Consciences c. 2. Whereas the Answerer excepted against his Representing Part wherein he pretends to keep to a Rule That the Representer shewed no Authority that he a private Man had to interpret the Rule in his own Sense against the Judgment of Great Divines as in the Question of the Popes Personal Infallibility and against the Determinations of Popes and Councils as in the Question concerning the Deposing Power The Representer replies That he followed the Council of Trent P. 5 6. which he does not interpret but takes in the Sense of the Catechism That he also kept to Veron's Rule of Faith and to the Bishop of Condom's Exposition so highly approved by Pope and Cardinals c. As to the Instances having first ran to the Book for two more he comes back with them to the two that were mentioned and replies 1. That whereas he limited the power of the Saints to help us to their prayers he followed the Council and the Catechism P. 7 8. 2. and the Bishop of Condom That he did not qualifie the Doctrine of Merit without Authority since it is so qualified by Trid. Sess 6. Can. 26. 3. That the Popes Personal Infallibility is not determined by a General Council 4 That the Deposing Power was never established under an Anathema as a Doctrinal Point P. 9 10. and those two are therefore no Articles of Faith 3. He makes these Reflections upon the Answerers proceeding in the Book That he either 1. owns part of the Representers Doctrine to be the established Belief of the Church of England P. 11. Or 2. Does without good Reason deny part of it to be the Doctrine of the Roman Church appealing from the Definitions of their Councils and sense of their Church either to some Expressions found in old Mass-Books and Rituals c. Or to some external Actions in case of Respect shewn to Images and Saints as Bowing Kneeling c. Or finally P. 12. to private Authors P. 13 14. Upon which follows a grievous Complaint of Misrepresenting upon the last account 4. From hence he goes back to the Answer to the Introduction where he was charged for saying That the Popes Orders are to be obeyed whether he be infallible or not P. 15 16. From whence it follows That Papists are bound to Act when the Pope shall require it according to the Deposing Power He replies That he gives no more to the Pope than to Civil Soveraigns whose Authority is not so absolute and unconfined but to some of their Decrees there may be just exception 5. From hence he flings again into the middle of the Book P. 16. and blames the Answerer for scouting amongst the School-men till the Question about Dispensations to Lye or Forswear was lost and that he offered no proof That the Dispensing Power was to be kept up as a Mystery and not used but upon weighty Causes Then he leaps into the Chapter of Purgatory P. 17. and affirms That St. Perpetua's Vision is not the Foundation of Purgatory P. 18. but only used by him as a Marginal Citation amongst many others Then a Complaint of Misrepresentation again and because Complaints are not likely to convince us Let us says he depend upon an Experience P. 19. Do but give your Assent to those Articles of Faith in the very Form and Manner as I have stated them in the Character of a Papist Represented and if you are not admitted into our Communion I 'le confess that I have abused the World Thus far the Reflections It is now time to compare Things and to see how much of the Cause is left standing I pass it by that the Answer to the Introduction See for this Answ to Pap. Protest p. 128. upon which the Representer spent his main Strength is in many most material Points untouch'd by the Reflections But this is a small Matter For 1. He has dropt the defence of his Double Characters his Representations and Misrepresentations For instead of going on with his Adversary in those Thirty Seven Points with which himself led the way he does nothing but nibble about Three or Four of them and that without taking notice of the tenth part of what was said by his Adversary to fix the true state of the Controversie even about them He has indeed thrown about four Loose General Exceptions amongst the Thirty Seven Chapters in which the Answerer Represented the several Doctrines and Practises of the Church of Rome but he has not with any one of these Exceptions come up fairly to what the Answerer has said upon any one particular Point And therefore I add 2. That for any thing our Representer has done to shew the contrary the Answerer has truly Represented the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome And then we have great Encouragement to turn Papists since the Representer tells us That if the Answerer has truly Represented the Doctrines of the Church of Rome He the Representer would as soon be a Turk as a Papist 3. He has absolutely dropt the defence of all his own Arguments not so much as pretending to shew where the Answers went upon a wrong State of the Question no nor trying to reinforce his Arguments where the State of the Controversie was agreed upon on both sides So that for ought I can see the Representer fell sick of his Thirty Seven Chapters all at once both as to matter of Representation and Dispute And this I think was pretty well for the First Reply The Second Answer to the Representer being a Reply to His Reflections BUT we are to thank the Reflections for one good Thing and that is for the Answer which they drew from another Learned Hand under the Title of a Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants In which I shall make bold to leave out several Material Points which the Answerer offered too Consideration and take notice of no more than what I think may serve to shew with what Sincerity on the One Side and Insincerity on the Other this Controversie has been managed Wherefore 1. Whereas the Representer chose to justify his complaints of Misrepresentation not by taking the first Answerers Representations into examination but by referring us to other Books and to Sutcliff's sharp censures of Popery The second Answerer consider'd that the Representer called the Censures which Protestants puts upon the Avowed Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome Misrepresentations which was in the first Book discernible enough and spoken of in the Answer to it but was so grosly owned in his second Book that no man could now doubt of it For he made his Answerer guilty of Misrepresentation for saying That we cannot yield to that Popery which the Representer himself allows without betraying the Truth c. A Papist not Misrepr p. 4. This Answer therefore blames him for putting into the Protestant Representations of Popery those faults which we find and those ill consequences which
