the Representer has made for us One thing I am sure of that the Converts of the City of Orange were received upon such easy terms in point of Declaration that if Subjection and Communion had not been to follow one would have look'd upon the whole Transaction as a solemn Jest between the French General and the Bishop of Orange on the one side and the Citizens of Orange on the other The Passage is very remarkable and instructing and therefore I shall not think much to set down the Articles of Reconciliation as I have received them from hands of unquestionable credit 1. The Citizens of the Town of Orange that are under written considering that it is the Will of God of which Kings are the principal Interpreters that all Christians should reunite themselves into the same Church To testify their submission to the Order of the Divine Providence and that which they bear to the Holy Intentions of the King do intreat of his Majesty that his Troops commanded by the Count de Tessé should depart from them and that the Expence which has been or shall be made by them be levied upon the whole State without distinction of Religion We Order the Execution of the present Article according to the full Tenor of it Tessé 2. They declare that they do reunite themselves to the Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church after the manner which that Church do's use to believe and to profess all the Christian and Orthodox Truths contained in the Holy Scripture which God hath manifested to the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists following the Interpretation and Sense of the Universal Church and renouncing all Errors and Heresies contrary thereunto 3. That for their great Consolation and Edification every Sunday before the Service there shall be read a Chapter of the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament in French according to the Translations approved by the Church and that all the Divine Service which is performed in Latin shall be explained in French by the Pastors of the Church 4. That they shall invoke no other besides God the Father Son and Holy Ghost 5. That they shall not believe that it is necessary to Salvation to have any other Intercession and Mediation than that of our Lord Jesus Christ towards God the Father 6. That they shall not be obliged to render any Divine Honour to Images which shall be in the Church 7. That they shall adore Jesus Christ in the Eucharist who is Really Spiritually and Sacramentally contain'd in that Adorable Sacrament 8. That this Consolation shall be given to the Faithful that they shall communicate in both Kinds if the Universal Church shall think it convenient Done at Orange the 11th of Nov. 1685. We James d' Obeilh by the Grace of God Bishop of Orange Abbot and Count of Montfor Counsellor of the King in all his Councils have admitted these who are countersigned to the Reunion of the Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church upon the Conditions expressed in the Eight Articles above written Done at Orange this 13th of Novemb. 1685. John James Bishop of Orange The Representer may I think see in this Example that he is out-done in his own way and that there are in the World more mild and inoffensive Representations of Popery than his own and some provisions for saving the Consciences of the Reformed which himself has not made But I would know of him whether he do's believe that those who united themselves to the Roman Church with these Cautions can be reasonably judged to have proceeded with satisfaction in themselves and about what they did Or rather whether there be not all the Signs that one can have in a thing of this Nature that being distressed between a troublesome Conscience on the one Hand and Count Tessés Troops on the other they capitulated as well as they could for their own quiet and granted what they did to be delivered from the Souldiers and no more than what they did if by that means they might pacify their own Minds A very miserable Case most certainly And that which is yet more to be lamented is that these things should be done by Christians upon Christians Let the Representer take it into his serious Consideration and I believe it will be one of those things that he will always forget to put into the Character of his Papist Represented But why must the Minds of Men be racked in this manner Why must they be brought under the most dangerous Temptations to cheat themselves and for the gaining of rest from outward Miseries to betray the Tranquillity of their own Consciences and be constrained to play such Tricks with them as if one Man should chuse to put upon another he would be accounted no better than a cunning Knave He that cannot see the true Reason of this unmerciful dealing and that too by this very Example can see but little It is Vnion that is to say Submission to what they call the Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church that must be by these means or by any means carried on This we meet with at the very head of the Provisions and again at the foot of them in the Bishop's Certificate Nor are any of the Reformed to expect otherwise but that this shall be expresly insisted on But because the poor People knew that Union to that Church carried dreadful Things along with it therefore they strugled and it seems they gained one of the prittiest Limitations of that Vnion that ever was heard of viz. To believe and to profess all the Christian and Orthodox Truths contained in the Holy Scripture which God hath manifested to the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists But then this Limitation would make the Vnion very insignificant for thus one may be united to the Turk viz. to believe and to profess all the Christian and Orthodox Truths