Answerers way of proceeding which I reduced to Four Heads 1. That the Answerer in some Points owns the Doctrine which he has Represented to be the Faith of a Roman-Catholick to be the established Belief of the Church of England This I proved not to be true by a particular Examination of those instances he gave 2. He charges the Answerer with appealing from the definitions of their Councils and sense of their Church to some expressions found in old mass-Mass-Books Rituals c. This I showed also that the Answerer has not done 3. That he appeals from the Declarations of their Councils and sense of their Church to some external action as in case of respect shewn to Images and Saints upon which from our external adoration you are willing to conclude us guilty of Idolatry Whereas he thinks we must not judg of these actions without respect to the intention of the Church who commands them and of the person who does them 4. That he appeals from their Councils and sense of their Church to the sentiments of their private Authors These Objections I answered at large in my Reply but he has returned not one word to any of them excepting the third and how he has answered that you have already heard This is the new way of answering Books a la-mode of Rome but the greatest Wits can do no more than the Cause will bear tho a little prudence would teach men to say nothing in such a Cause as will admit of no better a defence FINIS ERRATA PAge 2. l. 32 for seem r. been p. 5. l. 24. for Bulgradus r. Busgradus p. 26. l. 32. dele to p. 27. l. 27. for fine r. fierce p. 35. l. 14. for keep r. help l. 34. for you r. them p. 100. l. 17. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 110. l. 13. for 2ly r 3ly The Pages mistaken from 58. to 73. Pap. P. 12. Papists Protesting c. p. 17. P. 1â— Reply p. 4. P. 23. P. 20. P. 21. Pag. 5. Card. Bona's Letter Papists Protest p. 29. Condom ' s Expos p. 51. Condom ' s Expos p. 51. Pag. 4. Pag. 4. See a late Tract of the Object of Religious Worship Pag. 6. Papist misrepresented p. 3. Ed. 2. Bellarm. de sanct beatit l. 1. c. 20. c. 18. Pag. 6. Papists Protest p. 33. Pag. 35. p. 35â— See D. Stillingfleet's defence of the discourse concerning Idolatry p. 216. c. St. Aug. de civit Dei p. 8. c. 27. Pag. 9. Pag. 6. Nam si propterea Subsidiis sanctorum uti non liceat quod unum patronum habemus Jesum Christum nunquam id commisisset Apostolus ut se Deo tanto studio fratrum viventium precibus adjuvari vellet neque enim minus vivorum preces quam eorum qui in Coelis sunt sanctorum deprecatio Christi Mediatoris gloriam dignitatem immiâ—uerent Catech. Rom. part 3. Tit. de cultu vener sanct Heb. 4. 14. Heb. 7. 16. 26. Heb. 9. 24. Heb. 7. 25. Pag. 4. Contemplations on the life and Glory of holy Mary p. 24. Ibid p. 5. Luke 11. 27. Matth. 12. 46. c. Luke 2. 48. 49. John 2. 3 4. Pag. 7. Pag. 9. Pag. 9. Pag. 9. See Dr. Stillingfleet's Defence of the Discourse of Idolatry p. 466 c. 1 King 18. 27. Pontif. in Bened nov erucis Psalm 135. 15 16 17. Vasquez Dâ—sp 106. c. 1. Pag. 9. See Dr. Stillingst Defence of the Disc. of Idol p. 703 c. And several Conferences between a Romish Priest c. p. 211 c. Durand in Sent. 3. Dist. 9. q. 2. Vasquez Disp. 106. c. 1. Idem Disp. 108. c. 3. C. 9. Disp. 109. c. 1. Bellarm. de Cultu Imag. l. 2. Pag. 5. Greg. de Valent de Idolol l. 2. c. 7. Cajent in Aq. 3 p. q. 25. art 3. Suarez Disp. 54 Sect. 4. De Natura deorum l. 1. c. 27. Max. Tyrius dissert 38. See Dr. Stillingfleet's Defence of the Discourse of Idolatry p. 466 c. Dio Chrys. Orat. 12. St. Aug. in Psal. 113. Arnob l. 6. Aug. Ep. 119. c. 11. Arn. l. 1. Caesar de Bellâ— Civ l. 2. Ovid. Fast. 4. Exod. 32. 1. See Dr. Stillingfl Defence of Disc. of Idolatry p. 747 c Isa. 44. 10 15 17. Deut. 4. 15. Isa. 40. 18 27. Acts. 17. 29. Tertul de Idolo c. 4. Wisdom c 14. v. 15. c. 13. v. 6. Levit. 19. 4. Psalm 13515. Rom 1. 23. 1 King 12. 28. 1 King 16. 31 32. 1 King 18 21. 2 King 10. 16. Isa. 40. 18 19 c. Arnob. l. 6. Psal. 135. 18. Joh 4. 21 23 24. Papists protesting c. p. 27. P. â—8 Exposition P. 3â— P. 37. Doctrines and Practises of the Church of Rome truly represented p. 6. Ed. 2. Bulla Pii quarti super confirm Concil Trid. Reflect p. 7. Reply p. 44. Papists Prot. p. 25 Reflect p 8. Reply p. 47. Refl p. 8 9. Rep. p. 49 c Refl p 15 16 Reply p. 55. Ibid. p. 58. P. 61. P. 63. P. 67.