the Image of an Invisible Being must therefore be Religious Worship also because 't is referred to the Prototype 3. To the sentiments of private Authors And here the present Answerer challenges him to give one instance wherein the Judgment of private Authors was as he pretended set up against the declared sense of their Councils and Church And moreover shews what use was made of private Authors by particular Instances P. 68 69. and that sometimes recourse is necessary to be had to them and to the general practice of their Church to know the sense of their Church 4. Whereas the Representer avoided the charge of their being obliged by his Doctrine to obey the Pope when he commands them to act in pursuance of the Deposing Power by pretending that the Decrees of Popes may be excepted against no less than the commands of Civil Soveraigns as the case may be The Answerer does acknowledg this Reply to be good P. 58. if the Representer be sincere in the Application and will grant the Deposing Decree to command a Sin and that Bellarmin and Canus were mistaken in asserting That Popes and General Councils can make no sinful Decrees relating to the whole Church 5. To the complaint of discoursing upon Dispensations out of the Schoolmen and bearing the Reader into a belief that the Dispensing Power was kept as a Mystery to be used upon weighty occasions c. the present Answer saies That there was reason for the former this being one of the Instances wherein the whole sense of their Church is not to be had but from the Practices of Popes and the Opinions of their Great men To the latter That their own Doctors had declared it as the Answerer had shewn before he said it himself Then as to St. Perpetua's Vision That if he did not think it gave some credit to the Doctrine of Purgatory it was mentioned by him to no purpose Finally to the Representer's Invitation of us to come over to their Church upon his Terms with promise of Acceptance the Answerer returns That he must like their Faith better first And certainly the Invitation was something unseasonable before the Representer had answer'd our Reasons against that Popery which himself allows And this for the second Answer The Second Reply of the Representer being an Answer to a Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants THE second Reply comes forth under the Title of Papists Protesting against Protestant Popery Pap. Prot. p. 4 In which the Representer beginning with a defence of himself as to his construction of the wilful mistakes see before p. 8. which if he pleases shall be forgotten from this time forward falls a wondring that there should be such a noise about exposing of their Doctrines to open view declares that tho he discovered what he thought and sometimes said briefly why yet he made not disputing his business and knows not how this should be taken as a piece of controversy against the Church of England which he had not charged with Misrepresentation nor any body else but those only in general that are guilty He complains that his second Answerer makes that which they call Misrepresentation to be in all the material points P. 6. a Representation of the avowed Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome and protests That if Popery be guilty of what he saies it cannot enter into his thoughts there 's any room for it in Heaven For the very Title of his Book is a condemnation of the Religion to all those horrid shapes it has been at any time exposed in by the Members of the Reformation P. 7. And so is his pretence that We charge Papists with nothing but what they expresly profess to believe and what they practice But since they must not learn what Papists believe from the Council and the Catechism but from the Writings and Sermons of Protestants he is resolved to give us a taft of their way of Representing Popery and therefore 1. He recites several passages wherein Popery is Misrepresented as he will have it out of a Book of John sometime Lord Archbishop of York and a Book of Dr. Beard P. 9. to p. 17. and Sutcliffs Survey and the Book of Homilies And in conclusion he tells us That this is the Protestant Popery which since he protests against no less than the Answerer Protestants and Papists may now go shake hands and What â— possibility is there of farther divisions But if this be intended for a true Representation of Popery Roman Catholicks suffer under the greatest injustice imaginable And then follows a vehement expostulation against the iniquity of such Misrepresentation P. 18. And whereas the Answerer blamed him for putting into the Protestant Character of a Papist those ill consequences we charge upon their Doctrines and Practices as if we pretended that they think of their own profession and practice just as we do P. 20. He Replies That this is a pretty speculative quarrel and a quaint conceit but lost sor coming in a wrong place For the Representer's business was to draw the Character of a Papist as it lies in the Peopels Heads who when they hear one declaiming against Popery do not distinguish between Antecedents and Consequents between the Doctrine of the Papists and the fault we find with it but swallow down all in the lump and whoever supposes otherwise must conclude them to be better at separating than the Chymists and that in subtle Distinctions they are able to out-do Aristotle himself P. 22. This is in short what he says with much circumstance and no little contentment for four Pages together and 't is all that he thinks sit to return to his Answerers careful distinction between matters of Representation and of Dispute through all the Particulars For though he confesses 't is Learnedly done yet the almost Forty Pages about it might have been spared because this Distinction is not to be found in the Notion the people have of Popery P. 23. For the rest about his denying the Belief of our Interpretations and the two other Particulars p. 24. They are so little to the Purpose that I can afford them no room in this Abstract and he that will not take my Word for it may go to the Answer to Pap. Prot. p. 20 21. and there satisfie himself 2. To his Adversaries Question Whether the Catechism may not be expounded by a private Spirit as well as the Council He says Thus a Question or two is a full Confutation of the Reflecter To the Testimony of Canus That that is not to be accounted the Judgment of the Apostolick See which is given only by the Bishop of Rome privately maliciously and inconsiderately P. 25. c. He replies That so Reverend an Authority as that of the Bishop of Condom is not to be thus overthrown since his Exposition was examined with all due Deliberation approved with all Solemnity P. 26. c. and recommended by
