who saw Misery before them which they had already so deeply tasted of that their Hearts were quite sunk with the apprehension of what was just coming But is this dealing for the Credit I will not say of the Managers but of the Cause they serve and of the Method that is now taken to serve it by Expositions and Representations Why if no more sincerity were used in Fairs and Markets than this comes to in the Concerns of Everlasting Salvation Men had better live alone and make what shift they can each one for himself than to have any thing to do with one another I was going to descant upon every one of the other seven Articles but to shew the Intrigue of them though never so gravely would look so like a Farce that I count it decent to forbear lest I should seem to make sport with the Sins and Miseries of Men. I shall only give the Reader this Note that the Relation only says there were Difficulties on both Sides but that by the wording of the Conditions it appears very probable that the Citizens had brought them in another Form when the Capitulation began but that this was all they could obtain and now that they are reduced to this Form the sagacity and watchfulness of one side is no less discovered than of the other But O God to what a pass is the State of Religion brought amongst Christians I have here given the Representer an Example of reconciling Protestants to the Church of Rome upon Terms much after his own way only 't is something finer though the Application I confess was more rugged the Principality having felt the Dragoons to the ruin of it and the utmost Extremities being threatned in two hours in case of refusal to subscribe Thus much at least they gained that they might not be obliged to go to Mass for three Months nor to be present at the Offices of the Church which was a plain demonstration that these miserable Persons had subscribed with an unsatisfied Mind and that Vnion and Submission was the thing aimed at by the Reconcilers but whether it was done upon the Convictions of the Citizens what cared they I can give no farther account of this Matter but shall only put the Representer in mind of one Passage in the State of the Controversy which he cared not to reflect upon State. p. 23. viz. That after the Bishop of Meaux had treated of a Reconciliation upon Terms more moderate than his own Exposition while the Dragoons were at the Gates he came in three Months and treated them now as Persons Reconciled and without any regard to his own Promises or to their Consciences let the Dragoons loose upon those that refused to compleat their Conviction by going to Mass The Representer may from all this pick out some Reason why he ought to be ashamed of his Offer that we shall be received upon the Terms of his Book IV. I come next to his Quotation of Mr. Montagu from whence he would prove that the Church of England began too early to Misrepresent Papists to deserve now much credit in her Representings Appello Caesarum c. 23. p. 60 c. But what shall I call our Representer here Not the modestest thing in Nature for Mr. Montagu is most vilely abused by him while he makes him bring in the Homilies as representing the Papists That which he says of them is this That they contain certain godly and wholesome Exhortations to move the People to Honour and Worship Almighty God but not as the publick Dogmatical Resolutions confirmed of the Church of England And again They have not Dogmatical Positions or Doctrine to be propugned and subscribed in all and every Point as the Books of Articles and of Common Prayer have Then follow the words which the Representer begins with They may seem secondly to speak somewhat too hardly and stretch some Sayings beyond the use and practice of the Church of England both then and now which last words the Representer mentions not nor these that follow immediately And yet what they speak may receive a fair or at least a tolerable construction and mitigation well enough For you have read peradventure how strangely some of the Ancientest Fathers do speak and how they hyperbolize sometimes in some Points in their popular Sermons which in Dogmatical Decisions they would not do nor avow the Doctrine by them delivered resolutivè Now the occasion of all this was that Mr. Mountagu was charg'd by his Adversaries for granting an allowable use of Images contrary to the Homilies of the Church of England in the Sermon against the Peril of Idolatry which seemeth to inveigh against all use of them To this Mr. M. answered as before producing the Homilies not as speaking of what the Papists do or not do but as universally condemning the use of Images in Churches P. 262. And he gives this account of it more fully than I need to transcribe viz. That as the Fathers spake against Images with some tartness and inveighing sort lest the Christians who had been Pagans themselves and now lived amongst Pagans might learn to worship Idols So our Predecessors coming late out of Popery and conversing with Papists and knowing that Images used to be crept unto incens'd worshipped and adored amongst them might if they were suffered to stand as they did induce them to do as they had sometime done and therefore in a godly Zeal such as moved Ezekias to destroy the Brazen Serpent