his House So that there is no need to find any Hole as the Protestor speaks to get out at with the Altar for that was never in yet as far as this Controversy is concerned and therefore I am like to make no breach for him to follow at with his Image Nor does any Man kneel to the Sacrament but only receive the Sacrament kneeling and if he cannot distinguish between an Act of Worship to the Sacrament and a devout Posture of receiving it yet the meanest Son of the Church of England can Why does he not as well say that when we kneel at Prayers we worship the Common-Prayer Book which lies before us and out of which we read as that we worship the Bread when we receive and eat it with devout Passions upon our Knees But to return to the Exposition 2. I observe that there is a great difference between a memorative Sign and the Representation of an Image both of them indeed excite in us the remembrance of something but in such different manners as quite alter the nature of them It is necessary to take notice of this because I find Monsieur de Meaux and after him the Representer very much to equivocate in this Matter it is a very innocent thing to worship God or Christ when any natural or instituted Sign brings them to our minds even in the presence of such a Sign As if a Man upon viewing the Heavens and the Earth and the Creatures that are in it should raise his Soul to God and adore the great Creator of the World or upon the accidental sight of a natural Cross should call to mind the Love of his Lord who died for him and bow his Soul to him in the most submissive Adorations because I say this is very innocent the Bishop would perswade his Readers that this is the only use they make of Images to excite in us the remembrance of those they represent and mightily wonders at the little justice of those who treat with the term of Idolatry that religious Sentiment which moves them to uncover their Heads or bow them before the Image of the Cross in remembrance of him who was crucified for the Love of us And that it is sufficient to distinguish them from the Heathen Idolaters That they declare that they will not make use of Images but to raise the mind towards Heaven to the end that they may there honour Jesus Christ or his Saints and in the Saints God himself who is the Author of all Sanctity and Grace Now it is certain an Image will call to our remembrance the Person it represents as the presence of the Person himself will make us remember him but this vastly differs from a meer memorative Sign For the use of Images in the Church of Rome is not primarily for Remembrance but for Worship as the Council of Trent expresly teaches That the Images of Christ and the Virgin the Mother of God and other Saints are especially to be had and kept in Churches and due Honour and Veneration to be given to them because the Honour given to them is referred to the Prototypes which they represent so that by the Images which we kiss and before which we uncover our Heads and prostrate our selves we adore Christ and venerate the Saints whose likeness they bear These are the words of the Council and it would be a very odd Comment upon such a Text to say that Images serve only for Remembrance A meer Sign which only calls Christ to our Minds can deserve no Honour or Worship but a representing Sign which puts us in mind of Christ by representing his Person to us as if he were present whether it raises our hearts to him in Heaven or not yet according to the Council of Trent it must direct our Worship to him as represented in his Image When Men go to Church to worship Christ or the Virgin Mary before their Images it may be presumed they think of them before they see their Images and therefore do not go to be put in remembrance of them by their Images but to worship them before the Images in that Worship which they give to the Images And therefore when the Bishop speaks so often of the Virtue of Images to excite in us the remembrance of the Persons they represent to reconcile him with himself and with the Council of Trent which he pretends to own we must not understand him as if Images were of no use but to be helps to memory and are honoured for no other reason which is no reason at all as the unwary Reader will be apt to mistake him but that these visible Images represent to us the invisible Objects of our Worship and give us such a sense of their Power and Presence as makes us fall down and worship them before those Representations which we honour for their sakes that is tho they serve for remembrance yet not as meer memorative Signs but as memorative or representative Objects of Worship 3. I observe that it is the very same thing whether we say that we worship Christ as represented by the Image or worship the Image as representing Christ for they both signify that Christ is worshipped in and by his Image that the Honour and Worship is given to the Image and referr'd to the Prototype If Christ be worshipped as represented by the Image then the Worship which is intended for Christ is given to the Image in his Name and as his Representative if the Image be worshipped as representing Christ then the Worship which is given to the Image is not for it self but for Christ whom it represents which differ just as much as a Viceroy's being honoured for the King or the King 's being honoured in his Viceroy And therefore I wonder that any Man of Understanding and Judgment as Monsieur