contained in the Holy Scripture And therefore something must be added to that and certainly greater Artifice on both sides shall seldom be seen than what is shewn in putting in these words after the manner which that Church dos use which may indifferently refer either to reuniting or believing The People may understand it of being united to the Roman Church after the manner it uses till the Bishop teaches them to understand it of believing the Christian Truths of the Scripture after the manner of that Church And so by understanding the Scripture after the Interpretation and Sense of the Vniversal Church the Bishop has his meaning and they have theirs as long as he will suffer them The most jealous Princes never treated more nicely for their Honour than these poor Protestants did for their Conscience and their Masters for the Church of Rome And considering that they had but two hours allowed them to unite to the Roman Church before the last Extremity should be used upon refusal and that there were Difficulties on both Sides the Protestants consulted for their Consciences as much as it was possible for Men to do
the same Worship as Christ himself and what does he conclude upon it Why that any one may hold which side they please as an Opinion or suspend their Judgment but neither side is truly what you ought to mean by Popery And therefore I conceive that if neither side be Popery the Representers side is not Popery but a private Opinion which the Church has not yet censured as the Vindicator says Now what the Vindicator said in this Case is applicable to all others where the Answerer plainly shewed that the Eminent and Leading Men of the R. Church were of a different Sentiment from the Representer Whereas therefore the Representer either promised or threatned great matters in his Introduction I 'll endeavour says he to separate these Calumnies and Scandals from what is REALLY THE FAITH AND DOCTRINE OF THE CHVRCH I 'll take off the Black and Dirt which has been thrown upon her and set her forth in her GENVINE Complexion I 'll Represent a Papist whose Faith and Exercise of his Religion is according to the Direction and Command of the Church The Vindicator has on the other hand knocked him down at one blow For says he So long as the Church determines not the Dispute any one may hold which side they please as an opinion but neither side is truly what you ought to mean by Popery This shews that I was not much out of the way when I noted the great hazard of these Expounding and Representing designs The truth is it was so nice a work that in prudence they ought to have committed it to one hand and the Representer should have been the Vindicator For while they are two and and each of them driven to straits one of them being pressed on one side and the other on another side the danger was great that each of them would shift for himself a several way and be exposed to the Reproaches of one another Thus it happened that the Representer being pressed by his Adversaries for not having fairly Represented Popery was fain at last to make a Rule to know the Churches Sense by which might serve his turn and what should that be but the Currant passing of his Book amongst Catholics for this he thinks was enough to shew that the Doctrine of it was Authentic But the Vindicator being pressed with the Opposition that is made in the Roman Communion to the Doctrine of the Exposition and perceiving that Currant passing would not serve his turn he I say comes out a Month after the Representer and will not allow any thing to make Doctrine Authentic under the express Words of a General Approved Council and he has utterly undone the poor Representer's Rule of Currant passing which he thought was enough to shew that his Doctrine was Authentic Nay the unfortunate Vindicator has blown up the Exposition of the Bishop of Meaux as well as the Characters of the Representer which indeed could not be avoided because one must necessarily follow the Fate of the other For the Bishop's Exposition was solemnly pretended to be An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church in Matters of Controversie that is to say An Exposition of Popery But the Bishop has expounded many things for the Doctrine of the Catholic Church which other Members of the same Church condemn and so long as the Dispute remains undetermined neither Side is truly what you ought to call Popery And therefore the Bishop should have called his Book An Exposition of his own Private Sentiment concerning the Doctrine of the Catholic Church Thus I say he should have called it or else he should have found out another Vindicator Nay because the greatest Grace that his Doctrine seems now to have from the Church is That it is not censured by the Church The Title should have been a little more wary by running thus An Exposition of the Bishop's Private Sentiment which the Church has not yet censured concerning the Doctrine of the Catholic Church But because in truth the Living Church has begun to censure his Doctrine and they who have censured it are not censured for it The Title should have been yet more warily contrived thus An Exposition of the Bishop's Private Sentiment which Sentiment is not contrary to the express Words of a General Approved Council Then perhaps the Vindicator might have done something in discharge of the Duty of a Vindicator But as the case stands he ought henceforward to change his Name and to write himself the Betrayer of the Bishop of Meaux's Exposition but by no means the Vindicator of it Which himself so well understood that he thought fit to pass over all the Letter of the Defender to the Bishop and he gives this substantial Reason for it Because the Letter concerns not him the Vindicator nor the Doctrine of