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
nothing to the purpose because rather than fail he would make Nonsense of that Gentleman 's Arguing where his Purpose is as clear and his Sense as intelligible as a Man would desire it to be He answers next to what was observed again from Father Crasset but we will consider what belongs to him by it self and in the mean time go on with the Converts The next produced was Monsieur Ranchin who confessed a New Popery more boldly and roundly than Mr. Brueys did The Vindicator therefore slurs off his Testimony with saying only this Pag. 4. The Defender has shewn of what Credit such a Persons Authority is who weighed things so little as to sell his Religion for Money and Preferments But this is not so easily to be set aside For if he sold his Religion as there is too great reason to fear he did yet his Testimony to the Distinction between Old and New Popery is a very good one and an unanswerable Proof of what the Defender said That the Distinction was not of his own making but that in effect he found it made to his hands amongst the Bishop of Meaux's Converts Men often change their Religion for Worldly Interests but I think they never say so and that because they would still keep their Credit For which reason if they pretend such Motives to the Change they have made as are Matters of Fact easie to be judged of they will not be so careless of their Reputation as to pretend those things which the World can bear witness against Therefore since Mr. Ranchin laid his Change upon the great Difference between Old and New Popery there is no reason to question but whether this was the principal Cause of his Conversion or not yet such a Difference was commonly believed nay and that the Alteration in the Bishop of Meaux's way of expounding Popery from what had been in former Times and from the Belief and Practice of the Tartuffs and the People that now are was indeed notorious For otherwise he had taken a better way for his Reputation to pretend that he had been convinced by Old or by New Arguments of the Truth of that Doctrine which the Church of Rome constantly and universally held than to say that he was enlightned by a New Exposition no less needful for the Saving of Catholics than for the Conversion of Protestants For whether such an Exposition made any notable difference in Doctrine from what went for Popery before is a Matter that they can easily discern who perhaps are not so good Judges of a Disputation for Popery or against it If therefore Monsieur Ranchin was as careful of his Credit as he was sollicitous for Means to live like a Person of Quality he no doubt was very sure that the World was sufficiently aware of a notable Difference between the Old Popery of the Church of Rome and the New Popery of the Bishop of Meaux And it was frivolously done of the Vindicator to refuse his Testimony because the Defender was afraid his Worldly Interests had too great an Influence in the Change. Really if these Men serve their New Converts in this fashion it will mightily discourage them They have sweetned and gilded Popery for them to make it go down the better and yet they will not allow them to say what it was that made them swallow it with little or no straining Tho Ease Honour and Wealth did effectually determine them yet they should be permitted to tell their Friends what made the Change somewhat easie viz. that which these Men designed should do it Or else our English Representers and Vindicators may spoil their Market here before they have well begun to bid for Converts And this Inconvenience may presently follow that those who have yielded to them upon New Terms will begin to suspect that their Instructers mean to bring them into the Condition of the Tartuffs and the People in due time since they will neither themselves acknowledge that there is such a Difference nor so much as suffer their Converts to make any words of it but fall to reproaching them when they do so The same Reply may serve to the Vindicator's Exception against Mr. Pag. 4. Pawlet who because he made his Conscience comply with his Interest is no fit Man to be brought in as one of the Defender's Witnesses for such an odious Accusation So says the Vindicator But Mr. Pawlet was not the less fit Man for that For altho Insincerity does by no means qualifie a Man to be a Witness yet there are Cases in which the Testimony of an Insincere Man cannot reasonably be refused that is when his Interest does manifestly oblige him to speak the Truth Such is the present Case For had there been no good ground for this Distinction between Old and New Popery as these Men would now persuade us there is not Mr. Pawlet by using that Distinction could not but know that in stead of covering his own Insincerity he had more openly exposed himself for a Knave He calls this Charge of an Old and a New Popery an Odious Accusation Pag. 4. as the Distinction it self but a little before was That Odious Distinction But he forgets that this Distinction as Odious as it is is used by those of his own Communion and who being Converts their Testimony is so much the more remarkable They cannot be presumed to distinguish thus for the prejudice of their Converters nor to make the Distinction a matter of Accusation against them as the Vindicator very poorly insinuates They use it to defend themselves against the Expostulations of those whom they have forsaken and the nature of their Defence implies not only that they believe what they say in this Case but that they had reason to believe it For if it were altogether a Dream of theirs or ours that there are two sorts of Popery in the Communion of the Roman Church they might as well have defended their Revolt by pretending that the Church of Rome requires not the Veneration of Images or the Invocation of Saints in any sense at all or any other such thing as notoriously False as that would be As to the Inhabitants of Montauban that became Converts too upon M. de Meaux's Principles he says That their Acknowledgment is no convincing Proof that there was truly an Old and New Popery excepting in their Imaginations But their Testimony and the former Testimonies are I hope a convincing Proof that the Defender did not make this Distinction but that it was in effect made to his hand even by the Bishop of Meaux's Converts Which is the thing this Man should have spoken to but that every Mans Case will not bear Pertinence in his Answers But I have shewn him by the way that these Testimonies are a Terrible Argument of the Thing and that there is cause for such a Distinction as this which before I have done I shall make as evident as the cause of another thing is viz.
