To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.
EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.
EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).
The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.
Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.
Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.
Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.
The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.
Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).
Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.
Imprimatur, Liber cui Titulus, [An Anſwer to the Repreſenter's Reflections upon the View of the Controverſie, with a Reply to the Vindicator's Full Anſwer.]
Jan. 21. 1687.
H. Maurice, Rmo. in Chriſto P. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant. a Sacris.
AN ANSWER TO THE REPRESENTER's REFLECTIONS UPON THE STATE and VIEW OF THE CONTROVERSY. With a REPLY to the VINDICATOR's full Anſwer; SHEWING, That the Vindicator has utterly Ruined the New Deſign of Expounding and Repreſenting POPERY.
LONDON: Printed for Ric. Chiſwell, at the Roſe and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard. MDCLXXXVIII.
I Have here brought together the Repreſenter and the Vindicator, two Friends that ſeem to have been great ſtrangers to one another of late. They have been ſo buſy each of them is purſuing his own Proper part, that they have had no eye to the ſafety of that deſign which is Common to both.
Nothing ſeems to require a more nice and exact care, then ſo to Expound and Repreſent the Roman Religion, as to gain Proteſtants, and yet not to hazard the very pretences to Infallibility in the Roman Church, and to
But ſomething or other has broken off this Correſpondence: For the Vindicator has undone the Repreſenter, if that Man can be undone by another, who had undone himſelf beRepreſenter, if he can, muſt undo the Vindicator.
If the Repreſenter has a better Opinion of his own Affairs, he is a happy Man; For I dare almoſt undertake, that for the future no Body ſhall go about to diſturb him, but he ſhall keep Poſſeſſion in Peace.
I was for this time prevailed with to come in for one of his
Tjudicious Reader, and hardly of a curious one He may be confuted indeed, and expoſPertinence where 'tis good for nothing.
This is the beſt Apology I have to make for thoſe barren Pages which occur ſometimes in the Anſwer to him. And if the Reader will accept it now, I paſs my Word to need it no more. The Repreſenter may from this time, either carry on the Character Controverſy upon his old Thirty ſeven Points, or he may think of ſome new Additions to patch up a Fourth Part out of his firſt Three, as he has compoundThird out of his Firſt and Second; and he may come out with Fifteen freſh Articles of Repreſentation once a year as long as he lives, without any great fear of being oppoſed.
He may now write with a Privilege, and ſay what he pleaſes, if H. Hills will but give his conſent; for I think no body elſe is like to diſcourage him. And if he puts out a Reply to this Anſwer, he ſhall do very well, but then I pro
The Vindicator is making all the haſte he can after him: In truth the Repreſenter came firſt to perfection, by nothing elſe but getting the ſtart of him. For I have no skill at all, if the next Book that the Vindicator writes in this ConPrivileged Author too.
Indeed if he ſhould happen to be as good as his word, and try to Anſwer the Diſcourſe of Extreme Unction, or fall upon ſome freſh Subject the next thing he does, he will be but an ordinary man ſo much the longer.
For when thoſe men begin a Controverſie, they write like other men, and ſo long 'tis poſſible to Anſwer them; but they have ſuch a way of carrying it on, as will wear out the pa
The Vindicator is much in the ſame ſtate that the Repredropt the whole Controverſie, and loſt his whole Cauſe: For the Vindicator, as I have ſhewn in the Reply, has loſt the very ſame Cauſe another way; if therefore he intends to be as famous as the Repreſenter, I expect from him a Preface, or the like, containing Reflections upon my Reply to his Letter; and if that happens, he may expect from me one Reply more, and after that, I promiſe him too, that, for me, he ſhall flouriſh all the days of his life.
It was the ſame ungrateful work to have to do with one of theſe Pieces, as with both; and 'twas pity that more than one man ſhould diſoblige his hands about it; and therefore when I had the Repreſenter's Performance before me, I needed no Intreaty to tack the Vindicator's Full Anſwer to it; in my Reply to which Anſwer I have ſhown theſe men to one anoRepreſenter, I cannot but fancy, looks like a Chymiſt, that having laid out all he is worth in trying for the Philoſophers Stone, is in the very nick of his unreaſona
The Repreſenter had been ſetting up a good ſubſtantial Popery for Proteſtants to be fond of, which was to be found in the profeſſion of Living men, with whom we may change a word, as occaſion ſerves; but the Vindicator who was in with him in the ſame deſign, muſt needs ſhow that he could help it forward by putting words together in leſs than a years time; and ſo the Popery they have been labouring for ſo long, is dwindled into a Church-ſenſe, which 'tis in vain for men to expound one to another; he has made it an Inviſible, un
This, I take it, must needs be a deadly diſappointment to the Repreſenter; and what if theſe two men ſhould now ſerve one another, as they have ſerved us? They are both of them like a pair of Diamonds, hard and ſharp, and nothing can cut the one ſo handſomly as his Fellow.
If they ſhould chance to fall foul, it would be indeed a Comical end of the Controverſie, and not unſuitable to the Repreſenter, who ſtudied to make a Farce of it, when he brought in his Phanatick Sermon.
But let them make what end of it they pleaſe, there is a time when it is decent for us to give over, that as hitherto Truth has loſt no ground for want of Argument, ſo it may loſe no honour by want of Diſcretion.
I have given up the Repreſenter, and ſhall but once more trouble the Vindicator, which will be more than enough for him, ſince ere long he may expect from his Antagoniſt ſuch an Account of the Articles of the Biſhop of Meaux, as will be eſteemed by Judicious and Impartial men, a Final Determi
HIS firſt Reflection upon the Stater, is for Miſrepreſenting the caſe of the Diſſenters. Had the Stater done ſo, the Repreſenter had buſineſs enough of his own, to let them ſpeak for themſelves. But he had a better opinion of himſelf than ſo. Hitherto, ſays he, I have been concerned with ſuch who have most unjuſtly traduced and expoſed the Doctrine and Faith of our Church,
and now of late an upſtart ſort of Miſrepreſenter has called upon me, who pretends to give an account of the Preſent State, &c. Which is juſt as if he had ſaid, Have not I for this three years and upwards ſo mauld the
Traducers and
Expoſers of Papiſts, that they feel it to this very hour? How then durſt this upſtart ſort of Miſrepreſenter ſhew his head, as if there were not ſuch a Man as I in the Nation?
To this tune he begins, which is not ſeemly in a Man, whoſe Character requires more Humility and Modeſty than this comes to: For I am told he is a Reverend Father, which makes me the more ſorry for him.
I am reſolved to be very Civil to the Repreſenter; but as he has behaved himſelf, I am at a great loſs how to expreſs it. His falling upon the forementioned Author as a Miſrepreſenter, and the pretence upon which he does it too, is ſo very much out of the common Road of pertinence, that I know not what to do with him. It looks as if he had been a little unſettled with that overweening opiniRepreſenting and Miſrepreſenting had rung in his Head ſo long, that while he is awake, he thinks of nothing but chaſtiſing Miſrepreſenters, and Dreams of it when he ſleeps, and can find nothing but Miſrepreſentation in every Line of ours that he reads; and as if there were ſome cauſe to fear that he may happily forget every Name that he has, but that of a Repreſenter; To pretend, as he does, that that Author had not taken care to ſhew the State of the Controverſy as it was; and that he intends to make this appear as far as concerns the Repreſenter; and then preſently to fall upon the Diſſenter's Caſe, is ſuch a confuſion of things, that there muſt be a diſturbance in a Man's head to put them together. And 'tis ſtill a worſe ſign, that he ſpeaks of that Author's calling upon him: Now of late, ſays he, an upſtart ſort of a Miſrepreſenter has called upon me. For what ſhould it be, but the working of his own Head, that made him fancy that Author called upon him, where I dare ſay, he never ſo
thought of him? For who would think that the Repreſenter ſhould be at all concerned for the true ſtating of matters that concerned the Diſſenters?
It muſt be confeſſed that theſe are ill tokens, when they come thick upon one another; for ſome ſuch diſPreface; which is ſo much the more remark'Tis my fate, ſays he, always to have to do with Miſrepreſenters. By which it ſhould ſeem that this conceit is never out of his Head. If he does but touch a Book written by any of us, his Imagination preſently tranſMiſrepreſenter: And what is meerly his own Fancy, viz. That he has always to do with Miſrepreſenters, he takes to be his Fate, as if he were deſtined to be the ſcourge of this ſort of men. And ſo The Preſent state of the Controverſy coming croſs in his way, the Author of it ſeemed to him to be an upſtart ſort of Miſrepreſenter, as the Flock of Sheep ſeemed an Army of Giants to the wiſe Don, who alſo thought himſelf called upon to redreſs the wrongs that were done any where in the World.
But I will not peremptorily conclude what the Man ails; all this, it may be, is but deſign, and the Man has a ſerious meaning, tho' at firſt ſight one would be apt to think that he is a little too much ſhattered to have any meaning at all. It may be ſaid, that there is this pertinence in his matter, that it ſeems to ſerve a General end, viz. to do the Church of England a good turn, which he has been owing to her ever ſince he fell off to the Church of Rome; and this may be all the pertiMiſrepreſenting and Repreſenting; and then out comes a Book. If it be thus, he was only to blame for ſtreightning himſelf at firſt, and for promiſing long ſince that he would keep to his Repreſenting Poſt. He ſhould have called that Book of his which led the way to the reſt, The Firſt Part of Miſcellanies againſt the Church of England. For this Title would have ſerved him to have written Books Part after Part as long as he ſhould live; And I think the pertinence of 'em would never have been queſtioned.
But what has the Author of the Preſent State ſaid, to bring upon himſelf the charge of Miſrepreſenting? Why, it ſeems he made bold to ſay, that ſome of the Clergy of this City had written Caſes for the ſatisfaction of the Diſſenters in the plaineſt and moſt inoffenſive manner they could. But where is the Miſrepreſentation? Was not the manner plain and inoffenſive? Yes, ſays the Repreſenter,
as to the Method and Stile in which thoſe Tracts were penned, for all as I know, there was plain and inoffenſive writing. So that, for all as he knows, the Matter too might be as plain and inoffenſive as the Method and Stile of thoſe Books; for I perceive he never read them. What then can be the Miſrepreſentation? To be ſhort, it lies in this, That the Diſſenters were at that time urged with other Perſuaſives,
by Writ, by Summons, by Seiſing of Goods, &c. Well, but did that Author deny this? No; but he did not mention it; and therefore he did not repreſent the state of the Controverſy between the Churches of England and of Rome,
as it is, but as he would have it thought to be; viz. becauſe he did not at all Repreſent the ſtate of the Diſſenters with reſpect to the Laws, when the Divines wrote for their ſatisfaction. He that can hale and pull in things in this faſhion, will never want matter; but to let that paſs, and to wander
Repreſenter can prove, That becauſe he either ſtudies to be impertinent, or cannot help it, therefore we are all bound to be ſo too. The Stater's buſineſs was to give an account to his Friend how the Controverſie ſtood beRome; and he introduced his Matter by ſhewing, That the Divines having written ſome Diſcourſes for the ſake of the Diſſenters, and that with good ſucceſs, did then apply themſelves to the ConRomaniſts: But becauſe he did not enimpoſing upon his Reader with poor ſhifts in a matter ſo well known;
and that he muſt not paſs for a true Stater of Controverſie, who thus tells the Story by halves; ſo that unleſs we drag in matters that are nothing to the purpoſe, as he does, we tell Stories by halves; and no body will be ever able to State Controverſie right, that cannot foreſee what ramRepreſenter's head the next time he writes a Book: But ſince he is fallen upStater, nor any of thoſe Divines of whom he made mention, uſed any of thoſe Perſwaſives of which the Repreſenter ſpeaks, but ſaved the Diſſenters from them, as far as it conſiſted with their Duty, and were by ſome people called Names for their pains. But I perceive his trouble is, that the Stater ſhould believe thoſe Diſcourſes had good Succeſs: For, ſays the man, 'tis very probable that theſe ſort of Perſwaſives ſent more to the Church, than the Diſcourſes; ſo that by what I remember
of thoſe times,
had not the Church of England taken the Laſh in hand as well as the Pen, the Churches had continued as empty as they are at this day: Our Repreſenter plainly inſinuates by the way, that our Churches are ſomewhat empty at this day; and this is the very man who upon the preſent occaſion obſerves, That altho dealing out of Relations by Tale and by Scraps might paſs in a matter beyond our memory,
as of the Council of Trent, of Lateran, of Pope Gregory; yet to come thus with half Stories in a Concern of Yeſterday; oh! that is not to be endured. But whether our Churches are, as it were, empty, is withConcern of to day; and for a man not to tell half-Stories of ſuch a Concern, but whole Stories the quite contrary, What is that, I pray? That he thinks it probable that the Diſſenters were more wrought upon by Sufferings than by the Diſcourſes of the Divines, I eaſithoſe ſort of Perſwaſives, than by all that ever was written in her behalf; as all Europe and both the Indies can bear her witneſs. Doubtleſs thereStaters Account for him, he would have had him to ſay,
very likely (for ſuch is the frailty of wicked man) that more were frighted and whipt to Church, than came thither by Force of our Reaſoning and Diſcourſes. By the way, he ſhould learn to be more grave and ſerious, than to make ſport with the Frailty of wicked man; which is a thing that a good Prieſt ought to lament, and to remedy what he can, by his Doctrine and Example: When he has to do with his Adverſaries, if he finds that any of them grows exceedingly impertinent, and when Argument forſakes them, fall
Ridiculing, or that they uſe Tricks to cover their Convictions, and do but diſcover them ſo much the more, let him lay it on handſomly without ſparing, if he likes this way of Correction beſt: But for a Prieſt of the living God to rally with the Frailty of wicked man, when he means nothing by it, but to help out a Lampoon upon a ſingle Adverſary whom he does not love, is very unprieſt-like, and a more likely way to make Atheists, than to mend that which he, it ſeems, can make merry withal, the Frailty of wicked man.
Well: But 'tis not ſo certain, that when the Diſſenters were under the execution of the Laws; that then, I ſay, human Frailty wrought that way which he ſpeaks of; for it might work the quite contrary way; and the Orders for that purpoſe coming from above much about the ſame time, the offence which they took at that, might prejudice many of them againſt all that the Di
But there is this Reaſon to think that they were rather the Diſcourſes than the Penalties, which filled our Churches, That the Proſecutions have been at an end a good while; and 'tis therefore to be hoped that the virtue of the Diſcourſes did the good work at firſt, and goes on to do it ſtill; for whatever the Repreſenter fanat this day, as they were in thoſe times, when he pretends the Church of England took the Laſh in hand: They are ſo full, that a Reverend Father may come to ſpy and hearken, and think to eſcape in the Throng without being obſerved; and what if the Repreſenter has been upon this Miſſion himſelf? Then, I ſay, he ſhall Repreſent for thoſe that will truſt him; but for
As for his Story of one Mr.
de Laune, I know nothing of it. The Repreſenter ſays he wrote a Book, and was ſent to the Compter; but he does not ſay it was for writing that Book; tho he would inſinuate ſome ſuch matter; from which modeſty of his, if there be any truth at all in the ſtory, one might venture to conclude, that he knew the man was ſent to Priſon for ſomething elſe. And yet if he were ſent to Priſon for the writing of that Book, but if neither that Divine whom he wrote againſt nor any of the reſt, contributed to it ſo much as by a wiſh, the Repreſenter ſtings us not by this Reflection. Of this I have told him ſomething of my own know
For what he ſays of ſome that were ſtarved, and of Orphans and Widows that were made ſo by the Penalties inflicted upon the Diſſenters, it is to be hoped that our Repreſenter over-does the buſineſs, and rants ſomewhat too Tragically:
Perſwaſives which he talks of, does at the long run, more miſchief to a Church than good; and if I may ſpeak my own experience, I do not find this Spirit of Moderation to prevail any where ſo much as in the Church of England. But the Repreſenter brings over the Sufferings of Diſſenters for nothing elſe but to prejudice them againſt us. I will not here enter into an Enquiry what reaſon there is for it; but this one thing I will ſay, That I am no leſs deſirous than himſelf, that the Diſſenters ſhould be very often told of their SufferRepreſenter ſays, it would do well not to tell the Story by halves; but if he does, then (to return him ſome of his own words) I do not think, that with all his poor ſhifts,
his Readers will be impoſed upon in a
matter ſo well known. And therefore I, no leſs than the Repreſenter, deſire that the Diſſenters would think of all that is paſt, as long as they have a day to live.
As to the Tracts that were ſoon after written againſt the Papiſts, the Repreſenter obſerves that Two things were not mentioned by the Stater upon this occaſion, which we had upon the former; Not the Plain and Inoffenſive manner of Writing; nor any News of Succeſs which theſe Diſcourſes had upon the Parties deſigned.
For the former he ſays,
Stater was too conſcious of the ſcurrilous and bitter Spirit with which ſome of them were penned; that one againſt Tranſubſtantiation being Inſtance enough. By which he would inſinuate, that others of them too were written in the ſame manImpudence, Nonſence, Monſtrous Stupidity, and the like. But I would know of the Repreſenter, whether there can be any juſt occaſion for letting theſe words looſe; and to the Senſe and Reaſon of Mankind I may appeal, if there can be an occaſion more juſt than this; for 'tis impoſſible we ſhould have greater Evidence that any thing is true, than we have that the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation is falſe; and then I may ask the Repreſenter, whether it be not the greateſt abuſe that ever was put upon mankind? This Argument therefore would bear a little more quickRepreſenter's Charge, That Tranſubſtantiation is a Subject in which ſo many Learned and Virtuous Men of the Chriſtian World are nearly concerned: To which I anſwer, That 'tis ſo much the worſe for the Chriſtian World, but not for the Author of that Diſcourſe: For if indeed Learned Men,
Virrtuous Men, eſpouſe ſuch a Monſtrous Doctrine as that of Tranſubſtantiation, there is not leſs but greatexclaim both againſt them and it: If the Repreſenter thought that the Learning and Virtue of the Men ſhould have gained ſome more reverence for the Cauſe, than that Author had for it, he may think ſo ſtill for me; I will not go about to queſtion the Learning and the Virtue of many that hold Tranſubſtantiation, but 'tis Tranſubſtantiation ſtill: I think it is no queſtion but there were many Learned and Virtuous men in Egypt who were nearly concerned in the buſineſs of making Gods of Things that grew in their Gardens, and yet he had not been too blame that ſhould have ſaid it was Impudence, Nonſence; and Monſtrous Stupidity, to Worſhip, and to teach others to Worſhip Leeks and Onyons.
Now for the Second Obſervation,
we have no news of any Succeſs thoſe Diſcourſes had upon the parties deſigned. I ſay, if they had indeed no Succeſs, the Stater was the honeſter man not to ſay they had any; tho he ſcaped here very well, that he was not made a Miſrepreſenter for not confeſſing that they had none. But upon this occaſion the Repreſenter is very angy: It could not, ſays he, be rationally expected that thoſe who — choſe rather to forgo all the intereſt and convenience of humane life, than join with a Schiſmatick Congregation, ſhould be afterwards brought to Church by a few empty Diſcourſes, which making no more Converts than they deſerved, made, as I can hear of, none at all: But why Schiſmatick Congregation, and a few empty Diſcourſes? When men keep what their Adverſaries would get from them, and when they have diſappointed all their deſigns, they uſe to be pleaſed, and in good humour; and tho perhaps they may laugh hearAntagoniſts for loſing their pains, yet 'tis not ſo natural to rage againſt them, as if themſelves were the
Loſers: I begin therefore to ſuſpect that our Repreſenter knows of ſome Succeſs thoſe Diſcourſes had, which he is not willing to own. But be that as it will; as we did not think the better of the former Performances, for their having had ſome Succeſs, ſo neither ſhould we think the worſe of theſe if they have had none, which may perhaps be imputed to the prejudice of the perſons for whoſe good they were deſigned, rather than to the preEmptineſs of the Diſcourſes themſelves; unleſs the Repreſenter's word may be more ſecurely relied upon for Empty Diſcourſes now, than for Empty Churches beEngland makes: And therefore if Diſcourſes are to be judged of by their SucRepreſenter, and ſuch as he, ſhould have a care of boaſting at this time of day. Our deſign was not on
But when I have told this man what perhaps himſelf knows, that by theſe Diſcourſes we have gained ſome from Popery to the Reformed Religion; I will alſo tell him, that if we had never gained ſo much as one, it had been no diſparagement to our Arguments, ſince they have ways of fixing their Proſelytes, which we abhor; of which I ſhall give this one Inſtance: It is their Rule (let otherr judg whether it be their Practice) to require a dreadful Oath of all whom they can gain, not to be prevailed withal Quocunque Argumento, by any Argument,
Roman See; This Oath is to be ſeen in the Pontifical under the Title of Ordo ad Reconciliandum Apoſtatam, Hoereticum aut Schiſmaticum; and if the Repreſenter be importunate, he ſhall have it next time at length: To doubt only of any Point which the Church of Rome teaches, is a ſin that muſt come under Confeſſion, by which the Prieſt is ſure to have notice when the Spirit of Truth begins to work; and upon ſignal given, to extinguiſh the firſt Motions of it: We have a hard Task, who are not only to oppoſe Reaſons to Reaſons, and to the common prejudices of men, but to produce Reaſon againſt particular En
The Repreſenter gives out himſelf to be a Convert, and may therefore be preſumed not to be ignorant of theſe things, but to be himſelf intangled by an Oath to be moved by no Argument whatſoever, to return to this Schiſmatick Congregation, as he calls it; and therefore in him it was great forgetfulneſs to aſcribe the Steadineſs of the Engliſh Romaniſts to nothing elſe but a Christian Reſolution, when he could not but know of ſome other Engagements that are amongſt them, which are not altoChriſtian: Which I had not obſerved here, if his Severity to the Stater had not led me to it; for it was but the very Page before, in which he ſet upon him with all his Eloquence for imputing the fulneſs of our Congregations to the Reaſonings of the Divines, without mentioning the execution of the Laws. If I had been a Repreſenter, that Page, I think, would have kept me in ſome awe, and hindred me from doing that in the very next, which he calls telling Stories by halves.
