Now how comes his Zealous Brother's Cant to be an Answer to all this I know not I must confess how to imagine any Dissenter to be so ridiculous as to object against us what the Representer makes him to Object And without Flattery or Fawning I may safely affirm that there are not many who do it But suppose there should will such their Objections prove against the First particular above mentioned that we charge Papists with what we deny we charge them with Or against the Third That allowing them to maintain and practise what themselves acknowledg that they maintain and practise we ought to comply with Popery I think that no Man in his Wits will assert this And therefore we may justly ask what is to be done with all that has been said upon these particulars and whether there not having been any ting that is material urged against them does not imply that there is nothing material to be urged and consequently if the Answerer had not some Reason to say that the matter was driven as far as it will go As to the second particular viz. that several things which we are said falsly to charge them with are maintained and defended by them This indeed the Character which he made little more than in Jest for his Zealous Brother doth seem more directly to oppose And yet it might be easily answered that this Brother in his Zeal might urge what was False against Vs tho we urged nothing but what was True against the Papists Which with a great deal more the Answerer offered to the consideration of the Representer and he is now told that he pssed over this same charge upon the Church of England with a Light Touch c. And much adoe there is because he was not for pursuing every new Game but for keeping to the old Scent P. 3 4. For what could possibly come more cross to the Representer than that after all his Doubling and Shifting he should start new Game for us and yet we should be for keeping to the old Scent And therefore I do not wonder to hear him complaining in this manner And is it possible then that the Disputing humour is so soon off We have heard of nothing hitherto so much as of Disputes and yet the Answerer is as unwilling to Dispute as the Representer Here 's not a word now of Disputing And is it not strange that be should draw me out to Dispute and when his own Turn comes of Disputing he should let the matter Fall because forsooth he 'll keep to his old Scent Now really this would almost perswade a Man to let him go for good and all as he might have done if he had observed but a little moderation But he gives it out that in his Brother's Character of the Church of England Almost every Point urged with the same Proofs of Scripture and Reason which Protestants produce against the Papists That there is scarce an Argument in the Character but is exactly parallel to what the Church of England uses in her Defense against Popery that the Grounds of the Arguments are the same the manner of urging them the same the Maxims on which they stand the same and then the Reasons which press them home are they not the very same which the Answerer himself in his former Discourse urges against him And he turns it upon his Answerer That a little prudence would serve him to say nothing in such a Cause as will admit no better a Defence This I must needs say is a little too tyrannical in a Representer under his Circumstances and would tempt a Man against his own Inclinations to follow him a little farther now under his new Shape I tell him therefore in the first place that a close Disputant would have pressed him to shew that the Reasons upon which we proceed in our manifold Charge against the Papists are false and unsatisfactory and not have suffered him to run out into an Inquiry whether the Reasons upon which his Zealous Brother proceeds against us be the same with them or no. Or if this were to be allowed him we might be well excused from answering him in this matter since the particular Controversies which the Church of England hath with the Dissenters have been managed on her behalf not so long since that it should be forgotten and the difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome and of Dissenters from the Church of England was shewn after all and that in very good earnest For this being not taken notice of by Representer it might very well set off our Debt to him for a Charge upon the Church of England which himself meant little more than in jest Besides altho he glories in this Charge more than in all his other Performances yet since he frequently intimates that he intended no more by it than to Ridicule our Charge against the Church of Rome 't is all one as if he had given it under his hand that his Cause is more safe by ridiculing what we say than bye replying to it like a Disputant Now on the other hand we think our Charge must needs have been carefully laid and well defended if at last it wlll admit of none but Ridiculing Replies And so we might without much danger leave things as they are and put it to the venture whether the World will not think so too But because he boasts so very much that this Discourse which he has composed for the Brother is not yet sufficiently answered and as some think he may grow a little popular by it I care not if I go on with him in some part of his own way and in compliance with the Opinion of others inquire into the difference of those Objections upon which we proceed against the Church of Rome from those upon which his zealous Brother proceeds against the Church of England 1. I grant that our Prelates have Revenues and I believe Coaches Miters Crosiers and Copes Now if there be any reason why his Brother calls these Popish 't is this that these things were not in use in our Saviour's and in the Apostles times But when did we ever object against any thing that is meerly circumstantial amongst them as these things are that it was not used in our Saviour's or in his Apostles Times Have we not said it a thousand times that we like nothing the worse because the Papists approve it provided it be useful nay if it be innocent and harmless As for their Ornaments and Ceremonies where does any one find that in the Controversies now on foot betwixt us we do at all insist upon them Tho we cannot but think many of them to be neither grave nor decent their Number too great and too much Religion placed in them by some People So that tho there is scarce an Argument in the Character but exactly parallel to what we use and tho ALMOST EVERT Point is urged with the