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
Images respect is paid to the Persons whom they represent but Images themselves are not to be worshipped No God forbid but only used to put us in mind of the Original Thus they explicate the Language i. e. give us the Sense of their Church in her Decisions of Faith But so I dare say as it was never explicated before However if these Gentlemen believe the Sense of the Council to be as they say I wonder how it comes to pass that the Vindicator should not acknowledge it to be Popery For he must not forget that Popery is the Sense of the Church which she delivers by her Voice in Councils and therefore that the Sense of the Councils Words it truly Popery And consequently what He and His Party take to be their Sense they must in spite of their Hearts confess to be their Popery unless they care not how inconsistently they talk And then I would ask the Vindicator whether it be possible to reconcile his and the Bishops Sence with Cardinal Capisucchi's and those of his way The Truth is the Vindicator has given up the Cause for by saying that we bring only the private Sentiments of Men which other Members of the same Church condemn he confesses that they do in these things condemn one another Which perfectly acquits us from the charge of misrepresenting them when we say that there are two sorts of Popery amongst them by which we never meant any thing else than that one Party of them and that the greater does earnestly contend that that is Popery which the other utterly disclaims and does therefore set up another Sense of their Councils and their publick Offices opposite to that of the former As for his calling the Sentiments of the opposite Party Private Sentiments If he means that they keep their Persuasions to themselves and do not trouble the Church with them He is to know that as the Men are not private but of great Note and Authority in the R. Church and the number of their Followers far more considerable than of theirs who condemn them so their Sentiments are not private neither but as publick as Disputing for them and censuring and punishing their Opposers can make them But if I can understand him by private Sentiments he means the Sentiments of Men out of Council so that no measure is to be taken of the Doctrine of their Church by what is delivered by such Men tho they be Bishops or Cardinals and their number never so great and their Declarations never so publick and notorious and their Censures never so sharp against those that oppose them for still they are but the private Sentiments of Men out of Council Why then must the Representers or the Vindicators or even his Lordship the Bishop of Meaux's Sentiments concerning the Doctrine of the Church go for any other than the private Sentiments of Men For their Expositions have been neither made nor approved in General Councils Must Cardinal Capisucchi the Archbishop of Bourdeaux and Father Crasset with his Holy Bishops and Learned Doctors nay and with the Learned of all Nations be said to deliver only the Sentiments of private men whilest a few Teachers that arose in this Age whose Party is despicable who labour under the marks of Insincerity whose Doctrine being professed in good earnest is persecuted by that Church whose Faith it is said to be whilst those Men I say must be thought to deliver the True and Genuine Doctrine of the Church But if neither the one side nor the other side delivers the Sense of the Church Who knows what the Sense of the Church is and how shall I come by it The Vindicator directs me to the Express Words of General and Approved Councils But then I must needs ask him Who is to be Judge of the Sense of those express Words I see express Words indeed and I am very apt to think that I do understand the Sense of plain and express Words But if I may be allowed to understand express Words why can I not as well understand such Words in the Scriptures as in their Councils For the Words of the Scripture seem to me to be very expresly against many things that are held in the Church of Rome And here I have been told that this is not the Sense of the Scripture but my private Sense that the Scripture is a Dead Letter till the Churches Interpretation gives it Life and Sense that private Judgment is Fallible and therefore not to be relied upon that the same places seem to be express to one Man for this thing and to another Man for that thing that so many private Heads as there are so many Bibles there will be that after all our assurance that we understand plain and express Texts of Scripture there is no certainty to be had but by submitting to Authority and receiving Doctrines of Faith not from the Scripture but from the Church Well I submit to the Church and ask Where or by whom she delivers her Sence concerning Doctrines of Faith Ans By her Voice in her General and Approved Councils But where is that Voice to be heard Ans In the express Words of those Councils I go therefore to those Councils God help them that can't Here indeed I find express Words if a Man could but tell how to come to the Sense of them for I thought my self very sure of the meaning of express Words of Scripture But it seems I was mistaken then What assurance have I that I am not mistaken now For express Words are but as express Words in the Councils as they are in the Scriptures And if my Sence of such Words in the Scripture was but a private Sence before my Sence also of such Words in the Councils is no more now And therefore if I must trust to my own private Sence I shall be sorely tempted to go back again and to make as good a shift as I can with my private Sence and the Scriptures together rather than follow those who tell me my private Sence is not to be trusted and yet leave me to it at last For when all is done the Churches Sence according to this Man is a mere Notion of a thing that is no where to be found for the several Sences of her Words in Council are but the Sentiments of private Men which this Man opposes to the Sence of the Church to save his Church from two Poperies For instance if I go to Cardinal Capisucchi and his Party to ask them what the Churches Sence is of that due Honour and Veneration that is to be given to Holy Images they tell me the very same that is given to the Persons represented by them But what am I the nearer for this is but the Sentiment of private Men. I go to ask the Bishop of Meaux and his Party and they cry God forbid the Church requires no such thing But I conceive his Sentiment is as private as the Cardinals and so
is every bodies else that I can speak to and which is worst of all I must not judge between these different Parties which of them speaks the Churches Sence because I am that way Infallibly thrown upon my own Sentiments which are as private as can be In this State there being no Council sitting I have no living Judge upon Earth to help me and I am sure I must not be a living Judge for my self so that I have no Oracle to go to but a few Dead Letters which cannot speak and I have no reason to expect whilst I am doubting whether the Words mean Capisucchi's or De Meaux's Sence that the Letters should disappear and other Letters rise in the room of them and make Words plain enough to end the Dispute And therefore I think we must do as the Vindicator gives leave and suspend our Judgment at least till the sitting of the next General and Approved Council that shall be called to interpret the last Tho I do not see how that could end the Controversie because the Words of that Council too must be interpreted by private Sence and so to the Worlds end till Councils have found out a way to determine Controversies of Faith without any Words at all There is I confess one way left to come to a certainty of the Churches Sence if we had it and but one and that is for every Body to be Infallible for by the same reason that they would take us off from the Scriptures we have not any security by Councils unless we had an infallible Spirit to interpret and then I fancy there would be no need of Councils at all for an Infallible way of interpreting the Scriptures will excuse any Mans dependence upon Councils that has it Now after these Men have vilified the private use of the Scriptures and have in effect made nothing of them for this Child of the Church to come now at last in his distress and make as little of General Councils is a just Infatuation upon him Who does not see that to get off the two Poperies which are so notorious he will allow nothing to be Popery but the very express Words of their Councils which indeed have a Sence that this Man calls the Churches Sence but then you are to ask no body what that Sence is For whoever he is that you ask he gives you but his own Sence or his private Sentiment And at this rate I confess it will be impossible to find out two Poperies in the Church because Popery is nothing but the Churches Sence But then you will not be able to find so much as One Popery in the Church and that it may be the Vindicator never thought of For whilst every body gives his own Sence to the Words of the Council as they say every one of us does to the Words of the Scripture indeed no Man can be certain that the Churches Sence is not reached by any of the private Sentiments of Men but who has had the good luck