would seem to say something when he knew he had nothing to say to the purpose 2. He shews that the Decree of the Council at Hierusalem did include a Virtual Definition of Doctrine And 3. That the Deposing Decree concerns the whole Church and if it be a wicked Decree that it relates to a thing necessary to Salvation by commanding to do that which it is necessary to Salvation not to do and therefore he expects the Representers further Consideration of his three Answers 3. Concerning the Worship of Images the Representer bids so fair for a Dispute that the Answerer took the occasion and examined not only what the Bishop of Condom hath delivered upon it but the several ways of stating it by their Divines shewing that their Images are Representatives to receive Worship in the Name and Stead of the Prototype that in this Notion Image-Worship is condemned in the Scripture and in what the evil of it consisted a more particular Abridgment of that just Discourse upon this Subject I cannot make without either wronging the Answerer or detaining the Reader here too long and therefore I refer him also to the Book it self for an Answer to the Charge upon Bowing towards the Altar P. 83. c. P. 106 c. And to the Apology for Image-Worship from the Degree of the Honour that is given to Images And to the Representers Objections against that way of distinguishing Religious from Civil Worship by making that to be Religious P. 37 38,39 40. which is given to the Invisible Inhabitants of the other World P. 123. and likewise to the pretended Parity of Reason in the Quakers Case And thus much may serve for the Answer to Papists Protesting against Protestant-Popery The Third Reply of the Representer in Return to the Foregoing Answer THE Representer finds as little Comfort in Protesting as Disputing and so falls to Accommodate the Difference between the Representer and the Answerer and calls his Work an Amicable Accommodation For now he grants the Protestants are not guilty of Misrepresentation in a strict and proper Sense P. 1. 2. and is very sorry that he and his Answerer understood one another no better before He thinks indeed it was his Answerer's Fault not to conceive him right at first and that if his Book had never been Answered the Peace had never been broke but he is perswaded the Difference may be yet compounded P. 3. For the Case at first was no more than this That he perceiving the Unchristian Hatred which grew in the Vulgar upon that false Notion of Popery P. 4. which our Misconstructions c. had drawn in their Imaginations He I say Good Man No less in Charity to Protestants than in Justice to Papists drew his Double Characters to shew how Popery is Misrepresented P. 5. But then comes an Adversary and says He has proved that the Character of a Papist Mispresented contains nothing in it which in a strict and proper Sense can be called a Misrepresentation Now really he never meant to Fight for a Word and had he but imagined that his Adversary had contended for no more P. 6. he would have spared him the Charges and Sweat of laying down his Proofs the second time Wherefore to end the strife he solemnly declares that the Title of the Papist Misrepresented is not to be taken in its strict and proper Sense as Misrepresenting signifies only downright Lying or falsly charging matter of Fact the whole Character being not indeed of this Nature but in its larger or less proper Sense as it comprehends both Lying Calumniating Misinterpreting Reproaching Misconstruing Mis-judging and whatever else of this kind But that we may know what a Lover of Peace he is he must assure the Answerer That this Condescension is purely out of good Nature P. 7. for betwixt Friends he does not think the Answerer has advanced any thing that has the Face of a proof That there can be no Misrepresenting where there is an Agreement about matter of Fact Representing he says P. 8 being nothing more than shewing a thing as it is in it self as many ways as a thing can be shewn otherwise than 't is in it self so many ways may it be properly Misrepresented so that the Description must agree with the Thing not only in Matter of Fact but likewise in Respect of Motive Circumstance Intention End c. But according to the Awswerers Rule had the two Tribes and an Half P. 9. been declared Guilty of setting up Altar against Altar and Hannah been set out amongst her Neighbours for a Drunken Gossip here had been no Misrepresentation because of some Matter of Fact in the Case The Elders too that offered Proof against Susanna since they saw her in the Garden c. P. 11. were no Misrepresenters Nor the Jews against our Saviour nor Infidels against the Apostles and Christians nor shall any be excluded from a share in this Favour but they that have Malice enough to Calumniate but want Wit to give a Reason for what they do c. So much was the Representer overcome with pure good Nature that for Peace sake he would yield to a Principle that can do such things as these if his Word may be taken for the Reason but we have another Reason in the Wind presently For if this same Principle which he has ordered to protect the lewdest Defamations and Perjuries will but do its Office upon the Church of England he has had his Reward And so he shews what execution he can do in the Mouth of some Zealous Brother whose Honour and Interest engages him to set out the Church of England as we Represent the Church of Rome To which Purpose he puts a Sermon into his Mouth which whether it be a Copy or an Original the Dissenters may say when they please But the Heads of it are such as these After a solemn Preface of Exhortation to keep out of the Swing and the Sweep of the Dragons Tail he lays down his Doctrine P. 13 14. That the Church of England Mens Marks are the Marks of the Beast which he proves by the large Revenues and State of their Prelates P. 15. who wear the Miter and the Crosier upon their Coaches while they Live and upon their Tombs when they are Dead P. 16. By the Weekly Bill of London which shews that Mary has Nineteen Churches and Christ but Three by the Pictures in their Bibles and Common-Prayer-Books and by many other Marks as good as these P. 17 18 c. which because they stick fast to us as he thinks for any thing the Answerer has said must come over again in another place and therefore the less Repetition shall serve now Sermon being done he asks whether this be Misrepresenting in a strict and proper Sense and if not P. 34. he is contented that the Word Misrepresenting in his Book should not be taken so i.