would seem to say something when he knew he had nothing to say to the purpose 2. He shews that the Decree of the Council at Hierusalem did include a Virtual Definition of Doctrine And 3. That the Deposing Decree concerns the whole Church and if it be a wicked Decree that it relates to a thing necessary to Salvation by commanding to do that which it is necessary to Salvation not to do and therefore he expects the Representers further Consideration of his three Answers 3. Concerning the Worship of Images the Representer bids so fair for a Dispute that the Answerer took the occasion and examined not only what the Bishop of Condom hath delivered upon it but the several ways of stating it by their Divines shewing that their Images are Representatives to receive Worship in the Name and Stead of the Prototype that in this Notion Image-Worship is condemned in the Scripture and in what the evil of it consisted a more particular Abridgment of that just Discourse upon this Subject I cannot make without either wronging the Answerer or detaining the Reader here too long and therefore I refer him also to the Book it self for an Answer to the Charge upon Bowing towards the Altar P. 83. c. P. 106 c. And to the Apology for Image-Worship from the Degree of the Honour that is given to Images And to the Representers Objections against that way of distinguishing Religious from Civil Worship by making that to be Religious P. 37 38,39 40. which is given to the Invisible Inhabitants of the other World P. 123. and likewise to the pretended Parity of Reason in the Quakers Case And thus much may serve for the Answer to Papists Protesting against Protestant-Popery The Third Reply of the Representer in Return to the Foregoing Answer THE Representer finds as little Comfort in Protesting as Disputing and so falls to Accommodate the Difference between the Representer and the Answerer and calls his Work an Amicable Accommodation For now he grants the Protestants are not guilty of Misrepresentation in a strict and proper Sense P. 1. 2. and is very sorry that he and his Answerer understood one another no better before He thinks indeed it was his Answerer's Fault not to conceive him right at first and that if his Book had never been Answered the Peace had never been broke but he is perswaded the Difference may be yet compounded P. 3. For the Case at first was no more than this That he perceiving the Unchristian Hatred which grew in the Vulgar upon that false Notion of Popery P. 4. which our Misconstructions c. had drawn in their Imaginations He I say Good Man No less in Charity to Protestants than in Justice to Papists drew his Double Characters to shew how Popery is Misrepresented P. 5. But then comes an Adversary and says He has proved that the Character of a Papist Mispresented contains nothing in it which in a strict and proper Sense can be called a Misrepresentation Now really he never meant to Fight for a Word and had he but imagined that his Adversary had contended for no more P. 6. he would have spared him the Charges and Sweat of laying down his Proofs the second time Wherefore to end the strife he solemnly declares that the Title of the Papist Misrepresented is not to be taken in its strict and proper Sense as Misrepresenting signifies only downright Lying or falsly charging matter of Fact the whole Character being not indeed of this Nature but in its larger or less proper Sense as it comprehends both Lying Calumniating Misinterpreting Reproaching Misconstruing Mis-judging and whatever else of this kind But that we may know what a Lover of Peace he is he must assure the Answerer That this Condescension is purely out of good Nature P. 7. for betwixt Friends he does not think the Answerer has advanced any thing that has the Face of a proof That there can be no Misrepresenting where there is an Agreement about matter of Fact Representing he says P. 8 being nothing more than shewing a thing as it is in it self as many ways as a thing can be shewn otherwise than 't is in it self so many ways may it be properly Misrepresented so that the Description must agree with the Thing not only in Matter of Fact but likewise in Respect of Motive Circumstance Intention End c. But according to the Awswerers Rule had the two Tribes and an Half P. 9. been declared Guilty of setting up Altar against Altar and Hannah been set out amongst her Neighbours for a Drunken Gossip here had been no Misrepresentation because of some Matter of Fact in the Case The Elders too that offered Proof against Susanna since they saw her in the Garden c. P. 11. were no Misrepresenters Nor the Jews against our Saviour nor Infidels against the Apostles and Christians nor shall any be excluded from a share in this Favour but they that have Malice enough to Calumniate but want Wit to give a Reason for what they do c. So much was the Representer overcome with pure good Nature that for Peace sake he would yield to a Principle that can do such things as these if his Word may be taken for the Reason but we have another Reason in the Wind presently For if this same Principle which he has ordered to protect the lewdest Defamations and Perjuries will but do its Office upon the Church of England he has had his Reward And so he shews what execution he can do in the Mouth of some Zealous Brother whose Honour and Interest engages him to set out the Church of England as we Represent the Church of Rome To which Purpose he puts a Sermon into his Mouth which whether it be a Copy or an Original the Dissenters may say when they please But the Heads of it are such as these After a solemn Preface of Exhortation to keep out of the Swing and the Sweep of the Dragons Tail he lays down his Doctrine P. 13 14. That the Church of England Mens Marks are the Marks of the Beast which he proves by the large Revenues and State of their Prelates P. 15. who wear the Miter and the Crosier upon their Coaches while they Live and upon their Tombs when they are Dead P. 16. By the Weekly Bill of London which shews that Mary has Nineteen Churches and Christ but Three by the Pictures in their Bibles and Common-Prayer-Books and by many other Marks as good as these P. 17 18 c. which because they stick fast to us as he thinks for any thing the Answerer has said must come over again in another place and therefore the less Repetition shall serve now Sermon being done he asks whether this be Misrepresenting in a strict and proper Sense and if not P. 34. he is contented that the Word Misrepresenting in his Book should not be taken so i.
