e. for downright Lying but as we heard before for wry Interpretations weak Reasonings c. And here ends the Amicable Accommodation For his picking up New Misrepresentations he says he did it to shew that the former were not his own childish Conceits For leaving out the Authorities of the Arch-Bish p of Yâ—rk that this makes nothing against him because the Question is not What some private Authors say P. 35. but What the Church believes P. 36. whose Faith cannot be fairly Represented from their Books though published by the Authority of Superiours For producing what Sutcliff laid to their Charge without producing his Reasons that his Reasons were none of the Representers concern P. 37. because they nothing belong to Representing nor has the Answerer put his Approbation to them He charges the Answerer with leaving out propter Deum in a Citation out of the Pontisical and this because the Words were not for his purpose In Conclusion he is resolved not Dispute since the Answerer knows no Reason for all this Dispute p. 26. and he cares not whether the Answerer likes his Religion or not P. 38. He will be no other than a Representer still for We wise Converts do not love to go out of our way but upon very good Grounds The Bishop of Condom has undertaken his own Vindication P. 39. and if he does but come off as well as the Representer and 't is strange if he should not let Bellarmine and other Eminent Approved Authors say what they can he has no Concern in it but his Representation and the Bishops Exposition are the Authentick Rule for the Exposition of the Council of Trent for the embracing the Catholick Faith as Expounded by one and Proposed by the other is sufficient for a Person to be received into the Communion of their Church P. 40. We are now coming to the Foot of the Account for besides other Particulars of less moment that are dropt 1. Whereas his only Reply to the clear and particular Distinctions of his Answerer between Matters of Representation and Matters of Dispute was this That these Matters did not and could not lye in Vulgar Heads with that Distinction his Defence of that Reply and consequently of his confused and deceitful way of Representing is wholly Dropt 2. The Defence of his Arguments That the Deposing Power is no Article of Faith is now at last wholly Dropt 3. His Defence of the Worship of Images against his Adversary's Discourse is Dropt or to use his own Words her took the Freedom gravely to turn over his Answerers Occasional Pages about it P. 39. And now if the Reader will please to put all together he will find by an easie Computation That this was the poor Remainder of a Controversie begun by the Representer upon no less than Thirty Seven Articles So that these Points having had the hard Fate to be served by the Representer as their Fellows were before I reckon that he has Dropt and Dropt till the whole Cause is Dropt at last but this is one of those Things in which he is not concerned for though the Papist Misrepresented and Represented be in a very forsaken Condition yet himself the Representer was never more diverting nor in better Humour all his Life And who can blame a Man for not being sorry for what can ne're be helpt And therefore since he sped no better with his Grave Undertaking it was not amiss to call a merry Cause upon Misrepresenting in a strict and proper Sence and to bring in a Phanatick Representing the Church of England in a Ridiculous Sermon The Fourth Answer to the Representer being An Answer to the Amicable Accommodation THE Answerer has no Reason to be displeased that the Representer now grants we do not Misrepresent the Papists in a strict and proper sense P. 4. viz. by Imputing such Doctrines to them as they do not own But he saies that the Design of the Representer in his First Book was to perswade our people that we were such Misrepresenters but that failing in the performance he would now make good his Title of Misrepresenting in a less proper sense P. 6. inasmuch as he thinks we do unjustly condemn the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome But why he should tax us for this at all the Answerer wonders and that very justly one would think because the Representer has sometime since disclaimed Disputing without which it cannot be seen whether we be Misrepresenters or not in this less proper sense And therefore he tells him That if he will vindicate the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome he must quit his retreat of Character-making P. 8. and fall to Disputing as their Fathers did in which he is ready to joyn issue with them But that it was by no means civil to charge us with Lying how prudent soever it might be upon another account since if he proceeds in this way he may be secure that no civil person will care to dispute with him Now whereas the Representer did in effect recall his grant by attempting to prove largely That there may be a Misrepresentation where there is an Agreement about the matter of Fact because there may be Mispresentation upon other accounts viz. in respect of Motive Circumstance Intention End c. Here the Answerer shews that these things do indeed belong to true Representing but that they were too nicely distinguished by the Representer from matter of Fact for he had given him no occasion for the Distinction since he had considered these things in those matters which he charged upon the Church of Rome For Instance That not only Worshipping of Images but the Worshippers Intentions and all other circumstances without which the Nature of the Fact cannot be throughly understood were taken into consideration Then he shews through all the Representer's Instances That Misrepresentations were in Matters of Fact P. 12. but wonders why he did not produce one Instance of the like nature out of his Answers if he thought there were any For what could he gain by shewing That in such and such cases others have been Misrepresenters unless he proved withal that we were Misrepresenters in like cases His instances shew that they who tell a piece of a Story may Misrepresent but not that they do so who faithfully relate the whole matter of Fact with all its circumstances which is our case and he has not produced one example to the contrary tho so to have done had been more to his purpose than all his other Instances In short this matter was so fully Answered that when we hear next of the Representer we do not find one word more about it To the Zealous Brothers Harangue he saies tho it be granted that the Dissenters Misrepresent our Church yet this does not prove that we Misrepresent the Church of Rome and therefore this is nothing but a device to get rid of us P. 15.
