a very weak Inference of Sutcliff'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 Instances of our misrepresenting 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 amaz'd that considering how much has been written against the Errors of the Church of Rome 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 no more than he did for a colour to accuse us of the contrary But what do we think the Representer concludes in another place from the Answerer's declaring before-hand that he will not be answerable for every thing that has been said or done in opposition to Popery Why Pref. p. 26. says he 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 Protestants have been very honest and careful as to this business of Representing or surely we should have had one or two clear Instances of the contrary from this good Friend of ours unless we should say 't is all one to him whether his Instances be good or bad because he has a certain quality that will make them do whether they will or not Which I believe will be acknowledged by every one that considers those words of his which immediately follow If 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 abetting any Man's Mispresentations 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 business but surely he was as much beside himself as sometimes I would for Charity sake imagine the Representer to be if he was all the while ingenuously 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 Constitution I have severely examin'd what occasion this Man should pretend for the liberty he takes I find that as to one or two Instances the Answerer acknowledged a fault where the Charge was laid but he did not confess that it was Misrepresentation 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 't is Sutcliff's Case that must bring in the Answerer for that same ingenuous Confession And the Reader is bound to believe that if we had at first confessed that Sutcliff 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 Doctr. and Practices of the Ch. of R. And yet after all p. 9 c. his first Answerer would not undertake for all that any Protestants had said of Popery but appeal'd to the publick and establish'd Doctrine of the Church of 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 confess done a great deal better to follow the Representer's Example who when some Popish Authors were charged for most vile and scandalous reports of us and our Religion was so very prudent as to make no 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 between us and the Church of Rome that the People of both Communions would be well prepared to understand afterwards the pertinence of the several Arguments and Answers that should be brought on either side Nor could any Man of Sense and Honesty imagine that his Book was good for any thing else but to lead to that With this purpose the Learned Author of the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented complied in his Answer to the Representer But it was none of the Representer's Designs that People should know the True state of the Controversy but that they should believe his Representations and therefore he has ever since by one Wile after another declined closing with his Answerer and at last by raking for Instances of Protestant
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 prevailing part of the Roman Church could not bear the Condemnation of The Vindicator indeed would make us believe Pag. 5. that the Church is not to answer for the Extravagancies condemned in those Advices because she 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 People better The Vindicator calls this a Scandalous 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 published it no longer ago than in the Year 1679. in the Preface to his La 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. Widâ—nfelt allows as much to the Blessed Virgin as M. 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 condemn we shall then know more particularly what we are undoubtedly assured of in the general viz. That Crasset brings the Vniversal 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 Exception to Crasset's Testimony for an Old Popery Father Crasset 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 Bishop's Exposition of the Catholic 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 so and that what was heretofore universally maintained as Popery and is so maintained by the most considerable as well as the most numerous Party of the 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 't is 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 Vindicator condescended tho with some frowning to return an Answer First Pag. 5. saies he 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 Pag. 6. To this he answers 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 Particulars some little I have to say with the Vindicator's good leave And first of the former I. Where I desire him not to take it ill if I ask him one Question or two with some under Questions which cannot be spared for if he has no mind to answer them he may let it alone The Question is this 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 Popery should chance to prove their Doctrine to be the Churches Sence that way the Vindicator will be at
who saw Misery before them which they had already so deeply tasted of that their Hearts were quite sunk with the apprehension of what was just coming But is this dealing for the Credit I will not say of the Managers but of the Cause they serve and of the Method that is now taken to serve it by Expositions and Representations Why if no more sincerity were used in Fairs and Markets than this comes to in the Concerns of Everlasting Salvation Men had better live alone and make what shift they can each one for himself than to have any thing to do with one another I was going to descant upon every one of the other seven Articles but to shew the Intrigue of them though never so gravely would look so like a Farce 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 Reader this Note that the Relation only says there were Difficulties on both Sides but that by the wording of the Conditions it appears very probable that the Citizens had brought them in another Form when the Capitulation began but that this was all they could obtain and now that they are reduced to this Form the sagacity and watchfulness of one side is no less discovered than of the other But O God to what a pass is the State of Religion brought amongst Christians I have here given the Representer an Example of reconciling Protestants to the Church of Rome upon Terms much after his own way only 't is something finer though the Application I confess was more rugged the Principality having felt the Dragoons to the ruin of it and the utmost Extremities being threatned in two hours in case of refusal to subscribe 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 Vnion and Submission was the thing aimed at by the Reconcilers but whether it was done upon the Convictions of the Citizens what cared they I can give no farther account of this Matter but shall only put the Representer in mind of one Passage in the State of the Controversy which he cared not to reflect upon State. p. 23. viz. That after the Bishop of Meaux had treated of a Reconciliation upon Terms more moderate than his own Exposition while the Dragoons were at the Gates he came in three Months and treated them now as Persons Reconciled and without any regard to his own Promises or to their Consciences let the Dragoons loose upon those that refused to compleat their Conviction by going to Mass 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 IV. 