow to them, or before them, we do the fame thing, and with the fame intention, to worfhip Chrift and his Saints as reprefented by them. So that if we own, as the Bifhop does, that the Honour done before the Image, goes to the Prototype, to Chrift, or the Saints reprefented by fuch Images, we need not difpute about the manner of expreffing it 5 he may take his own way of fpeaking, that he honours Chrift in the prefence of his Image, fo he honours Chrift as reprefented by the I- mage •, and therefore, in Scripture, to fall down before and to the Image, and to worfhip the Image, are all equivalent Expreflions, There ( 8} ) there is indeed a'vaft difference between bowing to, or hi*e an Image, which reprefents God, orChnft, or fome ntine Being to us, as the Objxt of our Worihip ; and howine towards a Place, or worihipping God towards a Ware as the Jews worlhipped toward, the Temple, and in th» temple towards the Mercy-Seat i, the one wa.abfo lutely £\\Ahi thelewhh Law, the other allowed and pradifed &RS Worn.ipper.of God : whxh argues, that tWe is force difference between them ; and Itfa not hard to r ,,hVrrin the difference conlifts, that one is a reprefen- mheOb ", the other only a Circumftance of Worihip. To bow to, or before an Image, « to worihip the Image, >~ir.rChriftbv the Image, which makes the Image as Sent n^ the Prototype? the Objeft of our Worihip ,, I T „Wrh wav foever we look or bow, towards the Eaft, bU JL S,th- Weft, God alone is the immediat Obj.ft ot ^rWoWptht Place only the Circumftance of Worihip ■, Whenever we bow to Gcd, we muft bow towards fome Sitr n -other • but the Place does not reprefent God to us a an image does, and therefore is no Object of Worihip « »h1"h fhows what little reafon the Proteftor had to compare w£ to the AU«r, and'^eeUngto the Sacrament as he caHs ft With bowing to an Image. There is no Man of the Chur h of England, that I know of, who bows to the AI- «r • I amfurc fthe Church no where teaches any fuch Pra- aice. We only recommends to her Children bowingof the Bodv to God, when they come in and go out or h,s Houfe ; L 1 thouah the Communion Table, or Altar, is generally fo flinrrd atth-Eaft end of the Church, as to be oppofiteto [^ ^iceof it for which reafon fome have called fc * »» theentianceoi a , i<» rh„rr-h «.arh=<; ik to hiigfl. Dtftvrttf howine towards the Altar ; yet our Church teacti.s Ub to f, i have no regard at all to it. And Arch-Biihop tmd, in his g cZ~rhxltteStar-Chan.hr, declares, That. f there were m. M (lM ¥Tb ItMJim, he would worfiip God when he came mo hucofimctsk- 5!/ So fat there is no need ,. find any Hole, as the Pro- ft~ j£-* X- fpeaks, to get oat at w,ththe_ Altar, for that was never JJ*^ in vet as far as this Controverfy is concerned; and there- fore am like to m.ike no breach for him » film W «ti * S Nor does any Man k'eel to the Saer^t, but only ( 84) receive the Sacrament kneeling •, and if he cannot diftin- guiih between an Act of Worfhip to the Sacrament, and a devout Pofture of receiving it :, yet the ineaneft Son of the Church of England can. Why does he not as well fhy, that when we kneel at Prayers, we worfhip the Common-Prayer Book which lies before as, and out of which we read, as that we worfhip the Bread, when we receive and cat it with devout Paflions upon our Knees. But to reti rn to the Expofition. 2. I obferve, that there is a great difference between a rnemurative Sign, and the Reprefentation of an Image : both of them indeed excite in us the remembrance of fome- thing, but in fuch different manners, as quite alter the na- ture of them. It is neceflary to take notice of this, becauie I find Monfieur de Meaux, and after him the Reprefenter, very much to equivocate in this Matter : it is a very inno- cent thing to worfhip Gcd or Chrift, when any natural or inftituted Sign brings them to our minds, even in the pre- fence of fuch a Sign : As if a Man upon viewing the Hea- vens, and the Earth, and the Creatures that are in it, fhould raife his Soul to God, and adore the great Creator of the World •, or upon the accidental fight of a natural Crofs, fhould call to mind the Love of his Lord, who died for him, and bow his- Soul to him in the molt fubmiffive Adorations ; becaufe, I fay, this is very innocent, the Bifhop wou!d pcr- fwade his Readers, that this is the only ufe they make of Images, to excite in us the remembrance of thofe they reprefent • and mightily wonders at the little juftice of thofe, who treat with the term of Idolatry, that religious Sentiment, which moves them to uncover their Heads^ or bow them before the Image of the Croft, in remembrance of him who was crucified for the Love cf us. And that it is futficient to diftinguifh them from the Heathen Idolaters, That they declare, that they will not make ufe of Images, but to raife the mind towards Heaven, to the end that they may there honour Jefm Chrifl or his Saints, and in the Saints Godhtmfelf who is the Author of all Santtity and Grace. Now it is certain, an Image will call to our remembrance the Perfon it reprefents, as the prefence of the Perfon him- felf will make us remember him , but this valtly differs from a ( 85 ) a meer memorative Sign. For the ufe of Images in the Church of Rome, is not primarily for Remembrance, but for Worfhip, as the Council of Trent exprefty teaches. That the Images of Chrifi, and the Virgin the Mother of God, and other Saints, are efpecially to be had and kept in Churches, and due Honour and Veneration to be given to them beciufe the Honour given to them, is referred to the Prototypes, which they reprefent ; fo that by the Images, which ire kifs, and before which we uncover our Heads, and proftrate our f elves, we adore Chrifi, and vene- rate the Saints, whofe likenefs they bear. Thefe are the words of the Council, and it would be a very odd Comment upon fuch a Text to fay, that Images ferve only for Remem- brance. A meer Sign, which only calls Chrift to our Minds, can de- ferve no Honour or Worfhip •, but a reprefenting Sign,which puts us in mind of Chriit by reprefenting his Perfon to us, as if he were prefent, whether it raifes our hearts to him in Heaven or not, yet according to the Council of Trent, it mull direct our Worfhip to him, as reprefented in his Image. When Men go to Church to worfhip Chrift, or the Virgin Mary, before their Images , it may be prefumed they think of them before they fee their Images, and therefore do not go to be put in remembrance of them by their Images, but to worfhip them before the Images, in that Worfhip which they give to the Images. And therefore when the Bifliop fpeaks fo often of the Virtue of Images, to excite in us the remembrance of the Perfons they reprefent, to reconcile him with himfelf, and with the Council of Trent, which he pre- tends to own, we mult, not underftand him as if Images were of no ufe but to be helps to memory, and are honoured for no other reafon, ( which is no reaibn at all ) as the unwary Reader will be apt to miftake him •, but that thefe vifible Images reprefent to us the invifible Objects of our Worfhip, and give us fuch a fenfe of their Power and Prefence,as makes us fall down and worfhip them before thofe Reprefentations? , which we honour for their fakes ; that is, tho they ferve for remembrance, yet not as meer memorative Signs, but as me- morative or reprefentative Objects of Worfhip. ( 86) 3- I obfcrve, that it is the very fame thing whether wc fay, that we worfhip Chriit as rep- cfented by thelrmge, or worfhip the Image as reprefenting Chrift, for they both fig- nify that Chrift is wor (hipped in and by his Image, that the Honour and Worfhip is given to the In. age, and referred to the Prototype. It' Chriit be worfhipped as reprefentcd by the Image, then the Worfhip which is intended for Chrift is given to the Image in his Name, and as his Reprefentative •, if the Image be vvorJhipped as re;:; cfenting Chriit, then the Worfhip which is given to the Ima^e, is not for it felf, but for Chriit, whom it reprefents •, which differ jufl as much as a Viceroys being honoured for the King, or the King's being honouied :n his Viceroy. And there ore I wonder, tbat a- ny Man of U .derftandirg and Judgment, as Monfieur de Meaux certainly is, mould think there is any great matter in faying, When we honour the Image of an Affile or A : Hence Thomas aliens, that the Image is to be worlhipped with that Worfhip which is due to the Prototype *, the Image of Chriit with Latria. becaufe that is due to Ciirift j and the Images of the Saints with Dulia^ ( 8/ ) Dulia, becaufe that degree of Wcrfliip is proper to them j and the Bifhop teaches, That when they honour the Image of an Apofile or Martyr, their Intention is net fo much to honour the Image, at to honour the Apoftle or Martyr in prefence of the Imaoe : that i , they p rform no other Ait of Worlhip in the pre- fence of the Images, but that which is proper to the ApoilJe and Martyr } and therefore they both agree, that there is but one motion or the Mind to the Image, and to the Proto- type reprefented by it j that i>, as the Bifhop fpeaks, they have but on j Intention, and that is to honour the Apoltleor Martyr in the prefence of the Image : and yet after all, they ieem vallly todftJery for Th-wit fays,thatthey give the Wor- fhip of the Prototype to its Image , that is, that they wor- fhip the I mag: of Chriit with Latria-, which is the Worfhip duetoChriil •, but the Bifhop will not own, that they pro- perly give any Wor.'hip at all to Images, but only w-jruVp Chriit, or the Saints in the prefence of the Images :, Chriit indeed with Lttna, and the Sai.it> with Didig, but their Images properly with neither : and yet this difference is only in words, a: Pajqitez. confefles concerning Durandm and Holcot, whom Mr de Meanx follows, that they agreed with the Catholick^ Church, in performing all external Alts of Adoration to Images, and that they differed only in manner of fpeaking from the reft. For, as I have alreadv fhew'd, to wcrfhipthe Image, or before, and in the prefence of the In, age, when itlignifies a Reprefentative Object i. the fame thing :, and there is no difference between worfhippi g the Image as reprefenting Chriit, and worihipping C'hrift a ■ reprefented by the Image \ and yet this is all the diflerence between Mr. de Meaux and Thom at Aquinas : Tho I think Thomas- [peaks moft properly j for if Chriit be worfliipped in his Image, we mull give the Worfhip to the Image, which we intended for Chriit, be- caufe Chrift is worfliipped in that Worfhip we give to his Image •, and therefore he cannot be worfhbpcd by bis Image, if his Image be not worfliipped-, of whkh mere prefi nJy. Durandus indeed, whofe Opinion Mr. de Meaux f ems to follow, did in words oppofe the Doctrine of Thomas, that the Worfhip of the Prototype ought not to be given to an Image^ ( 88 ) Image, becaufe the Image and the Prototype were two difiinSt things ; and therefore what belonged to the Exemplar could not be attributed to an Image-, however considered as an Image ; and fit the Worfnp due to the Exemplar could not be given to the Image ' but yet he plainly grants all that Thomas intended by it \ that the Image may be /aid to be worfinpped with the fan.e Workup with the thing reprefented •, hecaufe at the pre fence of the Image, we worflnf the Object reprefented by it, as if he were attuatly prefent. But I have a better reafon than this to believe that they were both of a Mind, tho they exprefled themfelves very differently \ and that is, becaufe th.ir Arguments, whereby they confirm their feveral Opinions are the fame, and then it is not likely that their Opinions fhould much differ. Durand. in Durandus proves, That the Images are not to be worJl)ipped9 Senc.3.Dift.p. hut only improperly and abufively j becaufe at their pre fence we 1* 2t call to mind thofe Objetts reprefented by them, which are worjhip- ped before the Images, as if they were prefent, by fuch Argu- ments as thefe : that Worfhip properly belongs only to that Being in whom the caufe of Worfhip is, and that only to his Perfon, upon account of his adorable Perfections, which are the caufe of that Worfhip-, and therefore Latria,ov Supream Worfhip can be due only to God, upon account of his Deity. But that which is no Subject capable of Holinefs and Vertue, cannot in it felf be the term of Adoration •, and therefore proper Worfhip can never be due to the Image of Chrift, or to his Crofs -0 for tho Chrift be reprefented by his Image, there is a real difference in the thing, and in the conception between the Image and the thing reprefented } and therefore, properly fpeaking, the fame Worfhip is never due to the Image, that is to the Object reprefented by it. Thomas Aquinas on the other fide proves, that the Image muft be worfhipped with that Worfnip which is due to the Prototype, or the thing reprefented by it, by much the fame Arguments. i. That no irrational Creature is capable of Wor^np, hut with a refpetl to a rational Being, which anfwers to Durandus his reafon, that Worfhip properly belongs only to that Being, in whom the caufe of Worfhip is j and that which is no Subject capable ( h ) capable of Holinefs and Vertue ( as no inanimate, or irrati- onal Creature is, and therefore no Image ) cannot in it fell be the term of Adoracion. From which it appears that they mult agree, that no proper Worfhip can be given to Images. 2. Bee aufe Images are to be worshipped upon account of their Reprefentation •, therefore they are to be worflnpped with the fame Workup of the thing reprefented. 3. Becattfe the mo- tion of the Mind towards an Image, at an Image, is the fame with the motion towards the thing reprefented. So that Thomas plain- ly allows, that the Image is not to be worfhipped at all up- on its own account, but only as it reprefents \ and to worfhip the Image as it reprefents, is the very fame ad with wor- shipping the Object as reprefented by the Image •, becaufe the motion of the Mind towards an Image, as an Image, that is, as it reprefents? is the fame with the motion towards the thing reprefented- : That to worfhip an Image as repre fen- ting Chrift, is the fame thing with worfhipping Chrift as reprefented by the Irrage :, and therefore the fame Wor- fhip which is due to Chrift, muft be given to his linage, as reprefenting him \ or to him as represented by the Image. So that according to Thomas hisreafoning,there is no difference between his giving the Worfhip of Chrift to his Image, as reprefenting him, and Durandus his worfhipping Chrift be- fore his Image, as reprefented by it, as if he were actually prefent. Thomas could not have quarrelled with Durasdus, becaufe he owns it is the fame thing, tho Durandus quarrels with Thomas. And therefore Vafyuez., who feems to underftand the vafquez Biff. Doctrine of Thomas as well as any Man, acknowledges that 106. c 1, Durandus and Holcot differed only in manner of fpeaking from the reft •, and freely declares his own Opinion to be, that an Image cannot be lawfully worfbipfed any other way than as in j dcm j>/a And by that the Exemplar is made the term and next material Ob- 108. c. 3, jell of Adoration : and he gives this Reafon for it. becaufe no inanimate thing is of it felf capable of Worfhip ; but an Image con- fidered as an Image, but without the Exemplar, is an inanimate c. 9. thing. This is the Doctrine of Thomas according to Vafquez* ■ which allows no more Worfhip to an Image, confidered in h felf, then Durandus does, and yet he fays, that it may be L delivered D#. iop. e. i. delivered abfolutely, that Images are to be morjhipped with Latria, if by that be meant the fame Worjhip, which is given to the Ex- Bellarm. dt tmplar ' And therefore Bellarmine tells US, That to give the Cultulmttg.1.2. Worjhip of Latria to the Image of Chrifi, as reprefenting Chrtft, is to worjhip the Image but improperly, and per accidens • and this reconciles Ihomas and Burandns, who grants that the Image may be faid to be wor (hipped improperly and abu- fively, as in prefence of the Image, the Object is worshipped reprefented by it, as if it were actually prefent. As for Dnrandus his Argument againft Thomas his Doctrine) that the Worfhip of the Prototype is to be given to the Image, That there is a real difference in the thing, and in the con- cepticn between the Image and the thing reprefented ; and there- j>ag# *, • forey properly fpeak[ng, the fame Worjhip is never due to the Image, that is to the Qbjett reprefented by it. I think, if any Worfhip of Images were juftifiable, this Argument were ea- ly anfwered. For tho there be a great difference indeed in the nature of things, between the Image and the Object, be- tween Chrift fnppofe, ai d his Image which reprefents him*, yet in this cafe there is none in the Conception •, for an Image when it receives our Worfhip in the place and fread of the Prototype, does not reprefent according to the ufual nature cf an Image by its likenefsand fimilitude \ for fo both in the thing and in the conception the Image differs from the Object it reprefents •, but it reprefents as a Proxy and Sub- ftitute, who in the eye of the Law, is the fame Perfon with him, whom he reprefents. Thus Thomas muft underftand the Reprefentation of an Image, when he fays, that it is the fame motion of the Mind to the Image, and the exem- plar reprefented by it \ that is, that the Image is fuppofed to fupply the place of Chrilr, and reprefent him prefent to us •, and therefore we worfhip the Image as Chrift's Repre- fentative with that Worfhip we would give to him were he actually prefent \ this is not indeed the natural ufe of Ima- ges, nor is it natural to worfhip them, but this is the true Greg. pofe A were to ail intents and purpofesi a l^gal Proxy for B, to do, and to receive whatever B might do and receive L 2 in ( 9* ) rn his own Perfon *, in this cafe A is not confidered as Ar m his own perfonal Capacity, but A is £, as his Proxy and Reprefentative. Suppofe now that C owes a Sum of Mony, or a certain Homage to P, and pays it to A as B\ Proxy •, that is, not as he is A^ but B. When C worfhips A as re- presenting the Perfon of B, he is properly faid not to wor- ship A, but B ^ becaufe he worfhips A not as A,bv.t as A is £, in his Reprefentative Capacity. Now if you will fuppofe A to be the Image, and B to be Chrift, this explains in what fenfe Thomas worfhips the Image for Chrift, not as the Ima^e is Wood or Stone, but as it is the Reprefentative of Chrift's Perfon. Now fuppofe D fhould fcruple paying the Won- fhip of B to A, becaufe A is a diftindt Perfon from By and has no right to the fame Worfhip i and therefore fhould on- ly worfhip B in the prefence of Ay as reprefenting him ; would not all the World fee, that D and C meant and did the fame thing, worshipped A as the Reprefentative of B, tho D is pleafed to phrafe it otherwife, and more improper- ly than C does ; for the perfonal Capacity of A is not con- fidered at all, when it is worfhipped for By but only his Reprefentative Capacity ; and this is the only difference be- tween Thomas and Durandus. Thomas worfhips thfe Image in Chrift's place and ftead, as reprefenting Chrift, without confidering its natural Capacity as an Image of Wood or Stone v as C worfhips A as B's Proxy, without confidering ^'s perfonal Capacity : but Durandus worfhips Chrift as re- prefented by the Image ( which is the fame with the Image leprefenting Chrift ) in the prefence of the Image conli- dered in its natural Capacity ; as D worfhips B as repre- fented by A, in the prefence of A, confidered. in his perfo- nal Capacity; that is, he worfhips reprefentative A in tiro prefence of perfonal A, which is the fame thing that C does, but is a more uncouth andabfurd way of fpeaking. Thus, to proceed, When C worfhips A as Bh Proxy, in his name and ftead, does he worfhip A or B ?. he worfhips A indeed, but confidered as B , and therefore the Worfhip given to A in the name of £,is not the Worfhip of A, bua «f B j And will any Man fay that A and B are two Objeds ©f Worfhip ? when ia this fenfe,^/ is. Br and is confidered only ( 91 ) only as B, that is, as fl's Proxy \, and therefore A confi- dered as A, in his own perfonal Capacity, is not worfhip-- ped at all, neither abfolutely nor relatively, per fe, nor per accidens -v but if A be worfhipped only as £, to iay, that A is worihipped relatively, or per accident, is to fay that B, who is worfiiipped in A, is worihipped both abfolutely and relatively, properly and improperly, per fe and per accidens -7 which are fom; of the Objections which Cathxrimu and others ufc againft Thomas. Much at the fame rate others compare Thomas his Do- ctrine of worfhipping the Image with, the Worlhip of the Prototype, as reprefented by it, with worfhipping a Sign, and the Thing fignified :, or worfhipping the King and his Robes, which are very remote from the Bufinefs, and per- plex and confound' a Ooctrine, whichis very eafy to be un- derftcod, and eallly refcued from thofe Scholaftick Abfur- dities which are charged on it, if that were its only fault: For the true Reprefentation of it, is by confidering the Na- ture of a Proxy, and legal Reprefentative,, which a&s in another's name and Head. Having thus conlldered what is the Notion of Image- Worfhip, according to Thomas,znd Durandus, and Monfieur de Meaux, that it is a worfhipping the Image in the name and ftead of the Prototype, as its Proxy and Reprefenta- tive, worfhipping the Image as reprefenting Ghrift, as Tho- rn as fpeaks, or worfhipping Chrift before his Image as re- prefented by it, as Durandm and M. de Meaux fpeak. We have now fome Foundation to build on •, and I think they have no reafon to complain that I have ftated it in this man- ner, which grants them all they, can defire or ask for, viz. That they do not worfhip Images, as an Image fignifies a Figure of Wood or Stone •, but they worfhip the Image as reprefenting Chrift •, or if they like that better, Chrift as reprefented in his Image •, That when they honour the Image of An Apofile or Martyr y they do not fo much intend to honour the Image, as the Apofile or Martyr in the pre fence of the Image, Let us then confider whether this will juftify them 7 and \i this will not, I doubt their Caufe is defperate. And in order to this, I fhall do thefe three-things. 3. Show ( 94 ) i. Show you, that this is the only intelligible Notion of worlhipping God, or Chrift, or the Saints, by Images; that Images are a kind of legal Proxies and Reprefentatives, to receive our Worfhip in the name and Head of Chrift, or the Saints. 2. That this is the Scripture Notion of Image- Worfhip •, and that in this fenfe it is the Scripture condemns the wor- fhip of Images, as pradifed by the Heathens. 3. I fhall fhow, wherein the Evil of worlhipping Images according to this Notion confifts. 1. That this is the only intelligible Notion of worlhip- ping God, or Chrift,or the Saints, by Images •, that Images are a kind of legal Proxies and Reprefentatives to receive our Worfhip in the name and Head of the Prototype, or the Being reprefented by them. The Reafon of wor/hipping Images, is to do Honour to fome Divine Being reprefented by thefe Images : for the true occafion of Image-Worfhip, is that fondneis Men have for a vifible Objed of Worlhip ; and becaufe they cannot fee the Gods they worlhip, therefore they fet up Images, as vifible and reprefentative Deities, to receive their Worfhip in the name and fteadof their Gods. Now if we grant, that Men intend to worfhip their Gods, in that Worlhip they pay to, or before their Images, we mult grant that thefe Images are inltead of vifible Gods to them, or fup- ply the place of their Gods, and receive Worfhip in their Names. For to worfhip God, or any Divine Being, by an Image, can fignify neither more nor lefs, than to worfhip God, or Chrilt, or the Saints, in that Worfhip which we give to their Images : for God cannot be worfhipped in an Image any otherwife, than as the Worfhip which is given to the Image is his Worfhip, and given in his Name : for B can be worfhipped in A, only as A is B\ Reprefentative, and is worfhipped in his name and Itead. To worlhip any Be- ing, is to worfhip his Perfon \ and therefore we mult either worfhip him in his own natural Perfon, or in his Reprefen- tative, who is his legal Perfon. As (?5 ) As to (hew you this particularly. If any Men were ever fo fottifh as to believe their Images themfelves, tnat is, the vifible Figures of Wood, or Stone, or Brafs, to be Gods, and to worfhip them as Gods, fuch Men cannot be faid to worfhip God by an Image, but to worfhip an Image-God *, for the Image it felf is their God, and the Worfhip terminates on the Image as God. They may be faid to worfhip falfe Gods, Gods, in a ftrid and proper fenfe, of Wood and Stone ^ but to worfhip God by an Image, and to worfhip the Image it felf for a God, are very diflindt things : and if the Scripture forbids the Worfhip of God by an Image, it will not juftify Image- Worfhip, to fay, that fome Heathens were fuch Sots, as to believe their Images themfelves to be Gods ^ for Men who are not fuch Sots, may Worfhip their Gods by Images, as all thofe Heathens did, who acknowledged their Images to be only Symbols and Reprefentations of their Gods, and therefore not to be Gods themfelves ^ for the fame thing cannot be a Symbol and Reprefentation of it felf; which is as good fenfe as to fay, that a Sign, and the thing fignified byic, is the fame. To give a proper, though inferiour degree of worfhip to Images themfelves, is not to worfhip God or Chrift by his Image, becaufe in this cafe, the Worfhip they give to the Image of Chrift, is not fuch a Worfhip as is proper for Chrift, and is terminated not on Chrift, but on his Image. No Worfhip is proper to be given to Chrift, but the Wor- fhip of Latria,ox fupreara and foveraign Worfhip: but the Roman Doctors, who embrace this Opinion, deny with the fecond Council of Nice, that Latvia may be given to Ima- ges, and in general reject the Doctrine of Themas, that the Image is to be worfhipped with the Worfhip due to the Pro- totype : And how then can Chrift be worfhipped in his I- rnage, if no Worfhip is given to the Image, which is fit for Chrift to receive ? when the Image has no Worfhip given it, but fuch as is proper to its felf, confidered as Chrift's Image, will they call this the Worfhip of Chrift ? efpecially lince this Worfhip which is given to the Image, is terminated on the Image as its own proper and peculiar Worfhip, as Ca- thnrintu H9iy thmntu and Bcfijrtmne, and all of this way -acknowledg \ who reject Tho/tuu his Doctrine of worlhipping the Ira^ge, with the worfhipof th: Prototype reprefented by it, be- caufe this is not properly the Worfhip of the Image, bui of the Prototype ^ and therefore that the Image may b-- Hire to be worfliipped, .they give it an inferior degree of Wor- ihip, which terminates on it felf. Now how Ghriit mould be worfliipped in that Worfhip which terminates on his linage •, that is, how that Worfliip w hich ends in the Im age, and goes no farther, Ihould pafs through the Image, and end in Chrift, as it malt do, if Chriit be worfliipped in the Image, is patt my underltanding, as all Contra dictions are. But they refer the Worfliip of the Image to the Pro- totype. But it is worth enquiring how they do it •, Do they intend the Worfliip they give to the Image for Chriit ? that is, Do they intend to worfliip Chriit in that Worfliip they give to his Image ? No : they can't do that, becaufe they give only an inferior degree of Worfliip to the Image, which is not worthy of Chrift •, not a Worfhip proper for him, but only for his Image : but they worfliip the Image tor the fake of Chriit •, and this they take to be an Honour to Chriit to worfliip his Image : but this is not to worfliip Chrift in or by his Image ; for in this way Chriit is not wor- shipped in that Worfliip we give to his Image, but it is to worfliip the Image for Chrift's fake, which is, by interpre- tation, an Honour to Chrift -y as any refpect we mow to the Image of the King, argues our Etteem and Honour for our King, whofe Image it is : but thefe two di.fer a ; much as to honour Chrift in our Actions, and to worfliip him, as to do fomething which is, by interpretation, an Honour to Chrift, and to make our immediate Addrefles, to offer up our Pray- ers and Thankfgtvings to him. Every thing we do for the Honour of Chrift, is not prefently an Aft of Worfliip ; and therefore though we fhould grant,that we honour Chrift in the Worfhipof his Image, it does not follow, that there- fere we worfhip him in worlhipping his Image, when we give no Worfliip at all to him, but only to his Image •, which plainly fhows, that in this way they do not worfliip Chrift. by ( 97 ) by his Image, but only worfhip the Image for Chrift's fake. Which is a plain Argument to me, that though this Way has very great and learned Advocates, yet it cannot be the meaning of the Council of Trent, becaufe it is not recon- cileable with the Practice of the Church of Rome •, which prays every day to Chrift, and the blefled Virgin, to Saints and Martyrs, before their Images, in fuch terms as are pro- per only to be ufed to themfelves •, which befides the other Faults of it, is horrid Non-fenfe, if they do not intend to worfhip Chrift and the Saints in their Images. Much lefs do thofe worfhip the Prototypes in their Ima- ges, who only ufe Images as helps to Memory, and to ex- cite devout Affections in them, that at the fight of the Image they may offer up more fervent Prayers to God or Chrift : for though this practice may and has a great many other Faults in it, yet this is neither in the intention of the Wcr- fhipper, to worfliip the Image, nor the Exemplar by the Image. Monlieurafc Meaux, by fome Exprelfions he ufes, would perfwade his Readers, that this, is all the Church of Rome intends in the ufe of Images •, and yet he owns the Doctrine of the Council of Trent, That the Honour of the Image ii referred to the Prototype, becaufe by the Images which we kifs, and before which we uncover our Heads, and froftrate our felves, we adore Chri{i, and worfliip the Saints, whofe Likg- nefs they bear. Which plainly I ignifie?, that we worfhip Chrift and the Saints in the worfliip of their Images •, and there- fore though Images may be helps to Memory alfo, yet they muft be honoured and worfhipped, that Chrift and his Saints may be worfhipped in them, and by them ; which is a very different thing from being bare Signs to help our Memories, and quicken our Devotions. There is no need of Confe- cration for this End ; and the Church takes no notice of this ufe of them in her Forms of Confecration. Thefe are all the Pretences I have met with for the ufe of Images in Reli- gious Worfhip : and it is evident from what 1 have faid, that there is no other fenfe, wherein God or Chrift can be faid to be worfhipped by an Image, but only as the Image receives the Worfhip due to Chrift in his Name and Stead,as if it were his legal Proxy and Reprefentative ^ which, as I M have ( 9» ) have fhcwed, is the true Interpretation, both of the Do- ctrine of Dnrandm, and Monlieur de Meaux, and ThwmtiA this Matter. 2d!y. I am now to fhow,that it is in this Notion the Scrip- ture forbids the worfhip of Images, as the Reprefentatives of God, or any Divine Being, to receive our VVorlhip in God's Name and Stead. It is true indeed, the id Comm i«d- ment, which forbids the wbffliip of imngc stakes no notice of the Diftinclions of the Schools, in what Notion an Image is worfhipped, or what kind and degree of Worfhip is given to it4, but the words are fo lane and genera!, a-; to exclude all ufe of Images in Religious Worfhip. The Worfhip which is exprefly forbidden in the Commandment to be gi- ven to Images, is only the External Ads of Worfhip, fuch as to bow down to them •, which is the very leaft that can be done, if Men make any ufe of Images in Religious Wor- fhip : The Images which are forbidden to be worfhipped, are all forts of Images whatever \ The lihcnefs of any Thing which is in Heaven above, or in the Earth beneath, or in the Wa- ter under the Earth. And how extravagant foe^er Mens Fancies are, they cannot well form any Image, but miift be like to feme of thefe things, either in whole or in part. But the Commandment takes no notice of Mens different Opinions about Images, whether they look upon them as Gods, or Reprefentatives of God, or helps to Memory and Devotion : for fince the defign of the Commandment is to forbid the ufe of Images in Religious Worfhip, it was dan- gerous to leave any room for Diftintftions ; which is to make every Man judg, what is an Innocent, and what is a fmful ufe of Images •, which would utterly evacuate the Law : for Men of Wit can find out fome Apology or other for the groffefr, Superftitions. As for inftance ; I find a notable Criticifm in the Advertifement to Mon- sieur de Meaux his Expofition, (f. 14. ) That the Images for- bidden in the fecond Commandment, are thofe which are forbid- den to be made, ru> rve/l m to be wor(liippcd. The Conference of which is, That the Worfhip of fuch Images as may be lawfully made, h not forbidden in this Law •, and then in- deed ( 99 ) deed there is room enough for the Wor/hip of Images : un- lefs he will fay, That it is unlawful to make the Images of any thing in Heaven or Earth, or under the Earth ^ but then they can have no Images to worfliip. Tertullian indeed, and fome others, condemned the very Arts of Painting and Carving Images, as forbid in the fecond Commandment : and it is certainly unlawful to make any Image in order to wor/hip it. Eut I deilreto know- of this Author, whether it be lawful to make an Image or Picture of the Sun, and Moon, and Planets :, of Birds and Bealts, of Men and Wo- men, which are the Likenefs of Things in Heaven, and Things on Earth ? If it be, then the making of thofe Ima- ges is not forbid in the fecond Commandment, and then die wor/hip of them is not forbid neither. But he fays, He means fuch Images at are made to reprefent God, and thofe which are made to foow him pre ferity and which are worjlupped with the fame intention a* full of his Divinity. But is this the Work of the Carver, or the Painter, to make a God ? Can the Pencil, or the Knife, put Divinity into a Picture or Image ? This is the work of him that Confecrates, and him that Woiihips. Qui fngit Sacros auro vel marmore vultus Non facit ille Deos^ qui colit^ ille facit. He had forgot the Brazen Serpent which Hezckiah broke, the making of which, I fuppofe, was not forbid in the fe- cond Command, but it feems the worfliip of it was.. But to return : Though the fecond Commandment forbids the wor/hip of all forts of Image?, and every act and degree of . Worfliip, without leaving room for any Exceptions or Diftinj&ipps.jy yet we may learn from Scripture, what was the currant No-; tion of Image-Worihip at that time, viz.. That they wor-, iliippcd their Images, not for Gods, but for Symbols and Reprefentationsof their Gods :, that is, they fetthem up as vifible Obje&s of Worfliip, to receive their WorftiJ? in the name and Head of their Gods : They did not worlhip the Images them felves, but their Gods in and by their Images. M 2 Indeed, ( ioo ) Indeed, this is the only Notion of Image-Worfhip that any Men ever had, till Chriftians began to worfhip Images, and then were forced to defend it, and to diitinguifh away the Idolatry of it. This is the Account the Heathens gave of their Wotfhip of Images, That they did not believe them to be Gods, but only worfhipped their Gods in their Images. Thus Cicero aferibes the making Images of their Gods in humane Shape, De Naturade- to their Superftition-, Vt cjfent fimulacra, qu£ verier antes deos ©rum,l.i.c.27. ^fot fe ac{ire crcderext, that they might have Images to make their AddrefTes to, as if the God. themfelves were prefent. Max. Tyrius, And Maximm Tyrius gives a large Account of their Images durert.38. to the fame purpofe, That they are all but fo many Pictures and Reprefentations of the Deity, to bring us to the con- ception of him ; and it maiters not what the Image be, fo it bring God to our Thoughts, and direct our Worfhip to him ; Oeiov eis zv&{Aw 'ica fxovov. Celfiu and Julian deny that they thought their Images to be Gods \ and fo did the Ste Dr. Stil- Heathens in Arnobius, Athanafiw, and St. Auftirt, as thofe UmTthtDif- Fathers acknowledg. And Julian tells us, That a lover of courft of idoia- God loves the Reprefentations of the Gods ^ and beholding try$.466i&c their Images, doth fecretly fear and reverence them, which although invifible themfelves, do behold him.. And Dio Chryfojtom, in his Olympiek Oration, gives this Account why Men are fo fond of Images, which they know cannot DioChryf. exprefs the invifible and inexprefiible Nature of God, Be- Orat. 12. caufe Mankind doth not love to worship God at a diflance, but to come near and feel hint-, and with ajj'urance Sacrifice to him, and Crown him. Nay, thofe very Heathens who believed that ibme invifible Spirits after Con fecration were, not incorpo- rated with their Images, ( which it does not appear to me, that any of them thought ) but prefert in them •, did not therefore worfhip the material Figure, but through the viti- ble Image, worfhipped thofe invifible Spirits which were St. Aug. in. hid in it. Nm hoc vifibile cola, fed numen quod illic invifibi- XfaJ. 113. liter habitat. And therefore Arnobttu fays, That they for- Arnob. 16. mec* tne ^mages °f tne^r God*-* Vtcarik fubftitutione, that is:, to fet them in the place of God, to be a vicarious Objed of Worship, to receive their Worfhip in the name of their Gcdsj ( 101 ) Gods ; and that Gcd receives their Worfhip by Images, per qiutflam fidei commijfa, by way of Truft ; as if they were intruded to receive their Worfhip for God in his ftead. Hence St.Auftin tells us, that no Image of God ought to be worfhipped, but only Chrift, who is what he is \ and he not to be worfhipped inficad of God, but together with him } which Ihows plainly what Notion the Father had of proper Aug.Ep. 119. Image- worfhip-, that it is to worfhip the Image inftead of c- "• Gcd : and therefore tho Chrift befuch an Image of God as mult be worfhipped, yet he mull not be worfhipped as an Image *, that is, not in the ftead, but together with God. And St. Hicrom on Rom. 1. gives the fame notion of Image- vverfhip, Qnomodo invijibilis Dens per fimulacrum vifibile colere- tur ■■> that it is to worfhip the invifib'e God by a vifible Image : and therefore falling down before their Images is called by ArnobiM, Deornm ante or a projhati, proftrating themfelves Arn* '• '■ before the Face of their Gods , which is aptly exprefled by Ctfar, ante fimulacra projeffi vittoriam a Diis expofcerent, ofar dt Belle falling down before their Images, they begged Victory of Ch.l. 2. their Gods. And in thofe days before they were acquainted with School-Diftin&ions, to pray to their Gods before their Images, and fixing their Eyes on them, was thought to be Image-worfhip ; thus- St. Auflin exprefTes.it by odor at vel or at tntuens fimidacrum, adoring, or praying, looking upon an Image : and fodoes Ovid, Summiffof, genu, vultus in imagine Ovid. Fart. 4.. Dtv£ fixity with bended Knees he fixes his Eye upon the Image of the Goddcfs: and indeed all the Arguments of the an- cient Fathers againftthe Worfhip of Images are levelled a- gainft this Notion of it, that they worfhipped their Gods by Images, not that they thought their Images to be Gods. This then being the received Notion of Image-worfhip among the Heathens, in which they all agreed, as far as we have any account of their Opinions, and being the only intelligible account that can be given of the Worfhip of Images, we have reafon to believe, that the fecond Commandment, which forbids the Worfhip of Images, had a principal regard to it ; but I have other Arguments from the Scripture, it felf to confirm this Opinion. r. The. ( i°* ) i. The firft is from the firfl Example of Image-wor/hip among the Israelites after the giving this Law; that is, the Worlhip cf the Golden Calf, which Aaron made while Mofes was in the Mount : That this Calf was intended on- ly as a Symbolical Reprefcntation of the God of Jfrad, and that they worfhipped the Lord Jehovah in the Worfliip of this Calf, is fo evident from the whole Story, that I confefs I do not think that Man fir to be differed with, who de- nies it •, for he mult either want Underltanding, or Honelty, to be convinced of the plaineit matter, which he has no mind to believe. The occa'Ion of their making this Calf, wastheabfence of Mofes, who was a kind of a living Ora- cle, and Di/inc Frcfence with them. They faiJ to Aaron, rExcii 11. i. ^p, make us Gods, which JbaU go before m : for as for this Mo- fes, the Man who brought us up out of the Land of Egypt, we wot not what u become, of him •• So that they wanted not a new Gcd, but only a Divine Prefence with them, fince Mofes, who ufed to acquaint them with the Will of God, and go- vern them by a Divine Spirit, was fo long abfent, that they thought him loft •, when the Calf wa~ made, they [aid, Thefe be thy Gods, O Jfrad, which brought Thee out of the Land of Egypt : Which they could not poTbly underitand of the Calf, which was but then made. For tho we (hould think them fo filly, as to believe it to be a God, it was impo.Tible they {hould think that the Calf brought them out of Egypt, before it felf was made : Nor could they think any Egyp- tian Gods delivered them out of Egypt to the mine and de- flation of their own Country ; efpeciaily, fince they cer- tainly knew, that it was only the Lord Jehovah, who brought them out of Egypt by the hand of Alofes; and therefore Aaron built an Altar before it, and proclaimed a Feafi to the Lord, or to Jehovah, as the word is : which makes it very plain to any unprejudiced Man, that they inteaded to wor- lhip the Lord Jehovah in the Worflrp of the Golden Calf, which they made for a fymbolical Reprefentation and Prefence Ste Dr Sal- °^ God; which no doubt was very agreeable to the notion lingti. Deface ^ie Egyptians had of their Images, from whom they leaan'd of Difc ofido- this way of Worfhip ; and 'I need not tell any Man how toqj.-i^&c difplealing this was to God. 2. Ano- ( '°3 ) 2. Another Argument of this, is, That Images are called Gods in Scripture , Ifa. 44. 10. Who hath fajhioncd a God,or-i^ 44# I0 I§. molten a Graven Image , which is profit able for nothing. He ' \iu. makcth a God and xroijliippctb it ; he maketh it a Graven Image, and fallcth down thereto. The refidete thereof he maketh a God, even his Graven Image, and rvorJJjtppeth it, and prayeth unto it, and faith, Deliver me, for thou art my God. I need not multiply 1 laces for the proof of this ; fcr this isown'd by all the Ad.ocat:sof the Church of Rome, and.relied on as the great {Import of their Caufe. From hence they fay, it is plain in what fenfe Gcd forbids the Worfhip of Images, viz. when Men wcvihip their Images for Gods, as the Text allerts the Heathens did. But tho the Church of Rome worfhips Images, yet fhe does not worfhip them for Gods, but only wonhip doe, cr Chrifr, or the Saints in and by their Ima- ge-. This is the reafon of their great Zeal to make the firm add fecond Command rneot but one : becaufe the firffc Commarclment forbidding the Worthip of all falfe Gods, If tfaat which we call the fecond Commandment, which for- bids the Vv orlhip of Images, be reckoned only as part of the firft, then they think it plain in what fenfe the -Worfhip of Images is forbid viz. only as the Worihip of falfe Gods ^ and therefore thofe cannot be charged with the breach of this Commandment, who do not believe their Images to be Gods. Now befides what I have already faid, to prove that the Heathens did not believe the Images themfelves to be Godr, which is fo fottifh a Conceit, as no Man of common Senfe can be guilty of *, I have feveral Arguments to prove, that the Scripture does not underitand it in this fenfe. 1. The firft is, That the Golden Calf is called Gods of Gold, Excd. 32.31. and yet it is evident, they did not believe the Calf to be a God, but only a Symbol and Reprefenta- tion of the Lord Jehovah, whom they worihipped in the Calf. 2. The very name of an Image, which fignifies a Like- neis and Repr dentation of fome other Being, is irreconcile- able with Rich a Belief, that the Image it felf is a God ; that the Image is that very God, whom it is made to reprefent \ wThich. ( i°4 ) which ITgmfies, that the likcnefs of God, is that very God whofe likenefs it is : Especially, when the Scripture, which calls fuch Images Gods, calls them alfo the Images of their Gods. Which is proof enough, that tho the Scripture calls Ima- ges Gods, it does not underftand it in that fenfe, that they believe their material Images to be Gods : for it is a contra- diction to fay, that the Image of Baal, is both their God Baal, and his Image at the fame time ; for the Image is not the thing it reprefents. 3. The Arguments urged in Scripture againft Images, plainly prove, that they were not made to be Gods, but on- ly Representations of God. One Argument is, becaufe they .faw no limilitude of God when he fpoke to them in Hcreb out of the midft of the Fire : another, that they ea4i make no Deut. 4. 15. likenefs of Him. To whom then will ye liken. God, or what likenefs will ye compare to Him ? To whom then will ye liken Ifa.40. 18, 27. Me, orfial'l I be equal, faith the Holy One ? Thus St. Paul ar- gues with the Philofophers at Athens ; For as much then as '.' 9' we arc the Off-fpring of God, we ought not to thinly the Godhead to be like to Gold) and Silver, and Stone graven by Art, and Man's Device. Now what do all thefe Arguments figi-ify againft making a God ? for if they can make a God, what matter is it who their God be like, fo he be a God ? It is a good Ar- gument againft making any Image and Reprefentation of God, that it is impoflible to make any thing like him ; but it is enough for a God to be like it felf. In what fenfe then, you'l fay, does the Scripture call Ima- ges Gods? there is but one poflible fenfc, that I know of, and that is, that they are vicarious and fubftituted Gods ^ that they are fet up in God's place, to reprefent his Perfon, and to receive our Worfhip in his name and ftead, and fo are Gods by Office, tho not by Nature. They are vilible Reprefcntations of the Invilible God, they bear his Name and receive his Worfhip ; as the Golden Calf was called Je- hovah, and the Wor/hip of the Calf was called a Fcaft un- to the Lord : And this is fome reafon for their being called Gcds ; as the Proxy and Subftitute acts in the name of the Rerfonhe reprefents : Which proves that this is the Scrip- ture ( io5) ture notion of Image- worfhip, that the Image is worlhipped in God's name and ftead . And to this purpofe I obferve , That tho' «/'»*«> or an Idol , fignifies a falfe god ; yet it fignifies fuch a falfe god as is only the image and figure of another god ; for fo ttfahw, fignifies e^W and ©/-to?*//*,, a likenefs or fimi- litude. Thus Tertullian tells US , eorum imagines Jdd'a > ima* T^n"l'Ae gimimcmfecratioldolatria. That their Images are Idols, and the ' c'4- Cortfecration of them is Idolatry. Thus the Author of the Book of Wifdom attributes the original ofjdolatry, to Fathers wifdom c 14 making images for their children who were dead , and appointing fo- Vm ,« hmniiiesto be kept before them as if they were gods ; and thus by degrees Vrinces pafj'ed thefe things into Laws, and m'tde men to worship graven images ; and thus either cut of affection or flattery the worfhip of Idols began. Which {hews what he means by Idols, Images confecrated for the worfhip of God. And therefore he diftinguifhes the wormip of Idols, from the wormip of the Ele- ments and heavenly bodies , when this was done without an c v 6> Image : And therefore no God is in Scripture called an Idol, but with refpett to its Image. Thus Idols and Molten Gods are join'd together, as expounding each other. And the Pfalmift *^vit- J9-4- tells US, The Idols of the Heathens are Silver and Gold , the work a m' !^5r5" of mens hands. So that an Idol is a falfe God, as it fignifies a material Image made to reprefent fome God, as a vifible object of worfhip, to receive the worfhip of that God whofe name it bears, in his place and ftead. To the fame purpofe the Scripture charges thefe Image-wor- fhippers with changing the Glory of God into the likenefs asd fimilitude of thofe creatures whereby they reprefented him. The Ifraelites made the Image of a Golden Calf, as the (ym- bolical reprefentation and prefence of the Lord Jehovah ; and the Pfalmift tells us , that by fo doing , they changed their glory (i. e. the Lord Jehovah, who was the glory of Ifrael) into the fimilitude of an Ox which eateth graft. Which necefTarily fup- pofes, that they intended to reprefent the Lord Jehovah in the Image of the Calf 5 not that they thought their God to be like the Calf, but as they made a vicarious and vifible God of it, and worlhipped it in the name of the Lord Jehovah- Thus Sr. /Wdefcribes the Idolatry of the Heathens, That they churned Rnm the glory of the incorruptible uoa, into an image made like to cor- N ruftibk (xo6) ruptiblewan, and four footed beaflsi and creeping things. But of this more prefently ; this is fufficient to {how , what the Scrip- ture notion of Image-worfhip is, and in what fenfe it con- demns it. ->,dly. Let us nowconfider wherein the evil of this Image- worfhip confifts. which will greatly contribute to the right un- derftanding of this whole dilpute. Now the account of it in general is very (hort and plain, That the evil of Image-worihip when we worfhip the true God by an Image, does not Co much confift in the kinds, or degrees, or object of worfhip, as in reprefentation ; and if this prove the true account of it , as I believe it will appear to be to all confidering men, before I have done, it will quite alter the ftate of this controverfie , and put M. de Adeaux, and the Reprefenter, to find out fome new Expofi- tions and Reprefentations of their Image-worfhip. i. That the evil of Image- worfhip when men worfhip the true God by an Image, does not principally confift in the kinds, or degrees, or object of worfhip. Such men indeed are fa':d in Scripture to worfhip Images, and Idols, and Molten Gods, and that their Idols are filver and gold, wood and ftone ; for when they worfhip God by an Image, they mult worfhip the Image; or elfe they cannot worfhip God in it , tho' they worfhip the Image not for it felf, but for the Ptototype , as the Council of Trent determines, which is more properly worfhipping God or Chrift in or before his Image, as M. de Meaux expounds it, than worfhipping the Image \ and they are faid to worfhip Images rather with refpect to the manner than to the object of worfhip, as you fhall hear more prefently . The Church of Rome indeed, as her doctrine and practice is expounded by her moft famed Divines, may jnftly be charged with worfhipping Images in the grofieft fenfe ; as that fignifies giving Religious worfhip to the material image of wood and ftone \. which isftrictly to worfhip ftocks and ftones as Gods. This charge may be eafily made good againft all thofe who teach that the Image is to be pro- perly worlhipped , and that either a relative latria , or lome proper inferior worfhip is to be terminated on the Image as its material object ; and yet moft of the Roman Doctors atttibute one or t'other to the Image, as diftinct from that worfhip they give to the Prototype ; and difpute very learnedly, that this is the ( I07 ) the Dodrine both of the fecond Council of Nice, and of the Council of Trent, That a proper worfhip muft be given to the Image, diftintft from that worfh/p which is given to the Proto- type ; but they cannot yet agree, whether it be a relative im- proper analogical latria, which muft be given to the Image of Chrift, or only dulia, or an inferiour degree of Religious wor- fhip. This has hitherto been the chief (eat of the Controversy be- tween Vretefianti and Papifts about Image-worfhip ; and M. de Meanx feems very fenfible, That attributing a proper worfhip to Images, fo as to terminate it on them, gives too juftoccafion for the charge of Idolatry, and puts them to hard (hifts to vin- dicate themfelves from it ; and therefore he owns no worfhip due to the Image for it felf, but only as it reprefents the Proto- type, which therefore is not fo properly the worfhip of the Image, as of the Prototvpe by the Image ; and here I perfectly agree with him, Thatuie truenotion of Image- worfhip is not to worfhip the Image at all, confidered in it felf, as a material figure of Wood and Stone , but only to worfhip God or Chrift in the Image. And therefore I fhall fet afide this difpute, in what fenfe, or how far a Papifi may be charged with worfhip- ping the material Image, which has occafioned eternal wrang- lings, and yet does not properly belong to the controverfie of Image-worfhip. To worfhip a material Image, is to give the worfhip of God to Creatures, to Wood and Stone; but Image- worfhip is in its ftritt notion, not giving Divine worfhip to Ima- ges , but worfhipping God in and by the Image which repre- sents him , which in Scripture is called worfhipping Images : And therefore tho we fhould grant, that M. de Meaux his ex- pofition avoids the firft charge of giving Religious worfhip to Wood and Stone, becaufe he denies that they properly worfhip the Image, but only the Prototype in the Image; yet the whole guilt of Image-worfhip, as that fignifies the worfhip of God by Images , not the worfhip of the material Image, is chargeable upon himftill, that is, the worfhip of the Prototype by the Image, which is all that is forbid in the fecond Com- mandment. This, it may be, will be thought a giving up the Caufe, to grant , that the Church of Rome may worfhip God or Chrift N z% by ( io8 ) by Images, and yet not be chargeable with worfhipping the Images themfelves, or the material figures of Wood or Stone ; and therefore ir will be neceifary to (hew, that the true Notion of Idolatry or Image- worfhip is not giving Religious worfhip to the Images themfelves, but worfhipping God by Images, and what the difference between thefe Two is. j. And the firft thing I fhall obferve to this purpofe, is the difference between the Firft and Second Commandment, which all Protefiants own and defend againft the Church of Komcy which makes the Second Commandment only a Branch and Appendix of the Firft. Now the Firft Commandment forbids all falfe objects of worfhip, the worfhip of all creatures and ficti- tious Deities, and therefore the worfhip of all Beings befides Qod, whether rational, animate or inanimate, is a breach of the Firft Commandment, and muft be reduced to it ; and con- fequently the Second Commandment which forbids the worfhip of Images, cannot forbid them as falfe Objects, (for all flich are forbid in the firit Commandment) but as a falfe and cor- rupt way of worfhip ; and therefore Image- worfhip as it is for- bid in the Second Commandment, cannot fignifie worfhipping the Image it felf, as diftinguifhed from the Prototype, for that would make it a falfe object of worfhip againft the firft Com- mandment j but only a falfe and fuperftitious way of reprefenr- ing and worfhipping God by an Image. ily. And therefore 1 obferve, that an Image does not alter the object of worfhip, which yet it muft necellarily do, if it were Effential to the Notion of Image- worfhip to worfhip the Image it felf, which would make the Image a new object of worfhip. Now it is plain, that men who do notdifpute themfelves into endlefs fubtilties and diftinftions, intend no more in the worfhip of Images, than to worfhip that God whefe Image ir is, and therefore the object of worfhip is the fame with or without an Image. They who worfhip the True God with an Image, and they who worfhip him without an Image, worfhip the fame Gcd though in a different manner ; and befides what judgment men make of their own actions, and what they intend to do, the Scripture it felf acknowledges this. When the Ifraelitej made a golden Calf, Aaron proclaims a Feaft to the Lord ]ehovah,which proves that they intended to worfhip the fame God ftill in the golden ( 20p ) - golden Calf, which they did before without it. Thus the Two Calves which Jeroboam fet up, were made in imitation of the golden Calf, and for Symbolical reprefentations of the God of Ifrael, who was worfhipped by them » For it is plain that Jerc~_ beam did not intend to change their God, but only, to prevent their going up to Jerufalem toworfhip God theEe^ and there- fore he tells them, 7f is too much for yen-to go tit /o Jerufalem, be- x R. 2? hold thy Geds-t O Ifrael, which brcuglt thee ity out of the Land of *s£gypt ; that is, the Lord Jehovah. Now we may obferve, that God himfelf, though he was grievoufly offended with the Sin of Jeroboam, yet he makes a great difference between the Sin of Jercbcamand the Sin of Ahab, who introduced the worfhip of „j l|t' Baal a fahe God, whereas Jeroboam retained the worfhip of the true God, though he worfhipped him in a falfe and Idolatrous manner. If the Calves of Dan and Bethel had been falfe Gods, as Baal was.the Sin had been equally provoking- but the worfhip of the Calves did not change their God, as the worfhip of Baal did ; and therefore Elijah difiinguiihes the Israelites into the worfhippers of God and cfBaal. Hew long halt ye between Two Ofimons ? if the Lord be God, follow him ; but //Baal, then follow J, Ulg" 2 ' him ', and yet moft of thofe who are faid to be worfhippers of God, did worfhip God at the Calves of Dan and Bethel, which was the eftablifhed Religion of the Kingdom. And thus Jehu, tho' he departed not from the Sin of Jeroboam, the golden Calves in Dan and Bethel, yet he calls his Zeal in deftroying 2l6 ins* ros Baal out of Ifrael, his Zeal for the Lord Jehovah. Now if the worfhip of an Image do not change the object of our worfhip, neither in the intention of the worfhipper, nor in the account of Scripture, as I have now proved , it evidently follows, that the Image is not worfhipped as an object, but as a Medium of worfhip i it receives no worfhip for it felf, but only for God whom it reprefents. And that which is fo offenfive to Gcd in it, is not that they fet up any Rival andOppofite gods againft.him,, but that they worfhip him in a reproachful and difhonourable manner, which makes him abhor and reject the worfhip; and becaufe he will not receive this worfhip himfelf, he calls it worfhipping Idols and graven Images, and molten gods, that is, vicarious and reprefenrative gods, which though they re- ceive the worfhip in God's Name, yet are an infinite reproach to ( no ) to his Majefty by that vile and contemptible Reprefentation ♦■hey make him. This is the ftrift Notion of Idolatry, not th<* g ving the worfhip of God to Creatures •, which is the Breach of the Firft Commandment in making new Gods, but the wcrfhip of God by an Image, which makes fuch Images Gods by Repre- fentation, but not the objects, but only the Mediumof worfhip ; and therefore though we fhould grant M. de Meaux that he does not worfhip Images, but only Chrift and the Saints in or before their Images, this does not excufe him from Idolatry, which does not fignifie worfhipping an Image in a ftrift fence ; but only worshipping God in an Image, which terminates all the worftiip not on the Image but on God. ily. Let us uow confider wherein the Evil of this Idolatry cr Image-worlhipdoesconfift*, and that 1 faid was in Reprefenta- tion ; which I fhall briefly explain inthefe particulars, i. That it is an infinite reproach to the Divine Nature and Perfections,to Ifa. 40. 18, be reprefented by an Image : To whom will ye liken Ccd ? Or \9}&c. what likenefs will ye compare to him ? The workman melteth a gra- ven-Image, and the Goldfmith fpreadeth it ever with Gold, and cafleth Silver Chains. He that is fo impoverifoed that he hath no Oblation, chufeth a Tree that will not rot: he [eeketh unto him a cunning Workman to prepare a graven Image that (l?all not be moved. Have ye not known? Have ye not heard} Hath it not been told you from the beginning ? Have ye not under ftood from the Foundations of the Earth ? It is he that Jitteth upon the Circle of the Earth, and the Inhabitants thereof are as Graflioppers ; that ftretch- eth cut the Heavens as a Curtain, and fpreadeth them out as a Tent to dwell in. How incongruous and abfurd is it, to make a Pi&ure or Image of that God who is invifible? to reprefent a pure Mind by Matter , dull fenflefs Matter ! to give the ihape and figure of a Man, or fome viler Creature, to that God who has none ! To make an Image for the Maker of the World, and to bring that Infinite Being to the fcantlings and dimenfions of a Man, who fills Heaven and Earth with his prefence ! If it be the Glory of God to be what he is, a pure, infinite, eternal, in- vifible Mind ! it is a contradiction and difhonour to him to be reprefented by a material vifible Image like to fome of his own Creatures', but inferior to the meaneft living Creatures, be- caufe without Life and Senfe : Thus St. Paul argues,^tf j 1 7.19. For- ( t« ) Forafmuch then as we are the off-faring of Gotty we ought net to think that the Godhead is like unto Gold or Silver, or Stone gra- ven by arty nndmans device. If we think God to be like to fuch Images, we know nothing of him ; and if we make fuch Images as we know are not like to God, nay a reproach to his Nature and Perfections , we wilfully affront him. And tho Chrift converfed in this World in human Nature, which is reprefen- table by an Image, yet an Image is not a proper Reprefentation of Chrift, as the object of Worfhip, becaufe it cannot repre- fent the Divine Nature, which is the Reafon and Foundation of Worfhip. And as for Saints, they ought not to be worshipped at all, and therefore notworfhipped by Images: And indeed, that very Law which forbids the worihip of Images without any Exception, and yet upon fuch Reafons as are peculiar to the infinite Nature of God, are a plain Argument to me, that no Being which is reprefentable by human Art, is an Object: of Worfhip. 