As for the moſt cruel perſecution, which, as he ſays, thoſe of his Communion ſuffered lately, for not joyning with our Schiſmatick Congregation, he deſcribes it ſo termatter beyond our memory, which he knows it is not. But when a Man has a mind to exerciſe his Stile, one Subject may ſerve him as well as another.
But to return to the Preſent State; the Author of it either made but very ſmall faults in drawing it up, or he is very much obliged to the Repreſenter for letting the great ones paſs. His next quarrel with the Stater is, for making the Roman party the Aggreſſors;
Papiſt Miſrepreſented, &c. the beginning of this Book-War. For this Man will have the Onſet to have been given by Dr. Sherlock, in his Sermon before the Houſe of ComRepreſenter came forth. The Author of the Agreement, &c. concurs with him in this Objection, as he does in Humour to admiration, tho' they have their ſeveral ways: For one of them proves that we are Agreed with the Church of Rome, and the other that we Miſrepreſent the ſame Church, and yet ſo like one another, as if the ſame Planet govern'd them both. But, as to the Doctor's Sermon, I do acknowPapiſts. And I have two things to ſay to it: Firſt, the Stater aſſures me that he did not think of that SerHouſe, ought to be eſteemed the beginning or the occaſion of thoſe Controverſies. And he believes, that if we had publiſhed ſuch a like Book for this Church, as
Repreſenter did for his Party, and one of their SerCommand, with a like Reflection upon us, they would for all that have thought us to be the Agreſſors. He ſays farther, that he ſpake only of Diſcourſes that profeſſedly treated of theſe Controverſies; and therefore that if he had thought of that Sermon, he thinks it was not his Duty to take notice of it; and he wonders that the Repreſenter ſhould be ſo overſet with a Cavilling humour, as not to obſerve thoſe words;
State, p. 4.Death of our late Royal Sovereign, our Divines thought fit to be of the Defenſive ſide, and for ſome time publiſhed no more DISCOƲRSES OF THAT KIND, but waited to ſee, &c. In the next place I muſt tell the Repreſenter my thoughts, and leave others to judge of them as they ſee cauſe. I ſay then, that the Repreſenter publiſhed indeed his Book about two Months after the Sermon; but, if the Truth could be known, I would venture all that little I am worth, that the Repreſenter had been hammering out that Book ſome Months before that Sermon was made. For not to inſiſt upon it, that he has taken more time to write Books that are a great deal worſe; for perhaps he was otherwiſe imployed, or gave himſelf ſome convePopery in a kind of Proteſtant dreſs, is ſo nice, and withal ſo dangerous, tho' now, it ſeems, ſo neceſſary an undertaking, that no performance can require greater Art and Application of mind. Between the danger of giving up a point, which the Church muſt not quit under the penalty of forfeiting her Infallibility, and the danger of guarding it too plainly to the offence of Proteſtants, the Undertaker is obliged to have his Eyes about him, and to look on eveCondom can tell this Man, if he needs that any body ſhould tell him. Now, tho' the Papiſt Miſrepreſented and Repreſented does not riſe up to the Spirit, and the Art of the Expoſition of the Catholick Faith; yet conſidering the untractableneſs of the Matter, it was no ill wrought piece of work; and excepting that blunder of his, that when he was a Proteſtant, he belieSermons of the Papiſts to be in un unknown Tongue, as well as their Prayers, and two or three leſs conſiderSermon was firſt rigg'd out, yet the Papiſt Miſrepreſented and Repreſented was upon the Stocks a good while before. And then the Repreſenter's ConStater, for intimating that the Gentlemen of the Roman Communion were firſt guilty of breaking the Peace. This I think is enough in return to a ſmall exception; but whether it be or not, the Stater is reſolved to put himſelf upon the mercy of the World for the future,
To proceed; it was ſaid in the Preſent State, that we were ſurprized to find no notice taken of the former Tracts againſt Popery, in the Repreſenter's firſt Book. This he turns well enough,
it muſt needs be a matter of ſurprize, That the Papiſts now enjoying the Royal Favour, ſhould after ſo many provocations, be contented to make no other return, than in a ſhort, moderate and peaceable Tract, to give an account of their Faith and Doctrine, &c. And ſo he takes occaſion to praiſe their Meekneſs and Charity.
To all which it might be enough to ſay, that ſo long as it does no body any hurt, other men may be ſafely allowed to commend themſelves; and let them conſider whether it will do them any good: But that if it were not more difficult to Anſwer ſome Books, than to give a Reaſon for not Anſwering them, in all likelyhood we had heard the Victories of theſe Writers more celebrated at this time, than their Meekneſs and Charity.
But whereas he magnifies the Good Spirit of his ſhort, moderate and peaceable Tract, upon this ſcore, That there was no upraiding the Church of England Divines in it, notwithſtanding Abuſive Reflections, &c. he does in effect confeſs of the firſt,
View. p. 65.England Divines were inRepreſenter as he ſets up for, ſhould be always provided with. Well; but however the Tract was moderate and peaceable, without any ſevere Word or Expreſſion in it, or any upbraiding of the Church of England Divines of the miſchiefs they ſuffered from their hands. Now indeed, the Tract does not call them Knaves and Villains, but
Rome owns thoſe things which ſhe utterly diſowns. Which how Moderate and Peaceable a Charge it was, I might almoſt appeal to himſelf, or to the Agreement-maker, when I have put him in mind, that what he at firſt called Miſrepreſentation, after his anger had made him ſpeak out, he bluntly calls Lying and Calumny, and what not? Now this I acknowledg to be a ſhort, but ſure it is no moderate and peaceable way of managing Controverſies: And this was ſome reaſon for wiſe men to be a little ſuprized at it. But this was not all: For there was no colour (whatever the Repreſenter pretends) for neglecting thoſe Tracts againſt Popery, and beginning a new Repreſentation of it. For they proceeded upon the old and received RepreſentaBellarmin, Becanus, Harding, Stapleton, and all the renowned Champions of the Popiſh Church for an Age and half before us; whom this Man does by neceſſary conſequence Arraign of Miſrepreſenting Popery, whilſt he accuſes our Divines of doing ſo; altho their Diſcourſes went upon that ſtate of the Fact which was agreed to by thoſe old Diſputers.
Had theſe Books been written in their days, we ſhould have had no Repreſentations in return to 'em, but down-right diſputing upon the ſeveral points as they are ſtated there. For to give them their due, when our Divines came up to their own ſide of the Queſtion, thoſe Gentlemen came up to theirs, and maintain'd it as well as it could be maintain'd. But our Friend the Repreſenter has taken another way, which is in peaceable and moderate terms to give us the Lye, for calling that Popery, which we diſpute againſt, and which they diſfor.
Having thus commended Himſelf and His, for their Meekneſs and Charity, it came preſently in his mind to ſay ſomething in praiſe of his Book, tho' it did not mention thoſe Diſcourſes:
ſurprize, but only to ſome half-witted men, who read things without underſtanding, and to whom plain ſenſe is a Riddle, and not to any others, tho' but of moderate parts. And thus in pure kindneſs to his Book, he does in the firſt place take the ſize of our underſtandings by it; and from this time forward, whoever ſhall queſtion the pertinence of his Book, muſt go for a half-witted man, and one that has not ſo much as moderate parts. So that our buſineſs is preſently done; and then the Diſcourſes are brought to the Teſt of the Book, as you ſhall hear. There was, ſays he, ſcarce any controverſial Point, or Matter of moment in them, but what was ſpoke to, and opened in this one little Tract: And they muſt needs be in an evil condition, if there is ſcarce any Point of theirs but what was ſpoken to, and opened in ſo dangerous a Piece as that one little Tract. But it were well for 'em to ſcape ſo, if they might; For by and by the Stater is told, that if he will compare theſe Diſcourſes with the Chapters of that Treatiſe, he may find them All there ſpoke to as to the ſubſtance, and ſomething to ſpare. Now, if after ſcarce any point was omitted, the truth is, that All the Diſcourſes were ſpoken to, and ſomething to ſpare; then it is like to go very hard with 'em. All the comfort is, That the Diſcourſes and the Points are as yet ſaid to be but ſpoke to; For there are divers ways of ſpeaking to things,
The true Reaſon of the ſurprize was, that in ſo little room, and ſo plain a method, there was enough to ANSWER thoſe Diſcourſes. Nay, he affirms, that there was a Noiſe about
it throughout the Nation, not for Anſwering too little, but for Anſwering too much. So that the Diſcourſes are gone beyond redemption, for there was enough to Anſwer them; and if that would not do, they were Anſwered too much: And which is more wonderful, there was enough to Anſwer ▪ not only thoſe Diſcourſes, but a great part of the Books and Sermons that had ever been Writ or Preached againſt Cath
to which if he had but added, or that ever ſhall be Written or Preached againſt Catholicks; he had made an end of his work once for all, and his one little Tract had made a pretty Triumph over Ages paſt, preſent, and to come.
Were I ſo happy as to grow upon an Adverſary in the way of Reaſoning, as this Man does in boaſting and preſſing forward with new and greater confidence; I ſhould not yet take my ſelf to be a match for him: For I now perceive that he carries ſuch Invincible Force in his Face, that no modeſt man, tho' fortified with the Conſcience of Honeſty, and the Advantage of a Good-Cauſe, can always bear up againſt it, but muſt at length let his Countenance fall, and turn away from him.
As to every Article of this ſo much magnified Tract, he has been twice diſtinctly Anſwer'd, and the World has ſeen that he neither replied to the particulars of the firſt, nor of the ſecond Anſwer, but that at length he fairly dropt the defence of his Charge upon every one of the Thirty ſeven Points he began with, as the AuView has ſhewn beyond contradiction. But what cares the Repreſenter for all this? Still he goes on proclaiming what Execution his Tract has done upon us: There, ſays he, are laid open all the Little Tricks and Artifices, &c.
There 'twas ſeen how often abuſes in practice were condemned as the Faith of the Church, &c. Here the ſurpriſe firſt began, &c. It began now to appear
that the Papiſts were not what they had been render'd, &c. Suppoſe now, that another View of the whole Controverſy were taken, and it were diſcover'd yet more particularto be ſeen in his Book as he proclaims; ſtill it would hold good, that Tricks are laid open there, that there it may be ſeen how Principles are miſtaken, Doctrines confounded, and Imaginary Monſters knocked down, and that that is the Book which can Inform people of the Truth, and diſcover to them all the Pulpit-deluſions. For by what I can ſee, he intends to talk on at this rate as long as he lives, if any Man does but give him occaſion; and for his part, he deſires no better occaſion, than to have it ſhewn him that there is not the leaſt ground for all this boaſting. We have a comfortable imployment, to be engaged with ſuch a Writer as this; for if you confute his Charge and his Arguments, he falls a commendhave confuted him, and that he has nothing to reply, he takes occaſion to write another Book, and to commend himſelf the faſter for it; and to rant as much or more than he did at firſt.
Which makes me almoſt wiſh that the Defender had not promiſed an account of theſe Reflections. For the Man's Confidence will ſerve him ſeven years hence, as well as it does now, and I doubt, ſomething better; for his Force encreaſes, as that of Anteus did, with his Falls. 'Tis impoſſible that ever he ſhould want Matter, for he can repeat the very ſame to the Worlds end, if he lives ſo long; and tho' it has been conſidered by his Anſwerers never ſo particularly, 'tis all one for that, he is grown paſt taking any notice of ſuch things. For a little variety, he has no more to do but to ſtudy ſome ridiculing Harangue, and to gather Flowers
Bartholomew-Fair, the Pall-mall, the Gaming Houſes,
Hind and Panther, and ſuch like, for the adorning of his Characters, and ſo he is compleatly furniſhed for a new Book: To which we can have no more to ſay, than to that which we had juſt before it, unleſs it be to admire the man's Confidence, which we have admired ſo much already, that when we are a lit
That he has hitherto behaved himſelf in this manner, is what himſelf and all the world knows, that has taken notice of this Controverſy; or at leaſt he has been very careful that they ſhould know it now, if they could be ignorant of it before: The Author of the View had dePrudence to ſit ſtill, and ſo let the world forget what was paſt; or with exceeding Modeſty to confeſs that a man may be miſtaken, and ſo forth; or with the exceſs of the contrary quality, to do as the Repreſenter has now done: For now he has taken up a pretence which he dropt the Defence of, but in his Second Reply, viz.
View, p. 24.An Anſwer, ſays he, is ſet forth to amuſe the World, as the faſhion is,
with the banding and toſſing to and fro of many School-Queſtions, but never coming to the point of diſproving the Character of a Papiſt Repreſented, or endeavouring
to ſhew that the Faith as there ſtated, was not really the Faith of Catholicks; nay, this was ſcarce ſo much as offer'd at, except in Two or three Points, which yet ought to have been the main deſign of the Anſwerer, and the only way of giving it a juſt Reply.
Thus he preſſes upon us with mere confidence; in which tho poſſibly he might feel no checks from his own Condiſproved the Character of a Papiſt Repreſented, if to ſhew from Point to Point that it was no ſincere Character, be to diſprove it. He made it plain, that alPapiſt out fairRepreſenter ſhould have ſhewn, that the Anſwer came ſhort of that Account which the View gave of it, That every Queſtion was particularly and exactly ſtated;
View p. 3, 4.That the Senſe of the Church of Rome about it was ſhewn by the Decrees of their Trent Council, or their Roman Catechiſm, or their publick Offices, and their moſt approved Divines and Caſuiſts, as the matter required. — And by the way, all the falſe Colours of the Repreſenter were taken off, where he thought it for his purpoſe to lay them on too Foul on his Miſrepreſenting, or too Fair on his Repreſenting ſide. If this was done as it was ſaid, and ſo done, that the Repreſenter has long ſince dropt his Two or three Exceptions againſt it, and never from the firſt ventured upon a particular Reply to it, ſurely he has been rubbing hard ever ſince, to come forth now, and think to put us off with ſaying that the Anſwer never came up to the Point, &c. Indeed he brings over Two or three Particulars again in this Preface, which he Repreſented upon in his firſt Book: But is it to compare his own Characters with his Adverſaries Anſwer, and to
New Popery, which he would make the world believe is all that we now have to ſave our ſelves from being accounted Calumniators; which he purſues with ſuch noiſe in ſaying the ſame thing over and over again, that if Repetition of little Matter, and more Words, were an Argument of Truth, he would be the moſt convincing Writer that ever ſet up for the Cauſe.
For, ſetting aſide the Prophets that cried from MornO Baal, hear us; I think no man has outRepreſenter in this kind of Eloquence, eſpecialPulpits, thoſe High-places the Pulpits, for all the miſchief they have done to Popery, and to inveigh againſt that unlucky diſtinction between Old and New Popery.
He tells us,
ſeveral things were heard from the Pulpits which were found not to ſquare with Truth; and that from thoſe High-places, the innocent Hind had been made to look like Tygers, Wolves, and Bears.
All is true Repreſenting when Popery is to be ſhown from the Pulpits.
In this manner did Proteſtants treat Papiſts; in this manner are they now handled by Protestants, and yet all muſt paſs for true Repreſenting: And becauſe the Cath
&c.
But this Cant of New-Popery must be kept up to ſave the credit of the Pulpits.
were it not for this little come-off, this poor ſhift of New-Popery, they would be eternally blemiſht with the fouleſt of Imputations, that of Miſrepreſenting, of Calumniating, of inventing ſcandals againſt their neighbour. 'Tis evident now to thoſe that look upon Popery as it appears amongſt us at this day, with an unprejudiced eye, that it has quite another Face, other Colours, other Features, than they have painted her with for ſo many years from the PƲLPITS: All that they have heard of from theſe HIGH PLACES, has been full of Dread and Horror, Cruelty in her Looks, Malice and Wickedneſs in her Heart, Blood-thirſting in her Deſires, &c.
If it be poſſible, he will make the Pulpits hear of all theſe things again; and therefore he goes on, Where are all theſe Abominations, theſe marks of the Beaſt? SHEW ƲS, PƲLPITS, SHEW Ʋs: Where is her Cruelty, her Bloodineſs, her Tyranny, her Arbitrary Power? — How many Throats hath ſhe cut? Where has ſhe wrong'd her neighbours? Where is This, and Where is That, and Where are all theſe Things? SHEW ƲS.
And if none of theſe things can be ſhewn,
the P ƲLPITS muſt paſs for Falſe Prophets, Miſrepreſenters, and diſturbers of the Nation: And what Return now do the PƲLPITS make to this demand? Oh! This is a New ſort of Popery. — The Papiſts are weary of their OLD Religion, and have taken up a NEW one.
Now this is admirable, if the man had but known when he was well; but he has not done yet by a great deal; for having obſerved that the Papiſts are found by experience to be very good men, the Pulpits are ſure to hear of it again:
How, ſays he, ſhall the Characters of the P ƲLPITS be reconciled with this Experience?
Oh! The Papiſts diſſemble their Principles, and are aſhamed of their OLD Religion; and this forſooth acquits the P ƲLPITS.—And the ſame poor ſhift is to ſerve them upon all occaſions; or elſe what would become of the Pulpits? If the Papists do this good thing, this is preſently ſet out for NEW Popery. The Papiſts declare this Doctrine. This again is NEW Popery. The Papiſts teach that Doctrine, and the other Doctrine. This is all NEW Popery.
it evidently appearing to the world, That Catholicks neither believe nor do as was repreſented by the P ƲLPITS, the only remedy for the keeping their Credit whole, is to cry out, This is not the OLD Religion, This is a NEW Popery. And indeed it muſt needs be a NEW Popery to thoſe that knew no more of Popery, than the P ƲLPITS ſhewed them. —For they who never heard more of Popery, than P ƲLPIT Characters, muſt needs think the preſent Popery a NEW Popery. — And who ſhall ever make them believe that this is that OLD P ƲLPIT POPERY, thoſe OLD PƲLPIT PAPISTS, which they have ſo often ſeen painted out in their Sunday Lectures.—For the Church of England in her P ƲLPITS, made Popery and the Papiſts ſo unlike what they now appear, that Popery muſt be cut into an OLD and a NEW Popery to ſave their Reputation; i. e. The Repu
And thus he runs on for five or ſix pages together,
P ƲLPITS! PƲLPITS! OLD POPERY! NEW POPERY! Pulpit Popery! Proteſtant-Rack-Popery! Sons of Anak-Popery! Wry-neck'd, Hunch-back'd, Swag-bellied, Broken-legg'd, and Splay-footed Popery! which is the ſimilitude he took from the Poſture-Maſter in the Pall-mall, as he did the former out of the Scripture.
Certainly, if one of us had anſwered him in this manner, and he had got a Companion, it had been the moſt entertaining ſort of Controverſie that ever was written;
banding and toſſing to and fro of School-Queſtions any more, after the benefit of toſſing a few Exclamations to and fro, as he can do it, ſhall be well underſtood.