de Meaux certainly is should think there is any great matter in saying When we honour the Image of an Apostle or Martyr our Intention is not so much to honour the Image as to honour the Apostle or Martyr in the presence of the Image that is in and by the Image as I have showed that Phâ—â—se signifies when it is referred to a Representatiâ—◠〈◊〉 for it is the very same thing to say we honour the 〈◊〉 as representing the Martyr or we honour the Martyr as represented by the Image Having premised these things let us now compare the Opinion of Monsieur de Meaux with the Opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas about the Worship of Images and tho the first is thought by some Men to say a great deal too little and the other a great deal too much yet it will appear that their Opinions in this matter are the very same They both agree That Christ and his Saints are represented by their Images they both agree that Christ and his Saints are worshipped in their Images as represented by them they both agree that no other Worship is to be paid to or before or
and he has endeavoured to make his Readers believe that there is yet in truth there is none in most parts of the Character For what does strictly belong to Representation that is all matter of Fact is the same in both For 1. He having put the Opinions of Protestants concerning Popish Doctrines and Practices into the Character of a Papist Misrepresented as if they were his avowed Doctrine and Belief in the Character of a Papist Represented he denies that he believes those Interpretations and Consequences and this he might very easily do because as he observes p. 24. no body charges him with that belief and whereas he says then he contradicts no Body and he hopes there is no fault in that he is so far in the right but his fault is that he imposes upon his Reader with an appearance of a Misrepresentation when there is none and by his denying that they believe such things would perswade the World that Protestants charge Papists with believing all these ill things themselves which we say of their Faith and Worship a sign that he was hard put to it to find out some Protestant Misrepresentations of Papists And 2. As for matter of Fact which alone is proper for a Character he generally owns the Doctrines and Practices we charge them with and his saying how could this possibly be otherwise if they charge us with â—ore but what we expresly profess to own in which he reflects upon what I had said in my Reply that we charge them with believing nothing but what they expresly profess to believe is nothing to the purpose for it is not absolutely what we charge them with but what he himself makes us charge them with in his Character of a Papist Misrepresented and calls us Misrepresenters for doing so that he owns in the Character of a Papist Represented as I particularly shewed in my Reply now the question is why he calls one Character a Misrepresentation and the other a Representation when the matter of Fact is the same in both But then 3. I observed that in some cases he disowns that to be the doctrine and belief of their Church which manifestly is so and has been proved on them beyond all possibility of a fair Reply by the learned Answerer To which he Answers then for all his word we are in some cases charged with more than we expressly profess to believe But he must know we do not take the profession of the Roman Faith from every private Character-maker but from the authentick Records of their Church and if they deny what their Church teaches and requires them to believe it is not indeed their Faith but yet it ought to be so and though he may huff at manifestly and proving I suspect he will take a little time before he brings it to the Tryal This is a sufficient answer to his fresh complaint of Misrepresentations I now proceed to the second part of the Reply The rule of true Representing or the Rule whereby the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is to be known He appealed to the Council of Trent and the Catechism ad Parâ—chos and these I acknowledged to be authentick Rules but since Catholick Divines differ about the sense of the Council and Catechism the question is Why we must prefer his sense of the Council and Catechism before Cardinal Bellarmin's or any other Divines of Note and Eminency in the Church of Rome who lived since the Council of Trent and may be presumed to understand the meaning of it as well as the Representer and therefore to remove this difficulty in his Reflections he appealed to the Bishop of Condom as the Authentick Expositor of the Council and Catechism and told us how his Book had been approved by many Bishops and Cardinals and by the present Pope himself and therefore has the authority of the See Apostolick To this I answered in my Reply p. 44. that the attestation given to Cardinal Bellarmin's