2. To fetup an Image in the place of God, has a great ap- pearance and fufpic.on of worshipping a material and vifible God, of giving Divine Honours to Gold and Silver, and the work of mens hands , for tho men pretend to Worfhip God in the Image, yet how does the Image come to be wprfhipped for God ? What likenefs ? What Relar;on is there between them? How eafily may men flip into the worfhip of Images themfeh'es, and forfake God,or nevermind him.for the fake of a fine Picture, or fome beautiful or wonder-working Image ? for tho there is a great deal of difference between worfhipping God by an Im- age, and worfhipping the Image itfelf, yet to all appearance they are fo like one another, and thereis foeafie a paffage from one to the other, that Gods difpleafure againft this Sin is ex- prefled in Scripture by jealoufie: a Paflion which exprefles both Snfpicion and Caution ; while they profefs to Worihip God by their Images, they do not change their God, but yet their wor- fhipping a vifible Image, looks very like it, and is an eafie in- troduction to it. Thus in the fecond Commandment, the Rea- fon with which God inforces his Prohibition againft worfhipping Images is, For I the Lord thy God, am a Jealous God. Thus Pfal.78. 58. for they 'f revoked him to anger with their high 1 7ices, and mo- ved him tojealoufa with their graven Images. And therefore he ex- prefTes (.12) prefifes himfelf with fomePaffion and Concernment in rhis-mat- rer. I am the Lord, that is my Name , and my Glory will I not qi-vcto another i neither my Praife to Graven Images, Ifa. 4.1 8. The Church is called Gods Spoufe, and the worlhip vS falfe gods is called Whoredom and Adultery, going after other gods; and the worfhip of the true God by Images, tho it be not Whoredom, yet it is fuch a kind of fpirituai VVantonnefs and Incontinency, as excites hisjealoufie. 3 . Efpecially when we confider, that the WorThip of Images does naturally expofe us to the Cheats and Impoftures of wicked Spirits ; for this reafon I obferved before, God fordids the Wor- fhip of any other Invifible Being but himfelf ; for if men were allowed to Worfhip inferior Spirits , bad Spirits who inhabit thefe lower Regions, would foon have the greateft fharein their Worfhip; and thus it is with Images, which are fuch an offence and difhonour to God, that we cannot expect that he will ever fhow himfelf prefent in them, or guard them from tbepoffeiTion of evil Spirits. It is evident that in the Heathen World, evil Spi- rits pofiefied their Images, and abufed mankind with their lying Wonders, and lying Oracles > and I have fonie reafon to believe, that if any Miracles are wrought ftill at Images , they are not by good Spirits, becaufe Images are an Abomination to God ; and therefore, Rom. 1 . St. Paul attributes thcgeneral corruption of mens lives and manners to the Worfliip of Images ; They cha?iged the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptiblemani and to birds and fourfooted beajis , and creeping things \ wherefore God gave them up to uncleannefs- — for this cau[c God gavt them up to vile affections— and even as they did not like to retain Gcd in their hi cw I edge, God gave them over to a reprobate ninul to do thefe things which are not convenient- The meaning of which is, That God gave them over to the delufionsof wicked Spirirs, who lurked in their Images, and firft corrupted their Re- ligion, and then their Lives by impure and barbarous Rites of Worfhip. 4. If there were no other hurt in Image-wormip, yet it de- bates human Nature to fall down before afenflefs Image : As ic is a difhonour to God to be worfhipped by an Image , tho the Worfhip be intended for himfelf, and not for the Image,becaufe it -makes fo mean and vile Reprefentation of him ; fo it is a re- proach ( 1 13 ) proach to a man, who is a reafonable Creature, and madeafrer the Image of God, to fall down before Stocks and Stones, with all external SubmifTions and Adorations, tho he intends not to worfhip the material Image, but God by it ; becaufe the vifible Object before which we pay our Worfhip, is fo much below the honour and dignity of humane Nature, is a reproach ro the understanding of a man to think that a material Image is a de- cent Reprefentation of God, and a fit medium of Worfhip; and he muft have a mean and beggarly Spirit, who can be con- rented to bow down be'ore it: Thus Arnobms aggravates the madnefs of this : Supplicare tremebundum factirata? abs te rei ; Amob. 1. 6. To fall down trembling, and to [up flic ate that which thou thy felf haft made. And a greater than Amob'tm tells us, Hey that make them, are like untothem^ [oh every onewho putteth their trufi i» Piral« 135. 18. them. $ly. The Worfhip of God by Images is contrary not only to the Law of Mofe^but to the reafon ofMankind; it gratifies indeed aflethly andtenfual Mind to have a vifible Object of Worfhip, but God is the only natural Object of Worfhip*, and reafon telis us, that God is invifible j and Reafon will tell us, that it is con- trary to the nature of an invifible Being, to be worfhipped un- der a vifible Reprefentation • it is not only a Reproach to the Divine Nature, but an abfurd and unreafonable Worfhip. For what confidering man can think it reafonable to worfhip a vifible Image inftead of an invifible God? Reafon can never juftifie a worfhip fo contradictory to the Divine Nature, and therefore Reafon can never teach men to Worfhip an Image. For what is it they intend by worfhipping Images ? Have they a mind to fee the God they Worfhip? But how unreafonable is this, when they know he is invifible, and would not be a God if he could be feen ? And how abfurd is ic to Reprefent him by an Image, when they know they can make no Image like him ? No worfhip can be natural, which contradicts the nature of that Being whom we Worfhip ; and if it be not natural, it mult beinftituted Worfhip ; and then, tho it were forbid by no Law, it muit be commanded by fome Law to make it reafonable, at leaft if it be poffible that a Law could make that an act of Honour and Worfhip, which is a Difhonour to the Divine Per- fections. O 6ly. It ( "4) 6ly. It is more efpecially contrary to the nature of the Chri- ftian worfhip, which teaches us to form a more fpiritna! Idea of'God,and to worfhip him in Spirit and in Truth i in oppofition not only to all fenfible Reprefentations, but to all fymbolical Prefences. There are two things principally, for which Images are intended, to be vifible Reprefentations, and a vifible Pre- tence of the Deity. The firft of thefe is Co great a Reproach to the Divine Nature, that it was forbid by the I. aw of Mofes, which was at belt a lefs perfect Di'penfation, as being accom- modated to the carnal State of that people ; but as to the fecond, God himfelt' gratified them in it, for he dwelt among them in the Tabernacle, and afterwards in the Temple of Jerufalem, where he placed the Symbols of his Prefence. But now when the Woman of Samaria asked our Saviour about the place of Worfhip, whether it was the Temple at Jerufalem, or Samaria : joh 4. 2i, 23, ^e anlwers, The hour comet h ivhenye frail neither in this moun- 24, tain, nor yet at Jerufalem wo) jjjip the Father. But the true wor- jhippers fljallwcrfljip the Father in Spirit and in Truth , for the Father feeketh fuch to worfiip him. God is a Spirit, and they tlat worflnp him, mufi worfhip him in Spirit and in truth. Where Chrift oppofes worfhipping in Spirit and in Truth, to worfhip- ' ping in the Temple, not as a Temple fignifies a place feparated for Religious Worfhip, which is a neceffary Circumiiance of Worfhip in all Religions ', but as it fignifies a Symbolical Pre- fence, a Figure of Gods Refidence and Dwelling among them, in which fenfe the Primitive Chriftians denied that they had any Temples. For God dwelling in human Nature, is the on!v Divine Prefence under the Gofpel, of which the Temple was but a Type and Figure. Now if the fpiritual Worfhip of the Go- Ipel does fb withdraw us from fenfe, as not to admit of a Sym- bolical Prefence, much lefs certainly does it admit of Images, toreprefentGod prefenttous, which is fogrofsand carnal, that God forbad it under the Legal Difpenfation. Wemuft confider God as an infinite Mind, prefent in all places to hear our Pray- ers, and receive our Worfhip, and muft raife our hearts to Hea-» ven, whither Chrift who is the only vifible Prefence of God is afcended, and not feek for him in carved Wood or Stone, or a curious piece of Painting. jly. Bus ( »5) yly. But fince M. de Manx, and the Reprefcnter thinfc it fufficient to juftifie the worfhip of Images, that they are of great ufe to reprefent the object of our worfhip to us, and to affect us with fuicable paffions •, it will be needful briefly to con- fider this matter. For 1 confefs I cannot fee how a material and vifible Image fhouldTorm a true Idea in us of an invifible Spirit; it is apt to corrupt mens notions of God and Religion, and to abate our juft reverence, by reprefenting the object of our worfhip under fo contemptible an appearance. An image cannot tell us what God is ; if we are otherwife inftructed in the nature of God, we know that an image is not like him, but a reproach to the Divine perfections ; if we are not better in- truded, we fnall think our God like his image, which will make us very underftanding Christians. But the Reprefenter has drawn this Argument out at large, and therefore we muft confider what he fays of it. That Pi- ctures and Images ferve to, i . Preserve in his mind the memory of the things reprefented by them> as people are wont to pre ferve the memory of their deceafed friends by keeping their ViBures. But I befeech you, the memory of what does a Picture preferve ? Of nothing that I know of, but the external lineaments and features of the face or body \ and therefore the Images and Pictures of God and the Holy Trinity (which yet are allow- ed in the Church of £. (II? ) Sence in his Letters to the Pope, from the Popes Teftimonia?, that his Letters {hewed his fttbmifflon and refpeft to the Apoftoluk See. x As for the Popes perfonal infallibility, our Author in his Re- flections (p 8.) denies it to be an Article of Faith, becaufe it is r.ot pofitively determined by any General Council ; in my reply (p. 47.) 1 told him this is no proof, that it is not an Article of Faith, be- caufe the infallibility of the Church icfelf, which they all grant to be an Article of Faith, was never pofitively determined by any General Council ; and therefore fome Doctrines may be Articles of Faith, which never were determined by any Gene» ral Council; and I added, that if the Church be infallible, the Pope muft, if he be the Head of the Church \ for infallibility ought in reafon to accompany the ^reateji and mo ft abfolme Power ; but our Author thought fit tolet fall this difpme, and to re- folveall into the Bifhop of Condoms Authority. H s Propofal which follows, I have already anfwered without a fmi!e,but I cannot forbear fmiling once more to hear him com- plain of difputing • which he fays belongs not to the Reprefentcr, who being to rtprefent and not to difi'ite, ii n$t concerned -with thofe *■ ' J0* tedious Arguments. The Cafe is this ; In the Character of a PapiftReprefented, he had denied the depofing Power to be an Article of Faith ; the Anfwerer proved it was an Article o' Fairh, becaufe it was decreed by General Councils; to this,in his Refle- ctions he anlwers, that every thing approved in General Coun- cils, is not an Article of Faith, but only Doctrinal Points, and thofe decreed with an Anathema ; and therefore the Depofing Power not being declared as a doctrinal point, and the decrees relating only to Difcipline and Government and not being de» creed neither with an Anathema, it does not appear to be an Ar- ticle of Faith : In Anfwer to this, in my Reply (p. 49) \ pro- pofed three Enquiries, 1. Whether nothing be an Article of Fauh, but what is decreed with an Anathema ? 1.. Whether the depofing Decree be a doBrinal Pointy or only matter of 'Difcipltn? and Govern- ment ? 3. What Authority general Councils have in decretis morum, or fuch matters as concern Difcipline and Government : This is the difputing he complains of, and I confefs he has fbme reafon for it; for Arguments that cannot be anfwered, how fhort foever they are, are very tedious; but hew 1 could anfwer his argument with ( 120 without d',fputing,or how he comes to be unconcerned to defend his own arguments, I cannot tell j but tho difpuring is not his Province, yet in civility he will go out of his way with me, and in Civility I will keep him company. 1. He confers, I prove at large that all definitions of Faith declared in General Councils are not concluded with Anathema s,and in this he vnllingly agrees with me. But this does not at all prove, thai whatsoever is declared in fuch a Council without an Anathema, is an Article of Faith ; and therefore nothing again ft us deferving any farther anfwer. And thus he has very prettily altered the ftate of the queftion *, he faid the Depoflng doctrine tho appro- ved by General Councils, was not an Article of Faith, becaufe not decreed with an Anathema : now if this argument be good, then nothing muft be accounted an Article of Faith, but what is -decreed with an Anathema : In oppofition to which 1 proved that feveral Doctrines which they themfelves account Articles of Faith, have been decreed by general Councils without Ana-, thema's', and he grants that 1 have proved this ; and if 1 havej am fure his argument is loft, for then the depofing Doctrine may bean Article of Faith, tho it be not confirmed with an Anathema : and now inftead of proving, that no Doctrine is an Article of Faith which is not decreed with an Anathema, he complains that I have not proved that every Doctrine which is decreed without an Anathema, is an Article of Faith, which is nothing at all to the purpofe: We knew not where to find the Articles of the Romijh Faith, but in the decrees of their Coun- cils; and finding the Popes power to depofe heretical Princes there, we took it for an Article of their Faith : no, fays the Re- flecter, that is a miftake, it is no Article of Faith, becaufe it is not decreed with an Anathema: we examine the matter, and find it other wife, that Articles of Faith are decreed without Ana- thema's : yes, fays the Protefter , this may be, but you muft prove ftill that every Doctrine which is decreed without an Ana- thema is an Article of Faith ; which is a very eafie matter to do after this; for if being decreed with or without an Anathema, make nodiftinction as to this matter, then the Decree it feif in doctrinal Points muft make an Article of Faith ; if fome Do- ctrines which are acknowledged to be Articles of the Romi(h faith are decreed without Anatkmays, then it js no argument againft ( lii ; againft any Doctrine, being an Article of Faith, that it has no Anathema annexed to it ; fo that our Author is wonderful un- certain what to call an Article of Faith j if we call the decrees of their Councils Articles of their Faith, No, fays he, every De- cree is not an Article of Faith , but only what is decreed with an Amthema ; if we confute this diftinction , and prove thac Articles of Faith are decreed without Anathema's, then he can diftinguifti no further '-, but requires us to prove , that every Doctrine decreed without an Aneihema is an Article of Faith, that is, that the decree of their Church makes an Article of their Faith : And if that don't, I would defire to know of him, what does. And had I not reafon then to fay , that it it wonder- ful hard to know what their Faith is , when he himfelf cannoc tell what it is that makes an Article of Faith, and their moft Learned Divines fo much differ about this matter ; fome al- lowing that to be an Article of Faith, which others reject. zly. The fecond enquiry was, Whether the Depofing decree be a Doctrinal point, or only matter of Difcipline and Govern- ment ; and in anfwer to this I told him, That a Decree what Jliall be done, includes a virtual Definition of that Doclrine on which that Decree is founded. To this he oppofes What I fay under the next head, That in the Council of the Affiles at Jem- falem, there was a Decree of Manners, yet it contained no Defini- tion of Doclrine. Not exprefly indeed, but virtually it does, as I faid before. My bufinefs there, was to vindicate the Authority of Councils in thofe Decrees which relate to Manners , as not lefs Obligatory than the Decrees of Faith ; and I obferved that the only Apoftolical Council we have an account of in Scripture, Pi's, the Council at Jerufalem, Acls 15-. was of this nature; for the only Decrees made in it, were to abftain from Meats offered to Idols , and from Blood , and from things Strangled, and from Fornication \ and I obferved, they might as well ob- ject here , ( to invalidate this Decree ) as they do againft the Depofing Decree, that there is no point of Doctrine determi- ned in it. And how does this contradict what I before af- fcrted ? That a Deeree ivhat fhall be done , includes a virtual Definition of that Doclrine on which that Decree is founded. But however he faies, This Decree of what was to be done , did not include a virtual Definition of that Doff rive on which the De- P CTM C 122 ) crce -was funded; for if it had, then the Doctrine of abflainivg from Blood and Strangled meats-, had been an Article of Faith. But what does he think of abflainingfrom Fornication, and from Meats offered to Idols, which are contained in the fame Decree ? is not that a neceflary Doctrine, and virtually contained in that Decree? 1 never faid, That every Decree of Manners mult be immediately founded on an Article of Faith .- but I faid, every Decree of Manners is founded on fome Doctrine , ( whether it be in a ftrict fenfe an Article of Faith, or not ) and includes a virtual Definition of that Doctrine. The De- cree to ablrain from Fornication includes this Doctrine, that Fornication is unlawful under the Gofpel ; and the Decree for Gentile Converts toabftain from meats offered to Idols, fup- pofes the fame ; and the Decree to ab fain from Blood, and from things Strangled^ includes this doctrinal Definition, That it was unlawful for Gentile Chriftians at that time to ufe their Chrifti- an Liberty in rhofe matters, to the offence and fcandal of belie- ving Jews. The matter in fhort is this : Every Decree which commands the doing any thing, mnft contain a virtual Defini- tion that fuch a thing may be lawfully done: and every De- cree which forbids the doing any thing, does withal define, thac luchathing is either abfolutely unlawful in it felf, or highly inexpedient, and therefore unlawful in fuch Circumftances to be done: this is as necellary as it is to command nothing but what is lawful, and to forbid nothing but what is either un- lawful, or highly inexpedient. And therefore when the Church of Rome Decrees the depofing Heretical Princes, or the favourers of Hereticks : She virtually defines, that it is lawful to depofe Princes, which is a doctrinal Definition, and may in a large (enfc be called an Article of Faith, as that fignifies all Doctrinal points propofedto us to be believed,as I obferved in my Replyf^o). 3. The third Enquiry was, Whether the Authority of the Church be not as facred in decrees of Manners, as in Articles of Faith? for the proof of which, I urged the Council at Jerufa- lem, and fhew'd, That Rules ofDifiipline and Government to direct . the lives and manners of men, is the only prefer Jubject of Ecclejia- ftical Authority, P. 5-5-. And here where he fhoukl have taken no- tice of the Council of Jerufalcm-, he fays nothing of it, but on- ty fays, ( />• 32-.) that I urge out of Canus and Bellarmine, that GilhT&l ( 123 ) General Councils cannot erf even in fitch decrees, when they relate to things necejlary to falvat ion, and which concern the whole Church. And when I have proved the Depojing Decree to be of this nature \and efleemed as fuch by their Church, Imay then deferve a farther con- federation. What their Church will cfteem, if he may b. he Expounder of it, is nothing to the purpofe , for we argue not from their private efleeming, but from their publick Definitions*, and if a General Decree for the government of the whole Church, concern the whole Church , and if to command a fin concerns mens falvation, then the Depofing decree does; for if it be unlawful to depofe Heretical Princes, it is more than a Tin- gle fin to do it : and if they will grant , that General Councils cannot command a fin, then they rauft grant , that it is lawful to depofe Heretical Princes ; and I agree with him , that this does deferve a farther Confederation, and mall be glad to hear his thoughts of it. This Author in his Reflections (p. 10. ) proves that Popes themfelves own, that the depojing power is no Article of Faith, m letting fo many open and pojitive ajj'erters of the no-depofing power pafs without any cenfure of herefie. This in my Reply (p. 57.) I attribute to their want of power. For Princes will not be dep'fed now, nor fuffer thofe to be cenfured who deny the depojing Power. This in his proteftation ( p. 3 z. ) he fays, Isfpoke like an Oracle , but he expeclsfome better Argument than my bare ajfurance of what the Tope would do if he had power. And 1 thought I had given him a better argument than my bare word for it^/'z-.the experience of former Ages, what Popes did when they had power : for tho the infallible Chair may diflfemble a little , when circumftances of affairs require it, yet fureitis not given to change. What follows about the worfhip of Saints and Images, I fup- pofe has been fufficiently anfwered already, but I cannot butrob- ierve a very pleafant argument he has againft what I aiTert, That no intention can alter the natnre of actions , which are determined by a divine or human Law. Whereby I prove, that if they do fuch things, as in the account of the Divine Law are idolatrous , their intention not to commit Idolatry will not excuse them : This he fays ( p. 36.) a Quaker might as reasonably make u'e of for the jn(li(ying his yea's and his nay's-, and his .other points of Jhta- kerifmi For if he mould fay, No intention can alter the nature cf actions, which are determined by a divine or human law, but Swear P z not ( 124 ) not at all, neither be ye called Majlers ; an d let your communication be yea, yea, nay, nay, are atlions or things determined by the divine law, therefore the intention of doing no evil in them, cannot excufe the doing otherwife than is there determined, from the guilt of fin. BiiC will our Protefter fay, that the Divine Law does forbid all fwear- ing ? then I grant that the Quakers are in the right, and no in- tention will j a It i fie (wearing ; but St. James mult be expounded fo as to reconcile his words with other paffages in Scripture, ch allow of fwearing ; and could he (how us where bowing, and kifling, and kneeling, and praying before an Image is in any fence allow'd in Scripture, then we would grant aifo, that the direction of the intention would juftifiefuch a ufe of thefe acti- ons, as the Scripture allows: but whatisabfokuely forbid to be done, nointentiou can excufe, which is our prefent cafe here. Lie concludes all with two or three Requefts , which muft be briefly confi.ier'd. ?. 2 7. !- That he ( the Repher ) will ufe his intereft with Vroteftantsy to hold to what hefaies they do, end charge us with nothing but what we exprefly profefs to Believe and Pratlice. Now I can allure him there is no need of ufing my intereft with Proteftants to do this, for I hope they are naturally inclined to to behoneft: but'there are fo many us's among them, that poffibly fome Proteftants may miftake one us for another. They practice indeed gene- rally much alike , but they believe differently, and they repre- fent d fferently, and they expound the Doctrine of their Coun- cils differently ; and I hope Proteftants may without any offence fay how and wherein they differ,and I think we cannot bejuftly charged with mifreprefentjng, while we relate matter of Fact truly, what their practice is, and what their different fentiments and opinions are about thefe matters. 1. That they ( Proteftants)^/^ not up the abufes of fome , the vices and cruelties of others , the edd opinions of particular Authors, and hold thefe forth for the Doctrines and . rachces of our Church; and that in charging any praftifes , they charge no more than are concerned. Now this is very reafonable . if he (peaks of fuch abufes as are not allowed and countenanced by the Church ; and of fuch cruelties as are not practifed , encouraged, commended by the Governoursof the Church, and juftified by the Decrees and Canons of Popes and Councils 3 or of fuch odd ( m ; odd of Anions of particular Authors, as fteal into the world with- onc publick authority, and are cenfured as foon as they are known ; but as far as the Church gives any countenance and authority to fuch abufes, cruelties, odd opinions, I fee no rea(on why Proteftants may not complain of thefe things, and charge the Church of Rome with them, and not like that Church ever the better, which fuffers fuch abufes, and applauds fuch cru- elties, as Tapift? themfeives, who have not put offall humanity, cannot but abhor. 3. That as often as they tell, what they think of our DoBrines and PraBices, they would hkewife at the fame time inform their hearers-, that thofe thoughts are , as the Rcplier fays, Opinions , Interpretations, and Conferences cf their own concerning Qur Do- Brine, and not our avowed DoBrine. But this is a very needlefs caution, as I obferved before; for our people do not think, that the Fapifls themfeives believe all that ill of their own Do- ctrines and Practifes which we charge them with *, and I can- not eafily fee, how our difputing againft the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome , and anfwering the Argu- ments whereby they juftify themfeives, mould betray people into fuch a miftake; for it is no natural proof, that two men are of the fame mind becaufe they difpute againft one ano- ther. Thus much for the Protefler. And to conclude the whole, T (hall give my Readers a fhort view of the whole progrefs of this difpute, that they may fee what muffling Adverfaries we have to deal with. When the Book entituled, APap'fl Mifreprefented and Repre- fe nte d, was expofed to publick view, and mightily applauded by thofe of the Roman Communion, and indultrioufly difperfed, and earneffly recommended to the perufal of Proteftants, a very learned and charitable hand undertook to make a true reprefentation of the Doctrines and Practifes of the Church of Rome, which he performed with fuch full and plain evidence, that the Mifreprefenter hath not To much as attempted to charge him with any one falfe Citation, nor to Chow in any one parti- cular, that he has mifreprefented their Do&rines and Practifes; but inftead of this, in his Reflections on the Anfwer (if the Re- ftetter ( 126 ) fleeter and Mifreprefenter be the fame perfon, as he owns himfelf ro be) he makes fiefh complainrsof Troteftants mifre- prefenting Vapifts ; which if it had been true, is no confutation of that reprelentation which the Anfwerer had made of P(pny ; The qneftion then was, Whether the Church of Rome believes and practifes, as the Anfwerer fays (he does, and proves by unqueftionable authorities that fhe does. But this was too plainly proved, to he a queftion any longer, and therefore he rather chofe to debate that general queftion about the Rules of Reprefenting, and how we muft know what is the Faith of the Church of Rome, and whether the Bifhopof Ccndcwys Ex- pofition have not a fufficient authority given to it by the Pope and Cardinals, and Bifhopsof France, and what the authority of private Doctors is, and the like ; but has not in any one particular fhown wherein the Anfwerer has mifreprelented them, that the authorities he alledges are not good, that he lias put any forced and unnatural fenfe upon the wordsof their Council, orCatechifm, or Doctors, or that their Church has by any publick acts contradicted what he charges to be her Doctrine or Practife. This he has not done, and therefore we have reafon to believe this he could not do, and this is reafon enough to conclude , that the Anfwer contains a true Re- prefentation of the Doctrines and Practifes of the Church of Rome. I did not think fuch Reflections as thefe worth the notice of the Learned Anfwerer, and therefore undertook to reply to them my felf, and particularly examined every thing he had fad; in return to this, he publifhes another Anfwer, which he calh Pap'ftsProtejting again ft Prot eft-ant Popery; and I thought ic would come to bar e prot eft ing at laft, for his Reafon and Argu- ment run very low before j this I have now confidered, and I think have not fuffered any thing to efcape without an anfwer ; but that the Reader may the better understand what a formi- dable Adverfary this is, Khali briefly compare the Reply with his Anfwer, and then leave him tojudg of the ingenuity and honefty of the Protefter. In anfwer to his frefh complaint of Mifreprefenting, in my Reply I confidered what it is to Mifreprefent, vht* To charge them ( "7 ) them with fuch Doctrines and Practifes as the Church of Rome difowns*,and proved from his ownCharacter of al7^;/? Mifre- prefented, that we are no Mifreprefenters;for what he mivkes us charge them with believing and doing,in the Character of a Papift Mifreprefcnted, that he owns and defends in the Character if a Tapift Rcprefented ; and the only difference in molt Cafes be- tween thefe two Characters is this, That in the Character of a Tapifi Mifrcprefentedht puts in all the ill things which Vroteftants fay of their F.aith and Worfhip, and in the Character of a Ta- pift Reprefented he fays all the good things he can of it j but this I told him does not belong to Reprefentation, bur Difpute, and therefore whatever guilt we charge their Doctrines and Practifeswith, this is not to mifreprefent, while we charge them with nothing but what is their Faith and Practife ; to Re- prefent in this fenfe is only to report matter of fact ; and he who reports truly, cannot mifreprefent. If we charge them with any guilt, which they think they are not chargeable with, this becomes matter of difpute; and it is not enough to con- fute fuch a charge, to tell the World, that they do not believe ib ill of their own Doctrines and Pradtifes as we Tret eft ants do. By this Rule I examined the Thirty (even particulars of his Cha- racter, and carefully diftingnifhed between matters of repre- fentation and difpute , and all this he grants, and yet in his Anfwer falls a proteftingagainft Troteftant Popery, as if we had made a new Religion for them ; whereas we only tell them what the faults of their Religion is; and this he callsPrcteftant Tcperj, That is, the judgment of Protectants concerning To- pery ; and this he protefts againft, which is a much eafier way than to confute it. And now inftead of defending his own Characters, wherein he had charged us with mifrepre'enting Tapifts, and which I had proved, and he in effect granted to be no mifreprefen- tation ; he feeks about to find out fome new Troteftant Mifre- prefenters, and fills up feveral Pages with Citations out of the Manual of John Archbifhopof Tcrk, Mr. Sutcliff, End others. Now in the firft place he ought to have mown, that the di- ftinction between matters of reprefentation and difpute, by which I anfwer'd his own Characters; will not juftify thefe Miftc- ( 128) Mifreprefenters alfo, as mod certainly it will, and a Hundred more if he can find them ; but he faies not one word of this, but only cites their words, and calls it mifreprefenting. But befides this, he has ufed very foul play to make Mifreprefenters of them*. The Archbimoponly transcribes out of Popifii Au- thors, and cites his authorities- the Protefter fets all down as the Archbifhops words, without letting his Reader know that Yapifts teach thefe things, and that the Archbimoponly repeats them after them. But befides concealing the Popifh authorities to which they refer, he has taken another courfe with Mr. Suu cliff, has fet down only half fentences, and concealed both the authorities and the reafons he alledges for what he faies, which is in a ftrict and proper fenfe to mifreprefent. All that he anfwersto that diftinction between reprefenting and difputing, which he allows to be good, is this, That the common people do not diftinguifti thefe matters, but look upon all to be equal- ly the Faith of Papifts ♦, That is, if they hear any man call the worfhip of Images Idolatry, they do as verily think that Papifrs believe Idolatry lawful (as he faies in his Character) as that they worfhip Images, r if urn tencatts! and thus much for Reprefenting. The next difpute is about the rule of Repiefenting. In his Introduction to APapifi Mifreprt fated,. &c. he appeals to Doctrines and tne C°llncil °f Trent, and Catechifm ad Panchcs \ this the An- Pradifeiof f'-Verer likes well, but tells him, i. That he fhows no anther ity the Church of he hath to interpret that Yule in his own fenfe, againfi the Doctrine H°me truly re- of many others asz,ealot/s for their Church as himfelf, as he does V£d te^*p'6' in the Popes Perfoval Infallibility, and the Depcjing Power, which he faies, are no Articles of Faith, though other zealous Papifrs fay they are, and asks what authority he has to declare the KdlhVn qvar- fence of the Council of Trent, when the Pope has exprefly forbidden tifupercorr all Prelates to doit , and referved it to the Apofiolical See* 2. The frmi. Concil. Anfwerer tells him, That he leaves out, in the fever al particulars, Trid. an gffentjal part of the character of a Papifi fince the Council of Trent, which is, that he doth not only believe the Doctrine there defined , to be true , but to be necefj'ary to Salvation. 3. Ti)at he never fets down what it is , which makes any Do- ctrine to beccm^ a Doclrine of their Church. 4. That he makes ufe of the Authority of .particular Divines , as delivering the fenfe of their C 12? ) their Church , when there are fo many of greater ^Authority a' gainfithem: whereas, if we proceed by his owu rule, the greater number is to carrry it. Thefe were all very material objecti- ons, and did defervetobe confidered; but as for the three laffj he takes no notice of them in his Reflections, and fays very lit- tle to the firft. The Anfwerer had asked, How the Council of Trent comes to be the Rule and Meafure of Doclrine to any here ( in England ) where it was never received? ( p. 4. ) To this he anfwers in his Reflexions, (p. 5^ ) Tf)at the Council of Trent is received heret and all the Catholick World , as to all its Definitions of Faith* But I told him in my Reply, (p> 5-1. ) that the meaning of that Queftion was not, Whether it was owned by private Cathohch, hut by what publick AB of Church or State it had been received in England, as it had been in other Catholick Countries ; and this he fays nothing to, and therefore might as well havelet it alone at • firft. I reinforced the Bull of Pope Pius fyh, againft any private mans interpreting the Council according to his own private Senfe; (hewed the Reafon and Policy of it, and what a prer fumption it is for a private man, when their Divines differ in their Opinions about any Doctrine, to call one Opinion Po- pery Reprefented, and the other Popery Mifreprefented, as our Author has done in the Articles of the Popes perfonal In- fallibility , and the Depofing. Power , as if Bellarmin and . Suarez,. muft not pafs for good Catholicks, but for Mif- reprefenters , becaufe they do not believe in thefe Points, as our Reprefenter does? and this he takes no further no- tice of. But to prove that he has not interpreted the Council accor- ding to his own private Senfe, he appeals to the Bifhop of Con- dom's Expofition, which is approved by the Pope himfelf, and Reflect, p. -?♦>. therefore has the Authority of the See Ayoftoltck. To this I an- fwered, that Bell arming Controverfies had as great an Atten- tion from Pope Sixtus y, as the Bifhop of Condom's from this Reply, p. 44. prefent Pope ; to which he gives no Anfwer • and I bbferved from Canus, that the Popes private Approbation is not the Au- thority of the See Apoftolick, but only his Judgment, ex Cathe- dra *9 and to this he gives no Anfwer, but Shuffles a little about f '3° ) Papifti Piot.. afrivtte, malicious, and inconficlerate Judgment, which I have P* 25 now anfivered, and makes a new Flourifti about the feveral Tranflations , and great approbation which has been given to this ILxpofition, which I have again faid fomething to , tho I need not have faid any thing, had I before feen the Preface to the Anfwer to the Biihop of Condom, and I guefsour Author will never mention it more, and then what becomes of his Cha- racters. Reflect, p 8. He denied the Popes Perfonal Infallibility to be an Article of Faith becaufe not pnfit'pvely determined by any General Council. In anfwer Reply, p. 47. to which 1 told him, that other Roman Divines did believe it an Article of Faith. That the Churches Infallibility was not deter- mined by any General Council, no more than the Popes Infal- libility, and yet was owned by them as an Article of Faith ; that if there be any Infallibility in the Church, the Pope as the Supreme Paltor, has the faireft pretence to it. For Infallibili- ty ought in realon to accompany the greateft and molt abfolute Power • and this he has pafTed over filently. Heft- p. 8# 9. Next comes the Depofing Paver, which has as evidently been declared in General Councils, as Tranfubftantiation ; and how comes this to he no Article of Faith ? To this he anfwers, that it wants an Anathema , and that it is not decreed as a Doctrinal point, but as a matter of Difcipline and Govern- ment. Rep.p49 {&. This I examined at large in my Reply, and he is much con- cerned at it, that I put him out of his Reprefenting humour by difputing ; but he thought himfelf bound in Civility to fay fomething to it , and truly he has been wonderfully Civil, as appears from what I have already faid in Anfwer to him. The Anfwerer in his Introduction had proved the Depofing Doctrine on him, from two fayings of his own, That the orders of the (upreme Paftor are to be obeyed whether infallible or not, and that FnP'es have own d the Depofing DoBrine, and acled according to it: and others are bound to obey their Orders, and confe- Refl. p 13,16. quently to act when Popes fhall require it, according to the Depofing Doctrine: To this he anfwers in his Reflections, that he only made a comparifon between Civil and Ecclefiaftical Power, and therefore it is. as Opjuft from hence to infer, That all the ( 13* ) the Orders of the Pope muftbe obey'd, as it would be to fay, that Subjects muft obey their Princes in every thing they com- mand, whether it be good or bad : and this 1 told him in my Re- ply, J ' -would acknowledg to be a good anfwer, if he -would grant the R . Depofng Doffrine to be a fin : But this I fuppofe he was unwilling ep y' P* 55' to do, and therefore we hear no more of this matter. In the next place in his Reflections he finds great fault with the Anfwerers way of proceeding, which I reduced to Four Heads, I. That the Anfwerer in fome Voints owns the DoBrine j^ ^ (which he has Reprefented to be the Faith of a Roman-Cat holick) ' to be the efiablijhed Belief of the Church of England. This I pro- ved not to be true, by a particular Examination of thofe inftan- ces he gave. z. He charges the Anfwerer with appealing from p the definitions of their Councils, and fen fe of their Church, to fome expreffions found in old Ma fs» Books \ Rituals , &C. This I mowed alfo, that the Anfwerer has not done. 3 . That he appeals from the Declarations of their Councils, and fenfe of their Church, to fome external action, as in cafe of refpcH (hewn to Images and Saints, upon which from oar external adoration you are willing to conclude us guilty of Idolatry. Whereas he thinks we muft not judg of thefe actions -without refpetl to the in- P. 6^. tent ion of the Church who commands them, and of the perjon -who does them. 4. That he appeals from their Councils and fenfe of their Church, to the fentiments of their private Authors. Thefe Objections I anfwered at large in my Reply, but he has returned p 6-ro not one word to any of them, excepting the third, and how he has anfwered that, you have already heard. This is the new way of anfwering Books a la-mode of Rome; but the greateft Wits can do no more than the Caufe will bear, tho a little prudence would teach men to fay nothing in fuch a Caufe as will admit of no better a defence. FINIS. ERRATA. PAge 2. 1. 32 for feem, r. been. p. 5. 1. 24. for Bulgradus, r. Bitfgradus. p. 26. 1. 32 dele to p -7. 1. 27. for fine r. fierce p. 55. 1. 14. for keep. v. help. 1 34. for you, r. them. p. loo. 1. 17 for ZvanU)} r,yvuy.lu). p. J \o. '.. 1 3 for ily> r 3/7. The Page* miftaken from 58. to 73. \ A N I SF 325 amicable 9ltcommoDation OF THE DIFFER ENCE Between the AND THE ANSWERER, In Return to his Laft Reply againfl; The PAPIST Protefting againfl Protejiant Popery. Permijfu Superiorum. LONDON, Printed by H. Hills, Printer to the King's Mod Excellent Majefty for His Houfhold and ChappeL 1 6% 6. (I) A N Amicable Accommodation OF THE DIFFERENCE Between the REPRESENTER And the ANSWERER. HERE is a ftrange Voluminous ado about the Papijl Mifreprefented and Reprefented. Firft, almoit Twenty Sheets by way of Anfwer to it ; then, Ten in a fecond Reply; and now, Fif- teen in a Rejoynder : And after all this pother and nolfe , the uplhot of the Matter is come to this, That the Word Mifreprefented is an improper Expref- fion ; That the Character of a Papift Mifreprefented cannot be called a Mifreprefentation in a (Iritt and proper fenie, as our Antiprotefter has it often in his laft Reply : where yet he owns the proving this, to Pag. 2. A $ have UT have been the main drift of his former Ten Sheets, and a great part of thefe lad Fifteen. Surely he has taken a great deal of pains ; but to what purpofe, I expect to hear in other Ten Sheets yet to come : for really, I do not yet know that I am much concern'd, whether it be a Mifreprefenration in a Jlrift and proper fenfe, or no. And therefore, fince he has pitch'd uponfo civil a way of confuting my Book, I think I may, in return to his Civility, and without wrong to my Caufe, grant him the whole of his Pretenfions, and then fit down and imile with him a while, to fee, how being fo near of a mind we have yet been fo long clalliing Quills, as Adverfaries. I am really for Peace, and a good Correfpondence ; and upon a ferious Conlideration of this la ft Anjwer, ha- ving great reafon to think, that the moll confiderable part of the Contention between us, has been about a Wordy and for want of a fair Underftanding, I'Je en- deavour to lay open my Mind farther to him, fo to remove all Mijreprejentation from between us, ,' I hope he'll pardon the Expreflion, tho' it be not in its ftrtft and proper fenfe \) and by this means accommo- date our Affair, without letting it fweli farther into a Quarrel of yet greater Volumes. And Firft, To take up the Matter from the begin- ning, If he had duely confider'd all I faid in the Pa- p/ft MifrepreJ'ented and Reprefentedy he might very well have excus'd entring the Field againft me. For tho' I there complain'd of Papifts being Mifreprc- fented to the World, that their Faith is expos'd in a Difguife, and many things imputed to their Belief and Doctrine, which they difovvn and abominate : Yet in all this Complaint I nam'd no body, I ad- vane'd no Accufations againft any particular Party. And <3) And tho' I could have fill'd my Margins with num- bers of Authors, urging much blacker Calumnies than I there inferted ; yet (till I fupprefs'd all Names, confulting Modefty, and in regard of Peace. Now what need here of any Tingling themfelves, or a Par- ty out, to Engage with me ? I left every body to to their own Confcience ; and had thofe who felt themfelves touch'd, conceal'd the Sting within their own Bread, there had been fliil a Peace betwixt us. If a Man wipes the Dirt off his Face, that has been thrown at him in the Street, I hope he may do it without any affront to the Paffers-by. His Com- plaint in general of being abus'd, is only a Natural Right ; thofe that are innocent need not be much concerned to clear themfelves from the Charge ; and fuch as are guilty avoid all Quarrel, if they but hold their Tongues. The Papift therefore Mijreprefented and Represented might very well have pafs'd with- out moving of Choler, if thofe who will have them- felves not concern'd at all, had not been too much concern'd to wipe off the Imputation. This had been a means of preferving a mutual Peace from the beginning. But Secondly, Tho' contrary to this Method,much Dull: has been rais'd, and not without fome Heat in the Quarrel ; yet I am flill perfuaded our Dif- ferences may be compounded, if a fair Condefcenfion can win any thing upon my Adverfary, and he'll allow me to purchafe his Good-will by almoft an en- tire Submiflion to the Chief of his Pretenfions. Tie beg his leave to (late the Occafion of our Debate, and the Reader mail foon fee how much I can oblige him by my yielding. The (4) The Occafion of my writing the Papifl Mifrepre- Jented and Represented, was this; I found that the People in England had a very falfe Notion of Popery, or of the Faith and Doclrine of Roman Catholicks; that there was fcarce any one Article of their Creed, any one PracTice of their Church, which was not falfly drawn in the Imagination of the Vulgar, either blackned with Calumnies, or disfigur'd with preju- die'd Interpretations or malicious Mifconftru&ions ; that hence arofe fo great a hatred againft all of that Communion, that the Comprehenfive Precept of 'Loving ones Neighbour, feem'd now to admit with the Zealous of a neceilary Exception againft all of that Profeilion ; and the Defign of rooting out Po- pery, a fufficient Difpenfation for the violating all other Duties , both to God , the King , and our Neighbour. This Uncharitable Temper I could not but look upon as ill becoming a Chriftian Name ; and that to endeavour to remedy it, would not be only ac- ceptable to Catholicks, but even to Protejlants too ; who, I prefum'd, would be as willingly prevented from doing an Injury to their Neighbours, as the others would be willing not to be injur'd : it being a greater Concern of a Church not to do an Injury, than to receive one. For the removing therefore this Scandal from Chriftianity, and hindrmgMen from maligning and railing againft their Neighbours, for the talle Con- ceits of their own Imaginations, by what means fo- ever taken up by them, I thought it no ill Expedi- ent, to declare fincerely what is really the Faith of a Catholick : and to fhew more clearly how different it is from what it is vulgarly faid to be, I drew out tw® (5) two Defcriptions or Characters of Popery ; the one being an Idea of Protef ant Popery, or as it is gene- rally conceiv'd by Protefiants,and painted in the Ima- gination of the Vulgar of that Communion: The other being a Draught ot the Faith of Roman Catho- licks, as deliver'd and prefcrib'd by their Church.. The former ofthefe Characters Icall'd A Papifi Mif- reprejentedy and the latter A Papifi Reprefented. And I thought thefe Titles juftiflable enough, in as much as the one defcribesa Rapid otherwife than he really is, disflgur'd with falfe Colours, and artificially tur- ned into a Monfter, by a deform'd Drefs, thrown over him by fuch, who through ignorance or malice are willing to render him Ridiculous : While the other fets him out diverted of this Bugbear Habit, and {hews him in his own genuine Shape and Com- plexion. This inorTenfive proceeding of mine, as I thought and meant it, pafs'd not long without an Adverfary, who proclaim'd to the World that he had Anfwered and Confuted the Book : But what, and how has he pag.21 done it ? He fays, he has prov'd that the Char after of a Papifi Mifreprefented contains nothing in itjuhich in a STRICT and P ROPER fenfe can be called a Mif reprefentation : That it contains no Mifreprefentation pas' 4' PROPER LTfo cali'd. That there is nothing ofMif pas' } ' reprefentation PROPERLY to cali'd. This is the way he has anfwer'd and confuted it: and for this he is fet up upon every Stall, as bidding me defiance, and with the Character of an Adverfary. But really the World is over hafty in proclaiming men at Cd Js. I love Peace too well, to fall out about fuch Trifles. Let thofe who have a mind to it, fight for a Word ; for my part, he ihall never be my Ene- B my, my, who demands no more of me than this : He willingly yeild my right infuch a Point as this, ra- ther than make an Adverfary of one, who is fo civil to ask no more. Nay rather than fail of obliging my Anfwerer, lie e'en crave his pardon, for putting him to the trouble of reinforcing his proofs a Second time. He fays here (p. 2.) He hop d the talk of Mif- reprefenting would have been at an end : After he had prov'd, to wit, in his Former Reply, that the Cha- racter of a Papift Mifreprefented contain'd no Mifre- prefentation/>r^r/y fo call'd, in its ftrift and proper Senfe. And really 'twas only through miftake, and not defign, that I have been fo troublefome to ob- lige him even to the talk of Mifreprefenting beyond his expe&ation. For had I but imagin'd that that had been the utmoft of his defign in his lafl: Ten Sheets, I fhould certainly have fo far condefcended to fo Gentile an Adverfary, as to have fpar'd him the Charges and Sweat of laying down his Proofs again. And therefore that he may not be importun'd with any farther talk of Mifreprefenting for the future, I do here in compliance with him folemnly declare, that the Title of the Papift Mifreprefented, is not to be taken in Its ftrift and proper Senfe, as Mifreprefent- ing fignifies only downright Lying, or falfly charging matter of Fatt ; the whole Character being net indeed of this Nature : But in its larger or lefs proper Senfe; as it comprehends both Lying, Calumniating, Mifin- ter pre ting. Reproaching, Mifcon ft ruing, Mif judging, and whatever el fe of this kind ; For in this Senfe I don't find the Anfwerer has any diflike to it. But in cafe this mould not pleafe him neither, He yield one flep lower, and will have Mifreprefenting quite blot- ted (?) ted out. But then he mud give me leave to Tee, if I can pleafe him with fomething c\fe in its ftead. And what if I mould try if fomething borrow'd from the French, would be more fuitable to his humor ? That Nation fpeaks very politely and quaintly, it may be a Title a4a-mode de France may be as acceptable as their Fa Ih ions. What then if I fhould take Copy from the Atts of the General Ajfemhly of the French Clergy lately Publilhed ; and inflead of that Improper Engldh word of Mifreprefenting, prefix to my Book what they have done to their Complaint, viz. The Calumnies, Injuries and Fa Ifi ties, which the Preten- ded Reformd publifh in their Books and Sermons againfl the Doflrine of the Church ? If this will agree to the Character in a more firicl and proper fenfe,than Mifreprefenting, let me but know his Sentiments, and wee'l never fall out for want of fuch a Refor- mation. But however that he may be fenfible, how much he's to be engag'd to me for this condefcention ,• I mult adure him, that whatfoever I yield in this kind, is purely out of good nature, and for the love of Peace ; and not as oblig'd to it by force of his Ar- guments. For really to fpeak freely and betwixt Friends, I do not think he has advanc'd any thing in the whole matter, that has the face of a Proof ; but proceeds all along upon a Principle, fuppos'd to be certain indeed, but without the fupport of either Au- thority or Reafon. His Principle is this, That there can be no Mifre- 2i8calibj ptefenting, where there s an agreement ah out matter of Facl; which to me has more of the Counterfeit in it, than true Standard. . B z For For were the Anti-Protefler put to prove, that there ca-n be no proper Mifreprefentation , where there's an agreement about matter of Fa ft, I believe 'tis not every ordinary Topick would find him mat- ter for a Demonflration. For Mifreprefenting feemsto ftand in oppofition to Reprefenting ; and proper Reprcfenting being nothing more, than the Defcnbing or mewing a thing as it isinitfelf: As many ways as a thing can be fhewn other wife than itisinitfelf ; fo many ways may it be properly Mifreprefented. Now 'tis certain that for the defcription to bear an exact refemblance with the thing ; it muft not only agree with it in matter of Fa ft; but likewife in every other refpect, which it pretends to declare, as in Motive, Circumftance, In- tention, End, &c. The difagreement in any one of thefe, being enough to quite change the nature of the thing, notwithftanding the matter of Fa& being {till the fame. Nay many times even a Grin,a Wry- Face, a Shrug or a Frown is enough to Mifreprefent any man, without belying him in matter of Fact. 'Tis certain the Children of Reuben, and of Gad, and the half Tribe of Maneffeh, had been fouly Mif- . reprefented, if upon fight of the ^4/tar raifed by them on the Brink of Jordan, they had been prefently de- clar'd as Rebels agahfl God, by the other Ten Tribes, as Prevaricators of the Law oj MOSES, and as Setters up of an Altar agahfl the Altar of God and of IfraeL This I fay had been certainly a Mifreprefentation of the Two Tribes and a half; becaufe tho' the matter of Fa ft, viz. the building an Altar, was true beyond all exception ; yet becaufe they raifed this Altar, not for Burnt Offerings or for Sacrifice; but to be a Te- ftimony to their Children to come, that they had a part (?) part in the Lord ; the branding them with the Title of Rebels againft God, and as Schifmaticks from the Altar of the Tabernacle, had been altogether unjufti- fiable , and a Reprcfenting them to their Fellow- Tribes, otherwife then they were, which is properly Mifreprefenting. And had not Hannah been Mifreprefented too, if 2?// had fet her out amongft her Neighbours, for a l Kins' lit*'- Drunken Gojjip, and a Prophaner of the Houfe of the Lord, when he fawher muttering over her Prayers, without hearing; her voice > I know if Our Anfwerer had been by, neither the two Tribes, nor Hannah rnuft have complained in this Cafe of being Mifreprefented. He would have told them, whilft there was an agreement about mat- ter of Fact, there could be no Mifreprefentation in a ft r ift and proper Senfe; that therefore they might reft contented with this infamy upon them, fince by this one Principle they had a full Anfaer and Confuta- tion of their Complaint. And is not this an admirable expedient now for the Honefteft Man in the World to be blafled in his Credit and Reputation, and yet not to be Mifrepre- fentedneither > If Envy or Malice can but be inge- nious enough , to invent fomething like a Proof againft him, and with Confidence infinuate it into the populace ; 'tis no Mifreprefenting him, to let him out for a Fool or a Knave. Let there be only fomc matter of Fact, which ill Will can but interpret into a Crime, and his Reputation is forthwith brought to the Stake. For tho' barely to defame an Honeft Man, would be a Mifreprefentation, and a Sin : yet to Preach and Poft him up for a Rogue and a Villain, and to Hand to it, and run down his Credit with a Proof, ( 10 ) Proof, is no proper Mifre presentation at all. If the Two Elders had cried down Sufanna for a Harlot, without offering to prove their afperfion, they had Mifreprefented 'her then, it feems, according to our Anfvoerer\ Doctrine : But becaufe their own Villany prompted them with a Proof againft her Innocence, this fo alter'd the Cafe, that a Vertuous Woman was painted out and decried for a Strumpet, and yet the Two Elders no Mifreprefenters all the while. No, by no means; this is too foul a Character for them to bear, and they might be reafonably concern'd to wipe offthe imputation ; they have a Proofiox. what they urge, they have a matter of Fatt of her being Alone and Naked in the Garden : and this makes her Credit a Subject of Difpute, and not of Mifreprefenta- tion. This is admirable I confefs,and tho' that young youth Daniel laid open the two Sages, for Perjury and Falfe Accufation ; yet they are beholden to this nicking Principle of our Anti-protejler, for difchar- ging them from the Infamy of Mifreprefenting. And 'tis not only thefe Two Old Sinners are in- debted to him for his Affiftance : As many as have ever made ufe of thofe FaihionableTopicks ofCalum- ny and Slander, and malicioufly plotted againft In- nocence by Perjury and Defamation , muft come and acknowledge their obligation , for his having found them out a method, by which tho' they have turn'd White into Black, ihewn Honeft Men for Knaves, ftamp'd Vice upon Virtue, made Wife men pafs for Fools, and always endeavour'd to reprefent things otherwife then they were; yet they may (till plaufibjy quit themielves Irom the charge of proper Mijreprejenting. And nrft let the Jews come ; for tho' they cla- mour'd (") mour'dagainft our£ I laid them at no bodys door ; and if fome appear'd fo folicitous in clearing them- felves, that they were fufpected to be Fathers, they may thank themfelves ; I pointed at none. 'Tis true, for the mewing they were none of my own Caildiih Conceits, I at length produc'd fome eminent Protefiants, defcribing Popery with the fame ill Features, and worfe than I had drawn it in my Cha- racter of a Papifi Mifreprefented : and hrft, the Arch' bijhop of fork. And here the Quarrel is, hicaufe I left out the Authorities mentioned by that Prelate. And now the Anfwerer has inferted thofe Authorities, wJiat do they make to his purpofe, or againft me ? Were they all exacl and true, which yet no Man will be able to make good, is every thing to be fet forth for the Faith of a Church, which can be found in one Author, as it is by him, when he prefixes to them a He £ that is the Papifi ) muft. believe ? Can the Church of England {land this*Teft ? Would it not be Mifreprefenting her, to Preface every extravagant Saying of her Members, with She believes, and She teaches ? What fignifie therefore the mentioning thofe Authors, when the Queftion is not, What fome Private Authors fay ; but what the Church believes ? Whcft (3<0 When the Archbifliop therefore brings in the Papift profefiing his Faith, with this folemn Protection, We wiuft believe ; and then fupports the Paradox with a fmgle Authority or two : as this was in him a piece of Artifice, not jullifiable amongft Friends ; Co the omiflion of fuch Teftimonies was beyond the poflibility of being a Defign, unlefs it were of Con- sulting the Credit of the Prelate. And tho' the Books mention'd were publifh'd by Authority of Superiors ; yet from fuch Books cannot be fairly Represented the Faith of the Churchy and whofoever pretends to do it, is nothing lefs than a Mifreprefenter : Nor will a Church of England- Man, I fancy, much queftion this Truth, who, I believe, upon confideration, will allow, that his Church may be eafily Mifreprefented, if every idle Opinion to be pick'd out of Books, which come forth with an Im- primatur, were to be inferted into the Character of her Faith. And I cannot but wonder the Anfwerer mould urgik this Difpute now £C this time, when we have feen a Book Publifh'd by Authority of Pope, Cardinals, and other Dignitaries, and in a particular manner approv'd by them, and yet queilion'd by fome as not Reprefenting the Faith of the Church aright. Methinks, when a Book of this Authority comes to be difputed, as not truly Reprefenting, I cannot un- derftand how every other Author with a petty Li- cence is a fufficient ground for a Reprefenter. But it mull be fo to drive the Bufinefs on. When a Prote- flant fhews forth the Church of Romey every thing that can be rak'd out of Books, is authentick enough for him to put into the Character : but when a Catho- Jick Prelate Expounds the Doctrine of his Church, all the Authority of Pone and Cardinals is not enough to fet him up for a Reprefenter. Befides (.37) Befides the Archbilhop,! produc'd Sutclijfs Survey o] 'Popery, in which he had laid to the Papijls charge iuch Tenets as are offenfive to every Chriftian Ear, and as much detefted by Papijls, as any other Society whatfoever. But I did not, it feems, fet down his Reafons and his Authorities. And this difcovery puts the Anfwerer upon an outcry againft the Reprefenters Honefty. And yet where the Scandal is I cannot find. For I undertook for no more, than to fliew the Doctrines laid by Mr. SutcliffoX the Papijls door, and this I did fincerely in his own words and fenfe, and for his Reafons ; they were no Concern of mine, neither will the Anfwerer, after all his noife, put his approba- tion to them, as far as I fee S for having fumm'd them up, he concludes with this open hint, (p. 14.) Iffome Proteflants have chared the Doclrines and Practices of the Church of Rome with fuch Conferences as they cannot jujlifie^ Wifer Proteflants difown it. He mud be a very fooolim Reprefenter therefore, who mould go about to confute fuch Reafons which nothing be- long to Reprefenting, and are fuch as Wifer Prote- flants are afham'd of. But now we are come to the Point of Honefly, I cannot but admire a rare Knack the Anfwerer has^fpe- cially in Tranjlating honeftly : one Inftance he gives us in his former Reply, and another in this (p. 76.) where reciting a Prayer out of the Pontifical, he has thefe words in the Latin, Vt or antes inclinantefj; fe propter Deum ante /flam Crucem ; but rendring it into Englifli, he leaves out thofe two little words propter Deum, and puts it thus : That thofe who Pray and Bow themfelves before this Crofs, without mentioning for Gods fake, or for the honor God, as not fit tor his pur- pofe. When I have iearn'd this Artifice of him, he F may (38) may then with reafon cry out of curtailing and dif- honcfty : But at prefent I think he has fomethingto mend at home in this Point. And for my part, Tie endeavour not to follow fo ill an Example. . And now at length we are arriv'd to the Queftion .concerning- the BJhop of Condom^ and fome Points Treated of by him. The Anfwerer has Debated the Matter in about One hundred Pages,and fairly invites the Reprefenter to difpute it out, and two powerful Arguments he ufes to provoke him to it. The firft is, (p. 26) That there is no reafon to difpute it at all : But the truth is, fays he, I know no reafon there is for all tins difpute. So that the Reprefenter •, if he will be advis'd, muft leave ofTChara&er-making, and difpute over an hundred Pages, hecaufe there is no reafon to difpute. The fecond Reafon (Jbf) is, becaufe I was not fatisri'd with his bare telling me he did not like my Religion, now he will give me fome Reafons for't. And this is a Reafon like the former : For I never was concern'd with his not liking my Religion : I never told him, / was not fatisfi'd with his bare telling mey he did not like it, that now he mould pretend for this Reafon, to give me fome Reafons for it. All the bufi- neis is, difpute he's refolv'd, and in it mufl, tho* by head and moulders; the Reprefenting Humour do's not pleafehim, andChara&er-making is an aggrie- vance, 'tis too fair a way of dealing for him, and lays too open theMyftery of Iniquity : and therefore he has no better way to quit himfelf of this trouble, than to draw me into an Ocean of Difputes, that fo Re- prefenting may be at an end. Thus he labours to change the Scene, and to tempt me out of the way ; but his weighty Reafons do not work fo powerfully, as to render me uncapable of re- futing (39) filling. And therefore till we have other two Reafons given, l'le be no other than Rcprefenter dill. My bufi- nefs is matter of Fatt, and not of Right, ox de jure ; and fince he has bulkt out his Atifwer with Nine Sheets of the Fifteen, fili'd up with an occafional Difcourfe, Vie take the freedom gravely to turn over thofe his hun- dred occafional Pages, tho' I fear he'll take it ill ; but I cannot help him. We Wife Converts do not love to go out of our way, but upon very good grounds ; and therefore if the two Reafons he has given for this at prefent, do not move us, 'tis becaufe they are too fub- lime, and not fuited to our Capacity. But however, he requires fatisfaclion as to the Points he has there handled, and I mall remit him to fuch Books in which thefe Controversies have been difcufs'd at large. And for my felf iliall fit down con- tented with the Title he often allows me of a Reprc- fenter. And as to the Bifhop olCondom,\o whom I ap- peal'd for the juftifying the Character of the Papifi Reprejented, he has undertaken his own Vindication, and needs not the afliftance of another Hand. All the Concern I have, is to declare, that to affent to the Catbolick Faith, as Expounded by this Prelate, is fufficient for any to be reteiv'd into the Communion of our Church ; we require no other Terms. And if the Anfvoerer finds different Explications given by Bel- larmine and others ; tho' the Books are approv'd, yet there's no obligation of being of their mind in things that are difputed amongft Divines. 