Dooms this to the Pit of Hell or those that defend it Of this Artifice see the View p. 51. 2. Another Artifice is to confound the Consequences drawn by the Protestants from their Principles with their Principles and to make the Consequence to be their Principle This he was formerly tax'd with in Doct. and Pract. and View p. 63. And yet he proceeds still in the same order So because they are accus'd of Idolatry therefore he makes that to be part of the Character of a Papist and then disavows it Thus he saith Were Popery so foul as 't is in the Opinion of the Vulgar did it teach Men Idolatry to worship any Creature for God to neglect the Commandments I would chuse rather to be a Jew Turk or Infidel than a Papist All which signifies nothing unless the Papist should believe himself to be an Idolater 3. We must beware again that we follow him not too close or think after all these Disclaimings and Abhorrings that he is plainly to be understood for there are certain Reserves and Expositions carefully couch'd in that he may retire to upon occasion Such as these A Papist is bound to disclaim every point here set down as Articles of his Religion and as they are obliged to the Profession of them so to believe and live according to the Form asserted in the Characters as here set down So that tho they are never so plainly prov'd upon them yet if they are not Articles of his Religion nor what they are obliged to believe and do or agree not precisely with the Form and as set down in the Characters he may safely abhor detest and damn them 4. If he be press'd home and the Authorities come thick or the Practice and use be urg'd a little too close he has yet a relief I found saith he a great number of Matters of Fact as Massacres Vsurpations Murders of Princes Treasons Plots Conspiracies Persecutions and other such unwarrantable Practices charg'd against the Members of this Church of Rome I found again the vicious and scandalous Lives of some of her chief Prelates their Pride Covetousness and Luxury laid home as likewise the ill Examples of other Ecclesiastical Dignitaries as of Cardinals Bishops Priests their Ignorance Simony Oppression Cruelties Excesses c. Then the loose and extravagant Opinions of many of her Doctors Lastly many Superstitions and Abuses found amongst the People their being impos'd upon by some with idle Inventions the noise of Relicks and Miracles and being Priest-ridden a thousand other ways This is in truth a Charge as he saith laid home It 's worth attending how he brings himself off why Here saith he I began to lay aside all Trouble and Scruples concerning my Religion being now well satisfied How that all this was false Not so quick but that the frightful Character which surprized me before the matter of which it seems is true was not taken from her Faith and Doctrine but only from the Vice and Wickedness of such who tho perchance in her Communion yet follow'd her Direction And that 't was rather a black Record of as many villanous Practices as ever had been committed by any of her Members sham'd upon the People What as false That he dares not say but for a draught of such things the Church taught encourag'd and approv'd What work is here for a Protestant Representer A Bedroll of Abominations But saith our Author by way of Prevention and Alleviation It 's a Character taken from the Vice and Wickedness of such who were perchance in her Communion How Popes Cardinals Bishops Priests but perchance in her Communion Has our Author at last got possession of the Keys of the Inquisition and can he bring even Popes c. before his Bar That may sound a little too harsh therefore the result is that it 's sham'd upon the People for such things the Church taught encourag'd and approv'd So that let the Doctrine prevail never so much the Teachers be never so many the Practice never so bad yet here is a Shield The Church has not taught c. I remember it was once put to him and I find it not answer'd We are often blam'd for charging particular Doctrines upon their Church but we desire to know what it is makes a Doctrine of their Church He tells us we are not to charge upon them every Opinion of Authors for the profess'd Religion of Papists Not the loose and extravagant Opinions of many of her Doctors Not the different Opinions of School-Divines nor the Niceties a Parson designedly enters amongst but if we come to set Authority against Authority I know not why an Aquinas a Bellarmin a Suarez c. may not vye with our Author and as soon be heard And why a Profession of his own That I have declar'd nothing as an Article of Faith but what has been thus positively determined by the Church Representative or is so acknowledged by the whole Body Diffusive which it seems he has consulted should bear down the Authority of many of her Doctors and School-Divines when they both have come forth with the Approbation of their Church and never were condemn'd by it for teaching against it And now the Controversy is depending betwixt them and we are to attend which gives the most faithful account of the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome the Schoolmen of old time or the Representers of this 5. When all other helps fail he has one yet in reserve for the ending of this Controversy which is a Challenge he throws out to the Author of the Answer to the Representers Reflection upon the State and View and not to him but to all the Ministers nay to all the Protestants of this Nation Shew us the Papists to agree with those Characters that have been given them out of the Pulpits This is the Sum of no less than ten Pages he has wrote in Reply to this But now besides the uncharitableness of this Course which is to enquire into the Lives of those of his Communion and to make Descants upon them and which when he appeals to he gives a Provocation not to be very overly in Besides this it 's of no use here For 1. It 's an Argument that is contingent and 1. which any sort of People may venture at Thus the Turks may Challenge the Christians whether they be the People the Christians represent them Let them come and see may they say whether we are not as Temperate as Just c. as the Greeks among whom we live and if Religion were to be judg'd of as to its truth and goodness by such a comparison whether we might not as well pretend to it as the other And if they find us in all things like the rest of Mankind without more horns and heads then who are the Misrepresenter And yet thus our Author argues This the Protestants may turn upon the Papists after this manner Shew us the
that he laboured to refine the Protestants and to take off all smacks of Ceremonies that in the least do tend to the Romish Faith and the better to conceal himself spoke against the Jesuits and declared that he was fallen from that Society And yet all this while was as much theirs as ever and did all by Allowance For he was discovered by a Letter drop'd out of his Pocket in the Pulpit at Rochester and written from one Samuel Malt a Jesuit of Note which after Directions given to him how to govern himself in these matters thus concludes This we have certified to the Council and Cardinals That there is no other way to prevent People from turning Hereticks and for the recalling of others back again to the Mother Church than by the Diversities of Doctrines There was besides found in his Boots a License from the Jesuits and a Bull dated the first of Pius Quintus to teach what Doctrine that Society pleased for the dividing of Protestants And in his Trunk were several Books for denying Baptism to Infants c. This was a Cause openly heard and he openly punish'd for it and in our Author's Opinion very deservedly for as he well observes upon this occasion Tho Dissimulation and Delusion be abominable every where yet never more than in spiritual Matters and concerns of the Soul. So much for this Book and its Authority Proceed we to the next the False Jew this Book contains the History of one Thomas Ramsey Son to Doctor Ramsey Physician to the King who being bred up in the Jesuits College in Rome and well instructed in the Hebrew Tongue was sent forth and became a pretended Jew under the name of Joseph Ben Israel having been also Circumcised and coming for England at Newcastle professed himself a Christian Convert but soon struck in among the Anabaptists and was baptized by them at Hexham The whole cause after the Discovery was heard before H. Dawson the Mayor 1653 where this was partly prov'd against him and partly confest The Narrative was published by the Ministers of Newcastle at that time The two other Books The Quaker Vnmask'd and the New Discovery were publisht by Mr. Pryn 1656. In which he gives an account of one Coppinger a Franciscan that with others of the same Order were chief Speakers among the Quakers this was deposed upon Oath If our Author is curious this way I shall soon furnish him with other Authentick Testimonies of this kind But I suppose this may be more than he desires For if this be true how will he reconcile this to Christianity and who are they that in his opinion deserve to be cast out of the number of Christians As for his long Excursion about Legends I shall reserve it to its proper place Fifth Character of a Pulpit-Papist The different Orders of Religion amongst the Papists are neither better nor worse than so many Sects and several Casts of Religion only they have that advantage in managing their Divisions which we have not to pack up their Fanaticks in Convents and Cloysters and so bring them under some kind of Rule and Government Here the Apologist had charged the Adviser with a Falsification but he is so kind to himself as to pass it over and truly so will the Apologist in consideration of the kindness he hath now done in giving him a further account of the Sermon here quoted which for want of direction as to Author or Bookseller he could not procure The Preacher being desirous saith our Author to take off that foul blemish of so many Sects and Divisions rending the Protestant Church it seems there is now in his opinion another Church of England inconsistent with the unity of Christ's true Church and so often objected against them by Catholicks falls into that common Topick of covering the defects of his own Church by calumniating that of his Neighbour and therefore he boldly makes up to his Auditory and tells them That the Vnity the Papists boast of in their Communion is but a pretence whereas they have really more Divisions in their Religion than they charge ours with and then goes on in the words of the Character above cited Out of this Discourse of the Preacher our Author draws three Particulars pag. 27. 1. That in the Church of Rome there are more Divisions than they charge ours with 2. That their Religious Orders are neither better nor worse than so many Sects and several Casts of Religion 3. That they have their Fanaticks packt up in Convents And he should have added another from the Apology 4. That thus to pack them up in Convents is an advantage their Church makes of it Our Author having thus drawn out the sense of the Preacher and made what he will of the sense of the Apologist concludes He must give me leave to set down these three Assertions of the Pulpit for so many clear Instances of most foul Misrepresenting But by his leave I shall review his account of this matter I am not obliged in strictness to concern my self in the first Head being neither charged upon the Preacher in the Good Advice nor so much as mentioned in the Apology but yet he shall find me a fair Adversary and not willing to stand upon my Terms but take the work as he has cut it out for me 1. The Vnity the Papists boast of is but a pretence whereas they have really more Divisions in their Religion than they charge ours with This our Author saith is a Calumniating of them and is one of his Foul Misrepresentations And yet after all I doubt it will return upon himself For if there be a real and perfect Union it 's surely to be seen in their present obedience to the same Church-Authority as our Author words it pag. 26. or in a perfect Union of Members among themselves in charity Or in being of the same belief as our Author suggests And yet if we come to examine it in this Method we shall find Breach upon Breach For 1. What Schisms have there been in that Church-Authority no less than thirty as Onuphrius reckons in the Papacy some of which continued ten some twenty and one fifty years 2. What actual Disobediences to that Authority in the times of Innocent 4 th Vrban 8 th and at this season are in the Gallican Church 3. What infinite Quarrels betwixt the Bishops and the Friers the Friers and Parish-Priests in the times of Gregory 9 th Innocent 4 th Alexander 4 th Martin 4 th Boniface 8. Clement 5 th Benedict 10 th c. from age to age even to that infamous one in the last age here betwixt the Seculars and Regulars One Pope revoking anothers Decrees and oftentimes annulling their own as did Innocent Martin and Boniface c. 4. Come we to their Union in Doctrine and we shall find that but a pretence For where have there been sharper conflicts than among them about the Seat and Extent of Infallibility Predetermination