Controversies was not inferior to that given to the Bishop of Condom's Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church that it was Dedicated to Pope Sixtus 5. and that with the Popes leave and good liking which is not much inferior to a testimonial under the Popes hand and why then are not Bellarmin's Controversies as authentick a rule for the Exposition of the Catholick Faith as the Bishop of Condom's But to this he thought fit to answer nothing And whereas he pretends that the Popes approbation gives it the authority of the Apostolick See I acquainted him out of Melchior Canus That the name of the Apostolick See does not signifie the Pope in his private capacity but in his Chair or doing such things and in such a manner as belong to the Papal Chair that is not giving his own private sense but proceeding in Council with the advice of good and learned Men and therefore that is not to be accounted the Judgment of the Apostolick See which is given only by the Bishop of Rome privately maliciously and inconsiderately or with the advice only of some few of his own mind but what he determines upon a due examination of the thing by the advice and Counsel of many wise Men. To this the Protester answers that it is only an ungrounded and ill-turned consequence that because that is not to be accounted the judgment of the Apostolick See which is given only by the Pope privately maliciously and inconsiderately or with the advice only of some few of his own mind therefore this learned Prelates Exposition of the Catholick Faith is to be thrown by as of no Authority so that our Replier has here concluded without any more ado that the approbation of this Book was only given privately maliciously inconsiderately or else with the advice only of some few of the Popes own mind otherwise the Consequence will not hold But I thought Canus had told us what was necessary to make the Popes approbation the judgment of the Apostolick See as well as what hinders it from being so That the Pope must give judgment according to the due form and method of proceedings belonging to the Apostolick Chair in full Council after due examination and with the advice of many wise Men. Now I only desire to know whether the Pope in a full Council of Cardinals did give judgment ex Cathedrâ that the Bishop of Condom's Book was a true Exposition of the Catholick Faith For if he did not though the Pope and all his Cardinals should singly for themselves give their own private judgment and approbation of it according to Canus his rule it is not the judgment of the Apostolick See for it is a private judgment whether it be malicious or not which I was so far from concluding without more ado that as the Protester observes I did not so much as translate it though I put it in the Latine Quotation in the Margin which is an argument I did not designedly conceal it because I thought it
these things and charge the Church of Rome with them and not like that Church ever the better which suffers such abuses and applauds such cruelties as Papists themselves who have not put off all humanity cannot but abhor 3. That as often as they tell what they think of our Doctrines and Practices they would likewise at the same time inform their hearers that those thoughts are as the Replier says Opinions Interpretations and Consequences of their own concerning our Doctrine and not our avowed Doctrine But this is a very needless caution as I observed before for our people do not think that the Papists themselves believe all that ill of their own Doctrines and Practises which we charge them with and I cannot easily see how our disputing against the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome and answering the Arguments whereby they justify themselves should betray people into such a mistake for it is no natural proof that two men are of the same mind because they dispute against one another Thus much for the Protester And to conclude the whole I shall give my Readers a short view of the whole progress of this dispute that they may see what shuffling Adversaries we have to deal with When the Book entituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented was exposed to publick view and mightily applauded by those of the Roman Communion and industriously dispersed and earnestly recommended to the perusal of Protestants a very learned and charitable hand undertook to make a true representation of the Doctrines and Practises of the Church of Rome which he performed with such full and plain evidence that the Misrepresenter hath not so much as attempted to charge him with any one false Citation nor to show in any one particular that he has misrepresented their Doctrines and Practises but instead of this in his Reflections on the Answer if the Reflecter and Misrepresenter be the same person as he owns himself to be he makes fresh complaints of