his Holiness to be read by all the Faithful Upon which occasion he puts himself into some Heat That we who protest against their Religion should pretend to understand it better than a Catholick Prelate eminent in the Church c. and than thos e who depend upon it for their Salvation P. 27. As to the Instances and 1. Of the Invocation of Saints he says Their Aid and Assistance is limited to their Prayers by the Bishop of Condom and cites the place but to what his Adversary said concerning the Intention of the Council and of the Catechism in this Matter he says nothing The Instance of Merit he passes by But 2dly P. 28 29. and 3dly As to the Popes Personal Infallibility and the Deposing Power he â—pleads the Authority of the Bishop of Condom that they are no more than matters of School-Debate and as if he had been in good earnest at first he does again promise we shall be admitted into his Church without the belief of these Articles So that he has every way Represented the Faith of a Papist aright and now has found out something in his Adversary to be answered with a smile That a Protestant should understand the Faith of a Papist better than the Papist himself does P. 30. And thus all being guarded by the Bishop of Condom's Authority and his own Proposal it was his mere Civility to take any notice of his Adversaries answers to his Argument about the Deposing Power from the want of an Anathema to the Decree And so he replies 1. That every thing is not an Article of Faith which is declared in a General Council without an Anathema 2. That to decree what shall be done P. 30 31. does not include a Virtual Definition of Doctrine as he thinks his Adversary himself shewed under the next Particular from the Council of the Apostles at Hierusalem 3. That the Deposing Decree does not relate to things necessary to Salvation P. 32. nor concerns the whole Church And whereas his Adversary imputes the Escape of those that oppose this Decree to a Change of Times and the Popes want of Power he tells us That Oracles are ceas'd now-a-days 3. As to Veneration of Images he says That although Acts of Honour expressed to any Image that has Relation to some Invisible Being be supposed a Religious Honour yet all religious Respect and Honour is not so a Divine Honour P. 33. as to make a God constructively of the thing to which it is paid Otherwise Bowing to the Altar and to the Name of Jesus cannot be excused P. 34. since these things relate to the Invisible Inhabitants of the other World nay All religious Respect besides to God must then be constructive Idolatry P. 35. Therefore as the different Kinds and Degrees of Civil Honour are distinguished by the sight of the Objects tho the External Acts are the same so the different Kinds and Degrees of Religious Honour are distinguished by the Intention of the Givers and by Circumstances He says further as to the unalterableness of the Nature of Actions determined by a Law P. 36. That if this makes the Intention of doing no evil in Bowing or Kneeling to an Image unable to excuse those from sin who do this forbidden thing this strikes as severely at Bowing to the Altar and Kneeling to the Sacrament as at them since the Actions forbidden are the same part of Divine Worship in both Cases Finally P. 36 37. That a Quaker may justifie his Tea's and Nays by his Adversaries Rule That no Intention can alter the Nature of Actions determined by a Divine Law since it is said Matth. 5.34 Swear not at all but let your Communication c. And now to give him his due setting aside the frivolous Instance of the Quakers he has in this Particular come up fairly to his Adversary and said what deserves to be considered Then he concludes with two or three Requests which he hopes are not unreasonable to which his Adversary gave such reasonable Answers that we have heard of them no more since that time See Ans to Pap. Prot. p. 124 125. and therefore we have no reason to be troubled with them here And so let us now come to a Reckoning 1. He grants his Adversaries Distinction throughout between matters of Representation and matters of Dispute which Distinction since himself did not observe he either wanted the Skill or the Honesty of a Representer 2. The Defence of his Argument That the Popes Personal Infallibility is not of Faith from no General Council's having determined it is dropt 3. He will not be brought to say Whether the Council of Trent had or had not Authority to oblige Princes to receive those Decrees which are not universally received and so the Defence of his Argument from some Decrees not being received is dropt 4. His solemn Cavil That the First Answerer owned some part of his the Representer's Doctrine to be the Established Doctrine of the Church of England and his Objection against him for appealing to old mass-Mass-Books and Rituals and that other for appealing to private Authors are all three dropt 5. He will not say that the Deposing Decree commands a Sin and to his Defence of himself against his first Answerer's Charge That by his Principles he is bound upon the Pope's command to act according to the Deposing Power is dropt 6. His complaints against his first Answerer's Representing the matter of Dispensations and his note upon St. Perpetua's Vision are dropt But his Invitation of us to come over to the Church of Rome upon his Terms is not dropt for we thank him he has invited us again The Third Answer to the Representer being An Answer to a Papist Protesting against Protestant Popery To the Representer's wonder That such ado should be made about his First Book the Answerer sales P. 1. That a Misrepresenter is so foul a character that no man can wonder if we think our selves concerned to wipe it off which surely may be done without offence to any but those that meant us in the general Accusation To his complaint that the Answerer makes All that which they call Misrepresentation to be in all the material points a Representation of the avowed Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome he saies That he has done him all the service he can in distinguishing between matters of Fact wherein if we charge them wrong we do indeed Misrepresent them and matters of Dispute in which if we should charge them wrong it is not Misrepresentation but merely a wrong Judgment upon what they profess and practice P. 2. And he had already shewn That all matters of Fact excepting some few points in the Character of a Papist Misrepresented are confessed and defended in the Character of a Papist Represented Now Representation or Misrepresentation is properly about matters of Fact But as for the Consequences we charge upon their Doctrines and Practices
Consciences c. 2. Whereas the Answerer excepted against his Representing Part wherein he pretends to keep to a Rule That the Representer shewed no Authority that he a private Man had to interpret the Rule in his own Sense against the Judgment of Great Divines as in the Question of the Popes Personal Infallibility and against the Determinations of Popes and Councils as in the Question concerning the Deposing Power The Representer replies That he followed the Council of Trent P. 5 6. which he does not interpret but takes in the Sense of the Catechism That he also kept to Veron's Rule of Faith and to the Bishop of Condom's Exposition so highly approved by Pope and Cardinals c. As to the Instances having first ran to the Book for two more he comes back with them to the two that were mentioned and replies 1. That whereas he limited the power of the Saints to help us to their prayers he followed the Council and the Catechism P. 7 8. 2. and the Bishop of Condom That he did not qualifie the Doctrine of Merit without Authority since it is so qualified by Trid. Sess 6. Can. 26. 