that the Faithful ought to be in nothing more solicitous than to take care to expiate their Soul by Confession Is it because it 's called whispering For what then serve their Boxes and why is it call'd a Seal Is it because of the easiness of it That is the case at the last For saith he every one will see how insincere this Preacher was in saying that a man unlades himself c. To make his Followers believe the Papists to be so sottish as to think their sins forgiven by a whisper only He may e'ne turn his anger upon his own Church for teaching this Doctrine for from thence the Preacher learn'd it which saith The Sacrament of Confession was graciously instituted on purpose to supply the place of Contrition For further proof of this I remit the Reader to the Apology Assertion 21. 4. Of Transubstantiation where men must renounce all their Five Senses at once Here the Apologist charged our Author with a small Falsification which indeed he has now mended but not acknowledged But he will make up that defect by the force of his Argument for now he seriously undertakes to prove that in Transubstantiation they don't renounce all their Five Senses As for three of them he has nothing to say but then Sight and Hearing are so far from being against that they eminently serve for the proof of it As how If saith he we follow our Hearing which is the sense by which Faith comes we are oblig'd to believe it Christ's words expresly signifie and declare the Sacrament is his Body These words we hear deliver'd by those whom he has appointed to Teach and Instruct the Flock to wit the Pastors of the Church these words we see likewise and read in Holy Scripture So that if we follow our Ears and our Eyes directed by the Word of God we are bound to believe this Mystery and consequently do not Renounce all our Five Senses at once Well! but do we hear Christ thus declaring No but we hear the Church Has the Church then such an Organical voice to speak as we have Ears to hear No but the Church teaches by its Pastors But are the Pastors we hear all Infallible in their Teaching And are we to believe them although they teach contrary to sense and reason There indeed he has lost the Case But however he brings in Sight to his relief For these words saith he we see likewise and read in Holy Scripture And whilst we let both our Senses and Reason be immediately directed by God's Word which is Infallible we more reverence the Scriptures and believe upon better Grounds than the Protestants Thus we are at last led to a Private Spirit and the Protestant way of resolving Faith into the Scriptures without need of any Infallible Interpreter For 't is but letting our Senses and Reason be immediately directed by God's Word which is Infallible and we may soon be satisfied I heartily thank our Author for this free Concession for these are the Grounds Protestants do believe upon But yet he will needs have it that they believe upon better Grounds than the Protestants This I am apt to think he will no more be able to prove than that they Reverence the Scriptures more than Protestants However this he attempts and gives this reason for that Protestants let natural Objects ever about Mysteries of their Faith have the direction of their Senses in which they are so often deceived rather than the Word of God which cannot deceive them But where has the Word of God taught us that we are not to judg of Natural Objects by those Senses which he has given us to judg of Natural Objects by Will he undertake to provâ— this also When he himself acknowledges that to frame a judgment of the nature or substance of a thing we must depend upon the information of sense and that the common and natural way is to judg according to the relation the senses give from the external and natural accidents of the thing And now is not a Wafer a Sensible Object and are we not to judg of it according to the Relation the Senses give of it and from its external and natural accidents How will our Author salve this difficulty That he proceeds in after this manner But if we desire to frame a true judgment as if the other was a false one of what is the Nature and Substance of such an Object not according to a Natural Being but according to the Divine Power and what it may have of Supernatural the Senses ought not to be laid aside but we must consider here too the information these give not now from the Natural Accidents but from the Word of God. I should have thought the Conclusion to be infer'd from hence would rather be the Senses ought to be laid aside forasmuch as we are not in such case to judg of the Natural Accidents according to what they report For I must confess he is one of the first I have met with that has improved the Argument this way and that appeals to the Senses for the proof of Transubstantiation which their Church so cautiously warns them against in this matter But he will illustrate this by an instance in another matter A Friend saith he sends me a transparent Stone of which when I would make a judgment I cannot do it without the information of my Senses These may inform me two ways either by looking upon the thing it self or by reading the Letter sent along with it or the report of the Bearer If I take the information of my Senses from the view of the Stone I judg it to be a pebble if from the Letter wrote by an excellent Artist and the Bearer a skilful Jeweller I judg it to be a true Diamond upon their authority and greater skill Now in which judgment of these ought I to acquiesce Certainly in this last and yet in so doing I hope I should not renounce all my Five Senses at once So since my Senses assure me from Scripture and the Pastors of God's Church that the Sacrament is Christ's Body I am bound in reason to judg of it so rather than from the Natural Accidents to judg it to be Bread So that in thus believing this Mystery we do not renounce but follow our Senses But his Instance reaches not the Case 1. Because the judging whether a Transparent Stone be a Counterfeit or a Diamond is not a matter of mere sense but judgment skill and experience and belongs to an Artist But Sense will teach every one whether it be a Stone or a Pea hard or soft transparent or opacous But now the Case before us is whether what we see is a bit of Bread or the Body of a Man whether it 's broken or whole c. And therefore to put the case right and make it parallel he must suppose the Stone to be a known Diamond as known to him it 's sent to as to
Pulpit-Popery TRUE POPERY BEING AN ANSWER To a BOOK Intituled PULPIT-SAYINGS AND IN VINDICATION OF THE APOLOGY for the PULPITS AND THE STATER of the CONTROVERSIE against the REPRESENTER LONDON Printed and are to be Sold by Randall Taylor near Stationers-Hall MDCLXXXVIII THE CONTENTS THE whole Controversy is resolv'd into the Author himself Page 1. The Vnreasonableness of charging Misrepresentation on the Pulpits p. 2. None more guilty of Misrepresentation than those of the Church of Rome and our Author in particular p. 3 4. Our Author's mistake in framing Characters p. 6. Character I. About the Popish-Plot p. 7. Character II. About the Murther of K. Charles the 1st with an Answer to the Challenge p. 8. Character III. About the Fire of London ibid. Character IV. Of Popish Emissaries p. 9. Character V. Of the Divisions and Fanaticism in the Church of Rome p. 12 15. Character VI. Of a proper Propitiatory Sacrifice in the Sacrament p. 17. Mr. Thorndike Vindicated p. 18. Of a Sacramental Presence and breaking of a true Body p. 20. Character VII Popery puts out the understanding of those of her Communion p. 21. The Difference betwixt the Severity of the Church of England and Rome p. 23. The Absurdity of Auricular Confession p. 24. In Transubstantiation they renounce their Senses p. 25. The Popish-Plea That Hearing is for Transubstantiation ibid. The Pope alone cannot Err and all others cannot but Err. p. 26. Character VII Of Praying and Prophesying in an Vnknown Tongue p. 27. Of the Sense of Prophesying p. 29. Of the ill Vse made of Auricular Confession p. 30. Character IX Of Saints Canonized for Money and Treason ibid. Of Praying to a Crucifix p. 31. Auricular Confession tends to the debauching Laity and Clergy And of Confession in the Church of England p. 32. Character X. The Churches Interest the Centre of their Religion p. 33. Character XI Of the Legends in the Church of Rome p. 34. Of the turning Sacraments into Shews p. 37. Of Preaching Purgatory instead of Repentance p. 38. And Faction instead of Faith. p. 39. Of the Preachers in the Holy League p. 40. Character XII Of Alms in the Church of Rome p. 40. Of Exorcisms p. 41. Of the Difficulty of knowing the Doctrine of the Church of Rome p. 42. Of compounding for unforsaken sins p. 43 45. Dr. T. Translation of Poenitentia Vindicated p. 44. Indulgences for Thousands of years to come p. 46. Indulgences not a Relaxation of Canonical penances p. 48. Character XIII If a Papist be false and deceitful yet Euge c. p. 49. No man can be a Papist but he that 's blinded by Education c. p. 50. About Picturing the Divinity ibid. Of Praying to an Image p. 52. Of Worshipping Bread and Wine as God p. 53. Of the Passion of Christ taking away the guilt and not the punishment ibid. Of the Non-necessity of Repentance till the point of death ibid. Bare saying of Prayers without attendance to what they say is sufficient to Divine Acceptance p. 54. Of Prayers in an Vnknown Tongue and the Translation of the Mass-Book p. 55. Character XIV They take away the second Commandment p. 56. 'T is not necessary to be sorry for the sin but the penance p. 57. An Indulgence serves instead of a Godly life ibid. Auricular Confession the great Intelligencer p. 58. Ignorance the Mother of Devotion ibid. They must submit to an Infallible Judg so as to believe Vertue to be bad and Vice good p. 59. Their Clergy must lead a single life whether honestly or no it makes no matter p. 60. Of the several Artifices used by our Author p. 64. Of his Reply to the Answerer of his Reflections p. 65. His appeal to the Lives of Papists amongst us shew'd to be impertinent ibid. A further Account of his Artifice p. 67. His Answers all along insufficient p. 70. Of his insincerity in the offers he makes to receive us into his Church upon the Representing Terms and detesting some Principles and Practices charged upon the Church of Rome p. 71 72. ADVERTISEMENT TRansubstantiation contrary to Scripture or the Protestant's Answer to the Seeker's Request The Protestant's Answer to the Catholick Letter to the Seeker Or a Vindication of the Protestant's Answer to the Seeker's Request An Apology for the Pulpits being in Answer to a late Book Intituled Good Advice to the Pulpits Together with an Appendix containing a Defence of Dr. Tenison's Sermon about Alms in a Letter to the Author of the Apology ERRATA PAg. 22. l. 5. r. 15. p. 33. l. 35. r. in terminis p. 41. l. 6. a bringing p. 43. l. 2. r. saith he Pulpit-POPERY True POPERY IN ANSWER TO Pulpit-Sayings WHEN the Author of the Pulpit-Sayings first appeared in the World he undertook to shew what the Papist is not or how he is Misrepresented and what he really is and how he is to be Represented The first he tells us He exactly describ'd according to the Apprehension he had when a Protestant And the latter he represents according to his own private Opinion when a Papist as he is told So that in the issue the whole is resolv'd into himself Thus it was and thus he still maintains the Humour for what are the Characters he gives of a Papist but for the most part the fruits of his own Imagination And what doth he bring to confirm it but it is the Papist I am What course doth he take to confute his Adversaries to confront their Authorities but if that be a Papist I am none I profess I renounce such Popery Nay as if he acted sub sigillo Piscatoris and had by Deputation the Authority of the Chair to determine and renounce and the Keys of St. Peter to bind and loose to let in and out of their Communion as he sees fit he assures us that whoever will be a good Papist must disclaim every point that is here set down by the Pulpits as Articles of Religion And again the Papist Represented I own it it 's the Papist I am and whoever assents to that Character in that very Form of the Papist Represented has done what is required as to those particulars to be made a Member of our Communion So that if I declare I profess I renounce on one side and I am I do own on the other is sufficient to determine the Point and will be taken for an Answer by his Adversaries there is no more to be said But though our Author may suitably enough to the temper of the Church he is now of be thus assuming and dogmatical and may for ought we know thus expound transform and determine with Allowance yet there is no reason why he should prescribe to the Church he has forsaken and that his Apprehensions be taken for the Apprehensions of all of that Communion This he now thinks a little unreasonable and could be content for once to own it if his present Undertaking be allowed to come in the place
