Practiles of Mifreprefenters alfo; as most 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 Archbishop only tranfcribes out of Popish Authors, and cites his authorities; the Protefter fets all down as the Archbishops words, without letting his Reader know that: Papifts teach these things, and that the Archbishop only repeats them after them. But befides concealing the Popish authorities to which they refer, he has taken another course with Mr. Sutcliff, has fet down only half fentences, and concealed both the authorities and the reasons he alledges for what he faies, which is in a strict and proper fenfe to mifreprefent All that he answers to that diftinction between reprefenting and difputing, which he allows to be good, is this, That the common people do not distinguish these matters, but look upon all to be equally the Faith of Papifts; That is, if they hear any man call the worship of Images Idolatry, they do as verily think that Papists believe Idolatry lawful (as he faies in his Character) as that they worship Images, rifum teneatis! and thus much for Representing. The next difpute is about the rule of Reprefenting. In his Introduction to A Papift Mifreprefented, &c. he appeals to the Council of Trent, and Catechifm ad Parochos; this the AnDoctrines and fwerer likes well, but tells him, . That he shows no authority. be bath to interpret that Rule in his own sense, against the Doctrine. the Church of of many others as zealous for their Church as himself, as he does. •Rome truly re in the Popes Perfonal Infallibility, and the Depofing Power, which he faies, are no Articles of Faith, though other zealous Papists fay they are, and asks what authority he has to declare the Bulla Pii quar- fence of the Council ef Trent, when the Pope has exprefly forbidden ti fuper con- all Prelates to do it, and referved it to the Apoftolical See. 2. The firm. Concil. Anfwerer tells him, That be leaves out, in the feveral particulars, prefented, p.6. Ed. 2. Trid. an eflential part of the character of a Papift fince the Council their their Church, when there are so many of greater Authority against them: whereas, if we proceed by his own rule, the greater number is to carry it. These were all very material Objecti ons, and did deserve to be confidered; but as for the three laft, he takes no notice of them in his Reflections, and fays very little to the firft. The Anfwerer had asked, How the Council of Trent comes to be the Rule and Measure of Doctrine to any here (in England) where it was never received? (p. 4.) To this he Answers in his Reflections, (p. 5.) That the Council of Trent is received here, and all the Catholick World, as to all its Definitions of Faith. But I told him in my Reply, (p. 51.) that the meaning of that Question was not, Whether it was owned by private Catholicks, but by what publick Act of Church or State it had been received in England, as it bad been in other Catholick Countries; and this he fays nothing to, and therefore might as well have let it alone at firft. I reinforced the Bull of Pope Pius 4th, against any private mans interpreting the Council according to his own private Senfe; fhewed the Reafon and Policy of it, and what a prefumption it is for a private man, when their Divines differ in their Opinions about any Doctrine, to call one Opinion Popery Reprefented, and the other Popery Mifeprefented, as our Author has done, in the Articles of the Popes perfonal Infallibility, and the Depofing Power, as if Bellarmin and Suarez muft not pass for good Catholicks, but for Mifreprefenters, because they do not believe in thefe Points, as our Reprefenter does? And this he takes no further notice of But to prove that he has not interpreted the Council accor ding to his own private Senfe, he appeals to the Bishop of Condoms Expofition, which is approved by the Pope himself, and Reflect. p. 7. therefore has the Authority of the See Apoftolick. To this, I anfwered, that Bellarmin's Controverfies had as great an Attefta- Reply, P. 44. tion from Pope Sixtus 5. as the Bishop of Condom's from this prefent Pope; to which he gives no Anfwer; and I observed from Canus, that the Popes private Approbation is not the Authority of the See Apoftolick, but only his Judgment, ex Cathedra; and to this he gives no Answer, but Shuffles a little about a p.. 25. Papifts Prot. a private, malicious, and inconfiderate Judgment, which I have now answered, and makes a new Flourish about the feveral Translations, and great Approbation which has been given to this Expofition, which I have again faid fomething to, tho I need not have faid any thing, had I before feen the Preface to the Answer to the Bishop of Condom, and I guess our Author will never mention it more, and then what becomes of his Characters? Reflect. p. 8. He denied the Pope's Perfonal Infallibility to be an Article of Faith, because not pofitively determined by any General Council. In anfwer to which I told him, that other Roman Divines did believe it an Reply, p. 47. Article of Faith. That the Churches Infallibility was not determined by any General Council, no more than the Popes Infallibility, 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 Paftor, has the fairest pretence to it. For Infallibility ought in reason to accompany the greatest and most absolute Power; and this he has paffed over filently. Next comes the Depofing Power, which has as evidently been declared in General Councils, as Tranfubftantiation; and how Refl. p. 8, 9. comes this to be no Article of Faith? To this he answers, that it wants an Anathema, and that it is not decreed as a Doctrinal point, but as a matter of Difcipline and Govern Rep p.49,&c. ment.. This I examined at large in my Reply, and he is much con. cerned at it, that I put him out of his Representing 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 Answer 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 fupreme Paftor are to be obeyed whether infallible or not, and that Popes have own'd the Depofing Doctrine, and acted according to it and others are bound to obey their Orders, and confeRef. p. 15,16. quently to act when Popes fhall require it, according to the Depofing Doctrine: To this he answers in his Reflections, that he only made a comparifon between Civil and Ecclefiaftical Power, and therefore it is as unjuft from hence to infer, That all the the Orders of the Pope must be obey'd, as it would be to fay, that Subjects must obey their Princes in every thing they com. mand, whether it be good or bad: and this I told him in my Reply, I would acknowledg to be a good answer, if he would grant the Reply, p. 55. Depofing Doctrine to be a fin: But this I fuppofe he was unwilling 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, 1. That the Answerer in fome Points owns the Doctrine Ibid.p. 58. (which he has Reprefeuted to be the Faith of a Roman-Catholick) to be the established Belief of the Church of England. This I proved not to be true, by a particular Examination of those inftances he gave. 2. He charges the Anfwerer with appealing from the definitions of their Councils, and fenfe of their Church, to fome expreffions found in old Mafs-Books, Rituals, &c. This I fhowed alfo, that the Answerer has not done. 3. That he appeals from the Declarations of their Councils, and fenfe of their Church, to fome external action, as in case of respect fhewn to Images and Saints, upon which from our external adoration you are willing to conclude us guilty of Idolatry. Whereas he thinks we must not judg of these actions without respect to the intention of the Church who commands them, and of the person 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 answered at large in my Reply, but he has returned not one word to any of them, excepting the third, and how he has answered that, you have already heard. This is the new way of anfwering Books a-la-mode of Rome; but the greatest Wits can do no more than the Caufe will bear, tho a little prudence would teach méto fay nothing in fuch a Caufe as will admit of no better a defence. FINIS. P. 63 .67. ERRAT A. Page |