the Catholic Church which he is to vindicate In good time But the Letter sorely concerned the Bishop and the Doctrine of his Exposition Pag. 8. and therefore if it does not concern the Vindicator you are not to wonder at it because there have been great Changes of late and now the Doctrine of the Bishop's Exposition is one thing and the Doctrine of the Catholic Church is another I may without breach of Modesty say that hitherto I have given the Vindicator a Full Reply And I believe the Reader would be well satisfied that I should drop him here and leave his following Cavils to be confuted by any one that will take the pains to compare him and the Defender together But then this would be a Pretence for another Book and for some boasting that he is not answered A little therefore must be said to what remains Pag. 8. And 1. By many of the Roman Casuists allowing the Defamation of an Adversary by false Accusations as the Defender said in his Table it is so plain by the Book that he meant no more than that they maintained it to be but a Venial Sin that the Vindicator himself has not questioned it and therefore it was a mere Cavil to tax the Defender of Falsifying in this business tho to incourage the Vindicator to do well another time thus much he is to be commended for that he limited his Accusation to the expression of Allowing which he found in the Table This Sir as you here word it is a False Imputation Even where he does ill I am glad that he does no worse But to speak to the thing They that make one of the basest things in nature to be but a Venial Sin cannot reasonably be otherwise understood than that they intend to make it easie for their own Party to commit it And tho they flourish never so fairly with that Rule that No Evil is to be done that Good may come of it yet there are so many little ways amongst them of clearing themselves from Venial Sins that when so foul a Wickedness is made but Venial it can be with no other design than to encourage men to it
a very weak Inference of Sutcliff's from as weak a Proposition of Aquinas For this reason the Answerer thought fit to declare that he would not justify what he thought was to be blamed But if this Man was resolved to call what he pleased a Misrepresentation of his Church by his leave he should have asked the Answerer whether he would call it so too before it was lawful for him to bring in the Answerer confessing I know not what of our misrepresenting the Church of Rome For my own part I am resolv'd that if any particular Authors of ours have in any one Point misrepresented Popery in the least degree I will not do it for Company nor defend those that have done it But I am not a little pleas'd to find that when the Representer forsook the defence of his 37 Chapters and diverted to the business of transcribing all those Protestant Authors where he hoped to find some Instances of our misrepresenting he should yet come in with so lamentable an account on his part and not be able to produce any one clear Instance to support his Charge When I had read his Charge I was something amaz'd that considering how much has been written against the Errors of the Church of Rome since the Reformation by Men of different Abilities he should not have been able to make better work of his last impertinent design than he did And it will be to all impartial Judges an Argument that the several Writers of our Church have upon the whole matter observed a strange exactness of Truth in charging the Church of Rome when this Man was able to produce no more than he did for a colour to accuse us of the contrary But what do we think the Representer concludes in another place from the Answerer's declaring before-hand that he will not be answerable for every thing that has been said or done in opposition to Popery Why Pref. p. 26. says he then it seems now there are some Protestants that charge more upon the Papists than can be well brought off or justified and some Protestants are accused justly and not to be defended without partaking of their fault What of misrepresenting the Church of Rome But the Answerer did by no means confess that he had brought any pertinent Instances of that There may be such for ought I know and if there are let them bear it as I said before but as I say now the Protestants have been very honest and careful as to this business of Representing or surely we should have had one or two clear Instances of the contrary from this good Friend of ours unless we should say 't is all one to him whether his Instances be good or bad because he has a certain quality that will make them do whether they will or not Which I believe will be acknowledged by every one that considers those words of his which immediately follow If this had been as freely owned at first we had excused a great deal of Pains and Paper for I had never gone about to prove that Protestants misrepresent Papists P. 26. if the first Replier had thus ingenuously confess'd that Charge And because it was not owned I therefore found my self obliged to take some Pains about it that is P. 22. in my long Bill that was drawn up c. Well! He ha now done His worst for the next stretch beyond this will break him I confess that the Answerer did ingenuously declare against abetting any Man's Mispresentations But that he did ingenuously confess that Charge against the Authors that were produced is what I hope no Man living this day excepting the Representer only will have the face to say He I know took some pains to prove the Charge and the Answerer took a little Pains too about the business but surely he was as much beside himself as sometimes I would for Charity sake imagine the Representer to be if he was all the while ingenuously confessing it for I verily thought and do