Now one would be glad to know what the meaning of all this is; and I think 'tis this; he had obſerved, that after all the vain attempts,
his first Book remaining in its full force, now at last a new one was invented, viz. That the Belief of Catholicks as there deciphred, is a New Popery. And he thought that this new force which we had raiſed againſt him and his Book, was ſo conall the Attempts upon his Book were vain, he might eaſily believe any thing to his own advantage; and if what he ſaid of his Book, that it remained in full force, had been ſaid of himſelf, no body would have wondred at him. I have already diſcoJulius Caeſar, or perhaps Caeſar himſelf, it may be, as ſome ſay, an unkind part to bring him to his true underſtanding.
But if the Repreſenter ſhould merely affect this way of writing, and be ſenſible all the while how the matter ſtands; I pity him with all my heart, and ſo much the more, leſt any of thoſe that have not read what was written againſt his Firſt Book, ſhould believe that it stands in its full force, becauſe
prevaricate in things of this nature, I would make vedig, or the like; but if I could not dig, I would not be aſhamed to beg: Perhaps I might get ſomething by turning my Pen another way, and writing of things where I had more liberty, as by writing Almanacks or any ſuch thing, where Miſtakes will be committed in abundance, and are forgiven in courſe, and will be ſure to do no body any hurt: But to impoſe upon men in Books that treat of Divinity, is one of the laſt diſhoneſt things I would take to; I ſhould think of that, and of ta
The Repreſenter, I imagine, will ſubſcribe to theſe Notions, and perhaps bid me apply them effectually to my ſelf; which if he does, I will heartilty thank him for it, and promiſe to take all the good Counſel he ſhall give me, as well as I can, and to follow good Examples where they are to be had.
In theſe Reflections of his, a man muſt have very good luck that meets with any thing that is worth anſwering; but if he cannot find what he would, he muſt learn patience, and be content with what he can get.
I. He would make us believe, That the only way of giving his firſt Book a just Reply,
ſhewn that the Faith as there stated, was not really the Faith of Catholicks. Now this indeed might have been the Only way, according as the Repreſenter might have drawn his Chaonly way, for he has for the moſt part told stories hy halves in the Character of a Papiſt Repreſented; and ſurely one Miſrepreſenting Trick is diſcovered on his ſide, if it be ſhewn that the Faith of a Papiſt as ſtated under this or that Article,
all his Faith, but that it ſeems there was ſomething concealed which was too bad to be ſhewn. For inſtance, The Repreſenter takes occaſion to bring in this Character of a Papiſt under the head of Indulgences. The Papiſts teach, That neither the Pope nor any other Power upon Earth can give leave to ſin for a ſum of money. Nay, in his firſt Book, the Papiſt believes it damnable to hold that any Power in Heaven or Earth can do it. Now we will ſuppoſe this to be the Faith of a Papiſt. But then to repreſent him as he is, he ſhould have added thus much at leaſt; That he does
Now all this is concealed; and yet I doubt it will be found to belong to the Character of a Papiſt, with reſpect to the matter of not believe it damnable to hold that an Indulgence or Pardon of ſins can be obtained for a Sum of Money after they are committed, nor that the Tax of the Apoſtolick Chamber, which ſets the pardons of the moſt horrid ſins at very reaſonable rates, is a Damnable Scandal, nor that they who truſt in the Popes Bulls for plenary remiſſion of ſins, are damnably deceived:Indulgences and Pardons; and in all like caſes to ſhew what the Repreſenter conJuſt Reply to his Characters; but whether it be a juſt Reply to Him, is a point wherein he is more con
II. He ſeems to lay great weight upon this, That to this pitch of Confidence if not more, are ſome Church of England Divines arrived, that they pretend to know what the Religion of Papiſts is, better than they.— Is, it likely, ſays he, the Jews can tell better what Chriſt teaches, than Chriſt himſelf or his Apoſtles? — Can Proteſtants tell better what Catholicks believe, than Catholicks themſelvrs? If the Character of a thing is beſt received from profeſſed, intereſted and bitter Enemies, then indeed they may put in for the beſt Informers of our Faith. Much more he ſays to this purpoſe, juſt as he cried out Pulpits and Popery, without adding any thing of new matter. Now, where no Anſwers are needful, I am ſure theſe that follow may ſuffice.
1. 'Tis falſe, that I (for inſtance) preten
he, the Repreſenter: But for all that, 'tis true, that unleſs he mends his Characters of a Papist Repreſented, I do pretend to repreſent Popery with more honesty than he does. I cannot tell what this Man believes, better than he does himſelf, nor ſo well neither; but I can tell as well as he, what their Trent Council, their Catechiſms, their Pontifical, their Miſſal, their Breviary, and their eſtabliſhed Offices ſay. Are theſe Myſteries that no Man muſt pretend to underſtand but a Repreſenter, and ſome few beſides? For,
2. Why muſt we be brought in as pretending to know what Popery is; better than Papists know it? Was Bellarmin (with all thoſe of the old ſtrain) a Proteſtant? Is Father Craſſet a Proteſtant? or Cardinal Capiſucchi, who approved the Biſhop of Condom's ExSpain or Italy? Do we repreſent their Worſhip of Images ſo groſly as that very Cardinal does? Do we repreſent Po
3. It had been an Impudent thing in the Jews, to pretend that they could tell better what Chriſt taught, than Chriſt himſelf or his Apoſtles. And it was ſilly in the Repreſenter to run to ſo high an inſtance, unJews, and himſelf a kind of an Apoſtle. I would have him obſerve, that we are not ſo ſenſleſs, as to think that we can tell what a Repreſenter and an Expoſitor teach, better than themſelves; but in many things we can tell as well as they; by the ſame token that they teach ſome things for Catholick Doctrines, which in their Church have been accounted little better than Hereſies; and ſuppreſs others, which their predeceſſors ſcorned to ſuppreſs. But tho' ſome Romaniſts do now think fit to palliate their Religion in this manner; yet Chriſt and his Apoſtles did no ſuch thing, and were not therefore liable to that Reproof which theſe men muſt bear in ſpite of their hearts.
4. For what he ſays, That Bitter Enemies are not to be believed in the Characters they give of others; I Anſwer, That neither are deſigning and ſelf-intereſted men to be believed in the Characters they give of themſelves. Animoſity, ſays he, ſets a Biaſs upon the Heart. And is there nothing that does it beſide? What thinks he of the Deſign, to reconcile a Nation ſo averſe to Popery as this is? and of the ſeveral conBitter Enemies, as that they are very great Lovers of themſelves. I am ſo far from being a Bitter Enemy to the Repreſenter, that I am now doing him the Office of a ſevere Friend, by telling him the Truth, which he cares not to hear; but, it
reflect upon himſelf, before he pretends to make any more Reflections upon us. Don't every body know, ſays he, that the Church of Enghas proclaim'd her ſelf an open and profeſſed Enemy to the Church of Rome? Does not this unqualify her for a True Repreſenter? Now admitting our Church to be as open and profeſſed an Enemy to his, as ſhe is to the Errors and Abuſes of it; yet who does not know that this can only unqualify her for a Repreſenter, to be believed upon her own word? But ſhe may Repreſent truly for all that: Which is ſo plain a Caſe, that this Man, if he was in his right mind when he wrote thoſe things, could not but know it. The moſt therefore that he could honeſtly make of this ſuppoſed enmity of our Church againſt his, is, that we are not to be truſted with an implicit Faith; which we deſire not to be; but rather to be believed in theſe matters ſo far as we prove what we ſay, and no farther: And if he be truſted no farther, we deſire no more.
III. We offer, ſays he, and are ready to accept any into our Communion, that will but embrace and receive the Doctrine as it there ſtands [in his firſt Book] under thoſe very colours, and that ſhape; owning, not only the ſubſtance of it, but even that appearance, &c. Now this he hath offered twice or thrice before, and his offer has been as often anſwered, but he will not take the leaſt notice of it. He thought at firſt no doubt, that here he had nicked the buſineſs; but tho he has had ſome reaſon to fall in his opinion of the
remained in its full force. I will try, however, if it be poſ
1. Then this offer ought to be eſteemed no otherwiſe than a Ludicrous one, made without good Faith, and with no other meaning than to put ſome colour upon his own deceitful Characters of a Papiſt; becauſe he has been told, and indeed could not be ignorant of it beour Reaſons againſt Popery, as by him Repreſented; which he did not, and I imagine durſt not reply to. And ſo long as our Reaſons are good againſt that which he confeſſes to be Popery, he offers a vain tryal of his ſincerity about that which he denies to be ſo; becauſe he knows, that as the Caſe ſtands, 'tis impoſſible for us, if we will keep a good Conſcience, to accept the offer. And therefore this beloved offer of his, which he intended for a Varniſh to ſet off his Characters, will to all men that can uſe their Eyes, give a juſt occaſion to ſuſpect they are falſe; and that the ſincerity he has uſed in his Repreſentation, is of one piece with that which he has ſhewn in his Propoſal.
To which I may add, That if we are very ſure that his Characters are Deceitful, if we ſee that himſelf dedeceitful in the offer he makes upon ſuch Cha
2. Suppoſe that we could accept, and ſhould be acRoman Church to be conſiderable enough to carry on his Repreſentation when the turn is once ſerv'd; or to ſecure us from being ſerved in due time, as Monſieur Imbert has been, who was baſely left in the lurch by the Biſhop of Meaux, after he had declar'd for worſhiping not the Wood, but Chriſt, not the Croſs, but him that ſuffered on it. Where the Inquiſition is ſet up, could this Man, that talks as if he were ſomebody, govern the proceedings by his ChaNew Popery wheedle us into a ſubjection to the Roman See, and ſo into a neceſſity of being uſed as the Phyſician at Goa was,
Goa, chap. xxvii.New Popery, as what the Repreſenter offers might be done, viz. to burn an Image or a Crucifix if that will ſatisfy us that he has no Superſtition in theſe
But then again, if the Repreſenter were a Man of that Figure in his Church as to be able to ſave us in a time of Exigence, we have not yet any good reaſon to truſt him that he would be willing to do ſo, for he has not given us reaſonable aſſurance that himſelf rejects that Popery, which he knows we call ſo. I ſhall therefore take the ſame liberty with him, that he has done with us, and put him upon a Teſt, which I think he canSchoolmen, and the Sentiments of private Authors, and ſome Paſſages in Old Miſſals and Rituals, upon the Church of Rome, as if her Doctrine were to be concluded from thence. I will not here repeat what has been ſaid in anſwer to it. But this, I ſay, will the Repreſenter be content to go through his Thirty ſeven Points as they are conſidered by his firſt Anſwerer, and make his Mark upon every thing which he rejects, and which he ſays we falſly charge upon the Church of Rome, and declare before the World upon his honeſt Word, what it is that he beRoman Communion, with that which we call Old Popery. But I do not reLateran Popery about depoſing Sovereigns for Hereſy, and with the Trent Popery about the Worſhip of Images, as it is underſtood by Bellarmine, or rather by Capiſucchi, and as it is practiſed by the Tartuffs of the Roman Church, and with all that old Popery which the An
1. Let him go through the 37 Heads, as I ſaid before, and tell us particularly what the Anſwerer charges upon Papiſts, which we do well in rejecting, but ill in imputing it to them. And,
2. Let him ſay plainly to every particular where he thinks there is juſt occaſion to ſay ſo, The Church of Rome will not receive you if you come with this Be
But if the Repreſenter will undertake for us upon theſe Terms, even of Popery as 'tis repreſented by that Author; then I muſt beg of him to tell us what he meant by ſuch Expreſſions as theſe. If you have truly repreſented the Doctrines of the Church of Rome,
Reflect. p. 18.I would as ſoon be a Turk as your Papiſt. That Imaginary Monſters are raiſed up to knock down at pleaſure:
Pref. p. 1.That we raiſe a Monſter of Religion, ſuch as none can be in love with,
Pag. 21.but thoſe that are bold enough to embrace Damnation bare-fac'd, and then this is the Character of Popery. And much more to the ſame purpoſe which he ſays up and down in his Replies. Nothing is more familiar with him than to ſay, we abhor, and deteſt, and abominate that which is charged upon us. But I beſeech you, Sir, is your Church ſo Catholick, as to take in Men
deteſt and abominate, who come with a Monſter of Religion that none can be in love with, but the Lovers of bare-fac'd Damnation? Or does it take in Turks? for you would as ſoon be a Turk as our Papiſt, as you told us long ſince. Here I am apt to think you will need all the improvement of your Confidence, and it will not help you neither. You have been thus long dancing in a Net, and if you are not ſecured that way I have ſo often hinted before, you will now begin to ſee it. For I pray obſerve, if the Characters that your firſt Anſwerer ſet a Papiſt out with, are black enough to make a Man look like a Turk, nothing could have been more eaſie to note than theſe Characters; and you know Monſters are very remarkable things, and may be ſhown with a Finger. And therefore we do expect that you would now at laſt point them out, as they lie at large (for ſo you ſay they do) throughout the Anſwerer's Book. And when you have done this, it will then come upon you to declare whether with theſe Monſters you will preſent us to your Church, and undertake for our Admittance, or not. If you will not, pray ſay ſo, and by the way think of giving ſome account how thoſe Schoolmen, and private Authors came to be the celebrated Members, and thoſe Old Rituals and Maſs-books the ſtanding Offices of your Church; for you do not accuſe your Anſwerer for ſeeking any where elſe to find theſe Monſters. But, to come cloſe to the Point, if you will take any Man that comes with theſe Monſters, have we not great reaſon to ſupect that if we ſhould come without them, you would not expoſe your ſelf to defend us from them, if it ſhould be thought fit to let them looſe upon us? I hope therefore that we ſhall be troubled with this
HERE THEREFORE I CHALLENGE YOU TO DECLARE WHAT THOSE PARTICULARS ARE, THOSE MONSTERS, THOSE DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES WHICH YOU DO SO DETEST AND ABOMINATE; AND IF YOU REFUSE SO TO DO, I FASTEN UPON YOU THE MARK OF INSINCE
For, obſerve me Sir, if for fear of falling foul upon thoſe of your own Party, you dare not declare in parti
Nor muſt you think to give us the ſlip now, as hiCharacters of a Papiſt Miſrepreſented for us, and to raiſe up Imaginary Monſters, as you ſpeak, to knock down at pleaſure. Remember to take your Anſwerer's Characters of a Papiſt, who has ſo deſcribed your ReTurk as his Papiſt. This you know is to be done for our ſatisfaction, and therefore our Characters of a Papiſt, as we deſcribe them for our ſelves, not as you deſcribe them for us, are to be marked by you. Remember again, that you go from Point to Point, and tell us all along as you go,
Whether I ſhall hear from you upon theſe Matters, I cannot foreſee; but in the mean time I do not much care if I give you my Thoughts concerning the bottom of this Buſineſs; I queſtion not but you are willing to receive us into the Roman Church, upon our making the Profeſſion of your Papiſt Miſrepreſented; and, I have ſome reaſon to think, upon much eaſier terms of Profeſſion, for which I ſhall by and by give my Reaſon. If we would but do as you do, we might for ſome time put what Interpretation upon it we pleaſe. If we would ſubſcribe Pope Pius his Creed, we might deCroſs, and worſhip the Sacrament as you do, we might declare what Intention we pleaſe: But in Matters of Religion, Inſincerity and DiſſimulaRome, and do as they do at Rome; and till better care can be taken, we may be allowed to comOrange, were reOrange on the one ſide, and the CitiOrange on the other. The Paſſage is very re
The Citizens of the Town of
Orange that are unChriſtians ſhould reunite themſelves into the ſame Church; To teſtify their ſubmiſſion to the OrTeſſé, ſhould depart from them; and that the Expence which has been, or ſhall be made by them, be levied upon the whole State, without di
They declare that they do reunite themſelves to the Catholic Apoſtolic and
Roman Church, after the manChriſtian and Orthodox Truths con
That for their great Conſolation and Edification, every
Sunday before the Service, there ſhall be read a Chapter of the Holy Scripture, of the Old and New Teſtament in French, according to the TranLatin, ſhall be explained in French by the Paſtors of the Church.
That they ſhall invoke no other beſides God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt.
That they ſhall not believe that it is neceſſary to Salvation to have any other Interceſſion and Media
Jeſus Chriſt towards God the Father.
That they ſhall not be obliged to render any Divine Honour to Images which ſhall be in the Church.
That they ſhall adore
Jeſus Chriſt in the Euchariſt, who is Really, Spiritually, and Sacramentally con
That this Conſolation ſhall be given to the Faith
We
Done at James d' Obeilh, by the Grace of God Biſhop of Orange, Abbot and Count of Montfor, Counſellor of the King in all his Councils, have admitted theſe who are counterſigned, to the Reunion of the CaRoman Church, upon the ConOrange this 13th of Novemb. 1685.
The Repreſenter may, I think, ſee in this Example that he is out-done in his own way, and that there are in the World more mild and inoffenſive RepreſentaPopery than his own; and ſome proviſions for
Roman Church with theſe Cautions, can be reaſonably judged to have proceeded with ſatisfaction in themTeſſés Troops on the other, they capitulated as well as they could for their own quiet, and granted what they did, to be delivered from the Souldiers; and no more than what they did, if by that means they might pacify their own Minds. A very miſerable Caſe moſt cerChriſtians, upon Chriſtians. Let the Repreſenter take it into his ſeri
But why muſt the Minds of Men be racked in this manner? Why muſt they be brought under the moſt dangerous Temptations to cheat themſelves, and for the gaining of reſt from outward Miſeries, to betray the Tranquillity of their own Conſciences, and be con
Ʋnion, that is to ſay Submiſſion, to what they call the Catholic, Apoſtolic, and Roman Church, that muſt be by theſe means, or by any means carried on. This we meet with at the very head of the Proviſions, and
But becauſe the poor People knew that Union to that Church carried dreadful Things along with it, there
Ʋnion that ever was heard of; viz. To believe and to profeſs all the Chriſtian and Orthodox Truths contained in the Holy Scripture, which God hath manifeſted to the Prophets, Apoſtles, and Evangeliſts. But then this Limitation would make the
Ʋnion very inſignificant: for thus one may be united to the Turk, viz. to believe and to profeſs all the Chriſtian and Orthodox Truths contained in the Holy Scripture. And therefore ſomething muſt be added to that; and certainly greater Artifice on both ſides, ſhall ſelafter the manner which that Church dos uſe; which may indifferently refer, either to reuniting or believing. The People may underſtand it of being united to the Roman Church, after the manner it uſes, till the Bibelieving the Chriſtian Truths of the Scripture, after the manner of that Church. And ſo by underſtanding the Scripture, after the Interpretation and Senſe of the Ʋniverſal Church, the Biſhop has his meaning, and they have theirs as long as he will ſuffer them. The moſt jealous Princes never treated more nicely for their Honour, than theſe poor Proteſtants did for their Conſcience, and their MaRome. And conſidering that they had but two hours allowed them to unite to the Roman Church, before the laſt Extremity ſhould be uſed upon refuſal; and that there were Difficulties on both Sides; the Proteſtants conſulted for their Conſciences as much
Expoſitions and Repreſentations? Why, if no more ſincerity were uſed in Fairs and MarFarce, that I count it decent to forbear, leſt I ſhould ſeem to make ſport with the Sins and Miſeries of Men. I ſhall only give the ReaDifficulties on both Sides, but that by the wording of the Conditions, it appears very probable that the CitiChriſtians!
I have here given the Repreſenter an Example of reconciling Proteſtants to the Church of Rome, upon Terms much after his own way, only 'tis ſomething finer; though the Application I confeſs was more rug
Thus much at leaſt they gained, that they might not be obliged to go to Maſs for three Months, nor to be preſent at the Offices of the Church; which was a plain demonſtration that theſe miſerable Perſons had ſubſcribed with an unſatisfied Mind; and that
Ʋnion and Submiſſion was the thing aimed at by the ReconciState of the Controverſy, which he cared not to reflect upon,
p. 23.viz. That after the Biſhop of Meaux had treated of a ReMaſs. The Repreſenter may from all this, pick out ſome Reaſon, why he ought to be aſhamed of his Offer, that we ſhall be received upon the Terms of his Book.
I come next to his Quotation of Mr. Montagu, from whence he would prove that the Church of England began too early to Miſrepreſent Papiſts; to deſerve now much credit in her Repreſentings.
