upon themselves Neither they nor we pretend to dispence with Vows made to God but we think no Vow can oblige men to Sin and since all men have not the gift of Continency as our Saviour says If such Persons are ensnared in a rash Vow it may be while they were Children or before they understood their own Temper and Complexion since we cannot think the Fornication of Priests a more holy State than Marriage we think it more justifyable to repent of a rash Vow than to live in a constant state of Temptation and Sin It is likely enough as he says that Dissenters may complain of Persecution tho they themselves have been declared Enemies to an unlimited Toleration and it will be hard to find a medium between a general Liberty of Conscience and those restraints which are laid on Dissenters But it must be considered whether the Church or the State be chargeable with this The several Laws which have been made against Dissenters have been more for the security of the State than of the Church have been occasioned by a restless humour which has threatned the publick Peace and have been rarely executed but at the instance of Civil Authority to provide for the security of the State and I suppose he will not parallel this with some other Persecutions But to make the Dissenters quarrel at the Assistance given to the Low-Countries and proffered to the French in their Rebellion and the hard usage of the Queen of Scots and the late Murder of Charles I. argues he matters not much what he says and to charge these Intrigues of State upon the Church of England is to forget that he is in England and not at Rome where Kings make Peace and War not the Pope with his Council of Cardinals And yet our Accommodator has kept the sweetest bit for the last For he brings in the Dissenter accusing the Church of England for giving every man a liberty of Judging and yet requiring Obedience to her own Constitutions which the meanest Sectaries among them challenge and practice and it is not very modestly done of them to blame that in us which they do themselves They all judg for themselves and therefore form Churches and Communions of their own and they will not receive any into their Communion without owning their Faith and submitting to their Order and Discipline and this is all that the Church of England challenges only with this difference that being established by Law her Communion and Government is enforced by Laws And what a mighty Absurdity and Contradiction is this that men should be taught to use their own Reason and Judgment in Religion and yet required to submit and conform to a Church whose Faith and Worship is consonant both to Scripture and Reason Well but after all this Liberty granted by the Church of England Whosoever will follow her must shut his Eyes stifle his Reason and be led only by the Nose Why What 's the matter now The charge is no more but this That in matters of Order and Decency and such things as are left to the Determination of Church Governours as are neither forbid nor commanded by God we must submit to the Determinations of Authority whatever private Judgement or Opinion we may have of things A great fault this that tho every man must judge for himself in good and evil yet every private mans Judgement must be over-ruled by the publick Judgment in matters of Order and external circumstances of Religion Much of the same nature is his concluding Charge That we are a wavering and unsetled Church subject to continual Variations because some Rites and Ceremonies formerly used are now laid aside And what then Does the settlement of the Church consist in external Ceremonies Is it any fault in a Church which challenges to her self a Power to appoint and constitute and alter external Rites to exercise this Power as She shall think most for the Edification of the Church which is the only Rule of right and wrong in this Case which may therefore change with the Change and Alteration of times and Persons and other external circumstances of Affairs Now let every man judg whether there were ever such a Speech made for a Dissenterbefore which in every Point of it is directly contrary to his own Profession and Practice It is time for our Author to have done with his Trade of Representing for no man would know what it was he Represented did he not take care with the unskilful Painter to write over his uncouth Figures what they are This is an Horse and this an Ass. And thus this hopeful design of Representing and Misrepresenting ends only in ridiculing the Church of England a Liberty which if we needed it is not mannerly for us to use at this time but we are contented they should ridicule our Church if they will permit us truly to Represent theirs But to proceed Our Accommodator grants that he is still in Arrears and certainly never any Bankrupt paid less in the Pound than he offers and this is his Accommodating which Merchants call Compounding In my Answer to his Reflections I proved that what he calls the Character of a Papist Misrepresented has nothing of Misrepresentation in it properly so called for there was no matter of Fact misreported in his Answer which he calls Papists protesting against Protestant Popery instead of justifying his Character he seeks out for new Misrepresentations this in my last Answer I enquired the reason of Why instead of justifying his own Misrepresentations which he had so unjustly fathered upon us he should hunt about to pick up some new Misrepresentations for me to Answer And the Reason he now assigns for it is Because I had little to say against the former except that they were not to be called Misrepresentations in a strict Sense Now the less I had to say it was the more easily answered tho I know not what more need to be answered to the charge of Misrepresenting than to prove that it is false But he says he fathered his Misrepresentations on no Body and so much the worse for that for a general charge includes every Body And yet he was as unfortunate in his new Misrepresentations as in his old ones He brings in the Arch-Bishop of York for a Misrepresenter whereas the Misrepresentations he Transcribes out of the Arch-Bishop the Arch-Bishop cites out of Popish Authors and names the Authors where they are to be found but the Protester to make a Misrepresenter of him conceals all these Authorities and sets down the Words as the Bishops own and this he did only to consult the Credit of the Prelate In what Sir That he might have the entire Glory of being a Misrepresenter without being thought to steal out of Popish Authors But he saies The Bishop is still a Misrepresenter in charging these sayings of private Doctors upon the Church But where does he do that Yes He saies He that is the