'Tis in vain there- fore to clamour againft the Opinions of R e liar mine ^ot Su-arez,Scotits^c. as loofe, extravagant,h&x{h or unfa- vonry, &c. fince it fuffices for Catbolick Communion, to fubfcribe to the Points treated by M. Condom, in the fenfe he has expounded them ; if they are more foft or (40) fweet than has hitherto be apprehended, or deliver'd formerly by others, let them but be receiv'd in that foft and fweet manner, and no more is requir'd. 'Tis therefore nothing more than a Cavil, to quefti- on whether Bellarmine and other eminent approv'd Authors,are not as authentic a Rule for theExpofition of the Council of Trent and the Catholic k Faith y as the Biihop of Condom. We have no concern in thefe Com- parifons, our whole bufinefs is only this ; Whether the embracing the Catholic k Faith , as expounded by the Bifhop of Condom, be fufficient for a Perfon to be receiv'd into the Communion of our Church. And fince this is evidently fo, and that all thofe that be- lieve tkus, are actually acknowledge Members of this Church upon this Aflent, what needs the Repre- fenter, who follows his Explication, any farther apo- logy i If any Perfon therefore may be thus receiv'd a Member of our Chorch, upon the Terms I have propos'd in the Matters there handled, I have Repre- sented the Papift aright. And amonglt all the Argu- ments that have been publifh'd, only thofe have be- long'd to me, which endeavour to fhew the falfity of this. 'Tis no wonder therefore I have wav'd the Con- fiderationof many things that have been publifh'd a- gainft me under the Title of an Anfwer, fince of the Forty Sheets that have come upon this Errand ijato the World, there has not been three, but what have for- got their Bufinefs they were tent upon. If it be an Omiflion therefore not to return an Anfwer to fuch things as are not fpoken to me, 'tis eafily making a Lift ot Omiflions. But let me fee where it has been prov'd, that 'tis not fufficient for a Catholick to believe as I have propos'd, as to thofe Particulars. And if it has had no Anfwer, it fhall have one. FINIS. Imprimatur, July iz. 1686.; JO. BATTELT. A N 1 '"^f — — . ANSWE T O T H E Amicable &commobation O F T H E DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REPRESENTOR AND THE A N S W E R E R. LONDON: Printed for 7<^« ^wf ry at the Peacock, and William Rogers at the £#» ; both againft St. Dunftaris Church in Fleetflreet. MDCLXXXVI. to ANSWER Amicable AC CO MMO T> AT 10 N, Of the Difference between The Keprefenter and the Anfaerer. IN Anfwer to the Reply to Tapifls protefling againfi Troteflant Popery , our Author has amicably ac- commodated away the whole Book, excepting one word called Mifreprefenting ; and therefore whereas he expects Ten fheets from me in return, I muft be forced to compound with him for a much lefs number. We are likely at lad to agree about the meaning of Mif- reprefenting , which is a very common word, and eafily underftood when men give their minds to it. Our Au- thor Printed a double Character ofzPapift Mifreprefented and Reprefented ; the firft being an accufation on Prote- ftants for mifreprefenting Papifts ; I examined every part of his Character , and could not find why he called it Mifreprefenting ; for it did not appear by his Characters, that we had charged them with any Doctrines or Practices (excepting fome few things) but what they themfelves owned. We charge indeed their Doctrines and Pra- ctices with fuch guilt as they do not own ; but this I told B him CO him did not properly belong to Reprefenting but Difpu- ting ; for while we agree about matters of fad, there is no Mifreprefenting on either fide, and then we are no v- therwife Mifreprefenters, than as all men are who con- demn fuch Opinions and Pra&ifes, as others judge very true and innocent; and thus Papifts as much miftepre- fent Proteftants, as iWeftants mifreprefent Papift's ; that is, they equally dirTerfrom each other in their Opinions and judgments of the fame things : but who are truly the Mifreprefenters, is. not to be decided by f haralfrr- making, but by Reafon and Argument. Well, our Accommodator is very willing out of civility and for the fake of peace, to yield this point, That the Amicable Ac- Title of a Papift Mifreprefented, is not to be taken in its commodatign, ftrift and proper fence, as Mifreprefenting fgnifies down- ^' ( right Lying, orfalfly charging of matter of fall ; but jfi its larger or lefs-p roper fence, as it comprehends both Lying, Calumniating, Mif- interpreting, Reproaching, Mif-confl ruing, Mi] r judging, &c. which I confefs is a very great piece of civility, that he will not charge us now With down right lying, but onely with Lying and Calumniating, and feveral other hard words into the bargain. There needs not many words about this matter, for the fhort of the cafe is this : In order to reconcile our people to the Church of. Rome, he thought it. neceflary toperfwade them, that Popery is quite' another thing, than what they had been taught it is, which wbuldat once remove their prejudices againft Popery, and beget in them a great jealoufie and fufpicion of their former Teachers ; for men will not eafijy trull thofe who. have once deceived them. In order to this,he gives us a double Character of a Pa-* pift ; one he calls the Characler of a Fapifl Mifreprefented, the other of a Papift Reprefented \ which any man would guefs, [3] guefs, fhould be two very different and contrary things ; the fir ft what a Papift is not, the fecond what he is ; and yet, when we come to examine them, every thing al- moft, which can properly be called a Character, or Re- prefenting, is the fame in both; onely the Character of a Papift Mifreprefented tells you, what opinion Prote- ftants have of Popery, and the Character of a Papift Re- prefented, tells us, what good thoughts Papifts have of themfelves, and their own Religion ; now whoever doubted, but that Papifts and Proteftants differ very much in their Opinions of Popery, as they do alfo in their Opinions of Proteftancy. And this is the onely pretence for his charge of Mifreprefenting, not that we charge them with believing or practifing, what they do not be- lieve or practice, but that we think worfe of their Faith and Practice than he thinks they deferve. And if this be all that he means by Mifreprefenting, we readily own the charge, that we have much worfe thoughts of Popery than he has ; that we believe thofe Doctrines to be erroneous, and thofe Practifts to be fin- ful, which he thinks very well of; and becaufe I am re- folved, if poflible, to be as civil as he ist in my Conceffi- ons, and not to difpute about words, I am contented he fhould call this mifreprefenting, Lying, Calumniating, or what he pleafes, if he can prove that we condemn their Faith or Worfnip unjuftly ; onely he muft remember, that this will engage him in a difpute, which hefeems re- folved not to engage in. For he muft not think, that upon his bare word, we muft be concluded guilty of that mifreprefenting, which he calls Lying. He fhould have been very much afraid to accufe us of Lying, if he is re- folved altogether to reprefent, and not to difpute : For cer- tainly no wife man will give his Neighbour the lye, unlefs he be well prepared to prove it againft him. Mifrepre- B z fenting [4] fenthg was a civil term, becaufe honeft men may through miftake mifreprefent ; but Lying is the fault of Knaves, which as it defer ves great punifhment, foit ought not to be charged upon men without great proof, much kis with none at all .* And therefore he mould not have ta- ken up an obflinate humour againft Difputing, juft be- fore he thought fit to charge us with Lying, but have remembrcd what M. de Meaux fays in his Paftoral Let- ter,/). 19. Thofe who bear falfe and fcandalous witnefs a- gatnfian innocent perfon, are condemned to the fame punifh- ment which the Crime of which they bear witnefs diddeferve had it been found true. But to clear my felf as well as I can ; befides this,that I am not confcious to my felf of any mifreprefenting , I muft tell him once more , that in a ftricl: and proper fence , to mifreprefent relates only to matter of fatt, when we charge men with faying and doing what they never faid or did , as our Accommodater confefles ; and in this fence I have already proved , that we are no Mifre- prefenters,and at laft,if I underftand him, he confefles that we are not ; but then he tells us, that to mifreprefent, in a larger and lefs-proper fence , fignifies alfo to put a falfe conftru&ion on things: As for inftance , to fay that to Worihip Saints and Angels, and the Virgin Mary, as pra- ftifed by the Church of Rome, is to give the Worfhip of God to Creatures ; and that their Image-Worfhip is what God has forbid in the fecond Commandment; that their denying the Cup to the Laity is contrary to the in- flitution of our Saviour, and their Latine Service is a very unreafonable Worfhip, and definitive of the edifi- cation of the Church, &c. Now though we do not charge them falfly inthefe cafes as to matter of fatt, for they do Worfhip Saints and Images , and deny the Cup to the Laity ,and keep the Service of the Church in a Language unknown unknown to the people,yet if through prejudice and ne- glect of due confideration,we fhould condemn thefe Pra- ctices as contrary to the Laws of God , and injurious to mens Souls, though they were not fo. I grant even this may be called Mifreprefenting, for 'tis to call good evil, and evil good , light darknefs , and darknefs light ; and whoever is guilty of this kind of Mifreprefentation , is guilty of a very great Sin, and does great mifchief in the World, not by falfifying matters of Fact, but as much as in him lies, by changing the nature of things. And upon thefe terms the difpute of Mifreprefenting may be eafily accommodated ■ Let him plainly confefs, that we are not Mifreprefenters in the firft fenfe ; that we do not falfly charge any Doctrines or Practices on the Church of Rome , which ihe difowns ; that we do not teach our People, that the Church of Rome believes or practices, otherwife than Ihe does,and we will give him leave to call us Mifreprefenters dill, if he can fhew that we charge their Doctrines or Practices with fuch guilt as they do not deferve. But it is by no means a fufficient anfwer to this Charge to call us Lyars, which for ought I can fee , is all we are like to get in Anfwer from this man. Of all the feveral projects for ending Controverfie, the mod effectual that I ever yet heard of, is that which our Author hath fet on foot : For he would now infinuate, that he has vindicated the Church of Rome from our Mifreprefenting, not one- ly matter of Fact,but the guilt we charge them with up- on thofe matters that are confefled by themfelves. Now I have fhewn him as well as I could, that fome of their con- fefled Doctrines are falfe, and fome of their confefled Pra- ctices are unlawful,and that their bed Apologies for them are infufficient.What fays the Accomodator to all this? He anfsvers, that all this is Mifreprefenting , as that fignifies CO Lying. But how the difpute ihould be carried on upon thde Terms, otherwife then by giving him the Lye back again, 1 do not comprehend? And therefore becaufe nei- ther true Religion, or good Breeding, will fuffer me to carry on a Difpute at that rate, the Controverfie Ihould feem even upon this account to be at end ; and I give him joy of the honour that he is like to get by it. And yet I think an indifferent Reader may obferve that his faflning the Lye upon us, for Mifreprefenting them in the lefs- proper fenfe, as he pretends we do, is but an after-game to which he is reduced by the extremi- ty of a bad Caufe, The defign of our Author in his Twofold Character of a Papift, was to perfwadeour People, that we wereMif- reprefenters in the firft and moil proper Senfe; that we had belyed the Church of Rome, with imputing fuch Do- ctrines to her, as me did not own ; and this, all men,that ever I met with, underftood to be the defign of it : But Since he cannot make good his Charge againft us, he will now make good his Title of Mifreprefenting in a lefs- proper Senfe, not that we mifreport die Doctrines and Practices of their Church, but that we unjuftly condemn them ; and though we will rather allow him to call this Mifreprefenting, than difpute about a word* yet if this be all he intended to acquaint the World, that Proteftants think worfe of Popery , than Papifts do , it wras a wonderful difcovery ; and he topk as notable a way to rectifie fuch mif-apprehenfions. ' He.difclaims all difpu- ting, and thinks to confute Proteftant Mifreprefentati- ons, by giving onely a true Character of a Papift, with reference to his Faith and Practice, out of the moft au- thentick Records of their Church : Now if the Mifreprc- fentation does not concern matter of Fact, but only mens judgments and opinions about fudi matters, how can a meer C7] meer Character rectifly fuch Mifreprefentations ? When we know, what the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome is, and yet think very ill of it ; Can the meer re- lating what the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome is, cure our ill opinion of it ? And yet this a all the bufinefs of a Character to tell us, what a Papift is, which might indeed reconcile us to Popery, had we diflik- ed Popery onely becaufe we did not underftand it, or took it to be fomething more formidable than it is, but cannot cure fuch diflikes as arife from a true undemand- ing of Popery. He appeals to the Definitions of the Councils of Trent, and fhe Biftiop of Condoms Expofition, &c. to vindicate Popery from the Mifreprefentations of Protellants ; that is, to'fliow us what the genuine Doctrines of Popery are: Ana! now can this confute our Mifreprefentations, unlefs by Milreprelentlng he underilood Mifreprefenting mat- ter of Fact, charging fuch Doctrines on their Church as were never decreed by their Councils, nor owned by their rhoft authentick Expositors i 'For th^ Authority of the Council of Trent is nothing to us, fany otherwife than as we own it to be the Rule and Standard of the Romifh JFaith ; and therefore he can prove nothing againfl us out of the Council of Trent t but onely that thofe are not the Doctrines of the Church #f Rome, .which we fay are, and this cannot confute Protectant Mifreprefentations of Popery, unlefs our Miireprefentations confift in charging them with fuch Doctrines as their Church and Councils do not own. . And therefore, tlpugh he^snqw Widling to grant, that we are not MifreprefentcH as that figntfies, down-right Lyers, who charge the Church .of Rome with Believing and Practifing what ilie does not, yet it is apparent, that this v/as what he intended in his Title of a PiTpifb. Mifre- pre- . [8] prefented, toaccufe Protectants of charging Papifts with fuch Doctrines and Practices as they do not own ; and if this be not the intent and defign of his Book , there is a great deal lefs Senfe in it,then I thought there had been. For if by Mifreprefenting he only meant , that we reproach and calumniate the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome , and charge them with fuch guilt as they do not deferve , not that we charge them lalfly with fuch Doctrines and Practices as they do not own, (as he now would have it ; ) though I grant this may be called Mifreprefenting, if the charge be falfe, yet it is not fuch a Mifreprefenting as is confuted only by a Cha- racter, or by true Reprefenting ; it is wholly matter of Difpute, as I have often told him ; for hemuftnot think that we Proteftants mall believe ever the better of Pope- ry, becaufe he profefles to believe very well of it, in his Character of a Papift Reprefented. If he will vindicate the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome from that guilt, which Proteftants charge on it ; if he will juftifie the Worfhip of Saints and AngeJs and Images, Tranfubftantiation , the Adoration of the Hoft, half Communion,Prayers in an Unknown Tongue, &c. and prove us to be Mifreprefenters , he mufl quit his retreat of Character-making , and fairly difpute the points in queftion, which is the way the generous Advo- cates of the Church of Rome have always taken,to defend her , by the Authority of Scriptures, Fathers, Councils, and here we are ready to joyn iflue with them. And thus , for ought I fee , this Controverfie is at an end , though he had not charged us with Lying ; for whatever he at firfl pretended, he grants now, that we are not in a ftrict and proper fence Mifreprefenters ; and thus farewel to Character-making, fince Papifts and Proteftants, who anderftand thefe matters are in the main [9] main agreed, what the Character of a Papift is, though they differ in their opinions about him, which can never be decided by Charac"ters,but by Reafon and Argument. And yet our Author>after all his pretences to an Amicable Accommodation , is unwilling the matter mould end thus, at leaft unlefs we will acknowledge our felves ve- ry much beholden to his good nature for it : Why, what is the, matter now ? Have I not plainly proved, that we are not Mifreprefenters in the firict and pro- per notion of Mifreprefenting ? That we do not charge the Church of Rome with any matter of Fact , with a- ny Doctrines or Practices which fhe does not own ? And can we Mifreprefent them, when we charge them with nothing that is falfe ; Yes, he fays , my principle, p. 7. that there can be no Mifreprefenting , where there u an a- greement in matter of fail , has more of the counterfeit in it than true ftandard; is fuppofed to be certain , but without the fupport of Authority or Reafon : That is, though we charge the Church of Rome with nothing but what ftie her felf owns ; though we reprefent a Papift jufl as a Papift reprefents himfelf, as to his Faith and Practice, yet we maybe Mifreprefenters ; and then we may indeed be Mifreprefenters for ought I know, if we may Mifreprefent, when we fay nothing but what is true. If he can make good this , I muft acknowledge him to be a man of Art ; and therefore fhall briefly examine how he proves it. He fays, Mifreprefenting feems to ft and in oppofition to p. 3. Reprefenting , and proper Reprefenting being nothing more, than the defer ibing or /hewing a thing, as it is in its felf, as many ways , as a thing can be /hewn otherwife than it is in its felf , fo many ways may it be properly Mifreprefented. C This This J agree to, and therefore let us proceed : Now (lays he) it is certain, that for the defcription to bear an exacl refemblance with the thing, it muH not only agree with it in matter of fall, hut likewife in every other refpetl, which it pretends to declare, as in motive, circumftance, in- tention , end , &c. The agreement in any one of thefe being enough to quite change the nature of the thing , not- withftanding the matter of fall being ft ill the fame. And this aJfo I agree in , that motives, circumftances, intenti- on, end, are all to be confidered in reprefenting ; but I wantareafon, why hediftinguifhes thefe from the mat- ter of fad : for by matter of fact, I underftand an acti- on cloathed with all its circumftances, without which, it is impoftible truly to reprefent any action : For cir- cumftances alter the nature of actions ; As fuppofeaman be killed, this maybe done by accident, or with defign, in heat of blood, or of premeditated malice, which makes it, either Chance-medley , Man-flaughter, or Murder ; and therefore the confideration of thefe things falls under the matter of fact, and are the proper matters for a Jury to inquire into, who yet ate judges onely of Fact. And thus I underftood matter of Fact , when I aflerted , that we did not Mifreprefent the Church of Rome in any matter of Fact ; that we did not onely charge them with nothing but what they did , but that we truly Reprefented all the circumftan- ces of what they did , as far as the moral nature of the action is concerned in it , and indeed I know not , how we can either Reprefent or Mifreprefent any action without its circumftances ; we may tell what is done, but the matter of the action is the leaft thing confide- rable in Reprefenting , becaufe it may be either good or bad in moft cafes , according to its different circum- ftances i [ilj fiances : and we cannot fay, which it is , without con- fidering all circumftances. As for inftance , We do not onely charge the Church of Rome with Praying to Saints , and Worihipping Images , but we confider what is the Doctrine of their Church about thcfe mat- ters , in what manner they do it , and with what cir- cumftances ; we admit of all the excufes and apologies, and fair reprefentations that they can make of it , and then confider what the nature of the action is , and what the Scriptures and Primitive Fathers declare it to be. This, he knows, I did in the Book, which he now pre- tends to anfwer. To put an end to this Difpute about Mifreprefenting, I told him, we did not like Popery ,as he and the Bifhop of Condom had Reprefented it , and fhewed him our Reafons why we did not like it, as to the Ohjetl of Religious Worfhip .the Invocation of Saints, and the Worfhip of Images : And had he thought fit to have confidered thefe , we might have obliged him fo far , as to have confined the Difpute to his own Chara- cters , and the Bifhops Expofition , in the other points of Popery ; but he fays not one word about this, but advances a new Paradox , that men may be Mifrepre- fenters , though they do not Mifreprefent any matter of Fact , becaufe they may Mifreprefent the Motives, Circumftances , Intention and End , as if this were not to Mifreprefent matter of Fact: ? Or as if we had Mif- reprefented them in this manner, when he has not , and cannot give any one inflance wherein we have done fo? This fhort account fliews , how impertinent all his examples of Mifreprefenters are, who, as he fays, did Mifreprefent without belying men in matter of Fact ; C 2 for £»] for though this is nothing to us , unlefs he could prove us to be fuch Mifreprefenters , which he has not once attempted to do; yet the Examples he produces do not prove what he brings them for , for all their Mifre- prefentations are in matters of facl:. Thus the ten Tribes fufpefted , that the Children of 22jofh. Reuben and Gad ', and the half Tribe of Manajfeh, had built an Altar for Sacrifice in the borders of Jordan, o- , ver-againft the Land of Canaan , whereas the true mat- ter of Fact was , that they had built an Altar net for Sacrifice , but as a witnefs and memorial of their right to Gods Altar , to offer their Sacrifices and burnt Offer- ings in the place which God mould choofe. i.Sam.1.13. When Eli thought Hannah had been drunken, be- caule me prayed in her heart , only her lips moving, this was Mifreprefenting matter of fact , for (he was not drunk. And furely he will grant, that the two wanton Elders did foully bely Sufannah, though fhe was alone and naked in the Garden, and that they reprelented the facl, quite otherwife than it was. And methinksour Author fhould grant,that the Jews did mifreprefent matter of fact, when they charged our Saviour with being a Sabbath-breaker,a Glutton, a Friend of Publicans and Sinners, unlefs he will fay that our Sa- viour was all this ; for if he were not, then they did be- lye him in matter of fact ; and fo they did the Apoftles and Primitive Chriftians , when they accufed them as Troublers of the City,and Movers of Sedition, that they murdered Infants , and eat their Flefh ; that they Wor- ihipped the Sun, and adored an AfTes head for God ; for I fuppofe he will grant , that the matter of fad was falfe. But ftill, fays the Accommodater, they had fome mat- ter ter of fact , whereon their Accufations were grounded, and which gave fome colour and pretence to them. Sometimes they had, and fometimes they had not : But is not this a pleafant inference , that becaufe thofe who tellonely a piece of a ftory may mifreprefent, therefore thofe who faithfully relate the whole matter of fact, with all the particular circumftances of it,may be Mifreprefen- ters alfo ? If he can give any one example of this nature, I will onely defire him to tell me the difference between Mifreprefenting and true Reprefenting. Men who have wit and malice enough , may put very fpiteful con- ductions upon the mod innocent and virtuous Actions, by altering or concealing fome circumflances , or the end and intention of doing them; but this is to mifrepre- fent the fact , to reprefent a thing done otherwife, or for another end, than really it was ; but if a man who tells the Whole truth, not onely what was done, but the end why, and the manner how it was done , can be a Mif- reprefenter, the honefteft man in the world may be a MiC- reprefenter. When an action is truly and fairly Reprefented, men may ftill pafs a falfe judgment upon that action ; may think that evil and forbidden by God, which God has not forbid, or that allowed and approved by God,, which God abhors j but this is not properly Mifreprefenting , but judging falfly, which differ juft as matter of Fact and matter of Law do in Givil Affairs. In all Caufes Cri- minal and Civil , there are twodiftinctqueftions; what the Fact, and what the Law is, what is done, and what judgment the Law pafles on fuch Actions : To falfifie in , matters of fact , is to Mifreprefent the perfonand the adtion ; to give a wrong judgment , is to Mifreprefent the Law : and thus it is in our cafe : We are firft to en- quire* P. 12. C»4] quire, what the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome are , and then of what nature they are, whether true or falfe, good or evil : If we affix fuch Doctrines or Practices en them.asthey do not teach, or alter any ma- terial circumflance relating to them, then weare Mifre- prefenters in a proper fence,as mifreporting matter of faft; and this we utterly deny, and they can never prove that we do thus mifreprefent them.that as our Author mifre- prefents us,we ujher i#,with they teach this, they believe that, they fay this, they affirm that , and under thefe preambles charge the Papiftsfor ajferting and believing fuch Blafphe- mies .which they would fooner loofe their lives than ajfent to : Which he has boldly affirmed without giving one in- flance of it ; but as for judging of their Doctrines and Practices, we do indeed pais fuch a judgment on them, as I doubt not but they will call Mifreprefenting ; but whether it be foor no, is matter of Difpute, and muft be decided by appealing to Scripture and Reafon ; and we are not afhamed of being called Mifreprefenters by them, when that fignifies no more,than cenfuring and condem- ning their Faith and Practife. But he has one example more of this Mifreprefenting, and that as he thinks a very nicking one , and that is the Fanatical Mifreprefentations of the Church of Eng- land : To this end he brings in a Diflenter charging the Church of England with Popery , and feveral other ill things , which is intended to ferve more purpofes than one. Had he flrft proved us to be Mifreprefenters , it had been a very proper way to make usfenfible of the evil of it , to appeal to our own refentments of fuch ufage. But what if Difienters Mifreprefent the Church of Eng- land , does this prove that the Church of England Mif- repre- C.'VJ reprefeats the Church of Rome ? If we indeed Mifrepre- fenc the Church of Rome, we have lefs reafon to complain that the Diflenters Mifreprefent us ; but if we are no Mifreprefenters , we have reafon doubly to complain, both for being charged with Mifreprefenting,and for be- ing Mifreprefented. And therefore the Anfwer to this long harangue, is very fhort and plain ; however the Church of England be Mifreprefented , whether by Papifts or Fanaticks, we juftine our felves either by denying matter of Fad: when that is falfe , or by confuting the Charge : We are not afraid of Difputing with our Adverfaries when that is needful , but juftifie the Doctrines and Practices of our Church by Scripture and Reafon, which is a more gene- rous way, thanmeerely to complain of being Mifrepre- fented, without daring to right our felves ; which is the cafe of our late Character-makers. If the World will be moved by their complaints , to believe that they are Mifreprefented, all is well, and they have what they de- fired ; but if you will be fo perverfe as not to believe that they are Mifreprefented, though they tell you they are , and will needs be a difputing the point with them, they have done with you ; for their bufinefs is not to Difpute, but to Reprefent. The difference between us in this matter , is no more but this : We are not afraid of Mifreprefentations , becaufe we know we can defend our felves ; whereas they find they cannot defend them- felves, and therefore have no other remedy, but to com- plain of being Mifreprefented. And yet I mull confefs , this is as artificial a way of faying nothing , as I have met with. Our Accom- modator is very nek of this talk of Mifreprefenting, and knew not how to get rid of it , but by diverting the the Difpute ; and therefore though it he nothing to the purpofc , inftead of proving that we are Mifrepre- fenters , he defires us to confider , how the Diflenters Mifreprefent us : but we have confidered that enough already, and when there is occafion for it , will do fo again; our bufinefs at prefent is not with Diflenters but Papifts , and we are not for purfuing every new Game, but will keep to our old fcent. It would be a pleafant Scene, could he at this time of day, engage the Church of England and Diflenters in a new Quarrel ; but thanks be to God many of our Dif- lenters are grown wifer now , and I hope more will e- very day; whatever they have formerly fufpe&edofour inclinations to Popery, they find now that they were miflaken in us ; and whatever defecls they may chatge our Worfhip with , I believe they will call it Popiih and Antichriftian no longer ; to be fure they will never think us the more inclined to Popery , becaufe a Papift fays fo. While thefe Gentlemen lay behind the Curtain, and acted the part of a Zealous Brother under feveral difguifes , there was much more danger of them than now: They have laid afide their Vizards, and let them now paint the Church of England how they pleafe, and the worfe the better ; for how mean an opinion foever he feems to have of our Diflenters, they are too wife and cautious to take Characlers from open and profefled Ene- mies. The ( '7 ; The truth is, he has horribly abufed ourDiflen- ters, unlefs by Di/lenters, he means only his dearly beloved Quakers, with whole Cant he is as well ac- quainted, as if he hajd been either their Matter , or Scholar. For he has drawn up fuch a charge a- gainft the Church of England \ in the name of a Diflenter, as no Diflenter ever made. It is a Popifn Character Fathered upon a Diflenter, for which they are much beholden to him, that when he has a mind to fay things fo fpiteful and filly , that he himfelf Q tho' none of the moc'efteft men ) is afhamed to own, he can think of no perfon fo fit to fay them as a Diflenter. Did ever any Diflenter charge the Church of England with making gods of dead m^n, becaufe we call our Churches flill by the names of thofe Saints to whom they were dedicated in the times of Popery ? For did not the Diflenters themfelves do fo in the late times of Reformation? And do they fcru- ple to do fo now ? If there were any difference , it was only in not giving the Title of Saint to them , and I fuppofe that does not alter the cafe ; for if it be ?au?sy or Peters^ or Marys Church, it is much the fame : But they were not fo filly as to think , that names which were ufed only for diftindtion , without paying any worlhip to Saints, or erecting any Altars to them, in thofe Churches which were called by their names, made Gods of dead men. The Bills of Mortality were the fame formerly in the Diflenters time,that they are now, and yet they did not fufpeft themfelves guilty of placing Mary above Chrifly or making a Goddefs of her. D Did ( is ) Did ever any Diflenter charge the Church of England with Image-Idolatry, for having Pictures in their Bible s, or Mofes and Aaron pointed with the Ten Commandments, wichour le wing out the Second againft Image-wormip ? efpccially when thefe are things wherein the Church of England is. no otherwife concerned, than in mt correcting the extravagancy of Painters and Printers. And 1 con- fefs, I have always fufpected, that thefe men, who now charge us with the Image-Idolatry, of having Pictures in our Common-prayer Books ( which is a very late invention ) did fecretly lay the defign to reconcile our people by degrees to the ufe of Pi- ctures and Images. The Dillenters indeed were never any great Friends to Holy- days ; but they never charged us with worihipping Saints on thofe days, which they faw we did not ; nor do they now charge us with worihipping the Bread, when we kneel at receiving the Sacrament, (.which is contrary to the publick Declarations of our Church ) but reject it, becaufe it was no Table-pofture, and becaufe it had been abufed (_ as they fcruple not to fay ) to an Idola- trous worfhip of the Holt in the Church of Rome. They have indeed objected againft our Liturgy , That it was taken out of the Mafs-book , and have been futficiently anfwered as to that point ; and we know who they were that flrft ftarted that Objecti- andF?re*' on ' **ome Mafs-Priefts under the difguife of Puri- brandi." tans. . But I never heard before, that they were feared with the very names of Epiftles,andGofpels, a nd Colects, and Litanies, nor did they ever quar- rel with retaining Popifh Saints in our Calendar, when ( *9 ) when we give them no place in our Prayers, which is only an evidence what Reformation we have made. I never knew before , that our Dihenters thought the Mafs-book as Ancient as St. Bafil and St. Chryfcflom, or that they liked our Common- Prayer-Book ever the worfe, becaufe it came in with the Reformation of Religion, and has been altered fince feveral times for the better; whereas their complaint is, that it is not yet altered enough. Much lefs are they fcandalized at the Thankfgiving for difcovery of the Plot, how great a Chimera loever it be. Nor is there any difpute, that I know Of, between the Diflenters and us about the Power of Abfolu- tion , or the Minifterial power of forgiving Sin. They and we agree, that Chrift has left fuch a Power in the Church, of remitting and retaining Sins, of receiving in, and putting out of the Church, which is the flate of Pardon and Forgivenefs ,• and we both deny, that this is abfolute and judicial, or not only Minifterial. They know we oppofe the pretence of a Judicial Power to forgive Sins in the Church of Rome> which we fay is referved for the great Judg of the World ; and it is very ftrange, they fhould peremptorily charge us with giving the Power of God to forgive Sins, to men, and yet at the fame time accufe us of not agreeing what "this power of Abfolution is. Tho our Accommodator may make bold fometimes to contradict himfelf, yet I doubt the Diflenters will thaikthemfelves mifreprefented by fuch contradictions. But did ever any Diflenter charge us with encou- raging a Death-bed Repentance, for not obliging D z men ( *<>) men to Confeflion and Penance ( which he calls to Confefs and Repent ) in the time of their Health .* We teach men to confefs their Sins to God, and to men too when there is occafion for it, either to re- concile themfelves to their Brother, or to receive Ghoftly comfort and advice ; and we teach them to Repent of their Sins, and reform them in time of Health, and mow them what great danger there is in a Death-bed Repentance, and how Very feldom it proves true ,• which is no great encouragement to fuch delays. But how the Diflenters, who reject Confeflion to a Pried, and the Popifti Sacrament of Penance , themfelves , fhould quarrel with us for doing fo, is fomewhat flrange. But we pretend to a power of giving Absolution, and never enjoy n it. but in the lafl agony, which ( he P. 2C. lays ) is argument enough to conclude, there sm obli- gation of Repenting amongfl us, till death looks us in the face. But he has not improved this Argument fo well as he might ; for Absolution is never enjoin- ed, not fo much as in the hour of Death ; ( for we are only required to give Abfolution, in cafe the Pe- nitent earneftly defire it) and therefore, according to his reafoning, it follows, that we think Repentance never necenary , not fo much as in the hour of Death. But other men, who have common under* Handing, would hence conclude, that we make a great difference between the Sinners Repentance, and the Priefts Abfolution,- that the firft is always neceflary, the other only in cafe of Church Cen- fures, or to give relief to afflicted Confciences, or to difmifs penitent finners in the peace of the Church. Do ( 21 ) Do not Diflenters themfelves allow converted" Priefls, who are under the vow of Continency, to Marry, if they cannot preferve their Chaftity with- out it ? And has not our Accomodator then, put a wife Obje&ion into their Mouths againft the Church of England', which, if it be any Objection, returns upon themfelves > Neither they nor we pre- tend to difpence with Vows made to God ,• but we think no Vow can oblige men to Sin ,• and fince all men have not the gift of Continency, as our Savi- our fays, If fuch Perfons are enfnared in a ram Vow, f it may be, while they were Children, or before they understood their own Temper and Complexi- on) fince we cannot think the Fornication of Priefts a more holy State than Marriage, we think it more juftifyable to repent of a ralh Vow , than to live in a conftant flate of Temptation and Sin. It is likely enough, as he fays, that Diflenters may complain of Perfecution, tho they themfelves have been declared Enemies to an unlimited Tole- ration ; and it will be hard to find a medium between a general Liberty of Confcience, and thofe reftraints which are laid on Diflenters. But it mull be confidered, whether the Church or the State be chargeable with this. The feveral Laws which have been made againft Diflenters, have been more for the fecurity of the State, than of the Church ; have been occafioned by a reftlefs humour which has threatned the publick Peace ; and have been rarely executed but at the inflance of Civil Authority, to provide for the fecurity of the State ; and I fuppofe he will not parallel this with fome other Perfecutions. But to make the Diflenters ( ** ) ?iflenters quarrel at the Afliftance given to the ow-Countries, and proffered to the French in their Rebellion , and the hard ufage of the Queen of Scots, and the late Murder of Charles I. argues, he matters not much what he fays ; and to charge thefe Intrigues of State upon the Church of England js to forget that he is in England ( and not at Rome ) where Kings make Peace and War, not the Pope with his Council of Cardinals. And yet our Accommodator has kept the fweet- efl bit for the lad. For he brings in the Diflenter accufing the Church of England, for giving every man a liberty of Judging, and yet requiring Obe- dience to her own Conftitutions, which the mean- eft Sectaries among them challenge and practice ; and it is not very modeftly done of them, to blame that in us , W7hich they do themfelves. They all judg for themfelves, and therefore form Churches and Communions of their own ; and they will not receive any into their Communion, without owning their Faith, and fubmitting to their Order and Di- fcipline ,♦ and this is all that the Church of England challenges , only with this difference , that being eftablifhed by Law, her Communion and Govern- ment is enforced by Laws. And what a mighty Abfurdity and Contradiction is this , that men ihould be taught to u/e their own Reafon and Judg- ment in Religion, and yet required to fubmit and conform to a Church, whofe Faith and Worihip is confonant both to Scripture and Reafon. Well, but after all this Liberty granted by the Church of England, Whofoever will follow her, mufl jhut his Eyes, flifle his Reafon, and be led only by the ( *3 ) the "Nofe. Why ! What's the matter now ? The charge is no more but this, That in matters of Or- der and Decency; and fuch things as are left to the Determination of Church Governours , as are neither forbid nor commanded by God, we mufl fubmit to the Determinations of Authority, what- ever private Judgement or Opinion we may have of things. A great fault this + that tho every man mufl judge for himfelf in good and evil , yet every private mans Judgement mufl be over-ruled by the publick Judgment in matters of Order and external circumftances of Religion. Much of the fame nature , is his concluding P. 3 1, Charge, That we are a wavering and unfet led Churchy fubjetl to continual Variations , becaufe fome Rites and Ceremonies formerly ufed, are now laid afide ; And what then ? Does the fettlement of the Church confifl in external Ceremonies > Is it any fault in a Church , which challenges to her felfa Power to appoint, and conflitute, and alter external Rites,to exercife this Power as She fhall think mofl for the Edification of the Church, which is the only Rule of right and wrong in this Cafe, which may there- fore change with the Change and Alteration of times and Perfons, and other external circumftances of Affairs ? Now let every man judg,whether there were ever fuch a Speech made for aDiflenterbefore,which in every Point of it is directly contrary to his own Profefiion and Practice : It is time for our Author to have done with his Trade of Reprefenting , for no man would know what it was he Reprelented , did he not ta ke care with the unskilful Painter to write ( **) write over his uncouth Figures , what they are ; This is an Horfe, and this an Afs. And thus this hopeful defign of Reprefenting and Mifreprefenting, ends only in ridiculing the Church of England-, a Liberty, which if we needed it, is not mannerly for us to ufe at this time ; but we are contented they fliould' ridicule our Church , if they will permit us truly to Reprefent theirs. But to proceed, Our Accommodator grants that he is ftiil in Arrears ; and certainly, never any Bank- p . . rupt paid lefs in the Pound than he offers ; and this ' is his Accommodating, which Merchants call Com- pounding. In my Anfwer to his Reflections , I proved, that what he calls the Character of a Papift Mifrepre- fented, has nothing of Mifreprefentation in it proper- ly fo called ; for there was no matter of Fad: unre- ported ,• in his Anfwer, which he calls, Papift s pro- te fling againft Proteftant Popery , inftead of juftify- ing his Character , he feeks out for new Mifrepre- fentations ; this in my lafl Anfwer, I enquired the reafon of, Why , inftead of juftifying his own Mifre- prefentations, , which he had fo unjuftly fathered upon us, he fhould hunt about to pick up fome new Mifre- prefentations for me to Anfwer. And the Reafon he now afligns for it, is , Becaufe I had little to fay a* gainfl the former, except that they were not to be cal- led Mifreprefentations in a ftricl Senfe. Now, the lefs I had to lay, it was the more eafily anfwered, tho I know not what more need to be anfwered to the charge of Mifreprefenting, than to prove that it is falfe. But he fays, he fathered his Mifreprefentations on no Body ; and fo much the worfe for that, for a general charge includes every Body. And C*5 ) And yet he was as unfortunate in his new Mif- reprefentations, as in his old ones. He brings in the Arch-Bifhop of Tor k for a Mifreprefenter,where- as the Mifreprefentations he Tranfcribes out of the Arch-Bifliop, the Arch-Biiliop cites out of Popifh Authors, and names the Authors where they are to be found ,* but the Protefter to make a Mifre- prefenter of him, conceals all thefe Authorities, and fets down the Words as the Bifhops ownjand this he did only to confult the Credit of the Prelate : In what P. 3 ^ Sir ? That he might have the entire Glory of being a Mifreprefenter,without being thought to (leal out of Popifli Authors. But he faies, The Bifhop is ftill a Mifreprefenter , in charging thefe fayings of private Doctors upon the Church ; But where does he do that? Yes, He faies, He ( that is , the Papifi ) mufl helieve ; but does he fay, The Church fays thus, or only Staple- ton ? Stapleton might be a Mifreprefenter, in deli- vering this as the Faith of the Church^te we mufl fimply believe the Church of Rome, whether it teach true orfalfe ; but the Arch-Biihop does not Mifre- prefent the Church in faying , that Stapleton faies fo. What is the Authority of private Doctors , is not the Difpute ,• but, whether Proteftants be Mif- reprefenters for faying , That fuch Doctrines are taught by fuch Doctors of the Church of Rome. The Cafe of Mr. Sutclijf (another of his Mifre- prefenters ) is fomewhat different. For,befides what he cites from their own Authors , which is fet down by the Protefter without taking notice that he quotes his Authors for it; he many times charges them with the Concequences of their Doctrines E and ( »o and Pra&ices ; not that he charges them with own- ing fuch Confequences,but proves fuch Doctrines on them, from what they do profefs and own ; and fuch fayings as thefe the Protefler fets down as charged on the Church of Rome in the firft in- flance, as her avowed Doctrine : When Mr. Sut- cliff only alledges them, as the juft interpretations and Confequences of her Dodrine, which differ jufl as much as Mifreprefenting and Difputing ; as fay- ing what a Church profefles to believe , and what the confequence of fuch a Faith is. As to fhow this by an inftance or two : The Protefler fets thefe Pro- portions down as Mr. Sutcliffs Mifreprefentations. That Papifts fpeak what they can in difgrace of the Holy Scriptures ; That they give the Office of Chrifls Mediation to the Virgin Mary , to Angels , and to Saints ; That by the Doclrine of Papifts, the Devils in Hell may be faved. Now indeed, had he faid , That the Papifts teach this in exprefs Words , he had been a Mifreprefenter in a proper Senfe , for they teach no fuch thing ; but Mr. Sutcliff never charges thefe Doctrines Directly upon them , but faies, That they fay, the Scriptures are obfcure and hard to be underftood ; and this is , to fpeak in dif- grace of the Holy Scriptures. That they teach, that By the merits of Saints, Chriflians obtain their de fires, and art delivered out of Purgatory. And this is to give the Office of Chrifls Mediation to the Virgin Mary , and to Saints. That they teach, that the Devils in Hell may have true Faith ; and yet cur Saviour faith , Whofoever believe th in him , fhall not perifh, but have everlafling life : So it follows by the Dotlrines of Pa- pifls, That the Heprobrates and Devils in Hell may ie ( 27 ; h faved. So that he exprefly diftlnguiihes between what the Papifts teach, and what himfelf concludes from fuch Doctrines, and therefore he does not Mif- reprefent the Papifts ; for he charges them with owning no Doctrines but what they do own ; but if he be guilty of any fault,it is in reafoning and Difpu- ting ; and there is no way that I know of, to con- fute fuch Confequences,but by Reafon and Difpute ; the very Name of which is very uneafie to the Re- prefenter, and there is good reafon why it mould befo. And this I fuppofe may fatisfie the Accommoda- tor, Why I charged him with fetting down thefe fayings of Mr. Sutcliff , feperated from the Reafons of them ; for how little foever he may think himfelf concerned in his Reafons, yet it is of great Confe- quence in the matter of Reprefenting, to diftin- guifh between the Doctrines of Papifts, and what is charged on them, only , as the Confequence of their Doctrines. To charge them with teaching fuch Doctrines as they do not teach, is Mifreprefenting ; and therefore, had thele fayings, which he Tran- fcribed out of Mr. Sutcliffy been charged upon the Papifts as their fayings, it had been Mifreprefenting ; and this was the defign of the Protefter in quoting thefe fayings, without giving an account upon what occafion they were faid, to perfwade his Readers, that Mr. Sutcliff had directly and immediately charged thefe Doctrines upo n Papifts as exprefly taught by them, and then he had been a Mifrepre- fenter indeed. But fince it is otherwife, it is piain, Mr. Sutcliff was Mifreprefented by the Protefter, but he did not Mifreprefent Papifts, as that fignifies E 2 charging (28) charging them immediately with fuch Do&rines as they do not own. In the next place he charges me with tranflating P. 3 7. difhoneftly, for not rendring propter Deum , or for Gods fake, in Englijb, in the torm of confecrating the Crofs. Now I confefs, why this was not tran- flated I cannot tell, and knew nothing of it> till I was informed by him ; Jiad it been in a difpute about the nature and reafon of that worfhip which they pay to the Crofs, thefe words had been very confiderable • but it relating only to the manner of confecrating the Crofs, they fignified nothing, as any one will fee , who confults the place. Efpeci- ally confidering, that the whole defign of that Dif- courfe about the Worfhip of Images (_ againft which he has not one word to object, but this Omiflion ) was to fhow the evil of Image-worihip, tho they gave no Worfhip to the material Image, but only worfhipped God or Chrifl,or the Saints by Images,* and therefore I had' no occafion at all to conceal the Englifh of propter Deum. In my Anfwer to ? apt ft s protefling againft Prote- ftant-Popery, I took occafion to examine the Bifhop of Condoms Expofition in two very concerning R 3 3. Points, "viz. The Invocation of Saint j, and Worjhip of Images ; our Accomodator, it feems , could fee no reafon why he fhould engage in this Difpute, and therefore thinks it fufficient to fhow, that my Reafons for this Difpute are not cogent, and he names two, fuch as they are ,• 1. That / know no reafon for all this Difpute. But this faying related to the Difpute about the Bilhop of Condo-ms Authority, not about his Expofition of the Catholick Faith. 2. His ( *9 ) a. His fecond Reafon is like thefirft ; Becaufe Ifaid, He was not fatisfied with my bare telling him, That I was not fatisfied with his Religion ; and therefore novo I would give him my Reafons for it ; which he huffs at, and fays, be was never concerned with my not liking his Religion. What pretty Reafons will ferve to ex- cufe a Man from Anfwering a Difcourfe which he knows he cannot anfwer ! The plain cafe is this, The Reprefenter made his Appeals, and put great confidence in the Bifhop of Condoms Authority, whole bufinefs is to put the fofteft fenfe he can upon the Doctrines of the Coun- cil of Trent ; and fuch Interpretations of the Catho- lick Faith, as have been condemned by other very Catholick Do&ors. In my Reply to the Reflections, I confidered what this Bifhops Authority is ; and in my laft Anfwer I examined what the Protefter had returned in the defence of it , which our Accom- modator now fays not one word to : But yet I told him, I knew no reafon for this difpute, Whether the B;fhop of Condoms Expofition were to be the ftan- dard of the Roman Catholick Faith ; for if we mould allow this, yet Popery is a very corrupt Religion, tho the Bifhop of Condom were the Authentick Ex- pofitor of it. And to fhow that it is fo, I undertook to examine that Bifhops Expofition in thofe two great Articles of the Romifh Faith , the Invocation of Saint s, and Worfhip of Images ; and how this fhould be a Reafon for our Accommodator to take no no- tice of it, I cannot imagine : Had he any zeal for his Religion , and could have anfwered that Dif- courfe, I believe all that I could have faid would not have hindred him. To (3o) To conclude this whole matter, He peremptorily adheres to his firft Title of a Reprefentery and de- clines all manner of deputation, tho in vindication of the Bifhop of Condoms Expofition, to which he fo often Appeals. The only point he Hicks to is, That to affent to the Catholick Faith, as expounded in his Character , and by the Bifhop of Condom, is fuf- ficient for any Man to be received into the Communion of the Church of Rome. But both he and the Bifhop of Condom do not meerly Reprefent, but Reafon and Argue alfo ; and I mould have thought they had been a little concerned to juftifie their own Repre- fentations and Reafonings. But whether this Rea- foning and Difputing were agreeable to his defign or not, it was very neceflary to ours. For when they endeavour to foften the Doctrines of their Church and to abate a great deal of Bellarmins Popery, to reconcile our people to them ; it is neceflary for us to warn them of the fnare, and to fhow them what an ill thing Popery is in its befl drefs ; and therefore I as little defire thathe mould anfwer what I have faid to this purpofe, as he cares for doing it : I never writ a Book with a defire to have it anfwered ,* but to inform thofe, who otherwife might be impofe d on. And I fuppofe our people will think never the worfe of any Book, becaufe Papifls decline the di. fpute, who were never known to avoid Difputing when they thought they could get any thing by it. And thus I take a fair leave of the Reprefenter ; for this matter, I think, is driven as far as it will go : We have by his own confeflion , cleared our lelves from being Mifreprefenters in the true and proper fenfe of the Word ; for we have not falfly charged (3i ) charged them with any Doctrines and PradHfes dis- owned by their Church ; and as for their Char after of a Papift Reprefented, tho' it falls very fhort of what fome great Divines among them, of equal Authority with the Bilhop of Condom, have thought to be the Doctrine of the Council of Trent ; yet we are willing to joyn blue with them upon their own terms, and to fhew them our Reafons, why we cannot comply with this refined and new-modelled Popery. But this is to difpute, and that does not agree with a Reprefenter, whofe bufmefs is to make Charatters without any concern to defend them : And I am not fo fond of difputing, as to difpute with him whether he will or no. FINIS, \ REPL TO THE ANSWER OF THE amicable $t commofcattom BEING A Fourth Vindication of the Papifi Mif~ repnfented and Keprefmtedx IN Which are more particularly laid open fome of the Principal Methods, by which the Papijls are Mif- reprefented by Proteftants in their Books and Sermons. y public cd fottfj allowance LONDON, Printed by Henry Hills, Printer to the Kings Mod Excellent Ma- jefty for his Houfhold and Chappel. 1686. 4 V W 8 tf A ■ ■ ■ R E P t Y T O T H E ANSWER O F T H E Amicable Accommodation. H E Anfwerer in his laft feems to take his leave of me; And thus (fays he, t P* 3°' ) I take a fair leave of the Repre- fenter. But me- thinks, if he be not gone too far, I would fain have a word or two with him before we part. And 'tis chiefly in civility to ask him, How he does ? For throughout his laft Reply, he feems fick of Anfwering, having faid but very little throughout the whole ; and yet afTuring his Reader, he has driven the matter as far as it will go, ( p. ib.) Well, and is there no more then to be faid, to that manifold Charge fumm'd up againft the Church of England in my laft Difcourfe? Is that matter driven as far as it will go ? I there drew out B a 2 A Reply to the Answer of a Chara&er of the Church of England, as lying under the fame Charge of Scandals, Innovation , and Idolatry from a Dijfenter, as the Church of Rome does generally from Protejlants : And aimed every Point urg'd with the fame Proofs of Scripture and Reajon, which Proteftants produce againd |fce Papifls. And all this he partes over with a light touch, and the mod artificial way of An- fwering with faying nothing, as can poflibly be met} with. And firft, tho* amongd the many Divifions of Dijfen- ters, there are feveral, from whom the whole Charge might forcibly be urg'd, as the Rigid Anabaptifls, the Quakers^ ®c. yet becaufe this would oblige him to anfwer all the Arguments, and to mew, they are not of equal force againd the Church of England, as againd the Papijls ; he upon good confideration, takes it as fpoken from fuch a kind of DifTenter, which agreeing in many of the Points with the Church of England, cannot reafonably bethought to urge them againd her. And fo indead of "giving them any farther Anfwer, he comes off with, The Dijfenters did never charge the Church of England with this. 7 he Dijfenters do the fame themfelves. There is no Difpute be- tween the Dijfenters and Vs, about that. Did ever the Dij- fenters charge us with this ? And fo lets them drop without any farther Reply, tho* dill danding in their full force againd the Church of England, from mod other DiiTen- ters, excepting thofe he has pick'd out for better Expedi- tion. Thus he gives the goe-by to the greated part of the Indarlces. And for fuch other. Arguments, as are there prefs'd againd the Church of England, and that equally from all forts of Diflentersy thofe, he prudently fays no- Anfiv. to thing to ; In obfervance I fuppofe of a Rule he had laid Tap. pro- down before in a former Difcourfe, viz. The Greatejl Wits eJ - taK' can fa m more than the Caufe will bear ; tho7 a little Pru- dence the Amicable Accommodation. 