we charge upon Popery as if we would make the World believe that Papists think as ill of what themselves profess and practice P. 5. as we do And much more for putting these consequences as owned by Papists in the Front of the Protestant Characters of them as if we pretended they were the First Principles of Popery As for the Doctrines and Practises of the Roman Church which we charge them with the Representer generally owned them but he disowned as he easily might the belief of those Consequences and Interpretations which we charge upon them And therefore his putting them into the Protestant Characters of a Papist was his own Artifice of laying the fouler colours upon Popery on the one side that it might look the fairer when he took them off on the other Now to prevent these Deceits for the future this Answer goes through the Thirty seven Articles again P. 6. to p. 40. to shew under each Head what we charge upon them as their Doctrines and Practises which is properly matter of Representation And likewise what we charge upon such Doctrines and Practises which is properly matter of Dispute By the confounding of which two things the Representer had made a colour for his unjust complaints of Misrepresentation 2. Whereas he pretended that he never delivered his own private sense and opinion in Representing a Papist P. 44 45. the Answerer replies that he certainly does so when he determines concerning Questions which are disputed among themselves whether they be Articles of Faith or not and that the Catechism may be interpreted by a private spirit as well as the Council That Veron's Rule had no more Authority than the Representer's Characters That Bellarmines Controversies had attestation from the Pope as well as the Bishop of Condom's Exposition And that Canus himself who is referred to by the Representer acknowledges that the Popes approbation is not always to be accounted the judgment of the Apostolick See As to the Instances The Answerer shews P. 45 46. I. Of his limitting the Power of the Saints to their Prayers That no such limitation of their Aid and Assistance is to be found in the Council That the Representer would take no notice of what his first Answerer had said to shew that no such limitation was intended in the Council or the Catechism And that he did not find this limitation in the Bishop of Condom P. 12 13. 2. Of Merit That the Twenty sixth Canon of the sixth Session mentions nothing of it and that it is clear from Chap. 16. of that Session That they make Good works truly and properly meritorious of Eternal Life tho they grant the Grace of God and the Merits of Christ to be the cause of their own Merits Finally That the Answerer did not Appeal to the Thirty second Canon to oppose the Representer's Qualification of the Doctrine of Merit P. 46. P. 47 48. and was therefore unconcern'd in his defence of it 3. As to the Pope's Personal Infallibility That he denies it to be of Faith and makes it but a School point whilest there are as many who deny it to be a School point and make it a matter of their Faith That the want of positive Determination by a General Council does not prove it to be no matter of Faith because neither the Infallibility of a General Council nor of the Church is positively determined by a General Council That if Infallibility must be somewhere amongst them they have the best Reason that place it in the Pope 4. As to the deposing Doctrine P. 49. the Answerer shewed largely and clearly That Articles of Faith may be and have been decreed without Anathema's That the deposing Decree includes a Doctrinal point P. 54. P. 56. That if it were meerly a point of Discipline and Government they must either acknowledg it Lawful for the Church to depose Heretical Princes or consent that the Church is not secured from making wicked Decrees in things that concern the whole Christian World That when the Representer says That some Decrees of Trent are not universally received he does not tell us that the Council had no Authority to make them and to oblige Princes to receive them And lastly That the Pope's letting so many asserters of the No-deposing Power to pass without any censure of Heresy P. 57. does not argue a change of their Doctrine but only of the Times 3. To the Representer's Reflections upon the Answerer's way of proceeding as that 1. He owns in some part the Representer's Doctrine to be the established Doctrine of the Church of England The second Answerer charges him with foul Misrepresentation upon this account in as much as the first Answerer owned nothing which is peculiar to the Faith of a Papist as distinguished from thr common Faith of Christians and that the Representer might as well have said P. 59 60 61. That because Protestants own that Christ is to be worshipped therefore they in part own the Doctrine of the Church of Rome That Christ is to be worshipped by Images And this he shewed to be the very case in every one of those six or seven Points which the Representer only named but did not think fit to insist upon to shew how his Reflection was applicable to them 2. And that the first Answerer appealed from the definitions of their Church c. 1. To some Expositions found in old Mass-Books and Rituals P. 62. This Answerer says that he could find but one Instance of this relating to the Worship of the Virgin Mary viz. that scandalous Hymn O Felix Puerpera c. But that their Church is accountable for her old Missals which were the allowed and established Offices of Worship That even this has never been condemned but that Monsieur Widenfelts Book was condemned at Rome which was writ to bring the people to a bare Ora pro Nobis P. 63. to the Blessed Virgin 2. To some external Action as in case of respect shewn to Images and Saints To this the Answerer says That the Representer brings in this Exception without taking the least notice of what his first Adversary said concerning external Adoration P. 63 64. That it is a part of Divine Worship and that the Council of Trent requires it should be given to Images He shews further That since there is such a thing as external and visible Idolatry an Idolatrous action is nevertheless such P. 65. for the intention of him that is guilty of it not to commit Idolatry P. 66. That the worship of the Invisible Inhabitants of the other World tho with such external acts as may be paid to creatures has always been accounted Religious Worship That as the Degrees of Civil honour are distinguish'd by the sight of the Object So one certain distinction between Civil and Religious is P. 67. that the worship of an Invisible Object is always Religious and that to Worship
and which were put into the Misrepresenting Side to be taken off again in the Representing Side they are not matters of Representation but of Dispute To this purpose the Answerer argues leaving the Representer to apply these plain things to his Protestation against Protestant Popery which amounts to thus much That it could never enter into him that there should be any room for Popery in Heaven and that he would as soon be a Turk as a Papist if he thought as ill of the confessed Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome as we do Which would be a wise Speech no doubt tho we hope a true one For the rest P. 3. he saies That his Title related only to his own Book and the Book to the Character of a Papist Misrepresented and therefore 't is hard that he must be drawn in to answer for more than he knows even for all that any Protestant may have said concerning Popery since the Reformation and he thinks it strange that the Representer instead of defending his own Characters should hunt about for new Misrepresentations for him to Answer For since he has allowed the Distinction between matters of Representation and Dispute and can find no fault with his Adversaries performance about it it should seem we are agreed upon the Representation of Popery now at last P. 4. and therefore