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 Appello Caesarum c. 23. p. 60 c. But what shall I call our Representer here Not the modestest thing in Nature for Mr. Montagu is most vilely abused by him while he makes him bring in the Homilies as representing the Papists That which he says of them is this That they contain certain 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 Then follow the words which the Representer begins with 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 enough For you have read peradventure how strangely some of the Ancientest 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 allowable use of Images contrary to the Homilies of the Church of England 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. And he gives this account of it more fully than I need to transcribe 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 â—o be preserved from the taint and tincture of their Superstitious Practices 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 Chapter runs away with a few Phrases that he pick'd out from the rest as best fit for his purpose such as hyperbolizing stretching upon the Tenters by all means and the like and would make as if Mr. Mountague confessed the Church of England 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 'T is to the same purpose that he brings in Mr. M. Pref. p. 19. again 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 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 CHVRCH I 'll take off the Black and Dirt which has been thrown upon her and set her forth in her GENVINE 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 Representing designs The truth is it was so nice a work that in prudence they ought to have committed it to one hand and the Representer should have been the Vindicator For while they are two and and each of them driven to straits one of them being pressed on one side and the other on another side the danger was great that each of them would shift for himself a several way and be exposed to the Reproaches of one another 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 Doctrine of the Exposition 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 utterly undone the poor Representer's Rule of Currant 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 solemnly pretended to be An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church in Matters of Controversie that is to say An Exposition of Popery But the Bishop has expounded many things for the Doctrine of the Catholic Church which other Members of the same Church condemn and so long as the Dispute remains undetermined neither 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 concerned the Bishop and the Doctrine of his Exposition Pag. 8. and therefore if it does 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 hitherto I have given the Vindicator a Full 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 therefore must be said to what remains Pag. 8. And 1. By many of the Roman Casuists allowing the Defamation of an Adversary by false Accusations as the Defender said in his Table 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 limited his Accusation to the expression of Allowing 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 reasonably be otherwise understood than that they intend to make it easie for their own Party to commit it And tho they flourish never so fairly with that Rule that No Evil is to be done that Good may come of it yet there are so many little ways amongst them of clearing themselves from Venial Sins that when so foul a Wickedness is made but Venial it can be with no other design than to encourage men to it
that those words of Representing 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 't is 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 much as 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 disorder as I am speaking of appears in the very first Line of his Preface which is so much the more remarkble because that which is uppermost usually comes first 'T is 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 transforms it into a Misrepresenter 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 pertinence that he very much cares for only because 't is good to keep to a point or at least to seem so to do therefore when he has raked up a few more materials he knows how to dispose them under these words of Misrepresenting 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 Pref. p. 2. 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 P. 3. 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 P. 2. 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 along with him for a while as every man is bound to do that will keep him company I cannot understand that it was that Author's Duty to make the least mention of the execution of the Laws upon the Dissenters unless the 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 between us and the Church of Rome 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 Controversies with the Romanists But because he did not enter upon an Enquiry whether the Laws had not more to do in this matter than the Discourses of the Divines therefore the Representer talks of that Author 's imposing upon his Reader with poor shifts in a matter so well known P. 3. 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 rambling thoughts will come into the Representer's head the next time he writes a Book But since he is fallen upon this business he may now please to observe That neither the Stater 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 't is very probable that these sort of Perswasives sent
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 P. 6. and the 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 Commons which was published as near as I can learn about Two Months before the Representer 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 acknowledg that there was one passage in it that grated upon the Papists And I have two things to say to it First the Stater assures me that he did not think of that Sermon at all when he was at work and could therefore have no design in omitting it but withal now that he is told of it he cannot grant that a single Reflection in a Sermon that was afterwards Printed at the desire of the House 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 the Representer did for his Party and one of their Sermons had been not long before published by Command 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. that from the Death of our late Royal Sovereign our Divines thought fit to be of the Defensive side and for some time published no more DISCOVRSES 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 convenient Relaxation This I believe all considering persons will grant me that to represent Popery 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 every side Every expression must be exactly weighed It will sometimes happen that but one will please which will not be thought of till many others are tried and rejected Sometimes again when the first of all is not liked after the rejecting of many others that are found more liable to exception the first must be taken with all its faults So that here will be much altering and some restoring and not a little sining and superfining And when one Man has done what he can one Man's judgment in a Cause so perillous is not to be trusted It must be revised by others and because faults will come in one upon the neck of another