3. That the Popes Personal Infallibility is not determined by a General Council 4 That the Deposing Power was never established under an Anathema as a Doctrinal Point P. 9 10. and those two are therefore no Articles of Faith 3. He makes these Reflections upon the Answerers proceeding in the Book That he either 1. owns part of the Representers Doctrine to be the established Belief of the Church of England P. 11. Or 2. Does without good Reason deny part of it to be the Doctrine of the Roman Church appealing from the Definitions of their Councils and sense of their Church either to some Expressions found in old mass-Mass-Books and Rituals c. Or to some external Actions in case of Respect shewn to Images and Saints as Bowing Kneeling c. Or finally P. 12. to private Authors P. 13 14. Upon which follows a grievous Complaint of Misrepresenting upon the last account 4. From hence he goes back to the Answer to the Introduction where he was charged for saying That the Popes Orders are to be obeyed whether he be infallible or not P. 15 16. From whence it follows That Papists are bound to Act when the Pope shall require it according to the Deposing Power He replies That he gives no more to the Pope than to Civil Soveraigns whose Authority is not so absolute and unconfined but to some of their Decrees there may be just exception 5. From hence he flings again into the middle of the Book P. 16. and blames the Answerer for scouting amongst the School-men till the Question about Dispensations to Lye or Forswear was lost and that he offered no proof That the Dispensing Power was to be kept up as a Mystery and not used but upon weighty Causes Then he leaps into the Chapter of Purgatory P. 17. and affirms That St. Perpetua's Vision is not the Foundation of Purgatory P. 18. but only used by him as a Marginal Citation amongst many others Then a Complaint of Misrepresentation again and because Complaints are not likely to convince us Let us says he depend upon an Experience P. 19. Do but give your Assent to those Articles of Faith in the very Form and Manner as I have stated them in the Character of a Papist Represented and if you are not admitted into our Communion I 'le confess that I have abused the World Thus far the Reflections It is now time to compare Things and to see how much of the Cause is left standing I pass it by that the Answer to the Introduction See for this Answ to Pap. Protest p. 128. upon which the Representer spent his main Strength is in many most material Points untouch'd by the Reflections But this is a small Matter For 1. He has dropt the defence of his Double Characters his Representations and Misrepresentations For instead of going on with his Adversary in those Thirty Seven Points with which himself led the way he does nothing but nibble about Three or Four of them and that without taking notice of the tenth part of what was said by his Adversary to fix the true state of the Controversie even about them He has indeed thrown about four Loose General Exceptions amongst the Thirty Seven Chapters in which the Answerer Represented the several Doctrines and Practises of the Church of Rome but he has not with any one of these Exceptions come up fairly to what the Answerer has said upon any one particular Point And therefore I add 2. That for any thing our Representer has done to shew the contrary the Answerer has truly Represented the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome And then we have great Encouragement to turn Papists since the Representer tells us That if the Answerer has truly Represented the Doctrines of the Church of Rome He the Representer would as soon be a Turk as a Papist 3. He has absolutely dropt the defence of all his own Arguments not so much as pretending to shew where the Answers went upon a wrong State of the Question no nor trying to reinforce his Arguments where the State of the Controversie was agreed upon on both sides So that for ought I can see the Representer fell sick of his Thirty Seven Chapters all at once both as to matter of Representation and Dispute And this I think was pretty well for the First Reply The Second Answer to the Representer being a Reply to His Reflections BUT we are to thank the Reflections for one good Thing and that is for the Answer which they drew from another Learned Hand under the Title of a Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants In which I shall make bold to leave out several Material Points which the Answerer offered too Consideration and take notice of no more than what I think may serve to shew with what Sincerity on the One Side and Insincerity on the Other this Controversie has been managed Wherefore 1. Whereas the Representer chose to justify his complaints of Misrepresentation not by taking the first Answerers Representations into examination but by referring us to other Books and to Sutcliff's sharp censures of Popery The second Answerer consider'd that the Representer called the Censures which Protestants puts upon the Avowed Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome Misrepresentations which was in the first Book discernible enough and spoken of in the Answer to it but was so grosly owned in his second Book that no man could now doubt of it For he made his Answerer guilty of Misrepresentation for saying That we cannot yield to that Popery which the Representer himself allows without betraying the Truth c. A Papist not Misrepr p. 4. This Answer therefore blames him for putting into the Protestant Representations of Popery those faults which we find and those ill consequences which
we charge upon Popery as if we would make the World believe that Papists think as ill of what themselves profess and practice P. 5. as we do And much more for putting these consequences as owned by Papists in the Front of the Protestant Characters of them as if we pretended they were the First Principles of Popery As for the Doctrines and Practises of the Roman Church which we charge them with the Representer generally owned them but he disowned as he easily might the belief of those Consequences and Interpretations which we charge upon them And therefore his putting them into the Protestant Characters of a Papist was his own Artifice of laying the fouler colours upon Popery on the one side that it might look the fairer when he took them off on the other Now to prevent these Deceits for the future this Answer goes through the Thirty seven Articles again P. 6. to p. 40. to shew under each Head what we charge upon them as their Doctrines and Practises which is properly matter of Representation And likewise what we charge upon such Doctrines and Practises which is properly matter of Dispute By the confounding of which two things the Representer had made a colour for his unjust complaints of Misrepresentation 2. Whereas he pretended that he never delivered his own private sense and opinion in Representing a Papist P. 44 45. the Answerer replies that he certainly does so when he determines concerning Questions which are disputed among themselves whether they be Articles of Faith or not and that the Catechism may be interpreted by a private spirit as well as the Council That Veron's Rule had no more Authority than the Representer's Characters That Bellarmines Controversies had attestation from the Pope as well as the Bishop of Condom's Exposition And that Canus himself who is referred to by the Representer acknowledges that the Popes approbation is not always to be accounted the judgment of the Apostolick See As to the Instances The Answerer shews P. 45 46. I. Of his limitting the Power of the Saints to their Prayers That no such limitation of their Aid and Assistance is to be found in the Council That the Representer would take no notice of what his first Answerer had said to shew that no such limitation was intended in the Council or the Catechism And that he did not find this limitation in the Bishop of Condom P. 12 13. 