think still that he was all the while plainly and honestly confuting it But because upon this occasion I would be glad to understand with what Caution a Man must write that has to do with one of the Representer's Constitution I have severely examin'd what occasion this Man should pretend for the liberty he takes I find that as to one or two Instances the Answerer acknowledged a fault where the Charge was laid but he did not confess that it was Misrepresentation Sutcliff's was the plainest whose Inference from Aquinas he acknowledg'd to be very silly But as to all the rest he shewed that the Representer's Charge was either false or very foolish And that this Man was for the most part an egregious Misrepresenter in using those Authors of as ours he did So that 't is Sutcliff's Case that must bring in the Answerer for that same ingenuous Confession And the Reader is bound to believe that if we had at first confessed that Sutcliff made a silly Inference from as silly a Principle of Aquinas here had been a great deal of Paper and Pains excused and this Man had never gone about to prove that Protestants misrepresent Papists Doctr. and Practices of the Ch. of R. And yet after all p. 9 c. his first Answerer would not undertake for all that any Protestants had said of Popery but appeal'd to the publick and establish'd Doctrine of the Church of England Lastly he pretends in those six Leaves that besides what the Answerer confess'd Guilt appears plainly in the forced Excuses he made for the rest Now if he made but forced Excuses for them he had I confess done a great deal better to follow the Representer's Example who when some Popish Authors were charged for most vile and scandalous reports of us and our Religion was so very prudent as to make no Excuses at all for them Which gives me occasion to say here what the True reason was of the Answerer's putting together those few Instances how we have been used by those of the Roman Church We hoped this at least from the Representer's First Book that it would occasion such a clear and perfect stating of the Questions between us and the Church of Rome that the People of both Communions would be well prepared to understand afterwards the pertinence of the several Arguments and Answers that should be brought on either side Nor could any Man of Sense and Honesty imagine that his Book was good for any thing else but to lead to that With this purpose the Learned Author of the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented complied in his Answer to the Representer But it was none of the Representer's Designs that People should know the True state of the Controversy but that they should believe his Representations and therefore he has ever since by one Wile after another declined closing with his Answerer and at last by raking for Instances of Protestant
nothing to the purpose because rather than fail he would make Nonsense of that Gentleman 's Arguing where his Purpose is as clear and his Sense as intelligible as a Man would desire it to be He answers next to what was observed again from Father Crasset but we will consider what belongs to him by it self and in the mean time go on with the Converts The next produced was Monsieur Ranchin who confessed a New Popery more boldly and roundly than Mr. Brueys did The Vindicator therefore slurs off his Testimony with saying only this Pag. 4. The Defender has shewn of what Credit such a Persons Authority is who weighed things so little as to sell his Religion for Money and Preferments But this is not so easily to be set aside For if he sold his Religion as there is too great reason to fear he did yet his Testimony to the Distinction between Old and New Popery is a very good one and an unanswerable Proof of what the Defender said That the Distinction was not of his own making but that in effect he found it made to his hands amongst the Bishop of Meaux's Converts Men often change their Religion for Worldly Interests but I think they never say so and that because they would still keep their Credit For which reason if they pretend such Motives to the Change they have made as are Matters of Fact easie to be judged of they will not be so careless of their Reputation as to pretend those things which the World can bear witness against Therefore since Mr. Ranchin laid his Change upon the great Difference between Old and New Popery there is no reason to question but whether this was the principal Cause of his Conversion or not yet such a Difference was commonly believed nay and that the Alteration in the Bishop of Meaux's way of expounding Popery from what had been in former Times and from the Belief and Practice of the Tartuffs and the People that now are was indeed notorious For otherwise he had taken a better way for his Reputation to pretend that he had been convinced by Old or by New Arguments of the Truth of that Doctrine which the Church of Rome constantly and universally held than to say that he was enlightned by a New Exposition no less needful for the Saving of Catholics than for the Conversion of Protestants For whether such an Exposition made any notable difference in Doctrine from what went for Popery before is a Matter that they can easily discern who perhaps are not so good Judges of a Disputation for Popery or against it If therefore Monsieur Ranchin was as careful of his Credit as he was sollicitous for Means to live like a Person of Quality he no doubt was very sure that the World was sufficiently aware of a notable Difference between the Old Popery of the Church of Rome and the New Popery of the Bishop of Meaux And it was frivolously done of the Vindicator to refuse his Testimony because the Defender was afraid his Worldly Interests had too great an Influence in the