where every place is a place to let them in it must be revised again and again as the Bishop of Condom 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 believed the Sermons of the Papists to be in un unknown Tongue as well as their Prayers and two or three less considerable misfortunes it was conveniently contrived for its end which was to amuse less thinking people In a word it appears to be a work of so much labour and time that I believe few will question but tho' the Doctor 's Sermon was first rigg'd out yet the Papist Misrepresented and Represented was upon the Stocks a good while before And then the Representer's Conscience should have forbidden him to find fault with the Stater 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 rather than he will run out into any more Apologies upon so slender an occasion 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 P. 7. confessing that 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. what was proved of all his Books but the first That the Church of England Divines were intended in them as we were very sure that they were He has for some time lost that wariness which
such a Representer 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 only insinuates from one end to the other that they had abused the people and made them believe that the Church of 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 Representations of Popery and such as had been allowed by Bellarmin 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 disputed for 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 P. 7. Which he says could be no 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 P. 8. and some of 'em harmless enough And therefore now comes the killing stroke 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 Cathâ—licks 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 Author of the View 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. P. 84. There 't was 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 particularly if that were possible that there were no such sights to 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
be demanded 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 Belief or with this Practice which yet you presume to call Popery But if the Representer will undertake for us upon these Terms even of Popery as 't is 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 who say and do such things as part of their Religion which you 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-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 offer no more of coming into your Church upon your Terms till you give us some better reason than yet we have had to believe that you are willing to secure us from those Terms which in general you say are monstrous but which you have not yet told us what they are in particular 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 INSINCERITY AND JUGGLING FOR OFFERING THAT WE SHALL BE RECEIVED INTO THE CHURCH OF ROME WITHOUT THEM For observe me Sir if for fear of falling foul upon those of your own Party you dare not declare in particular what those Monsters are tho this be necessary to gain us to your Communion how much less will you stand between us and them when once we are gain'd Nor must you think to give us the slip now as hitherto you have done It will no longer serve your turn to feign Characters 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 Religion that you would as soon be a Turk 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 what it is in his way of stating your Religion which you detest and abominate for we shall take it for granted that you do not detest or at least that you do not say that you detest what you let go without any note of your Indignation In a word this is but what you ought to have done all this while and the Representing Controversy had been soon at an end But now it is necessary for you to do it that we may at least know what your Popery is and what reason we have to trust your Offers 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 deliver in a Protestation of what sense we please if we would but adore the Cross and worship the Sacrament as you do we might declare what Intention we please But in Matters of Religion Insincerity and Dissimulation are such odious things that we who dare not prevaricate with our own Consciences can neither have a very good Opinion of those who would help us to do so nor of the Cause which needs it We cannot but see that the secret meaning of all is this that we must submit to Rome and do as they do at Rome and till better care can be taken we may be allowed to comment upon what we do even as we list and while we take our Rule of Faith and Worship from Papists we may if that will content us go on to talk like Protestants And I doubt not but that if this were honest we might make better Conditions for our selves than
that does belong to us to examine we should have the less reason to take his word for a Business that does not belong to us to examine till we have taken his word for it 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 expected that he should either make good his Characters against the Church of England-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 Misrepresentations And so the Misrepresenting side of his Characters was left to shift for it self as well as the other 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 he wrote half a Book against his own Apprehensions and as long as he was sure that his own Apprehensions would not write against him he was secure also that he should never be obliged to defend his Character of a Papist Misrepresented against any Body and therefore not against the Church of England Indeed he tells us some time after P. 26. that he 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 Business nor do I think they are capable of writing Books who charge the Consequences of what the Papists hold and do upon them as their declared and avowed Doctrines and Practices But if those others be No-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 'T is 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 himself all the World can not touch him whatever he makes bold to write But let him alone and he will in time do his own business as he has begun to do it here For now he tells us that he apprehended a Papist 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. I know not truly what else it should 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 forsaken the Papist Misrepresented 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 perhaps not according to his first Characters of a Papist misrepresented Now though this be a Charge which we might be concern'd upon other accounts to confess against those particular Men that are arraign'd by him or to disprove it Yet still it remains true that he has forsaken the Defence of both sides of his 37 Chapters as the Author of the View has unanswerably proved And in his wretched way of shifting it off he has confessed it as much to his shame as a plain Confession of it had been something for his credit But then I add that neither is it true that he has proved his new Charge of Misrepresentation either upon the Church of England 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 another And therefore I do solemnly assure the Reader that he does not say these things once only but he comes over with them again And because 't is an extraordinary case I must transcribe him and first where he speaks of his Character of a Papist 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