to reach it the Lord knows for 't is a Happiness which no Man that has it can certainly say that he has And therefore by that Trick which serves him to keep two Poperies out of the Church he has unawares thrown out all Popery excepting that dead Popery that lies buried in the Words of General and approved Councils Thus speaking of that which we Term Old Popery and his Parties condemning it he says Pag. 6. So long as there is such a Dispute betwixt them whom the Church acknowledges to be her Children and she does not determine it any one may hold which side they please as an Opinion or suspend their Judgment but neither side is truly what you ought to mean by Popery So that 't is neither Popery to worship Images with the same Worship that is due to what they represent nor is it Popery to worship them with a Worship that is not the same nor is it Popery to worship them as it were not at all And therefore the Children of the Church may hold which side they please as an Opinion they may with Cardinal Capisucchi be of the opinion that M. de Meaux's Doctrine concerning due Honour and Veneration savours of Heresie and they may with M. de Meaux be of the Opinion that Capisucchi's Doctrine savours of Idolatry And they that are of the former Opinion may yet with the Cardinal approve the Bishops Exposition and they that are of the later Opinion may with the Bishop say That the Cardinal in his Treatise about Images had said nothing in the whole that contradicteth the Bishop In short we may take Due Honour and Veneration in this Sense or in that Sense or in any Sense wherein any of the Children of the Church understand it or if you please no Sense whatsoever For you may suspend your Judgment And if the Vindicator be in the right that what he has said in this case is applicable to all others Protestants without believing one Doctrine of Faith more than they do already may be said to have as much Doctrinal Popery as the Members of the Romish Church it self I would have the Vindicator think of these things and before he sends us again to the express Words of his General Councils to consider how his Friends have used the Scriptures and us for making them the Rule of our Faith. We do not pretend to find in express Words of their General Councils every thing which we call Old Popery but we find it in the Profession of the prevailing Part even of the present Roman Church and in its oppressing those that seem in good earnest to be of another mind And as we may without blame call that Popery or the Sense of their Church which themselves call so so we cannot be reproved for saying that their Popery seems to be the true and genuine Popery because it agrees vastly better with the express Words of their Councils than the Popery of our modern Expositors and Representers But yet for calling this Popery the Vindicator calls the Defender a Misrepresenter Pag. 6 7. a Misrepresenter and a Calumniator too a Misrepresenter a Falsifier and a Calumniator Thus he lays about him without Fear or Wit and hurts himself more than his Adversary For his bad Language does furnish me with a Proof that there are Two Poperies amongst them which the dullest Apprehension will feel and the finest shall not be able to distinguish away To take the Vindicator's Instance once more Here in England I make bold to say that worshipping Images and Crucifixes with the same Worship that is due to the Persons represented is Popery And for this by an Authentic Papist I am called a Misrepresenter a Falsifier and a Calumniator too Which are hard Words and I would not willingly deserve them I would therefore know what is the sincere Popery in this case and I am told That Images are not properly to be worshipped but the Persons represented
Construction is no False Translator but a True one especially if that Sentence be part of a Work where the Latin is every where else very good and that Sense which the Construction makes agrees with all that is in connexion And 1. it agrees very well with the mention of those many Benefits which Reliques are said to be the Means of And 2. It holds with the Difference between the Matter of this Period and that of the foregoing one much better than the Vindicator's Sense does For he would have the Help of the Saints to be mentioned here But let him observe that this was abundantly taken care for in the Provision that went immediately before and therefore if it were Indifferent as it is not which way the Construction should be carried according to the use of Latin this should carry it for ours that here the Council was engaged in a new Matter not for the Invocation of Saints and the Benefits of that which are provided for before but for the Veneration of their Reliques and the Benefits that come that way which is the Business of this Period And now the Vindicator may consider to whom of right the Character of a False Translator belongs of a Falsifier and a Calumniator too Certainly Controversies about Religion were never disgraced by such mean Bickerings as these but who can help it that has to do with such Men as this Vindicator and his Friend the Representer So much for knowing the Sense of the Church by her Voice in her General and Approved Councils Again We are to know what the Church delivers as a necessary Practice Pag. 6. by her universally practising such things as necessary I ask therefore 1. Did not the Church intend her Public Offices for Rules of Vniversal Practice and are they not therefore one Means by which we are to judge of such Practice 2. Whether those things are not necessary to be done in the Roman Church which her Public Offices require 3. Whether she does not practice those things as necessary which she practises in conformity to her own Public Offices or Whether it be indifferent for the Children of the Church to observe her Rules or to refuse to observe them The Vindicator understood himself to be liable to these Questions and therefore when he comes to apply this Means of knowing the Churches Sense in necessary Practices he adds a new Limitation Vnless says he you can prove That what you term Old Popery was delivered as a Practice necessary TO SALVATION all you say will avail you nothing For the Church is to answer for nothing which she requires not as necessary to Salvation And tho she obliges all her Children to worship the Wood on Good-Friday and condemns those that refuse as Schismatics as Imberâ— knows to his Cost yet 't is not the Churches Sense that they should do so because the Rubric does not add that this is Necessary to Salvation So that if the Church had commanded us to worship Moloch that had not been Popery or the Churches Sense unless she had inserted that Reason for her Command That 't is necessary to Salvation to worship Moloch In a word The General Practice of the Church of Rome in the Service of the Virgin the Invocation of Saints and the Worship of Images is notorious to the World. And no Man that knows the authorized Practice can doubt of the Sense of the Church nor be ignorant that in these things the Bishop of Meaux has delivered not the Churches Sense but his own if indeed it be his own The Defender produced an Author of the Roman Communion who concluded that the true and only Means to free their Religion from the Exceptions of Heretics was to shew that it does not tolerate any thing but what is Good and that the Public Worship the Customs and Doctrines Authorized in it are Just and Holy. This Author had good Reason for what he said especially against the Bishop of Meaux who imputed to the Pagan Religion those Abuses which were publicly committed amongst them and laughed at the Expositions of the Philosophers that would put a good Sense upon their Abominable Worships The Vindicator says he admits the Parallel but he is certain that it will never make any thing for us till we can shew that the Church does or did make use of Racks and Gibbets and all sorts of Tortures to oblige People to believe and practise those things which we call Old Popery as the Heathens did to make them worship Idols That is to say He does not admit the Parallel tho he says he does admit it For the Bishop of Meaux was brought in charging Paganism with a Barbarous and Idolatrous Worship upon the account of their Notorious and Authorized Practices without regard to their Cruelties upon those that refused to comply with them And therefore if the Parallel be admitted we may conclude an Old Popery from a like general Practice without enquiring whether Racks and Gibbets and all sorts of Tortures were used to enforce it upon the people But the Vindicator has required a wise condition to make the Parallel hold for he says in effect that before Christianity appeared against Heathenism and till the Pagans had some people to hang and to torture Paganism could not be charged with a Corrupt and Idolatrous Worship And yet if this were necessary to be added Old Popery has not been behind hand with the use of Racks and Gibbets and all sorts of Tortures to speak all in a word it has had and to this day it has an Inquisition to uphold it As for what he says that the Defender must shew Pag. 7. that the Church allows such wicked Practices as correspond to his Authors example of Killing and Robbing and are as dangerous to the Church as those are to a State. I reply that the Question is not here how dangerous those Doctrines and Practices are which we call Old Popery but whether indeed they are to be charged upon the Church of Rome And the Similitude was brought to shew That it is to as little purpose to defend the Church of Rome against our exceptions by pretending that no decision of Council can be produced requiring that Service and Worship which is universally given to Saints and Images as to acquit a City where they rob and kill without contradiction by saying that there is no Law commanding Men to rob and murther one another As for the danger of those Doctrines and Practices which we call Old Popery 't is another Question in which I am pretty confident that Good Man the Representer is bound to appear He and the Vindicator therefore shall agree about it at their leisure I shall do my part to bring them fairly together and so let them compound the matter betwixt them as well as they can The Vindicator felt himself born down with those clear Testimonies of an Old Popery which the Defender plied him with and by what appears now he struggles