3 deuce would teach ME to fay NOTHING in fetch a Caufe, as will admit of no better a Defence. And there- fore he fays not one Word in Vindication of his Top'tfh Pre- lates^ of their Mitres and Crofiers, not a Word of pray- ing to be defended by the Angels : Nothing of their calling upon the Birds, the Beafls and Fifhes ; of their crying out to Dead Men, in their mod Solemn Devotions ; of infert- ing the Apocrypha into their Liturgy ; of their not wear- ing th£ Rochet, the Albe and Tunicle ; of their prefcribing Fajls, and not keeping them ; of their formerly Praying for the Dead, &c. Not one word to all his own Reafons , which in his Difcourfes againft me he has formerly ad- vanc'd to prove us Superftitious and Idolaters ; and yet there pre/ling with the fame weight againft himfelf and his own Church. And yet he's taking his leave on me, becaufe the matter is driven as far as it will go. And is it poffible then, that the Difputing Humour is fo foon off? We have heard of nothing hitherto fo much, as of Difputing, and Defending, and Juflifying your Rea- finings ; of thefe repeated Challenges to the Reprefenter, We II Difpute it when you will: And now, as far as I fee, when the Anfwerer is put to defend his own Church, and juftifle his own Reajonings, he's as cool, and as unwilling to difpute as the Reprefenter. No, We are not, fays he, a r t for purfuing every new Game, but will keep to our old Scent. J \c_ Could any thing poflibly be faid, more cooly than this? c0M,p,i6. Here's not a word now of Difputing or Juflifying ; if his Reafonings be (hewn to fly in his own face, as much as againft his Adverfary, he's well enough content to hear it, with fcarce a word of Reply ; becaufe he's refolv'd to keep to his old Scent. And re not this fomething ftrange now, that He that mould draw me out to difpute over the Bifhop of Meaux's Exposition, and run over the whole body of Controverfie, as to matter of Right, or de Jure, when I undertook for no more than to declare what our Church B 2 holds 4 A Reply to the Anfaer of holds as to Matter of Facl ; and would not take my wa* ving it without many a Flint and a Jeer : Now when it comes to his own turn of Difputing and Defending his own Reafonings, in a Cafe diretlly appertaining to our main Point of Reprejenting, lets the matter fall very cautioufly, and will fcarce touch at it forfooth, becaufe he'll keep to his old Scent. So that tho' he's for beating up for me, as many new Games as he can poflibly find, for my diversion ; for his part, he'll not follow the old one, unlefs the fcent be very agreeable, which truly 'tis not when it comes to prefs him to the (landing his Ground, and juftifying his ownCaufe. I muft pardon him therefore, it feems, as to this. But however, tho' he will not offer any defence againft a Character,which feems to reflect upon his own Church , yet he'll endeavour to prevent all mifunderflanding betwixt Her and the DiiTenters, that might poflibly be occafion'd by fuch a Character. And becaufe he finds it much eafier to work upon their Affections by Fawning, than to<:on- r vince their Judgments by Reafoning;. He firfl tells them Am Ac- ^0W ^'fe *key are» anc* ^0W CautI0HS 5 nav> novv much com.p.16. Wifer they are grown now of late; and he hopes, they will grow wifer and wifer every day : Efpecially fo as not to lb. fufpect Them or their Church of any Inclinations to Po- pery. For whatever they have formerly fuf peeled I be' lieve ^fays he) they will call it Popifh and Antichriflian no longer. And here he gives them a Reafon or two, with which if they are not mov'd, they are much to biame. For he tells them, in how many things the Church of Eng- land agrees with the Diffenters* And firfl, as for their calling their Churches by Saints**Na.mes, that's much the ftme with what the DiiTtnters did themfelves; and tho' **&• l7* they give them the Titles of Saints, yet he hopes theDif- fentus are not fo filly, as to think this to be any more than for Difiintlion. Then as to the Power of Abfilntion, there's no the Amicable Accommodation. 5 no difpute between Vs and the Diffenters : They and We agree, fays he; fo that whatfoever the Common- Prayer- ?a&' l9- Book delivers, of the Prieft abfolving the Sinner, yet he alTures them, there's nothing meant by this, but only what the Diffenters teach themfelves, that is, to give Re- lief to affiitled Confciences, &c. So again as to a vow of Fag. 21. Chaftity ; he and the Diffenters agree, that 'tis lawful to repent of it, and marry ; 'tis prefently a ralh Vow, if the Temptation be but urging. But then as to the bufinefs of Pictures in Bibles, and Images of Mofes and Aaron, &c. in Churches, there he curries with them clofely, and afTures ?a£- 1?» them, that however thefe Piftures are in their Bibles, Prin- ted by Authority, Printed at the Univerfity ; tho' Mofes and Aaron (land in moft of the Churches, have Place next to the Commandments, are above the Communion-Table ; yet that all this is nothing but the Extravagancy of Pain- ters and Printers, a very late Invention, and a fecret de- fign of Papifts, to reconcile the People by degrees to the ufe of Piclures and Images. Now I defle any man to bid fairer for the good Opinion of the Diffenters , than my Adverfary has here done; who, for fear they mould receive any ill impreflion in relation to his Church, from my Character, which is little more than in jeft, throws theie fcandals upon her in good earned; being refolv'd, that if his Church be to»be fcandaliz'd, he'll have the doing it himfelf. But for the winning of the DilTenters, he goes on, and tells them; Al tho* they have been Perfecuted, that dill they are not to complain of his Church : For that 'tis not fo much the Church has done this, as the State-) to fecure it felf trom their Reftlefs Humour, which has threitned the Pub- p lick Peace. Now, how far this will agree with them I can't teil:But I am apt to beheve,that if the DifTenters once reflect, how much more quiet they haveenjoy'd, fince his Church's Power have been fomething check'd, than before, they'l have 6 A Reply to the Anfwer of have fome Reafon to fufpect, that in their former Suffer- ings, the Church has had the greateft fliare ; efpecially fince at this prefent the State is as fecure without thole Perfections as ever, which is an Argument, it does not {land much in need of 'em. But I difpute not this mat- ter, let them agree as well as they can; the bufinefs only is, to put the Saddle upon the right Horfe. ?ag.i6. Another Reafon he lays down before, by way of Pre- vention : And 'tis that however the Church of England, ' as it is reprefented in my Character, may bear fome re* femblance with Antichrift ; yet he's confident the Diflen- ters will hence receive no prejudice, nor entertain any worfe opinion of Her upon this fcore ; becaufe They are too Wije and Cautious to take Characters from open and pro- fefsd Enemies. Now if this be true, and fufrlcient reafon for his preemption, that the Diffenters are fo Wife ; I would fain know, how Wife he thinks his own Congrega- tions to be, that is, fuch as go to Church ; who have been receiving Characters of Popery thefe hundred and Fifty years, from the Open and Prof efs'd Enemies of the Papifis; 'tis a Mercy they are not fo Wife and Cautious as . his Diffenters y otherwife the Pulpits might e'en have been filent, as to any thing touching Popery ; fince holding forth againft fuch as they have P rote/led againit, and own'd themfelves'Profefs'd Enemies to,they could have de- ferv'd no credit in their Characters. But 'tis well the Dif- fenters are fo Wife ; and from henceforward 'tis to be re- membred, that whofoever undertakes to give a Character of his declared and open Enemies , and expects to be credited by his Flock, muft needs think them not fo Wife as they fhou'd be. Tag. 1 7. But here agen he comes over me with the Whip in hand, and having affur'd his Diffenters, that I have abus'd them, in Fathering upon them fo foul a Character of the Church of England ; he tells his Reader, that the Run of the Cha- racter the Amicable Accommodation. racter is exactly to the tune of the Quakers, vvhofe Cant the Author (as he fays) is as well acquainted with, as if he had been either their Mafier or Scholar. And if this be fo,I mud confefs it a very ftrange Providence, as having never heard twenty words from them in my Life, as I can remem- ber. All the Harangues and Pulpits, I have been ever ac- quainted with here in England, (excepting fome few of the Catholicks pf late) have been thofe of the Church of England; and if I have learn'd any Can- ting, it mull have been , not from the Quakers , but from them. The truth oft is, in the drawing up that Character, I took no other model, but that of the Church of England againft the Tapifis. There is fcarce an Argu- ment in the Character, but exactly Parallel to what the Church of England ufes in her Defence againft Popery ; the grounds of the Arguments are the fame ; the manner of urging them the fame, the Maxims, on which they ftand, the fame ; and then the Reafons, which prefs them home, are they not the very fame, which the Anfwerer himfelf in his former Difcouries urges againft me ? I wonder then, how this comes to be a Quakers Cant ? 'Tis ftrange men mould know their own Picture no better; and that when they fee a Copy of what they do, and fay themfelves, in the moil ferious concern, it mould appear to them fo unlike the Original : that what in themfelves they deem Reafonable and Juft, being fhewn them in a Reflection or Emblem, mould feem nothing but Spiteful and Silly; as the Anfwerer fays this do's, (p. 1 7.) This is juft as it hap- pens with little Children, who when they are ihewn what Wry Faces they make, and how Scowling looks, will not eafily believe they make fo Vgly. Wei!, but now the Anfwerer has confider'd the whole Character, and begins to think at laft, that in it I have ri- dicui'd the Church of England. And thus (fays he") this hopeful 8 A Reply to the Anfwer of hopeful defign of Reprefenting and Mifreprefenting, ends only Tag. i\.in ridiculing the Church of England; a Liberty, which if we needed it, is not mannerly for us to ufe at THIS TIME. But wherein have I ridicul'd the Church of England > I have done no more in my Character againft Her, than what they have been doing thefe Hundred and Fifty Years againft the Church of Rome ; only what I have done in a kind of Jefl, and without endeavouring to delude any body with fuch kind of Sophiftry, They have been doing in the greateft earneft, and by it making good their Caufe. And as tor the mannerly and at this time^ were there any ridiculing in my Cafe ; is it not ftill as little manners to ri- dicule at this time the Religion of the Prince^ as the Re- ligion of the Subjetl ? But I leave to the Ingenious and Impartial Reader to examine this affair of the Mannerly and This Time; Tie not judge , neither for my felf, nor him. _ But however, notwithftanding this little difpleafure of a£- M- mv Anfwerer, it clears up agen with him, he pardons all frankly, and we are contented (fays he) they fhould ridicule our Church, if they will permit us truly to Reprefent theirs. Here now we have a liberty granted of Ridiculing, which I refolve never to make ufeof,unlefs it be to (hew, how They ridicule the Church of Rome-. But inftead of returning my thanks for this favour, Iame'n refolved to beg another; and 'tis, that the Anfwerer will be pleafed not to take that for Ridtculinginus, which in them he calls truly Re- 'prefenting : This would be a very Signal Favour indeed,if it could beobtain'd ; but Ialmoft defpair. For by all that I can difcover in their truly Reprefenting, 'tis fo unlike what he calls it, that nothing can be more undefervingthat Name. For let but an exacl: Copy be taken of what they do to the Papifls, when they truly Reprefent them, as they call it, with all its methods and circumftances ; let the fame mealures they ufe to them, be applied to any other Body the Amicable Accommodation. Body or Society, even to their own Church of England, and if it do's not appear to be down right Mifreprefenting and Rid/culing^aHesid of truly Reprefenting, Tie e'en throw up the Caufe, and grant the Paptfls to be as Black as they make them. This appears fomething already in the Cha- racter now examin'd, which he owns to be Ridiculing, tho* it be nothing but what they do to the Church of Rome, and there call it Truly Reprefenting. But this 1 fliall more clearly evince afterwards, when I have examin'd fome other Parts of the Anfwer, where I mall have occa- fion of playing him the fame Tune over agen, a litle more diftin&ly , without any Ridiculing, but in very good earned. But flrft I muft confider how he receives the Curtefie I did him in my laft Reply. I muft confefs, I could not but be concern'd , to fee my Anfwerer turning and wind- ing it, flrft through tedious Ten Sheets, and foon after through other Nine , and all to prove that the Word Mijreprefented in the Title of my Book, was not to be ta- ken in its Proper Senfe. This to me was an ObjecT: of Companion ; and therefore to fave him any farther Swear, I thought fit to yield to his Pretentions, and give into his hands the full grafp of all that he had juft before fo earneftly contended for. And fee now, how ill ufe he makes of this favour. For having fo far complied with him, that the Word Mifreprefented in the Title of my Book, is not to be taken in its Stritt and Proper Senfe ; he would now willingly impofe upon his Reader and Me, and perfwade the World, as if I own the P rote (l ants not to charge falfly any Do- clrins or Practices on the Church of Rome, which ihe dif- owns : and that they do not teach their Flock, that the Church of Rome believes or practices, other wife than She does. C This, io A Reply to the Anfwer of Anfw. This, fays he, at /aft, if I under ft and him , he confcftes. f. 4.7.8. is not this ftretching a Curtefie with a witnefs, and Mif- 3°- & reprefenting the Reprefenter. j0. I yielded to him indeed, for Peace fake, that the Title Accom. °* zPapift Mifreprefented is not to be taken in its ft rift c. 6. and proper Senfe, as Mifreprefent ingftgniftes ONLT down- right Lying or falfly charging matter oj Facl, the WHOLE Charatler being not oj that nature. And this with our Anfwerer is the fame as to confefs, That Proteflants do not charge the Church of Rome with any Doclrins or Practices which She does not own. So that it feems, becaufe the Character of a Papift Mifreprefented 'is not wholly made up of matters of Doctrin and Practices falfly charg'd upon the Papifls; Therefore, as our Anjwerer will have it) it contains nothing at all, wrongfully charg'd upon them ; . r and Proteftants do not in any thing Mifreprefent the «■ »/M-Qlurcn 0j Rome^ And this he would have me plainly confefs. But I muft beg his pardon for this ; I do not fee he has xnade fo good ufe of the laft favour I did him, as to accomo- date away my Senfes and Reafon, to do him another. No, Tranfuhftantiation is not half fo difagreeable to P rot eft ant- Senfes, as this is to mine. I could as eafily confefs, that Proteftants do not at ail Write or Preach againfl: Papiftsy as that they do not Mifreprefent them. And for the truth of this Caufe, I dare (land to the Verdict even of a Prote- Jlant Jury. Tie give the Anfwerer choice-room enough ; Let him pick out of all England, Twelve fuch Men who underfland the Belief and Dodnn of Papifls, all Good Men and True; and if they (hall, upon examination, give in ; That they know all to he true, which they have heard from Proteftant Pulpits and Books concerning the Papifls ; Tie then yield up the Caufe, and fit down contented with the brand of a Mifrcprefcnter. Nay, I dare put it to a far- ther lffuc; If they do not own, they have heard and read feveral the Amicable Accommodation. 1 1 feveral things charg'd upon the Papifts, which they know to be falfe, Tie fubmit to the Anfwerer ; and be oblig'd never more to difturb him with the Talk of Mifrepre- Jeming. But before we advance too far in this matter, let's fee firft, how it {lands with the Charatter of a Papifi Mif- reprefented ; and examine, whether there be nothing there Jaljly laid at the Papift's door, enough for the Book to de- ferve fuch a Title : And whether the fathering on them fuchDoclrins as are there contain'd, and found in Prote- ftant Authors, be not affirming more than is True, and charging on them Doclrins and Practices, fuch as they and the Church of Rome difown. And firft, what do's he think of Fraying to Images, a£ ferted as a Practice of the Papifts, in the firft Chap, of the Papifi Mifreprefented > Is not this imputing more to the Papifts, than they either teach, practice, or maintain? Do they believe their Sins to be infallibly remitted upon Ah- jolation, whether they refolve upon amendment or no? And yet this is laid to them Chap. 7. Do they believe the Pope can give them leave for a Sum of Money, to com- mit what Sins they pleafe? And yet this is reported as their Doctrin, Chap. 8. Is it absolutely true, that they are never permitted to know their Commandments but by halves ? Is it their Doctrin, prefumptuoufly to rely on a Death-bed Repentance? Are their Sermons in Latin ; or do they teach in Unknown Tongues ? Is it true, that they Fir'd the City ? Is he lure they Kill'd Sir Edmondbury God- freyl Or will he put in for an Evidence, to Swear the Truth of the Damnable, HellifhPopiih-Plot? And yet all thefe things, and more ftand charg'd upon the Papifts, in the Character of a Papifi Mijreprefented. Why then mould the Anfwerer thus quarrel with this Title ^ as if the Papifts had no wrong done them in fuch a Description ? I know it is the Interelt of fuch ill men, as have run down C z the 12 A Reply to the Anfwer of the Papifts withthefe Charges and Accufations, and pafs'd them upon the People for Gofpel, to have them {till repu- ted as Truths; left the falfity of them being once con- fefs'd, they themfelves mould appear the Deceivers. But however they may be willing to purfue fuch Unchriftian methods, to fave their own Reputation ; 'tis not for us to own the Belief of fuch Doctrins, which we acknowledge to be Injurious to Chrift, nor to maintain fuch Practices, which would be a Scandal even amongft thofe, who know not God. And therefore becaufe the Character of a Papifl Mifreprefented, contains fuch Doctrins and Practices,which Catholicks neither own, teach nor believe ; nay fuch as they abominate and detefl, and are ready to lay down their lives, rather than embrace or approve; fuch a Character of zPapijl, is nothing lefs than a Falfe Character, a Mi/re- prefenting Character, and fit only for the ufe of thofe,who have a mind to difpofe their Followers into a temper of giving a better welcome to Turks, Atheijls and Jews, than to Papifts. 1 know 'tis thought neceffary for the Eftablifhment and Security of the Proteftant Religion j that the People ihould be Preach'd into a dread of Popery : but let it be fo ; is it a Chriftian method to make ufe of Artifices to encreafe the horror ? Why ihould every thing the Papifts do, be ftretch'd and ftrain'd, and fore'd, to make it ugly ? Why ihould the word be made of all that belongs to them ? 'Tis true, this is proper enough to win upon the Mobile, who make no diftinction between Real and Artificial Mon* fters; 'tis well enough, where the intereft is beft main- tain'd by the Madnefs of the People. But w here's the Chritlianity all the while, where's Truth and Charity? Why ihould Praying to Images, Leave to Sin for Monejt Forgivenejs without "Repentance. J rafting inaDeath-bed I ord- have-mercy, &c. Why ihould feign d Crimes, and Imagi- nary Contrivances^ &t; be urg'd againft them, to make them the Amicable Accommodation. 1 3 them the Objefl: of hatred and the Subject of a Popular fu- ry ? Why (hould it be pretended, that where thefe things ftand charg'd againft the Papifts,they are not Mifreprefented* I am fure where Proteflantifm is either grounded or confir- med by thus bug-hearing of Popery, 'tis not built upon the Gofpel, nor is its ftrength from the power of Truth ; and the ufing fuch unwarrantable methods, and taking fo much pains for thedrefling it into a Monfter,is argument enough with Confidering Men, to fufpect fomething of the Un- dertakers. The Anfwerer therefore is mightily out, when he fup- pofes it confefs'd by me, that there's no proper Mifrepre- fenting, or falfe charge of Matter of Facl upon the Pa- pifts, in the Character of the Papifi Mifreprefented. I only yield to him, that the Character is not wholly made up indeed of thefe forg'd Accufations, but that 'tis a mixt Character, defcribing the Papifts, as they lie under the falfe Charges, the Calumnies, Reproaches, Mifconftructi- ons, and Miftaken Judgments of their both Malicious9and Ignorant Adverfaries. And therefore I inform'd him, that the Title of the Papifl Mifreprefented was not to be taken Am. Ac- in its JIM and proper fenfe as Mifreprefenting fignifles com.p.6, only down-right lying, or faifly charging matter of Fact : But in its larger, or lefs proper fenfe, as it comprehends both Lying, Calumniating, Mif interpreting, Reproaching^ Mifconfi rating, Mif judging and whatever elfe of this kind. But this condefcendence, which would have oblig'd an Ingenuous Adverfary, has made my Anfwerer fomething peevifh. And therefore now inftead of his old Comple- menting Humour, he's grown very four, he's full of grudges, and fomething feems to grate upon his Stomach. Well, and what's the matter now ? What reafon of this . fo fudden Change? Why, it feems the Reprefenter faid , that the Papifts are (Irangely Mifreprefented; that many matters of Faft are falfly charg'd upon them; that they are. 14 A Reply to the A??fwer of are calumniated, reproach'd, their Doctrin r i'd Practices mif- interpreted, miiconftrued, mifunderfl \jd f&c. as was ihewn in his Character of the Papijl Mijreprcfented : And all this the Anjwerer unhappily takes to himfelf, as if He were the Man accus'd tor doing all this againft the Papifts, as if He and His were Arraign'd of Lying, C alumni at ing% &c. Whenas the Reprefenter fpoke only in general, with- out {o much as hinting upon any Party or Perfon in parti- cular ; and if I may vouch any thing for him,never thought of reflecting upon the Anfwerer, much lefs of giving him the Lie. 'Tis true, the Reprefenter fays, for the running down the Papifts, and Mifreprelenting them, befides their being Calumniated, and their Doctnns mif-interpreted, many Falfities and Lies have been rais'd againft them. But what does this concern the Anfwerer 1 Is this Com- plaint any Accufation againft him ? Suppofe the Repre- fenter had gone a ftep farther, and had laid, that the Pa- pifts have been injur'd by Perjury, Forgery, and Suborna- tion too j would the Anfwerer have thought ftimfelf touch'd in this, and labour'd to clear himfelf? "Tis true, for a Man to be over-eager in quitting himfelf, when the Ac- cufation is only General, is not the beft Argument of his Innocence: But for my part, I never defign'd to accufe the Anjwerer, for I knew not the Man ; neither have I any thing now to fay againft him, as to this Point ; only that his over-folicitude to prove his Innocence, before he was accus'd, will be likely with fome to breed a fufpicion -of Guilt. The Anfwerer therefore muft remember, that the Cha- racter of the Papifl Mifreprefented contains feveral unjuft Charges of Doclrin and Practices, ^tho* it be not wholly made up of thefe ) fuch as the Papifts neither own, nor believe. And that he is over-hafty in perfuading his Reader, that this Point is gain'd, and confefsld by me. No, he muft pardon me for this; Il'e go as far as any Man the Amicable Accommodation. 1 5 Man for an Accommodation, but never fo, as to fubfcribe to a falfity in a Complement. Hitherto as to what concerns the Character : Now we aretoconfider, how true that is, which he fo often re- peats, of the fair dealing of WE in relation to the ?a- pifis. For fome it feems there are, if he fays true, that are {o juft and kind to the Papifts, as not to Mifreprefent them. For throughout the Anfwer we meet with nothing oftner, than WE are not Mifreprefenters- in a ftritt and pa„ ^ proper notion of Mifreprefenting: WE do not charge the ^ot&c. Church of Rome with any matter of Faff, with any Do- clrins or P radices r which fbe does not own. WE charge them with nothing that is falfe. WE do not mif report the 1} oft r ins of their Church. W E do not charge men with faying or doing, what they never faid or did. WE are no Mifreprefenters. And truly I mould be glad to know, who thefe WE are, to return them my thanks for this fo kind Office ; for really, as the World goes, 'tis no fmall favour done to the Papifts, to fay no more of them, than they own and believe themfelves. For my part, did I know the Men, I would never permit them to lie obfeurd, under the General name of WE; no, I would particula- rize them to the World, and hive their Names blazon'd in every Street, upon Pillars erefted to their Memory. For why ? Are not fuch Men Prodigies of Vertue, of Truth, Honefty, and Juftice ? Men that never charg'd the Church of Rome with any matter of Fafif with any Dotlrin or Praftice, which me does not own : Men that never faid the Church of Rome teaches, what ihe does not teach ; that never condemn'd the Papifts for believing, what they do not believe; noraccus'd them of faying or doing.what they never faid or did ; Men that never Mifreprefented the Papifts ! Why, thefe are Admirable Mm indeed, and not to be heard of every day. Were I aflur'd of the being of fuch Men, I mould begin to think Aftrea was returrfd again* 1 6 A Reply to the Anjwer of again, and that our Nation would in all likelyhood recover her Credit, loll in the unhappy times of our late Credulous Madnefs. But I wifh there be no miftake in this, it being fo hard to imagine who thefe We mould be. For now if he mould mean by his We, We Proteftants ; We never accusd the Pa- pifts of any Doclrin, or Practices, which they do not own ; never chargd them with any thing that is falfe ; who could believe it? Would not this look like a Paradox, which if the Anfwerer will affirm, I believe he'll fcarce rind more than one to fwear to > For is it poilible that We Proteftants never faid any thing of the Papifts, but what is exactly true ; We never faid they believe, what they do not be- lieve ; that they teach, what they do not teach ; or that they did, what they never did ? Is it pofiible this mould be true ? I would willingly give fomething for the fight of the Man that thinks fo. For my part, I think it very hard to be believ'd : And if this be the meaning of the Anfwerer, and what he endeavours to perfuade his Reader, I think of all the Mif-reprejentations of the Papifts, that ever I met with, this of affirming all to he true, that has been faid of the Papifts, is the greateftj and I wifh the Anfwerer much Joy for the Improvement. For this is no- thing elfe, than to vouch for the truth of all, that has been ever alledg'd againft them ; and in three lines to aflert and approve all that has been invented againft them thefe hun- dred and fifty Years. But I think, upon confideration , I may take it for granted, that his WE that charge the Papifts with nothing that is falfe, and are no Mifreprefenters, are WE Prote- flants : for 'tis thefe he feems to vindicate, throughout his Books, and endeavours to wipe ofl from them the impu- tation of being Mifreprefenters. And befides, if he fpeaks properly, the Anfwerer himfelf muft come in, and make one of the WE -7 and for him,one may fwear he's a ftanch True the Amicable Accommodation. 1 7 True Troteflanty as never fcrupling at any thing that's for running down the Papifts, tho' it be currying favour with, and colloguing the Phanaticks ; as he feems plainly to do, in his laft Anjwer (p. 16. 18.) And more particu- larly, becaufe being to fpeak againft Popery , he's as large, as loud, as long-winded as you pleafe, and is ready to Difpute againft it without end, could he but find any,that would think it worth their while to try him. But being to fpeak in defence of the Principles and Practices of his own Religion ( as he had occafion fufficient fr&m<$he Accom- modating Sermon in my laft Anfwer) he's asFlat,as Short, and as willing to wave the difputing for it, as any Adver- fary can defire, which is as plain an Argument to me of his Perfwafion, as if 'twas writ in his Forehead ; there be- ing only one Perfwafion as I know of amongft Chriftians, which has its Natne,Beingznd Support ,not from what it is in it felf ; but from what it is not, in defying and Protefting againft their Neighbours. We muft fuppofe therefore now that his WE which are pretended fo clear throughout his Anfwer, from being Mif- reprefenters of the Papifts, are WE Protejlants : but be- caufe he difclaims all Title to Infallibility, there's no need of taking his word for the truth of what he aflerts ; nor danger of affronting him, tho' we call in queftion the verity of what, he fays, he has prov'd. And really, as my Cafe ftands, I am oblig'dto queftion it : For if it be con- fefs'd true, what he fays, that the Protejlants are no Mif- reprefenters of the Papifisy Then, I muft needs own, I have highly injur'd the Protejlants in complaining againft them as Mif-reporters of the Do&rin and Practices of the Church of Rome , and holding out againft them fo long the charge of Mifreprefenting. Why fhould I injure any body, efpe- cially fo confiderable a Number, as challenge that Name > No, I will do them no fuch wrong, and therefore, however Innocent our Anfwerer may pretend lie has prov'd them ; D lie 1 8 A Reply to the Anfwer of Tie here fhew the Papifts have been alwavs Mifreprefent- ed ; and that ever fince they have had Proteftant Adver- faries, their greateft Suffering has been, not fo much from the force of Truth and Reafon, as from Calumny and Slan~ der, and all forts of Mifreprefentations. For the clearing of this, we mud take along with us the true Notion of Mifreprefenting, as 'tis now agreed on by our Adverfary, who owns in his laft Anfwer, That whofo- ?*£• I0> ever undertakes to declare any A&ion, Dodhin, or Pra- J1> J3- clice of Papifts, and does not deliver it as cloath'd with all its Circumftances, with the right Motives, due End and Intention, is in a proper and ft rift fenfe a Mifrepre- fenter. Again, in his former Anfwer he has this laid down 'AnFiv t as a Prmc*ple' V we C *~ays ne> fpeaking of We Prote- Papid fiants ) p*t our own Opinions of the Papifts Faith and Pra- Tro.p,ij.ttke into his Char after, this is Mifreprefenting; becaufe a Papift has not the fame Opinion of thefe things, which we have, and this makes it a Falfe Charafter, So that here 'tis now to be fuppos'd, that whatfoever Proteflant in any thing relating to the Papifts, either leaves out, or alters- any material Circumflance^ the Motive, Intention, End, puts any falfe Confiruftion, or thrufts in his own Opinion into what he relates, is forthwith a Mifreprefenter. And now to difcover, how much the Papifts have been always Sufferers from this Unchriftian Artifice of Mifre- prefenting, we can take no better way, than to make en- quiry into the feveral Methods us'd in Mifreprefenting ; and this not only in relation to Points of Doftrin and Belief, but like wife in matters of Fa ft and Hiftory : and tho* it be impotfible to give an exact Catalogue of Thefe, they being as Numberleis, as the Ways are of Ignorance to miflake9 of Envy to make falje Conftruftions, of Malice to deceive ; yet to touch at fome few, will be fuificient to evince, whe- ther the WE of the Anfwerer are as clear from mifrepre- fenting and wronging the Papifts, as he pretends. Or Whether the Amicable Accommodation. ip Whether the Papifts are really, what they pretend to (hew them. And firft, one way of Mifreprefenting the Papifts is by charging their Doctrin with Blafphemy and Prophanefs, not otherwife due to it, but only through the Ignorance or Malice of him that draws the Confequence. This is the admirable Gift of Mr. Sutcliff in his Survey of Popery , where he lays upon the Papifts the mod Infamous Positions of the Heathens, and then gives his Reafons for it, fuch as are more for his own Confufion, with underftanding Men , than to the prejudice of tholfe he writes againft. Thus he fays the Papifts Blafphemoufly make Chrift not only a Defperate Man, without Hope, but alfo an Infidel without Faith. And Why all this Only, becaufe Aquinas, Qp. 5. a. 7. art. 4.)- fays, that Chrifty^/#g and enjoying God from the firft inftant of his Conception, could not poilibly have Faith or Hope in him, which always fuppofe the Abfence of the Object, that is, refpect the Divine Eflence notfeen and not enjoy d. And this is reafon enough for Sutcliff to cry out againft the Papifts, as Blafphemoufly making Chrifly loth a Defperate Man, and an Infidel. Certainly fuch a Piece of Divinity was never heard of before out of a Conn- . - try Church. And yet fuch as it is, My Anfwerer is not ^p^pro- afham'd to Print it over agen ; making this profound Rea- teli par, fon of Sutcliff s , a fufficient difcharge of him from being n. a Mifreprefenter ; quarrelling with me, for curtailing the Author, in fettingdown this his charge againft the Papifts, without his Reafon that back'd it. Another way of Mifreprefenting the Papifts, is in pre- A Cate- tending to deliver their Doctrin, and then to infert fome- cb. truly thing, which is notorioufly falfe, and abfolutely detefted reprefen- by them ; this is what is done by the Author of a Catechifm Jy?/^ Jately Publiih'd, who undertakes to give a Syftemeof Po- Jt^ns pirn Doclrins truly Reprefented , according to their own church moft receiv'd Authers;and Councils,and coming to fpeak of 0fRome* D z IMAGES ?*£ J<5. 20 A Reply to the Answer of IMAGES, he fays the Papifts P/^rro THEM-, which Vag. 17. is fo foul a Mifreprefentation , that the Author of the An- fwer to the Papifl Mife presented plainly Condemns me, for making it a part of my Mifrepreientations, as if 'twere never Charg'd againft the Papifts. This, fays he, would infinuate, as tho WE did direttly charge them with P RAT- &• IMG TO their Images, without any farther refpecl : Which we- are fo far from charging them with, that I do not know of any People in the World liable to that Charge. Thus what one Proteflant aflerts pofitively, as the Doclrin and Practice of the Papifts, another Proteflant reje&s as a Mif- reprefentation fo foul, as not to be imputed to the worft of Infidels. But however, foul as it is, 'tis not only found thus in a Grave Catechifm, but fomething like it in a .Sermon too, viz. of J. Thomas Reel, of St. Nicholas; Preach'd at Car- Tae.xi.^ffi* Def°re the Baylifs and Aldermen, 1679, where a~ mongft other Gofpel-truths, he gives his Auditory to un- derftand, that the Papifts do not only Worfhip Martin's Boots, Georg's Scabbard, Crifyins Paring- knife, Thomases her Shoe, and Jofephs Breeches, but do likewife CALL VPON THEM too. Which is to make them agen more ftupid Idolaters, than the word of Heathens ; but 'tis by a Mifreprefentation, however agreeing with that Year of Oats's blefled Difcovery, yet much better fuiting with fome other Place, than the Pulpit. Another like this, is that of the Anfwer to Catholicks no Idolaters, who fays, tis the common Anfwer of Catholicks, that their Adoration of the Eucharift cannot be Idolatry, becaufe they Believe the Bread to be God, jufi as the Wor- fhippers of the Sun believd the Sun to be God. Which is fo abfolutely falfe of the Catholicks, that on the contrary they believe, that whofoever believes the Bread to be God, as the Heathens did the Sua, and adores it upon that con- fideration,muft of neceflity.be an Idolater in adoring it. Ana- the Amicable Accommodation. 2 1 Another way is in framing fome heathenilh Abfurdity, and then laying it on the Papifls, as their DG&rin and Be- lief, when tis only a Malicious Inference drawn from fome abufe, or from an obfcure exprelTion in fome petty Author ; and this we find in the Archbifhop of Tork fo often quoted, who Reprefents the Papifrs as lelieving Cl.rift to he Savi- our of Men only, hut no Women ; that Whoredom u allow d ly them all the year long; and feveral other fuch abomina- ble Pofitions, which are no better than the Doclrin of Devils; Such Deductive Abfurdities, are thofe which Dr. St. according to what the general Current of his Difcourfe Reprefents, endeavors to perfwade his Credulous Reader, to be Do&rins of the Roman Church, viz. That it holds oo neceility of Repentance , but only once in ones Life. That the Roman Repentance obliges none to the forfaking their fins, or a Reformation of Life. That the Sacraments confer Grace, on any Receiver of them, tho' never fo un- prepar'd. That Indulgences difchargeCzthoYicks from do- ing the beft part of their Religion. Which may be k^n related and confuted in a Dijcourfe entitled, The Roman Doclrin of Repentance and of Indulgence s, vindicated from Dr. Sts. Mifreprefentations. The like is to be feen in John fox's Acts and Monuments , where (befides the infinite miflakes and abufes in relation to his Martyrs) in ccnfl- dering fome chief Points of the Catholick Doclrin, in lels , than three leaves, he has falfifled them in above one Hun- dred and twenty Inflances ; that is, as his Anfwerer words it in his plain Language, has uttered more than a Hundred and fifty Lies : as is made appear in the Ex amen of John Fox's Calendar-^ p. 3. p. 412. Another way is in Falfifying Authors for the Proof of feme Extravagant Doclrin upon the Church of Rome. And this is done feveral ways : As firil b^the Archbilhop of Tork, who reports it a Tenet of the Papifts , That the 22 A Reply to the A?ifaer of Pope can make that Righteous, which is unrighteous. And then quotes L.i.Decret. Greg. Titulus 7. Chapter the Fifth, which Titulus of the Decretals confiits only of Font Chap- ters, and nothing menuon'd in thern ail befides what concerns the Translation of Biftops. Other Tenets of the like flamp he imputes to the Belief of the Church of Rome, and then quotes St. Thomas and Be Bar mine, &c. in fuch Places, where either the Matter or Place is not to be found, nor any thing like it. This is done another way , by endeavoring to prove fome Folly upon the Papifts, our of their own Authors ; and then bringing in the Authois quite contrary to their own Senfe and Words : This is excmi LficJ in a Sermon LaEnghnd Worfkitfd St. George, Scotland St. Andrew, Ireland St. Patrick, &V. Again, In Paganifm they had feveral Gods to pray to - and fo in Popery. In Paganijm feveral Profeffwns had fe» veral Gods So in Popery. Laftly, to thefey fays he, loth Pagans and Papifts build Churches, e reel Altars ', &c. This is the way this Prelate has of fetting forth the Papifts. And one reafon why he deals fo civilly with them, as to render the Papifts no worfe than Heathens , he gives in his Preface to the faid Sermon , becaufe we have the Word of the King [fzys he) to defend our Religion. An admi- rable return of this Royal Favor, to perfwade his Majefties Sub- the Amicable Accommodation. 25 Subje&s, that the Papifts and Infidels are much of a Piece. And yet This Sermon, is deem'd by this Good Prelate a Defence of the truth, and a very feafonable Intimation of tre'' our (Proteftant) Resolution of being True and St eddy to our Laws, Oaths and Duties. — And let the Romanifts take it as they pie afe, they muft expeft a great manyfuch. And re- ally as to this, I think his Lordihip is much in the right ; for a great many fuch we have met with. But I muft take the liberty to tell his Lordfhip, that if this be the method of defending^ Religion, and an argument of his being True and Steady to his Duty ; that (befides a great deal more that might be faid to itj 'tis only done by Mifreprefenting ; and that tho' he's oblig'd to Preach againft Popery, as he fays, to theutmofl of h is Wit and Learning, thafhere's no ?ref more Wit or Learning in this, than what every petty So- phifter might find without much adoe, to make the Pro- teftant, Turk, and Jew all one, becaufe they all agree, in maligning and defaming the Papifts. However this way of calumniating, his Lordfhip has not the honor of inventing, 'twas firft devis'd by thofe Di- vines the Compilers of the Book of Homilies, who befides this almoft word for word, have variety of other Scurrilous ways, as comparing the Papifts with the Horfe and the Afs, and fuch like, exactly calculated for the Rabble. 'Twas afterwards taken up by the Pfalm-makers, who finding Da- vid to have never a True-Proteftant Hymn, added that of From Turk and Pope defend us Lord. And becaufe this feem'd to (ome of too foft a drain, "Tis fince rais'd a Note or two higher, and I think even to Ela in a good hearty Family Prayer to be faid Morning and Evening, added to the end of the finging Pfalms in a Common- Prayer-Book, Printed at Oxford, in the year 1685, in Twelves, where- in 'tis faid O Lord raife up faithful Diftributers of thy My- fteries — contrarily, confound I Satan,Antichrijl with all Hire- lings and,. Papifts. Which feems the effort of a True- E Prote- 2.6 A Reply to the A?i(wer of Proteftant Charity, not only to link Satan, Anthhrift , and the Papifis together, but to wifli them all overtaken with the fame Confufion. Another way there is, in pretending to declare the De- votions of Catholicks, and then to infert fomething that is abfolutely falfe as to the End or Intention, for which they perform them : This the Difcourfe of the Devotions of the Church of Rome, is admirable good at; as ^.56. where fpeaking of the frequent Repetition of the Names of Jefw and Mary, in the Jefus ? falter, &c. he thus gives the reafons: Now their faying the fame thing fo often over (fays he) is not contrived to help and affifl Devotion, or prevent Diftraclion , or as a Repetition of what is more than ordinarily important, or for any other good or prudent Reafon ; BVT OVT OF PVRE VANITT AND OSTEN- TATION , OR AS IT WERE EVEN TO FLAT- TER OVR BLESSED SAVIOVR OR THE SAINT WHICH THET PRAT TO. This is his reafon he gives of our Devotion, and 'tis as Heroick a way of defend- ing the Truth, by Calumniating with a Magifterial Confidence , and throwing dirt blindfold , as ever I met with. I am fure 'tis fo unbecoming, that if he fhould with the like pofitivenefs, interpret any thing be- longing to the State or Civil Government, 't would not be calfd a bare Mifreprefenting, without a at the end of'r. But the Biihop of Ktlmore will not give way to any in this kind of dawbing, and if the Papifis be not black enough, it fhall be none of his fault: What he does, is upon Oath and Duty,and therefore he's the more hearty : And his Ta- lent being in Similitudes, as he before compar'd the Pa- pifis with the Heathens ; fo now he honors them with the Comparifon of Efop's Dog ; and then foon finds a ftaf to beat them. Some there are (fays the Prelate in the fame Sermon, p. 10O IVhowithlLfotfs Dog, fnatchat the fhadovo andlofe the fubjhnce ; that is, place the WHOLEWorfhip the Amicable Accommodation. 27 of God in Bodily Exercife, and External Adoration \ as bowing before a Crucifix, in creeping to a Crofs, in running a bare-leg'd Pilgrimage, — in hanging down the head for -a day like a Bulrufh, — in fixes and Faxes andfuch like J frip- peries. Thus he truly Reprefents the Devotions of the Pa- pifts, as he's bound by Oath, and yet without Truth, or Confcience. For is it true, that their WHOLE Worfhip of God confifts in thefe bodily Exercifes, as his Lordfhip calls them ? Do they not teach their Followers to Worfhip God by internal Acts of Love, of Fear, of Reverence, of Honor, of Rejignation, by an hearty Oblation of all they have, or are, and that no external A&ion is acceptable to God, without the Heart and Soul going along with it ? How comes it then, that their WHOLE Worfhip of God is in thefe Bodily Exercifes ? But I mud not urge too far ; fpreading of thefe Calumnies his Lordfhip takes for his Duty ; and as long as he pretends to His Majefties Wordr for his abufingus, I mufl be filent; tho' I have great rea- fon to think, his Lordfhip's miftaken, and that he flretches His Majefties Word farther than 'twill go. Another way there is, in laying on the Colours with fo much craft on the Papifts Tenets^ that tho' they are the very fame with what the moft Learned P rot eft ants hold themfelves ; yet they fhall appear fo Foul and Monftrous, as if nothing lefsthan a certain Damnation attended their Abettors. This is done in feveral Inftances: As when thtVncharitablenefs of the Papifts is to be the Theam, and the Alarm to keep the drowfie Flock from nodding; how Unchriftian are they rendred, for not allowing Sal- vation to any out of their Church, for giving the Prote- ftants no better portion, but with thofe on the Left hand of the Judge ! Dr. TiUotjon, plays this Tune roundly in his before mention'd Sermon , p. 22. Where inveighing a- gainft the Vncharitablenefs of the Papifts , he labours heartily to create a good Charitable Averfion in his Hear- E 2 ers 2 8 A Reply to the Anfiver of ers towards them. And after he has fpent fome pages in this; he at lad in a Rapture of Charity concludes, p. 27. I have fo much Charity Kand I defire always to have-it^) as to hope, that a great many among them, who live Pioufly, and have been almo/l Enevitably detain d in that Church by the prejudice oj Education and an invincible Ignorance, will upon a general Repentance find mercy with God. One would have expected, by his earned condemning the Papifts, and the Preamble of this Conclufion, to have met with fome ex- traordinary Piece of Charity, both for the Reformation and example of the Papifts ; and yet after all the outcry and buftle, he wont allow one more grain of mercy to the Papifts, than the Papifts do to them ; that is, only to fuch, who having liv'd pioufly, and truly Repented of their fins, have an Invincible Ignorance to atone for all other errors of the Underftanding ; which is the very Doctrin of the Papifts in refpect of fuch, who die out of the Communion of their Church. But now whether Dr. Stillingpet has even fo much Charity as this for the Papifts, 'tis not eaile to tell. For he declares pofttively, that all thofe who em- brace Popery, muft, by the terms of Communion with that Church, be guilty either of Hypocrifie or Idolatry ; either of which are fins inconfiftent with Salvation. Now if the Doctor were Judge, what are become of the poor Papifts ? Are not they alldamn'd in the Lump ? And yet this is the Protefiant Charity ', which condemns the Papifts for Z>'n- charitablenefs. To fay the Papifts muft be guilty of fins inconfiftent with Salvation, is but to fay they are Damnd in another Phrafe. And if the Doctor can find any expe- dient to fave them after this, he muft make Heaven gate as wide as the Portico to the Turkifh Paradife, where there's paflage for the Dog, the Camel and the Whale. Thus when Proteftants and Papifts fay the fame thing of each other, 'tis ftrange how Antichriftianly-black the Papifts are made, when the Proteftants have the laying on the Colors. Ano- the Amicable. Accommodation; 29 Another way yet there is, in undertaking to declare the Tenets of Catholicks; and after having rak'd together fome odd and extravagant Opinions of lome Authors, to fet them down for the receiv'd Doclrin of the Church; and 'tis prefently true Reprefentingy if there be but an Author's Name to fupport the pretence; and mofl efpeci- ally if the faid Author be allovv'd and notcondemn'd after the publifhing. This is a mod fafhionable way, trodden hard in Books and Pulpits. The Arch-Biihop of Tork ap- proves it mightily. And fo if he can but cite Bulgradus, VeffeL Grovingenf. or Dift. 96. that's enough to make any Extravagancy to pafs for an Article of Faith : And then if the thing happen to be difpro.v'd and ihewn a Mif- reprefentation, 'tis at leait a Popifh Mtfreprefentation ; and this ferves ftill to promote the Caufe, to make the Papifts odious. This is a Method fo unwarrantable, that if fol- low'd by all Parties alike, in expofmg their Adverfaries, 'twould foon make all Chriftendom, only fo many Di- vifions of Infidels. One little Example will clear this. For fuppofe now any Popifh Preacher in his Pulpit beyond Sea, in a Country where his Auditory underflands but little what Protefiants are, mould let flip his Text, and following our Moaifh way, mould be fo unjuft to his Flock, as not to fpend his Glafs in inftructing them in their Duty, or reforming their Lives ; but making ufe of fome little Arts, fhould place his main endeavour in provoking them to a good hearty averfion againfl Protefiants ; and ihould - thus expofe them : My Dear Chriftians, flick fall to the Truth of the Gofpel, preach'd by Chrift and his Apoftles, and deliver'd down to you by a continual Succeffion of Pa- llors and Teachers, and the Practice of the Faithful in all Ages : But above all, beware of fuch, who make Divifions and Sch/fms in the Church of God, fuch as cry out, Chr/ft, Chrift, and Reformation, but are nothing but the Fore-run- ners of Antichrift. Thefe call themfelves Protefiants ; the Name jo A Reply to the Anfoer of Name you have fcarce heard of, as being no where in Scripture, Fathers, nor Antiquity ; but their wicked Prin- ciples and Practices have fill'd the whole Earth. They have out-done even the Heathens, and thole that know not God, in all forts of Wickednefs and Impiety : And this the few Good Men that are amongft them own them- felves: One Eminent for his Writings, and known by the Author of the Whole Duty of Alan, confedes it to them Dfnvof ancj the World, that they have broken down not only the f™n banks of RELIGION, but of C IV I LIT T too : And fo univerfal a depravation is there, fay$he, amongfl us, that we have fcarce any thing left, to diflinguifh us from the mofi Barbarous People, but a better Name, and worfe Vices. Do you fee how under the pretence of Reforming, they have brought Corruption into the World, that even they themfelves own it, and yet go on, under an empty Title, of being theChofen People of God\ This fame thing is confelVd and own'd almofl in the fame words, by another Good Man now of late, who before his Prelate inaVifi- tation Sermon, delivers it for Gofpel, that they are fo wicked, that they cannot be thought the Servants of God : Sermon at ^ can never (fays he) make them (our Enemies) be- the Vjfira- lie ve that we are the Servants of the Living God, or have B°{ho°fofe a Juftf€nfe c{ Devotion, while they fee that we have nothing Norwich, fo dijlivguijh us from the Worfhippers of a Falfe God, but by saw. a Better Name and Worfe Vices. But then, that you may ^7 neither doubt of the truth of this, nor yet wonder at it, he gives a fufficient Reafbn in the fame Sermon, where he fays, that their Guides and Miniflers, who ihould lead and direct them to Good, do inflead of this, encourage them to Vice and Faction. When the Clergy themfelve: (fays he, p. 14.) have given EXAMPLE and ENCGV RAG EMENT to Men, to break the Churches Laws, and contemn her Authority, no wonder that VICE and FACTION appear info lent and daring. You fee then the Amicable Accommodation. 3 1 then, they have not the Fear of God in their Hearts nor Actions, and you fee the Reafon of it. This is all hi- therto in refped chiefly of God ; but now in refpecl of their Neighbour, they have no Charity for any, that are not of their mind ; but for their own Brethren, they think them- selves bound to help and aflift them, tho* engag'd in the fouled of Villanies and Crimes. Thus when the Scots, under pretext of Reforming Re- ligion, had invaded their Prince's Authority, and by the Preaching of John Knox and other head-Jlrong Minijlers, fays their own Author, had been perfuaded, that it per- tain d to them to reduce by force their Prince to the prefer ipt of Laws ; and wanting iome afliftance to effect it, they fent to Queen Elizabeth for Aid. And here what fays Sir Rich. Baker, a Proteftant Hiftorian ? Amongft other sw Rich: Confiderations, It feemdno lefifiys h^than an MFIETTB*hr\ not to give aid to the P rots ft ants of the fame Religion. So printed that tho' they are confefs'd by him* to have pretended <*»- l6ss- only a Reformation, not by chance ; but rather plotted of purpofe, according to the Suggeftion of Head-ftrong Mi- niflers, to incroach upon the Prerogative of the Crown; and to demand aid from abroad, by violence to reduce their Prince, ( which is to be as great Tray tors as can be ) yet 'tis an Impiety ( fays he ) not to help them in their Rebellion, fince they are Brethren of the fame Perfuafion : Holy Brethren believe me, thus to deem it a Duty to joyn hands in Rebellion, and to be Tray tors for Religion- fake! You fee what their Do&rin is in regard of Foreign Princes. And do you think they have any better refpect for their own ? Yes, if He be of their Religion , and thinks as they think. Otherwife they'l beg his Pardon: as now if he mould be a Topifh one, for Example; what deference would they have for him ? You may learn it from one of their own Leaders in the Gofpel, who with a very' 32 A Reply to the A?ifaer of Jovian, very Remarkable NOVERINT, or BE IT KNOWN, T- 96- delivers a Do&rin of a mod rare piece -of Gallantry , with a mod admirable Refolution of confronting fuch a Prince to his face, and making the contempt of him a Duty. And that none may quedion in the lead this their Re- fpectful Divinity, this Author delivers it yet plainer in another Place (p. 80. ) Where making a Difcourfe with fome profpecl of a Popifh Succeffor ; He thus openly fpeaks their common fenfe : So far (_ fays he ) are all thofe, who are fo tender of the Succejfion, from having any tendernefi 'for a Popifh Succeffor, that they dread him like the PLAGVE, and therefore would have had Provifional Laws made, to bind up fuch an One, and put him under very CLOSE LEG AL C ON FINE ME NT, in cafe he fhould be IQng. This is what the better and mod Loyal Part of them, were willing to afford fuch a Prince ; but for the others ; Nothing would ferve ( fays he ") the other Prote- flants9 but an Aft of E XC LV S 10 N, back'd with ano- ther for an ASSOCIATION. Do you fee, my Dear Flock, what new fort of Chridians thefe are, what their Charity, what their Loyalty ; what they look upon their Duty ; How far the Befl of them can go, how far the Worfl. Well might that One Good Man confefs, that they have broken down the Banks not only of RELIGION, but of CIVILITT too ; and that their Vices are more heinous than thofe of the mod Barbarous People. And what he confefs'd, you your felves have now feen proved, to the fcandal of the Chridian Name, out of their own Authors ; and thofe not obfcure ones, or rak'd out of the Dud ; but of the mod Eminent amongd them , to be found in all hands, read every where, and never reprov'd or condemn'd by any ; fo that you have all the reafon in the World to conclude, that 'tis the fenfe of their Church, whatfoever fome of the more fubtle of them may pretend to the contrary. But the Amicable Accommodation. 32 f But I mud not harangue too long, I know it will not pleafe ; and really it even naufeates me even in this man- ner to carry on a piece of Sophiftry, which I have feen and heard fo often pradic'd in earneft, in the weightieft con- cern, by the Sobereft Men, and in the moft Sacred Places. This will fuffice, to let any confidering Man fee, what ufe may be made of Authors ; how eafie 'tis to make any Par- ty Odious to the Multitude, and however Chriftianit may be , yet with how little difficulty it may be Painted as Black as Hell, if a Man will be fo unjuft, as to pafs thefe kind of Mifreprefenting Arguments upon the People for the Gofpel. Thefe are fome of the Methods, by which the Papifts have been Mifreprefented, in relation to their Tenets of Doftrin and Belief; now I muft take another fhort turn, and examine , how many ways , the Papifts have been Mifreprefented , in relation to fome matters of Fatl and Hiflory ; and by that time, I hope, the Reader will difco- ver, whether it be without reafon, that the Papifts com- plain of being Mifreprefented. • One way there is in letting Avarice , Envy, or Malice give ill Names to things, and then paffingthem upon the Crowd for no better, than they are thus ftamp'd by thefe Tajfwns. This was a method very ferviceable in the time of the Reformation ; when there was no need of more , than nick* naming the moft Sacred things, and prefently they became Un hallo w'd.Thus we find related by Dr. Hey- lyn ; The Grandees of the Court, calling many an envi- ous Eye upon the Rich Hangings, the Mafly Plate, and other things, which adorn'd the Altars in thofe times, did no more than call them Corruptions, and prefently they were no longer fit for Churches, but only for Private ufe, and feis'd them. The Candlefticks, Crucifixes and Shrines had Super •flit ion ftamp'd on them, and forthwith were made a fpoil. The Protector Somerfet did no more than pitch F upon 24 A Reply to the Anfwer of upon Three Epifcopal Houfes, Four or Five Churches, a Chappel and Charnel houfe of St Paul's, and calls them Superfluous; and they are immediately blown up, and make proper Materials for his New Palace Sumer jet- houfe. St. Margaret s-Wcjl minfter too was condemn'd to the fame fate, upon the fentence of Vnnecejfary. But the Workmen that were lent to demolifh it, being difturb'd by the Clubs and Staves of the Parifhioners, 'twas again judg'd Conveni- ent for their ufe. This was the Method in thofe Refor- ming times, when, as we may read in Heylyn, Covetouf- nefs, Ambit ton, and Envy fet up for removing Corruptions out of the Church ; when Profit and Interefi was to give Orders , and Violence to Execute ; when Sacriledge and Rapine were the beft means for the bringing in the Purity of the Gofpel. But becaufe this may be ail feen at large in fome Hiftorical Collections gather d out of P rot eft ant Au- thors9 lately Pubhfh'd, He remit the Reader to them , where he'l eafily difcover how confiderably the Art of Mifreprefentingcontributzd to the outing of Popery. This fame method it was that King Henry the Eighth, Luther, &c. made ufe of, wher> by Luxury and Ra- pine they began to reform the Extravagancies of their times, and make way apace for Proteftantifm to enter in- to the World. If the Pope will not confeut to the Irre- gular Paflions of that Prince, and permit him to take a fe- condWife, while his fir ft is alive; the Powe /*, that is the Curb to his Luft, is forthwith^n/zc^r//?/***, tis a Vfurpa- tion and Foreign Power ; and with fuch hard names, tis rendred as odious to the People, as 'twas to him ; who by this means throwing it off, pafles for a Good Chri- ftian amidft his Vile Extravagancies. If Luther has a mind to Marry, and his Vow oi Chafiity (lands in his way, he do's no more than nick-name it a little, calling it a Rajh and Jnconficlerate Vow, and he's as free to Marry as the beft of them ; his Vow is no farther a Let to him, and he now the Amicable Accommodation. 35 now contrails according to the Prefcript of the Gofpel. And if he thinks a Nun will make the beft Wife ; he do's no more than make her Vow as Foolijh as his, and the bu- finefs is effected without any more ado, no farther Scru- ple ; they forthwith become a mod Evangelical couple. This fame way we have feen trod over of late by Honed Sir William, who by the Name of Fopifh Trinckets and Trumpery, made a ipoil of Chalices, CrofTes, the Images of Chrift and his Saints; and by a rare knack of turning Guineas into Medals; Pearl-Necklaces into Beads; and Watches into Relick- Cafes, made them fit for Seifure ac- cording to Law, to the great benefit of the Practitioner, and much edifying of his Brethren , who could not but have a holy envy Tor his Zeal. Another way there is in telling a Story to the advan- tage of the Caufe, in putting that fide outwards as will ferve turn beft, and keeping under-board whatfoever is not for the purpofe ; and fometime tis only the turn of the hand, the winding of the breath, a pat Phrafe, and prefently a Devil 's made of any thing. Thus when Sir Rich. Baker has a mind to Paint Queen Mary deep in Baker/* Blood, he thus Tragically begins : Hitherto Queen Maries the begin. Reign had been without Blood : but now the Cataratls of Se- n™g °* ■ verity will be opened, that will make it rain Blood. Thus Mary. he draws the lines of Antichrift in her Face : And fee upon what fcore ; For now, fays he , on the Eighth of Auguft the Duke of Northumberland, Marquefs 0/ Northampton, and Earl of Warwick, were Arraigned at Weftminfter- Hall, Condemned and Executed for High Treafon , for Proclaiming the Lady Jane Gray Queen ot England^ in op- pofition to the true Heirefs. And this, which in a Prote- (lant Prince, on the like occafion, is termed the executing of Jujlice, giving defervd punifhment to Tray tors, &c. in Queen Mary is nothing lefs than the opening Cataratls of Severity, and the raining of Blood. This fame Mifrepre- F 2 fenting ^£ A Reply to the Anfwer of fenting Artifice is made ufeofon all occafions, in every thing relating to Queen Mary. Nothing can be heard of, when her Reign is made the proof of the Text, but Cruel' tyy Bloody Fire, Faggots , Stakes ^Smithfield ; nothing can ferve to parallel thofe times, but the Perfecutions o{Decius and Dioclefian, and Ihe is fo in all things fet out, as if little better than a Heathen, and fwimming in the Blood of of the Martyrs. This is her Pi&ure. But if we mould view it a little, and confider, whether (he has no wrong done her ; might not we ask ; What, and how much this Blood was, what the occafion of its being fpilt, and what the Provocation given > And here we mall have an account of fome Proteitant behavior : of Praying for the death of their Queen in Meetings, that God would fhorten her days ; of a Gun (hot at her Preacher in the Pulpit, of Cats hung on Gallows, with their Heads morn, and fomething like Veftments, in derifion of her Priefls ; of a Dog held up in the Church by the Legs, in derifion of the Elevation of the Hod ; a gallantry of one of Fox's Martyrs ; of feveral other provocations by Tumults, Seditions, and Rebelli- ons : And that after this, for the fecurity of her Crown, She put in execution Laws not made by Her, but ena&ed long before by her Anceftors Rich. z. Hen. 4, & J, Now one would think tobejuftto Crown'd Heads, the Blood mould not be expos'd alone to the People; but likewife the eccajjons and provocations given , even according to Law, and then let things go as far as they will : but to Mifrepre- fent the Papifls, Stories muft be Told and Preached by halves ; otherwife they will turn to no account with the People, and ferve nothing to the Interefl of the Caufe. But to fee now how much there go's in the telling a Story : Queen Elizabeth put to death Two hundred perfons upon the fcore of Confcience, without any actual Crime or Mifdemeanor againfl the Ancient Statutes of the Land, but only againfl the Law of her own contriving ; a Law (o the Amicable Accommodation. 