&c.
modeſteſt thing in Nature; for Mr. Montagu is moſt vilely abuſed by him, while he makes him bring in the Homilies as reThat they contain certain
Then follow the words which the Repreſenter begins with, godly and wholeſome
Exhortations to move the People to Honour and Worſhip Almighty God, but not as the publick Dogmatical Reſolutions confirmed of the Church of England. And again, They have not Dogmatical Poſitions or Doctrine to be propugned and ſubſcribed in all and every Point, as the Books of Articles and of Common Prayer have.They may ſeem ſecondly to ſpeak ſomewhat too hardly, and ſtretch ſome Sayings beyond the uſe and practice of the Church of England, both then and now; which laſt words the Repreſenter mentions not, nor theſe that follow immediately; And yet what they ſpeak, may receive a fair, or at leaſt a tolerable conſtruction and mitigation well e
Fathers do ſpeak, and how they hyperbolize ſometimes in ſome Points in their popular Sermons, which in Dogmatical Deciſions they would not do, nor avow the Doctrine by them delivered reſolutivè.
Now the occaſion of all this was that Mr. Mountagu was charg'd by his Adverſaries for granting an allowEngland in the Sermon againſt the Peril of Idolatry, which ſeemeth to inveigh againſt all uſe of them. To this Mr. M. anſwered as before, producing the Homilies not as ſpeaking of what the Papiſts do, or not do, but as univerſally condemning the uſe of Images in Churches.
P. 262.viz. That as the Fathers ſpake againſt Images with ſome tartneſs and inveighing ſort, leſt the Chriſtians, who had been Pagans themſelves, and now lived amongſt Pagans, might learn to worſhip Idols. So our Predeceſſors coming late
out of Popery, and converſing with Papiſts, and knowing that Images uſed to be crept unto, incens'd, worſhipped and adored amongſt them, might, if they were ſuffered to ſtand as they did, induce them to do as they had ſometime done; and therefore in a godly Zeal ſuch as moved Ezekias to deſtroy the Brazen Serpent, they ſpake thus vehemently, and indeed hyperbolically againſt them. For the People with whom they then dealt were by all means
This is the whole truth of the buſineſs, which the Repreſenter did not think fit to ſhew, but without taking the leaſt notice of the occaſion and ſubject of this Chaphyperbolizing, ſtretching upon the Tenters, by all means, and the like; and would make as if Mr. Mountague conEngland regarded not how ſhe repreſented Papiſts and Popery: Which wretched dealing is according to no common Honeſty but his own; and whoever goes on at this rate, will write himſelf out of all Credit, and there will be no need of anſwering his Books.
'Tis to the ſame purpoſe that he brings in Mr. M.
Pref. p. 19.not thinking it any Reflection upon him if he does not altogether agree or ſubſcribe to the Doctrine of the Book of Homilies in his time, becauſe it being a Book fitted for a Seaſon, and declared neceſſary for THESE Times, what great wonder if what was a good Doctrine under Edward VI. was not ſo in the time of King James, &c. For thus he would perſwade us that we alter and change our Religion according to Times and Seaſons, which is what we juſtly charge upon them. The Compilers of the Homilies and Mr. M. meant
viz. that more Care is neceſſary at ſome times to ſecure People from Image-worſhip than at others, though our Religion, which will not allow us to worſhip Images, be the ſame at all times. If he thinks that the Homilies ſtretch their Hyperboles too far, let him compare them with what Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Minutius Felix, and other Antients ſay of the ſame Subject, and then tell M. judiciouſly obſerv'd, their ſevere Reflections againſt all uſe of Images whatſoever, are to be interpreted by the danger of being ſeduced to Idolatry which the Chriſtithoſe Times; ſo may the leſs hyperboTheſe Times, in which we are ſure Images are worſhipped by certain People that the Repreſenter can tell of, with no leſs Devotion than the Pagans wor
The Reader, I hope, will now excuſe me, for taking no more notice of his proteſting againſt the diſtinction of Old and New Popery, his declaring that their BePref. p. 20, 21.rake together ſome odd Opinions out of private Authors, &c. that the Heads upon which our Repreſenting ſtands are ſo many Fallacies and Sophiſtry, &c. For if a Man, after the Particulars of his Book have been particularly an
And ſo I come to conſider his Reflections upon the View of the whole Controverſy, with the Anſwer to his laſt Reply. It ſeems the Stater, as he obſerves, had ſo good an Opinion of it, that he thought it would put an End to the Controverſy. The Repreſenter ſays that he is almost of the ſame Mind. And I ſay that I am altogether of the ſame Mind: And ſo there is one thing in which we do all of us almoſt agree.
But why is the Repreſenter almost of that Mind?
Becauſe the Anſwerer had ſaid ſo little to that long Bill which was drawn up againſt the Members of his Church,
Pref. p. 22.confeſſes, the very Guilt appears ſo plainly in the forced Excuſes he makes for the reſt, that there's little need of any more beſides reading his Defence to ſee how far they are from being innocent.
So that by his own Confeſſion, he brought in a long Bill againſt ſome of our Church, wherein the Crime of miſrepreſenting is laid to their Charge. And the truth is, it was long enough conſidering that it had neither Truth nor Pertinence, as it was particularly ſhewn him in the Anſwer to his laſt Reply.
For I muſt add, that the Anſwerer brought in a longer Anſwer of about 28 Pages to the Particulars of the Repreſenter's Bill, not omitting any one Charge upon any one of our Authors, where there was di
And I do aſſure the Reader, that thoſe ſix or ſeven Lines of his which I tranſcribed juſt now out of his Preface, is all the Reply that he has given to that Anſwer. And I deſire the Reader to remember and conſider, that that tedious Charge of his, the Defence
Now therefore I apply my ſelf to the Repreſenter, and deſire him to take as much notice of what I ſay, as if there was a Finger againſt it in the Margin: That becauſe he was ſo very modeſt, as not to offer the leaſt particular Reply to thoſe Anſwers to his Charge; therefore his continuing that Charge is the greater Impudence.
With all my Soul I wiſh that the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome would imply other ſort of Men to write againſt us, for this Man carries on the Contro
But ſince I have ſuch a Countenance to deal with, I muſt not think to let even thoſe ſix Lines go withgravely turn over I know not how many Pages of ours, without offering a word to any one Particular that he finds there, and never change Countenance for the matter: Yet we are to watch every Line of his, and unleſs we intend to have another Book from him, we muſt prove that the Sun ſets before Midnight, if he ſhould happen to deny it.
He pretends that his Anſwerer ſaid ſo little to his long Bill, &c. What ſhould I ſay to this? Should I print over again here the 28 Pages which were taken up in refuting thoſe Cavils of the Repreſenter? Or is it not enough, that I do now forbid him to make any Replies to the Particulars of that An
He pretends that the Anſwerer confeſſed ſomething, Beſides what he confeſſes, ſays he. So that if he may be believed, the Anſwerer has confeſſed that ſome of thoſe whom he mentions, have miſrepreſented the Church of Rome. But this is adding Sin to Sin: For he confeſs'd no ſuch thing, and I will add that he had no cauſe to confeſs it.
Theſe words indeed I find in the Anſwer. Did ever either of his Adverſaries undertake to juſtify all that any Proteſtant Divine or Hiſtorian has at any time ſaid in oppoſition to Popery? Or, was it not poſſible to give a more honeſt account of Popery than he did, without ſuch an Undertaking?
And again.
Tho it be no part of our buſineſs to bring off every thing that has been ſaid or done by Pro
But is this confeſſing, that Miſrepreſentation was proved upon any one Author that was charged with it? The Anſwerer it ſeems was reſolved, as became him, never to wrangle either for a Friend, or againſt an Enemy; and he found in the long Bill one or two
Miſrepreſentations; for inſtance, a very weak InfeSutcliff's from as weak a Propoſition of Aquinas. For this reaſon the Anſwerer thought fit to declare, that he would not juſtify what he thought was to be blamed. But if this Man was reſolved to call what he pleaſed a Miſrepreſentation of his Church, by his leave he ſhould have asked the Anſwerer, whether he would call it ſo too, before it was lawful for him to bring in the Anſwerer confeſſing I know not what, of our miſrepreſenting the Church of Rome. For my own part, I am reſolv'd, that if any particular Authors of ours have in any one Point miſrepreſented Popery in the leaſt degree, I will not do it for Company, nor defend thoſe that have done it. But I am not a little pleas'd to find that when the Repreſenter forſook the defence of his 37 Chapters, and diverted to the buſineſs of tranſcribing all thoſe Proteſtant Authors, where he hoped to find ſome Inmiſrepreſenting; he ſhould yet come in with ſo lamentable an account on his part, and not be able to produce any one clear Inſtance to ſupport his Charge.
When I had read his Charge, I was ſomething aRome ſince the Reformation, by Men of different Abilities, he ſhould not have been able to make better work of his laſt impertinent deſign than he did. And it will be to all impartial Judges an Argument, that the ſeveral Writers of our Church have upon the whole matter, obſerved a ſtrange exactneſs of Truth in charging the Church of Rome, when this Man was able to produce
But what do we think the Repreſenter concludes in another place from the Anſwerer's declaring beforeevery thing that has been ſaid or done in oppoſition to Popery? Why,
Pref. p. 26.then it ſeems now there are ſome Proteſtants that charge more upon the Papiſts than can be well brought off or juſtified, and ſome Proteſtants are accuſed juſtly, and not to be defended without partaking of their fault. What, of miſrepreſenting the Church of Rome! But the Anſwerer did by no means confeſs that he had brought any pertinent Inſtances of that. There may be ſuch for ought I know, and if there are, let them bear it as I ſaid before; but as I ſay now, the ProIf this had been as freely owned at firſt, we had excuſed a great deal of Pains and Paper; for I had never gone about to prove that Proteſtants miſrepreſent Papiſts,
P. 26.if the firſt Replier had thus ingenuouſly confeſs'd that Charge. And becauſe it was not owned, I therefore found my ſelf obliged to take ſome Pains about it, that is,
P. 22.in my long Bill that was drawn up, &c.
Well! He ha now done His worſt; for the next ſtretch beyond this will break him. I confeſs that the Anſwerer did ingenuouſly declare againſt abetMiſpreſentations: But that he did ingenuouſly confeſs that Charge againſt the Authors that were produced, is, what I hope no Man living this day, excepting the Repreſenter only, will have the face to ſay. He I know took ſome pains to prove the Charge, and the Anſwerer took a little Pains too about the buingenuouſly confeſſing it; for I verily thought, and do think ſtill, that he was all the while plainly and honeſtly confuting it.
But becauſe upon this occaſion I would be glad to underſtand with what Caution a Man muſt write, that has to do with one of the Repreſenter's ConſtiMiſrepreſentation. Sutcliff's was the plaineſt, whoſe Inference from Aquinas he acknowledg'd to be very ſilly. But as to all the reſt, he ſhewed that the Repreſenter's Charge was either falſe or very fooliſh: And that this Man was for the moſt part an egregious Miſrepreſenter in uſing thoſe Authors of as ours he did. So that 'tis Sutcliff's Caſe that muſt bring in the Anſwerer for that ſame ingeSutcliff made a ſilly Inference from as ſilly a Principle of Aquinas, here had been a great deal of Paper and Pains excuſed, and this Man had never gone about to prove that Proteſtants miſrepreſent Papiſts.
p. 9, &c.England.
Laſtly, he pretends in thoſe ſix Leaves, that beſides what the Anſwerer confeſs'd, Guilt appears plainly in the forced Excuſes he made for the reſt. Now if he made but forced Excuſes for them, he had, I conno Excuſes at all for them.
Which gives me occaſion to ſay here, what the True reaſon was of the Anſwerer's putting together thoſe few Inſtances how we have been uſed by thoſe of the Roman Church. We hoped this at leaſt from the Repreſenter's Firſt Book, that it would occaſion ſuch a clear and perfect ſtating of the Queſtions beRome, that the People of both Communions would be well prepared to underthe Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Repreſented; complied in his Anſwer to the Repreſenter. But it was none of the RepreſenProteſtant Miſrepreſenters. This Deſign he largely purſued in his long Bill. The Author of the View having ſhewn him that he was foully to blame in charging even thoſe Proteſtant Writers whom he ſingled out, took a courſe to divert him for the future, from this wild and unproProteſtants had been uſed by Papiſts. Now one would have thought, that at leaſt he ſhould have reinforced his Charge upon our Men, and defended his own againſt the Anſwerer, if he was ſtill reſolved to continue his Clamours of MiſreLong Bill, and do's not offer the leaſt Syllable for one of thoſe that the Anſwerer had put into his Short One. I conForced Excuſes for our Friends. Now as the Repreſenter has behaved himſelf, I think my Credit may be good eforced Excuſes, becauſe for the moſt part there were no Excuſes at all, but down-right Vindications. And as for the Excuſes that are there, if there be any ſuch, I do not deſire the Reader to take my word for them, if he will promiſe not to
After all, the Repreſenter is to be commended for one thing, that he ſays the Anſwerer drew him back to his firſt Book—in reality to put a ſtop to this part of the Controverſy, and that we might hear no farther of the Church of England's Miſrepreſenting. For though he meant this to the Anſwerer's Diſgrace, yet 'tis true that this was one part of his Deſign, for he ſaw the Repreſenter was got upon an Idle Haunt, and thereunder a pretence of ſhewing him, that he had drop'd his Cauſe, and gone out of the way: I confeſs all that too, excepting the word Pretence; For his Anſwerer did the Buſineſs ſo effectually, that I forbid the Repreſenter ſo much as to pretend to vindicate himſelf againſt thoſe plain and particular Proofs of this thing that were brought againſt him. For that he is well reſolved againſt any ſuch Pretence, is plain to me, from the Similitude wherewith he has fortified himſelf againſt all thoughts of any thing like a Reply to the View. For, ſays he, this is nothing but what we ſee by daily experience, that
when two have been debating a Point a great while, at length one that finds himſelf aground, begins to unravel the whole Diſpute from the beginning, with you ſaid this,
Pref. p. 23.and I ſaid this; and then you ſaid this, and I ſaid this, and you ſaid this. I hope the Reader will not ſo much as ſuſpect that I have abuſed him in this; but if he thinks it incredible that a Man in his Wits ſhould put ſuch ſilly ſtuff into a Book. I canPreface to his Third Part; and though the Pages are not numbred, he may find them in that Page to which I have referred in the Margin, if he will pleaſe to num
And yet after all, he would not have it thought that he is afraid to go back as far as to the Papiſt Miſrepreſented and Repreſented:
P. 23.viz. to give us an account once more of his Deſign in writting that Book, and of his Motive to it.
P. 24.deſcribe a Catholic as he is, and as he is thought to be. His Motive was an Obſervation of his, that his Catholics ſuffered very much by Proteſtant Miſrepreſentations.
But that which follows is rare, that he did not think himſelf obliged to give an account of both his CharaProteſtants. Indeed, as for the Character of a Papiſt Miſrepreſented, he looked upon that as ſomething relating to them. But as for that of a Papiſt Repreſented, it belonged not to Proteſtants to meddle with that at all, but only to his pretended Catholics. For, ſays he, to whom ſhould the examination of a Syſtem of any ones Faith belong, beſides thoſe whoſe Faith it is ſaid to be? I thank him heartily. It ſeems we are to take
exact and true, or not; and the reaſon is plain, becauſe as yet 'tis not our Faith, and therefore the examination of it belongs not to us. But when we are become Papiſts upon his Terms, then if we pleaſe we may examine whether it was wiſely or fooliſhly done of us, to take a Syſtem of the Popiſh Faith upon his Word. And therefore he could not be obliged to juſtify his Character of a Papiſt Rrepreſented, after we had ſhewn it was not a ſincere Character, becauſe we meddle with a Matter that belonged not to us, and was none of our Con
But for one thing we are not a little beholden to him, that though in truth we were buſy where we had nothing to do, viz. in the Firſt, Second, and Third Anſwers to him, yet he mended the Matter for us, by looking upon thoſe Anſwers as chiefly relating to the Character of a Papiſt Miſrepreſented, in which he confeſſes we had ſomething to do: So that though thoſe Anſwers chiefly related to one, as we thought, yet he did but look upon them, and forthwith they chiefly related to the other. And ſo care is taken for the Character of a Papiſt Repreſented.
We will go to the other Character preſently, when I have given him a neceſſary Item upon this great Ocviz. that when he draws any more double Characters, he would take very great care, that his Papiſt Miſrepreſented, be drawn very honeſtly, that we may the more eaſily ſwallow what he ſays of a Papiſt Repreſented; leſt if we find, as hitherto we have done, that he plays tricks in a Buſineſs that does belong to us to examine, we ſhould have the leſs rea
And now for the other Character; he obſerved, it feems, that the Anſwers appeared to be all from Church of England hands, who ſeemed much concerned to clear themſelves from being thought Miſrepreſenters; and therefore they denied the Charge, which as he ſays, was part of their Plea. But therefore it might be exEngland-Men, or hold his hand till ſome other Proteſtants came forth to clear themſelves, who had Miſrepreſented Popery, juſt as he pretended ſome Proteſtants at leaſt to have done: But being reſolved to write on, and not being able to faſten any of his Firſt Miſrepreſentations upon the Church of England, he fell to ranſack ſome Proteſtant Writers of our Communion, for new MiſrepreſentaMiſrepreſenting ſide of his Cha
But why were not his firſt Characters of a Papiſt Miſrepreſented, either proved againſt us, or charged upon ſome Body elſe, or confeſſed to be impertinent and fooliſh, as the ſecond Anſwer ſhewed moſt of them to be? What excuſe has he for troubling the World with a Book of two Columnes, neither of which he thought it his Duty to defend? Why, he tells you that he Fathered not the Character of a Papiſt Miſrepreſented upon the Church of England,
P. 25.but upon his own APPREHENSIONS. So that
his own Apprehenſions; and as long as he was ſure that his own Apprehenſions would not write againſt him, he was ſecure alPapiſt Miſrepreſented, againſt any Body, and therefore not againſt the Church of England.
Indeed he tells us, ſome time after,
P. 26.ſet down ſome former Apprehenſions of his own concerning Popery, with ſome little Addition of what he had heard from others.
And again; I ſaid,
P. 27.that Character was according to the Apprehenſions I had formerly of a Papiſt — and if I extended it any farther than my ſelf, it was becauſe I had found the ſame in others. But he is as ſecure from being called to account by thoſe others, as by his former Apprehenſions. For if thoſe others be ſome Body, they muſt needs be aſhamed to appear in this BuNo-body, then there is No-body to hurt him. He underſtood his Advantage in all this perfectly well. For, ſays he, This, i. e. that he had heard the ſame from others, was no more to be denied or diſproved than the other part, as it related to himſelf. 'Tis enough, ſays he, for my purpoſe, that in the Miſrepreſenting Character, a Papiſt is expreſſed and made to appear otherwiſe than he is, and that I apprehended a Papiſt ſomething after that manner while I was a Proteſtant. When this is diſproved, I have ſomething to Anſwer, but till then I can have forſaken no Defence, becauſe nothing has been ſaid againſt me, &c. If this Man can forbear diſproving
ſomething after that manner. Something is a dangerous word in this place. For if he did not apprehend a Papiſt altogether, or very much after that manner, I wonder who is to anſwer for the reſt. For I reckon that his ſomething, and the little Addition he heard from others, will hardly ſave half his Characters from being an Impoſture, if we judg of it by his own words.
But, ſays he, what then ſignifies all the noiſe of my having forſaken the Defence of the thirty ſeven Chapters in my firſt Book?
P. 25.ſignify but an undeniable Truth that he has forſaken it. For he has forſaken the Defence of the Papiſt Repreſented, becauſe that belonged not to us to meddle with, but only to his Catholicks. And he has forMiſrepreſented too, for though this Character ſomething related to us, as he once thought, yet upon better conſideration, that belonged to us no more than that other, but only to his own Apprehenſions, and to ſome others in the Clouds, that are never likely to give him any diſturbance.
Well; but he has ſhewn however that the Church of England has miſrepreſented Papiſts, though permiſrepreſented. Now though this be a Charge which we might be concern'd upon other accounts to conView has unanſwerably proved: And in his wretched way of ſhifting it off, he has confeſſed it as much to his ſhame, as a plain ConEngland, or upon Church of England-Men. For his ſaying that the Author of the Veiw ſeemed to give up the Point, and that he freely owned it, and the like, is a ſtretch beyond what is at any time done for Mony. For the World ſees, that on the other hand, that Author pretended to ſhew that the Man was in this alſo an egregious Miſrepreſenter of our Writers. And one would think it was done effectually: for the Man has dropt alſo the Defence of that his laſt Charge againſt the particular Anſwers that were made to it; juſt as he dropt all before, only with this Addition of Face now, that the Author of the View had freely owned it, and ingenuouſly confeſs'd it.
If this Anſwer of mine ſhould fall into the hands of any of our Communion, that have not read theſe his Reflections, I muſt once more confeſs my ſelf a little afraid, loſt they ſhould think I banter him in this account of his ſhuffling off one thing after anoPapiſt Miſrepreſented.
