and which were put into the Misrepresenting Side to be taken off again in the Representing Side they are not matters of Representation but of Dispute To this purpose the Answerer argues leaving the Representer to apply these plain things to his Protestation against Protestant Popery which amounts to thus much That it could never enter into him that there should be any room for Popery in Heaven and that he would as soon be a Turk as a Papist if he thought as ill of the confessed Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome as we do Which would be a wise Speech no doubt tho we hope a true one For the rest P. 3. he saies That his Title related only to his own Book and the Book to the Character of a Papist Misrepresented and therefore 't is hard that he must be drawn in to answer for more than he knows even for all that any Protestant may have said concerning Popery since the Reformation and he thinks it strange that the Representer instead of defending his own Characters should hunt about for new Misrepresentations for him to Answer For since he has allowed the Distinction between matters of Representation and Dispute and can find no fault with his Adversaries performance about it it should seem we are agreed upon the Representation of Popery now at last P. 4. and therefore unless he were ashamed of his own Popery now we had clearly found it why should he divert from that to new complaints of their being Misrepresented by others The Answerer however was resolved to see what occasion there was for this fresh complaint 1. And he shews P. 5 6 7 8 9. That if what was transcribed out of the foresaid Archbishop of York 's Book be Misrepresentation it is not a Protestant but a Popish Misrepresentation For the Archbishop cites his Authors for what he saies tho the Representer left them out And this the Answerer thought good to shew from point to point And concludes That tho every Doctrine found in Popish Authors ought not presently to he accounted an Article of the Romish Faith yet a Church so watchful to purge expunge and censure in all Cases where her Interest is concern'd is Responsible for those Doctrines which have her Toleration and License and which any man among them is allowed to Teach and to Believe As for Dr. Beard and Mr. Sutcliff he saies P. 10 11 12 13. Those Sayings do not concern Representing but Disputing and that the Representer had unfaithfully concealed either their Authorities or their Reasons which had made the thing plain or curtail'd their sayings as he shews by several Instances out of Mr. Sutcliff but that when such Consequences are charged upon Popery it is more to the purpose to Confute them than to complain of Misrepresentation Finally As to the Book of Homilies those things which he hath taken out of it as the Answerer tells him P. 14. do no more than shew the Judgment of our Church about the Worship of Saints and Images in the Church of Rome in which he cannot prove us to be Misrepresenters otherwise than by confuting our Arguments which yet would but shew that we make a wrong Judgment in a matter of Dispute not that we Misrepresent a matter of Fact Upon this the Answerer shews That Papists protess and practice the same things that ever they did and that all this grievous cry of Misrepresenting is grounded upon nothing else but a Protestation That they do not believe those ill things of their own Doctrine and Practice which we do P. 15 16. which altho it be a new business yet there was no Reason for it since we never said they did In the mean time the Cause is the same that ever it was which is a sufficient Answer to all that he saies of Protestants and Papists shaking hands c. And whereas he makes the distinction between Representation and Dispute to be a speculation above the Vulgar and so was not to be regarded by him who drew the Character of a Papist as it lay in the peoples heads The Answerer thinks That he who undertakes to make Characters is bound to consider what belongs to it and withal P. 17 18 19. That our people are not so silly as to think for instance that Papists believe the Worship of Images to be Idolatry or that Idolatry is lawful because they Worship Images but that if he wrote his Characters for the Information of such Vulgar Heads P. 20. as he fancies he wrote to inform those that can neither write nor read 2. As to his Representing That he did it not by a private Spirit since he followed the Catechism the Answerer had reason to ask Whether the Catechism may not be interpreted by a private Spirit as well as the Council since their Divines differ in Interpretation of both and as for the Popes Approbation P. 21. he said that Bellarmine's Controversies had it as well as the Bishop of Condom's Exposition to which the Representer would say nothing and he now says That by Canus his Rule the said Bishops Exposition has not the Authority of the Apostolick See unless the Pope had given Judgment for it ex Cathedra P. 22. which the Representer also