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
They are both of them like a pair of Diamonds hard and sharp and nothing can cut the one so handsomly as his Fellow If they should chance to fall foul it would be indeed a Comical end of the Controversie and not unsuitable to the Representer who studied to make a Farce of it when he brought in his Phanatick Sermon But let them make what end of it they please there is a time when it is decent for us to give over that as hitherto Truth has lost no ground for want of Argument so it may lose no honour by want of Discretion I have given up the Representer and shall but once more trouble the Vindicator which will be more than enough for him since ere long he may expect from his Antagonist such an Account of the Articles of the Bishop of Meaux as will be esteemed by Judicious and Impartial men a Final Determination of that Controversie The CONTENTS of the ANSWER to the REPRESENTER HIS Extravagance in diverting to the Case of the Dissenters Page 1 And his Indiscretion in upbraiding us with their Sufferings Page 5 That the Discourse against Transubstantiation is not scurrilous Page 9 His Pretence that we have written against Popery without Success is false and impertinent if it were true Page 10 That the Papists are to thank the Representer for the Revival of these Controversies Page 13 That he now writes to praise himself and what he had written before Page 16 And presses upon us with meer Confidence and tedious Repetitions Page 21 That he is a False Representer because he has concealed one part of the Character of a Papist Page 28 The Folly of his Clamour that we pretend to know what Popery is better than the Papists Page 29 His Offer to receive us into the Church of Rome upon the Terms which he propounds considered Page 31 That we cannot with a good Conscience accept his Offer Page 32 That if we could he can give us no Security against Old Popery Page 33 That if he were able to secure us we have no reason to think that he is willing Page 34 His Insincerity in telling us that he detests some Doctrines and Practices with which his Answerer charged the Church of Rome and in refusing to say what they are in particular Page 35 The true meaning of these Offers to receive us upon the Profession of his New Popery Page 38 And this exemplified by the Terms upon which the Converts of the City of Orange were reconciled to the Church of Rome P. 39 That he has abused Mr. Montague by a False Representation of his Judgment concerning the Homilies of our Church P. 45 That he continues his Charge of Misrepresentation upon some of our Men without replying to the Answers made in their Defence P. 49 But makes bold to say that the Author of the View confessed what that Author clearly diproved Pag. 53 His Pretence for declining a particular Answer to the View Pag. 57 His pleasant way of proving that he has not forsaken the Defence of his Double Characters Pag. 58 A brief Rehearsal of the Representer's Performances Pag. 66 The CONTENTS of the REPLY to the VINDICATOR THAT the Apologies of the New Converts in France are a clear Evidence both that the Distinction between Old Popery and New Popery is generally understood there and that 't is not a Distinction without a Difference Pag. 71 That he strives in vain to shew the Case of Monsieur Imbert to be no Argument of such a Difference Pag. 78 That the New Popery is offered for the sake of the Old one Pag. 82 The Good-Friday Service of the Missal as to the Worship of the Cross once more explained Pag. 83 How Matters stand between Mr. de Meaux Mr. Widenfelt and Father Crasset as to the Worship of the B. Virgin. Pag. 85 The Vindicator's Rule to know the Churches Sense in these things by her General Councils and by her Universal Practice considered Pag. 88 That if there be another way to know the Churches Sense in Doctrines of Faith besides her Voice in General Councils and Two Poperies be made to appear that way the Vindicator gets nothing by Councils P. 90 That if there be no other way yet even by this way it is demonstrated that they have Two Poperies amongst them Pag. 93 That the Vindicator has brought things to that pass that he makes Councils as insignificant as the Representer has made the Scriptures to be Pag. 101 That to avoid Two Poperies he has in truth not left so much as One Popery amongst Papists Pag. 105 But after all the ill Language we have from the Vindicator here for not granting that his is the True Popery and the ill Usage we should meet with elsewhere for contending that it is the True one is a sensible Demonstration of Two Poperies Pag. 106 A final Defence of our Charge against the Council of Trent about the Veneration of Reliques Pag. 107 Of Judging of the Churches Sense by her Universal Practice Pag. 110 The Bishop of Meaux's arguing against the Pagans from their Practices shewn to be good against the Church of Rome Pag. 111 That the Vindicator has utterly ruined the Representer's Designs Pag. 113 And at the same time betraied the Bishop of Meaux's Exposition too Pag. 118 Particular Replies to what remains in his Full Answer Pag. 120 AN ANSWER TO THE REPRESENTERS REFLECTIONS UPON THE STATE and VIEW OF THE CONTROVERSY HIS first Reflection upon the Stater is for Misrepresenting the case of the Dissenters Had the Stater done so the Representer had business enough of his own to let them speak for themselves But he had a better opinion of himself than so Hitherto says he I have been concerned with such who have most unjustly traduced and exposed the Doctrine and Faith of our Church Pref. p. 1. and now of late an upstart sort of Misrepresenter has called upon me who pretends to give an account of the Present State c. Which is just as if he had said Have not I for this three years and upwards so mauld the Traducers and Exposers of Papists that they feel it to this very hour How then durst this upstart sort of Misrepresenter shew his head as if there were not such a Man as I in the Nation To this tune he begins which is not seemly in a Man whose Character requires more Humility and Modesty than this comes to For I am told he is a Reverend Father which makes me the more sorry for him I am resolved to be very Civil to the Representer but as he has behaved himself I am at a great loss how to express it His falling upon the forementioned Author as a Misrepresenter and the pretence upon which he does it too is so very much out of the common Road of pertinence that I know not what to do with him It looks as if he had been a little unsettled with that overweening opinion I mentioned just now and then
more to the Church than the Discourses so that by what I remember of those times P. 3. had not the Church of England taken the Lash in hand as well as the Pen the Churches had continued as empty as they are at this day Our Representer plainly insinuates by the way that our Churches are somewhat empty at this day and this is the very man who upon the present occasion observes That altho dealing out of Relations by Tale and by Scraps might pass in a matter beyond our memory P. 4. as of the Council of Trent of Lateran of Pope Gregory yet to come thus with half Stories in a Concern of Yesterday oh that is not to be endured But whether our Churches are as it were empty is without all doubt a Concern of to day and for a man not to tell half-Stories of such a Concern but whole Stories the quite contrary What is that I pray That he thinks it probable that the Dissenters were more wrought upon by Sufferings than by the Discourses of the Divines I easily grant for he knows of a certain Church that has done more by those sort of Perswasives than by all that ever was written in her behalf as all Europe and both the Indies can bear her witness Doubtless therefore he thinks it probable that our Church was a gainer by the execution of the Penal Laws at that time but whether it was so or not is another Question I find that where he mends the Staters Account for him he would have had him to say P. 4. That it was very likely for such is the frailty of wicked man that more were frighted and whipt to Church than came thither by Force of our Reasoning and Discourses By the way he should learn to be more grave and