they spake thus vehemently and indeed hyperbolically against them For the People with whom they then dealt were by all means â—o be preserved from the taint and tincture of their Superstitious Practices This is the whole truth of the business which the Representer did not think fit to shew but without taking the least notice of the occasion and subject of this Chapter runs away with a few Phrases that he pick'd out from the rest as best fit for his purpose such as hyperbolizing stretching upon the Tenters by all means and the like and would make as if Mr. Mountague confessed the Church of England regarded not how she represented Papists and Popery Which wretched dealing is according to no common Honesty but his own and whoever goes on at this rate will write himself out of all Credit and there will be no need of answering his Books 'T is to the same purpose that he brings in Mr. M. Pref. p. 19. again not thinking it any Reflection upon him if he does not altogether agree or subscribe to the Doctrine of the Book of Homilies in his time because it being a Book fitted for a Season and declared necessary for THESE Times what great wonder if what was a good Doctrine under Edward VI. was not so in the time of King James c. For thus he would perswade us that we alter and change our Religion according to Times and Seasons which is what we justly charge upon them The Compilers of
some former Apprehensions of my own concerning Popery with some little Addition of what I had heard from others Now what had I to defend in this Could any one say I had not such Apprehensions or that formerly while a Protestant I had not such Notions and Thoughts of the Papists and of their Religion wrought in me by what I had heard from the Pulpit and otherways And if this neither was nor could be pretended what had I to defend in that Character throughout the thirty seven Chapters Then as to the second Character What Defence says he have I forsaken there I undertook to give an account of my Religion as I was taught it The Religion there delivered is the Popery I was taught there is expressed the Papist I then was at the penning that Character and now am And this I suppose no body has disproved yet and so I have forsaken no Defence of it So that this Character was written too according to his own Apprehensions And unless a Man can prove that he had not those Apprehensions of Popery since he became a Papist and when he wrote his Characters it is to no more purpose to write against this Representing Character than it is to write against the Misrepresenting Character unless one could prove that he had not those other Apprehensions of Popery when he was a Protestant Never was Man so secure against being confuted I do not wonder at his Confidence at all for he has reason for it and such as I believe no Man ever found out before him And I expect that in his next Book he should with no little Triumph tell the Reader that I confess him to be Invincible But I must not forget that other Reason viz. of this Character not belonging to Protestants to examine He says If there was any thing faulty in this I expected to hear of it from Catholicks for whilst I pretended to deliver their Faith who should judg whether it was right or wrong but they And at this rate he goes on for almost two Pages together concluding that the currant passing of the Book and general reception of it without exception i. e. among Papists was enough to warrant the Doctrine for Authentick And now he had nothing to account for but forsaking the Defence of his Reasons for that Popery which he owned For the truth is he forsook all as the View undeniably shewed Only there is one Quality which God grant he may forsake but I fear he never will. I will not give it the Name here but leave the Reader to do that when I have given one more Instance from our Representer of the Thing And so says he at last it is here confess'd that the Doctrines are rightly proposed and that I have duly represented a Catholick but that I made no Defence of the Reasons He had before brought in the Author of the View as freely owning and ingenuously confessing the Charge of Misrepresentation And now at last to make one side hang even with the other he brings him in confessing that he had duly represented a Catholick too This Man has considered Machiavel's Rule that he that will thrive by the left-hand way must never look towards the right one Well he tells us now for a close that he has not been short of any thing he undertook Not of any thing What is then to be said for forsaking the Reasons the Defence of the Reasons Why he has a trick for that too and because it cannot be mended the old one shall serve the turn Says he Since I only engaged to set down some of the Reasons which hold Men in that the Roman Communion 't is plain I did all only by way of proposal or historically and till some body has demonstrated that these are not some of the Reasons which hold Men in that Communion I have no Defence to make and so can have forsaken none That is to say his business was not to set down Reasons and make them good afterward if any body should be so cross as to set upon them but his business was to shew some Reasons for his Doctrine such as they are held by but whether