unless he were ashamed of his own Popery now we had clearly found it why should he divert from that to new complaints of their being Misrepresented by others The Answerer however was resolved to see what occasion there was for this fresh complaint 1. And he shews P. 5 6 7 8 9. That if what was transcribed out of the foresaid Archbishop of York 's Book be Misrepresentation it is not a Protestant but a Popish Misrepresentation For the Archbishop cites his Authors for what he saies tho the Representer left them out And this the Answerer thought good to shew from point to point And concludes That tho every Doctrine found in Popish Authors ought not presently to he accounted an Article of the Romish Faith yet a Church so watchful to purge expunge and censure in all Cases where her Interest is concern'd is Responsible for those Doctrines which have her Toleration and License and which any man among them is allowed to Teach and to Believe As for Dr. Beard and Mr. Sutcliff he saies P. 10 11 12 13. Those Sayings do not concern Representing but Disputing and that the Representer had unfaithfully concealed either their Authorities or their Reasons which had made the thing plain or curtail'd their sayings as he shews by several Instances out of Mr. Sutcliff but that when such Consequences are charged upon Popery it is more to the purpose to Confute them than to complain of Misrepresentation Finally As to the Book of Homilies those things which he hath taken out of it as the Answerer tells him P. 14. do no more than shew the Judgment of our Church about the Worship of Saints and Images in the Church of Rome in which he cannot prove us to be Misrepresenters otherwise than by confuting our Arguments which yet would but shew that we make a wrong Judgment in a matter of Dispute not that we Misrepresent a matter of Fact Upon this the Answerer shews That Papists protess and practice the same things that ever they did and that all this grievous cry of Misrepresenting is grounded upon nothing else but a Protestation That they do not believe those ill things of their own Doctrine and Practice which we do P. 15 16. which altho it be a new business yet there was no Reason for it since we never said they did In the mean time the Cause is the same that ever it was which is a sufficient Answer to all that he saies of Protestants and Papists shaking hands c. And whereas he makes the distinction between Representation and Dispute to be a speculation above the Vulgar and so was not to be regarded by him who drew the Character of a Papist as it lay in the peoples heads The Answerer thinks That he who undertakes to make Characters is bound to consider what belongs to it and withal P. 17 18 19. That our people are not so silly as to think for instance that Papists believe the Worship of Images to be Idolatry or that Idolatry is lawful because they Worship Images but that if he wrote his Characters for the Information of such Vulgar Heads P. 20. as he fancies he wrote to inform those that can neither write nor read 2. As to his Representing That he did it not by a private Spirit since he followed the Catechism the Answerer had reason to ask Whether the Catechism may not be interpreted by a private Spirit as well as the Council since their Divines differ in Interpretation of both and as for the Popes Approbation P. 21. he said that Bellarmine's Controversies had it as well as the Bishop of Condom's Exposition to which the Representer would say nothing and he now says That by Canus his Rule the said Bishops Exposition has not the Authority of the Apostolick See unless the Pope had given Judgment for it ex Cathedra P. 22. which the Representer also would take no notice of But what he says further concerning the Nature and Design of the Approbations given to the Bishop of Condom I shall wholly pass over since it is by this time somewhat plain that this Bishops Authority has enough to do to shift for it self and is not in a Condition to spare any help to his Friends As to the limitation of the Aid of the Saints to their Prayers he acknowledges that it is to be found in the Bishop of Condom P. 118. though he missed it because it came not in in the right place But whereas the Representer justifies his renouncing the Popes Personal Infallibility and the Deposing Doctrine by the Authority of the said Bishop the Answerer plainly shews the Bishops great Judgment in having ordered Matters so as to save himself both with Protestants and with the Pope To the Representers Second Invitation he answers by making this Proposal Whether their Church would refuse him admittance P. 15. if he should come in upon Bellarmine's terms in these Points which contradict the Representer's though there be no reason for this Dispute since as he said before P. 16. he likes not the Roman Faith as the Representer has described it Now to his Replies in behalf of the Deposing Doctrine being no Article of Faith the Answerer says 1. That whereas the Representer would prove it was not so because no Anathema was fixed to the Decree it is something strange that he should now be content to say Every thing is not an Article of Faith which is declared without an Anathema for this is next to a downright Concession that his Adversary had baffled his Argument and shews manifestly that he
by throwing us upon the Dissenters But we are not for pursuing every New Game P. 16. but will keep to our old scent And yet he has made the Dissenter say such silly things of us as no Dissenter will own unless he has heard them among the Quakers This the Answerer plainly shewed through almost all his Fifteen particulars of the Charge against the Church of England and by the way where it was any thing needful he taxed the unreasonableness and folly of the Charge which yet was more than he was bound to since if it came to the Trial we have some reason to think that there is not a zealous Brother in England no nor Friend neither but would be ashamed to own it So that this design of Representing and Misrepresenting to which I may add the Representer's yielding in pure good Nature that henceforth Misrepresenting shall be understood in its less proper sense ends only in Ridiculing the Church of England with which we are content if they will permit us truly to Represent theirs To what the Representer offered for seeking out new Misrepresentations the sum of what is Answered is this That it is in the main agreed what the matters of Fact are with which the Papists may be charged and since these only are the proper Subject of Representation the ill consequences which Protestants have urged against their Doctrines and Practices ought not to have been put into the Character of a Papist Misrepresented P. 24. unless he could shew that we say that Papists do believe those Consequences And therefore the Representer vainly endeavours to excuse himself for putting them into that Character by hunting about for new pretended Misrepresentations to imploy his Answerer withal This I gather to be the Answerer's sense from his reference to what he had proved before As to the Archbishop of York the Answerer saies he did not Misrepresent the Church of Rome in saying that Stapleton said P. 25. We must simply believe the Church of Rome whether it Teach True or False The most that can be made of it is That according to one of their allowed Doctors Thus a Papist must believe And therefore if it be a Misrepresentation of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome Stapleton is to be thanked for it in the first place for saying so and in the next the Church of Rome for allowing him to say so and then the Arch-Bishop for reporting what he said tho he does not say that one Doctor may make Doctrines for the Church of Rome The Case of Mr. Sutcliff he says is different and he shews that he expresly distinguishes between what the Papists teach P. 26 27. and what himself concludes from such Doctrines and therefore that he