2. Of Merit That the Twenty sixth Canon of the sixth Session mentions nothing of it and that it is clear from Chap. 16. of that Session That they make Good works truly and properly meritorious of Eternal Life tho they grant the Grace of God and the Merits of Christ to be the cause of their own Merits Finally That the Answerer did not Appeal to the Thirty second Canon to oppose the Representer's Qualification of the Doctrine of Merit P. 46. P. 47 48. and was therefore unconcern'd in his defence of it 3. As to the Pope's Personal Infallibility That he denies it to be of Faith and makes it but a School point whilest there are as many who deny it to be a School point and make it a matter of their Faith That the want of positive Determination by a General Council does not prove it to be no matter of Faith because neither the Infallibility of a General Council nor of the Church is positively determined by a General Council That if Infallibility must be somewhere amongst them they have the best Reason that place it in the Pope 4. As to the deposing Doctrine P. 49. the Answerer shewed largely and clearly That Articles of Faith may be and have been decreed without Anathema's That the deposing Decree includes a Doctrinal point P. 54. P. 56. That if it were meerly a point of Discipline and Government they must either acknowledg it Lawful for the Church to depose Heretical Princes or consent that the Church is not secured from making wicked Decrees in things that concern the whole Christian World That when the Representer says That some Decrees of Trent are not universally received he does not tell us that the Council had no Authority to make them and to oblige Princes to receive them And lastly That the Pope's letting so many asserters of the No-deposing Power to pass without any censure of Heresy P. 57. does not argue a change of their Doctrine but only of the Times 3. To the Representer's Reflections upon the Answerer's way of proceeding as that 1. He owns in some part the Representer's Doctrine to be the established Doctrine of the Church of England The second Answerer charges him with foul Misrepresentation upon this account in as much as the first Answerer owned nothing which is peculiar to the Faith of a Papist as distinguished from thr common Faith of Christians and that the Representer might as well have said P. 59 60 61. That because Protestants own that Christ is to be worshipped therefore they in part own the Doctrine of the Church of Rome That Christ is to be worshipped by Images And this he shewed to be the very case in every one of those six or seven Points which the Representer only named but did not think fit to insist upon to shew how his Reflection was applicable to them 2. And that the first Answerer appealed from the definitions of their Church c. 1. To some Expositions found in old mass-Mass-Books and Rituals P. 62. This Answerer says that he could find but one Instance of this relating to the Worship of the Virgin Mary viz. that scandalous Hymn O Felix Puerpera c. But that their Church is accountable for her old Missals which were the allowed and established Offices of Worship That even this has never been condemned but that Monsieur Widenfelts Book was condemned at Rome which was writ to bring the people to a bare Ora pro Nobis P. 63. to the Blessed Virgin 2. To some external Action as in case of respect shewn to Images and Saints To this the Answerer says That the Representer brings in this Exception without taking the least notice of what his first Adversary said concerning external Adoration P. 63 64. That it is a part of Divine Worship and that the Council of Trent requires it should be given to Images He shews further That since there is such a thing as external and visible Idolatry an Idolatrous action is nevertheless such P. 65. for the intention of him that is guilty of it not to commit Idolatry P. 66. That the worship of the Invisible Inhabitants of the other World tho with such external acts as may be paid to creatures has always been accounted Religious Worship That as the Degrees of Civil honour are distinguish'd by the sight of the Object So one certain distinction between Civil and Religious is P. 67. that the worship of an Invisible Object is always Religious and that to Worship
the Image of an Invisible Being must therefore be Religious Worship also because 't is referred to the Prototype 3. To the sentiments of private Authors And here the present Answerer challenges him to give one instance wherein the Judgment of private Authors was as he pretended set up against the declared sense of their Councils and Church And moreover shews what use was made of private Authors by particular Instances P. 68 69. and that sometimes recourse is necessary to be had to them and to the general practice of their Church to know the sense of their Church 4. Whereas the Representer avoided the charge of their being obliged by his Doctrine to obey the Pope when he commands them to act in pursuance of the Deposing Power by pretending that the Decrees of Popes may be excepted against no less than the commands of Civil Soveraigns as the case may be The Answerer does acknowledg this Reply to be good P. 58. if the Representer be sincere in the Application and will grant the Deposing Decree to command a Sin and that Bellarmin and Canus were mistaken in asserting That Popes and General Councils can make no sinful Decrees relating to the whole Church 5. To the complaint of discoursing upon Dispensations out of the Schoolmen and bearing the Reader into a belief that the Dispensing Power was kept as a Mystery to be used upon weighty occasions c. the present Answer saies That there was reason for the former this being one of the Instances wherein the whole sense of their Church is not to be had but from the Practices of Popes and the Opinions of their Great men To the latter That their own Doctors had declared it as the Answerer had shewn before he said it himself Then as to St. Perpetua's Vision That if he did not think it gave some credit to the Doctrine of Purgatory it was mentioned by him to no purpose Finally to the Representer's Invitation of us to come over to their Church upon his Terms with promise of Acceptance the Answerer returns That he must like their Faith better first And certainly the Invitation was something unseasonable before the Representer had answer'd our Reasons against that Popery which himself allows And this for the second Answer The Second Reply of the Representer being an Answer to a Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants THE second Reply comes forth under the Title of Papists Protesting against Protestant Popery Pap. Prot. p. 4 In which the Representer beginning with a defence of himself as to his construction of the wilful mistakes see before p. 8. which if he pleases shall be forgotten from this time forward falls a wondring that there should be such a noise about exposing of their Doctrines to open view declares that tho he discovered what he thought and sometimes said briefly why yet he made not disputing his business and knows not how this should be taken as a piece of controversy against the Church of England which he had not charged with Misrepresentation nor any body else but those only in general that are guilty He complains that his second Answerer makes that which they call Misrepresentation to be in all the material points P. 6. a Representation of the avowed Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome and protests That if Popery be guilty of what he saies it cannot enter into his thoughts there 's any room for it in Heaven For the very Title of his Book is a condemnation of the Religion to all those horrid shapes it has been at any time exposed in by the Members of the Reformation P. 7. And so is his pretence that We charge Papists with nothing but what they expresly profess to believe and what they practice But since they must not learn what Papists believe from the Council and the Catechism but from the Writings and Sermons of Protestants he is resolved to give us a taft of their way of Representing Popery and therefore 1. He recites