serious than to make sport with the Frailty of wicked man which is a thing that a good Priest ought to lament and to remedy what he can by his Doctrine and Example When he has to do with his Adversaries if he finds that any of them grows exceedingly impertinent and when Argument forsakes them fall to Ridiculing or that they use Tricks to cover their Convictions and do but discover them so much the more let him lay it on handsomly without sparing if he likes this way of Correction best But for a Priest of the living God to rally with the Frailty of wicked man when he means nothing by it but to help out a Lampoon upon a single Adversary whom he does not love is very unpriest-like and a more likely way to make Atheists than to mend that which he it seems can make merry withal the Frailty of wicked man. Well But 't is not so certain that when the Dissenters were under the execution of the Laws that then I say human Frailty wrought that way which he speaks of for it might work the quite contrary way and the Orders for that purpose coming from above much about the same time the offence which they took at that might prejudice many of them against all that the Divines could say tho the Divines had no hand in it for mankind is apt to be provoked as well as to be frighted and to act inconsiderately in one as well as in the other case But there is this Reason to think that they were rather the Discourses than the Penalties which filled our Churches That the Prosecutions have been at an end a good while and 't is therefore to be hoped that the virtue of the Discourses did the good work at first and goes on to do it still for whatever the Representer fancies the Churches are as full at this day as they were in those times when he pretends the Church of England took the Lash in hand They are so full that a Reverend Father may come to spy and hearken and think to escape in the Throng without being observed and what if the Representer has been upon this Mission himself Then I say he shall Represent for those that will trust him but for me and my Friends never whilst he breathes As for his Story of one Mr. P. 2. de Laune I know nothing of it The Representer says he wrote a Book and was sent to the Compter but he does not say it was for writing that Book tho he would insinuate some such matter from which modesty of his if there be any truth at all in the story one might venture to conclude that he knew the man was sent to Prison for something else And yet if he were sent to Prison for the writing of that Book but if neither that Divine whom he wrote against nor any of the rest contributed to it so much as by a wish the Representer stings us not by this Reflection Of this I have told him something of my own knowledg already For what he says of some that were starved and of Orphans and Widows that were made so by the Penalties inflicted upon the Dissenters it is to be hoped that our Representer over-does the business and rants somewhat too Tragically P. 3. For my part I have always thought that the use of those Perswasives which he talks of does at the long run more mischief to a Church than good and if I may speak my own experience I do not find this Spirit of Moderation to prevail any where so much as in the Church of England But the Representer brings over the Sufferings of Dissenters for nothing else but to prejudice them against us I will not here enter into an Enquiry what reason there is for it but this one thing I will say That I am no less desirous than himself that the Dissenters should be very often told of their Sufferings in those times only if a man will be telling them then as the Representer says it would do well not to tell the Story by halves but if he does then to return him some of his own words I do not think that with all his poor shifts P. 3. his Readers will be imposed upon in a matter so well known And therefore I no less than the Representer desire that the Dissenters would think of all that is past as long as they have a day to live As to the Tracts that were soon after written against the Papists the Representer observes that Two things were not mentioned by the Stater upon this occasion which we had upon the former Not the Plain and Inoffensive manner of Writing nor any News of Success which these Discourses had upon the Parties designed For the former he says P. 5. That the Stater was too conscious of the scurrilous and bitter Spirit with which some of them were penned that one against Transubstantiation being Instance enough By which he would insinuate that others of them too were written in the same manner How hard is it for some men to be sincere in any thing I remember indeed some of these Expressions in that Discourse which he produces such
are not to be trusted with an implicit Faith which we desire not to be but rather to be believed in these matters so far as we prove what we say and no farther And if he be trusted no farther we desire no more III. We offer says he and are ready to accept any into our Communion that will but embrace and receive the Doctrine as it there stands in his first Book under those very colours and that shape owning not only the substance of it but even that appearance c. Now this he hath offered twice or thrice before and his offer has been as often answered but he will not take the least notice of it He thought at first no doubt that here he had nicked the business but tho he has had some reason to fall in his opinion of the Proposal yet he comes over with it as if this too remained in its full force I will try however if it be possible to oblige him to reflect upon what we have to say in this matter 1. Then this offer ought to be esteemed no otherwise than a Ludicrous one made without good Faith and with no other meaning than to put some colour upon his own deceitful Characters of a Papist because he has been told and indeed could not be ignorant of it before that we cannot swallow Popery even as he has smooth'd and gilded it for us He has in the first Answer to his Book our Reasons against Popery as by him Represented which he did not and I imagine durst not reply to And so long as our Reasons are good against that which he confesses to be Popery he offers a vain tryal of his sincerity about that which he denies to be so because he knows that as the Case stands 't is impossible for us if we will keep a good Conscience to accept the offer And therefore this beloved offer of his which he intended for a Varnish to set off his Characters will to all men that can use their Eyes give a just occasion to suspect they are false and that the sincerity he has used in his Representation is of one piece with that which he has shewn in his Proposal To which I may add That if we are very sure that his Characters are Deceitful if we see that himself declines the defence of them and that no importunity will provoke him to undertake the vindication of them and that he writes time after time to excuse himself from it we cannot have just cause to believe that he is not deceitful in the offer he makes upon such Characters 2. Suppose that we could accept and should be accepted here upon the Terms he propounds yet we have no security that when we are in this Representer either can or will if he could save us from being pressed to profess and practise that Popery which he either denies or conceals On the one hand we are very certain that the prevailing part of his Church holds that which he either rejects from his Faith or says nothing of and if we understand any thing that they declare agreeably to their Councils and Publick Offices On the other hand we have no reason at all to believe his Authority in the Roman Church to be considerable enough to carry on his Representation when the turn is once serv'd or to secure us from being served in due time as Monsieur Imbert has been who was basely left in the lurch by the Bishop of Meaux after he had declar'd for worshiping not the Wood but Christ not the Cross but him that suffered on it Where the Inquisition is set up could this Man that talks as if he were somebody govern the proceedings by his Characters If he thinks that he could that 's a new Reason to suspect that his Wits are set aside by self-conceit If that he could not what Conscience could it be in him to try if he could draw us into Snares and by his New Popery wheedle us into a subjection to the Roman See and so into a necessity of being used as the Physician at Goa was Relation de l'Inquisition de Goa chap. xxvii who suffered under the Inquisition for two things whereof one was no more than his declaring as his Accusers said that an Ivory Crucifix was a piece of Ivory which I should think may as safely be said according to the Rules of New Popery as what the Representer offers might be done viz. to burn an Image or a Crucifix if that will satisfy us that he has no Superstition in these things For as I remember he talks at that rate But then again if the Representer were a Man of that Figure in his Church as to be able to save us in a time of Exigence we have not yet any good reason to trust him that he would be willing to do so for he has not given us reasonable assurance that himself rejects that Popery which he knows we call so I shall therefore take the same liberty with him that he has done with us and