does not Misrepresent the Papists So that how little soever the Representer thought himself concerned in Sutcliff's Reasonings because Reasoning belonged not to a Representer yet surely it belonged to a Representer to distinguish beween the Doctrines we charge upon the Papists on the one side and the Arguments we bring against these Doctrines on the other To the Charge of omitting to render propter Deum into English He says It was omitted he knows not how or why but very jus tly blames the Representer for insinuating that it was dishonestly omitted since it was the whole Design of that Discourse about the Worship of Images P. 28. to shew that Image Worship is Evil tho God was worshipped by it I will upon this occasion add that the Answerer could not but know his own foul Dealing in this Charge which is so very manifest that this Injustice if there were nothing else does assure me that he must make another Change before we can expect much sincerity from him With like honesty he disingages himself from all Obligation to dispute concerning the Worship of Images c. 1. Because the Answerer knows no Reason for all this Dispute which words did not at all relate to that Dispute but to the Question about the Bishop of Condom's Authority 2. He was never concerned whether the Answerer liked his Religion or not But if he could have answer'd that Discourse all that the Answerer could have said would not have hindred him P. 29. For the Rest the Answerer says that the Representer and the Bishop of Condom reason'd and argued at first as well as Represented and since their Representation is offer'd as a Rule by which we may be taken into the Roman Church they were the more concern'd to justify their own Reasonings P. 30. which since it is declined our People will be apt to think why Papists decline the Dispute who are never known to avoid Disputing when they think they can get any thing by it And thus the Answerer takes leave of the Representer believing that this Matter is driven as far as it will go The Fourth Reply of the Representer in behalf of his Amicable Accomodation THis last Reply is made up 1. Of insulting over the Answerer for offering no more than he did in Answer to the Zealous Brother's Sermon against the Church of England 2. Of more and more out-cries upon the Protestants for Misrepresenting the Papists But the Particulars that come under these Heads together with his Reflections by the bye will be best produced in the following Answer where I shall consider what Reason he has for this kind of proceeding The Fifth Answer to the Representer in Return to his last Reply IF the Seven and Thirty lost Points had been recovered the Representer could not have entered the Lists with more seeming satisfaction in himself than he shews in his last Reply But he has made a shift to forget them and that 's as good What the Answerer said that the Matter was driven as far as it would go whatever the Representer imagines I find still to be true For with reference to the chief matter of Dispute betwixt us we are parted and I think never like to meet any more about it Indeed as to the manifold Charge sunâ—â—ed up against the Church of England that matter as he truly observes is not driven as far as it will go And it seems he intends to drive it farther and farther But why that should ever come to be a matter of Debate betwixt us any one who considers the Controversy from first to last must needs wonder The Design of what has been said on behalf of the Church of England has been to make evident these three Things 1. That we do not charge the Papists with some things which the Representer will have us to charge them with 2. That some things which he faith we falsly charge them with are maintained and practised by them 3. That allowing them to maintain and practise only what themselves acknowledg that they do maintain and practise yet there are sufficient Reasons why we cannot comply with Popery altho refined after the newest Fashion This is the sum of what has been argued on our side
common Prayer Book Printed at Oxford in the Year 1683 in Twelves by which I guess he would bring that University too as well as the foresaid Bishop under His Majesties Displeasure And therefore this Accusation is not to be passed lightly over Now Henry Hills could have given him abundant satisfaction in this matter if he had been consulted For upon the best Inquiry I can make I find that no Psalms in Twelves were Printed in Oxford before the the Year 1684 and therefore no such Impression as the Representer means could be there in 1683. But this is not all for neither had those Printed in 1684 that hearty Family-Prayer which he talks of But the Truth of the Case is this Henry Hills or he and his Partners had Printed these very Psalms in Twelves which the Representer mentions and that to a vast number as I am informed by those who will make it out if it be required Now if Henry Hills bound up his Psalms with the Oxford Common-Prayer Books the University is no more to answer for that than if he had bound up his own Life with one of them It is such another Suggestion the Representer offers at in a Marginal Note elsewhere Pag. 30. where he makes the Fire of London to be imputed to the Papists in the Plates of the Common-Prayer Books Printed at Oxford An. 1680. For no such Plates were Printed there however they came to be bound up with some Common-Prayer Books Printed that Year at the University I am apt to think Henry Hills is able to give as good an account of this too as another And I believe he can guess very nearly who did not only Print since 1678 but hes also very lately Sold a certain Confession of Faith as hearty as the foresaid Family-Prayer for there Idolaters and Hereticks Papists and Ana-baptists are all put together as Limbs of Antichrist But some Men take themselves to be priviledged to do these bold things themselves and to accuse others of the like when they have done I am sure that either the Representer or he is not a little to blame for these unhandsome Insinuations my own suspicions in this case I do not care to tell and therefore I leave it betwixt them Two to set the Saddle on the right Horse as the Representer speaks upon another occasion Another way of Mis-representing them which he complains of is in laying on the colours with so much craft on the Papists Tenets that though they are the very same with what the most learned Protestants hold themselves yet they shall appear so foul and monstrous as if nothing less than a certain Damnation attended their Abetters This he says is done in several instances which makes me wonder that he chose so unlucky an instance as that of our rendring them so Vnchristian for not allowing Salvation to any out of their own Church in a word for damning Protestants But do we Misrepresent them in this mark how the Representer makes it out Dr. Tillotson in the fore-mentioned Sermon inveighing against the Vncharitableness of Papists at last in a rapture of Charity concludes I have so much Charity and I desire always to have it as to hope that a great many among them who live piously and have been almost inevitably detained in that Church by the prejudice of Education and an invincible Ignorance will upon a general Repentance find mercy with God Now instead of this the Representer expected from the Doctor some extraordinary piece of Charity both for the Reformation and example of the Papists and yet says he after all the outcry and bussle he wont allow one more grain of Mercy to the Papists then the Papists do to them that is onely to such who having lived piously and truly repented of their Sins have an invicible Ignorance to attone for all other errours of the understanding which is the very Doctrine of the Papists in respect of such who die out of the Communion of their Church So that we have Mis-represented Papists in pretending that they do not allow as great hopes of Salvation to us continuing