Well, ſays he, but in ſo doing, i. e. in proving his new Charge of Miſrepreſentation, I left it ſeems the Defence of the thirty ſeven Chapters. How ſo? As to the firſt Character in all theſe Chapters, I only undertook to ſet down ſome former Apprehenſions of my own concerning Popery, with ſome little Addition of what I had heard from others. Now what had I to defend in this? Could any one ſay I had not ſuch Apprehenſions? or, that formerly while a Proteſtant, I had not ſuch Notions and Thoughts of the Papiſts, and of their Religion wrought in me by what I had heard from the Pulpit and otherways? And if this neither was nor could be pretended, what had I to defend in that Character throughout the thirty ſeven Chapters?
Then as to the ſecond Character. What Defence, ſays he, have I forſaken there? — I undertook to give an account of my Religion as I was taught it.— The Religion there delivered is the Popery I was taught; there is expreſſed the Papiſt; I then was at the penning that Character, and now am. And this I ſuppoſe no body has diſproved yet, and ſo I have forſaken no Defence of it. So that this Character was written too according to his own Apprehenſions: And unleſs a Man can prove that he had not thoſe Apprehenſions of Popery, ſince he became a Papiſt, and when he wrote his ChaInvincible.
But I muſt not forget that other Reaſon, viz. of this Character not belonging to Proteſtants to examine. He ſays, If there was any thing faulty in this, I expected to hear of it from Catholicks, for whilſt I pretended to deliver their Faith, who ſhould judg whether it was right or wrong but they? And at this rate he goes on for almoſt two Pages together, concluding, that the currant paſſing of the Book and general reception of it without exception, i. e. among Papiſts, was enough to warrant the Doctrine for Authentick.
And now he had nothing to account for, but forView undeniably ſhewed. Only there is one Quality which God grant he may forſake, but I fear he never will. I will not give it the Name here, but leave the Reader to do that, when I have given one more Inſtance from our Repreſenter of the Thing. And ſo, ſays he, at laſt it is here confeſs'd that the Doctrines are rightly propoſed, and that I have duly repreſented a Catholick, but that I made no Defence of the Reaſons. He had before brought in the AuView as freely owning and ingenuouſly confeſſing the Charge of Miſrepreſentation. And now at laſt to make one ſide hang even with the other, he brings him in confeſſing that he had duly repreſented a
Machiavel's Rule, that he that will thrive by the left-hand way, muſt never look towards the right one.
Well, he tells us now for a cloſe, that he has not been ſhort of any thing he undertook. Not of any thing? What is then to be ſaid for forſaking the Reaſons; the Defence of the Reaſons? Why, he has a trick for that too, and becauſe it cannot be mended, the old one ſhall ſerve the turn. Says he, Since I only engaged to ſet down ſome of the Reaſons which hold Men in that [the Roman] Communion, 'tis plain I did all only by way of propoſal or hiſtorically, and till ſome body has demonſtrated that theſe are not ſome of the Reaſons which hold Men in that Communion, I have no Defence to make, and ſo can have forſaken none. That is to ſay, his buſineſs was not to ſet down Reaſons, and make them good afterward, if any body ſhould be ſo croſs as to ſet upon them, but his buſineſs was to ſhew ſome Reaſons for his Doctrine, ſuch as they are held by, but whether they were good Reaſons or bad Reaſons, what was that to us?
At laſt we have a Reaſon why he was not for Diſputing, viz. becauſe nothing has been offered in that kind by any Adverſary, but what has been anſwered by Catholicks five hundred times over. Now five hundred is a good round even Number, and he was loth to make it irregular by adding one more to it; for then it muſt have be ſaid henceforward, that we had been anſwered 501 times over. This I take to be as good a Reaſon as any we have had from him yet, or are like to have from him in haſte.
To come to a Concluſion: He began with his double Characters, and forſook the Defence of them.
He gave us Reaſons and Reflections, and he for
He made a Fanatick Sermon, and great defiance there was about it; but the Sermon was undertaken, and we hear no more of the Sermon.
He tried what was to be done by drawing up a new Charge of Miſrepreſentation upon ſome Proteſtant Wri
The Author of the View gave him a ſample of ſome Popiſh Miſrepreſentations of us and our Religion. And he does not offer ſo much as to excuſe them, no not by a word.
What is to be done next?
Even let us once more begin the World again, with fifteen new Chapters of a Papiſt Miſrepreſented and Repreſented; for the worſt is paſt, we may ſpeed better next time; but 'tis impoſſible for us to come off more ſhamefully than we have done al
THE Vindicator has expreſs'd ſome contempt of the Defenders laſt Book.
P. 1.
Some Anger alſo is expreſs'd, for being told by the Author of the Diſcourſe concerning Extreme Ʋnction, that the Biſhop of Meaux and he might now go and put words together, eſpecially becauſe another Year was given them. I perceive he ſcorns to have it thought, that he either needs the Biſhop of Meaux's help, or a Years time to put words together. And ſo about a Month after the Second Defence, out comes a Full Anſwer of his own.
As for the Biſhop, the Vindicator has ſaid nothing for him: And I think the Biſhop is beholden to him for it, who is in this one thing happy that his Vindica
When I ſaw a Sheet and half come forth for a Full Anſwer to the Second Defence, I preſently underſtood, the Man's meaning to be, that the Defence had little
Full Anſwer to it. But now the Repreſenter has been anſwered more largely in the foregoing Part, and therefore we might expect in HoSheet and Half- to the Second Defence. But we expect no ſuch thing for all that: For tho as the World goes, ſome Men are forHalf-ſheets and ſuch things Full Anſwers to ſuch Books; as if their more Learned Predeceſſors were now alive, they would have given us, we are apt to think, what weight they had, and at leaſt equal mea
To this Full Anſwer of his,
P. 2.
He declares once for all, that he is reſolved not to let any of the Defenders pretended Proofs eſcape, or any thing that looks like a ſolid Anſwer paſs unſatisfied. Which Declaration was the more fit to be made once for all, becauſe it would trouble a Man's Conſcience aſecond time: or at leaſt it would ſtartle the Reader as often as it was made.
But in purſuit of this Intention as he ſays, and it may be to make good his own Title of a Full Anſwer, he falls in the firſt place upon the Defender's Title-Page; where he would have had the Book called, A free Confeſſion of the Matter of Fact in all the Vindicator's
Exceptions. The Defender, I am ſure, neither preprove nor to anſwer in his Title Page. But they are often buſy, where no need is, who are idle where their Buſineſs lies. However I ſhall rememFree Confeſſion, &c.
In the mean time I obſerve, that he and the Reprefreely confeſs ſomething or other, which they have all this while la
But before I have done with this Full Anſwer of his, I may perhaps convince them both, that they did not lay their Heads long enough together; and that while they were agreeing what to make us confeſs, they for
The Firſt Part of the Defence which he pretends to anſwer, is the Hiſtorical Vindication of the Diſtinction between Old and New Popery. For the Defender obſerving how much that Diſtinction was diſliked by this Man, told him, that he found it in effect made to his hand in ſome of the Biſhop of Meaux's own Converts, and in Books which are ſaid to have undergone his particular peruſal before they were permitted to come into the World.
Def. Pref. P. 3.
But the Vindicator declares, that in the proof of this, when he came to examine it, he found nothing to the purpoſe. Which is more than I ſhall ſay of his Ex
The Firſt Inſtance of the Converts is Monſieur Brueys, who vehemently exhorted the Proteſtants to return to the Roman Communion by this Argument, That the Doctrine of the Church was ſo expounded, as none of their Forefathers underſtood it. Of which, and much more to the ſame purpoſe, the Vindicator ſays, I ſtand in need of your Spectacles, Sir, to ſee how he [Monſieur Brueys] proves that there was New and Old Popery any where, but in the Conceit of our Adverſaries, their Forefathers, as he calls them. Which certainly is none of the wiſeſt Anſwers that ever was made, beNew and Old Popery ſomewhere, though it be not ſo honeſt, as to confeſs it where it is. Becauſe he was reſolved not to find it where Mr. Brueys did, and where it is to be found, he would find it where it never was, viz. in the Conceit of our Forefathers. But neither dos Mr. Bruey's arguing ſuppoſe that our Fore-fathers had any ſuch Conceit, but the quite contrary, nor is it in it ſelf true that they had; For there was no ſuch Diſtinction going in their Days, nor occaſion for it. The Reaſon why our Fore-fathers never underſtood Popery, as it is now underſtood by Monſieur Brueys and the new Converts, is, becauſe the Biſhop of Meaux's Fore-fathers never explain'd it, as 'tis explain'd now by him, and ſome few others that have taken the hint from him. And this New Expoſi
He ſays indeed, That if their Proteſtant Forefathers had believed things to be as in effect they were, and are now propoſed, they would never have ſeparated from the Communion of the Church. In which words I acknowRome, and why on the other ſide themſelves ought now to return to it. And this I am ſure is in effect to confeſs an Old and a New Popery; and not only a more clear and intelligible way of expounding the very ſame things, which the Biſhop of Meaux has got above all that were before him: Unleſs the Vindicator will ſay, That their Forefathers, as well as ours, were ſo ſtupid, that they could not ſee, either the one what Doctrines they held, or the other what they rejected; but were ſtill playing at Blindman's-buff about Notions which they could not make one another underſtand, becauſe they were not able to expreſs them as they ought to have been expreſſed: Which I am confident Mr. Brueys will never ſay, and perhaps not the Vindi
But for the Vindicator to find in Mr. Brueys's words a New and an Old Popery charged upon the Conceits of our Forefathers, is ſo very ridiculous, and utterly inconſiſtent with his Argument to perſuade us to put Matters into the ſame State in which they were before, by reuniting to the Church of Rome; that any one
He anſwers next to what was obſerved again from Father Craſſet; but we will conſider what belongs to him by it ſelf, and in the mean time go on with the Converts.
The next produced was Monſieur Ranchin, who confeſſed a New Popery more boldly and roundly than Mr. Brueys did. The Vindicator therefore ſlurs off his Teſtimony with ſaying only this:
The Defender has ſhewn of what Credit ſuch a Perſons Authority is, who weighed things ſo little, as to ſell his Religion for Money and Preferments.
But this is not ſo eaſily to be ſet aſide. For, if he ſold his Religion, as there is too great reaſon to fear he did; yet his Teſtimony to the Diſtinction between Old and New Popery is a very good one, and an unMeaux's Converts.
Men often change their Religion for Worldly InteRanchin laid his Change upon the great Difference between Old and New Popery, there is no reaſon to queſtion, but wheMeaux's way of expounding Popery, from what had been in former Times, and from the Belief and Practice of the Tartuffs, and the People that now are, was indeed notorious. For otherwiſe he had taken a better way for his Reputation, to pretend that he had been conRome conſtantly and univerſally held, than to ſay that he was enlightCatholics, than for the Converſion of Proteſtants. For whether ſuch an Expoſition made any noRanchin was as careful of his Credit, as he was ſollicitous for Means to live like a Perſon of Quality, he no doubt was very ſure that the World was ſufficiently aware of a notable Difference between the Old PopeRome, and the New Popery of the Biſhop of Meaux: And it was frivolouſly done of the Vindicator to refuſe his Teſtimony, becauſe the Defender was afraid his Worldly Intereſts had too great an Influence in the Change.
Really if theſe Men ſerve their New Converts in this faſhion, it will mightily diſcourage them. They have ſweetned and gilded Popery for them, to make it go down the better; and yet they will not allow them to ſay what it was that made them ſwallow it with little or no ſtraining. Tho Eaſe, Honour, and Wealth did effectually determine them, yet they ſhould
viz. that which theſe Men deſigned ſhould do it: Or elſe our Engliſh RepreſenTartuffs and the People in due time, ſince they will neither themſelves ac
The ſame Reply may ſerve to the Vindicator's ExPawlet, who becauſe he made his Conſcience comply with his Intereſt, is no fit Man to be brought in as one of the Defender's Witneſſes for ſuch an odious Accuſation. So ſays the Vindicator. But Mr. Pawlet was not the leſs fit Man for that: For altho InſinWitneſs, yet there are Caſes in which the Teſtimony of an Inſincere Man cannot reaſonably be refuſed; that is, when his Intereſt does manifeſtly oblige him to ſpeak the Truth. Such is the preſent Caſe. For had there been no good ground for this Diſtinction bePawlet, by uſing that Diſtinction, could not but know, that in ſtead of covering his own Inſincerity, he had more openly ex
He calls this Charge of an Old and a New Popery an Odious Accuſation,
That Odious Diſtinction. But he forAccuſation againſt them, as the Vindicator very poorly inſinuates. They uſe it to defend themſelves againſt the Expoſtulations of thoſe whom they have forſaken; and the nature of their Defence implies not only that they believe what they ſay in this Caſe, but that they had reaſon to believe it. For if it were altogether a Dream of theirs or ours, that there are two ſorts of Popery in the Communion of the Roman Church, they might as well have defended their Revolt by pretending that the Church of Rome requires not the Veneration of Images, or the Invocation of Saints in any ſenſe at all, or any other ſuch thing as notoriouſly Falſe as that would be.
As to the Inhabitants of Montauban, that became Conde Meaux's Principles, he ſays, That their Acknowledgment is no convincing Proof that there was truly an Old and New Popery, excepting in their Imaginations. But their Teſtimony, and the former Teſtimonies, are I hope a convincing Proof, that the Defender did not make this Diſtinction, but that it was in effect made to his hand even by the Biſhop of Meaux's Converts: Which is the thing this Man ſhould have ſpoken to, but that every Mans Caſe will not bear Pertinence in his Anſwers.
But I have ſhewn him by the way, that theſe TeſtiThing, and that there is cauſe for ſuch a Diſtinction as this, which, beviz. Why the Vindicator is not able to bear the mention of it.
His harping upon the Odiouſneſs of this Diſtinction and of this Accuſation, does but give us juſt occaſion to ſay, that becauſe it was neceſſary in theſe times for ſome of them to bring in a New Popery, they muſt needs count it an Odious thing in us to put them in mind of the Old one.
But it ſeems that if we had ſaid nothing of it, they had been little the nearer; for the Converts themſelves have proclaim'd the Odious buſineſs; who, altho they were to be ſeduced by the inviting Appearance of a New Popery, and ſome other New Popery-Motives, not altogether ſo Sweet and Gentle, were not yet to be ſo far truſted with the Secret of this Affair, as to be told that they muſt conceal it from the World.
Theſe men, no doubt, could have wiſhed, that the Converts and we had kept their Counſel, and left them to be the Firſt Diſcoverers of it, after that happy Work was done every where, which they call Converſion. If they expected this, it was a vain preſumption. But whatever they imagined at firſt, they cannot endure to be told now, that the Trick was invented too late, and diſcovered too ſoon to do all thoſe Wonders, which they deſigned by it. And ſo much for the Vindication of the Diſtinction of Old and New Popery, by the Teſtimony of the Converts.
The Defender touched upon Monſieur Imbert's Story, which alſo clearly ſhewed the ſame Diſtinction going amongſt Romaniſts themſelves, before the De
The only Queſtion, as to the evidence of this Inſtance, is, whether Mr. Imbert was oppreſſed by his Dioceſan the Archbiſhop of Bourdeaux, for following Monſieur de Meaux's Expoſition, in declaring that not the Wood of the Croſs, but Jeſus Chriſt who ſuffered upon it, was
Good-Friday Service. The proof that has been made of this is ſo good, that the VindicaThe Biſhop tells of Extravagancies committed in the Church by Monſieur Imbert; and I ſuppoſe, if it were worth while, he could prove them to you. But, in Conſcience, was it not worth while to prove them, or at leaſt to name them, and to ſay what they were? Was it not Mr. Imbert, who, in his Letter to the Biſhop of Meaux, appealed to the Proceſs againſt him,
defied his Enemies to reproach him for his Life and Manners, or for any other Doctrine than that of his Lordſhip? Did he not publiſh a Factum of his Caſe all to the ſame purpoſe? And can any other reaſon be given why it is not confuted in the Face of the World, but becauſe it cannot? Sure I am, that if it could have been done, the Biſhop might with leſs pain have diſproved it, than it hath coſt him from time to time to ſhuffle it off, in which labour he has ſo viſibly added Inſincerity to Inſincerity. Can the Vindicator think, that it was not worth while for the Biſhop to defend his Reputation aImbert indeed is? But the Biſhop is now brought upon the Stage of the World for this matter, and I muſt tell his Vindicator, that Imbert being not only the Biſhops Inferior, but a man oppreſBourdeaux, the Biſhop of Meaux's Friend; the World does more undoubtedly believe, that he delivered nothing but plain Truth in his Factum, becauſe if he had in the leaſt ſwerved from it, he had thereby expoſed himſelf yet more to the power of that Greatneſs which oppreſs'd him, to add to his Sufferings now with ſome Colour of Juſtice. Whatever was at firſt inſinuated by the Biſhop, it now appears that Imbert was no Fool, unleſs in be
What ſhould I ſay more? the Vindicator himſelf has in effect acknowledged, that it was worth while to make the pretended Extravagancies, of the unfortunate Imbert appear: For he confeſſes that the ſevere ReflexiBourdeaux, are made juſtly enough if Imbert ſaid the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth: which is as much as to ſay, that it was worth while, to ſhew that the World ought not to think ſo ſeverely of the Archbiſhop, as it certainly would, if Imbert were believed. But the Vindicator's Conſequence is as abſurd as poſſible, that this will make unbyaſs'd perſons think that Imbert was not juſt in the delivery of the matter: For becauſe one Story is good till another is told, unbyaſs'd Perſons muſt think that Imbert was very juſt in the Relation; ſince it ſo nearly concerned the Archbiſhop to have it diſproved, and yet he never went about it. As for the Biſhop of Meaux, it concerned him much more, who has not only forſaken this poor Man, that ſuffers for nothing, but conforming to the Biſhops Expoſition, but has alſo endeavoured to take away his good Name; and without offering any colour of proof, has added Reproaches to his other Afflictions.
In ſhort, the Biſhop has, in all appearance, ſaid for himſelf what he is able: But the pretended Extravagancies are yet to be named; unleſs the Vindicator will inſiſt upon that, for which the Defender has brought Cardinal Capiſucchi, to acquit Monſieur Imbert and to condemn the Biſhop: Which I deſire the Reader to take ſpecial notice of in the Anſwer to the Biſhop of Meaux's Letter, p. 41.42. But I forbid the Vindicator
But the Vindicator was ſo ſenſible of the Evidence of Imbert's Story, that he thought fit to make an If of the main part of it, and ſo to ſpeak to the Suppoſition. If the Curate, ſaies he, cried out as Imbert accuſes him, The Wood, The Wood, he was as much in the wrong as your ſelf, meaning the Defender: That is, the Cuif the Archbiſhop of Bourdeaux cauſed Proceſs to be made againſt Imbert for crying out Not the Wood, but Jeſus Chriſt; then the Archbiſhop miCurate. And if the Biſhop of Meaux abetted the ArchImbert, he was more to blame than either the Curate or the Archbiſhop; not indeed for miſtaking, but for betraying the pretended Do
Now, not to enquire by what Authority the Vindiin the wrong, ſince the Archbiſhop of Bourdeaux thought Imbert to be in the wrong, and the Curate in the right: This at leaſt is enough for the Defender, that there are two ſorts of Popery amongſt them, as to this matter of adoring the Croſs: One, that of the Curate and the Archbiſhop; anoImbert and the Vindicator; between both which, the Biſhop of Meaux, hath, by this unhappy accident, been conſtrained to play faſt and looſe. Here, therefore, if I had the Repreſenters Talent, I
Calumny? Where is the Miſrepreſentation? Where is the Falſhood in charging the Church of Rome with two ſorts of Popery, when the matter of Fact is ſo evident, that Proceſs has been iſſued out by the Old Popery againſt the New in the Proceedings of the Archbiſhop againſt Imbert.
But the Vindicator ſaies, That the Curate was in the wrong, for crying out, The Wood, The Wood; and whatever the Biſhop of Meaux himſelf ſaies, his Expoſition muſt ſay what the Vindicator does. But now poor Imbert ſaid the ſame: And yet, tho they all agree in ſaying the ſame thing; ſuch is the hard Fate of ſome above others; the Biſhop and his Vindicator flouriſh and are applauded, for ſaying what Imbert ſaid; but Imbert ſuffers for ſaying no other thing than what the Biſhops Expoſition ſaid before him, and his Vindicator after him.