Friend of Publicans and Sinners unless he will say that our Saviour was all this for if he were not then they did belye him in matter of fact and so they did the Apostles and Primitive Christians when they accused them as Troublers of the City and Movers of Sedition that they murdered Infants and eat their Flesh that they Worshipped the Sun and adored an Asses head for God for I suppose he will grant that the matter of fact was false But still says the Accommodater they had some matter of fact whereon their Accusations were grounded and which gave some colour and pretence to them Sometimes they had and sometimes they had not But is not this a pleasant inference that because those who tell onely a piece of a story may misrepresent therefore those who faithfully relate the whole matter of fact with all the particular circumstances of it may be Misrepresenters also If he can give any one example of this nature I will onely desire him to tell me the difference between Misrepresenting and true Representing Men who have wit and malice enough may put very spiteful constructions upon the most innocent and virtuous Actions by altering or concealing some circumstances or the end and intention of doing them but this is to misrepresent the fact to represent a thing done otherwise or for another end than really it was but if a man who tells the whole truth not onely what was done but the end why and the manner how it was done can be a Misrepresenter the honestest man in the world may be a Misrepresenter When an action is truly and fairly Represented men may still pass a false judgment upon that action may think that evil and forbidden by God which God has not forbid or that allowed and approved by God which God abhors but this is not properly Misrepresenting but judging falsly which differ just as matter of Fact and matter of Law do in Civil Affairs In all Causes Criminal and Civil there are two distinct questions what the Fact and what the Law is what is done and what judgment the Law passes on such Actions To falsifie in matters of fact is to Misrepresent the person and the action to give a wrong judgment is to Misrepresent the Law and thus it is in our case We are first to enquire what the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome are and then of what nature they are whether true or false good or evil If we affix such Doctrines or Practices on them as they do not teach or alter any material circumstance relating to them then we are Misrepresenters in a proper sence as misreporting matter of fact and this we utterly deny and they can never prove that we do thus misrepresent them that as our Author misrepresents us we usher in with they teach this they believe that they say this they affirm that and under these preambles charge the Papists for asserting and believing such Blasphemies which they would sooner loose their lives than assent to Which he has boldly affirmed without giving one instance of it but as for judging of their Doctrines and Practices we do indeed pass such a judgment on them as I doubt not but they will call Misrepresenting but whether it be so or no is matter of Dispute and must be decided by appealing to Scripture and Reason and we are not ashamed of being called Misrepresenters by them when that signifies no more than censuring and condemning their Faith and Practise But he has one example more of this Misrepresenting and that as he thinks a very nicking one and that is the Fanatical Misrepresentations of the Church of England To this end he brings in a Dissenter charging the Church of England with Popery and several other ill things which is intended to serve more purposes than one Had he first proved us to be Misrepresenters it had been a very proper way to make us sensible of the evil of it to appeal to our own resentments of such usage But what if Dissenters Misrepresent the Church of England does this prove that the Church of England Misrepresents the Church of Rome If we indeed Misrepresent the Church of Rome we have less reason to complain that the Dissenters Misrepresent us but if we are no Misrepresenters we have reason doubly to complain both for being charged with Misrepresenting and for being Misrepresented And therefore the Answer to this long harangue is very short and plain however the Church of England be Misrepresented whether by Papists or Fanaticks we justifie our selves either by denying matter of Fact when that is false or by confuting the Charge We are not afraid of Disputing with our Adversaries when that is needful but justifie the Doctrines and Practices of our Church by Scripture and Reason which is a more generous way than meerely to complain of being Misrepresented without daring to right our selves which is the case of our late Character-makers If the World will be moved by their complaints to believe that they are Misrepresented all is well and they have what they desired but if you will be so perverse as not to believe that they are Misrepresented though they tell you they are and will needs be a disputing the point with them they have done with you for their business is not to Dispute but to Represent The difference between us in this matter is no more but this We are not afraid of Misrepresentations because we know we can defend our selves whereas they find they cannot defend themselves and therefore have no other remedy but to complain of being Misrepresented And yet I must confess this is as artificial a way of saying nothing as I have met with Our Accommodator is very sick of this talk of Misrepresenting and knew not how to get rid of it but by diverting the Dispute and therefore though it be nothing to the purpose instead of proving that we are Misrepresenters he desires us to consider how the Dissenters Misrepresent us but we have considered that enough already and when there is occasion for it will do so again our business at present is not with Dissenters but Papists and we are not for pursuing every new Game but will keep to our old scent It would be a pleasant Scene could he at this time of day engage the Church of England and Dissenters in a new Quarrel but thanks be to God many of our Dissenters are grown wiser now and I hope more will every day whatever they have formerly suspected of our inclinations to Popery they find now that they were mistaken in us and whatever defects they may charge our Worship with I believe they will call it Popish and Antichristian no longer to be sure they will never think us the more inclined to Popery because a Papist says so While these Gentlemen lay behind the Curtain and acted the part of a Zealous Brother under several disguises there was much more danger of them than now They have