and dying Protestants as we allow to them continuing and dying Papists Now I confess I am under some temptation to shew who is the Misrepresenter in the Case but this is so good a hearing that I will not go about to clear our selves from being Mis-representers upon this occasion but take him at his word that here we are Misrepresenters nay more than that I will thank him for taking all opportunities to report us for such Mis-representers to the people of both Communions for thus it may be hoped that we shall never more be troubled with that Argument to perswade Ours and to confirm His in the Communion of the Roman Church that since we grant the Papists a possibility of Salvation and they utterly deny a possibility of it to us the Communion of the Roman Church must needs be the more safe inasmuch as both parties agree in a possibility of Salvation in that Church but they do not both agree upon such a possibility in ours And since we are proclaimed Mis-representers upon this account I desire also that from this time foreward the Trade of going up and down with peremptory denouncing Damnation to all of our Communion may be at an end and never heard of more And that no advantages may be made of our charitable hopes and concessions in behalf of some that dye in the Communion of the Church of Rome since it seems the Doctrine of the Papists is the very same in respect of such who dye out of that Communion Or at least that no regard be given to those of the Roman Church who shall hereafter positively denounce Damnation against us since the Representer will have it that we are as positive against them inafmuch as to say that Papists are guilty of sins inconsistent with Salvation is but to say they are damned in another phrase The Representer I say who takes upon him to correct all false notions of Popery and is therefore much to blame if he be ignorant of the Doctrines of Popery has declared to the World that whether in the way of Hoping P. 28. or of Censuring Protestants and Papists say the same thing of each other And therefore I think the foresaid Requests are very reasonable ones so that this one matter is in a way of being fairly compounded and if the Representer likes it I am sure both parties are well pleased For want of other complaints he takes up one at length which he had dropt some time since viz. That we rake together some odd and extravagant Opinions of some Authors P. 29. to set them down for the received Doctrine of the Church Which complaint he supports by nothing else but supposing that the so often-mentioned Archbishop of York is guilty of this in citing Bulgradus c. and that this is enough to make any extravagancy pass for an Article of Faith Now
he does not so much as make it appear that this Archbishop pretends the Extravagancies for which he brings those Authorities to be Articles of Faith in the Church of Rome But how far their Church is chargeable with the several Extravagancies of their Authors and what use we may and ought to make of their Divines and Casuists c. in the Controversies now on foot the Representer has been already told very distinctly Pap. not Mis rep by Prot p. 67 68 69. and when he thinks fit to Reply he shall not want an Answer Answ to Pap. Prot. p. 9. In the mean time to convince us of the unwarrantableness of this method and what a wretched thing it is to charge private Doctrines upon a Church as Articles of her Faith he brings in a Popish Preacher inveighing against the ill Manners and especially the disloyalty of Protestants upon one passage in the Decay of Christian Piety P. 30 31 32. another in Sir R. Baker and a third in Jovian Now I say let them who do thus argue against the Church of Rome as he makes his Popish Preacher to inveigh against us let them I say take the shame of it But for any thing that he has done hitherto the men are yet to be found out though I do not know but upon very diligent search some one such or other may be taken amongst us and when that happens he shall go for me and keep company with that once Protestant who believed the Sermons of the Papists were made in a language unknown to the People Now he confesses all this Harangue to be a piece of Sophistry which he has put into the mouth of a Popish Preacher P. 33. Which is enough for me and I am not at all moved hy his pretending this was done to make us ashamed of practising it in good earnest as he has seen and heard that we do For this is a reason I am now pretty well used to it being the very same wherewith he defends that ridiculous Sermon which he composed for the Zealous Brother And therefore I shall even pin this Harangue to the remainder of that Brother's Sermon that when one is called for the other may not be forgotten And so at last we come to Mis-representing in relation to some matters of Fact and History and here he hopes the Reader will discover notable things The first Mis-representation of this Kind in which he instances was the Misrepresenting of the Rich Hangings the Massy Plate and other things which Adorned the Altars in the times P. 33. before the Reformation the Candlesticks Crucifixes and Shrines Three Episcopal Houses with Four or Five Churches c. For these were Represented as Superstitious or Superfluous and forthwith were immediately blown up Now a man shall not presently find how this comes to be Mis-representing the Papists in relation to some matters of Fact and History He names but one Protestant speaking of these things viz. Dr. Heylin and he too is brought in agreeing with the Representer in charging those doings upon Covetousness Ambition and Envy nor is any other Cited as contradicting him Was not the Representer full of choler and bitterness that he must needs ease himself whether it be in fit place or not I see the bottom of this business plainly enough If that Reformation of Doctrine and Worship which our Church made be not blackened enough already he is resolved to charge upon it all the faults of the great Men that made advantages by the Change But must the Vices of the States-men in those days necessarily affect the Reformation Why then must not the Vices of Popes affect Popery If he has a mind to it let him represent the former ten times worse then they were and when he has done I will shew him as many Popes Represented by their own Historians as really bad as he has made those by Fiction and this too by Historians of no less Credit amongst them then Dr. Heylin is with us The Representer owes us a good Turn and if he can but bring in the word Misrepresenting 't is all the pertinence he cares for though it be Misrepresenting Plate and Hangings Again P. 34. because he fancies that King Henry the Eighth made way for Protestantism to enter into the World in which however he is mistaken he taxes him boldly of Vile Extravagancies the respect that is due to Crown'd Heads no nor the consideration of that Line in which this Prince stood amongst them being not able to restrain him But where is the Misrepresentation complain'd of Certainly the Popes Power here might be an Vsurpation though the motive upon which Henry the Eighth threw it quite off as it had been curbed by his Predecessors before should not prove the best in the World But let the Representer here also use his liberty of rendring him as odious as he can remembring all the while that the Faults of that Prince reflect no less dishonour upon the Church of Rome then upon the Church of England as 't is now Reformed For 't is certain that in all other points he was a Papist excepting that only of the Supremacy unless the Representer will say that the whole of their Religion is in effect this that the Pope should be all in all in the Dominions of every Christian Prince in the World Luther comes next upon the File for Marrying a Nun contrary to his Vow of Chastity P. 34. By which he means a Vow of Caelibacy as if the Marriage Vow were not a vow of Chastity too But do not their own Divines