would take no notice of But what he says further concerning the Nature and Design of the Approbations given to the Bishop of Condom I shall wholly pass over since it is by this time somewhat plain that this Bishops Authority has enough to do to shift for it self and is not in a Condition to spare any help to his Friends As to the limitation of the Aid of the Saints to their Prayers he acknowledges that it is to be found in the Bishop of Condom P. 118. though he missed it because it came not in in the right place But whereas the Representer justifies his renouncing the Popes Personal Infallibility and the Deposing Doctrine by the Authority of the said Bishop the Answerer plainly shews the Bishops great Judgment in having ordered Matters so as to save himself both with Protestants and with the Pope To the Representers Second Invitation he answers by making this Proposal Whether their Church would refuse him admittance P. 15. if he should come in upon Bellarmine's terms in these Points which contradict the Representer's though there be no reason for this Dispute since as he said before P. 16. he likes not the Roman Faith as the Representer has described it Now to his Replies in behalf of the Deposing Doctrine being no Article of Faith the Answerer says 1. That whereas the Representer would prove it was not so because no Anathema was fixed to the Decree it is something strange that he should now be content to say Every thing is not an Article of Faith which is declared without an Anathema for this is next to a downright Concession that his Adversary had baffled his Argument and shews manifestly that he
Consciences c. 2. Whereas the Answerer excepted against his Representing Part wherein he pretends to keep to a Rule That the Representer shewed no Authority that he a private Man had to interpret the Rule in his own Sense against the Judgment of Great Divines as in the Question of the Popes Personal Infallibility and against the Determinations of Popes and Councils as in the Question concerning the Deposing Power The Representer replies That he followed the Council of Trent P. 5 6. which he does not interpret but takes in the Sense of the Catechism That he also kept to Veron's Rule of Faith and to the Bishop of Condom's Exposition so highly approved by Pope and Cardinals c. As to the Instances having first ran to the Book for two more he comes back with them to the two that were mentioned and replies 1. That whereas he limited the power of the Saints to help us to their prayers he followed the Council and the Catechism P. 7 8. 2. and the Bishop of Condom That he did not qualifie the Doctrine of Merit without Authority since it is so qualified by Trid. Sess 6. Can. 26. 3. That the Popes Personal Infallibility is not determined by a General Council 4 That the Deposing Power was never established under an Anathema as a Doctrinal Point P. 9 10. and those two are therefore no Articles of Faith 3. He makes these Reflections upon the Answerers proceeding in the Book That he either 1. owns part of the Representers Doctrine to be the established Belief of the Church of England P. 11. Or 2. Does without good Reason deny part of it to be the Doctrine of the Roman Church appealing from the Definitions of their Councils and sense of their Church either to some Expressions found in old Mass-Books and Rituals c. Or to some external Actions in case of Respect shewn to Images and Saints as Bowing Kneeling c. Or finally P. 12. to private Authors P. 13 14. Upon which follows a grievous Complaint of Misrepresenting upon the last account 4. From hence he goes back to the Answer to the Introduction where he was charged for saying That the Popes Orders are to be obeyed whether he be infallible or not P. 15 16. From whence it follows That Papists are bound to Act when the Pope shall require it according to the Deposing Power He replies That he gives no more to the Pope than to Civil Soveraigns whose Authority is not so absolute and unconfined but to some of their Decrees there may be just exception 5. From hence he flings again into the middle of the Book P. 16. and blames the Answerer for scouting amongst the School-men till the Question about Dispensations to Lye or Forswear was lost and that he offered no proof That the Dispensing Power was to be kept up as a Mystery and not used but upon weighty Causes Then he leaps into the Chapter of Purgatory P. 17. and affirms That St. Perpetua's Vision is not the Foundation of Purgatory P. 18. but only used by him as a Marginal Citation amongst many others Then a Complaint of Misrepresentation again and because Complaints are not likely to convince us Let us says he depend upon an Experience P. 19. Do but give your Assent to those Articles of Faith in the very Form and Manner as I have stated them in the Character of a Papist Represented and if you are not admitted into our Communion I 'le confess that I have abused the World Thus far the Reflections It is now time to compare