his Holiness to be read by all the Faithful Upon which occasion he puts himself into some Heat That we who protest against their Religion should pretend to understand it better than a Catholick Prelate eminent in the Church c. and than thos e who depend upon it for their Salvation P. 27. As to the Instances and 1. Of the Invocation of Saints he says Their Aid and Assistance is limited to their Prayers by the Bishop of Condom and cites the place but to what his Adversary said concerning the Intention of the Council and of the Catechism in this Matter he says nothing The Instance of Merit he passes by But 2dly P. 28 29. and 3dly As to the Popes Personal Infallibility and the Deposing Power he â—pleads the Authority of the Bishop of Condom that they are no more than matters of School-Debate and as if he had been in good earnest at first he does again promise we shall be admitted into his Church without the belief of these Articles So that he has every way Represented the Faith of a Papist aright and now has found out something in his Adversary to be answered with a smile That a Protestant should understand the Faith of a Papist better than the Papist himself does P. 30. And thus all being guarded by the Bishop of Condom's Authority and his own Proposal it was his mere Civility to take any notice of his Adversaries answers to his Argument about the Deposing Power from the want of an Anathema to the Decree And so he replies 1. That every thing is not an Article of Faith which is declared in a General Council without an Anathema 2. That to decree what shall be done P. 30 31. does not include a Virtual Definition of Doctrine as he thinks his Adversary himself shewed under the next Particular from the Council of the Apostles at Hierusalem 3. That the Deposing Decree does not relate to things necessary to Salvation P. 32. nor concerns the whole Church And whereas his Adversary imputes the Escape of those that oppose this Decree to a Change of Times and the Popes want of Power he tells us That Oracles are ceas'd now-a-days 3. As to Veneration of Images he says That although Acts of Honour expressed to any Image that has Relation to some Invisible Being be supposed a Religious Honour yet all religious Respect and Honour is not so a Divine Honour P. 33. as to make a God constructively of the thing to which it is paid Otherwise Bowing to the Altar and to the Name of Jesus cannot be excused P. 34. since these things relate to the Invisible Inhabitants of the other World nay All religious Respect besides to God must then be constructive Idolatry P. 35. Therefore as the different Kinds and Degrees of Civil Honour are distinguished by the sight of the Objects tho the External Acts are the same so the different Kinds and Degrees of Religious Honour are distinguished by the Intention of the Givers and by Circumstances He says further as to the unalterableness of the Nature of Actions determined by a Law P. 36. That if this makes the Intention of doing no evil in Bowing or Kneeling to an Image unable to excuse those from sin who do this forbidden thing this strikes as severely at Bowing to the Altar and Kneeling to the Sacrament as at them since the Actions forbidden are the same part of Divine Worship in both Cases Finally P. 36 37. That a Quaker may justifie his Tea's and Nays by his Adversaries Rule That no Intention can alter the Nature of Actions determined by a Divine Law since it is said Matth. 5.34 Swear not at all but let your Communication c. And now to give him his due setting aside the frivolous Instance of the Quakers he has in this Particular come up fairly to his Adversary and said what deserves to be considered Then he concludes with two or three Requests which he hopes are not unreasonable to which his Adversary gave such reasonable Answers that we have heard of them no more since that time See Ans to Pap. Prot. p. 124 125. and therefore we have no reason to be troubled with them here And so let us now come to a Reckoning 1. He grants his Adversaries Distinction throughout between matters of Representation and matters of Dispute which Distinction since himself did not observe he either wanted the Skill or the Honesty of a Representer 2. The Defence of his Argument That the Popes Personal Infallibility is not of Faith from no General Council's having determined it is dropt 3. He will not be brought to say Whether the Council of Trent had or had not Authority to oblige Princes to receive those Decrees which are not universally received and so the Defence of his Argument from some Decrees not being received is dropt 4. His solemn Cavil That the First Answerer owned some part of his the Representer's Doctrine to be the Established Doctrine of the Church of England and his Objection against him for appealing to old Mass-Books and Rituals and that other for appealing to private Authors are all three dropt 5. He will not say that the Deposing Decree commands a Sin and to his Defence of himself against his first Answerer's Charge That by his Principles he is bound upon the Pope's command to act according to the Deposing Power is dropt 6. His complaints against his first Answerer's Representing the matter of Dispensations and his note upon St. Perpetua's Vision are dropt But his Invitation of us to come