put him upon a Test which I think he cannot honestly refuse He has taxed his Answerer with charging the Determinations of Schoolmen and the Sentiments of private Authors and some Passages in Old Missals and Rituals upon the Church of Rome as if her Doctrine were to be concluded from thence I will not here repeat what has been said in answer to it But this I say will the Representer be content to go through his Thirty seven Points as they are considered by his first Answerer and make his Mark upon every thing which he rejects and which he says we falsly charge upon the Church of Rome and declare before the World upon his honest Word what it is that he believes to be impious there and ought not to be fastened upon his Church This perhaps would be something and we who are not a little disposed to hope well of other Men might then conceive our selves obliged to think that he means honestly He has more than once or twice offered that his Church shall receive us upon his Terms and he has been answered But as I do remember he has been asked whether he would refuse us if we desired to come into the Roman Communion with that which we call Old Popery But I do not remember that he has answered to that And yet I will assure him this was a very material Question and which I will make him take notice of here if I can Will the Representer take us by the hand and present us to his Church if we should come with the Lateran Popery about deposing Sovereigns for Heresy and with the Trent Popery about the Worship of Images as it is understood by Bellarmine or rather by Capisucchi and as it is practised by the Tartuffs of the Roman Church and with all that old Popery which the Answerer gives an account of If he will not undertake for us upon these Terms let him do two things which may fairly
Why the Vindicator is not able to bear the mention of it His harping upon the Odiousness of this Distinction and of this Accusation does but give us just occasion to say that because it was necessary in these times for some of them to bring in a New Popery they must needs count it an Odious thing in us to put them in mind of the Old one But it seems that if we had said nothing of it they had been little the nearer for the Converts themselves have proclaim'd the Odious business who altho they were to be seduced by the inviting Appearance of a New Popery and some other New Popery-Motives not altogether so Sweet and Gentle were not yet to be so far trusted with the Secret of this Affair as to be told that they must conceal it from the World. These men no doubt could have wished that the Converts and we had kept their Counsel and left them to be the First Discoverers of it after that happy Work was done every where which they call Conversion If they expected this it was a vain presumption But whatever they imagined at first they cannot endure to be told now that the Trick was invented too late and discovered too soon to do all those Wonders which they designed by it And so much for the Vindication of the Distinction of Old and New Popery by the Testimony of the Converts The Defender touched upon Monsieur Imbert's Story which also clearly shewed the same Distinction going amongst Romanists themselves before the Defender insisted upon it The only Question as to the evidence of this Instance is whether Mr. Imbert was oppressed by his Diocesan the Archbishop of Bourdeaux for following Monsieur de Meaux's Exposition in declaring that not the Wood of the Cross but Jesus Christ who suffered upon it was to be Adored in the Good-Friday Service The proof that has been made of this is so good that the Vindicator denies not the Fact but contents himself not to confess it He saies indeed The Bishop tells of Extravagancies committed in the Church by Monsieur Imbert and I suppose if it were worth while he could prove them to you But in Conscience was it not worth while to prove them or at least to name them and to say what they were Was it not Mr. Imbert who in his Letter to the Bishop of Meaux appealed to the Process against him Desence of Exp. p. 126. and defied his Enemies to reproach him for his Life and Manners or for any other Doctrine than that of his Lordship Did he not publish a Factum of his Case all to the same purpose And can any other reason be given why it is not confuted in the Face of the World but because it cannot Sure I am that if it could have been done the Bishop might with less pain have disproved it than it hath cost him from time to time to shuffle it off in which labour he has so visibly added Insincerity to Insincerity Can the Vindicator think that it was not worth while for the Bishop to defend his Reputation against his Inferior as Mr. Imbert indeed is But the Bishop is now brought upon the Stage of the World for this matter and I must tell his Vindicator that Imbert being not only the Bishops Inferior but a man oppressed too by the Authority of the Archbishop of Bourdeaux the Bishop of Meaux's Friend the World does more undoubtedly believe that he delivered nothing but plain Truth in his Factum because if he had in the least swerved from it he had thereby exposed himself yet more to the power of that Greatness which oppress'd him to add to his Sufferings now with some Colour of Justice Whatever was at first insinuated by the Bishop it now appears that Imbert was no Fool unless in believing that the Bishop was in good earnest in his Exposition But the World will forgive him that when it will not so easily forgive the Expositor What should I say more the Vindicator himself has in effect acknowledged that it was worth while to make the pretended Extravagancies of the unfortunate Imbert appear For he confesses that the severe Reflexions which the Defender makes against the Proceedings of the Archbishop of Bourdeaux are made justly enough if Imbert said the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth which is as much as to say that it was worth while to shew that the World ought not to think so severely of the Archbishop as it certainly would if Imbert were believed But the Vindicator's Consequence is as absurd as possible that this will make unbyass'd persons think that Imbert was not just in the delivery of the matter For because one Story is good till another is told unbyass'd Persons must think that Imbert was very just in the Relation since it so nearly concerned the Archbishop to have it disproved and yet he never went about it As for the Bishop of Meaux it concerned him much more who has not only forsaken this poor Man that suffers for nothing but conforming to the Bishops Exposition but has also endeavoured to take away his good Name and without offering any colour of proof has added Reproaches to his other Afflictions In short the Bishop has in all appearance said for himself what he is able But the pretended Extravagancies are yet to be named unless the Vindicator will insist upon that for which the Defender has brought Cardinal Capisucchi to acquit Monsieur Imbert and to condemn the Bishop Which I desire the Reader to take special notice of in the Answer to the Bishop of Meaux's Letter p. 41.42 But I forbid the Vindicator ever to say one word about it or to offer the least Reply to what I add concerning it That 't is such a blot to his Bishop and to his expounding Design as will stick upon them till they are so happy as to be forgotten But the Vindicator was so sensible of the Evidence of Imbert's Story that he thought fit to make an If of the main part of it and so to speak to the Supposition If the Curate saies he cried out as Imbert accuses him The Wood The Wood he was as much in the wrong as your self meaning the Defender That is the Curate mistook the meaning of the Church as much as the Defender did But the Vindicator should have gone on thus And if the Archbishop of Bourdeaux caused Process to be made against Imbert for crying out Not the Wood but Jesus Christ then the Archbishop mistook the meaning of the Church as much as the Curate And if the Bishop of Meaux abetted the Archbishop and forsook Imbert he was more to blame than either the Curate or the Archbishop not indeed for mistaking but for betraying the pretended Doctrine of the Church which he had so publickly owned before Now not to enquire by what Authority the Vindicator pronounced the Curate to be in the wrong since the Archbishop of Bourdeaux thought Imbert to be in the wrong