they were good Reasons or bad Reasons what was that to us At last we have a Reason why he was not for Disputing viz. because nothing has been offered in that kind by any Adversary but what has been answered by Catholicks five hundred times over Now five hundred is a good round even Number and he was loth to make it irregular by adding one more to it for then it must have be said henceforward that we had been answered 501 times over This I take to be as good a Reason as any we have had from him yet or are like to have from him in haste To come to a Conclusion He began with his double Characters and forsook the Defence of them He gave us Reasons and Reflections and he forsook them too He made a Fanatick Sermon and great defiance there was about it but the Sermon was undertaken and we hear no more of the Sermon He tried what was to be done by drawing up a new Charge of Misrepresentation upon some Protestant Writers The Charge was answered and he takes no farther care of that Charge if it will stand upon its first Legs well and good if not what cares he The Author of the View gave him a sample of some Popish Misrepresentations of us and our Religion And he does not offer so much as to excuse them no not by a word What is to be done next Even let us once more begin the World again with fifteen new Chapters of a Papist Misrepresented and Represented for the worst is past we may speed better next time but 't is impossible for us to come off more shamefully than we have done already A REPLY TO THE VINDICATOR 's Full Answer THE Vindicator has express'd some contempt of the Defenders last Book P. 1. If I had been in his case it had been some temptation upon me to do the like And therefore I will not aggravate this Matter against him Some Anger also is express'd for being told by the Author of the Discourse concerning Extreme Vnction that the Bishop of Meaux and he might now go and put words together especially because another Year was given them I perceive he scorns to have it thought that he either needs the Bishop of Meaux's help or a Years time to put words together And so about a Month after the Second Defence out comes a Full Answer of his own As for the Bishop the Vindicator has said nothing for him And I think the Bishop is beholden to him for it who is in this one thing happy that his Vindicator has left him to shift for himself When I saw a Sheet and half come forth for a Full Answer to the Second Defence I presently understood the Man's meaning to be that the Defence had little or nothing in it For some such
as Impudence Nonsence Monstrous Stupidity and the like But I would know of the Representer whether there can be any just occasion for letting these words loose and to the Sense and Reason of Mankind I may appeal if there can be an occasion more just than this for 't is impossible we should have greater Evidence that any thing is true than we have that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is false and then I may ask the Representer whether it be not the greatest abuse that ever was put upon mankind This Argument therefore would bear a little more quickness than was thought convenient for the handling of the rest But here lies the sting of the Representer's Charge That Transubstantiation is a Subject in which so many Learned and Virtuous Men of the Christian World are nearly concerned To which I answer That 't is so much the worse for the Christian World but not for the Author of that Discourse For if indeed Learned Men and Virrtuous Men espouse such a Monstrous Doctrine as that of Transubstantiation there is not less but greater cause to exclaim both against them and it If the Representer thought that the Learning and Virtue of the Men should have gained some more reverence for the Cause than that Author had for it he may think so still for me I will not go about to question the Learning and the Virtue of many that hold Transubstantiation but 't is Transubstantiation still I think it is no question but there were many Learned and Virtuous men in Egypt who were nearly concerned in the business of making Gods of Things that grew in their Gardens and yet he had not been too blame that should have said it was Impudence Nonsence and Monstrous Stupidity to Worship and to teach others to Worship Leeks and Onyons Now for the Second Observation P. 5. That we have no news of any Success those Discourses had upon the parties designed I say if they had indeed no Success the Stater was the honester man not to say they had any tho he scaped here very well that he was not made a Misrepresenter for not confessing that they had none But upon this occasion the Representer is very angy It could not says he be rationally expected that those who chose rather to forgo all the interest and convenience of humane life than join with a Schismatick Congregation should be afterwards brought to Church by a few empty Discourses which making no more Converts than they deserved made as I can hear of none at all But why Schismatick Congregation and a few empty Discourses When men keep what their Adversaries would get from them and when they have disappointed all their designs they use to be pleased and in good humour and tho perhaps they may laugh heartily at their Antagonists