of it For thus he saith If any make Exceptions against the Character of a Papist thus disguis'd as 't was drawn there in the Papist Misrepresented I 'le never quarrel upon that score let that be raz'd out But however tho he thus drops his own Apprehensions as well as he had his 37. Points of Representation and at once gives away half his Labour yet like a true Master of Defence he mounts the Stage again and renews the Fight for by the help of some Pulpit-Sayings he thinks he has given life to his otherwise dying Cause Let that saith he be raz'd out and these others take place which 't is likely are more Authentick What! more Authentick than his own Apprehensions O yes for its such a Popery and such a Papist as is describ'd by Ministers in their Pulpits In which there are many things charged upon them without either Truth and Sincerity and consequently 't is not without grounds they complain of Misrepresenting 1. But why the Pulpits Are not the same things in Books of Controversy and are they not there more fully explain'd and debated Thither therefore in reason we ought to be sent to understand how the Protestants Represent the Papist But then our Author had not had the opportunity of exclaiming against those high Places as he Phrases it from whence it seems they have received no little Damage or which is worse he had been engaged in a Dispute which is not his Province as he tells us p. 28. 2. But if some Pulpits have misrepresented them in some cases what is that to the Pulpits in general What is that to our Church He has been already told that we are far from defending such Misrepresentations if such there be That which we adhere to is the Doctrine and Sense of our Church as it is by Law established and what Representations are made agreeable thereto we undertake to defend and no other Can he think we are any more concern'd in the mistakes or infirmities of others then he thinks himself to be in the loose and extravagant opinions of their own Doctors Schoolmen and Casuists And is it not reasonable he should allow the same Law to others he is forced so frequently to plead in his own defence 3. But further supposing that some of the Pulpits have Misrepresented the Papist in some points and in those points he disclaims yet are there no points besides they differ in And if these were set aside would the Church of England and Rome be one What thinks he of the many points I find in the same Sermons he quotes that he civilly passes by Such as these That the Church of Rome is alone the Catholick Church out of which is no Salvation That the Pope is the Universal Head of that Church That that Church is Infallible What thinks he of Transubstantiation Purgatory Invocation of Saints Communion in one kind Divine Service and Scriptures in an Unknown Tongue Merit and Works of Supererogation the Worship of Images Implicit Faith Indulgences Deposition of Princes c. Lastly What thinks he of the great point he all along omitted as he is charged that a Papist doth not only believe the Doctrines defin'd in the Council of Trent to be true but also to be necessary to Salvation Are not these the Doctrines of the Church of Rome And are not the Pulpits as much employ'd in confuting these as those of praying to Images and putting their trust in them and the other Follies and Abominations as he calls them charged on his Church And do not the Protestants think as ill of those points he owns as of those he disclaims 4. But how come they of the Church of Rome to start this charge of Misrepresentation who are of all Churches in the world the most guilty of it Or how comes our Author to continue it who neither durst so much as vindicate others or himself when convicted of it The learned Author of the View enter'd the Field and threw down the Gantlet but our Author fairly slinks aside and leaves his Brethren to sink under the imputation of the soulest Misrepresentations And this is not to be wonder'd at when he has not one word of Reply to all the Accusations of that kind there produced against himself And yet to give a further Specimen how far this disingenuous quality has prevail'd upon his temper he still proceeds in the same course and to be quit with the Pulpits which he saith are forward in making characters of the Papists he is as forward in making characters of the Pulpits The business of so many Pulpits ten thousand open every week he saith is chiefly to make exceptions pick holes quarrel ridicule and the more excellent they are at their work the more they gain upon their Auditory And that he may not be wanting he will be at his Plots too and follow what he calls Oat's Divine way of Information He had tried once before to form a design of this kind when he would have Sermons preach'd many years ago against Popery to contain severe reflections upon his present Majesty But that he was soon made sensible of and has not a syllable to excuse And yet he will be again at his Innuendo's for thus he lays the Scene Methinks the Pulpits saith he should be more tender of their Soveraign than to venture upon the same Method which he before charges them with with the Son which prov'd so fatal to the Father and dangerous to the Brother But I fear the excess of jealousie for their Religion puts them upon being too bold with their Prince and that by a just judgment of Heaven they are blindly practising the very principles they have so often charged upon the Papists making their Churches Interest the center of their Religion Preaching Faction instead of Faith c. Such expressions as these are not thrown out at all adventure and we may soon guess what they tend to and it 's a fair warning Thus far for the Pulpits but to shew what a Talent he has at Character-making he will furnish us also with that of the true Son of the Church of England viz. A Genuine Son of the Church of England is to have a good stock of this implicit Faith by him and to believe and speak though he knows nothing at all Again This is to the Protestant Tune If a man can't tell how to run down Popery though he knows nothing of it he 's no true Son of the Church of England So that quarrelling and ridiculing is the work it seems of the Preachers and a delight in it the temper of their Auditors and to speak all at once Ignorance and Arrogance Slander and Impudence are in his opinion the Ingredients of a true Son of the Church of England This is the faithful Representer the soft Adviser the prudent Cautioner the impartial Character-maker the Preacher of Charity the Detecter of Impostures
and disguisements and the great undertaker of setting every thing upon its proper Basis and bringing it into its true place and order 5. But what if after all this Pulpit-Popery is true Popery and that nothing is charged upon them as a Principle but what the Pulpits learn'd from themselves But says some Body hold your hand and make no such attempt for can that be done after all his Detestations Renouncings Disclaimings Abborrings and Abominatings Does not he declare that these Doctrines as here set down by the Ministers and charged upon the Papists he not only abominates but that if that so to believe be a Papist he would be a Turk as soon as a Papist But these Rhodomantado's come so often in that I perceive they are words of course with him and shall therefore file them up with his Anathema's in his Papist Represented and Misrepresented till I find due place for a further Animadversion and so pass on to the Examination of this his Vindication of his Good Advice to the Pulpits For the better grace of which his performance he has distributed his matter into fourteen Characters of a Pulpit-Papist But what 's become of the former method observed in his Good Advice What of the five Cautions What of the twenty-eight Assertions extracted out of the Sermons as instances of their foul Misrepresentations Certainly had he in earnest intended to have given a just Answer to his Adversary or was conscious to himself of having performed it he would have kept as much as might be to his former Method which the Apologist carefully followed him in that the whole might lye fair before the Reader 's eye and he might lay his finger upon the point in debate betwixt them But that was not to his purpose he thought he might give the matter a more clever turn if he slid off from his Cautions and Assertions and dispos'd the whole into Characters Assertions are dangerous points and require proof and debate and it would be expected the matter should in that way be brought to an issue But for Characters a Writer may go on eternally it requires only a little skill in Representation and the work is done And it requires but a spark of confidence to tell his Reader that he proceeds to this Examen of the Apology in the Method of the Good Advice to the Pulpits and presently his Characters fall back into Cautions and Assertions by the Figure of making two things to be one and of denying and affirming without a contradiction But if he will be at his Characters how come particular matters of Fact to belong to a Character Or how is it that what belongs to a particular fort is applied to the whole Would it not be very ridiculous to describe a Papist after the way taken by our Author and to tell the world A Papist is one that was engaged in an execrable Plot to take away the Life of his late Majesty A Papist is one that had a Hand in the Horrid Plot of the Murder of King Charles the First A Papist is one that fired London A Papist is one that has his Emissaries up and down to preach Schism and Sedition A Papist is one What why the different Orders of Religion are so many Sects of Religion And yet thus it must be if Characters are Characters Did ever the Pulpits talk at this loose and sensless rate so as to draw Characters from a particular Fact And might it not as well be said A Papist is one that writes Representations and Good Advices and Pulpit-Sayings This is a way peculiar to our Author for ought I have observed among Writers of Characters and I 'le assure him he was very secure when he offered this Proposal Let them take this Pulpit-draught along with them and compare it with all the Papists they know or can hear of let them see whether they answer that Character Would it not be more proper if we were to give the Character of a Papist and will proceed upon Particulars to resolve them into a General and to see whether for example they have not such Principles in the Church of Rome as not only have put them upon but do oblige them to some Practices too near a kin to some of these before spoken of And for an instance of which I shall refer him to Doctrines and Practices p. 102 and 163 and to a Papist not Misrepresented p. 49. Now the producing the Anathema's of his Church against these Points and an Authoritative Abrenunciation of them would do more to remove the occasion of our so many years Disturbances and to wipe off the Scandals urged against them from the Pulpit or elsewhere than all the Tracts that he was published and is as much a Satisfaction they owe to the World as any he would prescribe to the Pulpits in his first Character when we hear of this I dare assure him there shall be no want in the other But however 't is but reasonable to give him the hearing First Character of a Pulpit-Papist The Papists in the Year 1679. c. were engaged in a Horrid Execrable Plot c. In these Colours saith he were the Papists set out by the Pulpits And why not set out by the King Lords and Commons in Parliament Why not by the Highest Courts of Judicature Did the Pulpits take the Depositions and Examinations Did the Pulpits set forth Proclamations Did the Pulpits pass Votes and make Acts and sign Narratives Did the Pulpits Try Condemn and Execute Did the Pulpits lastly ordain Fasts and require publick Solemnities to be observed Or are the Pulpits to enquire into all Facts and to give no Credit to the Reports or no Obedience to the Orders of Superiors concerning them If this was the case of the Pulpits then the Title of this his Chapter would not be amiss but he knows for what reasons it better deserves another and in reason ought to be the Character of a Papist Second Character of a Pulpit-Papist The Popish Jesuits had a hand in that horrid Plot of the Murder of King Charles I. c. But if it were Popish Jesuits that were thus challenged by the Pulpits then why is the Title the Character of a Pulpit-Papist Since I hope all the Practices of the Jesuits can no more be charged upon the Papist than every Papist will be content to be a Jesuit And therefore it 's very wide from the Sayer's purpose to shew this to be impossible because of the Nobility Gentry and Commonalty that fought and lost their Lives in Defence of his Majesty For it has been no strange thing for many of all Conditions to go one way and yet the Jesuit to go another The times of Henry 3. and 4. of France will give us instances enough of this matter I could wish that he had kept the Challenge to himself for having made it he has made it necessary to answer it It 's this The Challenge