Change. Really if these Men serve their New Converts in this fashion it will mightily discourage them They have sweetned and gilded Popery for them to make it go down the better and yet they will not allow them to say what it was that made them swallow it with little or no straining Tho Ease Honour and Wealth did effectually determine them yet they should be permitted to tell their Friends what made the Change somewhat easie viz. that which these Men designed should do it Or else our English Representers and Vindicators may spoil their Market here before they have well begun to bid for Converts And this Inconvenience may presently follow that those who have yielded to them upon New Terms will begin to suspect that their Instructers mean to bring them into the Condition of the Tartuffs and the People in due time since they will neither themselves acknowledge that there is such a Difference nor so much as suffer their Converts to make any words of it but fall to reproaching them when they do so The same Reply may serve to the Vindicator's Exception against Mr. Pag. 4. Pawlet who because he made his Conscience comply with his Interest is no fit Man to be brought in as one of the Defender's Witnesses for such an odious Accusation So says the Vindicator But Mr. Pawlet was not the less fit Man for that For altho Insincerity does by no means qualifie a Man to be a Witness yet there are Cases in which the Testimony of an Insincere Man cannot reasonably be refused that is when his Interest does manifestly oblige him to speak the Truth Such is the present Case For had there been no good ground for this Distinction between Old and New Popery as these Men would now persuade us there is not Mr. Pawlet by using that Distinction could not but know that in stead of covering his own Insincerity he had more openly exposed himself for a Knave He calls this Charge of an Old and a New Popery an Odious Accusation Pag. 4. as the Distinction it self but a little before was That Odious Distinction But he forgets that this Distinction as Odious as it is is used by those of his own Communion and who being Converts their Testimony is so much the more remarkable They cannot be presumed to distinguish thus for the prejudice of their Converters nor to make the Distinction a matter of Accusation against them as the Vindicator very poorly insinuates They use it to defend themselves against the Expostulations of those whom they have forsaken and the nature of their Defence implies not only that they believe what they say in this Case but that they had reason to believe it For if it were altogether a Dream of theirs or ours that there are two sorts of Popery in the Communion of the Roman Church they might as well have defended their Revolt by pretending that the Church of Rome requires not the Veneration of Images or the Invocation of Saints in any sense at all or any other such thing as notoriously False as that would be As to the Inhabitants of Montauban that became Converts too upon M. de Meaux's Principles he says That their Acknowledgment is no convincing Proof that there was truly an Old and New Popery excepting in their Imaginations But their Testimony and the former Testimonies are I hope a convincing Proof that the Defender did not make this Distinction but that it was in effect made to his hand even by the Bishop of Meaux's Converts Which is the thing this Man should have spoken to but that every Mans Case will not bear Pertinence in his Answers But I have shewn him by the way that these Testimonies are a Terrible Argument of the Thing and that there is cause for such a Distinction as this which before I have done I shall make as evident as the cause of another thing is viz.
Images respect is paid to the Persons whom they represent but Images themselves are not to be worshipped No God forbid but only used to put us in mind of the Original Thus they explicate the Language i. e. give us the Sense of their Church in her Decisions of Faith But so I dare say as it was never explicated before However if these Gentlemen believe the Sense of the Council to be as they say I wonder how it comes to pass that the Vindicator should not acknowledge it to be Popery For he must not forget that Popery is the Sense of the Church which she delivers by her Voice in Councils and therefore that the Sense of the Councils Words it truly Popery And consequently what He and His Party take to be their Sense they must in spite of their Hearts confess to be their Popery unless they care not how inconsistently they talk And then I would ask the Vindicator whether it be possible to reconcile his and the Bishops Sence with Cardinal Capisucchi's and those of his way The Truth is the Vindicator has given up the Cause for by saying that we bring only the private Sentiments of Men which other Members of the same Church condemn he confesses that they do in these things condemn one another Which perfectly acquits us from the charge of misrepresenting them when we say that there are two sorts of Popery amongst them by which we never meant any thing else than that one Party of them and that the greater does earnestly contend that that is Popery which the other utterly disclaims and does therefore set up another Sense of their Councils and their publick Offices opposite to that of the former As for his calling the Sentiments of the opposite Party Private Sentiments If he means that they keep their Persuasions to themselves and do not trouble the Church with them He is to know that as the Men are not private but of great Note and Authority in the R. Church and the number of their Followers far more considerable than of theirs who condemn them so their Sentiments are not private neither but as publick as Disputing for them and censuring