a loss again and the Sence of the Church in Council will do him little Service in those Points where it may be Councils are silent if the Sence of the Church out of Council be plainly and loudly against him and his Party If the Vindicator then should say That tho the Church has a Sence of Doctrines of Faith out of Council yet that Sence cannot or at least is never delivered but by her Voice in General Councils Then I have one other Question to put which will break out into a few more but which he who hath considered these things very well will make no difficulty to answer This Question is How the Churches Sence came to be known concerning Doctrines of Faith before any General and Approved Councils delivered them for such Which Question will appear to be a very reasonable one if he will please to read these that follow 1. Whether Doctrines of Faith be not the same now that they were from the Beginning 2. Whether the Sence of the Church concerning these Doctrines has not been always the same 3. Whether the Church therefore had not the same Sence of them before they were delivered by her Voice in General and Approved Councils that she had afterwards Or Whether she had one Sence and delivered another And then as I said at first 4. If she had the same Sence before it was so delivered that she had when she delivered it and after she delivered it How came that Sence to be known before This I think is plain enough but if it be not I will try to make it plainer Therefore 1. We say with the Romanist That it is a Doctrine of Faith that The Son is of the same Substance with the Father But this Doctrine was never delivered in a General and Approved Council before the First Council of Nice as it was impossible it should because that was the First General Council I would know of the Vindicator whether the Churches Sence concerning that Doctrine was not to be known before and how it was to be known 2. The Romanists say That 't is a Doctrine of Faith That in the Eucharist the Substance of the Bread is turned into the Substance of Christ's Body and the Substance of the Wine into the Substance of his Blood. But this was never delivered in any pretended General and Approved Council as we are very sure before the Council of Lateran under Innocent III. I would know of the Vindicator whether the Church had the same Sence of this Transubstantiation before that Lateran Council which 't is said to have had since and whether that Sence of the Church was known and if so then how it was known I have given the Vindicator two Instances One of a Doctrine of Faith for which we contend no less than the Roman Church and as we think to better purpose Another of a Doctrine which that Church says is of Faith tho we say it destroys All Faith and these two in behalf of all that are Real and of all that are by them pretended to be Doctrines of Faith. For till I am better informed by the Vindicator in answer to the foresaid Questions I say of all the Doctrines of both kinds that there should be some way to come to the Churches Sence about these things before she delivered her Sence of them in the Voice of General and Approved Councils This I shall presume till he acquaints me otherwise and if he does not yet understand which way these Questions drive I will now tell him Let him keep to his Principles and shew me by what way the Churches Sence came to be known concerning Doctrines of Faith before they were delivered by the Voice of General and Approved Councils and then let him leave it to me to shew him by the same way that Old Popery as we call it has been the Sence of the Church of Rome till these expounding and representing Days of ours Nay and that Father Crasset shall prove by the same way that it is now the Sence of the Roman Church whatever some few Men of that Communion may pretend to the contrary And when I have done this the Vindicator shall by me be never contradicted while he on the other side proves the Sense of the Church to be quite different from what Father Crasset in his way proves to be so For most undoubtedly he thereby does our Work for us and enables us to prove that there must of necessity be two Church-Senses betwixt them and consequently two sorts of Popery an Old Popery and a New Popery Whereas therefore the Vindicator says Till you can prove by the express Words of a General Approved Council that what you term Old Popery was delivered as a Doctrine of Faith all you say will avail nothing I would be glad to know what the Vindicator would have said in behalf of Transubstantiation so some such Man as Rabanus Maurus or Bertram or Berengarius if he had lived in their Times and they should have said to him tho I think in my Conscience none of 'em would have talked so insipidly Till you can prove by the express Words of a General Approved Council that what you term the Catholic Faith concerning Christ's Presence in the Eucharist was delivered as a Doctrine of Faith all you say will avail nothing Here I will not allow that the Vindicator should bring in the Doctors and Saints of the Church who might be pretended to bear Testimony to the Churches Sense in this Point For he has foreclosed himself as to this Relief and that by giving the Defender a notable Reason why all he can say will avail him nothing if he brings not the express Words of a Council For says he you bring only the Sentiments of Private Men which other Members of the same Church condemn I have urged this Matter further than I intended at first for I meant not to press for Answers to the foregoing Questions with much Importunity And now I say no more than that I shall take it very kindly of the Vindicator if he will please to admit these things into his Consideration and enlighten me with his Thoughts about them II. I proceed in the second place to suppose a very strange thing for fear the Vindicator should affirm it and that is That nothing is to be taken for the Sense of the Church as to Doctrines of Faith but what she declares by her Voice in General Approved Councils For if we take the Cause by this Handle the Distinction between Old and New Popery will I believe go on as roundly as it did before And some Inconvenience too will follow in the Close to trouble the Vindicator no less than this Odious Distinction between Old and New Popery Because I would lead him fairly to the Business I ask him in the First place Whether his Church hath delivered her Sense concerning those two Points which he mentions upon this occasion by her Voice in General and
Approved Councils or whether she has not The two Points are the Doctrine of the Invocation of Saints and the Doctrine of Worshipping Images If she has not done it then in the Church of Rome there can be no Doctrine concerning these two things which can be called a Doctrine of Faith. The Vindicator therefore will say I hope that she has delivered her Sense by her Voice And so I ask him in the Second place Whether by the Doctrine which the Church delivers he understands only so many Words put together and not rather the Sense of those Words which the Voice of the Church uses that is which her General and Approved Councils have put together to express their Meaning by This is a Question which the Vindicator must needs understand because I do in effect but borrow it of his Friends For the like Question has been often put to us by them and particularly by his good Friend the Representer and it may be by himself viz. Whether by the Scriptures we understand the Words or the Sense So say I by the Doctrines of Faith which the Vindicator says are delivered by the Voice of the Church in her General Councils Does he mean the Sense or the Words only of her Councils I will for once answer for him That he means the Sense which is contained under the Words I ask him therefore the Third time Whether the Sense of those Words which his General Councils have put together Pag. 6. be not as he says what truly we ought to mean by Popery If I may be bold to answer for him once more he must needs grant it For if the Churches Doctrine of Faith be the same with the Sense of her General Councils and if that which we ought to call Popery and to mean by Popery be the Churches Doctrine of Faith it will go very hard if Popery be not the Sense of her General Councils And now the Odious Distinction clears up apace in going this way to work For if that part of Popery which is made by Doctrines of Faith be neither more nor less than the Sense of General Councils concerning such Doctrines as we Protestants disclaim it follows presently that the Sense of those Councils is what we ought to call Popery And therefore 1. I humbly conceive that if there be two Parties in the Church of Rome that are not agreed what the Sense of her General Councils is it follows out of hand that so far they are not agreed about Popery and that for this very good Reason Because the Sense of her General Councils and the Faith part of Popery according to him is all one and indeed but two Expressions of the same thing 2. It follows also That in what Sense soever either of those Parties takes the Words of the Churches Councils that Sense is and must necessarily be that Parties Popery because the Sense of her Councils being Popery that which is to one Party the Sense of her Councils must likewise be Popery to that Party 3. If therefore one of those Parties takes the Words of her Councils in one Sense and another takes the same Words in a contradictory Sense then because the Sense in which the former takes those Words is the Popery of or to that Party and the Sense of the latter is its Popery it unavoidably follows that there are two pretended Poperies betwixt those two Parties which are inconsistent with one another 4. If the Sense of one of these Parties was that which prevailed without Controul ever since the Council of Trent till very lately and the Sense of the other Party is therefore but of yesterday then of these two Poperies the former must needs be the Old Popery and the latter the New Popery 5. So much Reason as we have to believe the Old Popery to be the true Sense of the Churches Councils rather than the New one so much reason also we have to believe that the Old Popery is the True Popery and the New to