him that sent it and that the Letter and Bearer both affirm this small Stone which he now holds betwixt his fingers and knows by his Senses to be a Stone and not a Man is yet the great Mogul in person and so is every Diamond besides that comes over and yet that Prince is still in his own Country Must that person now because of their Authority and greater skill think himself bound to acquiesce in their judgment against the testimony of sense or must he not renounce his senses to do it 2. He supposes further that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is as plainly contained in Scripture as it is in the Letter that the Transparent Stone then sent is a Diamond But that he knows we deny and when he can find these or the like words This Bread is turn'd into my Natural Body or is upon Consecration my true Substantial Body it will be time enough to prepare a further Answer for him The Question being not whether what God teaches is not to be believed but whether he hath so taught So that it still remains true what the Preacher charged upon him that in believing Transubstantiation a man must renounce his five Senses at once even hearing it self which will not only teach us to distinguish betwixt the Host's and the Priest's falling into the water though we are blindfold but we must in their way renounce that Sense to believe it when we hear all Mankind concurring in it that the report of Sense is to be believed and that in our Author's words To frame a judgment of the nature or substance of a thing we must depend upon Sense 5. The Pope alone cannot err and all others without some of his Assistance cannot but err Here are two Propositions 1. The Pope cannot err This our Author now calls an Opinion of some School-Divines whereas the Apologist shewed it to be the prevailing Opinion of their Church whether in respect of number or authority It 's the most common opinion of almost all Catholicks as Bellarmin It 's the Catholick Truth and what all Catholick Doctors teach in these days saith Suarez But to this not a word 2. All others cannot but err Here our Author is guilty of a new Misrepresentation It is charged upon us saith he because we believe the members of our Church to be fallible that therefore they cannot but err Where he changes the Proposition into a Conclusion by foysting in the word Therefore and then running it down as a most Illogical and absurd consequence but let him answer for the faults of it whose conseqeunce it is The consequence then be to himself and let the Proposition be the Preacher's that all others without some of his assistance cannot but err This is absolutely false saith our Author and so say I too but it is true Popery Let their Catechism decide the Case to that I appeal which thus delivers the sense of their Church upon it But as this one Church which the Pope of Rome is at the Head of Sect. 15. cannot err in delivering the Doctrine of Faith and Manners seeing it 's governed by the Holy Ghost So all the rest which assume to themselves the name of a Church must of necessity be engaged in the most pernicious Errors of Doctrine and Manners as being led by the spirit of the Devil Now here is the whole Calummy at large If men submit to the Pope and are in his Church they have the benefit and assistance of his Infallibility and are under the Guidance of it as secure as in the Ark of Noah but if they leave it they are drown'd in error and perdition And surely while they are in actual Error they cannot but err according to the known Axiom Quicquid est quamdiu est necesse est esse Because the Apologist before was modest and having not seen the Sermon it self and so not fully understanding the sense of it would neither too hastily condemn or acquit but after he had said what he thought fit upon it concludes If the Preacher went beyond this what Author or Authors he had for it I know not they do not at present occur to me our Author begins to exult saying It 's such a Consequence as the Apologizer himself knows not how to justifie nor need not as a Consequence for that 's his own and yet he has not goodness enough to acquit us from so foul a Calumny The matter it seems is foul and is prov'd upon them let him now she his goodness in confessing the Charge or more of his strength to prove it a Calumny Eighth Character of a Pulpit-Papist He is professedly edified in ignorance by his Church Praying and Prophesying in an Vnknown Tongue They make no other use or account of Confession than what profest Drunkards do of Vomiting The first shall be considered in another place Char. 14. As to the second The Apologist shew'd what is the sense of the word Prophesie in the 1 Cor. 14. which the Preacher there refer'd to viz. that the Apostle there understands by it the expounding the Articles of the Christian Faith and of the Scriptures that contain it But here our Author grievously mistakes him when he adds and to be the same as Preaching For that he affirmed not as well knowing that the Apostle is to be otherwise understood than of Vulgar Preaching 1. Because the Apostle there distinguishes it from Doctrine v. 6. 2. Because of the way it was exercised in when one spoke after another agreeably to the custom of the Jewish Doctors in their Synagogues of whom Philo saith that one read the Bible and another of the more skilful 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 passing through places not understood expâ—undâ—d them 3. Because it was an extraordinary gift by Revelation v. 29 30 31 32. and reckoned as such amongst them c. 12.10 13.2.9 2. The Apologist shew'd farther it was not reasonable to fix this sence upon the Preacher because he must needs know it to be otherwise To this our Author briskly returns Marry if they never Preached contrary to what they knew this would be a good Rule And he has found it by woful experience to be a hard task to discover it though it has been plainly made out that some write contrary to what they know 3. He shew'd farther that the Preacher was speaking about Worship and so consequently it must be what is so accounted and therefore that this must be rather the Reading of Lessons out of Scripture and Hymns which are sometimes call'd Prophesie 1 Chron. 25.1 and which are in their Church-Service in an Vnknown Tongue This our Author passes by as also the Challenge following it But yet he will have it a Calumny whilst he asserts a thing of the Papists which in the common acceptation of the word is absolutely false But what if it was the common acceptation of the word if not the acceptation the Apostle takes it in in that place which the Preacher
refers to But what if it be not the common acceptation of the word but that it 's taken vulgarly for foretelling things to come Who then is the Calumniator 2. They make no other use of Confession than what profest Drunkards do of Vomiting Our Author saith This is a most putid Calumny and that the Vindicator dares not defend but only that so it is in the practice of many of their Church This he complains of and with good reason but then what shall be said of one that after he has told a story of one that declaim'd against the Papists for a Generation of Vipers and a profligate sort of men knowing but two Families and those good men from thence takes occasion to exclaim But this is to the Protestant-tune if a man can't tell how to run down Popery though he knows nothing of it he 's no true Son of the Church of England This is Case for Case But was this all the Apologist had to say in defence of the Preacher did not he produce Authorities of their own as to the General practice Did he not refer to their Doctrines and Penances and the Taxa Camerae Apostolicae in confirmation of it This had more become him to have answered than to put a Case Ninth Character of a Pulpit-Papist It consists of three Paragraphs 1. He pays his Devotions to Saints Canonized for Money and Treason Here the Apologist charges the Sayer with an alteration of the Preacher's words from which he would bring himself off by saying it's an insinuation which to the Hearers is as good as an Assertion whereas the corruption was that he turn'd a Particular into an Universal Here our Author observes against the Apologist 1. That he proves first it may so happen which is as much to the purpose as for one to say the Church-of-England men are corrupters of God's Word because 't is possible they may be so But the case is far otherwise for if there be no certainty but that the Pope may Canonize a Rebel for a Saint then there is no certainty but that the Saint may be no Saint And then what become of the Devotions of the Supplicants as those to Thomas à Becket at whose Shrines were more Offerings made than to Christ himself 2. He saith it has been done and in the next line comes in with an instance where it had like to have been done The instance was of Maria Visitationis where indeed it was not done but that it was not was more from the King of Spain's Jealousie than the Pope's Sagaciousness who sanctified her by Letters under his own hand Our Author I perceive dares not so much as name this Instance 3. As for the Instance of Thomas à Becket he saith he was Canoniz'd not for Rebellion and because he adhered to the Pope against his Prince but for his Virtuous Life and Martyrdom and the attestation of his Sanctity by undeniable Miracles Not for Rebellion as if that would be exprest in the Reasons for his Canonization I have read it was a Moot question Whether he was damn'd for Treason or Glorified as a Martyr I think it not worth the while to decide it but leave our Chronicles and our Author to struggle about it But it minds me of a story told by Bellarmin of one that was worshipped for a Martyr and yet appear'd afterward and told them he was damn'd 2. They pray to a Crucifix of Wood or Stone as well as to Christ himself and attribute as much satisfaction to it as to the Blood of Christ. Our Author rejoyns that This is every word an Infamous Falshood And continues Though the Vindicator appeals to the Words and Forms of some of our Prayers and then says That if words will make it plain the Preacher was not mistaken yet this is so childish a plea that methinks it ought to be beneath a Divine especially a man of conscience to charge so gross an abomination upon such a frothy pretext And then he gives his reason I must confess that if the Vindicator had only the Words and Forms of their Prayers to plead in Vindication of the Preacher without attending to the sense and reason of the thing that it might be as childish and frothy as he represents it and he would have Deut. 32.1 and the Benedicite used in our Church against him as our Author argues But if he had read on he would have found that it was the words as necessarily including such a sense and that the Apologist did covertly refer him to the Papist Represented and not Misrepresented Our Author now confesses himself to be the same that wrote the Papist Misrepresented and Represented and should be therefore concern'd to have defended it against the forecited Answer In which was shewn 1. That the Cross in the Church of Rome as it's Representative so is Consecrated by an Office on purpose composed for it 2. That at the Consecration of it they pray that the Lord would bless the Wood of the Cross that it may be a saving remedy to Mankind a stability of Faith an increase of good Works and the Redemption of Souls and that Christ would take this Cross into his hands and that all that offer it may by the merit of this Cross be delivered from every Sin they have committed 3. That it 's esteem'd upon Consecration to have those Virtues communicated to it 4. That they adore it even with Latria the Worship they give to God and direct their Prayers to it 5. That those Prayers are without a Figure and in a proper Sense applied to the Material Cross. This the Author of that Book proved 1. as that throughout the Cross is distinguished from Christ because they pray to Christ to bless the Cross and that he would communicate such Virtues to it 2. From their own Authors such as Soto Catharinus and Aquinas 3. From the severe Censures of those who held otherwise as was the case of Johannes Aegidius Canon of Sevil and Imbert of Bourdeaux and the Curate of Pomyrol Our Author talks of a Forehead of these that make up against them it 's a Word I am not us'd to but he must have somewhat like it that allows this Practice to be worse than Heathenish and a gross Abomination and yet lets all this to this day lye unanswer'd and thinks to put us off with the same crude Replies that stand there confuted In Conclusion it appears to be no more true that they are defamed by the method used in the Church of England than that the Church of Rome is the Mother-Church of the Church of England as our Author suggests 3. Making a particular Confession of our Sins to Men instead of keeping up wholesome Discipline is the way to corrupt it and tends to the debauching both Laity and Clergy Here our Author spends what he has to say both against Preacher and Vindicator in shewing special Confession to be allow'd