several passages wherein Popery is Misrepresented as he will have it out of a Book of John sometime Lord Archbishop of York and a Book of Dr. Beard P. 9. to p. 17. and Sutcliffs Survey and the Book of Homilies And in conclusion he tells us That this is the Protestant Popery which since he protests against no less than the Answerer Protestants and Papists may now go shake hands and What â— possibility is there of farther divisions But if this be intended for a true Representation of Popery Roman Catholicks suffer under the greatest injustice imaginable And then follows a vehement expostulation against the iniquity of such Misrepresentation P. 18. And whereas the Answerer blamed him for putting into the Protestant Character of a Papist those ill consequences we charge upon their Doctrines and Practices as if we pretended that they think of their own profession and practice just as we do P. 20. He Replies That this is a pretty speculative quarrel and a quaint conceit but lost sor coming in a wrong place For the Representer's business was to draw the Character of a Papist as it lies in the Peopels Heads who when they hear one declaiming against Popery do not distinguish between Antecedents and Consequents between the Doctrine of the Papists and the fault we find with it but swallow down all in the lump and whoever supposes otherwise must conclude them to be better at separating than the Chymists and that in subtle Distinctions they are able to out-do Aristotle himself P. 22. This is in short what he says with much circumstance and no little contentment for four Pages together and 't is all that he thinks sit to return to his Answerers careful distinction between matters of Representation and of Dispute through all the Particulars For though he confesses 't is Learnedly done yet the almost Forty Pages about it might have been spared because this Distinction is not to be found in the Notion the people have of Popery P. 23. For the rest about his denying the Belief of our Interpretations and the two other Particulars p. 24. They are so little to the Purpose that I can afford them no room in this Abstract and he that will not take my Word for it may go to the Answer to Pap. Prot. p. 20 21. and there satisfie himself 2. To his Adversaries Question Whether the Catechism may not be expounded by a private Spirit as well as the Council He says Thus a Question or two is a full Confutation of the Reflecter To the Testimony of Canus That 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 P. 25. c. He replies That so Reverend an Authority as that of the Bishop of Condom is not to be thus overthrown since his Exposition was examined with all due Deliberation approved with all Solemnity P. 26. c. and recommended by
and which were put into the Misrepresenting Side to be taken off again in the Representing Side they are not matters of Representation but of Dispute To this purpose the Answerer argues leaving the Representer to apply these plain things to his Protestation against Protestant Popery which amounts to thus much That it could never enter into him that there should be any room for Popery in Heaven and that he would as soon be a Turk as a Papist if he thought as ill of the confessed Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome as we do Which would be a wise Speech no doubt tho we hope a true one For the rest P. 3. he saies That his Title related only to his own Book and the Book to the Character of a Papist Misrepresented and therefore 't is hard that he must be drawn in to answer for more than he knows even for all that any Protestant may have said concerning Popery since the Reformation and he thinks it strange that the Representer instead of defending his own Characters should hunt about for new Misrepresentations for him to Answer For since he has allowed the Distinction between matters of Representation and Dispute and can find no fault with his Adversaries performance about it it should seem we are agreed upon the Representation of Popery now at last P. 4. and therefore unless he were ashamed of his own Popery now we had clearly found it why should he divert from that to new complaints of their being Misrepresented by others The Answerer however was resolved to see what occasion there was for this fresh complaint 1. And he shews P. 5 6 7 8 9. That if what was transcribed out of the foresaid Archbishop of York 's Book be Misrepresentation it is not a Protestant but a Popish Misrepresentation For the Archbishop cites his Authors for what he saies tho the Representer left them out And this the Answerer thought good to shew from point to point And concludes That tho every Doctrine found in Popish Authors ought not presently to he accounted an Article of the Romish Faith yet a Church so watchful to purge expunge and censure in all Cases where her Interest is concern'd is Responsible for those Doctrines which have her Toleration and License and which any man among them is allowed to Teach and to Believe As for Dr. Beard and Mr. Sutcliff he saies P. 10 11 12 13. Those Sayings do not concern Representing but Disputing and that the Representer had unfaithfully concealed either their Authorities or their Reasons which had made the thing plain or curtail'd their sayings as he shews by several Instances out of Mr. Sutcliff but that when such Consequences are charged upon Popery it is more to the purpose to Confute them than to complain of Misrepresentation Finally As to the Book of Homilies those things which he hath taken out of it as the Answerer tells him P. 14. do no more than shew the Judgment of our Church about the Worship of Saints and Images in the Church of Rome in which he cannot prove us to be Misrepresenters otherwise than by confuting our Arguments which yet would but shew that we make a wrong Judgment in a matter of Dispute not that we Misrepresent a matter of Fact Upon this the Answerer shews That Papists protess and practice the same things that ever they did and that all this grievous cry of Misrepresenting is grounded upon nothing else but a Protestation That they do not believe those ill things of their own Doctrine and Practice which we do P. 15 16. which altho it be a new business yet there was no Reason for it since we never said they did In the mean time the Cause is the same that ever it was which is a sufficient Answer to all that he saies of Protestants and Papists shaking hands c. And whereas he makes the distinction between Representation and Dispute to be a speculation above the Vulgar and so was not to be regarded by him who drew the Character of a Papist as it lay in the peoples heads The Answerer thinks That he who undertakes to make Characters is bound to consider what belongs to it and withal P. 17 18 19. That our people are not so silly as to think for instance that Papists believe the Worship of Images to be Idolatry or that Idolatry is lawful because they Worship Images but that if he wrote his Characters for the Information of such Vulgar Heads P. 20. as he fancies he wrote to inform those that can neither write nor read 2. As to his Representing That he did it not by a private Spirit since he followed the Catechism the Answerer had reason to ask Whether the Catechism may not be interpreted by a private Spirit as well as the Council since their Divines differ in Interpretation of both and as for the Popes Approbation P. 21. he said that Bellarmine's Controversies had it as well as the Bishop of Condom's Exposition to which the Representer would say nothing and he now says That by Canus his Rule the said Bishops Exposition has not the Authority of the Apostolick See unless the Pope had given Judgment for it ex Cathedra P. 22. which the Representer also would take no notice of But what he says further concerning the Nature and Design of the Approbations given to the Bishop of Condom I shall wholly pass over since it is by this time somewhat plain that this Bishops Authority