over to the Church of Rome upon his Terms is not dropt for we thank him he has invited us again The Third Answer to the Representer being An Answer to a Papist Protesting against Protestant Popery To the Representer's wonder That such ado should be made about his First Book the Answerer sales P. 1. That a Misrepresenter is so foul a character that no man can wonder if we think our selves concerned to wipe it off which surely may be done without offence to any but those that meant us in the general Accusation To his complaint that the Answerer makes All that which they call Misrepresentation to be in all the material points a Representation of the avowed Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome he saies That he has done him all the service he can in distinguishing between matters of Fact wherein if we charge them wrong we do indeed Misrepresent them and matters of Dispute in which if we should charge them wrong it is not Misrepresentation but merely a wrong Judgment upon what they profess and practice P. 2. And he had already shewn That all matters of Fact excepting some few points in the Character of a Papist Misrepresented are confessed and defended in the Character of a Papist Represented Now Representation or Misrepresentation is properly about matters of Fact But as for the Consequences we charge upon their Doctrines and Practices
he does not so much as make it appear that this Archbishop pretends the Extravagancies for which he brings those Authorities to be Articles of Faith in the Church of Rome But how far their Church is chargeable with the several Extravagancies of their Authors and what use we may and ought to make of their Divines and Casuists c. in the Controversies now on foot the Representer has been already told very distinctly Pap. not Mis rep by Prot p. 67 68 69. and when he thinks fit to Reply he shall not want an Answer Answ to Pap. Prot. p. 9. In the mean time to convince us of the unwarrantableness of this method and what a wretched thing it is to charge private Doctrines upon a Church as Articles of her Faith he brings in a Popish Preacher inveighing against the ill Manners and especially the disloyalty of Protestants upon one passage in the Decay of Christian Piety P. 30 31 32. another in Sir R. Baker and a third in Jovian Now I say let them who do thus argue against the Church of Rome as he makes his Popish Preacher to inveigh against us let them I say take the shame of it But for any thing that he has done hitherto the men are yet to be found out though I do not know but upon very diligent search some one such or other may be taken amongst us and when that happens he shall go for me and keep company with that once Protestant who believed the Sermons of the Papists were made in a language unknown to the People Now he confesses all this Harangue to be a piece of Sophistry which he has put into the mouth of a Popish Preacher P. 33. Which is enough for me and I am not at all moved hy his pretending this was done to make us ashamed of practising it in good earnest as he has seen and heard that we do For this is a reason I am now pretty well used to it being the very same wherewith he defends that ridiculous Sermon which he composed for the Zealous Brother And therefore I shall even pin this Harangue to the remainder of that Brother's Sermon that when one is called for the other may not be forgotten And so at last we come to Mis-representing in relation to some matters of Fact and History and here he hopes the Reader will discover notable things The first Mis-representation of this Kind in which he instances was the Misrepresenting of the Rich Hangings the Massy Plate and other things which Adorned the Altars in the times P. 33. before the Reformation the Candlesticks Crucifixes and Shrines Three Episcopal Houses with Four or Five Churches c. For these were Represented as Superstitious or Superfluous and forthwith were immediately blown up Now a man shall not presently find how this comes to be Mis-representing the Papists in relation to some matters of Fact and History He names but one Protestant speaking of these things viz. Dr. Heylin and he too is brought in agreeing with the Representer in charging those doings upon Covetousness Ambition and Envy nor is any other Cited as contradicting him Was not the Representer full of choler and bitterness that he must needs ease himself whether it be in fit place or not I see the bottom of this business plainly enough If that Reformation of Doctrine and Worship which our Church made be not blackened enough already he is resolved to charge upon it all the faults of the great Men that made advantages by the Change But must the Vices of the States-men in those days necessarily affect the Reformation Why then must not the Vices of Popes affect Popery If he has a mind to it let him represent the former ten times worse then they were and when he has done I will shew him as many Popes Represented by their own Historians as really bad as he has made those by Fiction and this too by Historians of no less Credit amongst them then Dr. Heylin is with us The Representer owes us a good Turn and if he can but bring in the word Misrepresenting 't is all the pertinence he cares for though it be Misrepresenting Plate and Hangings Again