for losing their pains yet 't is not so natural to rage against them as if themselves were the Losers I begin therefore to suspect that our Representer knows of some Success those Discourses had which he is not willing to own But be that as it will as we did not think the better of the former Performances for their having had some Success so neither should we think the worse of these if they have had none which may perhaps be imputed to the prejudice of the persons for whose good they were designed rather than to the pretended Emptiness of the Discourses themselves unless the Representer's word may be more securely relied upon for Empty Discourses now than for Empty Churches before We are sorry that is proves so difficult a matter to recover these men yet 't is some Consolation to us that we have lost so very few out of so great a body as the Communion of the Church of England makes And therefore if Discourses are to be judged of by their Success the Representer and such as he should have a care of boasting at this time of day Our design was not only to recover those that are deceived but likewise to keep those from Error that are in the way of Truth and therefore it may be reasonably presumed that our endeavours have had good Success upon the greatest part of those whom they were designed to serve tho not upon all But when I have told this man what perhaps himself knows that by these Discourses we have gained some from Popery to the Reformed Religion I will also tell him that if we had never gained so much as one it had been no disparagement to our Arguments since they have ways of fixing their Proselytes which we abhor of which I shall give this one Instance It is their Rule let otherr judg whether it be their Practice to require a dreadful Oath of all whom they can gain not to be prevailed withal Quocunque Argumento by any Argument to forsake the Communion of the Roman See This Oath is to be seen in the Pontifical under the Title of Ordo ad Reconciliandum Apostatam Hoereticum aut Schismaticum and if the Representer be importunate he shall have it next time at length To doubt only of any Point which the Church of Rome teaches is a sin that must come under Confession by which the Priest is sure to have notice when the Spirit of Truth begins to work and upon signal given to extinguish the first Motions of it We have a hard Task who are not only to oppose Reasons to Reasons and to the common prejudices of men but to produce Reason against particular Engagements and Oaths never to hearken to any Reason at all The Representer gives out himself to be a Convert and may therefore be presumed not to be ignorant of these things but to be himself intangled by an Oath to be moved by no Argument whatsoever to return to this Schismatick Congregation as he calls it and therefore in him it was great forgetfulness to ascribe the Steadiness of the English Romanists to nothing else but a Christian Resolution when he could not but know of some other Engagements that are amongst them which are not altogether so Christian Which I had not observed here if his Severity to the Stater had not led me to it for it was but the very Page before in which he set upon him with all his Eloquence for imputing the fulness of our Congregations to the Reasonings of the Divines without mentioning the execution of the Laws If I had been a Representer that Page I think would have kept me in some awe and hindred me from doing that in the very next which he calls telling Stories by halves As for the most cruel persecution which as he says those of his Communion suffered lately for not joyning with our Schismatick Congregation he describes it so terribly and assigns the Cause of it as positively as if this was a matter beyond our memory which he knows it is not But when a Man has a mind to exercise his Stile one Subject may serve him as well as another But to return to the
can and to follow good Examples where they are to be had In these Reflections of his a man must have very good luck that meets with any thing that is worth answering but if he cannot find what he would he must learn patience and be content with what he can get I. He would make us believe That the only way of giving his first Book a just Reply P. 9. was to have shewn that the Faith as there stated was not really the Faith of Catholicks Now this indeed might have been the Only way according as the Representer might have drawn his Characters but as he has ordered the matter 't is not the only way for he has for the most part told stories hy halves in the Character of a Papist Represented and surely one Misrepresenting Trick is discovered on his side if it be shewn that the Faith of a Papist as stated under this or that Article P. 15. is not all his Faith but that it seems there was something concealed which was too bad to be shewn For instance The Representer takes occasion to bring in this Character of a Papist under the head of Indulgences The Papists teach That neither the Pope nor any other Power upon Earth can give leave to sin for a sum of money Nay in his first Book the Papist believes it damnable to hold that any Power in Heaven or Earth can do it Now we will suppose this to be the Faith of a Papist But then to represent him as