has enough to do to shift for it self and is not in a Condition to spare any help to his Friends As to the limitation of the Aid of the Saints to their Prayers he acknowledges that it is to be found in the Bishop of Condom P. 118. though he missed it because it came not in in the right place But whereas the Representer justifies his renouncing the Popes Personal Infallibility and the Deposing Doctrine by the Authority of the said Bishop the Answerer plainly shews the Bishops great Judgment in having ordered Matters so as to save himself both with Protestants and with the Pope To the Representers Second Invitation he answers by making this Proposal Whether their Church would refuse him admittance P. 15. if he should come in upon Bellarmine's terms in these Points which contradict the Representer's though there be no reason for this Dispute since as he said before P. 16. he likes not the Roman Faith as the Representer has described it Now to his Replies in behalf of the Deposing Doctrine being no Article of Faith the Answerer says 1. That whereas the Representer would prove it was not so because no Anathema was fixed to the Decree it is something strange that he should now be content to say Every thing is not an Article of Faith which is declared without an Anathema for this is next to a downright Concession that his Adversary had baffled his Argument and shews manifestly that he
would seem to say something when he knew he had nothing to say to the purpose 2. He shews that the Decree of the Council at Hierusalem did include a Virtual Definition of Doctrine And 3. That the Deposing Decree concerns the whole Church and if it be a wicked Decree that it relates to a thing necessary to Salvation by commanding to do that which it is necessary to Salvation not to do and therefore he expects the Representers further Consideration of his three Answers 3. Concerning the Worship of Images the Representer bids so fair for a Dispute that the Answerer took the occasion and examined not only what the Bishop of Condom hath delivered upon it but the several ways of stating it by their Divines shewing that their Images are Representatives to receive Worship in the Name and Stead of the Prototype that in this Notion Image-Worship is condemned in the Scripture and in what the evil of it consisted a more particular Abridgment of that just Discourse upon this Subject I cannot make without either wronging the Answerer or detaining the Reader here too long and therefore I refer him also to the Book it self for an Answer to the Charge upon Bowing towards the Altar P. 83. c. P. 106 c. And to the Apology for Image-Worship from the Degree of the Honour that is given to Images And to the Representers Objections against that way of distinguishing Religious from Civil Worship by making that to be Religious P. 37 38,39 40. which is given to the Invisible Inhabitants of the other World P. 123. and likewise to the pretended Parity of Reason in the Quakers Case And thus much may serve for the Answer to Papists Protesting against Protestant-Popery The Third Reply of the Representer in Return to the Foregoing Answer THE Representer finds as little Comfort in Protesting as Disputing and so falls to Accommodate the Difference between the Representer and the Answerer and calls his Work an Amicable Accommodation For now he grants the Protestants are not guilty of Misrepresentation in a strict and proper Sense P. 1. 2. and is very sorry that he and his Answerer understood one another no better before He thinks indeed it was his Answerer's Fault not to conceive him right at first and that if his Book had never been Answered the Peace had never been broke but he is perswaded the Difference may be yet compounded P. 3. For the Case at first was no more than this That he perceiving the Unchristian Hatred which grew in the Vulgar upon that false Notion of Popery P. 4. which our Misconstructions c. had drawn in their Imaginations He I say Good Man No less in Charity to Protestants than in Justice to Papists drew his Double Characters to shew how Popery is Misrepresented P. 5. But then comes an Adversary and says He has proved that the Character of a Papist Mispresented contains nothing in it which in a strict and proper Sense can be called a Misrepresentation Now really he never meant to Fight for a Word and had he but imagined that his Adversary had contended for no more P. 6. he would have spared him the Charges and Sweat of laying down his Proofs the second time Wherefore to end the strife he solemnly declares that the Title of the Papist Misrepresented is not to be taken in its strict and proper Sense as Misrepresenting signifies only downright Lying or falsly charging matter of Fact the whole Character being not indeed of this Nature but in its larger or less proper Sense as it comprehends both Lying Calumniating Misinterpreting Reproaching Misconstruing Mis-judging and whatever else of this kind But that we may know what a Lover of Peace he is he must assure the Answerer That this Condescension is purely out of good Nature P. 7. for betwixt Friends he does not think the Answerer has advanced any thing that has the Face of a proof That there can be no Misrepresenting where there is an Agreement about matter of Fact Representing he says P. 8 being nothing more than shewing a thing as it is in it self as many ways as a thing can be shewn otherwise than 't is in it self so many ways may it be properly Misrepresented so that the Description must agree with the Thing not only in Matter of Fact but likewise in Respect of Motive Circumstance Intention End c. But according to the Awswerers Rule had the two Tribes and an Half P. 9. been declared Guilty of setting up Altar against Altar and Hannah been set out amongst her Neighbours for a Drunken Gossip here had been no Misrepresentation because of some Matter of Fact in the Case The Elders too that offered Proof against Susanna since they saw her in the Garden c. P. 11. were no Misrepresenters Nor the Jews against our Saviour nor Infidels against the Apostles and Christians nor shall any be excluded from a share in this Favour but they that have Malice enough to Calumniate but want Wit to give a Reason for what they do c. So much was the Representer overcome with pure good Nature that for Peace sake he would yield to a Principle that can do such things as these if his Word may be taken for the Reason but we have another Reason in the Wind presently For if this same Principle which he has ordered to protect the lewdest Defamations and Perjuries will but do its Office upon the Church of England he has had his Reward And so he shews what execution he can do in the Mouth of some Zealous Brother whose Honour and Interest engages him to set out the Church of England as we Represent the Church of Rome To which Purpose he puts a Sermon into his Mouth which whether it be a Copy or an Original the Dissenters may say when they please But the Heads of it are such as these After a solemn Preface of Exhortation to keep out of the Swing and the Sweep of the Dragons Tail he lays down his Doctrine P. 13 14. That the Church of England Mens Marks are the Marks of the Beast which he proves by the large Revenues and State of their Prelates P. 15. who wear the Miter and the Crosier upon their Coaches while they Live and upon their Tombs when they are Dead P. 16. By the Weekly Bill of London which shews that Mary has Nineteen Churches and Christ but Three by the Pictures in their Bibles and common-prayer-Common-Prayer-Books and by many other Marks as good as these P. 17 18 c. which because they stick fast to us as he thinks for any thing the Answerer has said must come over again in another place and therefore the less Repetition shall serve now Sermon being done he asks whether this be Misrepresenting in a strict and proper Sense and if not P. 34. he is contented that the Word Misrepresenting in his Book should not be taken so i.