say that the vow of Continency may be dissented with And has not the Pope dispensed in greater matters Had Luther marryed with his Dispensation he had it seems committed no fault at all And we are apt to think that if notwithstanding his Vow he had good reason to marry he might do it safely enough without the Popes Dispensation But where 's the Mis-representation now Why here 's a Vow of Continency Represented as a rash and inconsiderate Vow and this is Mis-representing Papists in relation to matters of Fact and History And thus also honest Sir William Mis-represented Chalices P. 35. Crosses Images nay Guineas c. Into Popish Trinkets and Trumpery and made them fit for seisure But I say neither was Sir William honest in doing it nor the Representer over wise in mentioning it here His next Fling is at Sir Richard Baker who upon the Executions of several great Men in Queen Mary's Reign chanced to say according to his wonted Eloquence Now the Cataracts of severity will be opened that will make it rain Blood Well but to bring off honest Sir Richard for once he does not say that this severity was Tyrannical or Unjust for if he had certainly the Representer had brought us all under the lash for it But the ends of these great People being Tragical he thought good to set the matter off with a
cause to complain that we are many ways Mis-represented by Papists though the Representer without just cause was resolved to be before hand in the same Complaint against us For not to repeat those Mis-representations False Constructions and Wry Interpretations of Protestant Authors c. which I have shewn him to be guilty of in examining some of his Complaints it were a very easie matter to convict him of no less untrue then spiteful insinuations against all Protestants without exception in this and in his other pieces I shall at present give but one Instance and that in this his last Reply where he says that the Protestant Perswasion has its Name Being P. 17. and support not from what it is in its self but from what it is not in defying and protesting against their Neighbours 'T is easie to see what notion of Protestants such Passages as these are intended to imprint upon the minds of Men. But does the Representer in good earnest believe that our Religion is a mere Negative Religion and that we should have none at all if we had no Neighbours to defie and to protest against Or does he believe that our Religion so far as it is Negative is supported by defying and protesting against other Men does he not know that we at least pretend to support it by Reason Scripture and Antiquity Nay does he believe that there are no Affirmative points of Religion which we maintain against them and in respect of which they do in reality protest against us though it seems we have got the Name of Protestants If he does believe thus of us much more if knowing the contrary he says so however Where ' s Truth Charity or Justice If we take the Religion of Protestants as it stands in opposition to the Errors of the Church of Rome it is in many Points Affirmative and the Negative is on that Churches side For instance that God onely is to be Worshipped is as Affirmative a Conclusion as that God is but One and that Christian people are bound to read the Scriptures is as Affirmative as that they are bound to say their Prayers and that the Laiety have a Right to the Communion under both Kinds is surely as Affirmative as that they have a Right to One only Why then does the Representer say that the Protestant Profession has its Name Being and Support not from what it is in its self but from what it is not But to let this pass what although the Points held by us in opposition to the Church of Rome were only Negatives yet why must we be so bitterly represented as if our Perswasion were supported by nothing but pievishness and a Spirit of Contradiction to our Neighbours Why must we be brought in as defying and protesting against our Neighbours As if we opposed their Doctrines and Practices in despight to the Jews and not rather blamed them for saying and doing thing which we at least think are not to be justified There are divers things surely which neither Christians nor Men ought to do And so far as our Religion stands in not doing such things one would it is not the worse for being Negative nor our Practice to be blemished for having its Name from what it is not And therefore when Men come in with their Negatives in Religion and their protestations against false perswasions and evil practices they are not without more ado to be represented as Defying and Protesting against their Neighbours But least of all should it be infinuated as if our whole Religion in effect stood in this Defying and Protesting For we do in the first place Glory in this that we are Christians though we are not ashamed to be called Protestants In our Religious Assemblies where we confess our Faith before God and the World we protess no other Articles of Faith then those in which the Church of Rome agrees with us By this it is that we are Christians and it is this that makes them so This Faith which we profess and into which we were baptized is the Foundation of our assurance that if we live accordingly we shall be saved and of our hopes that those among them who are disposed to receive the Truth and repent heartily of all known sins shall find Mercy with God notwithstanding their Captivity to those Errors which if we should profess we could not have the least hope for our selves In the mean time for our Negatives against that Church we offer in our own defence that the Religion which the Scriptures teach is such a Negative Religion as ours they not injoyning and in some points forbidding what we do not do and that the truly Primitive Fathers neither professed those Doctrines nor did those things which the Church of Rome would have us to profess and to do so that their Religion was not more positive nor less Negative then ours But if it grieves good Men in the Roman Communion that there should be amongst Christians any Protestation of one Party against what is done by another it is a grief also to us only with this difference that we cannot help it but they can For if they will Reform the Terms of their Communion by the Scriptures and Primitive Antiquity they shall soon see an end of our protesting and that our Perswasion is not supported as this Representer faith by defying and protesting against our Neighbours then which he could not have said a viler thing against us no not if he had put us upon the same File with Infidels and Pagans since this is in effect to say That we have no Religion but in crosness to other People But at this rate we have been used all along though we have made no complaints of it onely they force us to it now whether we will or no Thus even in their Catechisms where one would expect plainness and sincerity we find our selves Mis-represented in that manner as if there was no such way of making Novices fast to their Church but by giving them false notions of ours For at present to name no more then their famous Doway Catechism there you find shall find the Teacher giving this wise reason Why Protestants are so so divided and damn one another for Mis-believers Because Abridgment of Christian Doctr. p. 42. Doway 1655. forsooth it is the very ground-work of Protestancy that all men even the whole-Church of God are fallible and subject to errour We say indeed that all men are subject to errour but the very ground-work of Protestancy is not as this Catechist pretends that the Church of Rome and every other Church is subject to errour but that she hath actually erred and that grievously too And his Inference from hence is no less a Mis-representation then his principle So that says he they cannot pretend to Certainty or Infallibility in any one point of their Belief So that because he is pleased to put Certainty and Infallibility together he must needs teach his