Upon which, no unbyaſs'd man can reflect, but he muſt acknowledge, not only that there is a New and an Old Popery amongſt them; but withal, That the New one is ſet up for nothing but to decoy us into the Old one. For let the Vindicator tell me, why Imbert has been ſo ſeverely treated for ſaying that the Curate was in the wrong, but that he ſeemed to be in good earneſt, and in truth, would not have the Wood to be Adored. And if others ſay the ſame thing, and are yet approved, what other reaſon can be given for the Difference, but that they are underſtood to be in Jeſt, as to the matter which they affirm, and in earneſt only, as to the end they aim at; which is, in good time, to make us Athe Wood, according to the ſtrain of Old and True Popery. The Expoſition was framed to catch Proteſtants: It was Imbert's miſtake, to think it deſign'd for the Reformation of Papiſts. For which reaſon,
Ranchin would be adviſed to have a care how he talks of the Expoſition being no leſs needful for the Inſtruction of the Catholics, than of the Re
The Defender ſaid, That Imbert's Caſe was enough to clear him from the Charge of Calumny and Falſification, in that Account he gave of their Good-Friday Service; and in Tranſlating thoſe words, Ecce Lignum Crucis, Venite Adoremus; Behold the Wood of the Croſs, come let us Adore It. For, ſays the DeCurate, but the Archbiſhop thought there was no Calumny in it: And he would not be ſo uncharitable as to wiſh the Vindicator the like ConImbert has met with. But ſince this Man goes on ſtill to cry Calumny and Falſification, I may without breach of Charity wiſh Monſieur Imbert out of Durance, and the Vindicator in his room, who without queſtion would get out again preſently.
The Vindicator ſays, That the Falſe Tranſlation is ſo manifeſt, that he needs not make any more words of it. I ſay, If there were nothing to juſtifie the Defender's Tranſlation, but the Antiphone it ſelf in its full length, that were enough. Behold the Wood of the Croſs, upon which the Saviour of the World did hang: Come, let us Adore. Adore what? It, ſays the Defender: Him, ſays the Vindicator. Now in Common Senſe the Quire invite one another to Adore that which the Prieſt ſhews them with a Behold. Surely he that ſhould ſay, Behold a Houſe by the Wood-ſide; come, let us go in: or, Behold a Dinner upon the Table; come, let us eat: or, Behold Virgil amongſt the Poets; come, let us read; would take it ill to be underſtood of any thing, but going into that Houſe, or eating of that Dinner, or reading of that Book. But if indeed
Wood which the People are called to Behold, but to him that ſuffered upon the Croſs, whom they cannot be
Once more therefore, and but once, the Reader ſhall by ſome part of the Rubric judge of the Mode
Afterwards, i. e. after thrice ſinging of the Antiphone, and the Proſtrations of all upon thrice ſhewing the Croſs, the Prieſt alone bears the Croſs to the place prepared for it, before the Altar, and kneeling he lays it there. By and by putting off his Shoes, he comes to ADORE THE CROSS, thrice bending his Knees before he kiſſes it.—After a while the Miniſters of the Altar, and then other Clerks and Laics, with thrice bended Knees, as was now ſaid, ADORE THE CROSS.
In the mean time, while the ADORATION OF THF CROSS is made, the Expoſtulations and other Hymns are ſung which follow, either all or ſome of them, as the greater or leſſer number of Adorers requireth. One of the Antiphones ſung in Common is that which begins, WE ADORE THY CROSS, O LORD. And to make all ſure, the Rubric that cloſes this Ceremony, and paſſes to other things, beTowards the end of the ADORATION OF
THE CROSS, the Candles are lighted upon the Altar, &c.
Yet ſays the Vindicator, Let us Adore IT, is a Falſe Tranſlation; nay, 'tis ſo manifeſt, that he needs not make any more words of it. That it is not Falſe as to the Senſe, is ſo manifeſt both by the Antiphone and the Rubric; nor as to the Words by the uſe of our Engliſh, which requires the repetition of the thing by a Pronoun, more than the Latin does: This, I ſay, is ſo manifeſt, that I will never make any more words about it with the Vindicator, or any one elſe in his behalf.
And this is the Old ſtanding Propery of the Roman Miſſal; by which any body may ſee, that the Curate had reaſon to cry out, The Wood, the Wood; and the Vindicator none, to ſay, that the Curate was in the wrong, unleſs by the help of that odious Diſtinction, which indeed will ſet all right: For the Curate was in the wrong as to New Popery, but very much in the right, with reſpect to the Old.
The Defender again juſtified his Diſtinction by The wholeſom Advices of the Bleſſed Virgin to her indiſcreet Worſhippers, and by the Fate which that Book met with. For thoſe Advices did not only of themſelves intimate that there were ſome in the Church of Rome who needed them, but by the Oppoſition that was made againſt it, they ſhewed too, that there were ſome Practices condemned there, which the prevailRoman Church could not bear the Condemnation of. The Vindicator indeed would make us believe,
not to anſwer for the Extravagancies condemned in thoſe Advices, beſhe has always taken care to inſtruct the People better. But he regards not what he ſays. I pray what care did ſhe take to inſtruct them better, when Monſieur
Widenfelt, who took a little honeſt Care about it, was ſerved as Father Craſſet aſſures us he was; when the Holy See condemned him, when Spain baniſhed him, and forbad the Reading and Printing of his Book; and in a word, when the Learned of all Nations were ſaid to condemn him; and all this but for adviſing the PeoScandalous Inſinuation, and ſays, that the Defender knows it to be ſuch, and talks as if he had proved it, without ſaying a word where he has done ſo. And yet Father Craſſet pubLa Veritable Devotion, &c. What ſhall we do with this Man, who grows rude when he has nothing to ſay to the Argument, and will then have us to ſpeak againſt our Conſciences, when he either does ſo himſelf, or talks of things without knowledge?
He ſays, the Defender has given us in another place, it may be thro forgetfulneſs, a ſhort Anſwer to this;
They who oppoſe that Book of wholeſom Advices, are not therefore Enemies to every one of thoſe Particulars.
But how is this an Anſwer to it? For they muſt oppoſe it for ſomething or other that M. de Meaux is bound to anſwer for. For M. Wid
alM. de Meaux does; and M. de Meaux would be thought to deny all that Widenfelt denies to her. When Craſſet is at leiſure to tell us what thoſe Particulars are, which he, and the Pope, and the Learned of all Nations do conviz. That Craſſet brings the
Ʋniverſal Church againſt the Expoſition of the Biſhop of Meaux: For I ſay it again, M. Widenfelt allows as much Honour to the Bleſſed Virgin, as the Biſhop's Expoſition does.
The Conſequence of all this is clear; if the Biſhop has expounded Popery to us, as they ſay he has; and if for all that the Biſhop's Expoſition be, as Father Craſſet aſſures us Widenfelt's Advices are, an Outrage to the whole Church; then of neceſſity there muſt be two Poperies among them, and theſe not only different from, but outrageouſly, contrary to one another.
And here I will take notice of the Vindicator's ExCraſſet's Teſtimony for an Old Popery. FaCraſſet, ſaies he, is again brought upon the Stage, for defending what he himſelf does not acknowledge to be an Article of our Faith, and therefore belongs not to what you call Popery at all.
This Man would fain ſay ſomething, if he knew what: Does nothing then belong to Popery at all, which Father Craſſet does not acknowledge to be an Article of Faith? I am ſomewhat ſure that Father Craſſet will not acknowledge it to be an Article of Faith, That no more Honour is to be given to the Virgin than what Mr. Widenfelt, or M. de Meaux allow to be given to her; nay, inſtead of defending, we are very ſure, that he has oppoſed that Doctrine. And does not the BiCatholic Faith, in this point, belong to Popery at all?
But letting this paſs at preſent, Fa. Craſſet defends in groſs what Widenfelt condemns, and does withal, defend it as the Doctrine of the Univerſal Church, to what he took Widenfelt's Book to be an Outrage. And if Craſſet believes what he defends, not only to belong to Popery, but to be the true and genuine Popery of the Church, this Man hurts himſelf, and not us, by doing all he can, to prove that Craſſet's Doctrine cannot belong to Popery at all. This is what we ſay, that ſome of them call that Popery, which others deny to be
Roman Church now, is by ſome others that we have to do with, rejected, as not belonging to Popery at all. Which makes good what the Defender ſaid, that 'tis not in our Calumnies, that this reflecting Diſtinction is to be found, but in the real diſagreement of thoſe of their own Communion.
But becauſe theſe Men are always flying to the Churches Sence, to make them and the Old Papiſts One, though all the World ſees that they are divided about this Queſtion, What is Popery? therefore the Defender was deſirous to know, what at laſt this thing called the Churches Sence is, and how we may come to the knowledge of it.
To both parts of this Queſtion, the Vindica
Firſt,
the Churches Sence in our Caſe, is that which ſhe delivers as a Doctrine of Faith, or a neceſſary Practice. I ſhould be too troubleſome to him, to ask upon this occaſion, what he ſhould mean by thoſe Words, In our caſe, and by ſome other Expreſſions that occur in the Interpretations of this Anſwer. I ſhall therefore take his Anſwer without any exception to it; that the Churches Sence, in our caſe, is what ſhe delivers as a Doctrine of Faith, or a neceſſary Practice.
But how ſhall we come to the knowledge of this Sence?
By the Voice of the Church, in her General and Approved Councils, and by her univerſally practiſing ſuch things as neceſſary; That is to ſay,
1. We are to know what ſhe delivers as a Doctrine of Faith, by her Voice in her General and Approved Councils.
2. We are to know what ſhe delivers as a neceſſary Practice, by her univerſally practiſing ſuch things as neceſſary.
This I take to be his meaning, and to theſe two Par
I. Where I deſire him not to take it ill, if I ask him one Queſtion or two, with ſome under Que
Whether there be no way to know what the Church delivers as a Doctrine of Faith, but by her Voice in her General and Approved Councils.
The reaſon of the Queſtion is this, Becauſe if there be another way, and if the Gentlemen of the Old Po
If the Vindicator then ſhould ſay, That tho the Church has a Sence of Doctrines of Faith out of Council; yet that Sence cannot, or at leaſt is never delivered but by her Voice in General Councils. Then I have one o
This Queſtion is, How the Churches Sence came to be known concerning Doctrines of Faith, be
General and Approved Councils delivered them for ſuch?
Which Queſtion will appear to be a very rea
1. Whether Doctrines of Faith be not the ſame now that they were from the Beginning?
2. Whether the Sence of the Church concerning theſe Doctrines has not been always the ſame?
3. Whether the Church therefore had not the ſame Sence of them, before they were delivered by her Voice in General and Approved Councils, that ſhe had afterwards? Or, Whether ſhe had one Sence, and de
4. If ſhe had the ſame Sence before it was ſo deli
This, I think, is plain enough; but if it be not, I will try to make it plainer. Therefore,
1. We ſay with the Romaniſt, That it is a Doctrine of Faith, that The Son is of the ſame Subſtance with the Father. But this Doctrine was never delivered in a GeNice; as it was impoſſible it ſhould, becauſe that was the Firſt General Council. I would know of the Vindicator, whether the Churches Sence concerning that Doctrine, was not to be known before, and how it was to be known?
2. The Romaniſts ſay, That 'tis a Doctrine of Faith, That in the Euchariſt, the Subſtance of the Bread, is turned into the Subſtance of Chriſt's Body, and the Subſtance
of the Wine into the Subſtance of his Blood. But this was never delivered in any pretended General and Approved Council, as we are very ſure, before the Council of Lateran, under Innocent III. I would know of the VinTranſubſtantiation before that Lateran Council, which 'tis ſaid to have had ſince? and whether that Sence of the Church was known? and if ſo, then how it was known?
I have given the Vindicator two Inſtances, One of a Doctrine of Faith, for which we contend no leſs than the Roman Church; and as we think, to better purof Faith, tho we ſay, it deſtroys All Faith; and theſe two in behalf of all that are Real, and of all that are by them pretended to be Doctrines of Faith. For till I am better informed by the Vindicator in anſwer to the foreſaid Queſtions, I ſay of all the Dodelivered her Sence of them, in the Voice of General and Approved Councils.
This I ſhall preſume, till he acquaints me otherwiſe; and if he does not yet underſtand which way theſe Queſtions drive, I will now tell him. Let him keep to his Principles, and ſhew me, by what way the Churches Sence came to be known concerning Doctrines of Faith, before they were delivered by the Voice of General and Approved Councils; and then let him leave it to me, to ſhew him by the ſame way, that Old Popery, as we call it, has been the Sence of the Church of Rome, till theſe expounding and repreſenting Days of ours: Nay, and that Father Craſſet ſhall prove by the ſame way, that it is now the Sence of the Roman Church,
And when I have done this, the Vindicator ſhall by me be never contradicted, while he on the other ſide proves the Senſe of the Church to be quite different from what Father Craſſet in his way proves to be ſo: For moſt undoubtedly he thereby does our Work for us, and enables us to prove, that there muſt of neOld Popery, and a New Popery.
Whereas therefore the Vindicator ſays, Till you can prove by the expreſs Words of a General Approved Council, that what you term Old Popery was delivered as a Doctrine of Faith— all you ſay will avail nothing. I would be glad to know what the Vindicator would have ſaid in behalf of Tranſubſtantiation, ſo ſome ſuch Man as Rabanus Maurus, or Bertram, or Berengarius, if he had lived in their Times, and they ſhould have ſaid to him, (tho I think in my Conſcience none of 'em would have talked ſo inſipidly) Till you can prove by the expreſs Words of a General Approved Council, that what you term the Catholic Faith concerning Chriſt's Preſence in the Euchariſt, was delivered as a Doctrine of Faith, all you ſay will avail nothing. Here I will not allow that the Vindicator ſhould bring in the Doctors and Saints of the Church, who might be pretended to bear Teſtimony to the Churches Senſe in this Point: For he has forecloſed himſelf as to this Relief, and that by giving the Defender a notable Reaſon, why all he can ſay will avail him nothing, if he brings not the expreſs Words of a Council. For, ſays he, you bring only the Sentiments of Private Men, which other Members of the ſame Church condemn.
I have urged this Matter further than I intended at firſt, for I meant not to preſs for Anſwers to the foregoing Queſtions with much Importunity. And now I ſay no more, than that I ſhall take it very kindly of the Vindicator, if he will pleaſe to admit theſe things into his Conſideration, and enlighten me with his Thoughts about them.
II. I proceed in the ſecond place to ſuppoſe a very ſtrange thing, for fear the Vindicator ſhould affirm it; and that is, That nothing is to be taken for the Senſe of the Church as to Doctrines of Faith, but what ſhe declares by her Voice in General Approved Councils. For if we take the Cauſe by this Handle, the DiſtinOld and New Popery will I believe go on as roundly as it did before: And ſome InconveniOdious Diſtinction between Old and New Popery.
Becauſe I would lead him fairly to the Buſineſs, I ask him in the Firſt place, Whether his Church hath delivered her Senſe concerning thoſe two Points, which he mentions upon this occaſion, by her Voice in General and Approved Councils, or whether ſhe has not? The two Points are the Doctrine of the Invocation of Saints, and the Doctrine of Worſhipping Images.
If ſhe has not done it, then in the Church of Rome there can be no Doctrine concerning theſe two things, which can be called a Doctrine of Faith. The Vin
And ſo I ask him in the Second place, Whether by the Doctrine which the Church delivers, he underWords put together, and not rathe Voice of the Church uſes, that is, which her General and Approved Councils have put together to expreſs their Meaning by? This is a Queſtion which the Vindicator muſt needs underſtand, becauſe I do in effect but borrow it of his Friends: For the like Queſtion has been ofRepreſenter, and, it may be, by himſelf, viz. Whether by the Scriptures we underſtand the Words or the Senſe? So ſay I, by the Doctrines of Faith which the Vindicator ſays are delivered by the Voice of the Church in her General Councils, Does he mean the Senſe, or the Words only of her Councils? I will for once anſwer for him, That he means the Senſe, which is contained under the Words.
I ask him therefore the Third time, Whether the Senſe of thoſe Wordswhat truly we ought to mean by Popery? If I may be bold to anſwer for him once more, he muſt needs grant it. For if the Churches Doctrine of Faith be the ſame with the Senſe of her General Councils; and if that which we ought to call Popery, and to mean by Popery, be the Churches Doctrine of Faith; it will go very hard if Popery be not the Senſe of her General Councils.
And now the Odious Diſtinction clears up apace, in going this way to work. For if that part of Popery which is made by Doctrines of Faith, be neither more nor leſs than the Senſe of General Councils concerning ſuch Doctrines as we Proteſtants diſclaim, it follows preſently, that the Senſe of thoſe Councils is what we ought to call Popery. And therefore,
1. I humbly conceive, that if there be two Parties
Rome, that are not agreed what the Senſe of her General Councils is, it follows out of hand, that ſo far they are not agreed about Popery; and that for this very good Reaſon, Becauſe the Senſe of her General Councils, and the Faith part of Po
2. It follows alſo, That in what Senſe ſoever either of thoſe Parties takes the Words of the Churches Councils, that Senſe is, and muſt neceſſarily be that Parties Popery; becauſe the Senſe of her Councils bePopery, that which is to one Party the Senſe of her Councils, muſt likewiſe be Popery to that Party.
3. If therefore one of thoſe Parties takes the Words of her Councils in one Senſe, and another takes the ſame Words in a contradictory Senſe; then becauſe the Senſe in which the former takes thoſe Words is the Popery of or to that Party, and the Senſe of the latter is its Popery; it unavoidably follows, that there are two pretended Poperies betwixt thoſe two Parties, which are inconſiſtent with one another.
4. If the Senſe of one of theſe Parties was that which prevailed without Controul ever ſince the Council of Trent, till very lately, and the Senſe of the other Party is therefore but of yeſterday; then of theſe two Poperies, the former muſt needs be the Old Popery, and the latter the New Popery.
5. So much Reaſon as we have to believe the Old Popery to be the true Senſe of the Churches Councils, rather than the New one; ſo much reaſon alſo we have to believe, that the Old Popery is the True Popery, and the New to be but an Impoſture, or a Miſtake of thoſe of the Roman Church that have of late brought it up.
6. And laſtly, If Proteſtants did not make thoſe different Senſes for them, but each Party in that Church made them for themſelves, then this DiſtinOld and a New Popery is no MiſrepreſentaPopery. Quod erat demonſtrandum.
But I think that Men were never put to it as we are, to make ſolemn proof of things that are ſo evi
The Council of Trent determines, That we are to fly to the Prayers, the Help, and the Aſſiſtance of the Saints. If we would know the Councils Senſe in this Matter, the Old ones will tell us, that the meaning is, we ſhould have recourſe to them for other Aids beſides their Prayers. And as one would verily take this for the meaning from the Conſtruction of the Words themſelves; ſo the Terms of Invoking the Saints which were then uſed in their Offices, and ſtill are ſo, do manifeſtly favour that Interpretation. But our New Expoſitors come and tell us, that they require no other Aid and Aſſiſtance from the Saints than their Prayers; and the Vindicator intimates, that if they did, we ſhould have ſomething to ſay againſt the Lawfulneſs of what they practiſe. If Popery therefore be not ſo much the Words of the Council, in which I acknowledge they all agree, as the Senſe of the Council, in which they do not agree, how is it poſ
Again, The Council of Trent affirms, That due Honour and Veneration is to be given to Images. And therefore what one Party in that Church takes to be that due Honour, is Popery to them, becauſe 'tis the
Due Honour and Veneration, had meant that Worſhip which was at that time given to Images in the Roman Church; which their Offices required, and for which their moſt celebrated Writers had conCapiſucchi does at this day earneſtly contend, and very fairly argues it againſt all Oppoſers, from the Words of the Council. But the Biſhop of Meaux, and the Repre&c.
That in preſence of Images reſpect is paid to the Perſons whom they repreſent; but Images themſelves are not to be worſhipped. No, God forbid; but only uſed to put us in mind of the Original.
Thus they explicate the Language, i. e. give us the Senſe of their Church in her Deciſions of Faith: But ſo, I dare ſay, as it was never explicated before.
However, if theſe Gentlemen believe the Senſe of the Council to be as they ſay, I wonder how it comes to paſs, that the Vindicator ſhould not acknowledge it to be Popery. For he muſt not forget, that PoCapiſucchi's, and thoſe of his way.