P. 34. because he fancies that King Henry the Eighth made way for Protestantism to enter into the World in which however he is mistaken he taxes him boldly of Vile Extravagancies the respect that is due to Crown'd Heads no nor the consideration of that Line in which this Prince stood amongst them being not able to restrain him But where is the Misrepresentation complain'd of Certainly the Popes Power here might be an Vsurpation though the motive upon which Henry the Eighth threw it quite off as it had been curbed by his Predecessors before should not prove the best in the World But let the Representer here also use his liberty of rendring him as odious as he can remembring all the while that the Faults of that Prince reflect no less dishonour upon the Church of Rome then upon the Church of England as 't is now Reformed For 't is certain that in all other points he was a Papist excepting that only of the Supremacy unless the Representer will say that the whole of their Religion is in effect this that the Pope should be all in all in the Dominions of every Christian Prince in the World Luther comes next upon the File for Marrying a Nun contrary to his Vow of Chastity P. 34. By which he means a Vow of Caelibacy as if the Marriage Vow were not a vow of Chastity too But do not their own Divines say that the vow of Continency may be dissented with And has not the Pope dispensed in greater matters Had Luther marryed with his Dispensation he had it seems committed no fault at all And we are apt to think that if notwithstanding his Vow he had good reason to marry he might do it safely enough without the Popes Dispensation But where 's the Mis-representation now Why here 's a Vow of Continency Represented as a rash and inconsiderate Vow and this is Mis-representing Papists in relation to matters of Fact and History And thus also honest Sir William Mis-represented Chalices P. 35. Crosses Images nay Guineas c. Into Popish Trinkets and Trumpery and made them fit for seisure But I say neither was Sir William honest in doing it nor the Representer over wise in mentioning it here His next Fling is at Sir Richard Baker who upon the Executions of several great Men in Queen Mary's Reign chanced to say according to his wonted Eloquence Now the Cataracts of severity will be opened that will make it rain Blood Well but to bring off honest Sir Richard for once he does not say that this severity was Tyrannical or Unjust for if he had certainly the Representer had brought us all under the lash for it But the ends of these great People being Tragical he thought good to set the matter off with a
Books are written into a way of judging what Popery indeed is and whether we have rightly condemned it or no if they were not already satisfied in these things especially because all was done with that plainness and perspicuity that if the Discourse was in any particular greatly defective it could not but be obvious to an Adversary that was it seems thought a fit Person by his Superiors to Represent Popery to this Kingdom and to defend it against this Church The First Reply of the Representer TO this Answer the Representer published a Reply under the Title of Reflections upon it Now did he in these Reflections undertake to shew from Point to Point That the Answerer had without cause corrected either the Misrepresenting or the Representing Side where he undertook to correct them Did he as the Answerer has done before him take the Questions in their Order to examine how they were stated and where need was did he pretend to state them better Nay Did he bear up fairly to any one point of Representation that his Adversary thought fit to alter and try by the force of his Learning to reduce it to what it was when he left it No truly his mind did not serve him for stating of Questions But did he not stand up in defence of his Anathema's which his Answerer charged not without giving Reasons for it with Art and Sophistry No he did not so much as offer at it What then was the business of his Reflections Did they turn upon our Reasons against Popery as Represented by the Representer No sure Nor was it likely that he should be forward to answer our Arguments that had no Fancy to defend his own What Did he not betake himself to make good his own particular Arguments in behalf of Popery against his Adversaries Answers Nothing less I assure you he did not take care so much as of one Argument belonging to any one point but fairly left them all to take their Fortune Is it not enough for a man to bring Arguments but he must be troubled to defend them Well From this time forward the Representers business was not to Dispute but to Represent But was it so from the beginning The Representer indeed has ever since so vehemently disclaimed Disputing that perhaps he only Represented at first Let us therefore try that a little Were there not three Arguments for Veneration of Images and for Praying to Saints Were not Moses Job Stephen the Romans the Corinthians the Ephesians and almost every sick Person that desires the Prayers of the Congregation engaged one way or other Did he not argue for Transubstantiation from our Saviours Words from the Power of God from the incompetency of Sense and Reason to judg in this no less than in some other cases I think this is Disputing There were three Texts of Scripture to justifie the Restraining of Christian people from reading the Scripture And if they are not vanished out of the Book there are about seven Reasons for Communion in one Kind The 12th Chapter of the 2d Book of Maccab. was once thought one good Authority for the Doctrine of Purgatoy and St. Matth. 