with Heaven by their liberal Alms for their unforsaken Sins and here in this Nation whilst the Island was inchanted with Popery there were granted Indulgences even for what they call deadly Sins for many thousand years to come Here our Author inveighs against the Doctor for writing in a strain becoming rather a Play than a Sermon because he describes their Practices too much like what they are in themselves and which he has rather fallen short of than set forth according as they deserved As for instance What are their ways of Exorcising but Conjurations sanctified and bring that into the Church which should be by an Anathema thrust out of it Being such as a very valuable Person could not reflect upon without the highest Indignation and who after he had describ'd it from the Ordo Baptizandi cum modo visitandi the Pastorals Rituals the Treasure and Manual of Exorcisms Mengus ' s Flagellum Demonum c. he thus concludes This is the manner of their Devotion for the use of their Exorcists in which is such a heap of Folly Madness Superstition Blasphemy and ridiculous Guises and playings with the Devil that if any man amongst us should use such things he would be in danger of being tried at the next Assizes for a Witch or Conjurer however certain it is what ever the Devil loses by pretending to obey the Exorcist he gains more by this horrible Debauchery of Christianity By this the Reader he appeals to may see whether the strain the Doctor wrote in was not becoming the Subject But why would not our Author leave the Reader to be judg whether the Doctor had justly complain'd of him for his Omissions of what belong'd to the same Argument Why did he not insert the Motives and the Means as well as the Ends Why was it omitted that this Ecclesiastical Magick is what those wicked Spirits invent and incourage Why did he not insert the Avoidance of Anathema's a deliverance from the imaginary Flames of Purgatory and their Bessarion's Character of their Canonization Why said he nothing of the Alienation of Alms hereby from their proper uses the increase of Superstition and the maintaining of an Vniversal Vsurper Why is there not a word of the Catalogue of the things hereby purchased viz. Shrines Images Lamps Incense Holy-water Agnus Dei's Blessed Grains Roses Pebles Beads Reliques Pardons c. all the goodly Inventory of Superstition Was it out of favour to the Doctor that this was not repeated And doth he think the Doctor obliged rather to give him thanks than quarrel for his not inserting this part of his Discourse Or have we not Reason to think there was somewhat in it which the Doctor suggests that this 〈◊〉 too Particular for the purpose of Men who deal in Generals which admit of less Discovery Whether the Doctor ows him thanks we have reason to question but the Publick have because he gave an occasion for that good Defence and for the publishing another Edition of that useful Sermon But after all his pretended tenderness for the Doctor he tells of another Champion that draws him out to the full but what he hath done I neither know nor am concern'd but if I may judg of his performance by his Copartner we have to deal with there is not much to be expected But how exact and full soever that may be yet our Author in abundance of Humility resolves at last to throw away a Page upon the Doctor 's twenty in the Examen of his Vindication which he saith he no sooner cast his Eye upon but he sees that now a Doctor he understands no more their Doctrine and Practices than when a Child he knew Gubbard from a Jesuit A very pretty Flourish and a Comparison not amiss for as in those days it was no easy matter to know a Gubbard from a Jesuit tho possibly one and the same when Gubbard could be the Jesuit and the Jesuit be Gubbard as occasion served So it is now in the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which is so habited and managed by men of Art that like an Almanack that is calculated for the Meridian it 's to serve it 's modell'd according to the Time Place Circumstances and Service it 's to respect For in our Forefathers days it was true Popery and spake as a Dragon but in our days it comes forth with Exposition and Representation If it 's likely to be for the Conversion of Hereticks then it shall have the Permission even of the Pope himself to shew it self abroad in this new Attire but if a private hand shall attempt it he shall with Imbert be an Heretick and be punished as such If it be at Rome and a Cardinal is to speak his own Sense then the Honour paid to an Image is Divine and for the sake of the Image If it be for the Service of France and a particular Case then the same Cardinal can subscribe to Exposition and it 's not so much the honouring the Image as the Apostle or Martyr in the presence of the Image If it be to be suited to the humour of a great Marshal then it 's not the Image but Christ as the Bishop of Meaux words it if it be for the Villagers then it 's the Image and Christ as Imbert's Curate So that it seems the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is one while a Gubbard and another while a Jesuit varying with Proteus its Forms and taking with the Camelion its Colour and Complexâ—â—n from the Objects and Occasions it meets with It 's no wonder then if the Doctor when a Doctor can no more understand the Doctrine of their Church than when a Child he could know Gubbard from a Jesuit But however here is Doctrine and Practice joyned together and for once we will try whether the Doctor has not indeed understood both too well for our Author to thank him But why doth not the Doctor understand their Doctrine or Practice It 's because he said 1. Sometimes the Scope is that very wicked one of compounding with Heaven by liberal Alms for their unforsaken Sins Our Author grants then that if this be the Scope they direct their Alms to to compound by them for their unforsaken Sins it 's a very wicked one But this saith He was without one word of proof and now the Doctor in his Defence only proves at large the Practice of Indulgences but not a word of their being given for unforsaken Sins We own the Power of Indulgences but that this can or may be done either with Money or without for unforsaken Sins this we look upon as Abominable and Absurd in the sight both of God and Man. But has the Doctor prov'd nothing but the Practice of Indulgences Has he not also prov'd beyond Exception that Gain is made of them and that there was too great Reason for that Complaint in Matthew Paris That Christ's Blood altho it be sufficient to save Souls yet the same
conclude that this could not be giving leave to sin for so long time to come which so far exceeds the term of mans life But though it gives not leave to sin it 's sure a pardon for sin and he can no more have a pardon for a Thousand years past who has lived but fifty or sixty than have an allowance for a Thousand years to come And the Doctor said not that they grant by Indulgences leave to sin for many Thousand years to come but that they granted Idulgences for many Thousand years to come But what saith our Author to these prodigious numbers of years It 's saith he only the releasing of Penances which being assign'd in proportion to the sins for some sins three years penance for others five might with some careless Christians amount to that degree that for fifty years of life they might possibly have 5000 years penalties due to their sins And we shall add for him the 32000 of Sixtus the 4 th and the ten hundred thousand of John the 22 th Well supposing this account of it to be right and that an Indulgence is only a relaxation of such Penances as are due to the offence Yet what a leave or at least encouragement is here given to sin when a man that has deserved to undergo 5000 or 30000 or ten hundred thousand years of Penance shall by a Bull of a Pope be discharged from all this for saying three short Prayers or five Pater-Nosters five Aves and a Credo But supposing the Sinner is so careless also that after that he has run up the score to so high a sum he has not procured such an Indulgence and that the 5000 and the ten hundred thousand years Penalties remain due where is it that he is to undergo these Penalties And where is it that the Church in his notion appoints assigns and inflicts them After all methinks he had better have said with some of their own Church that the Relaxation doth not avail as far as is promised but it 's so declared that the Faithful might be excited to give and the Church deceives them Thirteenth Character of a Pulpit-Papist This he distributes into nine Particulars 1. If he be false and deceitful to Mankind yet Euge bone serve all is well and he in an instant is thought worthy of a better Kingdom This he saith is absolutely false For this he gives two Reasons 1. That Falshood and deceit are no where recommended or taught by his Church As if his Church would directly establish such Propositions And yet the Council of Constance comes near it when it asserts Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks 2. He saith I am certain no man of what Church soever so guilty can have admittance there but by a sincere repentance and restitution This is the received Doctrine of his Church and I hope in their dealing they practice it as much as any Here he turns off the case in hand from the publick to the private state of affairs and has not one word in vindication of what the Apologist laid to their charge especially in that notorious instance of the Pope's solemn Oration made in the Conclave in commendation of the Assassination of Henry the Third of France As our Author has here broke one sentence of the Preacher's from another and set in the midst what belongs to the Sermon of Alms So he has wholly omitted Assertion 14 th in the Apology viz. If the Pope and his Emissaries say the right hand is the left the Papists are bound to believe it which is there made good by four several Arguments But here our Author is modest and has left it to shift for it self and his Church under the heavy charge of it 2. No man can be a Papist but he whose eyes are blinded by Education or he who puts his own eyes out by Atheism It 's in the Sermon No man Therefore can be a Papist c. which refers to what was there before said and the description the Preacher had given of Popery viz. 1. That the Pope can dispence with the Laws of Nature and against the Old and New Testament 2. That the Word of God is a Nose of Wax a Dumb Judg and dead Ink. 3. That the Pope is another God upon Earth and that if he declares the right hand is the left we ought to believe him And then follows No man therefore can be a Papist but c. The Question here is not about the Lives of Papists as our Author would have it but about the character of Popery And then it remains to be considered whether the Preacher was right in his representation of it and in the Authorities he produces for it But instead of bringing the case to an issue our Author in his Good Advice left out what went before and the Marginal Quotations of what he cited from the Sermon and now has offer'd no manner of Reply to nor so much as taken notice of the Apologist's Argument 3. The Council of Trent expresseth its allowance of picturing the Divinity it self and accordingly the Pictures of the Trinity are ordinarily to be beheld in the Popish Churches This is a new point our Author has substituted perhaps thinking this look's somewhat better than an Answer to that he has omitted but yet I shall take it in my way Here the Preacher 1. Appeals to their Doctrine and for which he quotes the Council of Trent 2. To their practice and use As to the first our Author saith it 's false since the Council delivers just the contrary taking care that if it happens that the Histories of the Holy Scriptures be painted or figured that the people be taught the Divinity is not therefore figur'd or painted as if that could be seen with corporeal eyes or represented in colours Sess. 25. Now here I observe 1. Our Author represents the case as if the Picturing of God and the Trinity in their Churches was much like what Aaron pleads for the Golden Calf I cast it into the fire and there came out this calf as if it was what they find in their Churches have been placed there by they know not whom and are like those that are to be seen it seems in the frontispiece of some Bibles and Common-Prayer-Books of the Church of England that come from an obscure uncertain hand but what they themselves do not regard If it happens c. saith the Council thus far indeed our Author goes with the Council but why did he leave out what immediately follows and why did he not read it as the Council reads it If it happens that sometimes the Histories and Narrations of Scripture be Painted or Figured when that shall be expedient for the unlearned people So that it 's not an accidental thing but designedly done as an Expedient for instructing the unlearned people But however the Preacher saith that of the Council which the Council denies that they picture the Divinity