The Truth is, the Vindicator has given up the Cauſe; for by ſaying, that we bring only the private Sentiments of Men, which other Members of the ſame Church condemn, he confeſſes, that they do in theſe things condemn one another: Which perfectly acquits us from the charge of miſrepreſenting them, when we ſay, that there are two ſorts of Popery amongſt them; by which, we never meant any thing elſe, than that one Party of them, and that the greater, does earSenſe of their Councils, and their publick Offices op
As for his calling the Sentiments of the oppoſite ParPrivate Sentiments. If he means that they keep their Perſuaſions to themſelves, and do not trouble the Church with them; He is to know, that as the Men are not private, but of great Note and Authority in the R. Church, and the number of their Followers far more conſiderable than of theirs who condemn them; ſo their Sentiments are not private neither, but as publick as Diſputing for them, and cenſuring and puniſhing their Oppoſers, can make them.
But if I can underſtand him, by private Sentiments, he means, the Sentiments of Men out of Council; ſo that no meaſure is to be taken of the Doctrine of their Church, by what is delivered by ſuch Men, tho they be Biſhops or Cardinals, and their number never ſo great, and their Declarations never ſo publick and
private Sentiments of Men out of Council.
Why then muſt the Repreſenters, or the VindicaMeaux's Sentiprivate Sentiments of Men? For their Expoſitions have been neither made nor approved in General Councils. Muſt Cardinal Capiſucchi, the Archbiſhop of Bourdeaux, and Father Craſſet with his Holy Biſhops and Learned Doctors, nay, and with the Learned of all Nations, be ſaid to deliver only the Sentiments of private men; whileſt a few Teachers, that aroſe in this Age, whoſe Party is deſpicable, who labour under the marks of Inſincerity, whoſe Do
But if neither the one ſide nor the other ſide delivers the Senſe of the Church, Who knows what the Senſe of the Church is, and how ſhall I come by it? The Vindicator directs me to the Expreſs Words of General and Approved Councils. But then, I muſt needs ask him, Who is to be Judge of the Senſe of thoſe expreſs Words? I ſee expreſs Words indeed, and I am very apt to think that I do underſtand the Senſe of plain and expreſs Words. But if I may be allowed to underſtand expreſs Words, why can I not as well underſtand ſuch Words in the Scriptures, as in their Councils? For the Words of the Scripture ſeem to me to be very expreſRome. And here I have been told, that this is not the Senſe of the Scripture, but my private Senſe; that the
Dead Letter, till the Churches InterpretatiSenſe; that private Judgment is Fallible, and therefore not to be relied upon; that the ſame places ſeem to be expreſs to one Man for this thing, and to another Man for that thing; that ſo ma
Well, I ſubmit to the Church, and ask, Where, or by whom ſhe delivers her Sence concerning Doctrines of Faith? Anſ. By her Voice in her General and Approved Councils. But where is that Voice to be heard? Anſ. In the expreſs Words of thoſe Councils. I go therefore to thoſe Councils: God help them that can't. Here inexpreſs Words, if a Man could but tell how to come to the Senſe of them; for I thought my ſelf very ſure of the meaning of expreſs Words of Scripexpreſs Words, are but as expreſs Words in the Councils, as they are in the Scriptures. And if my Sence of ſuch Words in the Scripture, was but a private Sence before, my Sence alſo of ſuch Words in the Councils is no more now. And therefore if I muſt truſt to my own pri
For when all is done, the Churches Sence, accordSentiments of private Men; which this Man oppoſes to the Sence of the Church, to ſave his Church from two Poperies. For inſtance, if I go to Cardinal Capiſucchi and his Party, to ask them what the Churches Sence is, of that due Honour and Veneration that is to be given to Holy Images, they tell me, the very ſame that is given to the Perſons reSentiment of private Men. I go to ask the Biſhop of Meaux and his Party, and they cry, God forbid, the Church requires no ſuch thing. But I conceive his Sentiment is as private as the Cardinals; and ſo is every bodies elſe that I can ſpeak to; and, which is worſt of all, I muſt not judge between theſe different Parties, which of them ſpeaks the Churches Sence, becauſe I am that way Infallibly thrown upon my own Sentiments, which are as private as can be.
In this State, there being no Council ſitting, I have no living Judge upon Earth to help me, and I am ſure I muſt not be a living Judge for my ſelf; ſo that I have no Oracle to go to, but a few Dead Letters, which cannot ſpeak; and I have no reaſon to expect, whilſt I am doubting, whether the Words mean Capiſucchi's or De Meaux's Sence, that the Letters ſhould diſappear, and other Letters riſe in the room of them, and make Words plain enough to end the Diſpute. And thereſuſpend our Judgment, at leaſt, till the ſitting of the next General and Approved Council, that ſhall be calprivate Sence, and ſo to the Worlds end; till Councils have found
Words at all. There is, I confeſs, one way left to come to a certainty of the Churches Sence, if we had it, and but one; and that is, for every Body to be Infallible; for by the ſame reaſon that they would take us off from the Scriptures, we have not any ſecurity by Councils, unleſs we had an infallible Spi
Now after theſe Men have vilified the private uſe of the Scriptures, and have in effect, made nothing of them, for this Child of the Church to come now at laſt, in his diſtreſs, and make as little of General Countwo Poperies which are ſo notorious, he will allow nothing to be Popery but the very expreſs Words of their Councils? which indeed have a Sence, that this Man calls the Churches Sence; but then you are to ask no body what that Sence is: For whoever he is that you ask, he gives you but his own Sence, or his private Sentiment. And at this rate, I confeſs, it will be impoſſible to find out two Poperies in the Church; beChurches Sence. But then you will not be able to find ſo much as One Popeprivate Sentiments of Men; but who has had the good luck to reach it, the Lord knows; for 'tis a Happineſs, which no Man that has
two Poperies out of the Church, he has unawares thrown out all Popery, excepting that dead Popery that lies buried in the Words of General and approved Councils.
Thus ſpeaking of that which we Term Old Popery, and his Parties condemning it, he ſays,
So long as there is ſuch a Diſpute betwixt them whom the Church acknowledges to be her Children, and ſhe does not determine it, any one may hold which ſide they pleaſe as an Opinion, or ſuſpend their Judgment: but neither ſide is truly what you ought to mean by Popery.
So that 'tis neither Popery to worſhip Images with the ſame Worſhip that is due to what they reChildren of the Church may hold which ſide they pleaſe as an Opinion; they may with Cardinal Capiſucchi be of the opinion that M. de Meaux's Doctrine concerning due Honour and Veneration ſavours of Hereſie, and they may with M. de Meaux be of the Opinion, that Capiſucchi's Doctrine ſavours of Idolatry. And they that are of the former Opinion may yet with the Cardinal approve the Biſhops Expoſition; and they that are of the later Opinion, may with the Biſhop ſay, That the Cardinal in his Treatiſe about Images, had ſaid nothing in the whole that contradicteth the Biſhop. In ſhort, we may take Due Honour and Veneration, in this Senſe or in that Senſe, or in any Senſe wherein any of the Children of the Church underſtand it, or if you pleaſe, no Senſe whatſoever: For you may ſuſpend your Judgment. And if the Vindicator be in the right, that what he has ſaid in this caſe is applicable to all others;
Romiſh Church it ſelf.
I would have the Vindicator think of theſe things, and before he ſends us again to the expreſs Words of his General Councils, to conſider how his Friends have uſed the Scriptures, and us for making them the Rule of our Faith.
We do not pretend to find in expreſs Words of their General Councils, every thing which we call Old Popery; but we find it in the Profeſſion of the preRoman Church, and in its oppreſſing thoſe that ſeem in good earneſt to be of another mind. And as we may without blame call that Popery, or the Senſe of their Church, which themPopery ſeems to be the true and genuine PoPopery, the Vindicator calls the Defender a Miſrepreſenter;
Miſrepreſenter and a Calumniator too; a Miſrepreſenter, a Falſifier, and a Calumniator.
Thus he lays about him; without Fear or Wit, and hurts himſelf more than his Adverſary. For his bad Language does furniſh me with a Proof that there are Two Poperies amongſt them, which the dulleſt Ap
To take the Vindicator's Inſtance once more. Here in England I make bold to ſay, that worſhipping Imapreſence of their Images. I ſtand corrected, and deſire to know what Rule I am to go by in judging what Popery is in all other Doctrines, that I may not be miſtaken again as I was before. The Vindicator tells me, That what I can prove from the expreſs Words of the Churches Councils, and what they have Poſitively defined and declared, that is Popery as to Doctrines of Faith, and nothing elſe. Well, I am now furniſhed for a Journey into France, or Spain, or Italy, becauſe now I know what Popery is, as a Man ought to do that ventures into thoſe Parts. There, for inſtance, at Sevil, or at Bourdeaux, I am apt to talk as other fooliſh Men have done before me. Crucifixes, ſay I, are upon no account whatſoever to be honoured with Divine Worſhip. Images, ſay I, are not properly to be Worſhipped: No, God forbid. The Church requires it not, and ſo forth. But I ſoon find that this Engliſh Popery (for ſo I muſt now call it) does not agree with thoſe Climates, and that my Propoſitions are Heretical there, and ſince the Definition of the Council of Trent, intolerable. I pretend truly that I had my Popery from a Man that admits nothing for Popery but what is proved from the expreſs Words of Councils. They laugh at me, and aſſure me, that my Propoſitions are to be found in Councils, neither in expreſs Words, nor by any good Conſequence. I deſire to know if my Propoſitions be contrary to the expreſs Words of Councils. They tell me, that they
the Senſe of the Council of Trent; and I find, that unleſs I could ſhew where the CounPopery, I ſhall have but little comfort of inſiſting upon my Engliſh Rule, That nothing is Popery but what is expreſly defined in Council. For at Sevil I am forced to retract: my Propoſitions as Heretical, and at Bourdeaux I am Impriſoned; and becauſe I am not a Man of Renown, my Lord the Biſhop of Meaux will not break with his Friend the Archbiſhop for ſo ſmall a Matter as the Ruine of a Man of no Renown. And this I get by learning Popery from the Engliſh VindiFrench Expoſitor. Now if this be not as clear a Demonſtration of two Poperies as any Diffeis Popery here in England, I am a Miſrepreſenter, a Falſifier, and a Calumniator too. If I go into a warmer Sun, and ſay in the ſimplicity of my Heart, concerning the very ſame thing, that it is not Popery, there I am a Miſrepreſenter, a Falſifier, and a Calumniator too, for ſaying ſo: And, which is ſomeMiſrepreſenter, but they will uſe me like one too, or rather like an Heretic.
Now if on the other ſide a Man has but apprehenſion enough to underſtand when one thing contradicts another, as for example, that to ſay of a certain DoImage-Worſhip, That it is Popery, is a Contradiction to ſaying of the very ſame Doctrine, That it is not Popery, and that the contrary is Popery: And if, on the other ſide, he has ſenſe enough to unAquinas his Summs, and as full of Subtilty, to prove to the ſame Man, or to any Man elſe, that for all this there are not Two Poperies among Papiſts.
This of Image-Worſhip is the Caſe about which the Vindicator called the Defender all to naught; and concludes with this remarkable Saying: What I have ſaid in this Caſe, is applicable to all others. With all my heart, for ſo ſay I too; What I have ſaid in this Caſe, is applicable to all others; viz. where we pre
I ſhould now leave this Point, but that he ſtill inTrent, which concerns Reliques. I ſhall therefore once more go our Fallible way to work, to vindiexpreſs Words of the Council of Trent, that the Old Popery was to ſeek the Aid of Reliques.
The Council having eſtabliſhed the Invocation of Saints,
That the Holy Bodies of the Holy Martyrs, and of others who live with Chriſt, which were the Living Members of Chriſt, and the Temple of the Holy Ghoſt, and to be raiſed up by him to Eternal Life, and glorified, are to be venerated by the Faithful; by which many Bene
So that they who af
This is a Literal Tranſlation; and I ſay, That by THEIR Help we are to underſtand the Help of Reliques and other Monuments; not as the Vindicator would have it, of the Saints. To put ſome Colour upon his own Tranſlation, he inverted the Order of the Words as the Defender accuſed him, and he has ſaid nothing to it. But Their Help muſt be the Help of Reliques and Monuments, becauſe otherwiſe the Conſtruction of the Latin is Falſe, and againſt Rule. For had the Council meant what the Vindicator ſays, the Words muſt have run thus.
Or that thoſe and other Sacred Monuments are unprofitably honoured;
Saints, Their Memories are in vain frequented.
The Relative Eorum had this way been determined to the Saints; and ſo it had been placed, if that had been the meaning; becauſe otherwiſe Eorum would, according to the Rules of Latin Conſtruction, fall to the ſhare of Monumenta; and this tho Eorum does by chance agree in Number and Gender with Sanctorum that comes afterward; but which comes out of place
Eorum to be referred to it, becauſe this Relative had a very good Antecedent of its own beLatin Sentence according to true Latin ConſtructiLatin is every where elſe very good, and that Senſe which the Conſtruction makes, agrees with all that is in connexion. And, 1. it agrees very well with the mention of thoſe many Benefits which Reliques are ſaid to be the Means of. And, 2. It holds with the DifLatin, this ſhould carry it for ours, that here the Council was engaged in a new Matter, not for the Invocation of Saints, and the Benefits of that, which are provided for before; but for the Veneration of their Reliques, and the Benefits that come that way, which is the Buſineſs of this Period. And now the VindicaFalſe Tranſlator belongs, of a Falſifier, and a Calumniator too.
Certainly Controverſies about Religion were never diſgraced by ſuch mean Bickerings as theſe; but who can help it, that has to do with ſuch Men as this Vin
So much for knowing the Senſe of the Church by her Voice in her General and Approved Councils.
Again, We are to know what the Church delivers as a neceſſary Practice,
by her univerſally practiſing ſuch things as neceſſary. I ask therefore,
1. Did not the Church intend her Public Offices for Rules of
Ʋniverſal Practice? and are they not therefore one Means by which we are to judge of ſuch Practice?
2. Whether thoſe things are not neceſſary to be done in the Roman Church, which her Public Offices require?
3. Whether ſhe does not practice thoſe things as neceſſary, which ſhe practiſes in conformity to her own Public. Offices? or, Whether it be indifferent for the Children of the Church to obſerve her Rules, or to refuſe to obſerve them?
The Vindicator underſtood himſelf to be liable to theſe Queſtions; and therefore when he comes to ap
Ʋnleſs, ſays he, you can prove,—That what you term Old Powas delivered as a Practice neceſſary TO SALVATION, all you ſay will avail you nothing. For the Church is to anſwer for nothing which ſhe requires not as neceſſary to Salvation. And tho ſhe obliges all her Children to worſhip the Wood on Good-Friday, and condemns thoſe that refuſe, as Schiſmatics, as Imber
knows to his Coſt; yet 'tis not the Churches Senſe that they ſhould do ſo, becauſe the Rubric does not add that this is Neceſſary to Salvation. So that if the Church had commanded us to worſhip Moloch, that had not been Popery or the Churches Senſe, unleſs ſhe had inneceſſary to Salvation to worſhip Moloch.
In a word, The General Practice of the Church of Rome in the Service of the Virgin, the Invocation of Saints, and the Worſhip of Images, is notorious to the World. And no Man that knows the authorized Practice, can doubt of the Senſe of the Church, nor be ignorant that in theſe things the Biſhop of Meaux has delivered not the Churches Senſe, but his own, if indeed it be his own. The Defender produced an Author of the Roman Communion, who concluded that the true and only Means to free their Religion from the Exceptions of Heretics, was to ſhew that it does not tolerate any thing but what is Good, and that the Public Worſhip, the Cuſtoms and Doctrines Authorized in it, are Juſt and Holy. This Author had good Reaſon for what he ſaid, eſpecially againſt the Biſhop of Meaux, who imputed to the Pagan Religion thoſe Abuſes which were publicly committed amongſt them, and laughed at the Expoſitions of the Philoſophers, that would put a good Senſe upon their Abominable Worſhips. The Vindicator ſays, he admits the Parallel, but he is certain that it will never make any thing for us, till we can ſhew that the Church does or did make uſe of Racks and Gibbets, and all ſorts of Tortures, to oblige People to believe and practiſe thoſe things which we call Old Popery, as the Heathens did to make them worſhip Idols. That is to ſay, He does not admit the Parallel, tho he ſays he does admit it. For the Biſhop of Meaux was brought in charging Paganiſm with a Barbarous and Idolatrous Worſhip, upon the account of their Notorious and Authorized Practices, without regard to their Cruelties upon thoſe that refuſed to comply with them. And therefore if the Parallel be admitted, we may conclude an Old Popery from a like general Practice, without enquiring whether Racks and Gibbets,
all ſorts of Tortures were uſed to enforce it upon the people.
But the Vindicator has required a wiſe condition to make the Parallel hold; for he ſays in effect, that bePagans had ſome people to hang and to torture, Paganiſm could not be charged with a Corrupt and IOld Popery has not been behind hand with the uſe of Racks and Gibbets and all ſorts of Tortures; to ſpeak all in a word, it has had, and to this day it has an Inquiſition to uphold it.
As for what he ſays that the Defender muſt ſhew,
that the Church allows ſuch wicked Practices as correſpond to his Authors example of Killing and Robbing, and are as dangerous to the Church, as thoſe are to a State. I reOld Popery; but whether indeed they are to be charged upon the Church of Rome. And the Similitude was brought to ſhew, That it is to as little purpoſe to defend the Church of Rome againſt our exceptions, by pretending that no deciſion of Council can be pro
As for the danger of thoſe Doctrines and Practices, which we call Old Popery, 'tis another Queſtion, in which I am pretty confident, that Good Man the Repreſenter, is bound to appear. He and the Vindicator therefore ſhall agree about it, at their leiſure. I ſhall do my part to bring them fairly together, and ſo
The Vindicator felt himſelf born down with thoſe clear Teſtimonies of an Old Popery, which the Defenof the Church, but a Popery rather in the Church; and becauſe 'tis of ſo large a Spread, and is manifeſtly upheld by the Authority of the Great Ones; therefore ſome good Words were now to be given it, to ſave the Reputation of the Church; which elſe, will be in great danger of the Similitude of a City that permits to Rob and Kill without contradiction; or rather of a City, that rewards Robbers, and puniſhes Honeſt men.
Wherefore ſays the Vindicator, Every thing,
I hope that any one fancies to be ill, is not therefore to be reproved. And is it come to this at laſt? We had been in good hands, I ſee, if we had come into the Church of Rome upon the Repreſenters Terms. For was it not the Repreſenter, that ſaid, He would as ſoon be a T ƲRK as the Anſwerers Papiſt? Now the Anſwerers Papiſt was the Old Papiſt: And therefore it was noTurk as Our Papiſt. For one would at leaſt conclude from thence, that the Expounding and Repreſenting Party would have ſtood ſtoutly by us, if we had come in rejecting all that Popery, as we uſed to call it, which the Repreſenter had ſo bravely rejected. But if we had taken the Bait, had we not been finely angled up? For what ſays our Repreſenter's other ſelf, the VindiEvery thing, he hopes, that any one Fancies to be ill, is not therefore to be reproved. It ſeems then, that the Repreſenter did but fancy thoſe things
ill, which (not he in his miſrepreſenting ſide, but) the Anſwerer charged upon them as Popery: Or, ſhall we ſay, that theſe Men underſtand one another, and that he did not fanſie them to be ill, but for the preſent thought good to ſay however that they were monſtrous ill things; and that he would as ſoon be a Turk as the Anſwerers Papiſt? But I rather think, they did not lay their Heads together upon this Buſihe hopes that every thing that any one fanſies to be ill, is not therefore to be reproved.
But the Repreſenter has the leſs reaſon to be angry with our Vindicator, becauſe this Gentleman has made as bold with himſelf, as with his Friend. The Vindifanſied, that it was an ill thing to Worſhip the Image of our Saviour or the Holy Croſs with Divine Worſhip, upon any account whatſoever. But Cardinal Capiſucchi came in the way; and ſo every thing that the Vindicator himſelf fanſied to be ill, is not therefore to be reproved.
Nay, he was not content to let the Old Popery get up again, but he has been pleaſed to ſink the New one as much. For tho Cardinal Capiſucchi ſays ſo and ſo, yet ſeeing others of the ſame Communion reject this, and are NOT CENS ƲRED BY THE CHƲRCH; it plainly follows that his is not the neceſſary Doctrine of the Church.