Things and to see how much of the Cause is left standing I pass it by that the Answer to the Introduction See for this Answ to Pap. Protest p. 128. upon which the Representer spent his main Strength is in many most material Points untouch'd by the Reflections But this is a small Matter For 1. He has dropt the defence of his Double Characters his Representations and Misrepresentations For instead of going on with his Adversary in those Thirty Seven Points with which himself led the way he does nothing but nibble about Three or Four of them and that without taking notice of the tenth part of what was said by his Adversary to fix the true state of the Controversie even about them He has indeed thrown about four Loose General Exceptions amongst the Thirty Seven Chapters in which the Answerer Represented the several Doctrines and Practises of the Church of Rome but he has not with any one of these Exceptions come up fairly to what the Answerer has said upon any one particular Point And therefore I add 2. That for any thing our Representer has done to shew the contrary the Answerer has truly Represented the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome And then we have great Encouragement to turn Papists since the Representer tells us That if the Answerer has truly Represented the Doctrines of the Church of Rome He the Representer would as soon be a Turk as a Papist 3. He has absolutely dropt the defence of all his own Arguments not so much as pretending to shew where the Answers went upon a wrong State of the Question no nor trying to reinforce his Arguments where the State of the Controversie was agreed upon on both sides So that for ought I can see the Representer fell sick of his Thirty Seven Chapters all at once both as to matter of Representation and Dispute And this I think was pretty well for the First Reply The Second Answer to the Representer being a Reply to His Reflections BUT we are to thank the Reflections for one good Thing and that is for the Answer which they drew from another Learned Hand under the Title of a Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants In which I shall make bold to leave out several Material Points which the Answerer offered too Consideration and take notice of no more than what I think may serve to shew with what Sincerity on the One Side and Insincerity on the Other this Controversie has been managed Wherefore 1. Whereas the Representer chose to justify his complaints of Misrepresentation not by taking the first Answerers Representations into examination but by referring us to other Books and to Sutcliff's sharp censures of Popery The second Answerer consider'd that the Representer called the Censures which Protestants puts upon the Avowed Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome Misrepresentations which was in the first Book discernible enough and spoken of in the Answer to it but was so grosly owned in his second Book that no man could now doubt of it For he made his Answerer guilty of Misrepresentation for saying That we cannot yield to that Popery which the Representer himself allows without betraying the Truth c. A Papist not Misrepr p. 4. This Answer therefore blames him for putting into the Protestant Representations of Popery those faults which we find and those ill consequences which
we charge upon Popery as if we would make the World believe that Papists think as ill of what themselves profess and practice P. 5. as we do And much more for putting these consequences as owned by Papists in the Front of the Protestant Characters of them as if we pretended they were the First Principles of Popery As for the Doctrines and Practises of the Roman Church which we charge them with the Representer generally owned them but he disowned as he easily might the belief of those Consequences and Interpretations which we charge upon them And therefore his putting them into the Protestant Characters of a Papist was his own Artifice of laying the fouler colours upon Popery on the one side that it might look the fairer when he took them off on the other Now to prevent these Deceits for the future this Answer goes through the Thirty seven Articles again P. 6. to p. 40. to shew under each Head what we charge upon them as their Doctrines and Practises which is properly matter of Representation And likewise what we charge upon such Doctrines and Practises which is properly matter of Dispute By the confounding of which two things the Representer had made a colour for his unjust complaints of Misrepresentation 2. Whereas he pretended that he never delivered his own private sense and opinion in Representing a Papist P. 44 45. the Answerer replies that he certainly does so when he determines concerning Questions which are disputed among themselves whether they be Articles of Faith or not and that the Catechism may be interpreted by a private spirit as well as the Council That Veron's Rule had no more Authority than the Representer's Characters That Bellarmines Controversies had attestation from the Pope as well as the Bishop of Condom's Exposition And that Canus himself who is referred to by the Representer acknowledges that the Popes approbation is not always to be accounted the judgment of the Apostolick See As to the Instances The Answerer shews P. 45 46. I. Of his limitting the Power of the Saints to their Prayers That no such limitation of their Aid and Assistance is to be found in the Council That the Representer would take no notice of what his first Answerer had said to shew that no such limitation was intended in the Council or the Catechism And that he did not find this limitation in the Bishop of Condom P. 12 13. 