and punishing their Opposers can make them But if I can understand him by private Sentiments he means the Sentiments of Men out of Council so that no measure is to be taken of the Doctrine of their Church by what is delivered by such Men tho they be Bishops or Cardinals and their number never so great and their Declarations never so publick and notorious and their Censures never so sharp against those that oppose them for still they are but the private Sentiments of Men out of Council Why then must the Representers or the Vindicators or even his Lordship the Bishop of Meaux's Sentiments concerning the Doctrine of the Church go for any other than the private Sentiments of Men For their Expositions have been neither made nor approved in General Councils Must Cardinal Capisucchi the Archbishop of Bourdeaux and Father Crasset with his Holy Bishops and Learned Doctors nay and with the Learned of all Nations be said to deliver only the Sentiments of private men whilest a few Teachers that arose in this Age whose Party is despicable who labour under the marks of Insincerity whose Doctrine being professed in good earnest is persecuted by that Church whose Faith it is said to be whilst those Men I say must be thought to deliver the True and Genuine Doctrine of the Church But if neither the one side nor the other side delivers the Sense of the Church Who knows what the Sense of the Church is and how shall I come by it The Vindicator directs me to the Express Words of General and Approved Councils But then I must needs ask him Who is to be Judge of the Sense of those express Words I see express Words indeed and I am very apt to think that I do understand the Sense of plain and express Words But if I may be allowed to understand express Words why can I not as well understand such Words in the Scriptures as in their Councils For the Words of the Scripture seem to me to be very expresly against many things that are held in the Church of Rome And here I have been told that this is not the Sense of the Scripture but my private Sense that the Scripture is a Dead Letter till the Churches Interpretation gives it Life and Sense that private Judgment is Fallible and therefore not to be relied upon that the same places seem to be express to one Man for this thing and to another Man for that thing that so many private Heads as there are so many Bibles there will be that after all our assurance that we understand plain and express Texts of Scripture there is no certainty to be had but by submitting to Authority and receiving Doctrines of Faith not from the Scripture but from the Church Well I submit to the Church and ask Where or by whom she delivers her Sence concerning Doctrines of Faith Ans By her Voice in her General and Approved Councils But where is that Voice to be heard Ans In the express Words of those Councils I go therefore to those Councils God help them that can't Here indeed I find express Words if a Man could but tell how to come to the Sense of them for I thought my self very sure of the meaning of express Words of Scripture But it seems I was mistaken then What assurance have I that I am not mistaken now For express Words are but as express Words in the Councils as they are in the Scriptures And if my Sence of such Words in the Scripture was but a private Sence before my Sence also of such Words in the Councils is no more now And therefore if I must trust to my own private Sence I shall be sorely tempted to go back again and to make as good a shift as I can with my private Sence and the Scriptures together rather than follow those who tell me my private Sence is not to be trusted and yet leave me to it at last For when all is done the Churches Sence according to this Man is a mere Notion of a thing that is no where to be found for the several Sences of her Words in Council are but the Sentiments of private Men which this Man opposes to the Sence of the Church to save his Church from two Poperies For instance if I go to Cardinal Capisucchi and his Party to ask them what the Churches Sence is of that due Honour and Veneration that is to be given to Holy Images they tell me the very same that is given to the Persons represented by them But what am I the nearer for this is but the Sentiment of private Men. I go to ask the Bishop of Meaux and his Party and they cry God forbid the Church requires no such thing But I conceive his Sentiment is as private as the Cardinals and so
at last with all his might to make this same Popery if so we must call it to be not the Popery of the Church but a Popery rather in the Church and because 't is of so large a Spread and is manifestly upheld by the Authority of the Great Ones therefore some good Words were now to be given it to save the Reputation of the Church which else will be in great danger of the Similitude of a City that permits to Rob and Kill without contradiction or rather of a City that rewards Robbers and punishes Honest men Wherefore says the Vindicator Every thing Pag. 7. I hope that any one fancies to be ill is not therefore to be reproved And is it come to this at last We had been in good hands I see if we had come into the Church of Rome upon the Representers Terms For was it not the Representer that said He would as soon be a TVRK as the Answerers Papist Now the Answerers Papist was the Old Papist And therefore it was notably and boldly said That he would as soon be a Turk as Our Papist For one would at least conclude from thence that the Expounding and Representing Party would have stood stoutly by us if we had come in rejecting all that Popery as we used to call it which the Representer had so bravely rejected But if we had taken the Bait had we not been finely angled up For what says our Representer's other self the