be but an Imposture or a Mistake of those of the Roman Church that have of late brought it up 6. And lastly If Protestants did not make those different Senses for them but each Party in that Church made them for themselves then this Distinction of an Old and a New Popery is no Misrepresentation Falsification or Calumny of Protestants but a Distinction grounded upon the Real Disagreement of Papists about Popery Quod erat demonstrandum But I think that Men were never put to it as we are to make solemn proof of things that are so evident that they need not to be proved at all The Council of Trent determines That we are to fly to the Prayers the Help and the Assistance of the Saints If we would know the Councils Sense in this Matter the Old ones will tell us that the meaning is we should have recourse to them for other Aids besides their Prayers And as one would verily take this for the meaning from the Construction of the Words themselves so the Terms of Invoking the Saints which were then used in their Offices and still are so do manifestly favour that Interpretation But our New Expositors come and tell us that they require no other Aid and Assistance from the Saints than their Prayers and the Vindicator intimates that if they did we should have something to say against the Lawfulness of what they practise If Popery therefore be not so much the Words of the Council in which I acknowledge they all agree as the Sense of the Council in which they do not agree how is it possible but that here are two Poperies in this matter advanced amongst themselves one against the other Again The Council of Trent affirms That due Honour and Veneration is to be given to Images And therefore what one Party in that Church takes to be that due Honour is Popery to them because 't is the Sense of the Church to that Party And what another believes to be so is their Popery And here I am sure if we find a Harmony 't is made up all of Discords Indeed one would have thought that the Council by Due Honour and Veneration had meant that Worship which was at that time given to Images in the Roman Church which their Offices required and for which their most celebrated Writers had contended And this way of coming to the Sense of the Council must lead a Man to the Popery of giving the same Honour to the Image that is due to the Prototype or at least an Inferior Honor by which the Image might be said to be truly and properly worshipped For the former Sense Cardinal Capisucchi does at this day earnestly contend and very fairly argues it against all Opposers from the Words of the Council But the Bishop of Meaux and the Representer and the Vindicator are as cross to that Sense as downright Contradiction can make them They say See Second Def. p. 31 32 c. That in presence of
only in presence of their Images I stand corrected and desire to know what Rule I am to go by in judging what Popery is in all other Doctrines that I may not be mistaken again as I was before The Vindicator tells me That what I can prove from the express Words of the Churches Councils and what they have Positively defined and declared that is Popery as to Doctrines of Faith and nothing else Well I am now furnished for a Journey into France or Spain or Italy because now I know what Popery is as a Man ought to do that ventures into those Parts There for instance at Sevil or at Bourdeaux I am apt to talk as other foolish Men have done before me Crucifixes say I are upon no account whatsoever to be honoured with Divine Worship Images say I are not properly to be Worshipped No God forbid The Church requires it not and so forth But I soon find that this English Popery for so I must now call it does not agree with those Climates and that my Propositions are Heretical there and since the Definition of the Council of Trent intolerable I pretend truly that I had my Popery from a Man that admits nothing for Popery but what is proved from the express Words of Councils They laugh at me and assure me that my Propositions are to be found in Councils neither in express Words nor by any good Consequence I desire to know if my Propositions be contrary to the express Words of Councils They tell me that they are contrary to the Sense of the Council of Trent and I find that unless I could shew where the Council does expresly define against what they call Popery I shall have but little comfort of insisting upon my English Rule That nothing is Popery but what is expresly defined in Council For at Sevil I am forced to retract my Propositions as Heretical and at Bourdeaux I am Imprisoned and because I am not a Man of Renown my Lord the Bishop of Meaux will not break with his Friend the Archbishop for so small a Matter as the Ruine of a Man of no Renown And this I get by learning Popery from the English Vindicator of the French Expositor Now if this be not as clear a Demonstration of two Poperies as any Difference in the World needs to have a Man must be forsaken of his Reason and bereft of his Senses For if I say this thing is Popery here in England I am a Misrepresenter a Falsifier and a Calumniator too If I go into a warmer Sun and say in the simplicity of my Heart concerning the very same thing that it is not Popery there I am a Misrepresenter a Falsifier and a Calumniator too for saying so And which is somewhat worse if I do but hold my own they will not only say that I am a Misrepresenter but they will use me like one too or rather like an Heretic Now if on the other side a Man has but apprehension enough to understand when one thing contradicts another as for example that to say of a certain Doctrine concerning Image-Worship That it is Popery is a Contradiction to saying of the very same Doctrine That it is not Popery and that the contrary is Popery And if on the other side he has sense enough to understand when he is rail'd at by those that say 't is not Popery for saying that it is and worse than railed at by those that say 't is Popery for saying that 't is not I will give the Vindicator leave to write a Book as big as Aquinas his Summs and as full of Subtilty to prove to the same Man or to any Man else that for all this there are not Two Poperies among Papists This of Image-Worship is the Case about which the Vindicator called the Defender all to naught and concludes with this remarkable Saying What I have said in this Case is applicable to all others With all my heart for so say I too What I have said in this Case is applicable to all others viz. where we pretend this Distinction to hold between Old and New Popery I should now leave this Point but that he still insists with an unparallell'd Confidence that the Defender is a false Translator of that Passage in the Council of Trent which concerns Reliques I shall therefore once more go our Fallible way to work to vindicate his Translation and thereby to shew from the express Words of the Council of Trent that the Old Popery was to seek the Aid of Reliques The Council having established the Invocation of Saints Sess 6. proceeded also to establish the Veneration of Reliques in these Words That the Holy Bodies of the Holy Martyrs and of others who live with Christ which were the Living Members of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Ghost and to be raised up by him to Eternal Life and glorified are to be venerated by the Faithful by which many Benefits are from God bestowed upon Men. Ita ut affirmantes Sanctorum Reliquiis venerationem atque honorem non deberi vel eas aliaque sacra monumenta à fidelibus inutiliter honorari atque EORVM opis impetrandae causâ Sanctorum memorias frustra frequentari omnino damnandos esse So that they who affirm Veneration and Honour not to be due to the Reliques of the Saints or that those and other Sacred Monuments are unprofitably honoured by the Faithful and that for the obtaining of THEIR help the Memories of the Saints are in vain frequented are to be condemned This is a Literal Translation and I say That by THEIR Help we are to understand the Help of Reliques and other Monuments not as the Vindicator would have it of the Saints To put some Colour upon his own Translation he inverted the Order of the Words as the Defender accused him and he has said nothing to it But Their Help must be the Help of Reliques and Monuments because otherwise the Construction of the Latin is False and against Rule For had the Council meant what the Vindicator says the Words must have run thus Or that those and other Sacred Monuments are unprofitably honoured Vel eas aliaque sacra monumenta inutiliter honorari atque SANCTORVM opis impetrandae causâ EORVM memorias frustra frequentari and that for the obtaining of the Help of the Saints Their Memories are in vain frequented The Relative Eorum had this way been determined to the Saints and so it had been placed if that had been the meaning because otherwise Eorum would according to the Rules of Latin Construction fall to the share of Monumenta and this tho Eorum does by chance agree in Number and Gender with Sanctorum that comes afterward but which comes out of place there for Eorum to be referred to it because this Relative had a very good Antecedent of its own before This therefore I say That he who Translates a Latin Sentence according to true Latin
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