e. for downright Lying but as we heard before for wry Interpretations weak Reasonings c. And here ends the Amicable Accommodation For his picking up New Misrepresentations he says he did it to shew that the former were not his own childish Conceits For leaving out the Authorities of the Arch-Bish p of Yâ—rk that this makes nothing against him because the Question is not What some private Authors say P. 35. but What the Church believes P. 36. whose Faith cannot be fairly Represented from their Books though published by the Authority of Superiours For producing what Sutcliff laid to their Charge without producing his Reasons that his Reasons were none of the Representers concern P. 37. because they nothing belong to Representing nor has the Answerer put his Approbation to them He charges the Answerer with leaving out propter Deum in a Citation out of the Pontisical and this because the Words were not for his purpose In Conclusion he is resolved not Dispute since the Answerer knows no Reason for all this Dispute p. 26. and he cares not whether the Answerer likes his Religion or not P. 38. He will be no other than a Representer still for We wise Converts do not love to go out of our way but upon very good Grounds The Bishop of Condom has undertaken his own Vindication P. 39. and if he does but come off as well as the Representer and 't is strange if he should not let Bellarmine and other Eminent Approved Authors say what they can he has no Concern in it but his Representation and the Bishops Exposition are the Authentick Rule for the Exposition of the Council of Trent for the embracing the Catholick Faith as Expounded by one and Proposed by the other is sufficient for a Person to be received into the Communion of their Church P. 40. We are now coming to the Foot of the Account for besides other Particulars of less moment that are dropt 1. Whereas his only Reply to the clear and particular Distinctions of his Answerer between Matters of Representation and Matters of Dispute was this That these Matters did not and could not lye in Vulgar Heads with that Distinction his Defence of that Reply and consequently of his confused and deceitful way of Representing is wholly Dropt 2. The Defence of his Arguments That the Deposing Power is no Article of Faith is now at last wholly Dropt 3. His Defence of the Worship of Images against his Adversary's Discourse is Dropt or to use his own Words her took the Freedom gravely to turn over his Answerers Occasional Pages about it P. 39. And now if the Reader will please to put all together he will find by an easie Computation That this was the poor Remainder of a Controversie begun by the Representer upon no less than Thirty Seven Articles So that these Points having had the hard Fate to be served by the Representer as their Fellows were before I reckon that he has Dropt and Dropt till the whole Cause is Dropt at last but this is one of those Things in which he is not concerned for though the Papist Misrepresented and Represented be in a very forsaken Condition yet himself the Representer was never more diverting nor in better Humour all his Life And who can blame a Man for not being sorry for what can ne're be helpt And therefore since he sped no better with his Grave Undertaking it was not amiss to call a merry Cause upon Misrepresenting in a strict and proper Sence and to bring in a Phanatick Representing the Church of England in a Ridiculous Sermon The Fourth Answer to the Representer being An Answer to the Amicable Accommodation THE Answerer has no Reason to be displeased that the Representer now grants we do not Misrepresent the Papists in a strict and proper sense P. 4. viz. by Imputing such Doctrines to them as they do not own But he saies that the Design of the Representer in his First Book was to perswade our people that we were such Misrepresenters but that failing in the performance he would now make good his Title of Misrepresenting in a less proper sense P. 6. inasmuch as he thinks we do unjustly condemn the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome But why he should tax us for this at all the Answerer wonders and that very justly one would think because the Representer has sometime since disclaimed Disputing without which it cannot be seen whether we be Misrepresenters or not in this less proper sense And therefore he tells him That if he will vindicate the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome he must quit his retreat of Character-making P. 8. and fall to Disputing as their Fathers did in which he is ready to joyn issue with them But that it was by no means civil to charge us with Lying how prudent soever it might be upon another account since if he proceeds in this way he may be secure that no civil person will care to dispute with him Now whereas the Representer did in effect recall his grant by attempting to prove largely That there may be a Misrepresentation where there is an Agreement about the matter of Fact because there may be Mispresentation upon other accounts viz. in respect of Motive Circumstance Intention End c. Here the Answerer shews that these things do indeed belong to true Representing but that they were too nicely distinguished by the Representer from matter of Fact for he had given him no occasion for the Distinction since he had considered these things in those matters which he charged upon the Church of Rome For Instance That not only Worshipping of Images but the Worshippers Intentions and all other circumstances without which the Nature of the Fact cannot be throughly understood were taken into consideration Then he shews through all the Representer's Instances That Misrepresentations were in Matters of Fact P. 12. but wonders why he did not produce one Instance of the like nature out of his Answers if he thought there were any For what could he gain by shewing That in such and such cases others have been Misrepresenters unless he proved withal that we were Misrepresenters in like cases His instances shew that they who tell a piece of a Story may Misrepresent but not that they do so who faithfully relate the whole matter of Fact with all its circumstances which is our case and he has not produced one example to the contrary tho so to have done had been more to his purpose than all his other Instances In short this matter was so fully Answered that when we hear next of the Representer we do not find one word more about it To the Zealous Brothers Harangue he saies tho it be granted that the Dissenters Misrepresent our Church yet this does not prove that we Misrepresent the Church of Rome and therefore this is nothing but a device to get rid of us P. 15.