37 fo cruel, that the like is fcarce to be found even among the Mahometans, who tho' they have conquer'd many Chri- ftrian Nations , yet never, as I have heard of , made it Treafon for the Natives, to profefs their own Religion, or maintain their Paftors. And tho' this and much more was done by this Princefs, yet me is fet forth with that advantage, that lhe is a Meek, Merciful, Tender-hearted, Saintlike, true-? rot eft ant Queen : While her Sifter, who put to death not Three hundred, of which number, thofe of the gteateft Note were Traytors in the higheft Degree, others Guilty of the mod intolerable abufes both to Church and State, and liable to death by the Ancient, and known Laws of the Nation; fuch as Dr. Hey lyn and Dr. Pocklington both Proteflants, in their Book Licenfed and fet forth by Authority flile Schifmatical Heretzcks, Facliaus Fellows , Traytors and Rehels, and She is no better than a Cruel, Bloody, Hard-hearted, Pcpijh Tyrant. Thus according to this Reform'd Method, there needs no more for the making a Proteftant Saint or a Popijh Fiend, than a little turn of the breath,and the meer knack of making the Narrative : And if there be not Mifreprefenting in this, I never heard of any. Another way there is in fpreading the guilt of fome few Papifts upon the whole of that Communion ; fo that if any of them are catch'd in a Villany , 'tis immediately fuggefted , that what Thefe did , was according to the Principles of their Religion, and not fo much to be charg'd on them in particular, as on their Church, which encou- rages them to fuch wicked undertakings. After this man- ner the Powder- Plot is manag'd, which tho' it was in all \ likelyhood a contrivance of the good Lord Cecil (as Of- K ? pa home a Proteftant Hiftorian plainly confefTes,) yet becaufe 3 and of nfpecl to the Perfons and Church He defends. Befides this, he hasurg'd the charge againft them all, in the bittereft expreiiions imaginable : Nothing is heard of in Two whole pages, but of their art of Palliating, want of Fairnefs and Civility^ laying afide Moderation, falling into a vein of Lightnefs and Scurrility, forgetting that Religion is the Subject, and Chriftians and Scholars their Ant agonifis. Their Mean Reflections and Trivial je (lings, their Ridiculing, their want of Charity and RcfpecJ, their Writings Accommodated to the Genius of Sceptics, who divert themfelves at the expence of all Religion ; and being not defignd to fat is fie the Sober andConfciencious of either Side, &c. Now what This Author feems here at fir ft fight to require, being no- thing but Moderation, Candidnefs , and Civility in Anfwerers of all Tides, I cannot but highly commend; but then agen, when I look far- ther into him, and fee him wifhing for Moderation in the deepeft Saty;\ condemning the want of Civility in Others, with the mod: Exafperating Reflections of his Om, writing again ft the Pajfion of his Adverfaries, with his own Pen fteept in Gall ; when I hear him defirous of laying down his Deareft Blood for the redrefiing the Evils of the Divided Church, and at the fame time mod Uncharitably exporting Antagonifts, even fuchas nothing belong'd to his Province, under the mod Odious Characters imaginable, I cannot tell how to take him in earneft ; he feems but to make a ferious Droll, and brings into my mind, what I have heard of one, who Preaching on Ship-board to correct the extravagant Swear- ing of the Mariners, after many arguments to convince them of their Prophanefs, at length to prefs the matter home to them, Swore Bloodi- ly, They would be allDamn'd if they did not leave off Swearing. But however it be, He Anfwer for my felf, and do here allure this Zealous Author, notwithftanding all his hard words, that there's no more of jefting in my laft Papers, than he may find in any Parable or Emblem, in which tho' the Perfons may be feign 'd, as in that of the Trees choofing a King ; yet the thing fig7iified or intended, is real and ferious. So that tho', it may be, never any DiJJenter prefs'd all thofe things again ft the Church of England in the manner I have there urg'd them; yet that there is (hewn the Exaffc Method how the Church of Rome is ftruck at byProteftants, is what is intended moft Serioufly and without any drolling in theleaft. And therefore it he finds any Ridiculing in the Arguments, Mean Reflections or Trivial Jeftings in the urging them. •jpB A Reply to the Anfwer of, &c. them, I can only tell him, that the Cofy muftbe like the Original ; and that he that undertakes to (hew, how Vroteftants Ridicule the Church of Rome, do"s not Jeft, when he does it in fbmething that looks Ridiculous. And if he is fenfible that this way of handling Controverfies, do's ra- ther exafperate, than heal our Divifions, Iamfmcerely of his mind. But then think, that for the preventing ir, he ought rather fpend his Zeal upon fuch of his Brethren, who by thus Ridiculing play the Controvert! (Is in gocdearnejl, with their Bibles in hand 5 than upon Adverfaries, who on- ly detefl the Sofhifiry, and by Embltmihe'v how 'tis done. If he has therefore io much efteemfor the Salvation of Mens Souls, and theTruth of Religion, as he pretends, let him fhew himfelf Co in a moil Chriftian Action. Let him but turn to fuch of his own Communion, who have given this bad Example, and win fo far upon them, as Vublickly to make Refiitution to fuch Innocent Perfbns, of the Credit and Good Name, which They have Vublickly helpt to take away: To remove that Un- charitable Opinion, they have Imprinted in the very Souls of their Hear- ers,againft their Neihgbors, by vain Rumors, and groundless Surmifes; let him prevail upon them never more to Preach to Peoples Pajfion, inltead of their Reafon : never more to enflame the multitude by Preaching to them j/teams and Vifions j nor to advance every vn-fouVd Informer to the Au- *'wjptity of an Evangelift. Let him fee, that they flay not with their Neighbors Refutation , and Religion, and run them both down with idle Stories, fuch as are Authentick enough for a Plot-Catechijm, but not ^ for a V til fit. Let him endeavor that their Arguments and Methods for the defeating of Pofery, be not fuch as any Jew may take up to flrike at Chrifiianity, and every Atheift to make a fham of all Religion. Let him advife them with a late Preacher, Lhat their Zeal againfi Pofery be- tray them not intofomeoftheworfi Princifles, that are charged upon that : . ft- Church. That while they are Zealous for their Church , They continue fit.Ser.y. Loyal to their King. That whillt they Preach up the Principles and Loyalty of their Church, they have a care of proving themfelves»0 Mem- bers o! it, by their inftilling Suf fit ions and Jealoulies ; by their telling their Flock of a Cloud hanging over their Heads, and at the fame time 1 ''rognofltcating its DiJJifatton. Let him employ his bell endeavors on this fide a while, to rediefs thefe evils; and 1 dare engage, (notwith- ftanding all the complaints he has again 11 his Adverfaries) The Nation „ will enjoy more Peace, His Church will have lefs Divifions , and the King better Subje6b. F INI S, Imprimatur, fan. 7, 16U. JO. BAT T ELL ■ « //w^/*,withoutomitting any fhadow of Reafon offered by the Reprefenter, took all his Argumentations, and every pretence from Scripture, into particular exami- nation : I fay, he took them one by one in their place and order, and made it appear, that they were very faulty ; as we at leaft thought, and as we may think ftill, for any thing that we have heard to the con- trary. Nay, to give occafion to a more perfect under- Handing of thefe matters, He took Popery as Repre- fented by the Reprefenter himfelf in one Colume, and gave him Our Reafons againft it, in another. And becaufe,to gain the greater opinion of fincerity, the Reprefenter had with Anathemas difclaimed feve- ral points, which, as he faid, are imputed to Tapifts by Protejlants ; the Anfwerer confidered him here too, very particularly, and feemed to difcover infincerity in the Reprefenter, even where one would be moft apt to believe him to be in good earnefl. To all which I mud add, That this was done through- out with that Calm nefs and Moderation, that his Ad- verfary did not think fit to diflemble it. So that thk Book wanted nothing to make it deferve a fair and full Reply, or at leaft fome hononrable fort of Conceffton, ' bat the Subject would not bear it. For between the Repfefenter and the Anfwerer. For furely no Method of Anfwering the Reprefenter could be more Compleat, Honeft, and Manly, than this was ; nor ferve better to put all thofe, for whofe fake Books are written, into a way of judging what Popery indeed is, and whether we have rightly con- demned it or no, if they were not already fatis/ied in thefe things; cfpecially becaufe all was done with that plainnefs and perfpicuity, that if theDifcourfe was in any particular greatly defective, it could not but be ob- vious to an Adverfary, that was, it feems, thought a fit Perfon by his Superiors , to Reprefent Popery to this Kingdom, and to defend it againii this Church. The Fir ft Reply of the Reprefenter. TO this Anfwer the Reprefenter publiihed a Reply under the Title of Reflexions upon it. Now did he in thefe Reflexions undertake to mew from Point to Point, That the Anfwer er had without caufe correct- ed either the Mifreprefenting or the Reprefenting Side, where he undertook to correct them ? Did he, as the Anfwerer has done before him, take the Queflions in their Order, to examine how they were flated, and where need was, did he pretend to flate them better ? Nay, Did he bear up fairly to any one point of Repre- fentation that his Adverfary thought fit to alter, and try by the force of his Learning to reduce it to what it was when he left it ? No truly, his mind did not ferve him, for dating of Queflions. But did he not fland up in defence of his Anathemas which his Anfwerer charged, not without giving Rea- fonsforit, with Art and Sophiftry* No, he did not fo much as offer at it. What 6 A View of the whole Co?itroverfy What then was the bufmefs of his Reflexions ? Did they turn upon our Reafons againft Popery as Represented by the Reprefenter ? No Cure ; Nor was it likely that he fhould be forward to anfwer our Arguments, that had no Fancy to defend his own. What? Did he not betake himfelf to make good his own particular Arguments in behalf of Popery, againft his Adverfaries Anfwers ? Nothing lefs, I allure you; he did not take carefo much as of one Argument be- longing to any one point, but fairly left them all to take their Fortune : Is it not enough for a man to bring Arguments, but he muft be troubled to defend them ? Well ; From 'this time forward, the Reprefenter s bufi- nefs was not to Difpute, but to Reprefent. But was it fo from the beginning? The Reprefenter indeed has ever itnee fo vehemently difclaimed Difputing, that per- haps he only Reprejented at flrfl. Let us therefore try that a little. Were there not three Arguments for feneration of Images, and for Praying to Saints? Were not Mofes, Job, Stephen, the Romans, the Corinthians , the Epbefians, and aim oft every fick Perfon that defires the Prayers of the Congregation, engaged one way or other ? Did he not argue for Tranfubfiantiation from our Saviours Words, from the Power of God , from the incompe- tency of Senfe and Reafon tojudg in this, no lefs than in fome other cafes ? I think this is Difputing. There were three Texts of Scripture to juflifie the Reftrain- ing of Chriflian people from reading the Scripture. And if they are not vani/hed out of the Book, there are about "feven Reafons for Communion in one Kind: The izth Chapter of the id Book of Maccab.wzs once thought one good Authority for the Doctrine of Pur- gatory ; and St. Mattb. iz. 31, another ,- And a little pretence between th& Reprefenter and the Anfwerer. pretence of Antiquity there was befide, and three or four more Reafons for it ; and in this flrain the Book went ail along : Now this I fay,Thofe Arguments were not made by the Anfwsrer, but they were anfwered by him, and io were all the refl, and now they may go ihift for themfelves. And yet this is the Gentleman, who with no fmall opinion of himfelf, takes his Adverfary to cask for let- ting his Arguments drop, nay, for mt faying one word to ^piy + 2 - all his oxen Reafons preffed againfl himfelf; but letting ^ &c the matter fall very cautioufly, when it comes to his own turn of Difputing and Defending hu own Reafonings, and that too in a Cafe directly appertaining to our main point of Reprefenting , &c. Now this is a biting Accufa- tion, if it be a True one ; and before we part, I hope we mall have a word or two about that. But if it were as true, as I am well allured 'tis falfe, the Reprefenter, of all men living, mould have made no words on't ,• and that not only becauie himfelf is a moft notorious exam- ple of forfaking his own Arguments in their diftrefs, but becaufe his Adverfary was fo generous to wink at him when he Hole off from his Difputing poft, upon the very firft attack that was made upon him. For I do not remember that he charges him with this, in mew- ing the progrefs of the Controverfie ,• and indeed, confidering all his other Advantages, there was no need of it. So that if the Reprejenter had been con- tent , this might have been forgotten ftill ,• but if a man ows himfelf a fhame, he does well to pay it. Well, but what went the Reflections upon, all this while £ By this time I think a flranger may guels the Truth, and that is, that the Reflections were to flut- ter up and down, between the Anfwer to the Intro- du&ion) and the Anfwer to the Book ; and to fettle no -j> 8 A View of the whole Controversy no where. And now I (hall give as fhort and faithfal an abftracl: of them, as I can. In the Anfwer to the In- troduction , the Anfwerer declared hi'mfelf unfatis- fied with the Reprefenters method to clear his Party from Mifreprefentations ; and particularly , that he mould make his own ignorant, childtjh, or wilful mi- flakes , the Proteftant Reprefentations of Popery , as that the Papifts are never permitted to ' hear Sermons which they are able to under/land, and the like. Now from hence the Reprefenter defires leave to aflure his Friends, that the Proteftant Reprefentations of Po- %svb> P- 4- Pery are %norant-> childifb , or wilful miflakes. One would not have expected fo mean a Cavil , fo foon p. i. after he had promifed mo ft material Points ; But be- caufe I find in his Protefling Reply, that he is afhamed to own it, I fhali take no further notice of this, than to tell him, He ought to have been more afliamed to deny it ; it being lb manifeft, that what the Anfwerer faid of foms of his Mifreprefentations, he applied to all k"p-1-3°4- tnatmmfelf ca^s Mifreprefentations, that his utmoft Art will never be able to difguife it to any man that will take fo much fruitlefs pains, as to compare the places. But to proceed, i. Whereas the Anfwerer juftly expoied him for pre- tending to draw his Mifreprefentations exactly accord' Pag 2 5 l}% t0 ^ls mn Apprehenfions , when himfelf was a Pro- teftant ; he now affirms, that he can juflifie his Pro- teftant Characters of Papifts , by Proteftant Books , which he names, and out of one of them [ Sutcliffs Survey ) he produces fome fharp fayings concerning Popery. Nay, he thinks to defend his Complaints of Mifreprefentation, by thofe very words of -the Anfwerer concerning that Popery which the Reprefenter allows* We between the Reprefenter and the Anfwerer. 9 we can never yield to it without betraying the Truth, renouncing our Senfes and our Re of en , wounding our Con- fciences, &c. 2. Whereas the Anfwerer excepted againft. his Re- prefentkg Part, wherein he pretends to keep to a Rule, That the Reprefenter /hewed no Authority that he, a private Man, had to interpret the Rule in his own Senfe, againft the Judgment of Great Divines, as in the Quqftion of the Popes Perfonal Infallibility ; and agaitift the Determinations of Popes and Councils, as in the Queftion concerning the Depofing Power. The Reprefenter replies, That he followed the Coun- p. 5 $ cil of Trent, which he does not interpret , but takes in the Senfe of the Catechifm : That he alfo kept to Ftroris Rule of Faith, and to ' the Bifhop of Condoms Expofition, fo highly approved by Pope and Cardi- nals, &c As to the Inf lances, having fir fr ran to the Book for two more, he comes back with them to the two that were mentioned, and replies, 1. That where- as he limited the power of the Saints to help us to their prayers, he followed the Council, and the Cate- chifm, and the Bilhop of Condom. 2. That he did not P' 7' 8* qualifie the Doctrine of Merit, without Authority, iince it is fo qualified by Trid. Sejf. 6. Can. 2,6. 3. That the Popes Perfonal Infallibility is not determined by a General Council. 4 That the Depofing Power was never eftablifhed under an Anathema, as* a Doctrinal Point ; and thofe two are . therefore no Articles of p. 9) r0. Faith. 3. He makes thefe Reflections upon the Anfwerer s proceeding in the Book, That he either 1. owns part of the Reprefenter s Doctrine to be the eftablifhed Be- lief of the Church of England : Or, 2. Does without C gocd P. 11. lo A View of the whole Controverfy good Reafon deny part of it to be the Doctrine of the Roman Church , appealing from the Definitions of their Councils, and fenfe of their Church, either to fome Expreffums found in old Mafs-Books and Rituals, &c. Or to fome external Actions , in- cafe of RefpecJ Jhewn to Images and Saints, as Bowing, Kneeling, &c. Or P. i3,'?4. finally , to puivate Authors. Upon which follows a. grievous Complaint of Mifreprefenting upon the laft account. 4. From hence he goes back to the Anfwer to the Introduction, where he was charged for faying, That „ 6 the Popes Orders are to he obeyed, whether he be infaU lible or not : From whence it follows , That Papifts are bound to Aft, when the Pope fhatl require it, accord- ing to the Depofing Power. He replies, That he gives no more to the Pope, than to-Civil Soveraigns, whofe Authority is not fo ah joint e and unconfined, . but to fome of their Decrees, there may be juft exception. P. \6. 5. From hence he flings again into the middle of the Book, and blames the Anjwerer iorfcoutingamongfl the School-men, till the Quefiion about Difpenfations to Lye or Forjwear , was loft ; and that he offered no proof, That the Difpenfing Power was to be kept up as a Myjlery, and not ufed, but upon weighty Caufes. Then he leaps into the Chapter of Purgatory, and affirms, That St. Perpetuus Vifion is not the Foundation of p _ Purgatory, but only ufed by him as a Marginal Citation amongfl many others. Then a Complaint of Mifrepre- fentation again ; and becaufe Complaints are not likely to convince us, Let us, fays he, depend upon an Ex~ P. 19. per it nee; Do but give your Affent to thofe Articles of Faith in the very Form and Manner, as I have Jlated them m the Character of a Papijl Reprefented, and if you are P. 17. between the Reprefenter and the Anfwerer. 1 1 are not admitted into our Communion, fie confefs that 1 have abv.fed the World. ■ Thus far the Reflections : It is now time to compare Things, and to fee how much of the Cauie is left {landing. I pals it by, that the Anfwer to the Introduclion, tfpOA which the Refirefevter fpent his main Strength, %/£ to"pap. is in many mofl material Points .untouch'd by the Re- Proteft. p. 128. fleclions : But this is a fmall Matter : For, 1. He has dropt the defence of his Double Characters , his Reprefentations and M/freprefentations. For in- ftead of going on with his Adverfary in thofe Thirty Seven Points, with which himfelf led the way , he does' nothing but nibble about Three or Four of them, and that without taking notice of the tenth part of what wasfaid by his Adverfary to fix the true ftate of the Controverfie even about them : He has indeed thrown about four Loofe, General Exceptions amongft the Thirty Seven Chapters in which the Anfwerer Reprefentcd the feveral Doctrines and Praciifes of the Church of Rome ; but he has not with anv one of thefe Exceptions come ;up fairly towhatthe^//Ii^r4^- fhews, i. Of his limitting the Fewer of the Saints to their Prayers; That no luch limitation of their Aid and Afliftance, is to be found in the Council; That the Reprefenter Would take no notice of what his firft Anfwerer had faid , to mew that no fu'ch limi- tation was intended in the Councilor the Catechifm ; And that he did not find this limitation in die Bi- P. 12, 13. mop of Condom. 2. Or Ment; That the Twenty fixth Canon of the fixth Se/lion, mentions nothing of it; aild rTiat it is clear from Chap. 16. of that Sefiion, That they make Good works truly and properly meritorious of Eternal Life, tho they grant the Grace ot God , and the Merits of Chrift, to be the caufe of their own. Merits. Finally, That the An- between the Reprefenter and the Anfwerer. 1 5 Anfwerer did not Appeal to the Thirty fecond Ca- p- 4$- non to oppofe the Reprefenter '$ Qualification of the ' *7' 4 ' Doctrine of Merit, and was therefore unconcern'd in his defence of it. 3. As to the Pope's Perfonal In- fallibility ; That he denies it to be of Faith, and makes it but a School point; whileft there are as many who deny it to be a" School point, and make it a matter of their Faith. That the want of pofitive Determination by a General Council,does not prove it to be no matter of Faith, becaufe neither the Infallibility of a General Council, nor of the Church , is pofitively determined by a General Council. That if Infallibility mull be fomewhere amongil them, they have the befl Reafon that place it in the Pope. 4. As to the depofing Do- p. 49. ftrine , the Anfwerer fhewed largely and clearly, That Articles of Faith may be, and have been decreed without Anathemas ; That *the depofing Decree in- p. 54- eludes a Doctrinal point ; That if it were meerly a P- 56m point of Difcipline and Government , they mult ei- ther acknowledg it Lawful for the Church to depofe Heretical Princes , or confent that the Church is not fecured from making wicked Decrees, in things that concern the whole Chriftian World. That when the Reprefenter fays, That fome Decrees of Trent are not univerfa/ly received \ he dees not tell us that the Council had no Authority to make them , and to oblige Princes to receive them. And laftly, That the Pope's letting fo many aflerters of the No~de- p, 57 pofing Power to pafs without any cenfure of Herefy, does not argue a change of their Dodtrine, but only of the Times. 3. To the Reprefenter s Reflections upon the An- fwerers way of proceeding, as that 1. He owns in fome \6 A View of the whole Controversy feme part the Reprefenter s Doctrine to he the ef alii fled Dottrine of the Church of England; The fecond Anfwerer charges him with foul Mifreprefen- tation upon this account, in as much as the firft Anfwerer owned nothing which is peculiar to the Faith of a Pap/Jr, as diflinguifhed from thr common Faith of . Chriftia-ris ; and that the Reprefenter might as well P. 59,60,61. have laid, Tha Trotefiants own that Chrifl is to be worj). . . ereforS they in part own the Do- clrin? of the Church of Rome, That Chrifl is to be iv ■:■) Jhtpped by Images. And this he mewed to be the very cafe in every one of thofe fix or feven Points, which the Reprefenter only named, but did not think fit to infill upon , to fliew how his Rcfle&ion was applicable to them. x. And that the firft Anfwerer appealed from the definitions of their Church , &c. I. To feme Ex po/itiens found in old Mafs-Books and p- 6l- Rituals. This Anfwerer lays, that he could find but one Inftance of this, relating to the Woriliip of the Virgin Mary- viz. that fcandalous Hymn, 0 Felix Tuerpera, &c. But that their Church is accountable for her old Miflals , which were the allowed and eftabliihed Offices of Worlhip ; That even this has never been condemned ; but that Monfieur Widen- felts Book was condemned at Rome, which was writ p- *3« to bring the people to a bare Ora pro Nobis , to the Rleffed Virgin. 2. To feme' external Aclion as in cafe of refpecl flewn to Images and Saints. To this the Anfwerer fays , That the Reprefenter brings in this Exception , without taking the leaft notice of what his firft ' Adverfary faid concerning external P. 63, 64. Adoration , That it is a part of Divine Wcrfhip ; and that the Council of Trent requires it mould be given between the Reprefenter and the Anfwerer. 17 given to Images. He mews further , That fince there is fuch a thing as external and vifible Ido- latry ; an Idolatrous action is nevertheleis fuch , p 65- for the intention of him that is guilty of it, not to commit Idolatry ; That the worfhip of the In- p. 66, vifible Inhabitants of the other World, tho with fuch external acts as may be paid to creatures , has always been accounted Religious Worfhip; That as the Degrees of Civil honour are ..diftin- guilh'd by the Jight of the Objett ; So one certain p 6 distinction between Civil and Religious is , that the worfhip of an Invifible Object* is always Re- ligious ; and that to Worfhip the Image of an In- vifible Being, muft therefore be Religious Worfhip alfo; becaufe 'tis referred to the Prototype. 3. To the fentiments of private Authors. And here the prefent Anfiverer challenges him to give one inftance wherein the Judgment of private Authors was, as he pretended, fet up againfl the declared fenfe of their Councils and Church: And moreover mews what ufe was made of private Authors, by particular Inftances; p* 68> 6?- and that fometimes recourfe is neceflary to be had to them, and to the general practice of their Church, to know the fenfe of their Church. 4. Whereas the Reprefenter avoided the charge of their being obliged by his Doctrine to obey the Pope , when he commands them to act in purfuance of the Depofing Power ; by pretending that the Decrees of Popes may be excepted againlt no lefs than the commands of Civil Sovcraigns, as the cafe may be. The Anfwerer does acknowledg p. ^ this Reply to be good, if the Reprefenter be fincere in the Application, and will grant the Depofing De- D cree 1 8 A View of the whole Contrwerfy cree t» command a Sin ; and that Eellarmin and Canus were miflaken in averting, That P between the Reprefenter and the Anfwerer. Wg the Depofing Decree does not relate to things neceffa-?- 32- ry to Salvation, nor concerns the whole Church. An*d whereas his Adverfary imputes the Efcape of thofe that oppofe this Decree , to a Change of Times, and the Popes want of F owe r. he tells us, That Cracles are ceas d now-a-days . 3. As to Veneration of Images, he (ays, That al- though Acts of Honour expye(?ed to any Image that has Relation to feme Invifble Being, he fuppofed a Re- ligious Honour, yet all religious Refpeci and H nour is?. 53. not fo a Divine Honour, as to make a God conftrutlivtly of the thing to which it is paid \ Otherwife Bowing to the Altar , and to the Name of Jefus , cannot be excufed , fmce thefe things relate to the Invifible ' 34- Inhabitants of the other World ; nay , All religious \ Rejpecl, befides to God, muft then be conflrutlive Ido- latry. Therefore as die different Kinds and Degrees P. 35. of Civil Honour are diflinguifhed by the fight of the Objects, tho the External Acts are the fame, fo the different Kinds and Degrees of Religious Honour are diftinguifhed by the Intention of the Givers , and by Orcumftances. He fays further , as to the un- alterablenels of the Nature of Actions determined by p „6 a Law, That if this makes the Intention of doing no evil in Bowing or Kneeling to an Image, unable to excufe thofe from fin, who do this forbidden thing ; this ftrikes as feverely at Bowing to the Altar^ and Kneeling to the Sacrament, as at them, ft nee the Acti- ons forbidden, are the fame part of Divine Worthip in both Cafes. Finally, That a Quaker may jufhfiep- & 37, #his Ten's and Nays, by his Adverfaries Rule, That no Intention can alter the Nature of Actions deter- mined by a Divine Law, fince it is faid, Matth. 5*. 34, Swear 24 A View of the whole CoJitroverfy Swear not at all, but let your Communication, <5tc. And now to give him his due, fetting afide the frivolous Inftance of the Quaker, he has in this Particular come up fairly to his Adver&ry, and faid what de- ferves to be confidered. Then he concludes with two or three Requejts, which he hopes are not unreafonable ; to which his Adversary gave liich reafonable Anfwcrs, that we have heard of them no more fince that time, [See Anf to Pap. Prot. p. 124, 115-. ] and therefore we have no reafon to be troubled with them here. And fo let us now come to a Reckoning. 1. He grants his Adversaries Diftinttion throughout, between matters of Representation , and matters of Difpute ; which Diftin&ion , fince himfelf did not obierve, he either wanted the Skill or the Honefty of a Reprelenter. 2. The Defence of his Argument , That the Popes Perfonal Infallibility is not of Faith, from no General Council's having determined it, is dropt. 3. He will not be brought to fay, Whether the Council of Trent had, or had not Authority to ob- lige Princes to receive thofe Decrees which are not univerfally received ; and fo the Defence of his Argument, from fome Decrees not being received , is dropt. 4. His folemn Cavil, That the Firil Anfwere*- own- edibme part of his (the Re pref enters*) Doctrine, to be the Eflablifhed Dotlrine of the Church of England ; and his Objection againft him for appealing to old Mafs-Books and Rituals, and that other for appealing to private Authors, are all three dropt. 1 " k. He between the Reprefenter and the Anfwerer. 25 £. He will not fay that the Depofing Decree com- mands a Sin ; and fo his Defence of himfelf againfl; his firft Anfwerers Charge, That by his Principles he is bound upon the Pope's command , to aft ac- cording to the Depofing Power, is dropt. 6. His complaints againfi his firft Anfwerers Reprefenting the matter of Difpenfations ; an J his note upon St. Perpetuus Vifion, are dropt : But his Invitation of us to come over to the Church of Rome upon his Terms, is not dropt ; for we thank him, he has invited us again. The Third Anfwer to the Reprefenter, being An Anfwer to a Papift Protefting a- gainft Proteftant Popery. V - • TO the Reprefenter s wonder , That fuch ado mould be made about his Firft Book , the Anfwer er faies, That a Mifreprefenter is fo foul a P. i. Characler, that no man can wonder if we think our felves concerned to wipe it off; which furely may be done without offence to any, but jhofe that meant us, in the general Accufation. To his complaint that the Anfwerer makes , All that which they call Mifreprefentatiott, to be in all the material points a Reprefentation of the avowed Do- tirine and Pratlice of the Church of Rome; he faies, That he has done him all the fervice he can in diflinguilhing between matters of Fad, wherein E if 26 A View of the whole C out r over fy if we charge them wrong , we do indeed Mifre- prefent them ; and matters of Difpute , in which, if we fhould charge them wrong , it is not Mif- reprefentation, but merely a wrong Judgment upon p. 2. what they profefs and practice. And he had already ftiewn, That all matters of Fad: £ excepting fome few points ~) in the Character of a Papifl Mifrepre- fexted, are confefjed and defended in the Character of a Papifl Reprefented. Now Reprefentation or Mifreprelentation is properly about matters of Fact:. But as for the Confequences we charge upon their Doctrines and Practices, and which were put into the Mifreprefenting Side, to be taken off again in the Reprefenting Side ,• they are not matters of Reprefentation, but of Difpute. To this purpofe the Anfwerer argues, leaving the Reprejenter to apply theie plain things to his Protection againft Pro- teft ant Popery ; which amounts to thus much) That it could never enter into trim, that there fhould he any room for Popery in Heaven ; and that he would as focn be a Turk as a Papifl, if he thought as ill of the confefled Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, as we do. Which would be a wile Speech no doubt , tho we hope a true one. p- 3- Fcr the reft , he faies, That his Title related only to his own Book; and the Book, to the Charader of a .Papifl //if reprefented ; and therefore 'tis hard that he mull be drawn in to anfwer for more than he knows, even for all that any Proteflant may have laid concerning Popery Jince the Reformation ; and he thinks it fbange, that the Reprejenter, in- /lead of dei ending his own Characters, fhould hunt about jor new Mijreprtjentations Jor him to Anfwer, JFor between the Reprefenter and the Anfwerer. 2 7 For fince he has allowed the Diftinclion between matters of Reprefentation and Difpute, and can find no fault with his Adverfaries performance about it ; it fhould feem we are agreed upon the Re- K 4- prefentation of Popery now at laft, and therefore unlefs he were afbamed of his own Popery, now we had clearly found it, why fhould he divert from that, to new complaints of their being Mifrepre- fented by others I The Anfwerer however was refolved to fee wThat occafion there was for this frefh complaint. 1. And he fhe ws, That// what was tranfcribed P. 5, 6,7, 8,9. oat of the forefaid Archbifhop of YorkV Book, be Mifreprefentation , it is not a Proteftant , but a Po- pijh Mifreprefentation: For the Archbifhop cites his Authors for what he faies, tho the Reprefenter left them out .; And this the Anfwerer thought good to mew from point to point : And concludes , That tho every Dotlrine found in Popifh Authors, aught not prefently to be accounted an Article of the Romifb Faith ; yet a Church fo watchful to purge, expunge., and cenfure in all Cafes where her Interefl is concern'd, is Refponfible for thofe Doctrines, which have her Toleration and Licenfe, and which any wan among them is allowed to Teach, and to Believe. As for Dr. Beard, and Mr. Sutcliff, he faies, Thofe Sayings P. 10, u, 12, do not concern Reprefenting,but Difputing; and that ,3- the Reprefenter had unfaithfully concealed, either their Authorities or their Reafons, which h id made the thing plain ; or curtaifd their fayings , as he #iews by feveral Inflances out of Mr. Sutcliff; but that when fuch Confequences are charged upofc E -l Popery, 28 A View of the whole Controverfy Popery , it is more to the purpofe to Confute them , than to complain of Mifreprefentation. Finally. A.r to the Book of Homilies, thofe things which he hath taken out of it , as the Answerer tills him, do no more than mew the Judgment of our Church afout the Worfhip of Saints and Images in the Chifzh of Rome; in which he cannot prove us to be Mifreprefenters, otherwife than by confuting our Arguments ; which yet would but mew that we make a wrong Judgment in a matter of Di- fpute, not that we Mifreprefent a matter of Fact. Upon this, the Anfwerer mews, That Papifls pro- Ms and practice the fame things that ever they did ; and that all this grievous cry of Mifrepre- fenting, is grounded upon nothing die^ but a Pro- teftation, That they do not believe thofe ill things of their own Doctrine and Practice, which we P. i$,i£ do; which altho it be a new bufinefs, yet there was no Reafon for it, fince we never laid they did. In the mean time, the Caufe is the fame that ever it was, which is a fufficient Anfwer to all that he faies of Proteflants and Papifls jhaking hands, &C. And whereas he makes the diflinction between Reprefentation and Difpute , to be a fpe- culation above the Vulgar , and fo was not to be regarded by him who drew the Character of a Pa- pill as it lay in the peoples heads; The Anfwerer thinks , That he who undertakes to make Cha- racters, is bound to confider what belongs to it; t. 17, 18, 19. and withal, That our people are not fo filly as to think ( for inftance ) that Papifls believe the Wor- fhip of Images to be Idolatry ; or that Idolatry is iawful, becaufe they Worihip Images; but that if he between the Reprefenter and the Anfwerer. 29 he wrote his Characters for the Information of fuch p 20 Vulgar Heads , as he fancies , he wrote to inform thofe that can neither write nor read. 2. As to his Reprefenting, That he did it not by a private Spirit,fince he followed the Catechifm ,• the Anfwerer had reafon to ask, Whether the Catechifm may not be interpreted by a private Spirit , as well as the Council, fince their Divines differ in Inter- pretation of both ; and as for the Popes Approbation, p. 2r. he faid that Bellarmines Controverfies had it, as well as the Bifhop of Condoms Exposition ,• to which the Reprefenter would fay nothing ; and he now fays, That by Canus his Rule, the faid Bifhops Expedition has not the Authority of the Apoflolick See, unlets the Tope had given Judgment for it ex Cathedra , P. 22. which the Reprefenter alfo would take no notice of: But what he lays further concerning the Nature and Defign of the Approbations given to the Bifhop of Condom, I Ilia 11 wholly pafs over, fince it is by this time lomewhat plain, that this Bifhops Authority has enough to do to fhift for it felf, and is not in a Condition to fpare any help to his Friends. As to the limitation of the Aid of the Saints to their Prayers, he acknowledges that it is to be found in p the Bifhop of Condom, tnough he milled it, becaufe it came not in m the right place. " But whereas the Reprefenter juftines liis renouncing the Popes Perfo- nal Infallibility, and the Depofing Doclrine, by the Authority of the faid Bifhop ; the Anfwerer plainly /hews the Bifhops great Judgment, in having or- dered Matters fo, as to lave himfelf both with Ero- teflants, and with the Pope. To the Reprefenters Second Invitation, he anlwers, b> making tins P<-o- pofal, 3 o A View of the whole Controverfy pofal, Whether their Church would refufe him ad- p' I5' mittance, if he mould come in upon Bellarmhe's terms in thefe Points, which contradict the Re pre fen- ters ; though there he no reafon for this Difpute, fince p ,6. as he faid before, he likes not the Roman Faith as the Repref enter has defer ibed it ? Now to his Re- plies in behalf of the Depofing Doctrine being no Article of Faith, the Anfwerer fays, i. That where- as the P*eprefenter would prove it was not fo, becaufe no Anathema was fixed to the Decree ; it is fbmething ftrange, that he mould now be content to fay, Every thing is not an Article of Faith, which is declared without an Anathema ; for this is next to a down- right Conceflion that his Adverfary had baffled his Argument,- and mews manifeflly that he would feem to fay fomething, when he knew he had no- thing to fay to the purpofe. i. He (hews that the Decree of the Council at Hierujalem did include a Virtual Definition of Doctrine. And 3. That the Depofing Decree concerns the whole Church ; and if it be a wicked Decree, that it relates to a thing ne- cejfary to Salvation, by commanding to do that which it is neceflary to Salvation not to do ; and therefore he expects the Reprefenters further Confederation of his three Anfwers.. 3. Concerning the Worfhip of Images , the Re~ prefenter bids fo fair for a Difpute, that the Anfwerer took the occafion, and examined not only what tha Bifhop of Condom hath delivered upon it, but the feveral ways of flating it by their Divines ,♦ mewing that their Images are Reprefentatives to receive Wor- ship in the Name and Stead of the Prototype ; that in this Notion Image- Worihip is condemned in the Scripture, letwem the Reprefenter and the Anfwerer. 3 1 Scripture, and in what the evil of it confifled ,• a more particular Abridgment of that jufl Difcourfe upon this Subject I cannot make , without either wronging the Anfwerer , or detaining the Reader here too Jong ; and therefore I refer him aJfo to the Book it feJf for an Anfwer to the Charge upon Bow- ing towards the Altar y &c. And to the Apology for p **J &c Image- Worihip, from the Degree of the Honour that is givt n to Images : And to the Reprefeniers Ob- jections a gainfl that way of diftinguifhing Religious from Civil Worlhip, by making that to be Religi- P- 37, s&> \% ous, which is given to the Invifible Inhabitants of4°* the other World; and likewife to the pretended p- 123- Parity of Reafon in the Quakers Cafe. And thus much may ferve for the Anfwer to Papiits Trot eft ing againft Proteftant-Popery. The Third Reply of the Reprefenter, in Return to the Foregoing Anfwer. THE Reprefenter finds as little Comfort in Protefting, as Difputing, and fo falls to Accom- modate the Difference between the Reprefenter and the Anfwerer ; and calls his Work an Amicable Ac- commodation* For now he grants the Proteftants are not guilty of Mifreprefentation in aftricl and proper Sen]ey and is very forry that he and his Anfwerer '£ underflood one another no better before ; He thinks indeed it was his Anfwerer 's Fault, not to conceive him 32 A View of the whole Controverfy him right at firft ; and that if his Book had never been Anfwered, the Peace had never been broke; but he h perfwaded the Difference may be yet com- p 3 pounded; for the Cafe at ftrft was no more than this, That he perceiving the Unchnftian Hatred which grew in the Vulgar, upon that falfe Notion of P# 4. Pooery, which bur MijcmfiruUions^ &c* had drawn in their Imaginations ; He, I fay, Good Man ! No lefs in Charity to Protectants , than in Juftice to Papifts, drew his Double Characters, to fhew how p 5- Popery is Mjfreprefented. But then comes an Ad- versary and fays, He has proved that the Character of a Papift Mifprefented contains nothing in it, which in a ft rid: and proper Senfe can be called a Mifreprefenta- ticn. Now really he never meant to Fight for a Word-, and had he but imagined, that his Adyerfary p. §. had contended for no more, he would have fpared him the Charges and Sweat of laying down his Proofs the fecond time. Wherefore to end the flrife, he folemnly declares , that the Title of the Papifl: Mifreprefented, is not to he taken in its Uriel: and proper Senfe, as Mifreprefenting Jjgnifes only downright Lying , or faljly charging matter of Foci, the whole Character being not indeed of this Nature ; but in its larger or lefs proper Senfe, as it comprehends both Lying, Calumniating, Mis- interpreting , Reproaching , Mifconitruing , Mif- judging, and whatever elfe of this kind. But that we may know what a Lover of Peace he is, he mull: allure the Anfwerer, That this Con- p defcenfion is purely out of good Nature ; for betwixt Friends, he does not think the Anlwerer has advanced any thing that has the Face of a proof That there can be between the Reprefenter: and the An(Vere£ 33 be no Mif eprefenting where there is an Agreement ah out matter of Fall. Reprefenting , he fays , being nothing more than &■ •• /hewing a thing as it is in it felf ; as many ways as a thing can he/hewn, vtherwife than "tis in it felf fo many ways may it be properly Mifreprefented ; fo that the Defcripticn muji agree with the Thing, not only in Matter of Fad: , but like wife inRefpect of Motive, Circumflance, Intention, End, &c. But according to the Anfwerers Rule, had the two Tribes and an Half P- 9, been declared Guilty- of fetting up Altar againfl Altar • and Hannah been fet out amongjl her Neigh- bours for a Drunken Goffip ; here had ten no Mif- representation , becauie of fome Matter of Fall in the Cafe. The Elders too, that offered Proof againfl Sufanna, fince tliQjfaw her in the Garden, &c. were no Mifreprefenters : Nor the Jews againfl our Saviour ; nor Infidels againfl the Apoflles and Chri- ftians ; nor mail any be excluded from a /hare in this Favour, but they that have Malice enough to Calum' niate, but want Wit to give a Reafon for what they do, &c. So much was the Reprefenter overcome with pure good Nature, that for Peace fake he would yield to a Principle that can do fuch things as thefe, if his Word may be taken for the Reafon ; but we have another Reafon in the Wind prefently ; For if this fame Principle which he has ordered to protect the lewdefl Defamations and Perjuries , will but do its Office upon the Church of England, he has had his Reward : And fo he fhews what execution he can do in the Mouth of fome Zealous Brother , whofe Ho- nour and Interest engages him to fet out the Church of England^ as weRepreient the Church of Rome : To F which p. 11. 34 A View of the whole Controverfy whicfy Purpofe he puts a Sermon into his Mouth, which whether it Le a Copy or an Original, the Diflc nters may fay when they pleafe. But the Heads of it are iuch as thefe, Alter a folemn Preface of Exhortation to keep out of the Swing and the Sweep of the Dragons Tail, he P' I3' T4# lays down his Doctpre, 1 'hat the* hutch of England Mens Marks are the Marks of the Beaft, which he proves by the large Revenues and State of their Fre- p. 15. lates, who wear the Miter and the Crofter upon their Coaches while they L'ive. anduDon their Tombs when p. 16. they aie Dead : By the Wtek'y Bill of London, which iliews that Mary has Nineteen Churches, and Chrifl but Three; by the Pictures in their Bi bles and Com- m n-Frayer-Bor>ks ; and by many other Marks as good P. 17, i8,&c asthefe . wi^h becaufe they Hick faft to us, as he thinks, for any thing the Anfvcerer has faid, mud come over again in another place, and therefore the leis Repetition fhall ferve now. Sermon being done, he asks whether this be Mifreprefenting in a flricl and proper Senfe ; and if P. 34. not. he is contented that the Word Mifreprefenting in his Book (hould not be taken fo, i. e. for downright Lying: \ ut as we heard before, for wry Interpreta- tion s, weak Reafnlngs, &c. And here ends the Ami- cable Accommodation. tor his piking up Mew Mifreprefentatiins, he fays he did it to (Hew that the former were not his own child; (h n eis : For leaving out the Authorities of the Ach-8/fhop ol T rk ; that this makes nothing p agiinfi h-o. ly to turn over his Anfwerers Occafional Pages a- bout it. And now if the Reader will pleafe to put all together , he will find by an eafie Computation *, That this was the poor Remainder of a Contro- vetfie begun by the Reprefenter upon no leis than Thirty Seven Articles : So that thefe Points having had the hard Fate to be ferved by the Reprefenter as their Fellows were before, I reckon that he has Dropt and Dropt, till the whole Caufe is Dropt at lad ,• but this is one of thofe Things in which he is not concerned; for though the Papifl Mifreprer fented and Reprefented, be in a very forfaken Con- dition, yet himfelf, the Reprefenter, was never more diverting,- nor in better Humour all his Life: And who can blame a Man for not being forry for what can ne're be helpt ? And therefore fince he fped no better with his Grave Undertaking, it was not amns to be tween the Reprefenter and the Anfwcrer. 37 to call a merry Caufc , upon Mifreprefenting in a flritl and proper Sence, and to bring in a Phanatick Reprefenting the Church of England in a Ridiculous Sermon. The Fourth Anfwer to the Reprefenter, be- ing An Anfwer to the Amicable Ac- commodacion. THE Anfwer er has no Reafon to be difpleafed, that the Reprefenter now grants we do not Mifreprefent the Papifts in a firicl and proper fenfe, p. ^ viz. by Imputing fuch Doctrines to them as they do not own. But he faies that the Defign of the Re- prefenter in his Firfl Book, was to perfwade our people that we were fuch Mifreprefenters ; but that failing in the performance, he would now make good his Title of Mifreprefenting in a lefs proper Jenfe, P. 6. inafmuch as he thinks we do unjuftly condemn the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome. But why he mould tax us for this at all, the Anfverer wonders, and that very juftly, one would think, becaufe the Reprefenter has fometime fince difclaim- ed Difputing , without which it cannot be feen whe- ther we be Mifreprefenters or not in this lefs proper fenfe : And therefore he tells him, That if he will vindicate the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome , he muft quit his retreat of Charatler-ma- p. 8. kingy and fall to Difputing as their Fathers did ; in which, he is ready to joy n ifluewith them,: But that it 38 A View of the whpie Ccntroverfy it was by no means c ■ ] to chnrge us with Lyings how prudent foever t might Le upon another ac- count, fince if he 1 receedsin this way, he may be fecure, that no civ J perfon will care to difpute with him. Now whereas the Reprefenter did in effect recall his grant , by attempting to prove largely, That there may be .a Mifreprefentation where there is an /Agreement about tj$e matter of Fact; becaufe there may le Mifp refer tar v n upon other accounts, viz. in refpecl: of Motive , Circumflance, Intention, End, &c. Here tie Anjwerer ihews that thefe things do indeed belong to true Re- prefenting; but that they were too nicely di- ftingui.'hed by the Reprefenter from matter of Fact; for he had given Lm no occafion for the Dillindion, fince he had confidered thefe things in thofe matters which he charged upon the Church of Rome; For Inflance, That not only Worfliip- ping of Imrges, but the Worfhippers Intentions , and all ether circumftances ,, without which the Nature of the Fact cannot be throughly under- itood , were taken into confideration. Then he • fhews through all the Reprefenter s Inftances, That P. 12. the Mifreprefentations were in Matters of Fact; but wonders why he did not produce one In- flance of the like nature cut of his Anfwers, if he thought there were any. For what could he gain by mewing, That in fuch and fuch cafes others have been Mifreprefenters , unlefs he pro- veel withal , that we were Mifreprefenters in like cafes > His inftances fhew, that they w ho tell a piece of a Story, may Mifreprefent ; but not that they do fo, who faithfully relate the whole matter of Fact, with between the Reprefenter and the Anfwerer. 39 with all its circumftances ; which is our cafe ; and he has not produced one example to the contrary; tho fo to have don- -, had been more to his purpofe, than all his other LnftanceS. In fhort, this matter was fo fully Anfwercd , that when we hear next of the Reprefenter, we do not find one word more about it. To the Zeal as Brothers Harangue, he faies, tho it Le granted that the Diflenters Mifreprefent our Church, vet this does not prove that we Mifrepre- fent the Church of Rome; and therefore this is no- P. 15. thing but a device to get rid of us, by throwing us upon the Diflenters. but we are not for purfuing eve- p. ^ ry New Game, but wiHkeep 10 our old [cent. And yet he has made the Diflenter fay fuch filly things of us, as no Diilenter will own, unlefs he has he?rd them among the Quakers. This the Anjwerer plainly fhewed through almoft all his Fifteen particulars of the Charge againft the Church of England, and by the way, where it was any thing needful, he taxed the urrreafonablenefs and folly of the Charge, which yet w as more than he was bound to, fince i! it came to the Trial, we have fome reafon to think that there is not a zealous Brother in England, no nor triend neither, but would be aihamed to own it. So that this defign of Reprefenting and Mifreprefent- ingy to which I may add the Reprefenter s yielding in pure good Nature, that henceforth Mifreprefenting {hall be under Rood in its lefs proper fenfe, ends only in Ridiculing the Church of England, with which we are content, if they will permit us truly to Reprejent theirs. To 4o A View of the whole Controversy To what the Reprefenter offered, for feeking out new Mifreprefentations, the fum of What isAniwer- ed, is this, That it is in the main agreed what the matters of Eadt arc with which the Papifls may be charged; and fince.thefe only are the proper Sulject of Reprefentation , the ill con fcquences which Pro- teflants have urged againft their Doctrines and Practices, ought not to have been put into the p. 24. Character of a Pap/ft Mifre presented, unlefs he could mew, that we lay that Papifts do believe thofe Confequences : And therefore the Reprefenter vain- ly endeavours to excufe himfelf for putting them into that Character, by hunting about for new pretended Mifreprefentations, to imploy his An- fwerer withal. This I gather to be the Anfwer- ers fenfe, from his reference to what he had pro- ved before. As to the Archbifhop of Tork ; the Anfwerer faies, he did not Mifreprefent the Church of Rome P j-. in faying that Stapleton faid, We mufl (imply be- lieve the Church of Rome whether it Teach True or Falfe. The mofl that can be made of it, is, That according to one of their allowed Doctors, Thus a Papift mufl believe. And therefore if it be a Mifreprefentation of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome , Stapleton is to be thanked for it in the firft place, for faying fo ; and in the next, the Church of Rome for allowing him to fay fo ; and then the Arch-Biihop for reporting what he faid, tho he does not fay that one Do&or may make Doctrines for the Church of Rome. Hie between the ^pref enter and the Anfwerer. 41 The Cafe of Mr. Sutclijf, he fays, is different ; and he fhews that he exprejly diftinguifhes between what P- 26, 27: the Papifts teach, and, what himfelf concludes from fuch Doftrines \ and therefore that he does not Mifrepre- fent the Papifts, So that how little ibever the Repre- fenter thought himfelf concerned in Sutclijf s Rea- fbnings, becaufe Reafbning belonged not to a Repre- lenter ; yet furely it belonged to a Rcprefenter to di- ftinguifh between the Doctrines we charge upon the Papifts on the one fide, and the Arguments we bring againft thefe Doctrines on the other. To the Charge of omitting to render propter De- urn into Englifh ; He fays, It was omitted he knows not how or why ; but very juftly blames the Repre- fenter for infinuating that it was difhonellly omitted, fince it was the whole Defign of that Difcourfe about p« 28. the Worjbip of Images, to mew that Image Worfhip is Evil, tho God was worfhipped by it. I will upon this occafion add, that the Anfwerer could not but know his own foul Dealing in this Charge, which is fo very manifeft ; that this Injuftice, , if there were nothing elfe, does allure me, that he muft make a- nother Change, before we can expect much fincerity from him. With like honefty, he difingages himfelf from all Obligation to difpute concerning the Worfhip of h mages, Sec. 1. Becaufe the Anfwerer knows no Rea- fon for all this Difpute ; which words did not at all relate to that Difpute, but to the Queftion about the Bifhop of Condom's Authority. 2. He was never concerned whether the Anfwerer liked his Religion or not. But if he could have anfwer'd that Difcourfe, all that the Anfwerer tould have faid would not have P. 29. hindred him. G For 4% ji View of the whole £ontrover[yy 8cc. For the Reft ; the Anfwerer fays, that the Re- prefenter and the Bifhop of Condom, reafond and ar- gued at firil, as well as Reprefented ; and fince their Reprefentation is offered as a Rule by which we may be taken into the Roman Church, they were the ?' 30, more concern'd to juftify their own Rcafonings ; which fince it is declined, our People will be apt to think why Papifls decline the. Difpute, who are never known to avoid Difputing, when they think they can get any thing by it. And thus the Anfwerer takes leave of the Reprejenter, believing that this Matter U driven as far as it will go. Ike Fourth fyply of the fyprefenter, in behalf of his Amicable Accommodation. T 'Hislaft Reply is made up; i . Of infulting over the Anfwerer, for offer- ing no more than he did in Anfwer to the Zealous Brother's Sermon againft the Church of England. 2. Of more and more out-cries upon the Prote- ftants for Mifreprefenting the Papifts. But the Particulars that come under thefe Heads, together with his Reflections by the bye, will be bell produced in the following Anfwer, where I fhall confider what Reafbn he lias for this kind of proceeding. i The M Anfwer to the Reprefenter' s laft Reply. 4 ] The Fifth Anfwer to the Reprefenter in Return to his laft Reply. IF the Seven and thirty loft Points had been reco- vered, the Reprefenter coiild not have entered the Lifts with more Teeming fatisfa&ion, in himfelf, than he fhews in his laft Reply. But he has made a fhift to forget them, and that's as good. What the Anfwerer laid, that the Matter was driven as far as it would go (whatever the Reprefenter imagines) I find ftill to be true. For with reference to the chief mat- ter of Difpute betwixt us, we are parted ; and, 1 think, never like to meet any more about it. Indeed as to the manifold Charge fummed up againfl the Church of England, that matter, as he truly obferves, is not driven as far as it will go : And it feems he intends to drive it farther and farther. But why that fhould ever come to be a matter of Debate betwixt us, any one who confiders the Controverfy from firft to laft, muft needs wonder. The Defign of what has been faid on behalf of the Church of England has been to make evident thefe three Things. 1 . That we do not charge the Papifts with fome things which the Reprefenter will have us to charge them with. 2. That fbme things which he faith we falfly charge them with, are maintained and praclifed by them. 5. That allowing them to maintain andpra&ife only, what themfelves acknowledg that they do maintain and praclife, yet there are fufflcient Reafbns G 2 why 44 J* Jnfwer to the 9{eprefenter's laft fyply. why we cannot comply with Popery, akho refined after the neweft Fafhion. This is thefum of what has been argued on our fide. Now how comes his Zjalom Brother's Cant-to be an Anfwer to all this ? I know not I muft confefs how to imagine any Diflenter to be To ridiculous as to object againft us, what the Reprefenter makes him to Object : And without Flattery or Fawning, I may fafely affirm that there are not many who do it. But fuppofe there fhould ; will fuch their Objections prove againft the Firft particular above mentioned, that tve charge Papifts with what we deny we charge them with? Or againft the Third, That allowing them to maintain and praBife^ what themfelves acknowledg that they maintain and praffife,we ought to comply with Pope- ry. I think that no Man in his Wits will affert this. And therefore we may juftly ask what is to be done with all that has been faid upon thefe particulars ? <- and whether there not having been any thing that is material urged againft them, does not imply that there is nothing material to be urged; and confequent- ly, if the Anfwerer had not fbme Reafon to fay, that the matter was driven as far as. it will go ? As to the fecond particular, viz,, that feveral things which we are faid falfly to charge them with, are maintained and defended by them ; This indeed the Charafter which he made, little more than in ^ eft y for his Zealous Brother, doth feem more direfUy to eppofe. And- yet it might be eafily anfwered, that this Brother in his Zeal might urge what was Falfc againft Vs, tho we urged nothing but what was True againft the Papifts,. Which with a great deal more the Anfwerer offered to the confederation of the Repre- fenter y and heisnow told that he pajfed over this fame charge Jn Jnfwer to the ^eprefente/s lajl fyply. 4 5 charge upon the Ohurch of England, with a Light Touch, &c. And much adoe there is, becaufe he was not for pur fuing every new Game, but for keeping to the ^-35 4- old Scent. For what could poflibly come more crofs to the Reprefenter, than that after all his Doubling and Shifting, he fhould {tart new Game for us, and yet we fhould be for keeping to the old Scent ? And therefore I do not wonder to hear him complaining in this manner. And is it poffible then that the Difputing humour is fo foon off? We have heard of nothing hitherto fo much as ofDifputes and yet the Anjwerer is as unwitting to Difpute as the RepreJ enter Heres not a, word now of Difputing 'And is it notfirange that he fhould draw me out to Difpute and when his own Turn comes of Difputing he jhouldlet the matter Fall, be- caufe, forfooth, he* II keep to. his old Scent ? Now really this would almoft perfwade a Man to let him go for good and all ; as he might have done if he had obferved but a little moderation. But he gives it out, that in his Brothers Character of the Church of England, Almoft every > Point is urged with the fame Proofs of Scripture and Reaf on,, which Pro- tejlants produce againfi the Papijts : That there is fear ce an Argument in the Character, but is exactly parallel to what the Church of England ufes in her Defence againfi Popery'-, that the Grounds of the Arguments are the fame,, the manner of urging them the fame, the Max- ims on which they ft and the fame, and then the Rea^ fons which prefs them home, are they not the very fame which the Anfwerer himfelf in his former Difcwrfc urges againfi him ? And he turns it upon his An- fwerer, That a little prudence would ferve him to fay nothing in fuch a Caufe as will admit no better aDe~ fewe> This I muft needs fay, is a little too tyranni* cal 46 jfn Anfwer to the ${eprej "enter s la/l Q{eply. cal in a Reprefenter under his Circumftances ; and would tempt a Man agatnfl his own Inclinations to follow him a little farther now, under his new Shape. I tell him therefore, in the firft place, that a dole Difputant would have prefled him to fhew, that the Reafbns upon which we proceed in our manifold Charge againft thePapifts arcfalfe and unfatisfa&o- ry ; and not have furfered him to run out into an Inquiry, whether the Reafbns upon which his %fa- loiis Brother proceeds againft. US) be the fame with them, or no. Or, if this were to be allowed him, we might be well excufed from anfwering him in this matter ; fince the particular Controverfies which the Church of England hath with the DilTenters, have been managed on her behalf, not fb long fince that it fhould be forgotten ; and the difference of the Cafe between the Separation of Proteftants from the Church of Rome, and of DifTenters from the Church of England, was fhewn after all, and that in very good earnefi. For this being not taken notice of by the Reprefenter, it might very well fet off our Debt to him for a Charge upon the Church of England^ which himfelf meant little more than in jeft. Be- fides, altho he glories in this Charge more than in all his other Performances, yet fince he frequently inti- mates, that he intended no more by it, than to Ri- dicule our Charge againft the Church of Rome, 'tis aIlone,as if he had given it under his hand, that his Caufe is more fafe by ridiculing what we fay, than by replying to it like a Difputant. Now on the other hand, we think our Charge muft needs have been carefully laid, and well defended, if at laftit will ad- mit of none but Ridiculing Replies : And fb we might without An Anfwer to the ^pre/enter's lafi (Reply. 