12.32 another And a little pretence of Antiquity there was beside and three or four more Reasons for it and in this strain the Book went all along Now this I say Those Arguments were not made by the Answerer but they were answered by him and so were all the rest and now they may go shift for themselves And yet this is the Gentleman who with no small opinion of himself takes his Adversary to task for letting his Arguments drop nay for not saying one word to all his own Reasons pressed against himself Reply p. 2 3 4 c. but letting the matter fall very cautiously when it comes to his own turn of Disputing and Defending his own Reasonings and that too in a Case directly appertaining to our main point of Representing c. Now this is a biting Accusation if it be a True one and before we part I hope we shall have a word or two about that But if it were as true as I am well assured 't is false the Representer of all men living should have made no words on 't and that not only because himself is a most notorious example of forsaking his own Arguments in their distress but because his Adversary was so generous to wink at him when he stole off from his Disputing post upon the very first attack that was made upon him For I do not remember that he charges him with this in shewing the progress of the Controversie and indeed considering all his other Advantages there was no need of it So that if the Representer had been content this might have been forgotten still but if a man ows himself a shame he does well to pay it Well but what went the Reflections upon all this while By this time I think a stranger may guess the Truth and that is that the Reflections were to flutter up and down between the Answer to the Introduction and the Answer to the Book and to settle no where And now I shall give as short and faithful an abstract of them as I can In the Answer to the Introduction the Answerer declared himself unsatisfied with the Representers method to clear his Party from Misrepresentations and particularly that he should make his own ignorant childish or wilful mistakes the Protestant Representations of Popery as that the Papists are never permitted to hear Sermons which they are able to understand and the like Now from hence the Representer desires leave to assure his Friends that the Protestant Representations of Popery are ignorant Reply p. 4. childish or wilful mistakes One would not have expected so mean a Cavil so soon after he had promised most material Points p. 1. But because I find in his Protesting Reply that he is ashamed to own it I shall take no further notice of this than to tell him He ought to have been more ashamed to deny it it being so manifest that what the Answerer said of some of his Misrepresentations he applied to all that himself calls Misrepresentations An. p. 10. Rep. p. 3 4. that his utmost Art will never be able to disguise it to any man that will take so much fruitless pains as to compare the places But to proceed 1. Whereas the Answerer justly exposed him for pretending to draw his Misrepresentantions exactly according to his own Apprehensions Pag. 2 3. when himself was a Protestant he now affirms that he can justifie his Protestant Characters of Papists by Protestant Books which he names and out of one of them Sutcliffs Survey he produces some sharp sayings concerning Popery Nay he thinks to defend his Complaints of Misrepresentation by those very words of the Answerer concerning that Popery which the Representer allows we can never yield to it without betraying the Truth renouncing our Senses and our Reason wounding our
same Proofs c. yet surely the First Point is none of them And therefore let 's try the next 2. It is objected against us that we make Gods of dead Men and this is proved by the weekly Bills of Mortality where our Churches are called by the same Titles that they had in times of Popery Now if by making Gods of dead Men be meant making the Saints so many Independent Deities there is then a great deal of difference between what the Zealous Brother objects against us and what We object against the Papists as well as between the Reasons of our Objections For we never object this against them But if by this Expression be meant giving that Worship to the Saints which belongs only to God and our Saviour we then allow our Objection to be the same but do think that we have much better Reasons to object this against the Papist than that of a weekly Bill of Mortality For we appeal to the Publick Addresses which are made to Virgin Mary and other Saints with all the Circumstances of External Adoration to their Litanies and to the Hymns of their establish'd Offices wherein they are often in voked after the same manner as God himself is to their appropriating to particular Saints distinct Powers of doing good to their Worshippers to their Acknowledgment that the Saints are Mediators of Intercession to the Prayers that are made to them