Doctrine of the Church which teaches that Absolution with Attrition is equivalent to Confession Of this see Char. 14. n. 2. 8. The bare saying of Prayers without either minding what he says or understanding it is sufficient to the Divine acceptance 9. So he is to appear before God dumb and senseless like one of his Idols Our Author observes here that it seems by the Apologizer this saying of the Preacher is not charged upon us as a profess'd Doctrine of ours but only as a consequence of his own Head and from whence does he draw it From this suppos'd principle viz. the Romish Church enjoyns the saying Prayers in a Language unknown to the Generality of the people The Chain as here represented is wholly a Fiction For after the Apologist had charged him with a partial Relation of the Preacher's sense he thus concludes So that what the Adviser quotes is not a consequence infer'd from a principle as he saith but a particular of the foregoing General the Preacher telling his Auditors that meer Works done in Acts of Devotion in the Church of Rome is in the opinion of that Church sufficient to Divine Acceptance This he fortifies with an Instance as it is in bare saying of Prayers without either minding what they say or understanding it And he goes on And agreeably hereunto the Romish Church enjoyns the saying them in a Language not understood c. So far is it either from our Author's consequence or a principle from whence it 's infer'd But here our Author slips away from the Argument of the Apologist which brought him to the exigence of owning himself a Falsifier as to his charge against the Preacher or a Deserter and Condemner of his own Church But why doth he now call the enjoyning of a Prayer in a Language unknown to the People a supposed Principle Is it not enjoyned There he is silent But what if the Priests do not understand So it has been so Nic. Clemangis saith We see Priests almost universally have much ado to read without understanding the Sense or the Words so Billet c. And what if the Priests do understand it Is it therefore understood by the People But why doth he instance in Missals translated for Vulgar use That sure he should be cautious in for it 's an attempt stands reprobated by a great Authority as the Seed-plot of Disobedience Sedition Schism c. Now which is in the right Pope Alexander the 7 th who thus condemn'd and forbad it or our Author who saith The People have the same in English and what will become both of Priests that allow it and People that use it when the Anathema of the Council of Trent is also against it as Salmeron and others declare I shall leave as I find it From thence our Author runs to the Mass which he saith being a Sacrifice rather than a Prayer the Attention and Devotion of the People doth not so much consist in the Words said by the Priest as in what is done by him But is there in the Mass nothing but the Oblation nothing but Action Are there no Prayers That he dares not say he only softens it 's not so much it 's rather And what does this signify to these parts of the Service which are not of that kind Where then is the Devotion and Attention when there is no Understanding Where the Acceptance when there is neither Attention or Devotion Let him consider what the Apologist said p. 37 39. and then he will find his Appeal to their Practice to be of no Service to him When all is said he has lost the Argument about the Acceptance of Prayer not understood and which the Apologist offer'd him Authorities for But here he supposes he has him at Advantage and tho he lets go Tolet and Salmeron yet he charges him home with somewhat worse than Ignorance for making the Representer an Abetter of such unreasonable Doctrine that to say Prayers well and devoutly 't is not necessary to have Attention not on the Words or Sense when he has left out the following Words But rather purely on God. It 's an Omission I confess a fault frequent with himself I heartily wish our Author as clear of Abetting what he calls the unreasonable Doctrine as the Apologist is of Contrivance who may therefore justly return his own words in a charge somewhat worse I can assure him 't was not design but mistake only In justice to him let us put it in yet I don't see the case at all amended Attention purely on God being a distinct thing from Attention on the Prayers And if he says his Prayers without attending to the Words or Sense whether he thinks purely on God or thinks on any thing else yet he is no more at these his Prayers with his mind than if he were not at Prayers For what are Prayers in publick but the Words and Sense And what makes them our Prayers but Attention to the Words and Sense So that Prayers without Attention are much at one with Prayers without Understanding And those are Prayers without Attention where the Words and Sense of the Prayers are not attended to Well this saith our Author is unreasonable Doctrine That to say say Prayers well and devoutly 't is not necessary to have Attention on the Words and Sense And I hope 't is unreasonable Doctrine then that to say Prayers well and devoutly 't is not necessary to understand either Words and Sense And yet this is approv'd Doctrine in their Church for saith Salmeron Prayers are like the Words of a Charmer they prevail even when they are not understood I hope again 't is unreasonable Doctrine that in Prayer 't is not necessary to attend to the Sense nor so much as to consider he is present before God And yet no less than Cardinal Tolet so determines By this time I hope both Preacher and Vindicator are set right in our Author 's good Opinion as to this matter Proceed we Here I expected a round Charge against Assertion 20 th that they avowedly allow what God positively forbids It 's blunt and home and what the Apologist makes good but this is a dry Doctrine and so he substitutes a new one in the place Fourteenth Character of a Pulpit-Papist Under this are reduced seven Particulars 1. To cover his Idolatry he commits Sacrilege steals away one of the Ten Commandments and by their Index Expurgatorius blots the two Tables themselves This is a new Charge brought to the Account but I shall give it some Consideration This Charge he saith is not sincere 1. Because they have the Ten Commandments in their Bibles and Catechism 2. If they are set short in some little Abstracts of Christian Doctrine it 's in Compliance to the Weakness of some Memories and Capacities setting down only the Words of the Precept without the Addition of Threats Promises or Explications In the first of these he would
insinuate as if the 2 d Commandment is never expunged by them which he dares not stand to If it be expunged elsewhere to what purpose doth he refer us to the Bible and Catechisms For if it be in the Bible and Catechisms but not in the Offices of the Church it 's still a true Charge against them And I remember it was both shew'd that it was not in several of their Offices and it was put to him to shew in what publick Offices of their Church it is to be found But however it is in their Bibles but what is this to those that have not the use of the Bible permitted to them However it is in their Catechisms Surely our Author is not sincere For he once confess'd it to be left out in their short Catechisms or if he is improv'd since that time in his Confidence I will produce Catechism after Catechism where it is not such as the Child's Catechism 1678. And as for the Abstracts even in those the two first Commandments are thrust into one and often there is nothing at all of the second but an c. in the place as in the Abstract of the Scripture Catechism An. 1675 which I suppose is that which he himself refers to p. 57. 2. For his Absolution 't is not necessary he should be sorry for his Sin but only for the Penance Here I presumed our Author would have expatiated upon the point and have clear'd their Church if he could from the Imputation charged upon them by the Preacher and maintain'd by the Apologist who shew'd from the Council of Trent their Catechism and the Practice of their Church that a Sorrow for the Penance alone or Attrition with Confession to the Priest is sufficient without Contrition but to all this our Author gives no Reply 3. If this should fail 't is but being at the Charge of an Indulgence or Pope's Pardon that is to purchase so many penny-worth of other mens Merits And this is what is requir'd instead of Regeneration Sanctification and a Godly Life This saith our Author involves an absolute Falsity whilst it supposes that a Papist who is sorry neither for his Sins nor the Punishment that attends them has no more to do than to procure the Pope's Pardon and that this is sufficient instead of Repentance This is a most abominable Doctrine in it self and most injuriously charg'd upon us And yet as abominable Doctrine as it is it 's found and prov'd upon them by the Apologist from the Indulgences granted in their Crusado's and upon other Occasions But saith our Sayer The only ground for it is the Practice of some prostigate Men in the number of which he must then place several of his Popes But to all the Evidence for this our Author saith not a Word Of this let the Reader see before Char. 12. 4. Auricular Confession their great Intelligence and Leiger Nuntio is the main Curb of the Laity whereby the Clergy holds them in aw in being admitted to all their Secrets of States and Families thereby to work their Purposes and Plots 't is a matter of meer Interest and were there no gain in it they would be ashamed of it Of this he saith It 's a most odious Character of an Institution allowed even in the Church of England What is their Auricular Confession as it 's described from the Council of Trent in the Apology an Institution of the Church of England Doth the Church of England hold it necessary jure Divino to Confess to the Priest all and singular mortal Sins even the most Secret whether Acts Thoughts or Desires with all their Circumstances so far as may change the nature of the Sin and without doing which no Absolution is to be given He may as well say Transubstantiation is the Doctrine of the Church of England because they own the Eucharist as their Auricular Confession is an Institution of our Church because it allows and approves Confession in some cases But what saith our Author to the Charge What to the use made of it in intruding into the Secrets of States and Families and to work their Projects What to the Allegations from their own Historians Here the old Refuge is made use of Silence Of this see before Char. 9. n. 3. 5. Ignorance is the Mother of their Devotion which they are bound to by Vow and under the severest Penalties This saith our Author is a great Calumny and an empty Consequence of the Preacher Methinks our Author should not be so brisk upon this Sermon which he has made so extremely bold with sometimes mollifying the Sense of it when it looks two broad upon them at other times sharpning it leaving out and altering as it was here when he made the Preacher say before they are bound to vow Ignorance This he saith the Apologizer pretends to make out But if it be but Pretence why has not the Sayer expos'd him and run down the Instances of St. Benedict Francis Ignatius Loyala I acknowledg the Learning of many of their Fryers and Monks but they are not beholding to their Vows and Rules for their Learning For the more they keep to them the less Learned they will be or else I know not why the Jesuits are not as strictly tied up to their Hours c. as the Benedictines But what is become of Assertion 25. Their avowed Principles are to keep the People in Ignorance Where are we to expect the Answer to what the Apologist there produced in Confirmation of it That 's reserved to a more convenient time See before Char. 8. Here again we want an Answer to what was said on Assertion 26. They teach their People better Manners than to rely upon the all-sufficient Merits of Christ. All which the Apologist did undetake to prove upon them But instead of that our Author throws in a new Instance to make up the Defect viz. 6. They must wholly submit their Reason to an Infallible Judg even so far if one of their greatest Authors say true as to be bound to believe Virtue to be Bad and Vice to be Good if it shall please his Holiness to say so This saith he is a gross Abuse of Bellarmin But first of all what saith he to the general Proposition That they must wholly submit their Reason to the Infallible Judg Is that an Abuse of their Church And setting aside Bellarmin for the present Is there none of his gross Doctrine to be found elsewhere What thinks he if the Pope should declare the right Hand is the left are they bound to believe it This was once call'd a Misrepresentation in the Preacher but their own Lyra was beforehand with him tho our Author had the good manners to leave out the Quotation What thinks he of the Rule of Ignatius That if the Catholick Church define that to be black which appears to be white they are bound to account it to be black What 's think he of meriting by believing an