Vindicator Why truly Every thing he hopes that any one Fancies to be ill is not therefore to be reproved It seems then that the Representer did but fancy those things to be ill which not he in his misrepresenting side but the Answerer charged upon them as Popery Or shall we say that these Men understand one another and that he did not fansie them to be ill but for the present thought good to say however that they were monstrous ill things and that he would as soon be a Turk as the Answerers Papist But I rather think they did not lay their Heads together upon this Business but that in the desperate estate to which the Vindicator's Cause was reduced by the clear Testimonies of such a Popery amongst them as the Representer rejects with detestation he found himself obliged for the credit of his Church and perhaps for his own safety to remit of his Rigour or rather to take off his Disguise a little without asking the Representer's leave and so he hopes that every thing that any one fansies to be ill is not therefore to be reproved But the Representer has the less reason to be angry with our Vindicator because this Gentleman has made as bold with himself as with his Friend The Vindicator too once fansied that it was an ill thing to Worship the Image of our Saviour or the Holy Cross with Divine Worship upon any account whatsoever But Cardinal Capisucchi came in the way and so every thing that the Vindicator himself fansied to be ill is not therefore to be reproved Nay he was not content to let the Old Popery get up again but he has been pleased to sink the New one as much For tho Cardinal Capisucchi says so and so yet seeing others of the same Communion reject this and are NOT CENSVRED BY THE CHVRCH it plainly follows that his is not the necessary Doctrine of the Church Pag. 7. And what he says in this case is applicable to all others Alas for New Popery for it declines apace we had thought it had been shewn us for the True Ancient Standing Sence of the Church And now the most that can be said for it is that it is not censured by the Church It seems then that these Expounders and Representers are but a Tolerated Party One step more backwards makes them not to be so much as Tolerated and the next news we shall hear is that they are Intolerable But by the way what Church does the Vindicator mean by saying that he and his are not censured by the Church I fansie he means the Invisible Church which cannot now be seen because no Council is sitting The Fathers that sate at Trent do not start out of their Graves to declare these Gentlemen Heretically inclined and the Books of the Council do not rise up and fly in their Faces For if we mind what the Authority of the now Living and Visible Church declares in this case we see that they who reject this Old Popery as we call it are censured by the Church and to mention Imbert no more the instance of Aegidius Magistralis Canon of Sevil in Spain is a Conviction to the Vindicator of something that I will not name For he was forced to abjure these two Propositions as Heretical 1. That the Images of Saints are not to be adored with the same Adoration with which the Prototypes are adored 2. That the Cross is to be worshipped only with an Inferiour Adoration This very Instance being produced by the Defender out of Capisucchi Pref. P. XIV XV. who left it for a Caution and a Conviction to such Men as in good earnest maintain our Vindicators Doctrine for the Vindicator to mention Capisucchi's Doctrine and to say in the same breath that they who reject it are not censured by the Church is of a piece with his Sincerity every where else Well but let that pass and let us consider what will come of this if it be true that they are not censured by the Church Really this is but a small encouragement to take Popery upon the Representer's Terms For that which is not now censured by the Church may in good time be censured by the Church Perhaps you will say there is no reason to fear it But in my mind there is for as I said before the Credit of this New Popery has sunk extremely in a Month for in truth the Vindicator has degraded it from being Popery as we observed some time since Now if it be not so much as Popery it may in a little time grow to be Heresie and then the Censures of the Church will follow as fast as can be In the mean time it is not Popery And so farewel to the Representer's Undertakings which are overthrown beyond all recovery unless he faces about and recovers his Credit by beating the Vindicator out of the Field with his own Hand The Representer at first gave us a two-fold Character of Popery One was of That Popery which the Papists own and profess as appears in the Title Page of his First Part. In his very first Article of Praying to Images the Popery which the Papists own and profess amounts to this That properly they do not so much as Honour Images but only Christ and his Saints This is the Popery of the Representing side What now says the Vindicator He very honestly acknowledges that there is a private Sentiment in the Church against this that will have the Image of Christ worshipped with