47 without much danger, leave things as they are, and put it to the venture, whether the World will not think fb too. But becaufe he boafh fb very much, that this Diicourfe which he has compofed for the Brother, is not yet fufficiently anfwered, and as fbme think, he may grow a little popular by it ; I care not if I go on with him in {bme part of his own way \ and, in compliance with the Opinion of others, inquire into the difference of thole Objections upon which we proceed againft the Church of Rome^ from thofe upon which his zealous Brother proceeds againft the. Church of England. i, I grant that our Prelate; have Revenues, and I believe Coaches, Miters, Crofters and Copes. Now if there be any reafbn why his Brother calls thefe Popiflr, 'tis this, that thefe things were not in ufe in cur Saviour's, and in the Apofiks times. But when did we ever objecl againft any thing that is rneerly circumfiantial amongft them (as thefe things are ) that it was not ufed in our Saviour's, or in his Apo- ftles Times ? Have we not laid it a thoufand times, that we like nothing the worfe becaufe the Papifts approve it, provided it be ufeful ; nay, if it be in- nocent and harmlefs? As for their Ornaments and Ceremonies, where does any one find that in the Controversies now on foot betwixt us, we do at all infift upon them ? Tho we cannot but think many of them to be neither grave nor decent, their Num- ber too great, and too much Religion placed in ., them by fbme People. So that, tho there is f caret an Argument in the Character, but exactly parallel to what we ufe, and tho ALMOST EVERT Point is urged with the fame Proofs, &rc. yet finely the firft Point is none or them. And therefore let s try the next. 2. It 48 M Anfwer to the %epre[enters laft Q{eply. 2. It is obje&ed againft us, that we make Gods of dead Men, and this is proved by the weekly Bills of Mortality, where our Cnurches are called by the lame Titles that they had in times of Popery. Now if by making Gods of dead Men, be meant making the Saints fo many Independent Deities, there is then a great deal of difference between what the Zjalons Brother objects againfl us, and what We object a- gainft the Papifte, as well as between the Reafbns of our Objections : For we never object this againffc them. But if by this Expreflion be meant, giving that WOrfhip to the Saints, which belongs only to God and our Saviour ; we then allow our Objection to be the fame,but do think that we have much bet- ter Reafbns to objecl: this againfl: the Papift, than that of a weekly Bill of Mortality, .For we appeal to the Publick Jddreffes which are made to the Virgin Mary9 and other Saints, with all the Circumftances of Ex- ternal Adoration ; to their Litanies and to the Hymns of their eftablifh'd Offices, wherein they are often in voked after the fame manner, as God himfelf is ; to their appropriating to particular Saints, diftinft Powers of doing good to their Worfhippers ; to their Acknowledgment, that the Saints are Mediators of Interceflion ; to the Prayers that are made to them in all places, as if they were omniprefent ; to the Senfe alfo of their Council of Trent, that they are to be prayed unto with mental as well as voc al Pray- er, as if they knew our Hearts. All which I hope is fomething more tha/i that in the weekly Bill of Mortality, and in common Converfation, we call our Temples by the fame Names they formerly had. And yet the Repreienter asks, Wherein have I Ridiculed the Church of England ? / have done no more in my Ch* j4n Anfwer to the %epr ef enter s lafl %eply. 40; Character againfi her, then what they have been doing thefe hundred and fifty Tears againfi the Church of Rome ? fb that, it feems we have tor thefe hundred, and fifty Tears charged them with Worfhipping the Saints upon no better grounds then their weekly Bills of Mortality. Only, faith he, what I have done in a kind of jefi, and without endeavouring to delude any body with fuch kind of Sophifiry, they have been do- ing in the greatefi earnefi, and by it making good their Caufe. So that he confefles his Charge upon our Church to be carried on with a kind of Sophifiry : only what he has done in a kind of jefi, we have been doing againfi: them in the greatefi earnefi ; i. e. we have in good earnefi charged the Church of Rome with giving that Worfhipto Saints which belongs to God only, upon nothing elfe but the Titles of Churches, fuch as ours have in the Bills of Mortality. But fiirely his greater!: Sophifiry of all lies in this, that he endeavours to delude People into this Opinion, which yet if he could, he muft delude them into another Opinion too, that BeUarmin and all the fa- mous Champions of old Popery, were a company of Fools, to be at fb much Sweat and Charges to maintain the Worjhip of Saints, and to defend it, as they have done, when they could fo eaflly have de- nied it. For that nothing is eafier than to make good our difbwning it againfr. the ground upon which he charges us with it, I fhall prefently make appear. To let pafs his Suggeftion, that the London Chur- ches were firfi built by the Papifis ', his adding that we rebuilt them7 with the fame Titles, Invocations and Dedications which they uje9 fhews how little he is to be trufted in a Queflion of Antiquity, who talks fb carelefly of things that are notorious in our own H Days, j o An Anfwer to the (Reprefenter's laft fyply. Days. Our Fathers indeed found the Titles conve- nient enough, and the Churches themfelves realbna- ble good Churches, and retain'd them both. But when we rat fed them out of their Afhes, we dedicated them to no Saint, whatever has been done in this kind formerly ; nor have we fince invocated any Saint in any one of them, but we keep the Titles ftill. And does our new Reprefenter expect that we fhould Anfwer fuch Objections as thefe ? At leaftl defire him not to think that we will make a practice of it. Muft our retaining thefe Titles, neceflarily infer a virtual Dedication of our Temples to thofe Saints, by whole Names they are diftinguifhed from one another ? But what if we had called them by the Names of thofe Streets only where they ftand, had they then been dedicated to the Honour of the Streets ? We fay that the Hundred Thirty and Trvo Churches here, which are known by the Names of dead Men and Women , are with us God's Houfesy and dedicated to his only Service, no lefs than the Vivt that are diftinguifhed by the Names of Chrift and the Trinity. And methinks fb acute a Difputant as he is grown, might have feen that the Title of one Church diftinguifhing it from the reft, does not fhew who isferved and worfhipped there, when the fame Service and Worfhip is ufed in all of them. That which we blame them for is, that they conti- nue to worfhip Dead Men and Women in thofe Chur- ches which bear their Names, and in thofe which do not. For if in ChrijFs Church they call upon the Bleflfed Virgin ; tho the Church has its Title from Chrifiy yet 'tis a Houfe of Prayer to Her as well as to Him. And if in the Churches which are known by her Name, we call upon God onlyy and worfhip him done, jin Jnfwer to the ^eprefente/s lajl fyply. 5 1 alone , they are his Houfes intirely, and none of Hers. But after all, where does the Anfwerer prefs him with the Titles of their Churches ? And yet the Reafons which prefs home the Argument s, are they not the very fame which the Anfwerer himfelf urges againft him the Re pre [enter f ^. I confefs that I have feen Pictures in fbme Englijh Bibles and Common-prayer Books, and Mofes and Aaron painted on each fide of the Commandments upon fbme of our Altar-pieces; which things how they have crept in amongft us I cannot tell, for they have no publick Authority from our Church. The Anfwerer made his guefs, and perhaps it will not be eafy to mend it. But upon this great Occafion, the Reprefenter has brought in his Rigid Brother making us worfe than the Papifts themfelves, forgetting that he undertook to reprefent us not altogether fo Bad, and therefore he fhould at leaft have corrected him- felf in this manner ; u Indeed, Beloved, I told ye at " firfr, that thefe Church-of~England-M.cn are with- " in the Swing of the Dragons Tail ; but I had not lied ly. < c for our Daily Bread, we pray as if God were not able to preferve us without it : And this would be to worfhip Bread. The Reprefenter makes too bold with his Zealous Brother ', and with us too, if he would have it thought' that we realbn againft them at this rate. But by this time I hope he fees to how little purpofe he applies that of the Anfwerer to this matter, viz,, that All worfhip of Tnvifible Beings is Re- ligious Worfhip, &c. For as yet he has not proved that we worfljip Saints or Angels ; and if he has done his beft towards it here, I will be bold to fay, that he knows he cannot prove it againft us ; as we can a~ gainft them, if there were any need of it: But there is no need of it, becaule they confefs it. 5. As for what is objected about our Idolatry in Receiving the Sacrament ; if I did not know the Prompter, I mould be afhamed to find it amongft fuch Inftances as are fa id to be built upon the fame Maxims, that our Objections againft the Papifts are. For how far fbever We and the Zealous Brother might in other cafes be faid to agree in the Reafons of what we ObjecT: ; I am fare it is moft unreafonable to fay we agree in this. For do we, as the Papifts, hold that the Bread and Wine are changed into the natural Body and Blood of Chrift ? Do we require any wor- fhip to be paid to the Elements after Confecration £ Do we elevate or carry them about, on purpofe to- have them adored by the People ? Nay, with refe- rence to our receiving the fame in the pofture of Kjieeling, is it not as fully as can be declared, That that pofture is meant for a fignif cation of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Qhrifl to all worthy Re § elvers \ That no Adoration is hereby in~ tendedy, 5 6 An Anfwer to the fypref enter's loft when he wrote his Reprefentation of Popery, under colour of difabufmg die People ; and made one part of a PapifFs Character to be this, that he abhors Idolatry? for thus the People would be betrayed into a belief, that he does not fo much as worlnip Images ; for Confequents and Antecedents* are fb jum- bled in the Peoples Heads, that nothing can lie difiinclly there. We indeed do not think fo meanly of them, and therefore might honeftly urge Argu- ments and Confequences againft that and other Pra- ctices of the Roman Church. But he, it feems, be- lieved they could not diftinguifh between the one and the other \ and then I am fure if they acquit- ted Papifts of the Confequence, it would go hard if they did not acquit them of the Jfafit too \ and therefore whether he put the Denying of the Con- fluence ^4 M Anfmr to the %epnfenufs lajl flfypjy. fequence into the Papift's Character with an honefr. Defign, at leaft, whether he had any reafon to ob- ject againft the diitinO: proceeding of the Anfwe- rer, I dare almoft now appeal to himfelf. But, as I obferved before, the Anfwerer made him afhamed of imputing this kind of madnefs to the People, and fb we heard no more of it in his next Reply. But yet the Intereft we are faid to have in the People, miift ftill be imputed to their madnefs. And what madnefs is it now ? Why they cannot diftinguijh be- tween Real and Artificial Monfters : Which k as much as to fay, that we *have made the Papifts Monfters, by telling notorious Lies of them ; and the People are fb mad that they cannot find it out. But may not I take my turn now to ask, Where's Chriftianity all this while ; whereas Truth and Chari- ty ? Why muft we be branded with the Imputation of Falfhood and Calumny, and our Chriftian Bre- thren treated in that manner, as if they were mere ftupid Creatures, and more fit to herd with Beafts, than to live amongft Men ? As for our felves being thus urged, we beg leave to appeal to All that know us, whether this odious Character be any way fuitable to our Conversion ; and then, whether we have deferved it for the ma- nagement of this Controverfy in particular,we appeal to the World. We appeal to all Men of Sincerity and Underftanding,what colour of Reafon the Reprefenter had here to zskyV/hy praying to Images Jeave to Sin for Mony,Forgivenefs without Repentance jkc. jhould be ur- ged againft them to make them the Object of Hatred^ and the Subject of popular Fury? Have not his An- fwerers more than once publifhed clearly and di- ftinaiy Jn Anfwer to the ^eprefenters lafl fyply. <$ j ftin&ly what we do, and what we do not charge them with in every one of thefe Refpe&s ? Has he convinced them of- any Infincerity, nay, of any mis- take in the dating of thefe things ? Has he taken no- tice of any thing they have faid about them? Why would he not be brought to confefs the Jultice of our charging them fb far as we have done, and our Ju- ftice to them in charging them no farther, or at leaft. to confute us by fhewing wherein we had done un- jullly ? What other Conftru£tion now can Truth and Charity make of thefe Proceedings, but that he would not confefs that we do them no wrong, and yet could not prove that we do ? But then certainly he fhould at leaft have been filent, and not go on as he does to declaim againft us ; as if he really believed we were thofe odious Mifreprefenters and Falfifiers, which he would have the World believe that we are. He fays indeed, that the Anfwerer unhappily takes it to himfelf as if He and His were arraigned of Lying and Calumny, Sec. whereas the Repref enter fpoke only in general, without fo much as hinting upon any party or perfon in particular. But furely when after the firft Anfwer that was made in behalf of the Church of England, the Reprelenter without telling us the par- ticulars why, could yet declare that he would be 4 Turk as foon as a Papifi, if the Anfwerer had rightly re- . prefented Popery ', we muft have as little underfland- ing, as he allows to the Mobile, not to find that we are principally intended in thefe general Declamati- ons. He thinks the Anfwerers over follicitude to prove his Innocence, may in fbme breed a fufpicion of his Guilt. But whether it be Innocence or Guilt that makes us fbllicitous to clear our felves, we may now K leave 66 An Anfwer to the %t pre fe titer 's lafl fyply. leave the World to judg. One thing, I take it, is eafy to be difcerned, that tho our Adverfary Rowls in Figures to heighten the injuftice under which He and His have fuffered by Mifreprefentations, yet he throws the Guilt fb faintly upon the Church of Eng- land, as if he were confeious of being unjuft to us all the while. As for the People of our Communion, whom he complements under the Title of the Mobile, we may fay without vanity, that how fcornfully fbever tl;e Repreienter treats them, we fhall never be afhamed to compare them with their Neighbours ; and that it would be a better World for the Reprefenter, if they were as ignorant and ftupid as he would have them thought to be. > But no more of what he has laid in this fit of An- ger ; for here's a fudden change, and now behold him the gayeft and merrier! Man alive. He fancies- the Anfwerer left him to wonder who thole M^are that Are not Mi frepref enters in a ftrict and proper notion of Mifreprefenting, -i.e. who do not belye the Papifts. For indeed he would gladly know who thofe We are, that he might return them his thanks for this fo kind Office — ■ Did he but know the Men, he would never permit them to lye obfeured under the general name of We. No, he would particularize them to the World For why ? Are not fuch Men Prodigies of Truth, Honefty, and Ju- ft ice ? Men that never mifreprefented the Papi/ls ! Why thefe are admirable Men indeed, and not to be heard of every day ! Now really this, with all that belongs to it, is allowed to be very well for the kind, and fo much the better, becaufe it more and more appears, that tho he can be angry without a caufe, yet a fmall matter Jn /nfwer to the ^epref enter's lajl %tply. 6; matter will pleafe him again. For he is delighted beyond meafure with wondring who theie We are, and rptfbes there be nomifiake t 'nit, and makes it hard, t$ imagine who they \bouldbe •. But Fie warrant him, he has 'em prefontly, as hard as it is. For in the ve- ry next place he tries whether the Anl werer by his We, fhould mean We Protefiants. And that is a pretty near guefs for the Firir. But then alas ! who can believe it, that WeYvoteftznts jbouid be no Mifre- prefenters ? He, for his part, would willingly give fbmething for the fight of the Man that thinks jo, who would be the greateft Mifreprefenter of All, tn vouch- ing for the Truth of All that has been invented againfl the Papifis thefe hundred and forty years. Why then, fure- ly, they are not We Protefiants. But for all that, upon confideration, he thinks he may take it for granted that they are We Protefiants. For the An- fwerer vindicates Protefi ants, and for himfelf, one may frvear he's a ftanch True Protefi ant, as never fcrupling at any thing that's for running down the Papifis, tho it be currying favour with and colloguing the Fanaticks. And thus the Anfwerer coming crofs in his way, his Fit takes him again ; for he cannot abide the An- fwerer, and lb there's an end of his Mirth: And now in fbber fadneis we muft fuppofe that the Anlwerers We, are We Protefiants. For which reaibn the Re- prefenter begins the World again, and is relbived to prove out of the Sermons and Books of Protefiants, that We Protefiants are Mifreprefenters : And fb he falls to work about it in good earner! through the re- maining part of his Book. Now I am (b far from being angry with him for this, that I rather wifh £>me merry Youth were to take him up here, to re- K 2 quite 68 M Anfwer to the fyprefenter's lafl fyply. quite his Railery, and keep up the good humour a little longer. And if it fhould come into any Bodies Head hereafter, who is given that way, to lay the Pleafant and the Angry Reprefenter together, as it might be done : The Jell: would go rarely forward, and that to fome Bodies coll too, that may be thinks little on't. For, was it not the Reprefenter that would be glad to know who thefe Men are that do not mifreprefent Papifts, thefe Admirable Men that are not to be heard of every day ; thefe Men, that were he but ajfured of the Being of fuch Men, he fhould begin to think Aftrea was returned again ! Did he not wifh to know them, that he might particularize them to the World, riay and have their Names Blazoned in every Sheet upon Pillars erected to their Memory ? Yes furely, this was the Re- prefenter himfelf. Why then, Dear Sir, be happy and joyful, for many fuch Admirable Men, as thefe, are in being I allure you, and to be heard of every day ; Butbecaufe it will be too great a charge to erect Pillars for 'em All, I fhall at prefent recommend but two of 'em to your Acquaintance, who are already particu- larized to the Worldy by the Names of the Firfi and Second Anfwerers to A Papifi Mifreprefented and Re- prefented. What pity is it that fuch Friends fhould be obf cured fb long under the general Name ofVfe, and be no better known to one another ? Thefe, Sir, are the Men whom you defire to honour, as if they were made on purpofe for it. For why ? Tho very honefr. Gentlemen they are, and their Words may go for as great a matter, yet they have a notable Quality be- fides, never to think of Reprefenting the Church of Rome, without proving what they fay. Why, Sir, they \An Jnfwer to the Reprefenter s hfl Reply. 6q they have been lately tryed upon no lefs than Thirty and Seven Points of Popery ; and have born the Teit of a fevere, watchful, double-dealing Adverfary ; and one as vehemently defirous to find falfe Repre- fenters among Proteftants, as you can be to know the true ones. Now, Sir, judg if thefe two are not likely to prove Right and True Men : For the Ad- verfary is to this day roaming up and down amongft other Mens Books to get Proteftant Mifreprefentati- ons for them to Anfwer ; a plain fign, you will lay, that he has found none of their own to call them to an Account for. t And fb having found out your Ad- mirable Men for you, I wifh you much joy of one another. Now this is too Blunt, I confefs, to go for Railery, but 'tis True tho, and that's almoft as good : And the Reprefenter may fee by it how another would have handled him upon this matter, if he had not by good fortune fal'n in my way. It is to me a moft unac- countable thing, why the Reprefenter fhould fearch for more and more Mifreprefentations, Mifquotati- ons, and fuch like faults in Proteftant Authors, and forfake the Uefence of his own double Characters, if indeed he thinks they may be defended : But if he does not think fb, it were but an honeft Mans part to confefs it, and then I think the Controverfy were at an end. Certainly the defign of his firft Book, which he ftill pretends to vindicate, was to give us an account of the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, upon which fcore he took upon him- felf the Title of a Reprefenter. 'Tis true he pre- tended to difpute for them too ', but that defign fell to the ground upon the firft Attempt that was made upon 70 An Jnfwer to the ^iprcfente/s la(i ^ply. upon him, and I believe ho will hardly ftoop to take it up again. " But then to illuftrate the Reprefenting part, he (hewed on the other fide how Proteftants, as he fays, have Miireprefented Papifts. So that here was a iolemn Controverfy. begun upon ib many feve- ral points, about Reprefenting and Mifreprefentiug ; and it was,one would think, very fairly carried on by the Firft Anfwerer, who we know went on with the Reprefenter from point to point, difcovering, where need was, his Ambiguities and Fallacies on both fides, • mending his -Characters, and giving a correct and plain account of the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, inoppofition to that lame and de- ceitful account thereof, which the Reprefenter had publifhed. The fum of the performance was to fhew how much and no more we abfolutely charge upon the Church of Rome, and in matters of charge not fo clear as the reft, how far and no farther weaceufe them ; every Particular- being guarded withreafbna- ble Proofs and Teftimonies. The fecond Anfwerer perceiving into what miftakes the Reprefenter was wandring, by confounding the proper Subject of Re- prefentation, with Subjects of Difpute, \vent as par- ticularly through all the points, and plainly diftin- guifhed thofe things under every one. Now would not any Man of common fenfe imagine, that, if the Difpute were pertinently carried on, the Queftion mull be this, Who gave the trueft account of the Faith and Worfhip of the Church of Rome, the Re- prefenter, or the Anfwerer ? And if it were perti- nently managed, that this Queftion muftbe driven through all the Thirty Seven Points, as it has been done once and again on our behalf. And therefore to An Anfwer to the Q(e pre/enter 's laft %eplj. to what end the Reprefenter fhould trouble himfelf to find out new Reprefentations-in the Books of other Proteftants, a Man may well wonder for a while,tho at laft he will fettle upon the true Reafbn, that the Reprefenter was Sick of defending his own. If it be faid, that one part of his bufinefs at leaft, goes forwards ftill, which was to fhew,that fbme Pro- teftants have been Mifreprefenters ; I defire it may be confidered too, whether this was not in order to thefetling of a clear and indifputable account between us, what are, and what are not the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, as to the Thirty «SVi>«* Points. For granting now, (and 'tis a good large Grant to be made at once) that the Repretenter did fincerely give in his own former Proteftant thoughts of Popery, and (as far as he could under- ftand them) thofe apprehenfions what Popery isj which lay in the Heads of the Vulgar ; then fb far as the Anfwerers confefTed this was not a true Reprefen- tation, if Proteftants did thus charge the Church of Rome y fb far I fay they complied with the Reprefen- ters defign, which was to correct fuch, if there were any fuch miftakes going amongft Proteftants. But fb far as they owned the charge in the Proteftant Cha- racter to be goodagainft the Church of Rome, if the Reprefenter difbwned it, he had in this cafe nothing to do, but to confute their Teftimonies, andtofhew that in thofe particulars as well as in others,his Church was Mifteprefented. And therefore if he had been fincere, the Controverfy had proceeded thus on his fide ; and nothing could have diverted him from pro- ceeding in this manner, if he had been able to make any thing of it. But inftead of this, he has for fome time ?i 72 An Jnfwer to the fypref enter's lajl G{eply. time forfaken his Thirty and Seven Chapters, and em- ployed himfelf in turning over fbme Books of Prote- ctants, to find out fuch Sayings as he thinks there is any colour to call Mifreprefentations ; nay, he is fafn fb low as to pick out what Mif quotations of Authors he can find amongft them, and to tax them here and there for Hiftorical Paflages. But did ever either of his Adverfaries undertake to juftif y all that any Proteihnt Divine, or Hiitorian has at any time (aid in oppofition to Popery ? Or, was it not pofiible to give a more honeft. account of Popery than he did, todifcover his fallacious way of reprefen- ting his own Church, and the true ftate of the Que- stions, that have been hitherto difputed, without fuch an undertaking? Nay have not his Anfwerers effectu- ally done it, without any fuch undertaking ? fb effe- ctually that he has forfaken the defence of his double Characters under the Thirty Seven Points ? \V hy then muft they be bound to Anfwer for all that every Pro- teftant has faid againftthe Church of Rome ? Will he anfwer for all the Popifh Mifreprefentations of Prote- ftants, that I can bring before him ? I fhall try him a little as to this before I have done : And I think with fbme better Grace, than this Task has been put upon us withal. For if it be but a mean way of carrying on the Controverfy, as I confefs it is, yet he has for- ced us to it by infifting upon it fb obftinately, that we have now no other way to let him fee the incon- veniency of it, but by turning it upon himfelf. And, which is fbmething too, we have cleared our Hands ofhimastothe Original Controverfy, for he has dropt that quite away, and fb having no Arrears to be reproached with, we may handfbmly enough talk with Jn Anfwer to the fyprej enter s I aft ^eply. 7} with him upon this new Score; and I will venture before-hand to fay thus much, that he is likely to be as deep in our Debt for this, as he is for his ririt deal- ings with us. Nor am I afraid thus to (peak my be- lief in this matter, tho he leems to have taken up a way of writing now, that will not fail him in hafte ; for as long as he can but find out any new fevere Say- ings of Froteftants againir Popery, 'tis but furnilbing out a new Book with 'em, and he may as well call it by the Title of a Fifth or a Sixth Vindication of him- felf, as by any other Title whatfbever. Nay the Vin- dication will go forward, if he can but find out a Vul- gar Head without a Name, to fay that he believes the Popifh Sermons are in an Unknown Tongue, or any o- ther thing as extravagant as that. But tho it be no part of our bufinefs to bring off e- very thing that has been faid or done by Proteffants, yet I fhall a little examine what our Reprefenter has charged thofe with, whom he has fingled out to ex- pofe them to the World. For I am much miitaken if even here, he has not expofed himfelf a great deal more than any Body elfe : Since he does often take the liberty to fill up his Tragical Declamations againfl Proteffants, by fpiteful Conff ruclions, weak Inferen- ces, and now and then by falfe Accufations, which is never more intolerable, than when a Man is in the fame Breath exclaiming againfl: the Mifreprefentati- ons of others. For my own part, where his Accufa- tions in whole or in part fall juftly, there fhall they lye for me, nor will I make another Man's Fault my own by going about to defend it. And if he had ta- ken the fame care not to make himfelf Guilty, by accufing the Innocent, he had come off better upon L this 74 Jt& hnfwer to the ^e pre [enter1 's laft fyply. this Theme of Arraigning particular Men, as wild as it is. He begins firft with 6^/ cliffs Inference from Aquinas, which I confefs is a very (Illy one ; tho I think it had been not only for Sutcliffs credit that this matter had been let alone, but for Aquinas s too, whofe Principle is no very wife one. But I fee no reaibn why the An- fwerer mould have been afhamedto print it over again, fince he did it only to fhew that Sntcliff inferred his Accufation by Confequence from what an Author of their own had faid, but not to juftify the Inference. And for any thing the Anfwerer has {aid, the Repre- fenter is at liberty to go on with his charge of Igno- rance or Malice againft him that drew the Confequence, to call him a Fool in this bufinefs, if he believed the Confequence to be Goody or a Kjiave if he did not. But I would gladly know how the Reprefenter can clear himfelf from grofs Mifreprefentation in the next Inftance, where falling upon the Author of the Re- P, 19. prefenting Catechifm for charging them with praying to Images,- he makes it to be a Crime, which his firft Anfwerer had cleared them from,in faying,that we do not charge them with praying to Images without any far- ther Refpetf. For may not a Man pray to Images, and yet not pray to them without any farther Refpefl ? This> would make one believe that he writes only for the Mobile, in whofe Heads things cannot lye diJlincJfy. But 'tis not fo honeft tho, efpecially in . a Man that complains of Mifreprefentations. But by this time, I hope, he is made fenfible of his mifcarriage here, by what the Author of that Catechifin has done to juftify his Charge. And fbl pafs over this complaint, and come to the next,. Which Jn Jnfwer to the G(e pre/enter' s lajl fyfly. 7 J Which is of a Sermon that charges them with pray- ing to Reliques too. Now whether the Preacher had any particular Teftimonies that there are fbme a- mongft them who do not only Worship ,but likewife call ?• 20. upon Martins Boots, &c. I know not, and therefore cannot at prefent pais Sentence againfi him ; efpeci- ally fince I am well afTured that the Council of Trent condemns thofe in general,n?/w affirm that the Memories the°Conftru- of the Saints are in vain frequented for the obtaining of ftionof Ewm help from their Reliques, and other their f acred Monu-0^™^Zit ments, - or Remains. Now if Martin s Boots and See Defence of Jofepfrs Breeches, &c. are the Reliques of Saints, ExP- °KDlfr; then they are not only to be venerated, as the Council '{ 2 " fs> ng ' affirms, but the Memories where they are, mult be frequented alio, for obtaining help from them. This, I think, is no Mifreprefentation, no wry Interpretation, no Imputation upon them from Ignorance or Malice in drawing the Confequence. In the next place the Anfwerer of Catholicks no /- dolaters, is made a Mifreprefenter for faying, that the common Anfwer of Catholicks, that their Adora- tion of the Eucharift cannot be Idolatry, is, becaufe they believe the Bread to be God, juft as the Worfhippers p of the Sun, believed the Sun to be God ; whereas the Catholicks do not believe the Bread to be God, ejrc. To which I fay, 'tis fb notorioufly known that Papifts believe (as they tell us) the Bread to be Tranfubfian- tiated, that if the Anfwerer's Words be as they are here fet down, 'tis yet a mere Cavil to pretend that he would infinuate as if the Papifts believed that which they Adore to be Bread, as we believe it is no more. And the Argument is good thus, if their mifc take, who believed the Sun to be God, did not excufe L 2 their M /nfwer to the HeprefekUr's Ujl <%/> sir worshipping the Sun from being Idolatry ; ; . - their miftake, who believe what they wor- fhip to be Bread no longer, but God,, excufe them, it it be Bread {till. But I fufpeQ: the Words are more clear and full in the Anfwerer, at leaft, I make no doubt that they are CurBciently fecured from the Re- prefenter's Interpretation of them, by other Paikgcb in Connexion. For the Reprelenter has not referred us to the Page, where he has picked up tins Excepti- on, which omiflion I believe was defigned, becaufe he has neglected fuch reference in four or five Inftan- ges more. Bat tho I have upon this disadvantage gi- ven him a particular Anfwer here, yet I do not intend to ufe him to it. For the employment he has found out for us at prefent, is not of that weight, that I fhould be obliged to turn over whole Books, and fome of 'em no fmall ones neither, to find out a fingle Pa£ fage that he thinks fit to carp at. And therefore, at prefent, I will not be concerned with the Vindicati- on of thole Deductive Abfurdities, which Dr. St. would perfwade to be Doctrines of the Roman Church : For p ^ the Reprefenter here refers to the general current of his Dtfcourfc j and which is yet more unreaibnable, has given me a whole Book written in confutation of the Dc£tor to anfwer.For the like reafbn as he has referred the proof of a hundred and fifty Lyes (without giving one Inftance)againft John Fox's Acts and Monument s} to the Examen of John Fox'/ Calendar ', p. 7>. p. 412. lb do I too. Thus alfo the Arch-Bifhop of fork mif- P.22,23,24. quoting St. Thomas and Bellar mine) and old Dr. Willets- proof out of St. Bernard, that the Pope is Antichrifi \ and Bp. Taylors mifquotations and corruptions of Au- thors, which feme Anfwerer of his has made to appear, flail Jn Jnfwer to the 1{eprejcnte/s lift \eply. 77 (hall with all the reft of this kind, pafs off together withcur onv further notice. For ftill I fay 'tis too Cardan Tinpofition, for the Reprefenter in a few Lines to oblige us to read over fb many Books ; and which is by no means to be fubmitted to, unlefs the Fate of the caufe depended upon it, which I am not yet convinced it dees. And therefore once again, I muftdefire lnmto give in his particular Exceptions againif. our Authors in their own Words, if he thinks fit to go on in this way, and to tell us the particular Page or Section where fuch PafTages are to be found ; and then he fhall have my Judgment in the cafe: Bur if he leaves all upon his own and his Friends credit, I fhall be fo civil as to do fb too. I come now to his charge upon Dr. Tillotfon, for abufing Eft i us ; but whether Eft i us be not more obli- ged to Dr. Tiilotfon than to the Reprefenter, I leave it toothers to judg, when I have given a particular ac- count of this matter. I do acknowledg that thofe Words cited by the Reprefenter are in Eft ins ; but tho I cannot fay whether the Dr. minded them or not,yet I believe it will either way appear, that the Reprefen- ter had but little reafon to make this an Inftance of our endeavouring to prove J^ome Folly upon the Papifts, out of their own Authors, and then bringing in the Au- thors quite contrary to their own fenfe and words. Eftius concludes that the Fire which the Apoftle fpeaks of, 1 Cor. 3.1$. is the Fireofthe Day of Judgment ,\vhich fhall prove every Mans work, and purge that which k not already purged. And at length he comes to fpeak of the Purgatory of Souls after this Lifey which feem? not- only not to be fupported, but to be overthrown alfoby this place of the Apoftle ft nee the whole purgation is refers ved 7 8 jfn Answer to the Q{e frej enter s lafl fyply. ved to the Lift Judgment. To this he anfwers, that thus much is mamfeft againft the Sectaries, from his In- terpretation of the place, that in the World to come fome ■ Sins are to be forgiven, viz. theirs who fhallbe purged andfaved by tire. Nor, fays he, does it follow from the Purgatory Fire of the loft day, that no Purgatory of Souls is left before that day, any more than it follows from the Purgatory of Souls, that there is no purging in this Life', which, allowing for the principles of his Church, is with the reft that follows to this purpofe, a good and folid Anfwer to the forefaid Objection. And this was the Doctor's Ground for faying, that Eftitts contends that it cannot be concluded from hence that there is no Purgatory. But then he goes on, Be- fides, we muft know that as the Scripture often leaves a particular Judgment to be under flood, under a general Judgment, and from the laft day in which all fb all be judg- ed, will have the day of every ones Death to be under flood in which each Man is judged by himfelf ', fo from the Fire that is to go before the Face ofChrift at the general Judgment, and to purge whatfoever at that time remains to be purged, it leaves a certain Fire to be\underftood, in which a particular Judgment is exercifedfor the purging of Souls pre fently after this Life, Then come in the words cited by the Reprdfenter. Wherefore by this way the Punijhment of Souls in Purgatory is well and fo- lidly gathered. But how is it well and folidly gathered this way ? Does Eftius lay that the punifhment of Souls in Purgatory is implied in, or that it does any way follow from that general Purging which is to be at the Day of Judgment ? No, he fays not a word that looks this way ; but only that one leaves the o- ther to be underftood, that is to fay, if a Man has a mind An Anfwer to the Reprefenter s lap. Reply. 79 mind fb* to underftand it, but not dfe. For 'tis a ihame to repeat that, becaufe where the Scripture (peaks of a general Judgment, it fuppofes that we mult dye firft ; therefore when it fpeaks of a general Purgatory of Men, it leaves a Purgatory of Souls be- forehand to be underftood, or well and (olidly gathered. But the Reprefenter will fay, the Queftion is not whe- ther EftiuSs way of gathering Purgatory from this Text, be good and folid ; but whether Eftim does contend for no more than that Purgatory cannot be 0- verthrown by it, as the Dean pretended. I grant this to be the Queftion, and it fhall have an Anfwer, if it has not had it already. Whether the Dean made the fame obfervatuon that I have made upon this my- fterious bufinefs, I cannot certainly fay, having never fpoken "with him about it : But I prefume he did, becaufe it will clear him irom any great matter of blame, in taking no notice of the PafTage cited by the Reprefenter. The Cafe in fhort is this,JE/?/#* was very clear in this Point, that St. Paul does not here [peak of a Purgatory of Souls , but of t fiat Eire which is to -prove the works of All at the day of "Judgment. But then he muft guard himfelf as wellashe could from the charge of interpreting this place, otherwife than the Latins had interpreted it at Florence ; w hich made it necefTa- ry for him to bring in his third Queftion, An & quo- modo prohetur 7\vhether and how it can be proved frorri this place, that there is aPttrgatory for Souls after this Life, in purfuance of which Queftion he fays what we have already cited. Now, although in his Inter- pretation of this Text, he could own, as he did, with great modefty and good reafon, that he did not fol- low Bellarmine, Lenf. this the Reprefenter calls throwing Dirt blindfold, Sec. and fuch Mifreprefenting, that if the State or Civil Go- vernment were ferved 16, there would be a at the end of it. By which, Iguefs, he would be con- tent that the Author were hanged. But one would be willing to know firftwhat he has done todeferve it. Why, fays the Reprefenter, Tins is the Reafon he gives of our Devotion. What? that all who ule tjiofe Forms of Devotion which the Author cenfures, have no Other End or Intention, but pure Vanity and Often* t At ion or Flattery $ lb indeed the Reprefenter would infinuate : But, as I fhall make appear, the Author's meaning was that the Repetitions themfelves which he fpakeof, were purely vain-, and do not ferve to any good and prudent End: For which he chiefly blames the Contrivers of 'em, as the words plainly enough ihew. But what reafon he had to fay this, was, laid down juft before in thefe words. Their Manuals of Devotion are fo full of Tautologies, and vain Repeti- tions, that tlxy muft needs conte under the cenfure of our B. Saviour, Mat.th.6. tho they ufe his holy Name,. For fo in the Jefus Pfalter, at* the end of the Manual ' of Prayers and Litanies, printed at Paris, in Englijh, An , 1 68 2 . in a Litany of Fifteen Petitions, the Name Jeiu Jn Jnfwer to the fyprefente/s lafi tf^eply. 8 ; Jefu is repeated over above 130 times: And in the fame Book, in the Litany of the B. Virgin, they pray to her by 40 fever al Names, being only fo many diftintt Praifes of her. Now this the Repreienter thought fit to fupprefs, which would have fhewn that he did not make Vanity, &c. to be the Reafon of the Peo- ples Devotion, but that he charged their Forms of Prayer with vain Repetitions. And here the Repre- ienter fhould have fliewn, if he were able, that the Repetitions mentioned do not fall under our Savi- our's prohibition of vain Repetitions ', that they could be contrived for fbme good and prudent End ; that they ferve to any thing better than Ofientati- on or Flattery : Here, I fay, he fhould have employ- ed his Skill, and told us what are vain Repetitions, if thefe are not. But this was fbmething a harder Task, than to take a PafTage by it felf, without that Connexion which would have explained it, and to reprefent the Author by it as odioufly as he could. For, I fay it again, he does not make Vanity, &c. the Reafon of their Peoples Devotion, even in ufing thefe vain Repetitions. But indeed he fays plainly enough, that they are fb contrived for Vanity, and Oftentation or Flattery, that they are not Helps, but Hinderances to Devotion. But however, does not this Author make Vanity to be the End and Reafon, of their Contrivance, who compofed thofe Forms? No, not that neither; for tho that Expreflion out of pure Vanity, &:c. be, I confefs, fomething obfeure, and feems to look that way, yet it was not his meaning, as any Body will fay is plain beyond ail Exception, that confiilts the whole place. For thus begins that particular to which thisPaffage belongs. M 2 Seventh- 8 4 M Anfwer to the fyprefenter's laft fyply. Seventhly ', Their Manuals and Books of Devetion, which they give their People to read inficad of the Scrip- ture, which they forbid to be ufed, tho they may DESIGN THEM AS HELPS, yet 1 mufi range them amongfi the Hindrances of Devotion. By which it is evident, that he meant not to charge even the Contrivers of thefe Tautologies, with any defign to lead the People to Vanity, becaufe he fup- pofes that they might defign them as Helps, and not Hindrances. The Book which he carps at, is written with great Judgment, and no lefs Modefty ; as one may difcern by this, that the Reprefenter could not find a more convenient PafTage for his Anger to work upon, than that which we have feen. But we mull not forget that he is all this while making good his Title or a Reprefenter. And now the Bifhop otKjlmore is called to account for mifrepre tenting the Papifts, by putting them upon the fame Pile with Infidels and Pagans. For, as Dclphos worfhipped Apollo, &c. So, in Popery, Pag. 26. England worfhipped St. George, &c. And as the Pagans had their Gods for the feveral Elements, for Cattle and fruit, for feveral Profeffions, and fe- veral Difeafes, to pray to : So, in Popery, they have one Saint for the Eire, &x. Now if this be mif reprefenting at all, 'tis mifreprefenting with a wit- nefs, /'. e. in the Anfwerer's Phrafe 'tis mifrepre- fenting in a firicl and proper fenfe, and in the Re- prefenter's Phrafe, downright Lying. For I do not find that the Biflhop affirms any thing in all this, but matter of Fa£l. But will the Reprefenter fay that Papifts have not Tutelar Saints for feveral Coun- tries, and feveral Saints to pray to, for their Cattle, and ,An Jnjwer to the Q{epr ef enter $ laji ^eply. 8 5 and the Fruits of the Earth ? Is it true or falfe that St. Koch is prayed to in cafe of the Plague, St. Petro- nella under Agues, St. Jpollonia againft the Tooth-ach ? I fhall expect his Anfwer to this ; and if he dares not deny it, as I am perfuaded his Modefty will not fufFer him : I fhall then ask him where the mifre- preienting lies ? If it be (aid to lye in this, that the Bifhop puts them upon the fame File with Pagans, let us fee how far he does fb. He had laid down that Rule of God's Word a little before, Thou /bait wor- jhip the Lord thy Gody and him only /halt thou ferve. And then he proceeds to the Comparifbn, in which indeed he muft be fuppofed to tax the Papifts with contradicting that Rule, by their pra&ife of worfhipping their diverfity of Saints, no lefs than the Pagans by ferving their feveral petty Gods. But he is fb far from faying, that in all refpecls they are as bad as Pagans, which one would underfrand by futing them all upon the fame File, that he dees not enter upon a Comparifbn of Aggravations, in refpe£t to this very matter of Worfhip ; but only fhews that Rule is viola- ted this way, no lefs than that. Now if this be a true Charge, I conceive it is no ill manners to fpeak the Truth in a Cafe of fuch vaft Concern. If it be Falfe, the Reprefenter had done more Service to his Caufe, and won more deferred Thanks from his own Communion, as well as ours, by fhewing the difference between the one and the other, with refpeel: to that Command- ment, than by declining, as he has done, not on- ly the Juftification, but very craftily the Confer^ fion too of the Fad upon which the Charge is ground- 2 6 An Anfwer to the ^eprefenter's la[i (%>/> grounded : Infomuch as they in rvhofc Heads no- thing lyes di ft welly, would be almoif perfuadcd, that the Repreienter accufed the Bifhop of down- right Lying, and that perhaps the Papifts have not their Tutelar Saints, and Saints proper for feveral Occafioils" to pray to, as the Bifhop pre- tended. But any thing in the World fhall ferve to (well the Charge, when Protectants are to be let out for JVlifreprefenters. As little realbn do I find for his fevere charge up- on the lame Bifhop, for obferving that fome place P 6 2 7 * ^etr whole Worjhip of God in Bodily Exercife ; "meaning, as I have good reafbn to offer for k, not My but Some Papifts. For the Bifhop pro- ceeded to lay the lame charge upon the DifFen- ters f without any currying I allure you j, nay, to thole of our Communion alio, as any one may lee, fag. ii. And what was laid particularly of the Externals, in which thofe Papifts trull:, whofe Re- ligion runs out into nothing but External Show, feems to me to note no more, than the greater danger they of the Roman Communion are in of falling into this kind of Hypocrify, by reafbn of the vaft number of Ceremonies and Obfervations which they, above all other Chriftians in the World, have brought into Religion. Thefe are the PafTages which Anger and Ill-will have pick'd out of the whole Sermon, to expofe the Bifliop to Hisivlajefty's Dilpleafure ; by which one may fee what little caufe the Repreienter had to fay, that he pretends to His Alaje/lies Word for abusing them. If the Reader defircs to know the motives he had for Preaching and Publifhing this Sermon, he will not Jn Anjwer to the ^eprefente/s loft \eply. %y not take them, I fuppofe, as they are RidicuPd by the Reprefenter, but go for 'em to the Preface it felf, which declares what they were; and then -fee will find that the Reprefenter has abufed the Bifhop. Now whereas he found feme PafTages m the Book of Homilies of the fame ffrain with what he P^g. 2 5. had noted in the foresaid Sermon; the fame An- swer will therefore ferve for both : And what he adds befides, in contempt of thofe Divines that compiled the Homilies, is as eafily anfwered with Contempt. And (b I come to that hearty family- Prayer ', which, as he fays, has mi fed up from Turk *nd Pope, defend us Lord, a [Note or two higher ; inasmuch as it runs thus. 0 Lord confound Satan, Antichrifl, with all Hirelings and Papifis. This Prayer, he tells us, is added to the end of the Singing P films, in a Common Prayer Book, Printed at Oxford, in. the Year i6#$, in TSveh^s \ by which I guefs he would bring that Univerfity too, as well as the forefaid- Bifhop, under His Ma jefties Difplea- ftre. And therefore this Aceufk ion knot to be purled lightly- over. Now He nrj Hills could have given hint abundant' fa tis&^on in this matter, if KB had been confulted. For, ^poii the belt Inqui- ry I can make, I find that no Pfalms, in Twelves, , were Printed in Oxfird before ™ the Year 1684, and therefore ao fudr- Pmppeffioi*, as- the Repre- fenter means, could1 be 'the tfS i in - 1 &8 fi fetit this is not alt: for neither- feel1 tftfcfe mark how the Reprefenter makes it out, Dr. Tillotfon ia the fore-mentioned Sermon, inveighing again ft theVn- charitablenefs of Papifts — at laH in a rapture of Charity concludes, ' I have io much Charity (and I defire always ' to have it) as to hope that a great many among them ' who live pioufly, and have been almoft inevitably de- ■ tained in that Church by the prejudice of Education ' and an invincible Ignorance, will upon a general Re- ' pentance find mercy with God. Now inftead of this, the Reprefenter txpecled from the Doctor fome extra- ordinary piece of Charity both for the Reformation and example of the Papifts ; and yet, fays he, after all the outcry and bus fie, he wont allow one more grain of Mercy to tie Papifts, then the Papifts do to them, that is onely to fuch who having lived pioufty and truly repented of their Sins, have an invincible Ignorance to attone for aU ether errours of the underflanding, which is the very Do- ftrine of the Papifts, in refpecl of fuch who die out of the Communion of their Church. So that we have Mif-re- prefcnted Papifts in pretending that they do not allow as great hopes of Salvation to us continuing and dying Proteftants, as we allow to them continuing and dying Papifts. N Now po An Anfrver to the Reprefenter'/ latt Reply. - Now I confefs I am under fome temptation to mew who is the Mif-reprefenter in the Cafe; but this is fo good a hearing, that I will not go about to clear our felves from being Mif-reprcfenters upon this occa- sion, but take him at his word, that here we are Mif- reprefenters : nay, more than that, I will thank him for taking all opportunities to report us for fuch Mif-re- prefenters, to the people of both Communions j for thus it may be hoped that we lhall never more be troubled with that Argument to perfwade Ours, and to confirm His, in the Communion of the Roman Church, that fmce we grant the Papifts a poflibility of Salvation, and they utterly deny a poflibility of it to us, the Communion of the Roman Church muft needs be the more fafe, inafmuch as both parties agree in a poflibility of Salvation in that Church, but they do not both agree upon fuch a poflibility in ours. And fince we are proclaimed Mif reprefenters upon this account, I defire alfo that from this time foreward, the Trade of going up and down with peremptory denouncing Damnation to all of our Communion, may be at an end, and never heard of more : And that no advanta- ges may be made of our charitable hopes and conceflions in behalf of fome that dye in the Communion of the Church of Rome ,fince it feems the Doftrine of the Papifts is the very fame in refpecl of fuch who dye out of that Com- munion : Or at leaft, that no regard be given to thofe of the Roman Church who lhall hereafter pofitively de- nounce Damnation againlt us, fince the Reprefenter will have it that we are as pofitiveagainft: them, inafmuch as to fay that Papifts are guilty of fins inconfiftent with Saha~ tion, is but to fay , they are damned in another phrafe. The Reprefenter I fay, who takes upon him to correct all falfe notions of Popery, and is therefore much to blame, if An Anfwer to the ReprefcntcrV laH Reply. p i if he be ignorant of the Do&rines of Popery, has declared to the World, that whether in the way of Hoping, or p. 28. of Cenfuring, Proteftants and Papifis fay the fame thing of each other : And therefore I think the forefaid Requefts are very reafonable ones ; fo that this one matter is in a way of being fairly compounded.and if the Reprefen- ter likes it, I am fure both parties are well pleafed. For want of other complaints, he takes up one at length, which he had dropt fome time fince , viz. That we rake together fome odd and extravagant Opinions ofp-2* fome Authors, tofet them down for the received Doclrine of the Church. Which complaint he fupports by no- thing eJfe but fuppofing that the fo often-mentioned Archbifhop of Tori is guilty of this in citing Bulgradus, &c. and that this is enough to make any extravagancy pafi for an Article of Faith, Now he does not fo much as make it appear that this Archbilhop pretends the Ex- travagancies for which he brings thofe Authorities,to be Articles of Faith in the Church of Rome. But how far their Church is chargeable with the feveral Extravagan- cies of their Authors, and what ufe we may and ought to make of their Divines and Cafuifts, &c. in the Con- troverfies now on foot, the Reprefenter has been al- £JP* £oc JJ{[- ready told very diftinc"Hy ; and when he thinks fit to 1*%, 68, 6™ Reply, he fhall not want an Anfwer. In the mean Anfw. to Pap. time, to convince us of the unwarrantablenefs of this rot' ?' 9' method, and what a wretched thing it is to charge pri- vate Doctrines upon a Church as Articles of her Faith, he brings in a Popilh Preacher inveighing againft the ill Manners, and efpecially the difloyalty of Proteftants, upon one pafTage in the Decay of Chrijlian Piety, ano- p' *°9 ther in Sir R. Baker, and a third in Jovian. Now I 32! fay, let them who do thus argue againft the Church of Rome, as he makes his Popilh Preacher to inveigh a- N z gainft pa Ah Anfrvet to the ReprcfentcrV latt Reply. gainft us, let them I fay take the fhamc of it. But tor any thing that he has done hitherto,the men are yet to be found out : though I do not know but upon ve- ry diligent fearch fome one fuch or other may be taken amongftus ; and when that happens,he (hall go for me, and keep company with that once Proteftant who be- lieved the Sermons of the Papifts were made in a lan- guage unknown to the People. Now he confefles all this Harangue to be a piece of Sophiftry, which he has j»> 33< put into the mouth of a Popifh Preacher : Which is e- nough for me, and I am not at all moved by his pre- tending this was done to make us alhamed of prafti* jing it in good earneH , as he has feen and beard that we do. For this is a reafori I am now pretty well ufed to, it being the very fame wherewith he defends that ri- diculous Sermon which he compofed for the Zealous. Brother. And therefore I (hall even pin this Harangue to the remainder of that Brother's Sermon, that when one is called for, the other may not be forgotten. • And fo at laft we come to Mif-reprefenting, in re- lation to fome matters of Fall and Hijlory, and here he hopes the Reader will Mfcover notable things. The firft Mif-reprefentation of this Kind, in which he in- ftances, was the Mif-reprefenting of the Rich Hangings, the Majfy Plate, and other things which Adorned the p. 3$. Altars in the times, before the Reformation , the Candleflicks, Crucifixes, and Shrines ; Three Epifcopal Houfes, with Four or Five Churches, &c. For thefe were Reprefented as Super/lit ious, or Superfluous, and forthwith were immediately blown up. Now a man mall notprefently find how this comes to be Mif-reprefen- ting, the Papifts in relation to fome matters of Fad and Hi/lory. He names but one Proteftant, fpeaking of thefe things, viz. DnHeylin, and he too, is brought in An Anftvw to the P^eprefentcrV laU Reply. pj in agreeing with the Reprefenter in charging thofe doings upon Covetottfnefs , Amhition and Envy ; nor is any other Cited as contradicting him. Was not the Re- prefenter full ofcholer and bitternefs,that he mud needs eafe himfelf whether it be in fit place or not ? I fee the bottom of this bufinefs plainly enough: If that Refor- mation of Doctrine and Worfhip which our Church made, be. not blackened enough already, he is refol- vedto charge upon it all the faults of the great Men that made advantages by the Change. But mufl the Vices of the States-men in thofe days neceflarily afTecT: the Reformation ? Why then muft not the Vices of Popes affect Popery ? If he has a mind to it, let him reprefent the former ten times worfe then they were, and when he has done, I will ihew him as many Popes Reprefented by their own Hiflorians as really bad, as he has made thofe by Fiction, and this too by Hiflo- rians of no lefs Credit amongfl them, then Dr. Hey tin is with us. The Reprelenter owes us a good Turn, ■ and if he xan but bring in the word Mifireprefenting, 'tis all the* pertinence he cares for, though .it be Mif- reprefenting Plate and Hangings. Again , becaufe he fancies that King Henry the P. 34- Eighth made way for Protefiantifm to enter into the World (in which however, he is miftaken) he taxes him boldly of Vile Extravagancies, the refpect that is due to Crown d Heads, no nor the confideration of that Line in which this Prince flood amongfl them, being not able to reflrain him. But where is the Mif-reprefentation complain'd of? Certainly the Popes Power here might be an Vfurpation, though the motive upon which Henry the Eighth threw it quite off, (as it had been curbed by his PredecefTors before ) mould not prove the belt in the World : But let the Reprefen- ter P4 An Anfwer to the Reprefenter'/ latt Reply. ter here aJfo ufe his liberty of rendring him as odious as he can, remembring all the while that the Faults of that Prince reflect no lefs difhonour upon the Church of Rome, then upon the Church of England, as 'tis now Reformed: For 'tis certain, that in all other points he was a Papift, excepting that only of the Su- premacy ; unlefs the Reprefenter will fay that the whole of their Religion is in effect this, that the Pope fliould be all in all, in the Dominions of every Chri- ftian Prince in the World. Luther comes next upon the File for Marrying a Nhh p. 34, contrary to his Vow ofChafiity. By which he means a Vow of Celibacy, as if the Marriage Vow , were not a vow of Chaftity too. But do not their own Divines fay, that the vow of Concinency may bedif- penfed with ? And has not the Pope difpenfed in grea- ter matters ? Had Luther marryed with his Dilpenfa- tion, he had it feems committed no fault at all. And we are apt to think that if notwithftanding his Vow, he had good reafon to marry, he might do it fafely e- nough without the Popes Difpenfation. But where's the Mif-reprefentation now ? Why, here's a Vow of Continency Reprefented as a rafli and inconfiderate Vow, and this is M'tf-reprefenting Vapifls in relation u matters of Fatt and Hiftory. And thus alfo honefl Sir P. 35- William Mif reprefented Chalices, Crojfes, Images, nay, Guineas, &c. Into Popijh Trinkets and Trumpery, and made them fit for feifure. But I fay neither was Sir William honeft in doing it, nor the Reprefenter over wife in mentioning it here. His next Fling is at Six Richard Baker, who up- on the Executions of feveral great Men in Queen Mary's Reign, chanced to fay according . o his wonted Eloquence : Now the Cataracls of fever ity will -be open- ed, An Anfwer to the Reprefenter'/ latt Reply, c?