same Proofs c. yet surely the First Point is none of them And therefore let 's try the next 2. It is objected against us that we make Gods of dead Men and this is proved by the weekly Bills of Mortality where our Churches are called by the same Titles that they had in times of Popery Now if by making Gods of dead Men be meant making the Saints so many Independent Deities there is then a great deal of difference between what the Zealous Brother objects against us and what We object against the Papists as well as between the Reasons of our Objections For we never object this against them But if by this Expression be meant giving that Worship to the Saints which belongs only to God and our Saviour we then allow our Objection to be the same but do think that we have much better Reasons to object this against the Papist than that of a weekly Bill of Mortality For we appeal to the Publick Addresses which are made to Virgin Mary and other Saints with all the Circumstances of External Adoration to their Litanies and to the Hymns of their establish'd Offices wherein they are often in voked after the same manner as God himself is to their appropriating to particular Saints distinct Powers of doing good to their Worshippers to their Acknowledgment that the Saints are Mediators of Intercession to the Prayers that are made to them in all places as if they were omnipresent to the Sense also of their Council of Trent that they are to be prayed unto with mental as well as vocal Prayer as if they knew our Hearts All which I hope is something more than that in the weekly Bill of Mortality and in common Conversation we call our Temples by the same Names they formerly had And yet the Representer asks Wherein have I Ridiculed the Church of England I have done no more in my Character against her then what they have been doing these hundred and fifty Years against the Church of Rome so that it seems we have for these hundred and fifty Years charged them with Worshipping the Saints upon no better grounds then their weekly Bills of Mortality Only saith he what I have done in a kind of jest and without endeavouring to delude any body with such kind of Sophistry they have been doing in the greatest earnest and by it making good their Cause So that he confesses his Charge upon our Church to be carried on with a kind of Sophistry only what he has done in a kind of jest we have been doing against them in the greatest earnest i. e. we have in good earnest charged the Church of Rome with giving that Worship to Saints which belongs to God only upon nothing else but the Titles of Churches such as ours have in the Bills of Mortality But surely his greatest Sophistry of all lies in this that he endeavours to delude People into this Opinion which yet if he could he must delude them into another Opinion too that Bellarmin and all the famous Champions of old Popery were a company of Fools to be at so much Sweat and Charges to maintain the Worship of Saints and to defend it as they have done when they could so easily have denied it For that nothing is easier than to make good our disowning it against the ground upon which he charges us with it I shall presently make appear To let pass his Suggestion that the London Churches were first built by the Papists his adding that we rebuilt them with the same Titles Invocations and Dedications which they use shews how little he is to be trusted in a Question of Antiquity who talks so carelesly of things that are notorious in our own Days Our Fathers indeed found the Titles convenient enough and the Churches themselves reasonable good Churches and retain'd them both But when we raised them out of their Ashes we dedicated them to no Saint whatever has been done in this kind formerly nor have we since invocated any Saint in any one of them but we keep the Titles still And does our new Representer expect that we should Answer such Objections as these At least I desire him not to think that we will make a practice of it Must our retaining these Titles necessarily infer a virtual Dedication of our Temples to those Saints by whose Names they are distinguished from one another But what if we had called them by the Names of those Streets only where they stand had they then been dedicated to the Honour of the Streets We say that the Hundred Thirty and Two Churches here which are known by the Names dead Men and Women are with us God's Houses and dedicated to his only Service no less than the Five that are distinguished by the Names of Christ and the Trinity And me thinks so acute a Disputant as he is grown might have seen that the Title of one Church distinguishing it from the rest does not shew who is served and worshipped there when the same Service and Worship is used in all of them That which we blame them for is that they continue to worship Dead Men and Women in those Churches which bear their Names and in those which do not For if in Christ's Church they call upon the Blessed Virgin tho the Church has its Title from Christ yet 't is a House of Prayer to Her as well as to Him And if in the Churches which are known by her Name we call upon God only and worship him alone they are his Houses intirely and none of Hers. But after all where does the Answerer press him with the Titles of their Churches And yet the Reasons which press home the Arguments are they not the very same which the Answerer himself urges against him the Representer 3. I confess that I have seen Pictures in some English Bibles and Common-prayer Books and Moses and Aaron painted on each side of the Commandments upon some of our Altar pieces which things how they have crept in amongst us I cannot tell for they have no publick Authority from our Church The Answerer made his guess and perhaps it will not be easy to mend it But upon this great Occasion the Representer has brought in his Rigid Brother making us worse than the Papists themselves forgetting that he undertook to represent us not altogether so Bad and therefore he should at least have corrected himself in this manner Indeed Beloved I told ye at first that these Church-of-England-Men are within the Swing of the Dragon's Tail but I had not lied to say that they are under the Feet and the Belly more than the Papists themselves are For the Papists do no more towards the placing of Image-Worship in the Word of God than by a cleanly conveyance of that Commandment which forbids it out of the way But these Church-of England-Men as they are called have given that Abomination of Images themselves a place in every Leaf of their Bible in the very
that if the Answerer's Words be as they are here fet down 't is yet a mere Cavil to pretend that he would insinuate as if the Papists believed that which they Adore to be Bread as we believe it is no more And the Argument is good thus if their mistake who believed the Sun to be God did not excuse their worshipping the Sun from being Idolatry neither will their mistake who believe what they worship to be Bread no longer but God excuse them if it be Bread still But I suspect the Words are more clear and full in the Answerer at least I make no doubt that they are sufficiently secured from the Representer's Interpretation of them by other Passages in Connexion For the Representer has not referred us to the Page where he has picked up this Exception which omission I believe was designed because he has neglected such reference in four or five Instances more But tho I have upon this disadvantage given him a particular Answer here yet I do not intend to use him to it For the employment he has found out for us at present is not of that weight that I should be obliged to turn over whole Books and some of 'em no small ones neither to find out a single Passage that he thinks fit to carp at And therefore at present I will not be concerned with the Vindication of those Deductive Absurdities which Dr. St. would perswade to be Doctrines of the Roman Church For the Representer here refers to the general current of his Discourse â— and which is yet more unreasonable Pag. 21. has given me a whole Book written in confutation of the Doctor to answer For the like reason as he has referred the proof of a hundred and fifty Lyes without giving one Instance against John Fox's Acts and Monuments to the Examen of John Fox 's Calendar p. 3. p. 412. so do I too Thus also the Arch-Bishop of York misquoting St. Thomas and Bellarmine P. 22,23,24 and old Dr. Willets proof out of St. Bernard that the Pope is Antichrist and Bp. Taylor 's misquotations and corruptions of Authors which some Answerer of his has made to appear shall with all the rest of this kind pass off together without any further notice For still I say 't is too hard an Imposition for the Representer in a few Lines to oblige us to read over so many Books and which is by no means to be submitted to unless the Fate of the cause depended upon it which I am not yet convinced it does And therefore once again I must desire him to give in his particular Exceptions against our Authors in their own Words if he thinks fit to go on in this way and to tell us the particular Page or Section where such Passages are to be found and then he shall have my Judgment in the case But if he leaves all upon his own and his Friends