their Obedience to their Sovereign I have now done with our Author 's 14 Characters which consist partly of matter of Fact and Observation partly of Doctrine of their own and partly of Inferences from and Arguings upon them In the two former of which which are the proper Subject of Representation I have shew'd there has been nothing charged upon them by the Preachers as to Principle Practice or Fact which they had not good Evidence for and was so far from being a Fiction of their own that they condemn them out of their own mouths As for the latter it belongs not to the Case before us but yet that nothing might be wanting to give our Author satisfaction the Arguments produced by the Preachers against the Church of Rome have been considered and justified So that in Conclusion I may here challenge him to shew that there is any Principle or Doctrine which is not a Principle of theirs or a Practice which is not a Practice or a Consequence which is not truly inferr'd from them I do not think that a Misrepresentation can be justly chargeable upon a mere Mistake no more than it is upon the inconsequence of an Argument But it 's a Wonder to me that amongst the Ten thousand Pulpits as he reckons them and the multitude of Writers in the Church of England and under all the Provocations they have met with and in the heat of Argument there can be nothing material produced against them notwithstanding the utmost diligence could be used and the reading of Volumes of Sermons on purpose to make a Discovery Were they indeed guilty of Misrepresentation and that there was No praying to Images in the Church of Rome No compounding with Heaven for Vnforsaken Sins No worshipping Bread and Wine as God himself No saying Prayers without Attention No Divisions among themselves No renouncing their Senses c. Yet we know where these would be match'd when our Adversaries tell us The Protestants have no God no Faith no Religion but are meer Atheists and worship the Devil as Possevine and Prateolus teach That to run down Popery tho he know nothing of it is to be a true Son of the Church of England That Interest and Passion puts the Preachers upon arguing in Defiance to their own Conscience which our Author it seems knows better than themselves Or as a late Author That Libertinism is the sole Profession and the very soul of all Sectaries that is those that are not in Communion with the Church of Rome That the false Church that is all but themselves and Religion hath no other but vile Hypocrites That it Professeth the broad and large way leading to Destruction granting Libertinism to the highest degree of Wickedness in one kind or another Into which whoever enters for saking the true begins presently to leave all Goodness and becomes an outcast and scum of the Earth as to all Wickedness and Prophaness That it enjoys no true Spirituality but brainsick Phancy and there was never any sound Spiritual Book written by them They have the Lord in their Mouth but their hearts are far from him That by reason of its wicked Obstinacy and Libertinism it brings all the Professors thereof to Disobedience and takes away all neighbourly Love and just Dealing one with another and hereby bringing Ruin and Confusion upon all Commonwealths c. If so much had been said of the Church of Rome what a rout had here been What a mustering up of Misrepresentations Calumnies and Abuses What arguing in Defiance to their own Conscience But I will here excuse the Author of the Mirror for he that can be so ignorant as to tell us that the Creed of Pius 4 th which he at large rehearses was the constant Profession of Faith in the days of Austin the Monk An. 596. and can quote that Monk's Letter to Pope Gregory for it may for ought I know think as he writes and so his Representations of the Sectaries and of the Profession of Pope Gregory's Faith be equally true and what he equally understands But our Author is not alike excusable For whatever he may know concerning the Days of Austin the Monk I know not but what he writes about belongs more to his own and so if he falls in with Misrepresentation his Conscience must be the more concerned And which after all he is so far from making good that he is forced to use all the Shifts that one conscious to himself of infirmity and subtle enough to conceal it can contrive which for a Conclusion to the whole I shall now a little enquire into 1. The first Artifice he uses is Disclaiming and Renouncing after this manner If to be a Papist is to be that which is describ'd in these Characters I declare I am none and that I am so far from undertaking Apologies for men of such Practices and Belief that I here profess a hearty Detestation of all such Engagements If this was so I concluded I had certainly fall'n into the very mouth of Hell-Doctrines I as much abhor as Hell and Damnation it self If this be to be a Papist then certainly to be a Papist is to be the worst of Men. And 't is so far from being a doubt whether he be a Christian that 't is certain he can be none and that if he be bound to believe and live according to the Principles here laid down he can have no right to Salvation Whatever Church would receive him with the Profession of all those scandalous Doctrines the Pulpits charge against us I would be sure to be no Member of it and if there were no other but that Church amongst Christians I would then begin to look towards Turky Nay he advances further Whoever will be a good Papist must instead of assenting to disclaim every point that is here set down by the Pulpits as Articles of his Religion Let us now try our Author in some one of these Scandalous and Abominable Doctrines who comes thus arm'd Cap-a-pie with Detestations Abhorrencies Disclaimings and see whether he be invulnerable What thinks he of the first of those he calls Follies and Abominations viz. praying to Images and attributing Satisfaction and Expiation to a Crucifix of Wood and Stone What doth he think of the Office of Consecration where it 's pray'd that God would bless the Wood of the Cross that it may be a saving Remedy to Mankind a Stability of Faith the Redemption of Souls c How would he behave himself in the Company of Cardinal Capisucci who maintains that the Worship is to the Image How in the presence of the Arch-Bishop of Bourdeaux who defended the Curate's to the Word the Wood against Imbert's to Christ and not to the Wood Could he bear up to them and tell them it 's Infamous that they are no Christians and have no right to Salvation Which doth he think would there be the Misrepresenter our Author that
and his Adversaries be eternally silenced But if the Reader casts his Eye a little back he will see from Point to Point how he has left the Cause to shift for it self And whereas now it had become him to have discharg'd himself from so gross an Imputation we must be contented to have one answer to that and all the rest that they are too impertinent to deserve any Such we are to account the Charge of his Representing by halves of continuing his Misrepresentations without Replying to the Answers of his not answering the View of his common but vain Allegation that we pretend to know Popery better than they themselves of his abusing Mr. Montague of his Insincerity particularly when he offers to receive us into the Church of Rome upon his Representing Terms and when he professes to detest some Doctrines and Practices charged upon the Church of Rome c. But here he will say I make too much haste for the two last Points he has reply'd to in the Close But truly it 's after such a manner and so faintly as if he hop'd 't would be overlook'd As for Example As to the first he Replies This offer may be said to have been answer'd over and over But the matter of Fact defeats all those Answers and is a Demonstration that they are nothing but shuffling Now what is this matter of Fact and where is this Demonstration That follows For whilst a man may be received upon those Terms and yet cannot be received unless he assents to the Faith of the Church 't is evident that in that Character the faith of the Church is truly Represented Any one that reads this would be apt to think that the matter of Fact had never been questioned or had been prov'd to a Demonstration beyond possibility of Reply But besides what has been before answer'd to it over and over as he confesses it was particularly considered by the Answerer to his Reflections and the offer 1. shew'd to be a ludicrous one made without good Faith and with no other meaning than to put some colour upon his deceitful Characters of a Papist 2. It was replied further that suppose we could accept and should be accepted 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 prest to profess and practice that Popery which he either denies or conceals And that because on the one hand we are certain that the prevailing part of his Church holds that which he either rejects from his Faith or says nothing of and that agreeably to their Councils and publick Offices And on the other hand we have no reason to believe his Authority in the Roman Church to be considerable enough to carry on his Representation when the turn is once serv'd Here the Answerer appeals to the case of Imbert of the Physitian at Goa and last of all to that of the poor Citizens of Orange p. 39. The Answerer shews further that we have not any good reason to trust him he having not given us any reasonable assurance that himself rejects that Popery which he exclaims against And last of all he puts this question Whether he would refuse us if we desired to come into the Roman Communion with that which we call old Popery To all which our Author replies after this manner 1. Our new Adversary has one cavil here to put in viz. That the Character of the Papist represented is not a good Character because the Faith of a Papist as stated under each Article is not All his Faith. Our Author has been so unkind as not to refer us to the Page for these words he pretends to quote from the Answâ—â— and I think after a careful perusal I may safely lodg them at his own door as an instance of his Misrepresenting Faculty Any one that knew the Answerer and is conversant in his way of writing knows well he had too clear a head to express himself in so insipid and nonsensical a way as our Author would fasten upon him and so as to argue against the truth of the Character because the Faith of a Papist as stated under each Article is not all his Faith. But however the Argument is not so obscure as his Answer to it is impertinent as might be shewn were it to the purpose before us 2. He proceeds This man has still another scruple That if he should come into our Church upon the terms I have proposed whether I will be security that he shall not be prest to profess and practise that Popery which I have either deny'd or conceal'd To this our Author answers after a surprizing manner Marry saith he if he means by that Popery the Pulpit-Popery I 'le give him the same security I have my self viz. the Assistance of the Holy Ghost promised to his Church which will never permit it to lead her members into such Abominations He may have the security too of a good conscience which cannot be prest to the profession of so much evil But what is his security worth or how can he plead the Holy Ghost's Assistance for not being led by her into such Abominations when she pleads it for their belief and practice Our Author would be understood that he calls not an Image or Crucifix out of its name when he saith it's an Image of wood or stone and that he speaks consonantly to the sense of his Church when he saith the Image is not adored or pray'd to but Christ or the Saint in the Image And yet the French Physician was clap'd up in the Inquisition for the former and the Condomian Imbert was imprison'd for the latter And surely the Inquisitors of Goa and Archbishop of Bourdeaux are themselves of that Church which he saith has the promise of the Holy Ghost c. And who shall decide this case or what security have we against 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—tians fate if at Goa or of Imbert's if in the Diocess of Bourdeaux Well but however saith he a man may have the security of a good conscience which cannot be prest to the profession of so much evil How not be prest What is pressing if the Dragoons of Orange be not What if not the Prison of Bourdeaux What if not the Inquisition at Goa O but Conscience cannot be prest to the profession of it A very comfortable inducement to comply with the Terms of the Representer For you may come into the Church upon them and if whâ—n come in the Church will oblige you to profess abominable things however Conscience is free and the Inquisition it self cannot force it and if you be sincere you will never be prest by that or any external violence to the profession of so much evil It 's well our Author is not at Goa to have his sincerity try'd But yet he hath not done For he adds 3. In this the Answer above given he may see his