«; ed, that will make it rain Blood. Well, but to bring oft honeft Sir Richard for once, he does not fay that this feverity was Tyrannical or Unjuft, for if he had, cer- tainly the Reprefenter had brought us all under the lafti for it : But the ends of thefe great People being Tragical, he thought good to fet the matter offwith a Tragical, or, as the Reprefenter calls it, a pat phrafe, without any further defign. And then as for the o- ther Blood fpilt in Queen Marys Reign, which* he feems to charge altogether upon Provocations, Tumults, Se- ditions, and Rebellions ; he is guilty of the fame fault, which he accufes Proteftants of, viz. Of Reprefen- ting things by halves. Were none put to death in thofe days but for fuch caufes ? Were Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Taylor, and almoft all the 300 fpoken of, burnt for Herefy or not > Was not the Queftion con- cerning the Sacrament of the Altar, the burning Queftion ? For thofe that were guilty of the Abufes - he mentions, they might thank themfelves, we de- fend them not. But what colour is there for Repre- fenting all as fuch ? And why will the Reprefenter put us upon talking of thefe things, who had faid nothing of them, if he had not forced us to it in our own de- fence. But to fee now how much there goes in the telling a ftory : Quern Elizabeth put to death, as he fays, Two p- 16- hundred Perfons upon the fc ore ofConfcience, without any actual Crime orMlf demeanour againfl the Ancient Statutes of the Land. Two hundred Perfons ! Truly I do not know but in her long R«gn of about 40 Years,fo many might be put to death. But I wifli the Reprefenter,fince he pronounces in general with fo much confidence,had named One or Two that were put to death upon the Jcore ofConfcience, and likewife what point ofConfcience it $6 An Atifwer to the Reprdfenter\f laU Reply. it was. However fomething is necefTary to be faid in general Anfwer to that Charge which he plainly in- tends, though he would not plainly fpeak it out. In fhort therefore, about ten Years after the Queen came to the Crown, Pope Pius Quint us fends over his Bull for the Excommunicating and Depofing her, upon which followed the Statute againft the Execution of it : Which yet did not hinder feveral Priefls and Je- fuits from trying to have it Exccured, in purfuance whereof the Queens Life was more then once in dan- ger. And therefore when no other Remedy would ferve the turn, all Popifh Priefts of the Queens Sub- jects, were banifhed under the Penalty of Treafon, and had forty days, given them to prepare for depart- ing. This Law was made at leafl twelve years (I believe more) after the Popes Breves were fent hi- ther: And upon this Law fome Priefts that were af- terwards found here, were Executed, and fome were not, who though coming into England contrary to the Law, yet withal, giving fecurity for their dutiful Behaviour to the Queen , were , without changing their Religion, fet at liberty : For, if we may be- lieve one that knew thefe things better then the Re- prefenter feems to do, though our Princes judged it •necefTary for their own fafety, that this Law fhould continue in force, yet to avoid the doing of any thing that looked like putting men to death upon the fc ore of Confcience, they qualified the rigour of it by their own Mercy, where a Treafonable defign did not otherwife appear. For when Goodman a Jefuit, was Reprieved An. 1^40. by KingCtwrles the ift, and the King was Expoftula- Jan.25. ted with by the Parliament about it, he fignifled the caufe to be this, that Goodman had been found guilty, merly as being a Prieft, which was the reafon of the King's An Anfwet to the Reprefenter\r laH Reply. py King's mercy, and that in this clemency he did but fol- low the examples of his Father, King James, and of Queen Elizabeth. Now whether we ihould believe King Charles the Martyr, or our Reprefenter, I leave others to judge. This general account may ferve for his general charge ; and I do not think fit to run out into more particulars, unlefs the Reprefenter gives oc- cafion ; but I leave him to confider better of thefe things : And when he has done it, he may perhaps feel a little mame for having faid juft before in the Cafe of Queen Mary, Now one would think to be juH to Crowned Heads, the Blood fhould not be expofid alone to the Peo- ple, but likewife the Occafions and Provocations given : And in Queen Elizabeth's cafe I will adde, And the mer- cy alfothat was fhewn, notwithstanding thofe Occafions and Provocations that were given her. But whereas he calls the Law we fpeak of a Law of her own contriving, a Law fo cruel that the like is fcarce to be found among the Mahometans, who though they have conquered many Chrifiian Nations, yet never, as he has heard of, made it Treafon for their Natives to profefi their own Religion, or maintain their Paflors. To let pals the Mifreprefentation he infinuates, of making it Trea- fon to profefi their own Religion, it would almoft tempt a man to learch the Records of old Time, to fee if forrie- thing has not pafled in the World as cruel as this Law, if it had been executed to the utmoft rigour. For why ? lhould Queen Elizabeth, under whofe Reign our Nation purchafed fome Glory abroad, fuffer now at home the imputation of being the moft Tyrannical Prince that ever was in the World ; beyond the ex- amples of Mahometans . Knives which Papifts were faid to procure for cutting of the Proteftants Throats. For I am fo perfect a ftranger to the leaft report of this matter, till I met with it here, that I can fay nothing to it. As for the Fire of London,thzt I confefs I have heard of, and likewife that many char- ged it upon the Papifts ; now for thofe that did fo, I hope I may without offence offer that excufe for their credulity, which I take a hint of from the Reprefenter himfelf: It could not be expected but that the grief of fo undoing a Calamity in vaft numbers of fuffering Peo- ple, fhould difcharge it felf in accufing thofe as the Au- thors of it, who, as they believed, were well pleafed with it : As for the Reprefenter, what his thoughts are towards London, he has given us plainly to underftand, in calling it a Proteftant Sodom, which Heaven con- fumed. Now I dare fay this was not meant for. a la- mentation over the fins and fufferings of the City : But if men will go on to infult at this rate, they fhould however , be lefs clamorous againft thofe miftakes of which the greateft occafions are given by them- felves. O z Then ioo An Anfrvet to the ReprefentcrV latf Reply. Then as to that which he calls a Monfieurs Invention : They that gave credit to it, have this to fay for them- felves, That Dtt Moulin 's public offer to make full proof of his (lory, when Authority (hould require it, flood many years, even to the day of his death; which was no improbable argument that he was provided with- reafonable good teflimony, though it was not thought fit to call upon him for it. This may be faid to fhew, that if there were never fo many that fwallowed the ftory, yet this was no reafon for the Reprefenters furi- ous exclamations: For I am by no means fatisfied that they who believed it, did fo in defiance to all their Senfes-, for though there were Aclors and Contrivers of the Murder of King Charles the Firft, as public as the noon- light, yet I do not feel any fuch contradiction in fuppo* fing that fome Contrivers there might be who were not as pullic as the noon-light : And when the Reprefenter thinks of it better he will fay fo too, unlefs he will fay, that becaufe the Contrivers of that dark Treafon of the Powder Plot, were at laft as public as the noon-light, therefore that it was in all likelihood a Contrivance too, of the good Lord Cecil , cannot be credited, but in defi- ance to all our Senfes. And yet after all, how does it appear that we have laid any fuch ftrefs upon DuMou* lins Relation, as the Reprefenter intimates : For my own part in all the converfation I have had amongft Protectants, I can remember.nothing concerning it, but that it has been fometimes a little wondered at, that he was never required to prove his (lory. And there* fore I doubt the Reprefenter has here plaid .the part of an unwife man, in reviving a ftory to the difadvantage of the Papifls, which died with the firft report of it, as we thought at leaft* for unlefs the Reprefenter thought we had fome reafon to believe it, why fhould he . • An Anfoe? to the ReprefenterV laH Reply. 101 he go about to complain that we do believe it ? I think we have been more Juft to his Party, than he has. For our fenfe as to this matter is, that fince now the ftory is not capable either of being proved, or difpro- ved, it is to be let fall, and the World is no more to be troubled about it ; though whiift Du Moulin was alive, it was not to be expected but that one or o- ther would be harping upon it. At laft he comes to the Garagantua Mifireprefenta- tion of them all, that is, the Divine Oates with his Po- v' 4°* pijh Plot. And here, as from a Caftle where he is fafe from all poflibility of Aflault, he bids defyance to us with all the Rhetoric, that Anger and Scorn can in- fpire a man witha!. But becaufe he lets fly at the Pul- pits for this, and To makes the Clergy to have given what Authority they could toO*/«-his lyes from their Pulpits, I mud needs change a word or two with him about that in our own Defence, and tell him that neither is himfelf of that Credit, nor the thing it felf fo likely, but that it flood in great need of particular proofs. I know not but that amongft Ten thoufand Men, here and there one might deliver the news of the Pilgrims, and the Black Bills from the Pulpit. But I never heard of any that did, and I almoft think that if the Reprefenter had known a few Ihftances of this Kind, out they had come, if it had been for nothing but to fupport the Credibility of his general Accufa- tion. And to go further with him, whereas he confi- dently fays, that the WHOLE Plot was received with that welcome and Credit, that what would have been quefflioned in the very Scripture, was entertained with- eut any fir up le. I will make bold to ask him , by whom it was entertaind, did himfelf believe the whole Plot, while he was a Proteflant ? If he did, un- doubtedly ros An Anfrvet to the Reprefenter'/ latt Reply. doubted Jy we have not loft one of the wifeft of our Party, If he did not, neither did any body elfe that ever I could hear of, though perhaps many might be- lieve more then was true. But for a more particular account who believed much, who little, who nothing at all of Oates his Difcoveries, and the reafons of the feveral Opinions, he muft excufe me for that ; I am refolved not to be drawn in. Nor have I lately fpo- ken with every Man in the Nation. And 'tis onely for a Reprefenter to talk of thefe matters, and to pro- nounce generally without exception, though he does it alfo without examination of the particulars be- fore hand. Thus far I have waited upon the Reprefenter in examining the Reafons, upon which he pretends that we ufe I know not how many Methods to Mif-repre- fent Papifts, though it has been every ftep out of the way : For if all had been true that he pretends, what is all this to the Defence of his Thirty- Seven Chapters? What is it to his Anfwerers, who had no more to do then to rid their hands of thofe Thirty-Seven Chap- ters? And they have done it fo efTedtually, that the Reprefenter has thought good to rid his hands of them too. But I think by this time, it may appear that he has all this while given us juft caufe to complain, that we are many ways Mif-reprefented by Papifts , though the* Reprefenter without juft caufe, was refolved to be before hand, in the fame Complaint againft us. For not to repeat thofe Mifreprefentatiows, Falfe Conftruttions , and Wry Interpretations of Proteftant Authors, &c. which I have ihewn him to be guilty of, in examining fome of his Complaints ; it were a very eafie matter to convifthim of no lefs untrue then fpite p. 17. An Anfoer to the ReprefenterV laU Reply, 103 fpiteful infinuations againft all Proteftants without ex- ception in this, and in his other pieces. I {hall at pre- fent give but one Inftance, and that in this his kft Re- ply, where he fays, that the Proteflant Verfvoafionhas its Name; Being, and fupport not from what it is in its [elf, hut from what it is not, in defying and prote fling a- gainfl their Neighbours. 'Tis eafie to fee what notion of Proteftants fuch Paflagesas thefe are intended to im- print upon the minds of Men. But does the Repre- ienter in good earned, believe that our Religion isu mere Negative Religion, and that we ihould have none at all, if we had no Neighbours to defie, and to pro- tefl against ? Or does he believe that our Religion fo far as it is Negative, is fupported by defying and pro- tefling againfl other Men ; does he not know that we at lead pretend to fupport it by Reafon, Scripture, and Antiquity ? Nay, does he believe that there are no Affirmative points of Religion which we maintain a- gainft them, and in refpecl: of which they do in reali- ty proteft againfl us, though it feems we have got the IName of Proteftants. If he does believe thus of us, much more if knowing the contrary, he fays fo how- ever, Where'* Truth, Charity, or Juftice > If we take the Religion of Proteftants, as it {lands in oppofition to the Errors of the Church of Rome, it is in many Points Affirmative , and the Negative is on that Churches fide. For inftance, that God onely is to be Worfhipped, is as Affirmative a Conclufton, as that God is but One, and that Ghriftian people are bound; to read the Scriptures is as Affirmative, as that they are bound to fay their Prayers, and that the Laiety have a Right to the Communion under both Kinds; is furely as Affirmative, as that they have a Right to One only. Why then does the Repreienter fay, that the 1 04 An Anftver to the ReprefenterV laH Reply. the Proteflant ProfeiTion has its Name, Being, and Sup- port ; not from what it is in its felf, but from what it is not . our great bufinefs is to fend to the Baking-houfe for Bread, and to the Tavern* for Wine; and fo we fall to eating and drinking without any more ado. If he would be Steeling his Novice a- gainft us, he mould at lead have been fo juft to us, as to let him know that vye do not give the people common Bread and Wine, though we do not pretend to give them the naturalfubflance of Christ's Body and Blood. For that way of Mifreprefenting us by charging the particular opinions of fome Proteflants upon all : They have the confidence to do it, even in thofe points where- in neither Proteltants nor Papifts are of the fame mind among themfelves : And though the Doway Cate- chifm reprefents us (o divided that 'tis not well polTibie for any two of us to be of the fame Religion, yet when again 'tis for their turn to Reprefent us otherwife, there is not an odd opinion of any Proteftant, but forth- with it belongs to the Religion of all the reft. Thus we have been charged for making God the Author of Sin ; and that for nothing but for the fake of thofe O- pinions held by fome Proteftants, which are no Ms ve- hemently defended by fome Papifts : In which kind of Reprefentations no man, I think, has out doge the Re- conciler of Religions (whoever he was) printed in the year 1663. They teach, fays he, profane, falfe, and un- godly Doclrines, as for example : That God is the Author of Sin ; that ChrisJ defpaired upon the Crofi. Which la- ter Opinions, this man and Fevardentius, and divers 0- thers, as I well remember, faften upon Calvin ; and then talk as if it was the received Doctrine of all Pro- teftants An Anfoer to the ReprefenterV la ft Keply. top' teftants. So fays he, They fay that ChriB fuffered the p« !4- pains of Hell upon the Crofs, and that this was his Defcen- tioninto HelL See Calvin bere,Pfa\. 15. Now I think Calvin does fay fo : But 'tis To fmall a matter in Com- panion, to charge what one fays upon All, that I mall lay no great flrefs upon it. But that which fol- lows is admirable : Neither, fays he, are they mifevably wad only, but alfo diabolically malitious ; for its ofmeer purpofe they fay and do thus, left that by clear places of Tradition and Scripture they fhould be conft rained to con- feft that there is a Purgatory. Are not thele rare Men, thus at once to charge us with what we do not fay or do, and withal to pronounce concerning our Intentions in fo doing, and that in this Vile manner, that no honeft Heathen ever ufed his Neighbour fo ? Ib{d> Nay, if you will believe this Reprefenter, They that hear Sectarian Miniflers are not Believers* for they do not truly believe in God the Father Almighty, nor in Je- fus Chrifl his only Sou. For he knows their Hearts bet- ter then they do themfelves : and let them be never fo p confident that they do, he will prove that they do not believe in the Holy GhoB. And he peremptorily fays that they do not believe the Communion of Saints : And laftIy,That neither do they believe forgivenefs of fins. For which he brings an excellent Reafon, Becaufe they fay fay, The Priefls cannot forgive Sins : Though we do not fay that neither, but only that they cannot for- give Sins Abfolutely ; which now they would per- wade us too, to be their own Doctrine. Thus p. i 6. he has made us Infidels almofi throughout . the Creed, only at laft he grants, that we believe the Refur reel ion of the Flefh , and the Life Everlafiing ; which I wonder at, becaufe it was as eafie to invent a reafon why we believe not this neither, as for all the reft. .1 io An Anfrvcr to the ReprefenterV la ft Reply. reft. But then even in this matter, we are no better Believers then the Devil. For, fays he,, this they be- lieve, and fo do the Devils. No wonder therefore that he comes afterward, and puts us npon the fame File with Turks and Heathens. As the Turks are divided and fubdivided among them- felves, fo are the Proteftants. The Turks wherefoever they come, demolifh Churches, deftroy Crojfes, and beat p. 37. down and break Altars, and Images ; fo do the Prote- ftants. The Turks cannot abide Praying to Saints ; no more can the Proteftants. The Turks love not Beads nor Holy Water ; no more do the Proteftants, The Turks above all things, hate the mojl Holy Sacrifice of the Mafi, and fo do the Proteftants; which alone is e- nough to jhew that in their Religion or Belief they are like Turks and Heathens. This I think may ferve at leaft, to fet againft the Bijbop of Kilmors Parallel : Though I ought to ask the Bifhops Pardon for making the Companion. For as to that Parallel between Pro- teftants and Turks y it is not in every particular true, for Proteftants do not demolifh Churches wherefoever they come, nor breaks down Altars, nor deftroy Crcffes, nor always Images. And as to the particulars thata- grec to both, how much malice foever there may be, I am fure there is little Wit in putting them and us to- gether upon thefe Accounts. For certainly, we are no more obliged to do any ill things, becaufe the Turks themfelyes forbear them, then we are obliged to forbear any ufeful or innocent Cuftoms, merely be- caufe the Papifts ufe them. Had this Reconciler fhewn our Agreement with the Turks in fome Practi- ces, that we could not but cenfefs they are to blame for ; this indeed, had been a fhrewd Inftruction to us, to amend that in our felves, which we cannot but con- demn An Anfxvct to the ReprefenterV laU Reply. 1 1 1 demn in People fo grofly deceived as they are. Now this it was', that the Bifliop of Kilmore dtdin that Com- parifon of the Papifts Worihipping their Tutelar Saints, with the Heathens Worihipping their Petty Gods. The Papifts do with us, juftly condemn thefe Practices of the Heathens. The Bifhop only defires them, being thus prepared, to look at home. But to infer that in our Religion, we are like Turks and Heathens, be- caufe we forbear thofe things, which the Turks are to be juftified in not doing ; is a Mif-reprefentation of us, upon fo wry an Inference , that if there be not want of Wit, to excufe it , it will be found equivalent to a down-right Mif-reprefentation, which the Genius of this Author, as it appears, by the particulars of this Book, makes me fear it is. And of a great many particulars which I might note, there is one not to be let pafs, ^nd that is, that he p l6i does in very good earnest , affirm that we adore the Sacrament, though the Reprefenter would be thought to charge us with it, little more then in Jeff. For fays the Reconciler, Though they fay thus of us, for Worfhip- pingofjmages, yet they can difpenfe withthemfelves in Worfhipping their Sacrament. And if this be not jell- ing, 'tis fomething a great deal worfe ; for it is as no- torious, that we do not Worfhip the Sacrament, as it is that the Papifts do. But to go on with him a little farther. Their Prea- chers faith he, what are theyforfooth . s Fables, or the Turkiih Alcoran ? One would think now that he had done his worft againft our Bible ; but he underftood his trade better then id, & therefore becaufe this calumny needed it very much, he was refolved to help it with a good fhare of that confidence, which I obferved before, was peculiar to thefe men. For as if he had been yet over cold, fweet, and mild, he mends the matter by faying, that our Bible is worfe then ^Efop'j Fables ; it is Diabolical In- ventions, and Heretical labors, and a Sacrilegious Inflru- ment to deceive and damn all fuch poor Souls as believe p'4r« it, and therefore worthy to be burnt with Fire in the mid- dle of the Market at noon, and let all the people fay Amen, fo be it. This was a good hearty man I warrant him, and would not willingly lofe his bufinefs by doing it by halves. 0^2 r ii 6 An Anfwer to the RcprefentcrV laU Reply. I fhould now have done with him, but that I find him afterwards impofing upon his Reader with as fliameful a Down-right Mif-reprefentation of us, as ever p- 5°« was invented : For fays he of our Clergy , All their Miffion was either the infpiration. of a Spirit they know not what, or the CommiJJion of a Child,or the Letters Patients of a Woman, or the illicit and invalid ordination or m'fjfion of or ly one Scory an Apoflate Monk, who ordained the frH Bijhopsat the Nagg's-head in . Cheapfide, in Queen Elizabeth's time. Now I would defire the Repreienter to confider with himfelf how he would have fet us forth to the World, if we had invented the ftory of Pope Joan, as they have done this of the Naggs-head Ordination : Why, furely he would have muttered up all his Figures to reprefent us as the lewdeft Varlets up- on the face of the Earth ? But though we have recei- ved that ftory from their own Authors, and know what advantages to make of it, if we needed them ; yet we are very willing to hear what any learned man can fay to difprove ir, and to allow all reafonable preemptions againfl it. 0~ our Adverfaries we beg none of this candor , and '.fire no more of them then not to tell tales of us of their own invention. As to this Naggs- he J bufin< Is, I ask the Reprefenter two things, one is, Wi. ?r imfelf believes it? the other, Whether they have not commonly and boldly reported it up and down a rnongft us ? Let him then remember how he declaimed againft us for creating in the people fuch an averfion to Popery-, which he did not wonder at, be- jcpiyp.4?. caufe he confidered thai ten thoufand Pulpits have heen for many years declaiming again ff them, where every man has had a liberty ofexpoftng-them as he pleafedy &c. Well, but what mud we have expecled by this time, if the Ten thoufand Pulpits had been all this whije at their An Anfmer tv the ReprefenterV latt Reply. 1 1 7 l ieir Service, when they have not been afraid to pub- Hfli fuch fcandalous untruths againft us, even whiift they load not all the liberty of doing as they pleafe, which he imagines we have taken : If they take this freedom of telling of Tales , even here amongft us, without any colour of proof, and againft the Teftimo- ny of unqueftionable Records ; we may, I think , without Uncharitablenefs guefs that where they are under no reftraint, they reprefent our Dotlrines, as they pleafe, and charge them with what Confequence and Interpretations they pleafe, and expofe our Praclkes as they pleafe, &c. And make Narratives of us as they pleafe, and make us as guilty as they pleafe, and have made Truth and Gofpel of any thing againft us as they pleafe. And when Iconfiderthefe thingsl cannot wonder than in forne parts of Spain (where the Mif-reprefenting Trade has gone rarely forward ) they are made to be- lieve that we Englifh, fince we turn'd Heretics, are grown Satyrs, and have gotten Horns and Tails. Iamnowfomethingweary of this unprofitable La- boured ihall therefore add but one thing morej which is, That fomeofthem are wont to Reproach their Ad- verfaries only by their Faults,when they pretend to give them their whole Chara&er,and to add what they have any Colour for, out of their ownHeads,and fometimes without any Colour at all ; but efpecial/y when the manner and circumflances of their dying are to be re- lated, for here the Attention and Pallions of the Reader are commonly raifed very high. O/all which Bolfecs Life of Calvin, is a memorable Inftance : Thus when he brings him to his declining Age, he tells us the fever al Difeafes which afflicted him for many years to Boifee, vie. the laft Gafp, were a certain and exprefs Token and Tefti- calv. c. 22, mony cf God's anger againjl him ; and anfwers that Ob- jecTton . 1 1 8 An Anftver to the ReprefenterV laH Reply. je&ion again ft it, from the Calamities that befel Job, by the deliverance God fent him at laft : Which kind of reafoning gives every man to the Devil that dyes of painful and tormenting Difeafes. But not content to argue from thofe Difeafes by which Beza faid that he ended his Life, viz. Consumption, Cholic, Stone, &c. incident all of them to Old Age, and efpecially to Men of a Sedentary Life : Bolfec adds one out of his own Brain, With which, as he fays, God's open Ene- mies by his jujl Judgment have been punifhed, viz. That he had a mo ft filthy and poyfonous Vlcer about his lower parts, which were corroded by Vermin. Thus, lays he, Honor ius the Second King of the Vandals, Dyed, af- ter he had perfecuted the Orthodox Church eight years ; thus Maximianus, the mofl cruel Enemy of the Chrifti- ans ; and thus Antiochus ; and thus Herod, who Vfur~ ped the Honour of God; thus many more Hypocrites and Enemies of God perijhed, who under pretence and colour of S anility and Zeal, had fought against the Truth, and after a miferable death in this World, have been thrown headlong into the Everlafting Torments of Hell. And in this manner, as he fays, was Calvin marked out ; nay, he affirms it to be motf true, that the Wretch not being able to bear his horrible Tortures, called upon the Devil, and expird with Oaths, Curfes, and Blafphemies. Well, but one would expeft now a very notable proof of fo wonderful a matter as this was , and of all the reft: that he fays upon this occafion : Why, fays Bolfec, they have given Teflimony to this, who were about him in his Sicknefi to the laH : And therefore let Beza and others deny it as they pleafe, the thing is fufficiently plain. Was ever malitious Story fupported by more feeble Teftimony then this* ? It feems we muft take Bolfec's word, that Calvin s Friends and Servants reported thefe things : An Anfwer to the ReprefenterV Lift Reply, i \g things: But can any man be fo filly as to think that if Bolfec had come to the knowledge of this by any certain or probable means of Intelligence, that he, I fay, would have fuffered us to go without it ? But then if he had pretended particular Proofs, he had laid him- felf open to be particularly baffled : for which reafon the fafeft way, was to fay in general, The Servants laid fo, and the thing is plain, and there's an end. Thus alfo Cochles reprefents Luther 's Death , viz. That he went to Bed merry and drunk, and was next morning found dead in his Bed ; his Body being black, and *his Tongue lolling out, as if he had been flrangled, which fome think was done by the Devil, fome by his Wife ; and as they carried him to the Church to bury him, his Body (lank fo that they were con- tained to throw it into a Ditch, and fo they depart- ed. Which is a very pleafant ftory, but that another tells it fo crofly, that 'tis impoilible but one of them muft be guilty of Leefing, The truth is, they were fo impatient, that thefe kind of Tales were told and fent up and down before the Man himfelf was dead, as I mall further acquaint the Reprefenter when he defires it. In the mean time I for&ear, as he fays, and wifh there may be no occafion given, to carry on the Con- troverfy in this manner. This very little that I have faid of a great deal more that remains, being defigned only to fhew them what may be done, if they think fit to leave the Queftion, and to fall upon us for Mif- reprefenting them, inflead of maintaining their Do- ctrines like Scholars and Difputants. There remains now but one thing more to be con- fidered , and that is , What Reafon the Reprefenter had to tax the Author of the Expofition of our Do- ctrine, 12 0 An Anfivcr to the ReprefcilterV laU Reply. ctrine, with wijhing for Moderation in the deepefl Satyr, condemning the want of Civility in others, with the rnojt exafperating Reflections of his own, and a great deal more to this purpofe; which according to tht mod impar- tial Judgment that I can make, is a!l faid without Caufe given. And the declamation of theReprcftn- terhereupon, ihewsonly that if he had lighted upon Rcph-. p. 45. a ^ Sul-jedl, the man does not want words to fet it out to the Life. But what has that Author done ? He charges them with their Art of Palliating, with want of Fairnefi and Civility, with laying ajide Moderation, and falling into a vein of Light nefs and Scurrility, forget- ting that Religion is the Subjecl, andChriftians and Scho- lars their Antagenifts, &c. Thefe things I coniefs he Jays to their charge : But where's the Satyr ? Where are the Exafperating Expreffwns .e fmtrtoleag of it by t^efe artificer ; ana liamug on tlic otftcr ftae conftaereafjotottye^iutftersof a Bcltgton tolerate d in our &ingaom , by our ^aias, ana tipfe of tlic ftingg our ^eaeceffojs » ©oulabecontent > teactpttjeit otcnjDc* ftrtnes,toitbout raifing aifputes a at true ftcltgion, •toljtct) toepjofefs, ana from \tit}{tl& tijeft tfc&efceceltorg in tftis * x r.:v xv. /« v s jj.aii** tbis laft Sgc fo unfortunately feparaten ttiemfelbeg x mt Hate tbougb* it ncceffar? to Hop t^e courfe of a Jlibert?, tcbicb pronucejs fucb fan effects. Be it known, tbat for tbete Caufes, anfc others hereunto mobing us, ann of our cer* tat u i&no tnleng, full #omr, ann a&egal £utyo?it?, toe babe b? ti)t0 prefent centct forbinnen, ann no forbtn alt iHbinitters, annaliotber i^erfous, of tobat quality ann connition fo* ebertbevbe, mailing }£>rofef&ouoftbepretennen Eeformen iSeligiou, to preach, or to compofe an? rftjofcs againft tbe jfaittj anil doctrine Of ti)e Ca.hohck/ Apoftolick, anD Roman Religion, anti to ufe an? in jurious terms, or teuning to da? lumnie, b? imputing; to Catbolicfes tbofe Doarines tobicb tbe? conuemu, ant) moreover tofpeafcoirectl? or innirectl?, after M)at manner foeber, of tbe Catbolicft Religion.. tBt commaun tbe ©iuifters to teacb in tbeir Sermons onl? tbe Cenets of tbe pretennen ifteformen Religion, and tbe rules of $9oralit?>tintbout miring tberetoitb an? otljer matters* furthermore toe forbin tbe fain <3©ini(ters, ann all our o* tber ^ubjects,"tobQprofefs tbe fain pretennen l&eformen Wit* ligion,to caufe to be $rmteb, an? 25cofcS touching Religion, ercepting t^ofe "toijicb ©all contain t^eir $rofeffion of f aitb , tbe^ra?ers,ann tbe orniuar?l&ules of tljeir ?^ifcipline,ann all Printers anti 35ooftfellers to^rint, or benn tbem: mt toill tbat all tije 25cofiS rabtcb l)abe been mane till tbis pit* f eut time,againlt tbe Catholics Eeligion,b? tbofe of tbe pit* tennen ^Reformation be fupprellen : mt forbin all $rtn* tersto print tbem hereafter, ana all25oofcfellers to benD tbem, mt ornafn, tbe £©inilTers, ann our otber Subjects of tbe pretennen iseformen Eeligiou, tobo (ball traufgrefs tbe sJDrniuances of tbis our prefent c^btct, to b^e connemnen to an honourable amends,an& banilben f or eber out of our ftingnom, atiD tbeir <5m$ tobicb, arefubject to confifcatiou, confifca- tcn, ann tbat tbe erercife of ibeir aMigion to be for eber tnternicten in tbofe places toberetbe^inifters ©all babe arcacben agatnft tbe contents of our prefent tfntct. mt xoill inline manner, tbe printers and 35cokfellers, tobotball ^rint or benn tbe fain ffiooks contrary to our $robibition, tote ftnen fifteen iljunnren fibers, ann for eber nepriben of tbe libcrt?offeeeptng open ^bop>$c« who proceedeth from the Father, and the Son ; who, together with the Father, and the Son, is ador'd and glorify 'd ; who hath ipoken by the Prophets : And one Holy Catholick and Apoftolick Church. I confefs one B.iptilm for the Remiffion of Sins ; and i expert the Refurrection of the Dead, and the Life of the World to come. Amen. fubfantialem Patri per quern emnizfdtta Junt ; qui propter 7:0s Hotnimsy & propter nojham filittem defcendit dt Cxlu : & incarnatus efi de Spiritu Santto ex Maria Vtrgine •, E T HO- MO FACTUS EST ; Cru- cifixta etiam pro nobis fab Pon- tto Pilato, pajjits & fepultus efi & Refurrextt tertto die Secun- dum Scripturas } & afcendit in Caluniy fedet ad dexter am Patris -7 & iter urn vent urns esl cum Gloria judicare vivos & mortuos \ cujus rigni non erit fir.is I, Et in Sptritum Santlum Eeminum & vivificantem j qui ex Patre Fil.oqne procedit; qui cum Patre & Filio fimitl adora- tur, & conglorifcatur , qui locutut efi per Pnphetas : Et unam StrMam dtholieam & Apofiolicam Ecclefiam. Confite- or unum Rapt if ma in remijfio- nem Peccatorum, & expeclo Re- furrettioncm tmrtuorum, & vi- tim ventura fectili. Amen. ARTICLE L Of the Canonical "Boof^s of Scripture, and of Tradition. PROFESSIO FIDEL Apoflolicas, & JEcclefiafiicas Traditiones, re- ltquafq\ ejufdevt EcclefU Obfer- vatitmes & Con- fiitutiones firmif- fime admitto & ampleftor , Item Sacram Scriptu- ram jnxta enm fenftm, quern te- riuit & tenet Sanfta Mater Ecclefia, cnjus eft judicare de verofenfn & Interpretation Scripturarum admitto. CONTINUATION of the Dotlrine of the Churcby contained in our ith (a) the Hereticks mentio* ned by St. Irenae- us, we rejeSi the Holy Scriptures : ( b ) That Vith the Marcionifts, we accufe it of Imperfetlion : (c) That we contemn it : (a) * Guilielmus Witakerus Theologia* Doctor & Profeflbr Cantabrigicnfis indifputatione de Sacra Scriptura contra Bellarminum, &c. Controverfia 16. q 6.pag.665- Editionis HerbornieNafToviorumanni 1600. Patet ilios Hareticos (de quibus S. Ireimis) per omnia fimilcs faijfe noftris Papiftis; Scripthrat enirn repudiabant. (b) * Georgius Dounamns Epifcopus Dierenfis in Libro cui titulus : Papa Antichriflns^ L. 1. c. 6. pag. 175. Edit. Londinenfis anni 1620. SacrM Scriptural cum Marciontjiis imperfettionis argumt & infujfitientiL-e, quam certam cjfe no&m Htreticornm Irtmw obfervavit. Titulus huj IS capitis elt : Catdogm veiernm HtrefiHrn, qiuu Ecckfia Roman* renovavit. (V)f Thetaurusdifputationum Theologicarum in Academia Sedanenfl variis temporibus habitaruma Paftoribusct Theologtx Profeflbr ibus; Petro Moli- nao, Jacobo Capello, Abrahamo Ramburtio, Samuele Marefio, Alexandre Col vino, Ludovico le Blanc, Jofua le Vafeur, Jacobo Alpi'o de S*. Maurice, Thefi26. de meritisoperum part.2. Edit. Genevenfisanm 1661. torn. 1. pag. 6*9. Scriptaram quidem contemnere Pontifciis folenne eft. r » 4 i. Concilium Trident. felT. 4. in Decreto de Canonicis Scri= pturis : Sanfta SyncdusOrtboAo- xorum Patrum exempla fecutay omna libros tarn Ceteris , qnam NiVi Tejtamen- ti , fufcipit ac leneratur : Sa- crornm vero Li- brcrum indie em hiiic decrtto ad- fenbendnm cen- fuit. 2. Fidei Pro- fcflio : Aec earn Scripturam, un- quam tiifi juxta unanimtm con- he DoHrine of the Church. Scripture, according to that Senfe which ourH. Mother the Church, to whom it belongeth to judge of the true Senfe and Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, hath held>& doth hold. The ( 1 ) Holy Coun- cil of Trent, following the Example of the Or- thodox Fathers,receives and reverenceth all the Books of the Old and New Teftament . The Catalogue of wch Holy Books are inferted at the end of this Decree. ART. 1. That (d) Tee commonly tench, Tf?e Scripture is not neceffary, and that the Church can be without it : That (e) we prefer Traditions before the Ho- ly Scripture } that 7be at- tribute ??iore Authority to them, than to the Scrip- ture , "tobkhj lot fay, has no Authority but by them: Tl?at ( f ) according to us, Tradition corretls the Holy Scriptures ; that it changes the Command- ments of God, and difpen- fes with them contrary to the Jpojlle: (g) That (d) Andreas RivetusPictavus Theologux Doctor Sc Profeflbr in Academia Batava in Catholico Orthodoxo, feu fumrna Controverfiarum adverfus Guiliel- mum Bailium Jcfui am,qua:(ii. Procemiali dc Hercfibus,pag. 27; Edit. 3, Lugd. B^tavor. anno 1630. Papifta communiter docent Scriptural non ejfe necejfarias , & EcclefiAtn its pojfe carere. Eadcm repetit. traft. r. q.6. Sect, i.tom. i.eodem 1. pag. 95. & f inThelauro difputat. Sedanenfium jam laudato thef. 14. torn. 1. \ ag 6\.Otm negent (Pontifical Scripturam ejfe necejfariam. (e) f Ine :dcm Thcfauro difputat. Scdancnf thef. n.tom. 1. pag.6. InEcclefm F.omana'T>'' ditiones non fcriptt mult 0 pluris fiunt Scriptura, ear unique eft longe ma- ]or AutoritM^ quam Script nray ufque adeo, ut adverfarii quidquid Scriptnra habet autoritatis velint pendere ex autoritate Traditionii Ecchfia. Andreas Rivctus ubi fupra y *Georgius Dounamusubi fupra. (f)\ In codem Thefa irodifpurat. Scdr.n thef. 1 4-cit. deperfeftione Scriptu- re torn. I. pag. 61. Traditio Ecclefi.z f juxta PontitciosJ emendat Scripturam & man data T)ei imo utat *cr difperf'i ab Apoftolo. (g) f In eodem Thefeuro, th. 7.de fummoControverf Judice tom.i.pag. 26. Oner ant ( Pcntificii) Scr?. \ uram it ufiro convitiornm^ voawdo earn reguUm mntam^ lapidemfcandali, nafum vereumt Radium ancipitews &c. Et in ihcii de perfect. iacr« Script. 14. cod. to pag, 1. eadcm rcpetit verba. fenjum Patmm accipiam & in terpretabor. i . Conc.Tri- dent. In eodem Dccreto de Ca- non. Scripturis: Necnon Traditi- ones ipfat , turn ad Fidem , turn ad mores perti nentes, tanqaam vel ore tenpn a CHR ISTO, vel a Spirittt faff* difhatat , & continue fnc- cejfione in Eccle- fia Catholica, coxfervatas, p$Brm of the Church. ART. II. ARTICLE II. Of the Efficacy, dumber, and Qeremonies of the Sacraments i of Tenance and Auricular Confefjion. i ProfefEo Fi- dci : Profiteor quoque fepttm ef* fe vere & pro- prie Sacramento, nova Legit a JESU CHRI- STO Domino nofiro inftituta, at que adfalutem humani generis, licet non omnia ftngulis, neceffa- ria : fcilicet Baptifmum.Con- firmationem, Eh~ charifliam, Pce- nitentiam, Ex- DOCT^lKEof the CHU%CH. IDo(i) alfoprofefs, there are truly and properly Se* ven Sacraments of the New Law, inftituted by our Lord JESUS CHRIST, and necef- fary for the Salvation of Mankind,though all be not neceflary for e- CALUMNIESof PROTESTANTS. THat (a) the Sa- craments are cor- rupted , baftardi* %ed, and falfified in the Church : That (b) they are polluted by wiworthy means : Tl?at (c) they are fouled and /pattered 7»iib many prophane Opinions : That (d) we teach, That (a) La Confeflion de Foy dcs Preteadus Reformer de Frsrce art. 28. Nom condxmnons les Affemblees de la ? apatite, ven que la pure verite de Dieu en eft ban- n;e, tfqut lies les Sacrament , font corrompus, abatardts, &fa!Jifiez.dti tout. (b) Theodorus Beza Vezdius in Antithefi Papatus & Chriftianifmi tra&ati- onum Theologicarum Edit. 2. Genev. an. 1576. torn. 1. pag. 7 1. Satis appartt Sacrament a indignijfimis modu poliui ac perdi, in Papftica Synagoga, qua Catholic a Ecclefu nomen (ibifalfo vendicat. (c) Joannes Calvinus in refponf ad Cardinalem Sadoletum opufcufcrum ultimas Edit. Amftelodamenfis anni 1667. p?g. in. Saeramenta oftendimus, mult is profanis cpinionibus inquintta. (d) MartinusLuthcrus in Libro de Captivitate Babylonica, torn. 2. Edit. Witembergenfis anni 1558. fol. 75. lmpulfifunt tantum tribune Sacramtntis no- va Legist ut p-odeffe eaftatuerunt, etiam iisy qui in peccatis mortalibui fmty nee re- quirifidem aut gratiam \ fedfufficerenon pojfitijfe obitem, hoc efl aflaale propoftum denuopeccandi. Philippus Melsnfton in Apologia Con fefftonis Auguftana: titulo tremam Vnttio- mm, Qrdinem & Matrimoni- Of the Efficacy of the Sacraments. 7 very Man : That is to j the Sacraments conferre urn. 2 CencTrid. fefiv7.can.8.& quit dixerit per ipfa novx Legis Sacramcnta ex opere operate nen conferri grati- am ; fed folam Ftdem DivwA promijfionis ad gratiam eonfe- qtundamfaffice- re. Anathema f,t Idem Cone, fell 6. cap. 6. Difpoxuntur au- fay, Baptifm, Confir- mation, Eucharift, Pe* nance, Extreme U nati- on, Order, and Matri- mony. 1 If any one fay, Theie Sacraments of the New Law do not confer Grace by themfelves ; but that Faith alone,in the Pro* mifes of God, is fuffici- ent to obtain Grace} Let him be Anathema. \ Per ions of riper Years are in a Difpo* Grace to thofe of riper Years , though they haVe no good difpojition in their Hearts, and are in a fiate of Mortal Sin, fappofing only they haV6 no atlual formed Vefign of committing a new Sin : That this impious aitd Tharifaical Opinion is taught with full Authority in the Church : That (e) Tfce permit thofe who re- ceive them, not to be at- tentive to Tehat they do ; and that, according to us, fol. 95. rDamnamu,s totum populum Seholafticorum, quidocent, que d Sacrament a non ponenti obicem confer unt gratiam ex opere operate , fine bono moth mentis. H&c fim- pliciter Jhdxica opinio eft, ftntire quia per ceremoniat j ufti fie amur fine bono motu cor- dis, hoc eft, fine fide > & tamen hitibvti obicem peccati mortalis ^ & ft alioqui fide & pietate vacwe VoBrine of the Church. temndiffamjH' fition to Juftice, when fiit)am, dnni ex citati Divina Gratia & adju ti fidem ex an ditu concipien- tes . lib ere mo- excited and aided by the Grace of God -, and conceiving Faith by Hearing, they are free- ventur m Deum, \y m0Ved towards God, credentes vera ' '. \ « . i r i • & believe thole things to be true which have been revealed and pro- mifed by Him ; and e- fpecially this , that a Sinner is made Righ- teous before God by his Grace, and by the Redemption which Jc Jus Chrift has purchafed for us ; and alfo when knowing themfelves to be Sinners , and after effe, qUde divini- ty* revelata & promijfa fnnt •, Mtque Hind im* ■primis, a Deo juftificari intpi- um per gratiamf e jut, per Redem' pti*nemy qn cum ad hit- jufecmodi Confeffiontm adigebantur. Francilcus Burmannus in Synopfi Theolog. L. 6. c. 9. §. 41. torn. 2. pag. 259. In Confeffione auriculari culpamus tyrannidem confeientiu impofitam. f rhefawus difp. Sedan, th.3 1 . de Sacrsm. Poenit. parte. 3. tom. I. pag- 691. Eft Ccnfejfio carnificina *mmarumy & laqueus in)eelm confeien- tiii^acduratyrannU. f Joannes Heydeggerus in Anatome Cone. Trid. tom. 1. pag. 564. Secret a Confeffio eft carnificina animi, defperationis laqueus. Et mox • Hamus eft Sacerdotum & Ecclejuc, chjm hoc modo mirifice crefctint divitia, autori- tas ac for midabilis potentia. (l)\ Thefaurusdirput?.t.SedanenftThefi6. de Sacramento Poenitent.parte 4. tom. 1. pa?. 699. Dattri-.a de poteftate judiciaria Sacerdotum, bellum Deo indicitt & eft pe attribute to Cere- monks a 'Tower to give Grace , and to chafe a- way the Devil by a kind of Charm, in imitation of the Pagans ; that the Church hM by thefe Cere- monies changed Chrifliani- ty, not only into Judaifm, but atjo into Taganifm: That (o) y>e make Idols (0 ) Francifcus Burmannus in Synopfi Theologica L. 7. 0.5-$. 1 r . pag. 3 50. Opinio cperis operati mi voce, iti magU fen fu barb art, cum extemis Jtgnu facrtle- gam potefiattm attribuat, pre que ipjo Cbrifto externorum ritiwn Idola £cclejiarit/itt> ftetifTet » L» J. f/v jxvkri »#»** w 'J ' l/V \~i/M VI.' • I S^Ct.^.Siquis per Jefu Chnfti Domini noftri gratiam, qu-e in Baptifmate con. fertitr, reatitm Originalis Pec- cati remitti ne- gate ant etiam ajferit, non tol- li totum id quodveram & propriam peccati rationem babet j fed tUiid tantum dicit radiy aut non imputaritA- nathemafit, &:c. Aianere autcm in baptifatis con ■ cupifcentiam,$CC hanc quxm ali- quando Apoftolus peccatum appel- lat, declarat. crament of Baptifm, rightly conferred ac- cording to the Form and Cuftom of the Cnurch ; Let him be Anathema. i If any one deny the Guilt of Original Sin to be remitted by the Grace of our Lord JESUS CHRIST,' conferred in Baptifm, or affirm , all that has truly and proper- ly the Nature of Sin, not to be taken away ; but only, as it were, blotted out , or no: imputed j Let him be Anathema. Never- thelefs , the Holy Council confefles and Decree of S anility A- dam ivould have had y if he had perfevered in the State of Innocence: That (g) our Doctrine which teaches Original Sin to be taken away by Baptifm, is Diaboli- cal ; that the. Glory of JESUS CHRIST, and the Salvation of Souls require it be not tollera- ted , and that it "was forged upon the Anvil of the Avarice and Ambi- tion oj the Clergy, to ex- tol the Efficacy of the Sa- craments, of id to augment the Honour and the Re- venues of their Function : That we fall into a Con- tradiction , by faying , (jr) Theodorus Beza in Antithefi Papatus Sc Chriftianifmi tract. Theo « logical", c. 7. torn 1. pag. 63. Rommi crigtnU peccatum, levi aqut afptrgine, volur.t ftatim ac penitus in nobis elui, C ejus reliquias docent peccati ratio- nem non habere, nifi confenjet accedat , quam 'Doclrinam pr or fits diaboli- cam ejfe affifmawus. Hieronymus Zanchius operum Theologiconjm Vol. 1. torn. 4. Edit. Garaonetianni 1605. pag. 71*1. i-de peccato Originali cap. 5. thefi 3. de Concupifcentia in renatis: Non fpteft negligi h.fc Controverfia, qitin negligatur gloria Cbrifti, SCC Ergo fi n.bid cordi eft gloia Chrifli & Ca- lm* noftra, non debemus pcrmit;ert\ ut Pontificia j'ertentia obtmtzt in Ecclet fta • fed pro vinbus expugnanda eft. f Johannes Hrydeggerus in Anatome Cone. Trid. 3d fef£ 5. de Peccato Originali. torn. 1. pa;. 131. Totum dogma de expun- ftto/ie Peccati Original is p:r Baptifmnm, ad avxriti : C7* fuperbis. incudem forma- turn eft. Idenimdant eperamC.triJi, ut Sa:r. mentor urn, qua ab ipfts confer untury extollatur efficacia, & inde nnnifttriofm liter urn ac honos accrefcat. Of ju/tipcatton and Merits. *7 fanEla Synodtts Ecclefiam Ca~ tholicam , nun- quam inttUexifft peccatum appel* lariy quod vert & proprie in re~ natis peccatum fit -, fed quia ex peccato */?, & ad peccatum in- clinat. acknowledges that Con* cupifcence, or the Incli- nation to Sin, remains in Perfons Baptized 3 but alfo it declares, this Concupifcence , which the Apoftle fometimes calls Sin, was never undei flood by the Catholic Church to be called Sin , as being truly and pro- perly Sin in the Re* generate ; butbecaufe (h) Concupifcence is not properly fpeaking a Sin in the Regenerate ; and that it is to accufe the Jpoftle of not having thought of Tphat he writ^ to pronounce Anathema to the Holy Scripture; and to commit a Kind of Deicide : That ( i ) ac- cording to our Voclrine, we prepare our fehes for Grace , and merit it by our iVorks, which precede (ib) Charles Drelincourt Miniftre de Charenten en fon Abrege des Con- troverfes e. 72. pag. 300. de l'Edition de Tan 1674. V* Eglife Remaine enfeigne que la Convoitift demeure apres le Bap one : done ly Eglife Romaine confeffe cofi- trefoymene, que It picbt dtmeur e apres le Baptemt. f "i hefaurus Difpnt. Sedan, th. 53 de BaptifmO parte 3. torn. 1. pag. 787. Jpoflolum Tridentrni Patres, aafi funt accufare ofcitanti* & locmionu improprfa & non vera, dicentes Apoftoluni concupifcehtiam appellate peccatum^ non quod vert & proprie peccatum ejfet in tenms^ &c. | Joannes Heydeggerus loco mox laudato, torn. 1. pag. 131. Vidcni Syno- dtuTrtdentina, an non Script ur am [acr am Aiathemate, nefarie ac veluti ^io^ct^^a. perculfeftt. (*) Philippus Melancton in Epitome renovato Doctrine Ecclefisfticx torn. 2. pag. 4. Arifiotelici Theologi docent merer i nos noslris viribus & noflro conatu gra- tiam f Le Miniftre Noguier, reponfe a Texpofition de la Dodtrine de l'Eglife par M.l'Evequede Meaux pour lors Evequede Condom. 1. partie c 12. pag. 103. Monfieur de Condom nt donne t-ittpat aconmitre^ qfil appiOuve ceque toute i*Ecole de Rome Joutient , qnt fi Vbomme' par fon hbrt arbitre n? pent pas faire des oeuvrts, qui mtritent la vie ■ EttrmRe, il pern avoir des moven.ensy quite difpojent a receivoir la grace, ce qui s?appellc dans leur langage mtriit de con- gruite. t La feconde Reponfe de 1'Anonyme au mefme ouvrage de M. de Meaux pag. 85. Le Concilt de Trentt enjeigne que de nom-mtfmes, nous nous preparenf., & nous difpofons a lagrace} qui nous regenere. Francilcus Burmannusjm Synopfi Theo- Icg. 1. 6. c. 8. Seel. 25. torn. 2. pag. 241 In eo tram Pontificii, quod meritum operi- bus tntegratiam faftis tribuunt. f Jinieu dans fen Livrc intitule Prefervatif. pag. 150. article 7. Le Concile de Trente par ft s ambtguitez. & fes expreffions vagnes^ a laijfe le SemipdagiwifmC) & mefme le Pclagiznifmctn fon emer. 1 3 lhe vocinne oj n?e L/?«rc/;. it is an Effect of Sin, and inclines to it. I If any one fay, That a Man may be juftificd before God, by pribm, o- peraa ajfentien- do Deo excitan- ti at que vacan- tia quoad ohti' itendam juftifi cationis grati- amfe dtfponat ac fication ; Let him be Anathema. 1 We are therefore faid to be Juftified gra- tis y becaufe none of thofe Acts which pre- cede Juftification,whe* ther they be Faith or Works, merit that Ju- ftifying Grace. 2 If any one (hall fay, The Free Will of Man moved and exci- ted by God, by affent- ing to God exciting &. calling us, does not at all co-operate towards the preparing or difpo- fing our felves for ob- taining Ju/lifying Grace; miffion of Sin : That (n) our Opinion concerning Merit , ti full of Pomp and Trieftbood , of vkich Jefus Chrift is not the Author ; arid ano- ther Sacrifice be fides that of his Death, in which ik prefer the e offer up Jefus Chrift to God, in ho- nour of his Saints, that through his Merits we may obtain their Inter cef- (ion to God for us: That (g) 7»e Adore a (e ) Gulielmus Bucanis loco mox laudato pag Soo- Scenicoi? hiftrionico or- natu. geftu, boatu, mttr mitre, fibilts, gemitibtu, cantn & aim modts1 tariquam Orgi* Sacra & Baccanalia celebrant, 8cc. * (f) GeorginsDounamusin librocuiti uluseft, Papa Antichriftut, L. $.c. 7. pag. 203. Miffs* ttiam celebrant ; hoc eft, Chriffum ipfttm Deoojferunt, in honorem Santtorum, pro iUorum int&ceffwre apad Deum obtinenda. (jr) Francifcus.Burmanm.is in Synopfi- Theologica L. 7. c 15 $.25. torn. 2. pag. 412. Sacr amentum hoc in Jdolum in Ecclefia erexerunt9 qui furnmu* err oris gradu* eft, ita ut panis ipforum venenum fit, cum non manducetur folum ^ feu & <*- doretur, Et §. 28.eadempag. Nos autem hoc psffo Sacrilegio & Idololatria cortta- minari Eeclefiam, Deumque novum invehi, & furfur actum denique numen colt conten- dimus. Theodorus Beza in Antithcfi Papatus & Chriftiamfmi torn. 1 . tractar. Theologic. pag. 64. Ita fit ut M fieri Papiftt, ex ipforum placitis velfint IdoloUtria panis enim adorationcm f vel ipfiqutdem non ivficiabuntur ejfe ldololatriam, vet ntn nifi fub conditione, fi forte adfuent, furfuraceum Hind fiuum numin poffint adorare. Fran- cifcus Brumannus mox laodatus eodem L & capite.Scct. 29. pag. 413. torn. 2. Adarant aliquid, quodChriftm mntft; fedldolum. Uf Sattsfattions, of Purgatory, &c. &e]nsAdora- charifi with Divine ZZ%%L WorfhiP,andthacEx= fit. ternal, and thofe who Adore him are Idola- ters ; Let him be Ana- Breaden God : That (h) we remit the Error of the Neftorians, adoring inftead of Jefus Chrift, what is not Jefus Chrift, but a Morfel of Bread. * (h) Georgius Dounamns inL. cui tituluseffij Papa Antichrifm : 1. 3. c. 6. pag. 180. Sicut Nefioriani Chriflum hominem adorant, non quod Dent fit; fed quia Deo conjunttus ; at que it a creaturam pro Creatore adorant ; fit Pontificii lattice cult urn, qui foli Deo debet ur Sacramento Ewbarifiia exkibent, non quod dens fit^ fed quod Deumin eoadejfe credant. Joannes Calvinus in Epift. adD- N. S. D. pag. 95. Secunds partis Voluminis Inftitutionum ult. Edit. Amftclodara. Quam belie Mijfc conveniat cum Ccena Domini, &c. cumulus autem abominationis, ipfa qux ibi primas tenet Elementi adoratio efi. ARTICLE V. Of SatufaUions , of Turgatory , and of Indulgences. 1 Con. Trid. fefT 14. cap. 8.- Quoad Satijfa- clionemfantla Synodvu declarat falfum omnino fjfe & a verbo Dei aUenum^ culpam a Domi- 'DOCTRINE of the CHURCH. AS to (1 ) Satisfa* 6tion, the Holy Council of Trent declares. That it is al- CALUMNIESof PROTESTANTS. THat (a) our Do- Brine touching Sa* tisfatlions & Tur- gatory is full of Pomp (a) Francifcus Burmannus in Synopfi Theologica L. 6. c. 9-Sed. 38. torn. 2 pag. 258. Saiisfatti* merum eft figment urn infanda fuptrbia plenum & Cbrifii re- demptioni advtrfum. f Theiaurusdifputat- Sedanenl." Thefi 6. de Sacisfaftioni- bus, torn. 1. pag. 595. Savijfima omnium Saitfatiio i/Ueft, qitam Purgatorium vc- cant, voce quidem barbara ; fed fenfu magis ir.congruo & in Chrflum contumeliofo. Synoplis purioris Theologia; difputat: 39. Thefi 21. pag. 545. Aliquu ejfe fatis- faflienebpro peccato prater fatisfattionem Chrifti, dogma ab fur dure & blajfyhtwum eft. %6 The Votlnne oj the Church. no nnrnquam re- together fal(e,and con mitt t qmn uni- vtrfacti4m f et- na condenetur. i Ibidem. Ne- que vero ita no- jtra eft Satis fa- ff to h&c qudm po pccAtis no* fira exfolvimus, nt nonfit per Chriftum Je- fum J nam qui tx nobis , tam- quam ex nobts trary to the Word of God, to fay, The Fault is never Pardoned by our Lord , but the whole Pain is alio at the fame time remit- ted. i But this Satisfa- ction which we make for our Sins . is not fo ours that it is not made by J E S U S CHRIST: For who of we our felves, as of our own ART. V7 and Tride, and injurious to JESUS CHRIST: That (b) it makes GOD to be unjuft ; and is an Invention proceeding from the Shop of Sa- than : That ( c ) all Fafts and Mortificati- ons affront JESUS CHRIST; and that it is fo far from being Lawful for us to make ufe oj them, where- by to render Satisfaction to G O D , they heap ne'to Crimes upon us : (b) Thcfaurus dilputat. Sedenenf. th. 7. de Satisfaft. torn, i.pag. 595. Cum protota poena Chriftur abttnde fatisftcerit, alienum plene eft * Juftiti* Dei, pro uno ecdemque debit o gemir.am exigere folutionem. Johannes Calvinus L. 3. Inftitut. c. 5.- Sett. 6. pag 175. Clamandum nonmodovocis, fed gtttturis ac laterum contemione Pwrgatorium exltiale Sathana effe commentum, quod Cbrifti crucem evacuat, quod con- thmeltam Dei mifericordi^ non ferendum irrogat, &C. Supereft Purgatorium meram ejfeeamque horribileminChriftum blafpbemiam. f La Confeflion dc Foy des Prc- tendus Reformez de France art. 24. Nous ttnens le Purgatoire pour une illufi- on procedee at la boutique de Satban. (c Joannes Calvinus ubi mox fupra. f Thefaurus difputat. Sedan, th. 5. de Satisfatftionsbus torn. 1. pag. 595. Jejuni*, peregrinationes, mulclas pecuniarias jab obtentH Voenitentirfy & fl^gellationis laconic £ Jia.uo&yd7Wf lmitamehtum vacant operas fat- fatloria y his trictsputant Deo fatisferi pro pvni temporal*. Et Thefi 16. ^ cranium nao ire pro cervicau, ty juip rr.iernu>.no*ojo ju»i'-r.g>. q>u mmoos exui ertt cedit in drifti co'tu/neliam. Mox: Sane hie ad Lydi.tm ver'ci dei lapidem txpLrata, tantum abeji nt fatisfaciant D*oy ut etiam fcenam mereantur, & *d lantern J 'udicit divini ponder 'at a, immafum quantum peccata novo ponde.t pragra- vent. nihil pojfumusy to cooper ante , qui nos eonfortat om- nia pojfumus^ ita von habit homo unde glorietur : fedomniiglori- Atto noftra in Chrifto eft j in quo vivimtts, in quo meremur^ in que fatisfaeimus facientes /rutins dignos Pceniten- ti.tur tanquam poiluti, nee cum eis menfr & convi&us fcietas effet, ut Orefies queritnr fe , vagatum ejfe, r.tc receptum ad aliomm -men fas. Joannes Calvinus L. }. Inftitut. c. 5. Se£t. 6. pag. 575. Cum ex multis bl.ifphcmlis Purgntormmcon- ftruElumfit 0- novis quotidie fulciatur . (/) | Thefaurus difputat. Sedan, th. 9. de Satisfactionibus, torn. 1. pag. 600. Ham compenfationem Pontificii die unt fieri ex cofidignot id eft pir aquipcRentiaw. Thtodoiu* Bezi in Aruitheli Papatus & Chniiianiimi tra£t. ideologic, torn. 1. pag. 61. Putarunt P,r.branay gratiam Jefu Chri* Jli includere. jo The 2 Cone. Trid. fefT. 25. inDe- cretode Indul- gentiis. Atqut hujufmodi potc- flate Divinitus ftbi tradita, an- tiquiffmit etiam tempo, ibiuEiclc- fia h[a fuerit. 3 ProfeflioFi- dei : IUarHmquc nfum Cbriftiano popule maxime falutarem affirmo 4 Cone. Trid. in eadem Dc- cretodelndulg. In his tamen con- ccdendis , mode- rstionem juxta veterem &proha. tarn in Ecclefia confuetudinem adhiberi cupit. Dotlrine of the Church. 2 That flie has made life of this Pow* er even in the Primi- tive Times. 3 The Ufe of them to be very beneficial to Chriftians. 4 And that (as the Holy Council defires) they ought to be gran- ted with Moderati- on , according to the Antient and appro- ved Cuftoms of the Church. ART. V. and Parchment : That (w) nothing brings CHRIST and his Crofs into deriji-* on more than Indulgen- ces. (n) Idem Joannes Calvinus in Epiftola adverfus Pfeudo-Nicodamitas opuf- culomm pag. 414. Quid diplomat* Ma quorum tc gratiam afpetcre fimulas ? An n$n edita voce clamant^ m nnrnmis relittis, pltnas anathemate, atque omni txecra- tione digriM l/idulgentiat tibi auferas, &c. atqui eorum lattbrxs fi excujferis nuf- q'.tam prolixin* 3 qitam illic Chrijlttm irrMri cum fua ctice reperies. 3l ARTICLE VI. Invocation of Saints, Ileitis, and Images. i Cone. Tr id. fefT. 2.Decreto delnvocat. San- cton San ft as w na cum Chrifto rtgnantest orati' ones fuas pro ho- minibut Deo of- ferrc, bonumat- que utile cjfefup- plictter eos invo- care, & obbene- fcia impetranda a Deo per Fili- um ejm Jefum Chriftum, Do- DOCTRINE of the CHURCH. THe ( i )Holy Coun- cil teaches, That the Saints Reign- ing together with JE* SUS CHRIST, do offer their Prayers to God for Men ; that it is good and profitable humbly to Invocate CALUMNIESof PROTESTANTS. THat (a) Invoca- tion of Saints, as we now ufe it, is Superflitious and Idola- trous : That (b) all we believe concerning it, is nothing but the abufe and deceit of the Devil : That (c) we have no caufe to (a) Joannes Calvfnus in antidoto ad articulos facrse Facultatis Theologian Parifienfis adart. 13. opufculcrum pag. 196. Cultum Santlis exhibere font folet Tnttndtu, profanaeft fuperflitio, & qut gm turn pot: us infaniam redolet, quam Ec- clefi Salvator eft ad eorum orationes, opem, auxiUum- que confugere : illos vero qui ne- gant Santtos a- tcrna felicitate 1 1 Ihe DoElrme of the Church. mnum noftrum, them , and to have recourfe to their Pray* ers , Help , and Afli* ftance, for the obtain- ing of Benefits from GOD by his Son JESUS CHRIST in Calo'fwentes, our Lord, who alone ST5S& » out Redeemer and vei Mo* pro bomi. Saviour j and thofe nibus non orare, ^Q J ^ Saint$ vel eorum^ utpro . / 1 nobis etiam fin- enjoying Eternal Fe- licity in Heaven, are •fo be Invocated \ cr who affirm , either they do not Pray gulis orent, mvo- cationem cffe ido- lolatriam, vet pugnare cum Verbo A KM. VI. complain , that Prote- ftants accufe us of wor- pripping Idols , and re* newing Paganifm J be- caufe it is Very true, Tl?at (d) Tfce renew the Here fie of the ' Ange- licks , and far furpafs them : That (e) we re- new that of the Colly- ridians, who Adored the Virgm Mary : That (f) we make her equal to God j and prefer her before Jefus Chrift : Tl?at in our Prayers to thltH adorantium fuperftitionem renovarunt. Ibidem th. 4. Renovatum Ethnicif- mum ipfis objicimus. (d) Andreas Riverus in CatholicoOrthodoxo feu fumma Controverf qutfft. 1. procemialide Hxrefibus torn, i.pag. 32. Angelki in AngtUrum cnltu incli- natiftttr nut, &CC. Papifta omnes, Angelas bono suniverfos colunt Religiofo cultuy & qwfque fuum AngelHrncnftodtmrdigiofe colt. % Georgius Dounamus Libro cui tituluseft, Papa Antichriftus ; L. j. c. 6- pag- 173. Angtlicornmde colendU An- gelis barefim longe fuperant. < e) Andreas Rivetus in Catholico Orthodoxo electa quaefi:. 1. Prooemiali de Hxrefibus torn, i.pag. 32. Crflyridit) i Virginem Muriam colebant & adorabant, qui proptere.i ab F.plpbmnio inter bxreticos nominantur , 0> Jdolalatria appeffantur- cCC. Papiftce bjx omnia faciunt. * (f) Joannes Raynoldus L. 1. de Romcnse Ecclefne ldololatriac. i.Seft/ 1 \. pag. 63. ghiemadmodHtn Dens Rex Cceli mincupatur, fie MariamCceh nominant Regwam, ncc todtm folumEpitbeto, quo Judubium itaque non eft, quin totidem Chrifto Idol a epponant Papist £^ qiict fibi patronos comnrinifcuntwr. 34 The DoSirme of the Church. ART. VI. va membra fue- Supplicate withWords runt Chtifti, & \ A- i i c < templumSpsntus or Mind the SaintS in fmaiab iffoad Heaven, are perfwa* ded contrary to Piety. Alfo that the fufcitanda & glorificanda^ a fidelibm vent' rand .< \effe. Profefllo Fi- de i Similiter Santlos una cum Chrifto regnan tes venerandos. Holy Bodies of Saints and Martyrs, which were the Living Members of JESUS CHRIST, the Temples of the T~t Holy Ghoft, and are one tiones Deo fro Day to be Railed a» nobis cfere; at- ^ tQ £temal J^fe que eorum relt & . .c yx T1- quia* ejfe vene- and Glorified by Him, rarMs. are to be Venerated by the Faithful. mention of J* E S U S CHRIST : That when we have recourfe to Saints , as to our (Patrons, we difcard JESUS CHRIST of his Office of Mediator, and fet up fo many Idols againjl Him : That (g) we be- lieve, we ought to honour Saints, Gaelics and Ima- ges "frith a <%eligiom wor- fhip of the fame Species with that "frhich we pay to GOD, hut in a lower Degree : That (h) we rob (g) f Thefaurus difputat. Sedanenf. Thef? 6.de cultu unius Dei torn. i. pag. 256. Vni Deo cult us Reltgiofu-s tribuendtu cfi, hujufque honoris portio vel minima adcreaturam transferrin aut cumea commumcare, fine nefario feeler e nonpoteft) five alius pro vero Deo eclatur ^ five culfus inferior aut fubordinatus creature tribuatur, five Deus colatur in imagii,e, aut cum imagine & per imagintm ^ hxc enim omnia lege Dei caventur & eommuni IaoloUtria nomine cenfentur , Sec. Ibid. pag. 280. th. 27. de Imaginibus : Ado.atio Imaginum , quunt, &LC. Daniel Chamierus Del ph mas in Epift. ad Petrum Cottonum Epift. Jefuiticarum parte 1. Edit. Genevenfis anni 15V9. pzg. 1 50. Demonfirandum est tibi, vel nonad- mittifdololatriam, cum creataris tribuitur hones Religiofusy vel Santios & Imagines non ejfe ere at ur as j veldenique vos S'nttis k> Imaginibus non triiuere cult urn Religi- ofum. Et mox * M.dta dixijli diflmguens ea tna honorum flatrir, duliie & hyperdulia?) capita non ex ipf.t forum interna aliqua differentia *, fed tantum da vArio gradu earttm return, qinbus is honos defertur. (h) f Thcfanrusdiiputar. Sedenanf. Thefi 1. de cultu Religiofo. torn. 2. pag. 587. Pomificios honoremfli Chriljo debit urn Santli4, quos mediatores confituunt dif- ferre. i That the Images of JESUS CHRIST, of the Blefled Virgin* Mother of GOD, and of other Saints, are to be had and retained, e- fpecially in Churches >• and that due Honour and Reverence is to be given to them, not that we believe any Vivinlty or Vertue to be in them,for which they ought to be Worfhip- ped, or that we ought to ask any thing of them, or put our Con- fidence in Images, as j) 5) i Idem Cone. Trident. Ibid. Imagines porr* Chrifii, Dcipa- r& VirginU., & aliorum Sanlto- torum inTemplia prdfertim, ha- bendax <£r reti- nendas, eifque dtbitum bonorem C^ revtrentiam impcrtiendam, non quod creda- tur inejfe aliqua in iii divinitat Cc. nee iddiffitcntur Pontificii. JESUS CHRIST of the Quality of Mediator, that we may give it to the Saints : That (i) Re- lics cannot he referred, without Idolatry : That ( k ) the common Belief of the Church of Rome », they ought to he Ado- red : Tloat (1) this Church is above meafure mad, in maintaining Images of GOD: That(m) [he propofes an inani- mate People of Stone, to he Adored by a living feople : That (n) [he makes Prafeffion of Ado- ^6 3 he JJOctrme oj we unto* •futmcollQcabMnt, the Pagans did, who fed^quonUm ko< ^ jr tmft jfl I(J0JS. ar«* a«» eu exht- r krar , refertur but becaule the Ho- adfroutypA. nour v^hich is paid to Proteflio Fidel : , r 5.jl.iL- Krwfjgfe* *#- them, is referred to the ro imagines Originals which they Chrifli m Dei- & r *, * f*r«fempen>ir: repreient. /*««, necnon ali- orttm Santlorum habendas 0- re- tinendat ejfe *t- que eis debitum honor cm ac reve- rentiam imperti- W/HJ40 -n. iv J- ring Images with a Re- ligious Worflrip : That (o) we believe a Divine Ver- tue to be in them, as in a Nefl : That (p) Doe re- vive all the Heresies of tlie Carpocratians, Ba- filidians , Staurolatri- ans, and others, ^ho re- /erved and adored Ima- ges : That, (q) according to the Second Council of Nice , it is a greater Crime not to adore Ima- ges, than to deny J E- SUS CHRIST died for us : That (V) through ( o ) f Ibid. tfi. J. pag. 276. $Hihti6 Imagimbui credi iueffe vim aliquam & fan- llitatem, quafi virtus alt qua C eel eft is in eis maularetur, hinc liquet, quod pit bs rejies fuas precatorias ajfrkat pedibm Imaginum, Ht (int fan ftieres-, flat *is fingit ofc*lat ce- roostaccendit. (f) Andreas Rivetus in Catholic. Orthodoxo quaeft. 