he is he should have added thus much at least That he does not believe it damnable to hold that an Indulgence or Pardon of sins can be obtained for a Sum of Money after they are committed nor that the Tax of the Apostolick Chamber which sets the pardons of the most horrid sins at very reasonable rates is a Damnable Scandal nor that they who trust in the Popes Bulls for plenary remission of sins are damnably deceived Now all this is concealed and yet I doubt it will be found to belong to the Character of a Papist with respect to the matter of Indulgences and Pardons and in all like cases to shew what the Representer concealed is a Just Reply to his Characters but whether it be a just Reply to Him is a point wherein he is more concerned than we need to be II. He seems to lay great weight upon this That to this pitch of Confidence if not more are some Church of England Divines arrived that they pretend to know what the Religion of Papists is better than they Is it likely says he the Jews can tell better what Christ teaches than Christ himself or his Apostles Can Protestants tell better what Catholicks believe than Catholicks themselvrs If the Character of a thing is best received from professed interested and bitter Enemies then indeed they may put in for the best Informers of our Faith. Much more he says to this purpose just as he cried out Pulpits and Popery without adding any thing of new matter Now where no Answers are needful I am sure these that follow may suffice 1. 'T is false that I for instance pretenâ— to know what the Religion of Papists is better than he the Representer But for all that 't is true that unless he mends his Characters of a Papist Represented I do pretend to represent Popery with more honesty than he does I cannot tell what this Man believes better than he does himself nor so well neither but I can tell as well as he what their Trent Council their Catechisms their Pontifical their Missal their Breviary and their established Offices say Are these Mysteries that no Man must pretend to understand but a Representer and some few besides For 2. Why must we be brought in as pretending to know what Popery is better than Papists know it Was Bellarmin with all those of the old strain a Protestant Is Father Crasset a Protestant or Cardinal Capisucchi who approved the Bishop of Condom's Exposition too Are they Protestants in Spain or Italy Do we represent their Worship of Images so grosly as that very Cardinal does Do we represent Popery otherwise than as all these have and do profess and practise 3. It had been an Impudent thing in the Jews to pretend that they could tell better what Christ taught than Christ himself or his Apostles And it was silly in the Representer to run to so high an instance unless he would insinuate that we are as it were Jews and himself a kind of an Apostle I would have him observe that we are not so sensless as to think that we can tell what a Representer and an Expositor teach better than themselves but in many things we can tell as well as they by the same token that they teach some things for Catholick Doctrines which in their Church have been accounted little better than Heresies and suppress others which their predecessors scorned to suppress But tho' some Romanists do now think fit to palliate their Religion in this manner yet Christ and his Apostles did no such thing and were not therefore liable to that Reproof which these men must bear in spite of their hearts 4. For what he says That Bitter Enemies are not to be believed in the Characters they give of others I Answer That neither are designing and self-interested men to be believed in the Characters they give of themselves Animosity says he sets a Biass upon the Heart And is there nothing that does it beside What thinks he of the Design to reconcile a Nation so averse to Popery as this is and of the several conveniencies that will follow such a Change Nor is it so certain that we are their Bitter Enemies as that they are very great Lovers of themselves I am so far from being a Bitter Enemy to the Representer that I am now doing him the Office of a severe Friend by telling him the Truth which he cares not to hear but it may be I may bring him to blushing which he seems to have taken his leave of and he may in time thank me for it I tell him that in this place he talks wretchedly and I desire him to reflect upon himself before he pretends to make any more Reflections upon us Don't every body know says he that the Church of England has proclaim'd her self an open and professed Enemy to the Church of Rome Does not this unqualify her for a True Representer Now admitting our Church to be as open and professed an Enemy to his as she is to the Errors and Abuses of it yet who does not know that this can only unqualify her for a Representer to be believed upon her own word But she may Represent truly for all that Which is so plain a Case that this Man if he was in his right mind when he wrote those things could not but know it The most therefore that he could honestly make of this supposed enmity of our Church against his is that we