Protestants misrepresenting Papists which if it had been true is no confutation of that representation which the Answerer had made of Popery The question then was Whether the Church of Rome believes and practises as the Answerer says she does and proves by unquestionable authorities that she does But this was too plainly proved to be a question any longer and therefore he rather chose to debate that general question about the Rules of Representing and how we must know what is the Faith of the Church of Rome and whether the Bishop of Condom's Exposition have not a sufficient authority given to it by the Pope and Cardinals and Bishops of France and what the authority of private Doctors is and the like but has not in any one particular shown wherein the Answerer has misrepresented them that the authorities he alledges are not good that he has put any forced and unnatural sense upon the words of their Council or Catechism or Doctors or that their Church has by any publick acts contradicted what he charges to be her Doctrine or Practise This he has not done and therefore we have reason to believe this he could not do and this is reason enough to conclude that the Answer contains a true Representation of the Doctrines and Practises of the Church of Rome I did not think such Reflections as these worth the notice of the Learned Answerer and therefore undertook to reply to them my self and particularly examined every thing he had said in return to this he publishes another Answer which he calls Papists Protesting against Protestant Popery and I thought it would come to bare protesting at last for his Reason and Argument run very low before this I have now considered and I think have not suffered any thing to escape without an answer but that the Reader may the better understand what a formidable Adversary this is I shall briefly compare the Reply with his Answer and then leave him to judg of the ingenuity and honesty of the Protester In answer to his fresh complaint of Misrepresenting in my Reply I considered what it is to Misrepresent viz. To charge them with such Doctrines and Practises as the Church of Rome dâ—sowns and proved from his own Character of a Papist Misrepresented that we are no Misrepresenters for what he makes us charge them with believing and doing in the Character of a Papist Misrepresented that he owns and defends in the Character of a Papist Represented and the only difference in most Cases between these two Characters is this That in the Character of a Papist Misrepresented he puts in all the ill things which Protestants say of their Faith and Worship and in the Character of a Papist Represented he says all the good things he can of it but this I told him does not belong to Representation but Dispute and therefore whatever guilt we charge their Doctrines and Practises with this is not to misrepresent while we charge them with nothing but what is their Faith and Practise to Represent in this sense is only to report matter of fact and he who reports truly cannot misrepresent If we charge them with any guilt which they think they are not chargeable with this becomes matter of dispute and it is not enough to confute such a charge to tell the World that they do not believe so ill of their own Doctrines and Practises as we Protestants do By this Rule I examined the Thirty seven particulars of his Character and carefully distinguished between matters of representation and dispute and all this he grants and yet in his Answer falls a protesting against Protestant Popery as if we had made a new Religion for them whereas we only tell them what the faults of their Religion is and this he calls Protestant Popery That is the judgment of Protestants concerning Popery and this he protests against which is a much easier way than to confute it And now instead of defending his own Characters wherein he had charged us with misrepresenting Papists and which I had proved and he in effect granted to be no misrepresentation he seeks about to find out some new Protestant Misrepresenters and fills up several Pages with Citations out of the Manual of John Archbishop of York Mr. Sutcliff and others Now in the first place he ought to have shown that the distinction between matters of representation and dispute by which I answer'd his own Characters will not justify these Misrepresenters also as most certainly it will and a Hundred more if he can find them but he saies not one word of this but only cites their words and calls it misrepresenting But besides this he has used very foul play to make Misrepresenters of them The Archbishop only transcribes out of Popish Authors and cites his authorities the Protester sets all down as the Archbishops words without letting his Reader know that Papists teach these things and that the Archbishop only repeats them after them But besides concealing the Popish authorities