1. Prccemiali de Hx- tefibus torn, i.pag. 32. * Georgius Dounamus in Lib. cui titulus eft ; Papa Anuchriftus : L. 3.C 6 pag. 174. Cam Antrepomorphytis, 1>eo Hum an am for mum affngunt, cum earn in fgnra hominis pingunt, &c. Pag. 175. Cum Armenis iUis fui Coaz.inz.arii ; vel Staurolatrv*> \jupcrwruj uj mis rvunutu twww;. 3y format, cap; 2. ?re grant him to have the Tower of Infli- tuting Sacraments at his Templo Dei feffarum pr^dixerunt Daniel & Paulus •, Hun feeler ati & abominandi regni ducem & Anttftgnanum afhd nos facimut Romanum Pomificem. Et cap. 7. $.25. pag. 305. Vidcmur nonnullis, nimis mule dice petttlantes, cam Roman urn Pon- tificem vocamtu Antichriftam. Le Synode National des Pretendus Reformcz tent] a Gap en 1603. Nottr croyons que UPape eft proprement PAntichrift,&tc Gui- lielmns Amefius TheologLx Doctor in Academia Frankerana in Libro cui titulus eft, BeHarmims enervatus, &c. torn. 1. cap. 4. pag. 172. Edit- Amftelodamcn- fis ann. 16 JO ^fteftio efty an Pomifex Romanas fit Antichriflns Me de quo Apo- ftoli pramonuerunt : P onti^cii neqant , not affirmamus. f Thefaums difputat. Seda- nenf. torn. 2. pag. 586. Ejufmodi Pomifex non eft hcarius Chrifti, ant Ecclefi* caput ; fed cauda Ef. 9. v. 14. Hoc eft Propheta mendacium lequens & Antichri- ftjts. Francifcus Burmannus in Synopfi Theologica L. 8. c. 18 $ 10. pag. 575. torn- 2. * Georgius Dounamus in L. cui titulus : Papa Anticbriftus. Ericus Rhorweus in L. cui titulus, De Idea Antichrist Reformandi. Du Pkflls Mornay dansfon Myflere d' Iniquite. Charles Drelincourt MiniftredeCharenton dans fon livre du Triumphe de l'Eglife fur la Croix, pag. 29. de la 2. Edition de Geneve 1630. Prefqucn mefmt temps , que le Pape a commence a lever les Cornet en Occident^ Mahomet s*ejl eleve en Orient. Ces deux Capitanx enncmis de Jefits Chrtft^ Gog & Migog. * (Jo) Georgius Dounamus infinepra?diftiLibri^eP*/M Ant/cbrifto, pag. 651, & 652 Deducitur neceffaria confequentia^ vmnem cum Papa tanqitam cum C*- piiey Romanaqite fede Commur.ionem illicit am ejfe •, qu lnterceffors to G O D for us > be fides JESUS CHRIST; that of King, in attribu- ting to himfelf a Domini* on oyer Confidences, and a Toller to command the Living , and the Dead : That (I) not only the Lives of Popes,te their Do&rine, and the Titles of Honour which theyat- virt let abolit du tout, & en lenrplas4 ilfttbflitue dtsfaerileges t}i?il a forgez. luy- memc ( fcj Francifcus Burmannusin Synopfi Theologica 1. 8. c. 18. Se&. 10. torn. 2; pag. 576. Vt am em vernm& indubitatum Anticbriftum ft prodertt, omnia Cbri- Jfi munera invaftt •, Propheticum put* per fubjiitutiontm novi verbi cty^a Saccrdo- tale per introduttiontm novi fucrificii & inttrcejfornm prater Chrift urn \ Regihmptr Dominium in conjcientias^ & imperiftm in vivos% non folum •, fed & vtortnos. (/) Andreas Rivetus in Catholico orthodoxofeu fumma Controverf. traft. z; q.^.SeiV.y. tom. 1. pag. 326. Non folum vita, fedetiam doBrina confequensy titu- lique a P*pa ufiirpati, fat is oflendttnt ipfum ejfe ChriJIi hoftcm^ Gorijhimque negar?,- ut Epicurus providentiam dejintms, Dtttm negabat* Hoc a nobis demon ftr at unj- fuit. H 4» The DoBr'm of the Church. ART. vr. tribute to themfelves, (help 'dearly they are the Ene- mies of Jefus Chrift, W do no more believe in him, than Epicurus did in God, whofe Providence he denied : That (m) the Tofifb Religion is com- pofed of Paganifm and Judaifm mixed together by an adulterate Alliance : That (n) Popery is very 'toell compa/d to a great Sea, lecaufe it contains almoft all Herefies that ever were, as the Sea con- tains all 'Rivers : That (o) Popery is as different from Chriftianity , as White/i-ow Black: That (m) Francifcus Burmannus. 1.8. c. 1 8. $. 9. torn. 2. pag. 575. Papifmum ex Juda- ifmo & Ethnicifmo confiatm, & utrumque ntfario Religion^ adniteno cum Chriflia- mfmo commfceni. Ab Ethnicis enim rittu idololatriam & fuperftitionem j a Judais rittu quoque & pedagogiam verteris teflamcnti mutuames Pontificet, utramque Chri- fiiano nomine & habit u tinxerunt & circumveflierunt, quas tres Religiones fjurarehi-e vinculo cilligAtM exhibit Papiftmu. (» ) Andreas Rivetus in Catholico orthodoxo feu fumma Controvert q. 1. Procemiali de Harrefibus torn. 1. pag. 42. Litptit appofitijfime quo/dam Papifmum camparajfe mari magna , in quod quemadmodum flumina omnia & rivi dtcidunt tleno alveo \ fie etiam plurim* & pene omnes variorum temporum , Ucorum &• perfonarum hterefes in hum errorum abiffum flunnt. & impuris ejus undis mifcen- tur. (0) Theodorus Beza in Antithefi Papatus & Chriftianifmi traftat. Theologic. tom. 1. pag. 56. Hoc affirmo, atque utinaut non pojftm tarn juflii de caufis affirm Art, clbum nigra non magis repugnnre, quam Papifmum Chriftiamfmo. Of the Superiority of the Roman Chunk ( p ) in the 4J Church of Rome all things are fold, even GOD Himfelf, and the %ermffion of Sins: Laftly, That (q) it is impofftble to invent a Do* Urine more impure and corrupted, than that of the Church. (p) Pierre du Moulin dans fa Lettre pour repondre a celle de Balzac. DtU vient qnen I'Eglife Romaine tout [event ; Dieu meme, & U remijfton des peckez.. ( how much more in them altogether, whereof you intend to make Judgment by this your reading j for which caufe you have great need to ftand attent,be hum- ble, devout,indifferent, pray much, and be earned with God to enligh- ten you in this behalf. A Kecejjary JdYiee, &c. 4y 2. When you begin to read about any Controverfy , you muft en- deavour firft, to apprehend well and briefly the true State of the Que- ftion, not believing one fide only , but fearching out what each fide faith and holdeth therein -, for in this Point above others , you (hall find fraud oftentimes ufed by Writers of divers Sorts and Se&s, every one propofing the State of the Queftion advantageoufly, as himfelf would have the Reader to understand it, and not as his Adverfary doth hold it indeed. 3. When you have the true State of the Queftion, be very careful to hold the fame continually in your Mind,making often reflection a nd recourfe thereto, about the Difcourfesyou (hallread in your Author , considering well and attentively , whether they be to the purpofe in hand,and do level right at the mark propoled or no, or run afide to im- pertinent matters, as often they do,and fill up Leaves with things, that are far from the principal fubftance of the Queftion, So as this muft ferve you,as the Plummet or Square doth the Mafbn or Architect,to teil you whether the Building go ftreight or no. And whatlbever you find that inferreth not,or concludeth not the principal Point in queftion, that you muft lay afide for the time, thoitbe otherwife never fo witty, pleafant or profitable, until you have con^ered that which toucheth the purpofe dire&ly «j for you (hall find many Authors in thefe our Days , who pretending to prove dire£tly fome Conclusion in Contro- verfy, will afterwards flip afide, and draw you into fo many by-mat- ters, as will either confound your Judgment and Memory, or weary your Patience, and thereby make all your Reading unprofitable, and to no purfjofe. 4. Ponder well the weight of all fuch Arguments as are alledged. For albeit they be to the purpofe and not wholly impertinent^yet they may be weak and feeble, and not able to infer fo much as is required. And thefe may be of Two Sorts. Either out of Scripture, or ancient Fathers. As to the Scriptures, forafmuch as not the found of Words, but the trueSenfe and Meaning thereof is that which moft importeth} the fecureft way,and moft reafbnable to allure our felves of the true meaning of it, is to look andconfider, how the fame was underftood and interpreted by Antient Fathers before thefe our Controversies did arife. As for Example, Cdtholics zMedgfor Purgatory Fire, 1 Cor.^.Ip- fe falvus erit fie t amen quafiper ignem. The Antient Fathers underftood it fb. Proteftantf alledg on their fide thefe Words of Solomon, Where the Tree falleth, there it lyeth. But cannot bring any one Father for it in that Senfe. 4- V. Whether thofe Laws and Rules taught by Chrift and his Apoftles , bind as well the Chriftians of fucceeding Ages f who could not be prefent to fee and hear them) as they bound thofe who were prefent, heard them taught, and few their Original Writings? VI. Whether after the Death of Chrift and his Apoftles and Di- fciples, by his Inftitution other Peribns fucceffively in all Ages, were in order chofen and authorifed, as Paftors and Church-Magiftrates, to preferve, teach, and promulgate thofe binding Rules to all Na- tions j? VII. Were they Clergy-men or Lay-men, by whom immediately they were chofen, and authorifed in thofe high Fun&ions . XIII. Whether Perfons fo a&ing, are better than Rebels and Ufurpers, or fuch as Simon Magus, and tho(e that deferted the Apo- ftles to follow him } and therefore to be avoided, as Perfons feparated from the Flock a-nd Religion of CHRIST? If any give Anfiver, it is dejired to be Categorical and Jhort0 without Difionrfes of things not demanded. An 5' An Explanation of the Roman Catholics Belief concerning thefe Four Points: Their CHURCH, WORSHIP, JUSTIFICATION, and CIVIL GOVERNMENT. As it was prefented to fime Perfons of Quality, for their particular Satis- faction. I. T 71 7 E believe the Holy Scriptures to be of Divine Infpiration, V V and Infallible Authority } and whatfbever is therein con- tained wt firmly affent unto, as to the Word of God, the Author of all Truth. But fince in the Holy Scripture there are fbme things. (>ard to be underflood, which the ignorant and unflable wrefl to their own (leftru&ion, 2 Pet. 3. 1 6. we therefore profeft (for the ending of Controverfies in our Religion, and fetling of Peace in our Confciences) to fubmit our private Judgments to the Judgment of the Church in a free Ge- neral Council. II. We humbly believe the Sacred My ftery of the Bleffed Trinity, one Eternal, Almighty, and Incomprehenfible God, whom only we adore and worftiip, as alone having Soveraign Dominion over all things, to whom alone we acknowledge as due from Men and Angels, all Glory, Service and Obedience, I Tim. I. 17. abhorring from our Hearts, as a moft deteftable Sacrilege, to give our Creators Honour to any Creature whatfbever. And therefore we folemnly proteft, That by the Prayers we ad- drefs to slngtls and Saints, ive intend no other than humbly to fbl- licite their afliftance before the Throne of God, as we defire the Prayers of one another here upon Earth 5 not that we hope any thing from them, as Original Authors thereof, but from God the fountain of all Goodneft, thro' Jefut Chrifi our only Mediator and Redeemer. Neither do we believe any Divinity or Vertue to be in Images, for which they ought to be worfhipped, as the Gentiles did their Idols , but we retain them with due and decent refpeft in our Churches, as Inftruments, which we find by experience, do often aflift our Me- mories, and excite our Affections. III. We firmly believe, that no force of Nature, or dignity of our beft Work, can merit our purification } but we are juflified freely by Grace, through the Redemption that is in Jefus Chrifl, Rom. 3. 24. And tho we mould by the Grace of God perfevere unto the end in a Godly life, and Holy Obedience to the Commandments , yet are our hopes of Eternal Glory fall built upon the Mercy of God,and the Merits of Chrifl Jefus. !•, „._ /---/^ _r- ^1 117 \\ r: 5 1 An Explanation of the Roman Catholics Beliefs &c. more than Actions done by the ailiftance of God's Grace, to which it has pleated his Goodnefs to promife a Reward 5 a Doctrine fo far from being unfuitable to the Senfe of the Holy Scriptures that it is their principal Deiign to invite and provoke us to a diligent obfcr- vance of the Commandments, by promifing Heaven as the Reward of our Obedience. X Tim. 4. 8. Godlinefs is profitable to all things , having thepromife ofthis life, and of that which k to come. And, Rom. 2.6. Godwill render to every man according to his deeds \ to them, who by pa- tient confidence in well doing, feek. for Glory, and Honour, and Immorta- lity, Eternal Life. And again, Rom. 8. 13. If you live after the flefij, youfialldie 5 but if through the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the Body, you /hall live. And Heb. 6. 10. God if not unjuji to forget your work^, and labour of love, which yen have f hewed for his name, Sec. Nothing be- ing 10 frequently repeated in the word of God, as his gracious Pro- motes-to recompenfe with Evetfafting Glory the Faith and Qbedknce of his Servants : Nor is the Bounty of God barely according to our Works, but high and plentiful, even beyond our Capacities, gi- ving full rHiafure, heaped up, prejjed down, and running over, into the bofoms of all that love him, Luc. 6. 38. Thus we believe the Merit or Rewardablcnefs of Holy Living (both which fignihe the lame thing with \a) ariie not from the felt- value even of our belt Actions*, as they are ours ; but from the Grace and Bounty of God : And for our felves, we fincerely profefs, When we haz>s dom all thje things which are commanded US) wB are iwjnfoable Jeri'ants, Luc. 17. 10. having done nothing but that which wut our duty 5 fo that our boafting is not in out" felves, but all our glory is in Chrijl. IV. VVe firmly believe, and highly reverence the Mora! Law, being fo fo- lemnly delivered to Mojh upon the Mount, Exod.20. Matth. 19. Ecclef. n. 13. iocxpreiiv confirmed by our Saviour in the Golpel, and containing ink (elf fo perfect au 1 Abridgment of our whole lAity both to God and Man. Which Moral Law we believe obliges all Men to proceed with faithfulncls and fincctity in their mutual Contracts one towards another 5 and therefore our conitant Prole.iion is, That we are moll ttrictly and abfolutelv bound to the exact and entire Performance of our Promifes, made to any Perfons, of whatRcligicn foeverj much more to the Magifi rates and Civil Powers, under whole Protection we live? whom we aic taught by the Woid of God to obey, not cn!y f:r fear, but conscience fa\e , and to whom we will molt faithfully ob- lervccnr Promifes of Duty and Obedience, notwithilandine anyDifpenfation3 Ablo'ution,or other Proceedings of any Foreign Power or Authority whatioever. Wherefore we utterly deny and renounce that lalfc .md fcandalous Poiition, that Faith is nn to be kept with Heretic^, asmo'f uncharitably imputed to our Practices, and molt unjuitly pinned upon our Religion. Thelc we lincerely and (blemnly profefs, as in the fight of God, the Search- er of_ail Hearts, taking the words plainly and limply, in their ufual and iami- some"" QUERIES T O PROTESTANTS ANSWERED. And an E X P L A N A T I O N of the Roman Catholick's BELIEF in FourGreatPoints CONSIDERED. If. bSSSSS* c/w1I iv 9ffi£ ^ f KC i' 3 Z [ V- C/w/ Government. . The Second Edition. IMPRIMATUR. Mir. 4. 1685. \* ac D- D- Wilhelmo Archie- pifc.C^/^r.aSacr. Domefh I 6> A^D 0 n; [Printed I by J.-H. for Z«& Meredith, ztlhe Kim's He* J at 1 _£^W«» End of St. M CW-W. MDCtlMCra I I I !*; i To the READER. 0 Tmany days fence, I had fome Papers put into my Hands 5 which fo foon as I had an oppor- tunity, I opened and perufed. The fir ft 1 found intitu- led y fome Queries to Proteftavts. The next, Queries of Religion or Liberty. And the laft, an Explanation of Roman Catholic/Is Belief concerning thefe 4 points. Their Church, Worfhip, Jufiification, and Civil Go- vernment, as it was pre fen ted to fome Perfons of Qua- lity for their particular Satisfaction. By thefe Papers I found that the Roman Emiffaries were very bufie, comparing Sea and Land to gain Profelytes. And be- caufe they have had ?to good lucl^by open and fair dea- ling, they now take another courfe$ They creep intoHoufes, and privately infinuate them} elves into the acqitaintance of unwary People. Which when they have o?ice done, they begin their wor^ which is by puzgeling queftions, and falfe reprefentations of their Religion, to unfix the minds of men • and then take occafion of their unfetled- nefs to draw them over to their party. Now feeing our Advevfaries arefo diligent, certainly it behooves its to be very watchfully and by all law full ways and means to countermine their cunning Craftinefs, and arm our [elves againfl their devices. Vpon this confederation, 1 thought it might be no dijfervite either to private Chrifiia72Sl or the Church of pinch I am a Member to takp thefe Papers into confederation 3 and by jlfw, A 2 Anersorl The Preface. Anfwers to the Queries, and a brief Atiimadver fori up- on the Explanation, to put weapons into the hands of ethers, wherewith they might defend themfehes againfl then A/faults. This is thedefign of thefe few following jheets, where- in I have fludied nothing more than Brevity and Plain- nefs. To the fir ft Paper of Queries I have given very Jhort anfwers, but I hope both plain and full. To the fecond, becaufe the Queries feem to be contrived with more art and cunning, my anfwers thereunto are fome- what more large, but I hope, not too long. And upon the Explanation of their Belief in thofe 4 great points, 1 have made fuch Animadverfions, as I hope may fatisfie any one, that the Expla'uier hath ?iot dealt fo fairly, nor fo ingenuoufly with his Perfons of Quality, as he ought to have done. Whether what is here done, will anfwer the defign of doing it, or no, I l?s univerfal wnhout mtcrruptio* ? Anf Umverfel practice will amount to an univerfel Tradition, and that this hath been the practice of the Church in all Ages, efpcciall y in matters of great weight, we deny not ; nor Ihouldwe oppofe the lame courlc now, provided the Council were free and general. Bur the Enquirer goes en, i 5. '.-at fuel) Ceur.ciU cannot .Err in fund awards but • ■.<■■> Qu ' 'what not ? Anf. Tho'c things which arc cficntiaUy neccfiary to the being of Re- ligion may properly be called fundamental ; but thole things which only refpefl order and decency therein, and vary according to times and place, and are alterable by the Goveinouis of the Church, when they ice caufe thefea-e net fundamental. Qu. Whether there be not {owe thtvgs fundamentals to thj Church, which are net to every particular ? Anf There may be fomethings fundamental to the Being ofa Church, which are not fo to every particular member of that Church jbut who- mever things are fundamental to the Being of Religion, anjequaj. to the whole Church and every member thereof. Qu. Whether an ob finale denial of what is fundamental or veceJJ'ary.to the univer -J 'al Church, cr granting as I may fay upon what is fundamental by a particular perfcnjje not in time a fundamental Errour, efp'ecially after an univerfal declaration of it as truth delivered by Chrift and ha \ Anf. This Query as it is here worded is hardly reconci'eabie tofenfe, but I fuppofe his meaning is, Whether for any particular perfbn ob- ftjnatcly to deny what is fundamental or necefiary to the universal Church, and declared to be a truth delivered by Chrift and his Apof- tles. be not a fundamental Errour ? To which I anfwer. That every, particular Chriftian ought with all deference to fubmit his own private Judgment to the publick Judgment of the Church, and though it do not appear fo plain to him, yet he ought rather to fiifped his own than that of the Church. But if in fame things he cannot be fatisfied, and therein happen to differ from the Church, provided he do not there- by break the peace and unity of the Church, it will hardly amount to ./fundamental Errour. But what if it be declared by the Church to be a truth- CO To this I anfwer, That no declaration of the Church, how ■univrr^.i fbeveritbe, can make that to be a truth delivered by Chrilt and ills Apo.Ues, which really is not lb And therefore in that cafe we rmi:t have recourse to their Writings, and if it be not either in expreis word? contained therein, or by (band confluence drawn therefrom, we ough: not to comply with it, norisic a fundamental Errour to diiiei therein. p Qll. Whether the universal Church ajfembled in a General 'Council cxght not to he juftly efteemed the decider of what is fundamental, and what not ? An/when the univerfal Church by her proper Representatives is law- fully aftembled in«a Council truly General, that Council without all difflute will be a very proper Judge of what is fundamental, and what not; but this is rather to be prayed than hoped for. Qii.lFh ether an obftinate denial of any one truth ddivered by jeftis Chriji; or hisApoftles (though the delivery was not abfolutely mcejjary to S&lvatioto) may not be called a fundamental errour, feeing it brings the reft he delivered in queftion, as alfo his 'veracity ? An[. The denial of any one truth delivered by JefusChrift or his Apo- ftles is a very great fault, and if that denial be obftinately continued in, after plain conviction that it is fuch a truth, it is a very dangerous Errour. Qll. Whether therefore the denial of anyone truth delivered to us by an uninterrupted tradition, as taught by Chrifi and his Apojtles, would not be a fundamental Errour ? Anf. There is a great difference between a thing delivered as taught, and plainly taught, by Chrilt and his Apoitles ; for we meet with many things delivered as taught by them, and tradition pretended for them, which really and in truth were never taught by them, or either of them; aed to deny fuch is fo far from being a fundamental Errour, that it is no Errour at all. There is alfo a great difference between traditions. If by tradition he mean the holy Scriptures , we grant that to deny any thing that is plainly and clearly taught therein, .is a very great Er- rour.- But if by tradition he mean fuch asismserly humane, and not clearly warranted by the Word of God, we think we ought to reject fuch, how uninterrupted foever they be ; for if an Angel from Heaven •preach any other Gofpel than hath been preached, let him be accurfed, faith St Paul. Qu. And on the other fide, whether the teaching of any DoBrine (cnely picufly believed, but) fufficiently known net to have been exprejly, or by a natural coufeojuevce delivered by Chrift and his Apftles, and which may upon thai account befalfe, not having Divine Revslai ion {which ahne ism- B faUle) (0 ible) fir its ground', whether, I faf, the teaching fuch a Dottrine f0 known, as one that was delivered by Chrifi, (when they know it was not) would not be a fundamental Errour ? Anf. Whofoever teacheth fuch Doctrines as are mentioned in this Query, and in that manner, is highly guilty ; and when the Enquirer jfhall think fit to be more particular, and produce his inftances, he may expect a more particular anfwer, and perhaps be told at whofe door this charge will lie : In the mean time this general anfwer may fuffice. Qu. Whether Chrifc having taken care ( as fome grant ) that his Church jhould not err in fundamentals, hath not confequently taken care that fie fhould not teach any one Doctrine as delivered by Cbrifi, and cojifeyuently of Faith, which was not taught by him, and confequently might be an Errour? Anf. Chrift hath taken all care poffible to fecure his Church from Errour, and hath given her his gracious promife to be with her to the end of the World. But the Church being compofed of men, and fuch as are fallible, the fecurity is not promifed to particulars. Particular perfons, and particular Churches too, we know, not only may, but have, grofly erred. The (ecurity therefore is only promifed to the Uni- verfal Church; and when he tells us what he means by that, he may expecl a more direct anfwer to his Quejy. Qu. Whether thofe Doctrines, or mofi of them, controverted now by Tro- tefiants, have not been taught and believed in the Church as Doctrines delive- red by Cbrift, long b/fore Luther, yea and delivered in the mofi General Coun- cils thofe Ages would permit, and accented of by the Church diffuftve, none that we know of dijjentingy but thofe condemned in thofe Councils for Here- ticks, and whofe Herefies expired ah/;o(Z with themfelves ? Anf It is now plain that thisEnquirer, by the Church , and universal Church io often mentioned by him, doth all along mean the Church of 'Rome, which we are fo far from complying with him in, that though we own that Church to be a Member, yet we cannot allow it to be a found Member of the Catholick Church. And if by the Decjfions and Declara. tions of the Church, he mean the determinations of that Church, they arc no further obligatory than to her own Members, nor many of them to them neither, if ftrictly enquired into. As for Luther, we do not receive our Religion from him, but from Jefus Chrift; and for any Doctrines now controverted, we are content to have the fame determined by the Holy Scriptures, and the four firft General Councils. As for the Councils (ur Enquirer hints at, we deny that' they were truly General , cr dm nil their decmens were ever accepted of by the Church difiufive. And he cannot but know that there were many more, not only Perfons, but whole Churches, which did dilfent from them. Qu. Whether tber.e was from the frfl 40c years, till the time of Luther, any (7) any known body of V aft or s and Teachers declaring a dijjent in any Agzjhm thofe Doclrines, and oppofingihofe Councils ; and whether the Greek Churches did not, and do to this very day confent with this Weftern Cljurch in mofl points now controverted by Protefants t Anf. This Query is prepoijeroufly put, for how fhould any body of Pallors and Teachers in the rlrft 400 years oppofe themfelves to thofe Councils which were not then in being, nor heard of till many hundred years afterwards ? But that the Fathers in thole firit Agesdid teach the lame Doclrines we now do, we appeal to the Records of thofe times. And that thofe after-Councils by .him mentioned, were diifenters from thofe of the iirft Ages, we are contented to be tried by comparing the Ads of both together. And that the Greek Church did, or now doth, agree with the Church of Rome in all or molt of thofe points now in diiference between her and us, we utterly deny, and challenge him to the proof of it. Qu. Whether Luther (the fir ft Author of V rote fancy) did not feparate himfelf from the whole vifible Church at that time spread over the Weft, contradicting all the Prelates and Paftors then living in the universal practice of that Church, and the General Councils received as fuch by the foregoing Ages? Anf As for the names of Proteftant and Papift, I look upon them as names of diftindion, not of Religion. The Religion we both own is Chriftian : This we do not receive from Luther, nor they from Ignatius Lcyala, St. Francis, or any fuch, but both of us from Jefus Chrift ; The only queiVion is, Whether they or we hold that Religion in greater! purity ? 'lis true that Luther in his time did more narrowly look into the corruptions of the Church of Rome, declared againft them, and on that account feparated from her Communion, and fox any thing yet appears may be very well juftihed in fo doing. For, if any Church (hall make terms of her Communion fo finful and dangerous that no man with fafety to his Soul can continue in it, it will be high time to come out of it. Qu. Whether he or Vroteftants at frefent do pretend to' fuch Demonftration for thofe Tenets they hold contrary to the Roman Church, ( the then onely ■vifible Church in the Weft) that no underftandmg, to which it is fujficiently propofed, can in the leaft doubt of it ? Anf. We have fuch evidence for the Dodrines which we hold and teach in oppofition to the Church of Re me, as, being fufficiently propofed, no man can reafonably doubt of. And as for thofe who will fcruple without reafon, notwithstanding the cleareft evidence that the nature of the thing will bear, we can only pity and pray for them. Qu. Or whether they do not rather fay, that being fallible, they may err, B z even (8) in what they think a Demonfiration ; and if thty may err, perhaps thej have erred even in thair Reformation ? Anf. Wedo not pretend to infallibility, nor do we think that the claim .uheBi(hopofRowi?makestokis any more than a groundless pretence only. But dpojfe adejj'e non valet confequentia, from a bare poliibility of erring, to argue a certainty that we have erred in every thing we have done, is an argument titter to be offered to Children than Men. Qu. Whether therefore denying thefe Doctrines thus delivered by the Church in all Ages, as Doctrines delivered by Cbrifi and his Apo/tles, upon no better grounds than thefe, perhaps they may bs'true, and perhaps not, be not a putting ones [elf into the danger of erring even in fundamentals! Anf. We deny no Doctrines delivered by the Church :n all Ages, as Doctrines delivered by Chrilt and his Apolifes ; nor do we own any DoJlrine upon fuch weak groimds^s perhaps they may be true, and per haps But we fay, that the prefent Church of Rome doth teach foch Do- crrinesas the Doctrines of Chrift and his Apoitles, which were. never t night by the Church inallAges,nor delivered by Chriic and hisApoitles; And in thefe things we oppoie our (elves againft them, and thfnk we have great reatbn fo to do, having the holy Scriptures and the Primitive Church on our fide. And whiht weare thus fupported, we have no fear of erring in fundamentals. Queries of Religion or Liberty. WHo this Enqiirer is,as lam at prefent ignorant, Co am I not much concern'd to know , but I take him to be one who hath concei- ved a mighty opinion of himfclf and his performances. He thinks that by thefe Queries he hath (truck at the root of Proteftancy, (as he and thofe of bisPerfwaiion call it) ;. e Reformed Gu'i.hanity, that he hath given it a fatal blow, a mortal wound, and left it groveling in the duit without the leaft hopes of recovery. Like that overgrown, uncircumcifed I hi- liftint, he defieth the Armies of the Living God. and calls for a Man to fight with him ; For, in the dole of his Queries he maketh this proud and confident challenge. If any give Jnfvrer, ( As if he mould haveftid, if any be (b bold and daring, fa over con.identand fool-hardy, as to undertake an An- fwer to thefe Queries) It is dc fired to be Categorical and jhrt, with- out any difcourfes of things nit demanded. Now whether this man do-not triumph before the Victory, or whe- thofe Queries be fo unanfwerable as he believes them to be, is the thing under confideration. And becaufe he hath not only given the Challenge, but appointed the Weapon, I ihall neither decline the one, nor (9l r,or the other, but- according to his own method (hall undertake hi* Queries in the fame order as he hath propounded them. Qu. I. Whether the Flock and Church of Chrifi (to whom was proofed grace and eternal happinefs) be that company and (ociety of People chrifened in his Name, who by order of Government, Rides, and Decrees, from him and his ApOjlles, were united in Faith, Worship, Difcipline, and manner of Life, called Religion? Anf. 'lhe Church of Chrifi is either Militant or Triumphant, the one on Earth, the other in Heaven; of the former of which we are flow to fpeak. The Church Militant is either Univerfal, orParticular; the former comprehending all and every Member of ChrilVs Myltical- Body, wherefoever difperfed upon the face of the whole Earth; the latter comprizing only a certain Number of Ghriitians formed into a feledl Body or Society, under certain Law7s and Rules not differing from thofe of the Univerfal Church. Such are all Provincial and Na- tional Churches; and though none of them may arrogate to them- i elves the Title of the One , Holy , Cat L lick , and Ape f} click Church > yet none will deny but that they are true Members thereof. This I have premifed to prevent confnfion and mifiwderiranding : for the confound- ing of thefe two,as it often happens in difcourfes of this kmd,hath been the occafion of great murakes. Thofe of the Romifo Perfwafion, by the One, Holy, Caiholick, and Apoftdick Church, do ufually underftand the Church of Rcme, which though it be a manifeft Contradiction, being the fame with a Particular Univerfal, yet do they run away with it, and by that fpecious and gorgeous Title think to bear down all before them, aloud proclaiming that to be the Mother and Miftrefs of all other Churches. This thus premifed, I (hall now be as Catego- rical and fhort in my Anfwer to his Query, as he can defire : Viz.. That the Flock and Church of Chrift is a Company or Society of Peo- ple ChrHrned in his Name, who by Order of Government, rules, and decrees from him and his Apoftles, are united in Faith, Worfhip, Dis- cipline, and Manner of Life, called Religion. Qu. 2. J whether by Separation or Excommunication from that Society and Unity are loft thofe promt fes ? Anf. Separation and Excommunication are two things, for, though every one that is excommunicated be thereby leparated from that bo- dy, of which before he was a member ; yet a man may be in a ftate of Separation, without being under the doom of Excommunication. For Separation may be a voluntary hil, whereas Excommunication is a formal and Judicial Sentence, delivered by a lawful Judge, authori- zed and appointed by the Church to pronounce the fame ; by virtue whereof the fentenced perlon is divided. from the Body, leparated from the (to) the Society, ai:d fliut out of the Communion of God's Church. The cafe thus [rated, my antwerto this Query will be as tolioweth, Qu. io. Whether to the Teftimonies and Decrees of thofe fucceedmgVa,' ftors and Supreme Church- Magiftrates, and to their fentence given upon the Cc::troc-crfies of Religion, rifen in divers Ages, it due, at haft, as much Credit Do they not be- lieve Tradition.? to be the unwritten Word of God, to be divinely in- fpired, and of Equal infallible Authority with the written Word ? If they el's then the Explainer hath not been fo fex and candid, fo juft and faithfu'l as he ought to haveBbeen-in his Explication ; though he L ith rr.-M us the truth, he hath not told us the whole truth. And, i -hey dp believe all this, tjtpjgul might eaiTy produce a Cloud of Wi merles, and tnpfe none of the lea ft admired of their own Au-. thorns ; yet beeaufe I defjgn brevity, I {hall content my felf at prc- lent with the Evidence and Authority of one of their moft magnified Council?, which they call both free and general, ( though in truth it . 'i.er ' and that is the Councilor Trent. Which Sefs. 4. 8. ■. Sfrift.t&es the Boohs of 7*5/, Ji^!uhyEcchf^fiicitsi Wif- ,. J Maccabees r into the Canon of Scripture, (though they could not but know that they never were in the jewiflj Canon, nor ever universally received by the Chrifrian Church) and anathematized all thofe who do not upon this Declaration believe them to be Canonical. And rhe lame Council, in the fame Sefs. profeffes to receive and reve- rence Traditions with no lets pious AuCttion, than the Books of the Qld and New Teftament ; and that not in matter of^Rite and Hiftory only, but of Faith and Manners alio. Now what is this but to add to the Scriptures, and to accufe therri of infufficiency and imperfection ? And if to, then what doth this Explainer do, but deceive thofe Perfons of Quality, to whom he preJents this as the Summ of their Belief? But the Explainer goes on, and faith, fince in the Holy Scriptures there are fbmc things hard to be underfrood, which the ignorant and unliable wreft to their own aenruSron; And here I mail by the way only remarque thefe two things. 1. The Apostle indeed faith there are fome things hard ( but not impoiTible) to be underftood. For, if men will ufe the means, if they will apply themlelves with an humble and teachable temper of mind diligently to reade the Holy Scriptures, if thev will ferioufly meditate on what they reade, and carneftly and devoutly pray unto God for the alfiftance and direction of his Holy Spirit therein; rhe difficulty may be removed, and they may. be enabled rightly to underftand thofe Scriptures, at leafl fo far as is neceHary for them to know. 2. The Apoftle tells us, to whom thofe things arc hard to be un- derltood, 'viz,, the ignorant and unliable. So that the difficulty feems to be not in the things themlelves, but in the incapacities of men. For, if men will be ignorant ftill,.and not ufe the means to know bet- ter ; or if they will content themlelves with fbmc airy Notions, which float float and fluctuate in the brain, without ever endeavouring to bring them to a ccnflftency ; not only fome, btttall things in Scripture, and even the cleareft declarations of the Church may be .hard to Lc under- flood by them, and fa they will be as much at a lofs in the one as in the other. But how much this Text is mifunderltccd and misapplied, a Reverend and Learned Divine of cur Church, in a Treatife intitu- led, Search the Scriptures, hath plainly demonfi rated, to which I refer the Reader. But let us fee what Inference he draws from hence, Therefore ('faith he) we prcfefs (for the ending of all Controverfies in our Religion, and fettling of peace in our Conferences)- to fubmit cur private Judgments to the Judgment of the Church in a free General Council. In which Inference I cannot but remarque thefe things. i. This Inierence doth plainly imply a neceffity of a vifible Judge of Controverfies, to whom, in all matters in difference, there fhould be an Appeal, and whofe decifion fhould be final. Now if this be re- ally fo, Then, i. It is mighty ftrange that Chrift and his Apoftles, who pretended faithfully to deliver the whole mind and will of Gcd to mankind, fhould never once mention fuch an Officer in the Church. Or, 2. If they fhcu-d omit to mention ib neceflary a thing in their writings, and only deliver it byword of mouth to their immediate Succeflbrs, it is no lefs ftrange that they fhould either not know, or never make ufe of fuch an Expedient for the ending of thofe Contro- verfies that arofe in their days. ;. We mu ft conclude, that either the Church hath been mighty carelefs of her own peace, or that this Jud.ge hath been very negligent in his bufinefs, to fuffer ib great and *fo fatal Controverfies to continue fo long in the Church of God, when there was fo ready a way to put an end to them. i. Our Exf lamer in this Inference acquaints us with the great ends, for the fake of which fuch a Judge is necelfary : viz,. The ending of all controverfies in our Religion, and fettling of peace in our Conferen- ces. Thefe indeed are great things, and greatly to be delired. But whether there be any fuch Expedieut, or if there be, whether, it be liirBcient for thefe ends, are the things in queftion. Now, that from the firft foundation of the Chriftian Church to this very day, thefe great ends have not been univerfally attained, is very plain and evi- dent ; which to me is a very great Argument that either God never initituted any fuch expedient, or if he did, that it was not mfHcient ■for thefe ends ; which would be a mighty reflection upon the power and wifedom of God. But becaufe fome things in Scripture are hard to be under flood, dcrh it therefore neceflarily follow that there mufr be a vifible Jud^e of Con- D 2 troveriles, Cm) troverfies, to deliver the fenfe of thole places to us, without whom we can never attain thereunto, and from whofe decifion there lies no ap- peal ? I confefsl cannot fee the neceflky of this confequence: For, if it be granted, as it is on all hands, that the Scriptures which we now have are the Word of God, revealed by him, and of infallible Autho- rity, we mult believe that either God would not, or could not explain his mind to the fons of men in words as plain and intelligible as any flich Judge will or can do, or elfe there can be no fuch neceflity of any fuch Judge upon that account. If there be no other way to attain the fend- of Scripture, but only the decifion of fuch a Judge, then what way or means is left us to underftand the fenfe of the declaration of that Judge? will there not want another Judge to determine that, and another to explain his, and Co m infinitum ? But lev us for once fiippofe, though we do not grant it, that there ought to be a Judge ofControverfies in order to the attaining of thefe great ends, let us fee how he ought to be qualified, and where we (hall find him. This Judge mud: be a perfon or number of people, who muft have a fuperiority not only of order, but influence over all others, to whofe decifions and determinations a!l Chriftian people ought to conform their judgments and practices. Nor muft that influ- ence be precarious but authoritative, for nothing can warrant their Im- pofitions, but the Authority by which they areimpofed : Nor can any Authority fuffice to oblige mankind to believe that, which is neither neceflary as to its matter, nor evident as to its proof, antecedently to the definition of fuch an Authority, but only fuch an one as is infalli- ble. Now where fhall we nnd fuch anyone, feeing there are fo many pretenders to it I If we believe the Popes themfelves, the Jefuits, and the reft of the high Papalins, then his holinefs will carry away the Bell ; but if we believe General Councils, and thofe who defend their Supre- macy, then they will carry it from the Pope ; and if we believe others of equal credit, then the Catholick Church diffufive will carry it from both. So that if there ought to be fuch a Judge, you fee it is not a.- greed upon among themfelves who he is. But, %. Our Explainer determines this Controverfie, telling us, that it is the Judgment of the Church in a free General Council, that we ought to fubmk to. And in this we heartily joyn with him, for we profefs to have as great a deference for the Judgment of the Church in a free General Council, as they have or can have, and to have as great a regard to the fenfe of the whole Chriftian Church in all Ages fince the Apoftles as they, nay it may be greater than they will pretend to have ; for,, we are fb far from declining it, that as to the matters in difference: ( *n difference between them and us, we appeal thereunto, and are wil- ling to be concluded thereby ; being as well allured as the Records of thofe Ages (till remaining can allure us, that it is on our lide. Biic if by Church here, he mean the prefent Church of Rome, as it ftands divided from other Communions, we deny that (he hath any more au- thority to impofe a fenfe of Scripture upon us, than we upon her or any other particular Church upon either of us. Or if by Councils, he mean triple Weftern Councils which have been held in thefe parts of the World in latter Ages, we cannot allow them either to be free or general, andconfequently cannot grant, nor have they any reafbn to claim any fuch authority over us. But if by Councils, he mean thofe' primitive Councils, which indeed were themoft free and general, and* bet deferved to be ftyled the Church Reprefentative; we have fogs eat a veneration for their Opinion and Judgment, that we mail notdecline to fubmit the Umpirage of our Caufe to them. But what is all this to the prefent Church of Row-*, which at this day fo arrogantly claims a right and authority to interpret Scripture, and impofe her fen declared, Thac C 33 ) That if they were fummon'd before the Judges, they might Sophijhce jurare & Sophifiue refpondere; and that they were not bound to anfwer according to the intention of the Judges, but according to fome true fenfe of their own; i. e. which was made true by the hel p of a Mental Refervation. Apud. G. Abkt. de Mendaaoi &c.inprcef. p. 6, &c. By thefe inftances you may perceive that the Doctors and Cafuifts of the Rdmifli Church are not of our Explainers opinion ; which to me is a very great Argument, that he hath not dealt (o fairly and candidly -as he ought to have done in his Explanation. It may be he will tell us that thefe were but private Perfons, and that the Do- ctrine of their Church is not to be meafured by their private Opi- nions, which if he do, I (hall readily own, That the private Opinions of particular men ought not, in reafon, to be charged upon that Society to which they belong ; And iffb,then our Explainer ought not to take it amifs, if we do not receive his Explanation as the Doc- trine of that Church of which he pretends to be a Member. But if the united force of the Council of Conftance, and that of Trent •( both which they themfelves reckon to be General J with the concur- rent opinions of Co many eminent Doclours and Cafuifts of their own Church too ( none of which, that we know, have ever recei- ved the leaft check for publifhing their opinions ) if thefe, I fay, will outweigh any Authority which this Explanation can pretend to, then what becomes of all this goodly Profeffion which he here makes? where (hail we find all- that faith fulnefs and fincerity which he here boafts of? if making and breaking of promifes, if fwearing and forfwearing, if the violation of all the moft facred Bonds, where- with mankind can be obliged, may. pafs for faithfulnefs and fin- cerity, we may expect great ftore of it amongft them. And indeed whilft there is a power given to the Pope to difpenfe with Oaths and Promifes, and a liberty given to the People to make good all they fay or fwear by the Law of direfting the Intentions, by the Power of Equivocation, and the force of Mental Refervati- on, I cannot fee any reaibn why we fhould expect better. But if this be the Faithfulnefs and Sincerity they boaft of, we blefs God that we know none fuch amongft us ; and we hope this will never prove an Argument fufheient to perfwade any of ours to defert the Communion they are of, for a Communion that allows fuch things as thefe. And thus have I given you an ac- count of their Faithfulnefs and Sincerity. . i. The other thing which he boafts of is, their Loyalty. For he tells us, They are moft ftrictly and abfolutely bound to an exact and entire per for, performance of their promifes made to the Magiftrates and Civil Pow- ers under whofe protection they live, whom they are taught by the word of God to obey, not only for fear but Confcience fake, and to whom they will moft faithfully obferve their promifes and duty of O- bedience, notwithftandingany difpenfation, abfolution, or other pro- ceedings of any foreign Power or Authority whatfoever. We "do indeed firmly believe, That both they, and we,and all Sub- jects are moft ftrictly and abfolutely bound to an exact and entire per- formance of all thole promifes which we make to Magiftrates and Ci- vil Powers, and that there is no power on earth either Foreign or Domeftick that can difpence with our Oaths and Promifes, or abfblve us from -our Duty and Allegiance. But whether this be the Belief of Roman Catholicks we are not fo well allured : If we will take it upon the bare word of our Explainer, it is; but having found him faulty and diilngenuous in the former points, we may fufcect him in this, and therefore muft not i wallow all that he faith for Gofpel, till we have examined it. We very we'll know that the Doctrines of learned and allowed Cafuifts, and Practices of thole who have greateft authority in the Roman Church have been quite contrary to this Explanation , and we never found any difpofition in them to fo great a condefcenfi- on, nor ever heard that there was any fuch Reformation made in their principles and practices by any publick Authority among them. If our Explainer had produced any authentick Records of any fuch tiling, we mould with a great deal ofreadinefs and rejoycing have embraced them ; but we cannot admit of his bare word as a fuf- ricient evidence in this cafe. Our bleffed Saviour affureth us, that no man can ferve two Matters, M-nth. 6. 24. Whilft therefore thofe of the Roman Communion do -own the Pope as Supreme Head of the Church, and allow him a fove- reign and uncontrollable power over them both in Temporals and Spiritual by virtue of which he can difpenfe with their Oaths and Promiies when he pleafeth; we cannot fie how they can be fo exact in the performance of their promifes made to Civii Powers. For, it is not only poffib'e but often happens, that the Civil Power, under whole protection they live, doth not own the Papacy, nor hath any regard for the pretended power and dominion thereof; and in fuch a ; it is very likely their commands will interfere: which if they do we know they very often do how a Roman Catholick will carry himfeU even, and fo exactly divide his obedience to thefe different So- vereigns, and their different commands, as to pleale both, I cannot as yet imagine. How our Explainer will refolve this cafe, I knovvnor ; but 1 vwy well know, that the Doctors and Cafuifts of the R. man Church, . (5?) .Church, and their Popes too, will roundly tell us, That lie Power of the Pope is fuperiour to that of the Prince, and therefore he is to be obeyed in the rirfr place. And if fo, then what becomes of all that Loyalty and Fidelity to Civil Powers, which our Explainer fo much boafts of ? To (hew you therefore^ that notwithstanding this Co fpecious Expla- nation of their Faith in this point, we have fufficient reafbn to fufpedt the candour and ingenuity of the Explainer, and the truth of what he fays; I (hall only confront him with the declared Doctrines, and a- vowed Practices of their own Church in this cafe. Allthejurifdiction of all the Kings and Princes of the World depen- deth on the Pope, faith P. Chm. 5. in Ccncil. Vi:nn. And Pope Pius 5. in his Bull againft Queen Elizabeth, doth ftrictly will and command all her Subjects to take Arms againft that Heretical and Excommunicate Queen. The Depofmg and King-killing Doctrine, difpenfing v/ith Oaths of Allegiance, &c. were made Articles of their Faith, by the fourth Gene- ral Council at Later an, under Pope Innocent 2. And it is ,pleafant to obferve how nicely fcrupulous fome of their great men are in refolving this cafe, gravely telling us, That private men may not kill a King till he be depofed ; but if once he be excom- municate, then he is no King ; (and then they may kill him without fcruple) Or if he be anHeretick (which the Pope can make him when he pleafeth ) then they may kill the Heretick , but not the King, Thus Suarez, adverf. Seel. Anglic. I. 6. c. 4. Sect. 14. And c. 6. S 'eel. 21.24. Thus alio Az>orim the Jefuite. Infitt. Moral, part. I. I. 8. c. 12. And thus Mariana, de Reg. Inftit. I. I.e. 7, &C. The Rebellion of a Clergyman againft his Prince is not Treafon. , becaufe he is not his' Prince's Subject, faith Emman. Sd. Aphor. ^erb. Clericus. When a Prince is Excommunicate, before the Denunciation , the Subjects are not abfolved from their Oath of Allegiance, ( as Cajetan fays well yet when it is denounced, they are not only abfolved from their Obedience, but are bound not to obey, unlets the fear of Death, or lofs of Goods excufe them, which was the cafe of the Englijh Ca- tholicks in the time of Henry the Eighth, faith Card. Tolet. concer. Ecclef , in Angl. fol. 2; 6. It is the Sentence of all Catholicks, that Subjects are bound to ex- pell Heretical Princes, if they have flrength enough, and that to this they are tyed by the Commandment of God, the moft ftrict tye of Confcience, and the extreme danger of their Souls, faith F. Crefwel,.in ■ Philopat. Secf, 2. n. i6o,.i6i. Nay. c ?o ■ . Nay ccn before the Sentence is declared, though the Subjects are not bound to ir, yet lawfully they may deny Obedience to an Here- tical Prince, faith Grcr.de Valentin, T'otn 3 Jiff. 1. ej. 12. pun'd. 2. An Excommunicate King may with impunity be depofed or killed by any one, laith Suarez,, Defenj. Fid. I. 6 c. 6. Sett. 24. The Pope can make, that he who is a King, fhali be no King, and then you are difobliged, faith Bcllarm. contr. Bard. e. 7. The Secular power is fubject to the Spiritual. The Pope hath a Sovereign power over Chrifrian Kings and Princes, to correct, depofe, and appoint others in their places. If a King be guilty of Herefie , Schifm, or any intolerable crime againft his People ; if he be guilty of negligence or floth in his government ; if he fail in the performance of his Oaths and Promifes, or opprefs the Church ; the Pope may divert him oT his Royal Dignity ; faith Abrah. Brovius, de Pontif. Roman, f. 46. p. 621. CV. .2. Which Book was printed at Cologne, Anno 16 19. and folemnly recommended and approved by his Superiours, and Li- cenfed by the Apoftolick Inquifitor. I might be infinite in inftances of this kind, but having almoft wea- ried my felf with raking in fuch a Dunghill, I am not willing to tire my Reader too. I (hall therefore only produce one unexceptionable Witnefs more, and that fhall be their great and renowned Champion Bellarm/nc, out of whofe 5th. Book De Roman* Pontifice, I fhall take the pains to tranfcribe fome paffages ; and having lubjoyned thereunto (bme iniTances of their practices fuitable to their declared principles, I fhall then leave it to the judgment of any indifferent perfon, what kind of Loyalty and Fidelity Sovereign Princes fefpecially thofe who are of a, different perfuafion) may hope to find from their Reman Ca- tholick Subjects. Beilavmme in the firlt Chapter of his fifth Book Be Romano Pontifice, having rejected two extreme Opinions concerning the Pope's power ; the one taught and maintained by Auguftinus Triumphm, AVvarns Vtbguts, lh.jhenfu, and others of his own Communion, viz,. That the Pope by a Divine Right hath -a moft plenary power over all the World' as well in Political as Ecclefiaftical affairs. And the other delivered by Lai v'm, Peter Martyr, Brcntins and others whom he calls Hercricks, tfiz,. That the1 Pope, as Pope, hath not by Divine Right any Temporal power at all, nor upon any account can command Se- cular Princes, much lefs deprive them of their Kingdoms and Princi- palities ; and that Spiritual pedbns ought nor to exerciie Temporal Dominion. He at laft lays clown a middle Opinion between both , which he tells us is the common Opinion of Catholick Divine^, 'viz.. That the Pope, as Po^et hath not direclly and immediately any Temporal power, ( 37 ) piver, but only a spiritual : yet by vi-tue of that Spiritual power hi haih inlire&ly at haft a fupreme pswer in Temporals. ■ This Opinion he undertakes to explain in his Sixth Chapter, where he tells us, That in Order to a Spiritual good, lie hath a Supreme- Power of difpofing all the Temporal things of all Chrifri.m People Which Power is juft fuch over Princes, as the Soul hath over the Body or fenfitive Appetite ; by Virtue of this Power he may change Kingdoms, and take them from one and give then to another; he may make and alter, fufpend and abrogate Civil Laws, as the Chief Spiri- tual Prince, if it be for the fafety of Souls. In his Seventh- Chapter he endeavours to prove this Exorbitant Power of the Pope by reafbns ; all which are founded in the Subordi- nation and Subjection of the Temporal to the Spiritual Sword, (which is a Foundation that will certainly fail him .) However upon this Foundation he thus builds. The Ecclefiaftical Republick can command and compel the Tempo- ral, which is indeed its Subject, to change the Adminiftration, and to depofePrinces,and to appoint others, when it cannot other wife defend the Spiritual good. And again, it Is not lawfullfor Chriflians to fuffcr an Infidel or Heretical King, if he endeavour to draw his Subjects to his Herefie or Unbelief. But to judge whether a King do draw to Herefie or not, belongeth to the Pope, to whom the Care of Religion is committed ; therefore it belongs to the Pope to judge whether a King be tobedepofed or not. And if any one- ask why the Chriftians of old* did not depofe Nero, and Diocletian, and Julian the Apoflate, tmdFalens ths Arian ? He roundly anfwers, it was not becaufe they wanted Right, but becaufe they wanted Power to do it. But left any fcrupulous Chriftian mould boggle at thole horrid things, which thefe declared Principles muft of neceffity lead them to, as Re- bellion, Murder, Breach of Faith, Violation of Oaths, &c. He wiil tell them that they are not anfwerable for any of thefe things ■ For, if the Pope mould miftake, and command Vice, and forbid Vertue ; yet it were a fin againft Conference, for the Church not to believe thofe Vices to be good, and thofe Vermes to be evil. ' All thefe inftances that I have now laid before you, were of men who lived and died in the Communion of the Church of Rome, and moft of them men of great Eitiinency both for their Parts and Places ; and therefore very likely to underftand the Religion thev profefled. Now either thefe men, or our Explainer muft be very much out, and ftrangely unacquainted with the Principles of their Religion ; or elfe the Explainer muft induftrioufly defign to put a cheat upon thofe Per- fons of Quality to whom he prefents his Scheme. For. nothing can F be C 40 ) . * be more different than his Explanation, and this Declaration which theie men have left upon Record. But, I think, the choir ^ is very ealie which of thefe ought to be believed in tfiis cafe ; apd if thisC^eud bT Witnefles carry it ( as undoubtedly they win ^ainft one /Ingle unauthorized J r, then certainly he was in the wrong box, when thefb much boafted of the Loyalty of the Roman Cat bolicks. And now I (hall only lUbjovn an account of fbmefew 6f their Pra- ctices, correspondent to thefe Principle?, and they being put together will, I fuppofe, fufficiently difcover the miftakeof cur Explainer . L?o Ifaurus Ernperour of ConftamknfU was excommunicated hy Pope Gr^ory the IW his Country given away to the Lombards; by which means" he and his Succeflbrs loft all the Weftern Empire, which me Pope and the Fre?:c':Kmg afterwards fhared between them. Henry the IVth- Enipefourof Germamxyas excommunicated by Pope Gregory the^VIldi. his Subjects abfolved from their Qbedj _ , Rodulpb Duke of Sueden and Burgundy (et up againft him, to whom a Crown was fent by the Pope, with this Infcriprion, The Ro.k gave the Crcwn to Peter, and Peter gives it to Rodulph. Childericns King of France , by the Advice and Authority of Pope Zacbary the Ift.. had his Head (haven, was thruft into a Monairery, and Fipimts Son of Carolus Martelhts ( who was but a Subject and Ser- vant to the King ) was anointed King in his fread Henry the Hid. King of France was killed at theS;ege of Paris, with an em poyibned Knife by a JacobineFryav called Jaques Clement: Which Murther', Pope Sixtus the Vth. by a folemn Oration in the Confiftory September the id. 1 5 89. commended to the Skies, as Rarum, tnfigne, & memor abide f acinus. So publickly was the King-killing Doctrine owned by them at that time. And what effect this Papal approbation did produce, is evident ; for upon this encouragement King Henry the IV*. Succeffor to tiettry the Illd. was alfo ftabbed with a coniecrated Dagger, by a Jefuite named Ravilliac. How frequent trie excommunicating anddepofing of Prin- ces, the abfolving of Subjects from their Duty and Obedience, and the ftirring up of Tumults and Seditions againft them by Popes and Papa- lins, hath heretofore been ; Hiftory is lb full, that it would bean Her- culean labour torranferibe ali the infrances thereof Now thefe declare^ Principles anci avowed Practices of Reman Cathoh'-ki being put together, and compared with our Explainer's profelfion; may fufficiently evince how much he hath abuled thole Perlbns of Qjk lit) , and how unfairly and diinoneftly he hath dealt with ihen. in his Explanation of the Roman Catboltck's Belief in this Point. But But one Would think he durft not deal thus, confidering what a folemn Proteftation he makes in the Clofe of his Explanation ; For, thus he concludes. Thefe we (incerely and folsmnly profefs, as in the Jight of God the fear cher of all Hearts, taking the words plainly and fmply in their ufual and familiar jenfe, without any Equivocation or Mental Rtfervation what- foever. Were we not (6 well acquainted with the Power of Difpenfations, and the force of Mental Reservation among them; did we not know that by thefe A^t'fices they can elude the moft folemn Pre venation 5, make void all Oaths and Promife% and diffolve any the moft facred Bonds which can be invented to oblige men; it would look very uncharitably to fufpeft any man rfrer fijeh a folemn Proteffericn, But that they can do all this, and think they can do it with a fafe Conference, notwithstanding their Proteftation to the contrary, is a ruled Cafe among their Cafuifts : I fhatl only at present trouble you with one inftance, which is very applicable to the cafe in hai,d, and with that conclude. On occaiion of the Powder-plot here in England, an Oath of Al- legiance was thought neceffary to prevent fuch horrid attempis intime to come ; which a Roman Do&or (cited by Arch-Bpiihop Ujher under this Chara&er, B. P. 'Efsreie. Epifiol. I. R. Impref An. 1609. ) ta- king notice of, laughs aloud at the fimplicity of it. His words are worth remembring, Sed vide in tanta ajiutia, quanta fimplickas ! <&c. But fee what fimplicity here is in fb great Craft ! When he had placed all his fecurity in that Oath, he thought he had framed fuch a manner of Oath, with fb many Circumftances, which no man could any way diffolve with a fafe Confcience. But he could not fee, that if the Pope diffolve the Oath, all its Knots, whether of being faithfull to the King, or of admitting no Difpenfation, are accordingly diflblved. Yea, I will fay a thing more admirable ; you know, I believe, that an unjuft Oath, if it be evidently known to be fuch, or openly declared fuch, it obligeth no man : That the King's Oath' is unjuft, is fufficiently de- clared by the Paftor of the Church himfelf. You fee now that the Obligatian of it is vanifhed into fmoke, and that the Bond which fb. many wife men thought was made of Iron, was lefs than Straw. FINIS. ; .e- Jff*» -<'