at last with all his might to make this same Popery if so we must call it to be not the Popery of the Church but a Popery rather in the Church and because 't is 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 Pag. 7. 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 TVRK as the Answerers Papist Now the Answerers Papist was the Old Papist And therefore it was notably and boldly said That he would as soon be a Turk 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 Vindicator Why truly Every 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 to be 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 Business but that in the desperate estate to which the Vindicator's Cause was reduced by the clear Testimonies of such a Popery amongst them as the Representer rejects with detestation he found himself obliged for the credit of his Church and perhaps for his own safety to remit of his Rigour or rather to take off his Disguise a little without asking the Representer's leave and so he 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 Vindicator too once fansied 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 CENSVRED BY THE CHVRCH it plainly follows that his is not the necessary Doctrine of the Church Pag. 7. And what he says in this case is applicable to all others Alas for New Popery for it declines apace we had thought it had been shewn us for the 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 instance of Aegidius 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 very Instance being produced by the Defender out of Capisucchi Pref. P. XIV XV. who left it for a Caution and a Conviction to such Men as in good earnest maintain our Vindicators Doctrine for the Vindicator to mention Capisucchi'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 Really this is but a small encouragement to take Popery upon the 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 Censures of the Church will follow as fast as can be In the mean time it is not Popery And so farewel to the Representer's Undertakings which are overthrown beyond all recovery unless he faces about and recovers his Credit by beating the Vindicator out of the Field with his own Hand 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
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 never more to be told of them because the Supreme Pastor has condemned them But before he insinuates any such Conclusions again I would desire him to inquire of F. â—C 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 Pag. 8. let him believe that he is come well off if he can I will not pursue him as if it was hard to get him at an Advantage 2. Pag. 9. Def. Pag. 54 55. He says the 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 Vnchristian 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 Vindicator was a very Civil Moderate Fair-spoken and Honest Gentleman that had abused no body If we do not commend these Men as much as they commend themselves we must be thought to rail at them as much as they do at us For my own part I have not Complemented 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 renders him We 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 other Argument to produce By the way Pag. 3. I tell the Vindicator that he cannot produce a better for that Doctrine that was in question Def. p. 57. But for him to say That the Defender sees he cannot now deny that that was a Falsification tho in Truth he would not allow it so much as to be a Mistake 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. Paul concluded that Christ himself ought not to be any more offered without putting in the following Words up to death for us I reply that the Defender by 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 omitted because Christ 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 acquainted with that Tongue that Cartons do not signifie in general any Leaves but such Leaves as are put into the room of others that are taken out of a Book and therefore to add Cartons to a Book is as the Defender truly rendred it to take 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 instanced in the Vindicators charging him with Falsifying Cajetan upon the Question of Extreme Vnction 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 Pag 10. 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 Vnction 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 Understanding which are required to swearing in Truth and Judgment who can after such a Conviction declare in the Presence of Almighty God that he has proved the Defender a Falsifier of Cajetan 6. Pag. 10. As to his 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 against us But whereas he says that Book alone 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
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 Consecration of it This and the like is that which seems to be Magical Incantation But for which he cannot find an appearance of a Parallel amongst us any more than he could for that sort of Conjuring which they call 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 unanswered To which I shall not think it enough to say what he does to the Catalogue of our unanswer'd Books That he should have told us whether 't is worth answering in particular or no when all that is said in it is obviated in many Treatises tho I am very confident that this is the very Truth But I shall add 1. That some Parts of the Guide in Controversie have been answered and the very Foundations of it overthrown in Dr. Stilling 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 mentioned it a little too soon For what he says That 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 't is for this only Reason that I can think of That the oftner our Adversaries write in the way of Replies and Answers the more they discover their own Nakedness as I am pretty sure the Representer and the Vindicator have done for their parts THE END
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 another that of Imbert 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 might cry out where is the 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 Adorers of the 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 Monsieur 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 Reformed 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 Defender not only the Curate but the Archbishop thought there was no Calumny in it And he would not be so uncharitable as to wish the Vindicator the like Conviction of it that Imbert 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 there were any thing in that Service to oblige a Man to depart from the common Construction as to those Words and to apply the Adoration not to the Wood which the People are called to Behold but to him that suffered upon the Cross whom they cannot behold then the Defender would be in an ill Case But if the Rubric upon this occasion does expresly make the Wood the Object of Adoration then the Vindicator is in a worse case who has both the natural Construction of the Words and the Circumstances of the Place against him Once more therefore and but once the Reader shall by some part of the Rubric judge of the Modesty of this Man and the Vindicator shall have the pleasure of imagining all the while what the Reader must think of him 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 Missale Rom. Feria VI. in Parasc 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 begins thus Towards 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 't is 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