credit I shall be so civil as to do so too I come now to his charge upon Dr. Tillotson for abusing Estius but whether Estius be not more obliged to Dr. Tillotson than to the Representer I leave it to others to judg when I have given a particular account of this matter I do acknowledg that those Words cited by the Representer are in Estius but tho I cannot say whether the Dr. minded them or not yet I believe it will either way appear that the Representer had but little reason to make this an Instance of our endeavouring to prove some Folly upon the Papists out of their own Authors and then bringing in Authors quite contrary to their own sense and words Estius concludes that the Fire which the Apostle speaks of 1 Cor. 3.15 is the Fire of the Day of Judgment which shall prove every Mans work and purge that which is not already purged And at length he comes to speak of the Purgatory of Souls after this Life which seems not only not to be supported but to be overthrown also by this place of the Apostle since the whole purgation is reserved to the last Judgment To this he answers that thus much is manifest against the Sectaries from his Interpretation of the place that in the World to come some Sins are to be forgiven viz. theirs who shall be purged and saved by Fire Nor says he does it follow from the Purgatory Fire of the last day that no Purgatory of Souls is left before that day any more than it follows from the Purgatory of Souls that there is no purging in this Life which allowing for the principles of his Church is with the rest that follows to this purpose a good and solid Answer to the foresaid Objection And this was the Doctor 's Ground for saying that Estius contends that it cannot be concluded from hence that there is no Purgatory But then he goes on Besides we must know that as the Scripture often leaves a particular Judgment to be understood under a general Judgment and from the last day in which all shall be judged will have the day of every ones Death to be understood in which each Man is judged by himself so from the Fire that is to go before the Face of Christ at the general Judgment and to purge whatsoever at that time remains to be purged it leaves a certain Fire to be understood in which a particular Judgment is exercised for the purging of Souls presently after this Life Then come in the words cited by the Representer Wherefore by this way the Punishment of Souls in Purgatory is well and solidly gathered But how is it well and solidly gathered this way Does Estius say that the punishment of Souls in Purgatory is implied in or that it does any way follow from that general Purging which is to be at the Day of Judgment No he says not a word than looks this way but only that one leaves the other to be understood that is to say if a Man has a mind so to understand it but not else For 't is a shame to repeat that because where the Scripture speaks of a general Judgment it supposes that we must dye first therefore when it speaks of a general Purgatory of Men it leaves a Purgatory of Souls beforehand to be understood or well and solidly gathered But the Representer will say the Question is not whether Estius's way of gathering Purgatory from this Text be good and solid but whether Estius does contend for no more than that Purgatory cannot be overthrown by it as the Dean pretended I grant this to be the Question and it shall have an Answer if it has not had it already Whether the Dean made the same observation that I have made upon this mysterious business I cannot certainly say having never spoken with him about it But I presume he did because it will clear him from any great matter of blame in taking no notice of the Passage cited by the Representer The Case in short is this Estius was
say written in the Representer's strain had he said any thing like making the King 's Capital City a Protestant Sodom and the Fires of Southwark and the Temple our Evangelical Proofs against the Papists and the Preachers Theme the alarum to keep the drowsie Flook from nodding had he set the Representer any example of such unhandsome levities as these are and which to say no more are hardly tolerable upon the stage then indeed the justice of his charge would not have born him out in his management of it But when that excellent man had charged them with no more then what he has terribly proved and that is Palliating or with no more then what is flagrant in their last pieces viz. Want of Fairnese and Civility c. in a word with no more then what is true and this without virulency or so much as levity of expression for which I leave the World to judge by those very phrases which the Representer has picked out of his last Book and yet for this his Pen must be said to be steeped in Gall and his Antagonists exposed under the most odious character imaginable I might well make more but I cannot make less of it then that some men are very much exasperated by being shewn to themselves And now if I had a mind to take every occasion he has given no small one by bringing in that Parable in the Scripture Of the Trees chusing a King to illustrate his own seriousness in the Drolling Sermon he composed for the zealous Brother But I forbear at present because he pretends to forbearance too For the advice that he has given the forementioned Author I do acknowledge that it were very good but that it wants pertinence and occasion and for that reason looks more like an unjust Accusation then a charitable Admonition But if he thinks good counsel is always to be received with thanks I say to him what he says to our Expositor Let him turn to such of his own Communion who have given bad examples in the business of Mis-representing And let him too that gives good advice take it also which though it be not so easie it will yet be better for him But above all things Let him endeavour that their Arguments and Methods for the defeating of Protestants be not such as any Jew may take to strike at Christianity and every Athiest to make a sham of all Religion Which advice is so good that 't is pity it should be lost upon those that need it not and therefore I desire him to recommend it to the Author of the Parallel between the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Let the Representer do his duty well upon this occasion and I can hereafter tell him of others wherein his interest will prevail more then mine But because the Representer is sincerely of our Expositor's mind That this way of handling Controversies doth rather exasperate then heal our Divisions I will tell him an effectual way to prevent it Let them Represent their Religion like men that are not afraid to let the people know the bottom of it and when they offer to defend their Doctrines let them not pretend to go on with their first undertaking when they leave it and fall into Invectives against their Adversaries for if they would honestly confess that their business is to make us look as odiously as they can they should for me go on in this way till they are weary without any recrimination If the Representer desires also that these Controversies may have an end let him perswade his Friends not to produce testimonies out of the Fathers for Popery without taking notice of the Answers that have been so often made to them Which advice if it had been given and taken we had not seen the Consensus Veterum and the Nubes Testium Let them not furnish out Books with Arguments that have been often offered and as often answered but take the Controversie where it was left by their Predecessors and ours and then go on with it if they can which had been very good advice to Mr. Clenche Let them not begin all over again to spin out the time and to make our Disputes endless Let them write and do like men that hope to gain upon the World by Reason and Argument As for our parts we shall be careful to follow his last Advice and to prove our selves true Members of the Church of England not onely by maintaining the Truth which She hath taught us but by practising those Principles and that Loyalty which we Preach that as we are sensible to whom we owe the Liberty we enjoy so we may approve our selves not altogether unworthy of it but be always able to give some good account of our selves with respect to these Controversies both to God and the King THE END THE Dâ—ctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truely Represented in Answer to a Book intituled a Papist Mis-represented and Represented c. Quarto An Answer to a Discourse intituled Papists Protesting against Protestant Popery â—eing a Vidication of Papists not Misrepresented by Prâ—â—â—â—tants and containing a particular Examination of Mons 〈…〉 â—â—aux late Bishop of Condom his Exposition of 〈…〉 of the Church of Rome in the Articles of â—â—â—ocation of Saints and the Worship of Images occasioned by that Discourse Quarto An â—nswer to the Amicable Accomodation of the Difference between the Representer and the Answerer Quarto Bishop Wilkin's Fifteen Sermons Octavo Sermmons and Discourses some of which never before printed the third Volume By the Reverend Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury A Manuel for a Christian Souldier Written by Erasmus and Translated into English Twelves Printed for W. Rogers