and I think I may put it to the Vindicator whether an Encouragement to sin be not equivalent to an Allowance of it He grants the Pope condemned these Propositions and seems to make some advantage of it as if they were now never more to be told of them because the Supreme Pastor has condemned them But before he insinuates any such Conclusions again I would desire him to inquire of F. â—C what became of the Popes Brief to that purpose in France tho I believe there are some Fathers nearer hand that can inform him if he knows it not already As for his endeavour to clear himself of denying what his Adversary proved upon this occasion Pag. 8. let him believe that he is come well off if he can I will not pursue him as if it was hard to get him at an Advantage 2. Pag. 9. Def. Pag. 54 55. He says the Defender far exceeds him in giving Obliging Titles otherwise called Hard Words The Defender put those together which he complained of and they are a pretty Company The Vindicator refers us to the Defence from Pag. 49 to 54. to shew how he has been used I have read over those Pages and I find the Defender there preparing himself to encounter Rudeness and Incivility Pag. 49. esteeming it Vnchristian to return his Adversaries Revilings Pag. 50. shewing in him the marks of a Calumniating Spirit and that he is an unfit Witness to be credited against an Adversary Pag. 51 c. It seems he should have said that the Vindicator was a very Civil Moderate Fair-spoken and Honest Gentleman that had abused no body If we do not commend these Men as much as they commend themselves we must be thought to rail at them as much as they do at us For my own part I have not Complemented the Vindicator but I have spared him and he ought to thank me for it tho I do not much care whether he does or no unless withal he intends to deserve well for the time to come 3. To his Cavil at the Defenders arguing that the Bp. of Meaux's We suppose or as the Vindicator renders him We believe or as the French may be rendred We esteem is no Argument of the truth of that Doctrine which he so propounds I reply that the Defender did not thereupon infer that the Bishop had no other Argument to produce By the way Pag. 3. I tell the Vindicator that he cannot produce a better for that Doctrine that was in question Def. p. 57. But for him to say That the Defender sees he cannot now deny that that was a Falsification tho in Truth he would not allow it so much as to be a Mistake is to give us more and more reason to conclude that we must have done with these Men for why should a Man under restraint go on to argue with another that feels none To his other Cavil that the Defender brings in the Bishop observing that St. Paul concluded that Christ himself ought not to be any more offered without putting in the following Words up to death for us I reply that the Defender by Offering meant offering to death as he said in his last Defence and that without such a Supposition his Argument was lost But of this the Vindicator would take no notice I add that there was no need of repeating those Words that were omitted because Christ was spoken of before as a Victim offered for sin Nor was there any need of saying this but that I do in my Conscience believe that we have to do with such a Representer and a Vindicator as are not this day to be matched within the Lines of Communication If we go any further I think I know of One that will set 'em hard 4. For what concerns the Translation of the Bishops Letter it was certainly but just in the Defender to answer Mr. de Meaux's Sense and not his Translators Blunders But now for that wise Remark which the Vindicator has made upon that Passage Pag. 11. he had done much more prudently to have considered what the Defender told him That really he is not Master enough of the French Language to pretend to turn Critick in it than to have given the World so evident a Demonstration of it Every one knows that is at all acquainted with that Tongue that Cartons do not signifie in general any Leaves but such Leaves as are put into the room of others that are taken out of a Book and therefore to add Cartons to a Book is as the Defender truly rendred it to take out some Leaves and put in others in the room of them 5. The Defender named those Accusations of the Vindicator against him which he could not know to be true and gave some Reasons for saying so But the Vindicator charging the Defender with the like has neither given one Reason or so much as one Instance As for this Mans accusing the Defender of things which he knew to be evidently False the Defender instanced in the Vindicators charging him with Falsifying Cajetan upon the Question of Extreme Vnction tho it was most evident that he had not falsified Cajetan as he shewed in his Second Defence Upon this the Vindicator declares in the Presence of God Pag 10. the Avenger of all wilful Crimes That he never accused his Adversary of any thing but what he thought nay had proved him evidently guilty of And he thinks he has now satisfied the World that in that very instance the Defender is a Falsisier And for this he refers in the Margin to his Letter to the Author of the Discourse concerning Extreme Vnction Well the first use I make of this is to Adore the Mercy and Patience of the Great God to whom this Man has appealed I lay no stress at present upon the obvious right in this matter but as far as I can recollect he could not but have seen that Authors Answer to his Letter before this Full Answer of his came out of the Press And then the Lord have mercy upon him One thing I am sure of that he either wants that Conscience or that Understanding which are required to swearing in Truth and Judgment who can after such a Conviction declare in the Presence of Almighty God that he has proved the Defender a Falsifier of Cajetan 6. Pag. 10. As to his Scandalous Reflections upon the Church of England he refers us for a proof of whatever he has said to a late Book called Good Advice to the Pulpits which if it does prove those things against us which it pretends to do does not yet justifie one quarter of that Reviling which he has discharged against us But whereas he says that Book alone is enough to make our Party ashamed I must tell him that his Boast is a little unseasonable since his Party may have in a little time some cause to be ashamed of the Book and the Vindicator in particular for having boasted of it I