laid aside their Vizards and let them now paint the Church of England how they please and the worse the better for how mean an opinion soever he seems to have of our Dissenters they are too wise and cautious to take Characters from open and professed Enemies The truth is he has horribly abused our Dissenters unless by Dissenters he means only his dearly beloved Quakers with whose Cant he is as well acquainted as if he had been either their Master or Scholar For he has drawn up such a charge against the Church of England in the name of a Dissenter as no Dissenter ever made It is a Popish Character Fathered upon a Dissenter for which they are much beholden to him that when he has a mind to say things so spiteful and silly that he himself tho' none of the modestest men is ashamed to own he can think of no person so fit to say them as a Dissenter Did ever any Dissenter charge the Church of England with making gods of dead men because we call our Churches still by the names of those Saints to whom they were dedicated in the times of Popery For did not the Dissenters themselves do so in the late times of Reformation And do they scruple to do so now If there were any difference it was only in not giving the Title of Saint to them and I suppose that does not alter the case for if it be Paul's or Peters or Mary's Church it is much the fame But they were not so silly as to think that names which were used only for distinction without paying any worship to Saints or erecting any Altars to them in those Churches which were called by their names made Gods of dead men The Bills of Mortality were the same formerly in the Dissenters time that they are now and yet they did not suspect themselves guilty of placing Mary above Christ or making a Goddess of her Did ever any Dissenter charge the Church of England with Image-Idolatry for having Pictures in their Bibles or Moses and Aaron painted with the Ten Commandments without leaving out the Second against Image-worship especially when these are things wherein the Church of England is no otherwise concerned than in not correcting the extravagancy of Painters and Printers And I confess I have always suspected that these men who now charge us with the Image-Idolatry of having Pictures in our Common-prayer Books which is a very late invention did secretly lay the design to reconcile our people by degrees to the use of Pictures and Images The Dissenters indeed were never any great Friends to Holy-days but they never charged us with worshipping Saints on those days which they saw we did not nor do they now charge us with worshipping the Bread when we kneel at receiving the Sacrament which is contrary to the publick Declarations of our Church but reject it because it was no Table-posture and because it had been abused as they scruple not to say to an Idolatrous worship of the Host in the Church of Rome They have indeed objected against our Liturgy That it was taken out of the Mass-book and have been sufficiently answered as to that point and we know who they were that first started that Objection some Mass-Priests under the disguise of Puritans But I never heard before that they were scared with the very names of Epistles and Gospels and Colects and Litanies nor did they ever quarrel with retaining Popish Saints in our Calendar when we give them to place in our Prayers which is only an evidence what Reformation we have made I never knew before that our Dissenters thought the Mass-book as Ancient as St. Basil and St. Chrysostom or that they liked our Common-Prayer-Book ever the worse because it came in with the Reformation of Religion and has been altered since several times for the better whereas their complaint is that it is not yet altered enough Much less are they scandalized at the Thanksgiving for discovery of the Plot how great a Chimera soever it be Nor is there any dispute that I know of between the Dissenters and us about the Power of Absolution or the Ministerial power of forgiving Sin They and we agree that Christ has left such a Power in the Church of remitting and retaining Sins of receiving in and putting out of the Church which is the state of Pardon and Forgiveness and we both deny that this is absolute and judicial or not only Ministerial They know we oppose the pretence of a Judicial Power to forgive Sins in the Church of Rome which we say is reserved for the great Judg of the World and it is very strange they should peremptorily charge us with giving the Power of God to forgive Sins to men and yet at the same time accuse us of not agreeing what this power of Absolution is Tho our Accommodator may make bold sometimes to contradict himself yet I doubt the Dissenters will think themselves misrepresented by such contradictions But did ever any Dissenter charge us with encouraging a Death-bed Repentance for not obliging men to Confession and Penance which he calls to Confess and Repent in the time of their Health We teach men to confess their Sins to God and to men too when there is occasion for it either to reconcile themselves to their Brother or to receive Ghostly comfort and advice and we teach them to Repent of their Sins and reform them in time of Health and show them what great danger there is in a Death-bed Repentance and how very seldom it proves true which is no great encouragement to such delays But how the Dissenters who reject Confession to a Priest and the Popish Sacrament of Penance themselves should quarrel with us for doing so is somewhat strange But we pretend to a power of giving Absolution and never enjoyn it but in the last agony which he says is argument enough to conclude there 's no obligation of Repenting amongst us till death looks us in the face But he has not improved this Argument so well as he might for Absolution is never enjoined not so much as in the hour of Death for we are only required to give Absolution in case the Penitent earnestly desire it and therefore according to his reasoning it follows that we think Repentance never necessary not so much as in the hour of Death But other men who have common understanding would hence conclude that we make a great difference between the Sinners Repentance and the Priests Absolution that the first is always necessary the other only in case of Church Censures or to give relief to afflicted Consciences or to dismiss penitent sinners in the peace of the Church Do not Dissenters themselves allow converted Priests who are under the vow of Continency to Marry if they cannot preserve their Chastity without it And has not our Accomodator then put a wise Objection into their Mouths against the Church of England which if it be any Objection returns