And what he ſays in this caſe is applicable to all others. Alas for New Popery! for it declines apace;
True, Ancient, Standing Sence of the Church. And now the moſt that can be ſaid for it, is, that it is not cenſured by the Church. It ſeems then, that theſe Expounders and Repreſenters, are but a Tolerated Party: One ſtep more backwards, makes them not to be ſo much as Tolerated, and the next news we ſhall hear, is, that they are Intolerable. But, by the way, what Church does the Vindicator mean, by ſaying that he and his, are not cenſured by the Church? I fanſie he means, the Inviſible Church which cannot now be ſeen, becauſe no Council is ſitting. The Fathers that ſate at Trent, do not ſtart out of their Graves to declare theſe Gentlemen Heretically inclined; and the Books of the Council do not riſe up and fly in their Faces. For if we mind what the Authority of the now Living, and Viſible Church declares in this caſe, we ſee that they who reject this Old Popery, as we call it, are cenſured by the Church: and, to mention Imbert no more, the inAegidius Magiſtralis, Canon of Sevil in Spain, is a Conviction to the Vindicator of ſomething that I will not name. For he was forced to abjure theſe two Propoſitions as Heretical. 1. That the Images of Saints are not to be adored with the ſame Adoration with which the Prototypes are adored. 2. That the Croſs is to be worſhipped only with an Inferiour Adoration. This veCapiſucchi,
Caution and a Conviction to ſuch Men, as in good earneſt maintain our VindiCapiſucchi's Doctrine, and to ſay in the ſame breath, that they who reject it are not cenſured by the Church, is of a piece with his Sincerity every where elſe. Well, but let that paſs, and let us conſider what will come of this, if it be true, that they are not cenſured by the Church.
Repreſenter's Terms: For that which is not now cenſured by the Church, may in good time be cenſured by the Church. Perhaps you will ſay there is no reaſon to fear it: But in my mind there is; for, as I ſaid before, the Credit of this New Popery has ſunk extremely in a Month; for in truth the Vindicator has degraded it from being Popery, as we obſerved ſome time ſince. Now if it be not ſo much as Popery, it may in a little time grow to be Hereſie, and then the CenPopery: And ſo fare
The Repreſenter at firſt gave us a two-fold Character of Popery: One was of That Popery which the Papiſts own and profeſs, as appears in the Title Page of his Firſt Part. In his very firſt Article of Praying to Images, the Popery which the Papiſts own and profeſs amounts to this, That properly they do not ſo much as Honour Images, but only Chriſt and his Saints. This is the Popery of the Repreſenting ſide.
What now ſays the Vindicator? He very honeſtly acknowledges that there is a private Sentiment in the Church againſt this, that will have the Image of Chriſt worſhipped with the ſame Worſhip as Chriſt himſelf; and what does he conclude upon it? Why, that any one may hold which ſide they pleaſe as an Opinion, or ſuſpend their Judgment, but neither ſide is truly what you ought to mean by Popery. And therefore I conceive that if neither ſide be Popery, the Repreſenters ſide is not Popery, but a private Opinion, which the Church has not yet cenſured as the Vindicator ſays.
Now what the Vindicator ſaid in this Caſe, is applicable to all others; where the Anſwerer plainly ſhewed, that the Eminent and Leading Men of the R. Church were of a different Sentiment from the Repreſenter. Whereas therefore the Repreſenter either promiſed or threatned great matters in his Introduction: I'll endeavour, ſays he, to ſeparate theſe Calumnies and Scandals from what is REALLY THE FAITH AND DOCTRINE OF THE CH ƲRCH. I'll take off the Black and Dirt which has been thrown upon her, and ſet her forth in her GENƲINE Complexion.—I'll Repreſent a Papiſt whoſe Faith and Exerciſe of his Religion is according to the Direction and Command of the Church: The Vindicator has on the other hand knocked him down at one blow: For, ſays he, So long as the Church determines not the Diſpute, any one may hold which ſide they pleaſe as an opinion, but neither ſide is truly what you ought to mean by Popery.
This ſhews that I was not much out of the way, when I noted the great hazard of theſe Expounding and Re
Thus it happened, that the Repreſenter being preſſed by his Adverſaries, for not having fairly Repreſented Popery, was fain at laſt to make a Rule to know the Churches Senſe by, which might ſerve his turn; and what ſhould that be, but the Currant paſſing of his Book
amongſt Catholics: for this, he thinks, was enough to ſhew, that the Doctrine of it was Authentic.
But the Vindicator being preſſed with the Oppoſition that is made in the Roman Communion, to the DoExpoſition, and perceiving that Currant paſſing would not ſerve his turn, he, I ſay, comes out a Month after the Repreſenter, and will not allow any thing to make Doctrine Authentic, under the expreſs Words of a General Approved Council; and he has utCurrant paſſing, which he thought was enough to ſhew that his Doctrine was Authentic.
Nay, the unfortunate Vindicator has blown up the Expoſition of the Biſhop of Meaux, as well as the Characters of the Repreſenter; which indeed could not be avoided, becauſe one muſt neceſſarily follow the Fate of the other. For the Biſhop's Expoſition was ſolemnAn Expoſition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church in Matters of Controverſie; that is to ſay, An Expoſition of Popery. But the Biſhop has exCatholic Church, which other Members of the ſame Church condemn; and ſo long as the Diſpute remains undeterneither Side is truly what you ought to call Popery. And therefore the Biſhop ſhould have called his Book An Expoſition of his own Private Sentiment concerning the Doctrine of the Catholic Church: Thus, I ſay, he ſhould have called it, or elſe he ſhould have found out another Vindicator.
Nay, becauſe the greateſt Grace that his Doctrine ſeems now to have from the Church, is, That it is not cenſured by the Church: The Title ſhould have been a little more wary, by running thus: An Expoſition of the Biſhop's Private Sentiment, which the Church has not
yet cenſured, concerning the Doctrine of the Catholic Church.
But becauſe in truth the Living Church has begun to cenſure his Doctrine, and they who have cenſured it, are not cenſured for it: The Title ſhould have been yet more warily contrived, thus: An Expoſition of the Biſhop's Private Sentiment, which Sentiment is not contrary to the expreſs Words of a General Approved Council. Then perhaps the Vindicator might have done ſomething in diſcharge of the Duty of a Vindicator. But as the caſe ſtands, he ought henceforward to change his Name, and to write himſelf the Betrayer of the Biſhop of Meaux's Expoſition, but by no means the Vindicator of it.
Which himſelf ſo well underſtood, that he thought fit to paſs over all the Letter of the Defender to the Biſhop; and he gives this ſubſtantial Reaſon for it, Becauſe the Letter concerns not him, the Vindicator, nor the Doctrine of the Catholic Church which he is to vindicate. In good time! But the Letter ſorely conBiſhop, and the Doctrine of his Expoſition;
not concern the Vindicator, you are not to wonder at it, becauſe there have been great Changes of late, and now the Doctrine of the Biſhop's Expoſition is one thing, and the Doctrine of the Catholic Church is another.
I may without breach of Modeſty ſay, that hitherFull Reply. And I believe the Reader would be well ſatisfied that I ſhould drop him here, and leave his following Cavils to be confuted by any one that will take the pains to compare him and the Defender together. But then this would be a Pretence for another Book, and for ſome boaſting that he is not anſwered. A little there
1. By many of the Roman Caſuiſts allowing the Defamation of an Adverſary by falſe Accuſations, as the DeTable, it is ſo plain by the Book, that he meant no more than that they maintained it to be but a Venial Sin, that the Vindicator himſelf has not queſtioned it; and therefore it was a mere Cavil to tax the Defender of Falſifying in this buſineſs; tho to incourage the Vindicator to do well another time, thus much he is to be commended for, that he limiAllowing, which he found in the Table. This, Sir, as you here word it, is a Falſe Imputation. Even where he does ill, I am glad that he does no worſe. But to ſpeak to the thing, They that make one of the baſeſt things in nature to be but a Venial Sin, cannot reaNo Evil is to be done that Good may come of it; yet there are ſo many little ways amongſt them of clearbut Venial, it can be with no other deſign than to encourage men to it; and I think I may put it to the Vindicator, whether an Encouragement to ſin, be not equivalent to an Allowance of it. He grants the Pope condemned theſe Propoſitions, and ſeems to make ſome advantage of it, as if they were now neSupreme Paſtor has condemned them. But before he inſinuF.
what became of the Popes Brief to that purpoſe, in France; tho I believe there are ſome Fathers nearer hand that can inform him, if he knows it not already.
As for his endeavour to clear himſelf of denying what his Adverſary proved upon this occaſion,
2.
Defender far exceeds him in giving Obliging Titles, otherwiſe called Hard Words. The Defender put thoſe together which he complained of, and they are a pretty Company. The Vindicator refers us to the Defence from Pag. 49 to 54. to ſhew how he has been uſed: I have read over thoſe Pages, and I find the Defender there preparing himſelf to encounter Rudeneſs and Incivility Pag. 49. eſteeming it Ʋnchriſtian to return his Adverſaries Revilings, Pag. 50. ſhewing in him the marks of a Calumniating Spirit, and that he is an unfit Witneſs to be credited againſt an Adverſary, Pag. 51, &c. It ſeems he ſhould have ſaid that the VinComplemented the Vindicator, but I have ſpared him, and he ought to thank me for it; tho I do not much care whether he does or no, unleſs withal he intends to deſerve well for the time to come.
3. To his Cavil at the Defenders arguing that the Bp. of Meaux's We ſuppoſe, or as the Vindicator renWe believe, or as the French may be rendred, We eſteem, is no Argument of the truth of that Doctrine, which he ſo propounds: I reply, that the Defender did not thereupon infer, that the Biſhop had no oſees he cannot now deny that that was a Falſification, tho in Truth he would not alMiſtake, is to give us more and more reaſon to conclude that we muſt have done with theſe Men; for why ſhould a Man under reſtraint, go on to argue with another that feels none?
To his other Cavil, that the Defender brings in the Biſhop obſerving that St.
I reply, that the Defender by Paul concluded that Chriſt himſelf ought not to be any more offered, without putup to death for us.
Offering, meant offering to death, as he ſaid in his laſt Defence, and that without ſuch a Suppoſition his Argument was loſt. But of this the Vindicator would take no notice. I add, that there was no need of repeating thoſe Words that were oChriſt was ſpoken of before as a Victim offered for ſin. Nor was there any need of ſaying this, but that I do in my Conſcience believe, that we have to do with ſuch a Repreſenter and a Vindicator, as are not this day to be matched within the Lines of Communication: If we go any further, I think I know of One that will ſet 'em hard.
4. For what concerns the Tranſlation of the Biſhops Letter, it was certainly but juſt in the Defender to anſwer Mr. de Meaux's Senſe, and not his Tranſlators Blunders. But now for that wiſe Remark which the Vindicator has made upon that Paſſage, Pag. 11. he had done much more prudently to have conſidered what the Defender told him, That really he is not Maſter enough of the French Language to pretend to turn Critick in it, than to have given the World ſo evident a Demonſtration of it. Every one knows that is at all acCartons do not ſignifie
any Leaves, but ſuch Leaves as are put inCartons to a Book, is as the Detake out ſome Leaves and put in others in the room of them.
5. The Defender named thoſe Accuſations of the Vindicator againſt him, which he could not know to be true, and gave ſome Reaſons for ſaying ſo. But the Vindicator charging the Defender with the like, has neither given one Reaſon, or ſo much as one Inſtance.
As for this Mans accuſing the Defender, of things which he knew to be evidently Falſe; the Defender inFalſifying Cajetan upon the Queſtion of Extreme Ʋnction; tho it was moſt evident, that he had not falſified Cajetan, as he ſhewed in his Second Defence. Upon this the Vindicator declares in the Preſence of God,
— the Avenger of all wilful Crimes, That he never accuſed his Adverſary of any thing, but what he thought (nay had proved) him evidently guilty of: And he thinks he has now ſatisfied the World, that in that very inſtance, the Defender is a Falſiſier. And for this he refers in the Margin to his Letter to the Author of the Diſcourſe concerning Extreme Ʋnction. Well, the firſt uſe I make of this, is to Adore the Mercy and Patience of the Great God to whom this Man has appealed: I lay no ſtreſs at preſent upon the obvious right in this matter; but as far as I can recollect, he could not but have ſeen that Authors Anſwer to his Letter, before this Full Anſwer of his came out of the Preſs. And then, the Lord have mercy upon him. One thing I am ſure of, that he either wants that Conſcience or that UnderCajetan.
6.
Scandalous Reflections upon the Church of England, he refers us for a proof of whatever he has ſaid, to a late Book called Good Advice to the Pulpits; which if it does prove thoſe things againſt us, which it pretends to do, does not yet juſtifie one quarter of that Reviling which he has diſcharged aalone is enough to make our Party aſhamed, I muſt tell him that his Boaſt is a little unſeaſonable, ſince his Party may have in a little time ſome cauſe to be aſhamed of the Book; and the Vindicator in particular, for having boaſted of it. I have a ſtrong Fanſie that the Good Advice is the Repreſenter's own: But the Vindicator's good Words of it, will not, I gueſs, make amends for undoing the Repreſenter in his main Chance.
7. For that Parallel which the Defender required to the account of things in Q. Elizabeths time, for which Dr. Heylin is quoted; this Man ſays no more than to this purpoſe, That if it were not for ſome hot-headed Spirits, theſe brangles about Religion might be ended. Which is as much as to ſay, that he inNonſence of the Application of Heylin's Account.
8. As to his being a Spy upon the Defender, his Vindication of himſelf, is the very Maſter-piece of his Anſwer: For no Man that cloſely attends to his Words, can tell whether he denies or confeſſes it; tho to a
If I reflected upon your preaching, it was from meer report (but he might be at Church, when he did not reflect upon the Defenders preaching) for I aſſure you, Sir, what you were told of my being ſometimes a part of your Auditory, is like many other Stories which you abound with in all your Writings, I ſuppoſe too from hear-ſay. But if the Defender were not told of it, but ſaw him at Church, then this comes not within the Caſe, beHear-ſay, but from Eyeſight. Again, if the Defender were told of it, then indeed he had it from Hear-ſay, but he might hear the Truth for all that. The Vindicator was afraid of Proof, and I adviſe him to be ſo ſtill. That which follows is juſt ſuch another pleaſant Strain; it concerns the Sunday Night Conferences; but the Reader ſhall go for that himſelf, as he likes the other.
But whereas upon this occaſion of the Defenders Preaching, he bids him ask his Conſcience, Whether they who acknowledge only One God whom they muſt adore can be guilty of ſuch a Horrid Crime, as to give Divine Worſhip to Saints? I have asked the Defender about it, who has alſo asked his Conſcience, and in the name of his Conſcience, he ſays, That they may be guilty of that Horrid Crime. And more then that, he intends to give theſe Men ſuch Reaſons for his Concluſion, as he is in his Conſcience perſuaded, cannot be fairly anſwered. In the mean time, I will give the Vindicator a Queſtion for his Queſtion, and deſire him to put it to his own Conſcience, Whe
And then let him uſe a little Con
9. For what next follows, That he would not be thought to have abuſed the Defender's Auditory; that the Defender had better give up the Cauſe; that he gave ill Language and juſtified it; that he believes every idle Report of the Biſhop of Meaux,
Vindication; and his explaining of the Word Reveries; this ſhall all paſs off quietly.
10. And ſo ſhould his next Reflexion too, but that he is ſo warm upon it, that he muſt not be neglected. The Defender had affirmed thoſe Expreſſions of St. Germane, St. Anſelm, and the reſt of 'em, concernCraſſet had tranſcribed, to be horrid Blaſphemies. This the Vindicator could not enCraſſet, and left the Reader to judge. What now ſays the Vindicator? Why truly he knew not well what to ſay: To confeſs plainly that they were Blaſphemies, would be to vindicate the Defender: To deHad you only ſaid that Father Craſſet had collected ſuch Paſſages from thoſe great Saints, as if taken in that ſtrict and dogmatical ſenſe he brought them for, might be called Blaſphemies, that Father muſt only have anſwered for them. This Man has a notable Gift of Speaking, and ſaying nothing, which does him great ſervice at a pinch. He does not ſay, That if thoſe Paſſages were taken in that ſtrict and dogmatical ſenſe for which Craſſet brought them, then they might
Blaſphemies; for this had been to bring FaCraſſet upon his back, with all thoſe great Saints, which Craſſet had already raiſed up againſt Widenfelt. And yet he does not ſay, That if the Defender had ſaid what he ſuppoſes for him, that Father Craſſet could have brought himſelf off: No, he anſwers more wathat Father muſt only have anſwered for them; which, it may be, he could, and it may be, he could not. Now here he ſhould have ended: For Craſſet may take himſelf to be ſacrificed in what follows. But to lay them to thoſe Holy Saints Charges, to call them Superſtitious Men, their Expreſſions horrid Blaſphemies, — is what truly pious Ears cannot hear without Indignation. For Father Craſſet is in an ill caſe, if to lay the Holy Saints Expreſſions in Craſſet's ſenſe, to the charge of the Holy Saints, be what truly pious Ears cannot hear without Indignation. But I beg the Vindicator's ParCraſſet may be brought off again, or rather the Vindicator. For perhaps that which pious Ears cannot hear, is not every Particular by it ſelf, but altogether; i. e. pious Ears may hear thoſe Paſſages laid to the charges of the Saints, even in Craſſet's ſenſe; but that therefore thoſe Saints ſhould be called Superſtitious Men, and their Expreſſions Horrid Blaſphemies, as they were, not by Craſſet, but by the Defender; this is what truly pious Ears cannot hear without Indignation.
Now after all this dexterity, he has not offered to ſhew that thoſe Paſſages which the Defender produced are not horrid Blaſphemies, or that they are capable of a good ſenſe. If the Reader has forgot them, he may go to the Defender for them, p. 89, 90, &c. and then he will be ſatisfied that all this ſhuffling comes to no more than this; that the Vindicator cannot bear any
Great and Holy Saints; but his pious Ears can hear Expreſblaſphemouſly reflect upon Almighty God, without any Indignation at all.
11. The Defender produced thoſe Prayers and Ceremonies in the Conſecration of a Croſs, which to him ſeemed to be Magical Incantations rather than Prayers. The Vindicator, to be even with him, ſays, That we uſe the like Prayers and Ceremonies in the Conſecration of Churches and Chappels. Now if we do, then I for my part will ſay, That our Prayers upon that Occaſion look more like Magical Incantations than Prayers. But why did not the Vindicator produce the like Prayers to thoſe which the Defender produced? Will any Man think that his good Nature would not ſuffer him to ſhame us ſo grievouſly? Or does the Vindicator think that he is of ſuch Credit, that his Word muſt be taken for any thing he ſays? He refers indeed to Sparrow's Collection of Canons, p. 375. But why not a few Lines tranſcribed from thence, to match the Defender's particular Allegations? Even becauſe the Place would not afford them. I grant, that we ſet Perſons and Places too apart for the Service of our Maker, by Prayer and Ceremony. But do we pray that the Stones of the Church may be a ſaving Remedy to Mankind, as they do that the Wood of the Croſs may be ſo? Do we pretend to derive any Virtue upon them, which is afterwards to be derived from them; or that by the Holineſs of our Churches we may be redeemed from Sin, as they hope to be by the Merits of a Conſecrated Croſs; for ſo they pray at the ConMagical Incantation: But for which he cannot find an appearance of a Parallel amongſt us,
Exorciſing, and for which he has ſaid never a word; and it had not been the worſe for him, if he had ſaid as little for the pious and ſignificant Ceremonies of his Church in the Conſecration of Croſſes.
12. He ſays, The Guide in Controverſie remains unhe ſhould have told us whether 'tis worth anſwering in particular or no, when all that is ſaid in it, is obviated in many Treatiſes; tho I am very conGuide in Controverſie have been anſwered, and the very Foundations of it overStilling fleet's Second Diſcourſe in Vindication of the Proteſtant Grounds of Faith, &c. in anſwer to the Guide in Controverſies by R. H. Imprimatur Sam. Parker. April 15. 1673. Again, the Fourth Diſcourſe in the Second Edition ſet forth 1673, is anſwered in The Difference between the Proteſtant and Socinian Methods, publiſhed about a Year ſince. And the Fifth Diſcourſe in Vindication of the Council of Trent, was anſwered in the Second Part of the Neceſſity of Reformation. To which we have had no Return. And we think our ſelves to be upon equal Terms at leaſt with our Adverſaries, as to this very Book. But, 2. For what wants a particular Anſwer, I am apt to think that this unſeaſonable Boaſt of the Vindicator will prove an Occaſion of depriving his Party even of that little thing they have to ſay in this kind; and therefore they will tell him, I doubt, that he menThat they may be attacked as the other Diſcourſes of the ſame
Author lately publiſhed at Oxford, with the like Misfortune: I reply, That hitherto the Anſwers have had the fortune to remain without any Returns; which if it be a Misfortune to the Authors, 'tis for this only Reaſon that I can think of, That the oftner our Ad