by throwing us upon the Dissenters But we are not for pursuing every New Game P. 16. but will keep to our old scent And yet he has made the Dissenter say such silly things of us as no Dissenter will own unless he has heard them among the Quakers This the Answerer plainly shewed through almost all his Fifteen particulars of the Charge against the Church of England and by the way where it was any thing needful he taxed the unreasonableness and folly of the Charge which yet was more than he was bound to since if it came to the Trial we have some reason to think that there is not a zealous Brother in England no nor Friend neither but would be ashamed to own it So that this design of Representing and Misrepresenting to which I may add the Representer's yielding in pure good Nature that henceforth Misrepresenting shall be understood in its less proper sense ends only in Ridiculing the Church of England with which we are content if they will permit us truly to Represent theirs To what the Representer offered for seeking out new Misrepresentations the sum of what is Answered is this That it is in the main agreed what the matters of Fact are with which the Papists may be charged and since these only are the proper Subject of Representation the ill consequences which Protestants have urged against their Doctrines and Practices ought not to have been put into the Character of a Papist Misrepresented P. 24. unless he could shew that we say that Papists do believe those Consequences And therefore the Representer vainly endeavours to excuse himself for putting them into that Character by hunting about for new pretended Misrepresentations to imploy his Answerer withal This I gather to be the Answerer's sense from his reference to what he had proved before As to the Archbishop of York the Answerer saies he did not Misrepresent the Church of Rome in saying that Stapleton said P. 25. We must simply believe the Church of Rome whether it Teach True or False The most that can be made of it is That according to one of their allowed Doctors Thus a Papist must believe And therefore if it be a Misrepresentation of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome Stapleton is to be thanked for it in the first place for saying so and in the next the Church of Rome for allowing him to say so and then the Arch-Bishop for reporting what he said tho he does not say that one Doctor may make Doctrines for the Church of Rome The Case of Mr. Sutcliff he says is different and he shews that he expresly distinguishes between what the Papists teach P. 26 27. and what himself concludes from such Doctrines and therefore that he does not Misrepresent the Papists So that how little soever the Representer thought himself concerned in Sutcliff's Reasonings because Reasoning belonged not to a Representer yet surely it belonged to a Representer to distinguish beween the Doctrines we charge upon the Papists on the one side and the Arguments we bring against these Doctrines on the other To the Charge of omitting to render propter Deum into English He says It was omitted he knows not how or why but very jus tly blames the Representer for insinuating that it was dishonestly omitted since it was the whole Design of that Discourse about the Worship of Images P. 28. to shew that Image Worship is Evil tho God was worshipped by it I will upon this occasion add that the Answerer could not but know his own foul Dealing in this Charge which is so very manifest that this Injustice if there were nothing else does assure me that he must make another Change before we can expect much sincerity from him With like honesty he disingages himself from all Obligation to dispute concerning the Worship of Images c. 1. Because the Answerer knows no Reason for all this Dispute which words did not at all relate to that Dispute but to the Question about the Bishop of Condom's Authority 2. He was never concerned whether the Answerer liked his Religion or not But if he could have answer'd that Discourse all that the Answerer could have said would not have hindred him P. 29. For the Rest the Answerer says that the Representer and the Bishop of Condom reason'd and argued at first as well as Represented and since their Representation is offer'd as a Rule by which we may be taken into the Roman Church they were the more concern'd to justify their own Reasonings P. 30. which since it is declined our People will be apt to think why Papists decline the Dispute who are never known to avoid Disputing when they think they can get any thing by it And thus the Answerer takes leave of the Representer believing that this Matter is driven as far as it will go The Fourth Reply of the Representer in behalf of his Amicable Accomodation THis last Reply is made up 1. Of insulting over the Answerer for offering no more than he did in Answer to the Zealous Brother's Sermon against the Church of England 2. Of more and more out-cries upon the Protestants for Misrepresenting the Papists But the Particulars that come under these Heads together with his Reflections by the bye will be best produced in the following Answer where I shall consider what Reason he has for this kind of proceeding The Fifth Answer to the Representer in Return to his last Reply IF the Seven and Thirty lost Points had been recovered the Representer could not have entered the Lists with more seeming satisfaction in himself than he shews in his last Reply But he has made a shift to forget them and that 's as good What the Answerer said that the Matter was driven as far as it would go whatever the Representer imagines I find still to be true For with reference to the chief matter of Dispute betwixt us we are parted and I think never like to meet any more about it Indeed as to the manifold Charge sunâ—â—ed up against the Church of England that matter as he truly observes is not driven as far as it will go And it seems he intends to drive it farther and farther But why that should ever come to be a matter of Debate betwixt us any one who considers the Controversy from first to last must needs wonder The Design of what has been said on behalf of the Church of England has been to make evident these three Things 1. That we do not charge the Papists with some things which the Representer will have us to charge them with 2. That some things which he faith we falsly charge them with are maintained and practised by them 3. That allowing them to maintain and practise only what themselves acknowledg that they do maintain and practise yet there are sufficient Reasons why we cannot comply with Popery altho refined after the newest Fashion This is the sum of what has been argued on our side