in all places as if they were omnipresent to the Sense also of their Council of Trent that they are to be prayed unto with mental as well as vocal Prayer as if they knew our Hearts All which I hope is something more than that in the weekly Bill of Mortality and in common Conversation we call our Temples by the same Names they formerly had And yet the Representer asks Wherein have I Ridiculed the Church of England I have done no more in my Character against her then what they have been doing these hundred and fifty Years against the Church of Rome so that it seems we have for these hundred and fifty Years charged them with Worshipping the Saints upon no better grounds then their weekly Bills of Mortality Only saith he what I have done in a kind of jest and without endeavouring to delude any body with such kind of Sophistry they have been doing in the greatest earnest and by it making good their Cause So that he confesses his Charge upon our Church to be carried on with a kind of Sophistry only what he has done in a kind of jest we have been doing against them in the greatest earnest i. e. we have in good earnest charged the Church of Rome with giving that Worship to Saints which belongs to God only upon nothing else but the Titles of Churches such as ours have in the Bills of Mortality But surely his greatest Sophistry of all lies in this that he endeavours to delude People into this Opinion which yet if he could he must delude them into another Opinion too that Bellarmin and all the famous Champions of old Popery were a company of Fools to be at so much Sweat and Charges to maintain the Worship of Saints and to defend it as they have done when they could so easily have denied it For that nothing is easier than to make good our disowning it against the ground upon which he charges us with it I shall presently make appear To let pass his Suggestion that the London Churches were first built by the Papists his adding that we rebuilt them with the same Titles Invocations and Dedications which they use shews how little he is to be trusted in a Question of Antiquity who talks so carelesly of things that are notorious in our own Days Our Fathers indeed found the Titles convenient enough and the Churches themselves reasonable good Churches and retain'd them both But when we raised them out of their Ashes we dedicated them to no Saint whatever has been done in this kind formerly nor have we since invocated any Saint in any one of them but we keep the Titles still And does our new Representer expect that we should Answer such Objections as these At least I desire him not to think that we will make a practice of it Must our retaining these Titles necessarily infer a virtual Dedication of our Temples to those Saints by whose Names they are distinguished from one another But what if we had called them by the Names of those Streets only where they stand had they then been dedicated to the Honour of the Streets We say that the Hundred Thirty and Two Churches here which are known by the Names dead Men and Women are with us God's Houses and dedicated to his only Service no less than the Five that are distinguished by the Names of Christ and the Trinity And me thinks so acute a Disputant as he is grown might have seen that the Title of one Church distinguishing it from the rest does not shew who is served and worshipped there when the same Service and Worship is used in all of them That which we blame them for is that they continue to worship Dead Men and Women in those Churches which bear their Names and in those which do not For if in Christ's Church they call upon the Blessed Virgin tho the Church has its Title from Christ yet 't is a House of Prayer to Her as well as to Him And if in the Churches which are known by her Name we call upon God only and worship him alone they are his Houses intirely and none of Hers. But after all where does the Answerer press him with the Titles of their Churches And yet the Reasons which press home the Arguments are they not the very same which the Answerer himself urges against him the Representer 3. I confess that I have seen Pictures in some English Bibles and Common-prayer Books and Moses and Aaron painted on each side of the Commandments upon some of our Altar pieces which things how they have crept in amongst us I cannot tell for they have no publick Authority from our Church The Answerer made his guess and perhaps it will not be easy to mend it But upon this great Occasion the Representer has brought in his Rigid Brother making us worse than the Papists themselves forgetting that he undertook to represent us not altogether so Bad and therefore he should at least have corrected himself in this manner Indeed Beloved I told ye at first that these Church-of-England-Men are within the Swing of the Dragon's Tail but I had not lied to say that they are under the Feet and the Belly more than the Papists themselves are For the Papists do no more towards the placing of Image-Worship in the Word of God than by a cleanly conveyance of that Commandment which forbids it out of the way But these Church-of England-Men as they are called have given that Abomination of Images themselves a place in every Leaf of their Bible in the very
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.