other Material Question answer'd Whether he may be admitted into our Communion with that which he calls old Popery For if his old Popery be the Pulpit-Popery he sees we reject it and I tell him that whatsoever Church would receive him with the profession of all those scandalous Doctrines the Pulpits charge against us I would be sure to be no member of it Here our Author slinks away from the Case For as soon as ever the Answerer had put the Question he proceeds Will the Representer take us by the hand and present us to his Church if we should come with the Lateran Popery about deposing Soveraigns for Heresie and with the Trent Popery about the Worship of Images as it is understood by Bellarmin or rather by Capisucchi and as it is practised by the Tartuffs of the Roman Church and with all that old Popery which the former Answerer gives an account of Why has not our Author laid the case as it was put to him Why not the old Popery of Lateran Bellarmin and Capisucchi as well as Pulpit-popery And when he has thrown the Cover of Pulpit-Popery over it yet why must he needs add with All the scandalous Doctrines the Pulpits charge For surely if there be such abomination in them any one of them should be sufficient to an honest soul to fly the Communion where the belief or practice of it is requir'd Well let Schoolmen and Cardinals Aquinas and Scotus Bellarmin and Capisucchi let old Missals and Rituals nay let Councils the old one of Lateran and the new one of Trent be call'd in they are but Tartuffs for Exposition and Representation are now the Standard of Romish Doctrine And if the Tartuffism of Deposition of Princes and Adoration of Images and the rest of the once old and new Pulpit-Popery be part of its Faith and Doctrine we have our Authors word for it I would be a Turk as soon as their Papist A very gross affront sure to those Venerable Heads and if he hath not some reserve and somewhat of the Art of Cardinal Capisucchi may throw him into bad circumstances and he would do well to keep from Goa or Bourdeaux left a Recantation or somewhat worse be the effect of such a frank declaration But it seems after all the Protestations and Abominations the Answerer was not satisfied in our Author's sincerity and would bind him to hard Terms which is to tell us in particular what those Monstrons things are that he so frequently declares against which because our Author answers only in general to I shall remind him of and conclude It s this Here I challenge you to declare what those particulars are Those Monsters Those Doctrines and practices which you do detest and abominate And if you refuse so to fasten upon you the mark of insincere and juggling for offering that all be received into the Church of Rome without them FINIS Papist Misrepr pref Doctr. and Pract. p. 11. Pulpit-Sayings p. 55. Epist. to the Reader Ibid. P. 55. P. 55. To the Reader Doctr. and Pract. p 9 10. To the Reader and p. 56. Doctr. and Pract. p. 12. View p. 106. to 119. P. 61.102 103. To the Reader Pulpit Sayings p. 10. Good Advice to the Pulpits p. 67. Apology for the Pulpits p. 3. Pulpit Sayings p. 43. Pag. 6. To the Reader Pag. 54. Pulpit-Saying Pag. 13. Ibid. Character 1 2 3 4 5. p. 13 c. P. 5. To the Reader P. 16. Fox's c. Part 2. p. 88. and 91. Exact Collect p. 647. Lond. 1643. L'Histoire des Troubles de la Grand Bretagne p. 165. Foxes and Firebands Pt. 1. p. 14 c. Ibid. p. 31 c. The Copy of this was taken out of the Registry of the Episcopal See of Rochester Pulpit-Sayings Pag. 20. Legatio Philippi 3. and 4. Paulo 5. Gregor 15. per Luc. Wadding p. 89. Char. 6. Epil to Trag. l. 3. c. 5. p. 11. Char. 7. De Sacram. Poenit. Sect. 70. Ibid. Sect. 46. Catech Trid. Art. Symb. 9. Sect. 19. Edit Lugd. 1676. Char. 8. Lib. Omnem probum esse liberum Char. 9. Somners Antiq of Canterb p. 248. Caesar. Hist. Memor l. 8. c. 69. De Purgat l. 1. c. Pap. Repres and not Misrepres Ch. â— Chap. 2. p. 7 10.11 Chap. 3. p. 7 9. Chap. 2. p. 12. Chap. 2. p. 8 12. and Chap. 3. p. 8. P. 45. Histoire de'l Inquisition de Goa Chap. 4. Char. 10. Char. 11. Apology p. 13 14. Sayings p. 21. P. 21 22. L. Vives ad Calcem Libri de Corruptis Artibus Espencaeus ut supra Lib. 5. Sayings p. 21 22. De dogmatibus libris Apocryphis l. 4. c. 1. Espencaeus ut Supra Sayings p. 37. Maimburgs History of the Holy League l. 1. p. 79. l. 2. p. 95. l. 3. p. 428. l. 4. p. 806. Char. 12. Bp. Taylor 's Disswasive from Popery Sect. 10. Defence p. 3. Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England Preface In Hen. 3. De Schismate l. 1 c 68. p. 73. Sayings p. 35. In Tit. Digress 1. 11. Turpilucri Defence p. 8. Ibid. p. 11. Bulla Clem. 6. Ultraject A. D. 1653. Defence p. 6. De Purgat l. 1. c. 2. Sect. Ad quintum Bull. to 4. p. 86. Doctrines and Practices c. 8. p. 64. L. 1. c. 10. de Indulg Sect. Altera Review du Concile de Trent l. 5. c. 1. Gravam Ger. n. 3. Paris 1550. De Indulgent l. 1. c. 7. Sect. 4. Propositio c. Doctrines and Practices c. 8. p. 66. Bullar To. 3. p. 74. Altisidor Sum. l. 4 c. Char. 13. Serm. p. 31 32 33. Entretiens de Philalethe c. p. 2. p. 160 c. Orat. Propr Enchir. c. 1. n. 31. Reginaldus de Contrit l. 2. c. 4. Soto in 4 Sent. Dist. 17. q. 2. Art. 6. Concl. 2 a. C. 16. In Cassandri Liturg. Collectio quorundam Auth. cum decretis Par. 1661. In 1 Cor. 16. Disp. 30. Sayings p. 47. Sum. par 3. tit 13. Instruct. Sacer c. 13. n. 5 6. Char. 14. Doctrines and Practices c. 25. p. 123. Pap. Misrep c. 25. Sect. ac ut rem C. 13. in Barklaium Antonini Summa See the View p. 106 c. See before p. 4. Sayings p. 53. The Mirror of Truth p. 10 12 c. 1688. Mirror p. 15 17. Epistle to the Reader Sayings p. 54. P. 56. To the Reader To the Reader See before Char. 9. To the Reader p. 9. To the Reader p. 1 2 3. P. 54. To the Reader p. 11 12. Doctrin and Pract. p 13. To the Reader P. 56. P. 57. P. 5. P. 3. To the Reader p. 1â— To the Reader p. 8. Sayings p. 7. Sayings p. 57. Answer to the Representers Reflect on the View p. 67. Sayings p. 12. Answer to the Repr Reflect p. 28 c. Sayings p. 55. Answer to Reflec p. 32. Sayings p. 56. Pag. 35. Pag. 54. Answer to Reflect p. 37.
it self but doth he say that they picture what they themselves believe to be the Picture of the Divinity No surely then he had contradicted the Council and made them downright Anthropomorphites but he lays it to their charge that they picture and make Representations of the Divinity and Trinity it self as well as of Saints that is not sparing even the Divinity O but saith the Council these are only Histories of the Holy Scriptures But is there any History of Scripture that tells us God did so appear in any Form otherwise than in a Prophetical Scheme And is not even that forbidden when an Image of God is forbidden because God cannot be described in any way but by what he is not and so is a reason against Images in all as well as any one Instance and of which none can be proposed but what fall under the same condemnation As for what he hath seen in the Frontispiece of some Bibles and Common-Prayer Books they belong no more to our Church than the Temple of Pallas to the Roman Church though existent in it If indeed they were as commonly to be seen in our Churches were allow'd were set up by order and ador'd if he could find it defended and the benefit they are of to the people set forth in the Articles and Catechism of our Church then he had something to say but till that he is guilty of a gross Misrepresentation and in his common phrase of an Absolute Falshood that saith that the Preacher's Exclamation of O hateful sight may be as properly apply'd to any thing of that nature in our Churches 4. He prays to Images This saith he is false too for several Reasons 1. Because they are taught to pray to God alone but to none else Is that all It must be acknowledged they go a little further for they desire the Intercession of such holy persons as are acceptable to God whether in Heaven or Earth But do they no otherwise desire the Intercession of Holy persons in Heaven than they do those in Earth Do they ask suppose of a Confessor to be delivered from the chain of their sins to be preserved from spiritual maladies and Hell-fire and to be prepar'd for Heaven c. as they ask of the Saints Or do they so much as pray to God that he would grant that by the Merits and Prayers of their Confessor as well as St. Andrew they may be delivered from the Fire of Hell 2. He saith For Images we confess them to be nothing but wood and stone Will he be so bold as to say this nothing but wood after they are Consecrated Let our Author consult Papist Represented and not Misrepresented Chap. 1. And will he deny that they are Representers and to be applied to as if the Objects Represented were present If he doth why has he not bestow'd a little of his pains in chastising the Apologist But it seems the Apologist however has laid himself open in going farther for he speaks of leaving prayers with an Image And why not as well as pray to them Let him state the matter and confute this and I 'le promise him the Apologist shall then give up the former But what 's become of the Christus in Imagine in Curtius Surely the City of Lucca will take it ill at his hands that he has not a word to say in behalf of their famous Image and the veracity of their Historian Here I shall refer the Sayer to what has been already said Char. 9. n. 2. I shall take his excuse that he makes for his perversion of the Preacher's sense though it had been a little more sincere if he had positively acknowledged his fault rather to come off with an If when the case is evident 5. He worships Bread and Wine not as Representations of God but as God himself This saith he is false since we worship only God himself and not the Bread and Wine which we believe not to be in the Blessed Sacrament And then he comes in with his charge of Misrepresenting and gravely adds a good Rule from a worthy hand But all is spoiled for want of proof that the Preacher doth charge it upon them that tâ—â—y believe first of all the Bread and Wine to be in the Sacrament and yet worship it as God himself But the Preacher speaks not of what they believed but what they did as is plain by the Negative he inserts viz. Here you see the Bread and Wine are worshipped by them not as Representations of God which the Bread and Wine are but as God himself The Preacher shews the grossness of their practice that what is indeed but Bread and Wine in their Substance and a Representation of our Saviour they worship as God himself The former is what the thing is in it self the latter he charges upon them as their practice And therefore the Sayer first mistakes the case and then proceeds to spend a censure upon it 6. He is taught that the Passion of Christ takes away only the guilt of Mortal sins but not the eternal punishment Here the Apologist took some little pains to state the Case and proceeded upon these Heads to shew in their way 1. That the Guilt may be taken away when the punishment is not 2. That the Guilt may be taken away by one cause and the eternal punishment by another 3. That the Passion of Christ only takes away the Guilt of Mortal sins but doth not take away the eternal punishment Here it might be expected our Author would have enter'd into the Merits of the Cause but instead of that saith it 's false gives us a short reason or two and dismisses the point and leaves the Apology without a word of Reply 7. He is taught the non-necessity of Repentance before the imminent point of death This is another new point scor'd up to the account of the Preachers and was none of the twenty eight Assertions in the Advice But however I shall try whether the Preacher had not Authority for it Here our Author offers two things 1. That it 's absolutely contrary to the Doctrine and general practice of their Church whose Members are obliged to go to Confession once a year which cannot be perform'd without a beauty Repentance 2. We hear nothing so much discoursed of in our Books and Sermons as deferring Repentance to the last I will not undertake for their Sermons for I am not so conversant in theirs as he is in ours but in their Books we find 1. That they are taught that they are not bound to repent but in the danger or point of death So Navar who affirms it to be the sense of all 2. That though the Church calls upon them to repent at solemn times as Easter yet the Church is satisfied in the Ritual performance of it and that true inward Repentance is not thereby requir'd 3. That to defer our Repentance is but a venial sin 4. This is conformable to the