2. Of Merit That the Twenty sixth Canon of the sixth Session mentions nothing of it and that it is clear from Chap. 16. of that Session That they make Good works truly and properly meritorious of Eternal Life tho they grant the Grace of God and the Merits of Christ to be the cause of their own Merits Finally That the Answerer did not Appeal to the Thirty second Canon to oppose the Representer's Qualification of the Doctrine of Merit P. 46. P. 47 48. and was therefore unconcern'd in his defence of it 3. As to the Pope's Personal Infallibility That he denies it to be of Faith and makes it but a School point whilest there are as many who deny it to be a School point and make it a matter of their Faith That the want of positive Determination by a General Council does not prove it to be no matter of Faith because neither the Infallibility of a General Council nor of the Church is positively determined by a General Council That if Infallibility must be somewhere amongst them they have the best Reason that place it in the Pope 4. As to the deposing Doctrine P. 49. the Answerer shewed largely and clearly That Articles of Faith may be and have been decreed without Anathema's That the deposing Decree includes a Doctrinal point P. 54. P. 56. That if it were meerly a point of Discipline and Government they must either acknowledg it Lawful for the Church to depose Heretical Princes or consent that the Church is not secured from making wicked Decrees in things that concern the whole Christian World That when the Representer says That some Decrees of Trent are not universally received he does not tell us that the Council had no Authority to make them and to oblige Princes to receive them And lastly That the Pope's letting so many asserters of the No-deposing Power to pass without any censure of Heresy P. 57. does not argue a change of their Doctrine but only of the Times 3. To the Representer's Reflections upon the Answerer's way of proceeding as that 1. He owns in some part the Representer's Doctrine to be the established Doctrine of the Church of England The second Answerer charges him with foul Misrepresentation upon this account in as much as the first Answerer owned nothing which is peculiar to the Faith of a Papist as distinguished from thr common Faith of Christians and that the Representer might as well have said P. 59 60 61. That because Protestants own that Christ is to be worshipped therefore they in part own the Doctrine of the Church of Rome That Christ is to be worshipped by Images And this he shewed to be the very case in every one of those six or seven Points which the Representer only named but did not think fit to insist upon to shew how his Reflection was applicable to them 2. And that the first Answerer appealed from the definitions of their Church c. 1. To some Expositions found in old Mass-Books and Rituals P. 62. This Answerer says that he could find but one Instance of this relating to the Worship of the Virgin Mary viz. that scandalous Hymn O Felix Puerpera c. But that their Church is accountable for her old Missals which were the allowed and established Offices of Worship That even this has never been condemned but that Monsieur Widenfelts Book was condemned at Rome which was writ to bring the people to a bare Ora pro Nobis P. 63. to the Blessed Virgin 2. To some external Action as in case of respect shewn to Images and Saints To this the Answerer says That the Representer brings in this Exception without taking the least notice of what his first Adversary said concerning external Adoration P. 63 64. That it is a part of Divine Worship and that the Council of Trent requires it should be given to Images He shews further That since there is such a thing as external and visible Idolatry an Idolatrous action is nevertheless such P. 65. for the intention of him that is guilty of it not to commit Idolatry P. 66. That the worship of the Invisible Inhabitants of the other World tho with such external acts as may be paid to creatures has always been accounted Religious Worship That as the Degrees of Civil honour are distinguish'd by the sight of the Object So one certain distinction between Civil and Religious is P. 67. that the worship of an Invisible Object is always Religious and that to Worship