the Homilies and Mr. M. meant the same thing which this Man may shew a fault in when he can viz. that more Care is necessary at some times to secure People from Image-worship than at others though our Religion which will not allow us to worship Images be the same at all times If he thinks that the Homilies stretch their Hyperboles too far let him compare them with what Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian Minutius Felix and other Antients say of the same Subject and then tell 〈◊〉 more of his Mind But since as Mr. M. judiciously observ'd their severe Reflections against all use of Images whatsoever are to be interpreted by the danger of being seduced to Idolatry which the Christians were in in those Times so may the less hyperbolizing of our Homilies bear a good Construction with reference to These Times in which we are sure Images are worshipped by certain People that the Representer can tell of with no less Devotion than the Pagans worshipped theirs The Reader I hope will now excuse me for taking no more notice of his protesting against the distinction of Old and New Popery his declaring that their Belief is always the same and his lamentable Complaints that we are Misrepresenters Pref. p. 20 21. and that we rake together some odd Opinions out of private Authors c. that the Heads upon which our Representing stands are so many Fallacies and Sophistry c. For if a Man after the Particulars of his Book have been particularly answer'd will still betake himself to general Out-cries and makes as if he intended to go on in this way as long as he lives he ought to know at last that he may do so without any more disturbance and that no body will go about to answer him And so I come to consider his Reflections upon the View of the whole Controversy with the Answer to his last Reply It seems the Stater as he observes had so good an Opinion of it that he thought it would put an End to the Controversy The Representer says that he is almost of the same Mind And I say that I am altogether of the same Mind And so there is one thing in which we do all of us almost agree But why is the Representer almost of that Mind Because the Answerer had said so little to that long Bill which was drawn up against the Members of his Church Pref. p. 22. wherein the Crime of misrepresenting is laid to their Charge that besides what he confesses the very Guilt appears so plainly in the forced Excuses he makes for the rest that there 's little need of any more besides reading his Defence to see how far they are from being innocent So that by his own Confession he brought in a long Bill against some of our Church wherein the Crime of misrepresenting is laid to their Charge And the truth is it was long enough considering that it had neither Truth nor Pertinence as it was particularly shewn him in the Answer to his last Reply For I must add that the Answerer brought in a longer Answer of about 28 Pages to the Particulars of the Representer's Bill not omitting any one Charge upon any one of our Authors where there was direction to the Passage by Page or Chapter And I do assure the Reader that those six or seven Lines of his which I transcribed just now out of his Preface is all the Reply that he has given to that Answer And I desire the Reader to remember and consider that that tedious Charge of his the Defence of which he now so visibly forsakes was manifestly brought in to supply the place of defending his 37 Points of Representation nay and of defending his very Pretences for forsaking them And yet that now at last he forsakes the Defence of those Imputations upon particular Authors by which he hoped to divert the Reader from an expectation of Replies pertinent to his first undertaking Now therefore I apply my self to the Representer and desire him to take as much notice of what I say as if there was a Finger against it in the Margin That because he was so very modest as not to offer the least particular Reply to those Answers to his Charge therefore his continuing that Charge is the greater Impudence With all my Soul I wish that the Gentlemen of the Church of Rome would imply other sort of Men to write against us for this Man carries on the Controversy not only to the disparagement of their Cause in particular but to the discredit of Religion in general But since I have such a Countenance to deal with I must not think to let even those six Lines go without some particular Answers to them For tho he can with a good Grace drop his own Challenges and Undertakings one after another and as he once said gravely turn over I know not how many Pages of ours without offering a word to any one Particular that he finds there and never change Countenance for the matter Yet we are to watch every Line of his and unless we intend to have another Book from him we must prove that the Sun sets before Midnight if he should happen to deny it He pretends that his Answerer said so little to his long Bill c. What should I say to this Should I print over again here the 28 Pages which were taken up in refuting those Cavils of the Representer Or is it not enough that I do now forbid him to make any Replies to the Particulars of that Answer He pretends that the Answerer confessed something Besides what he confesses says he So that if he may be believed the Answerer has confessed that some of those whom he mentions have misrepresented the Church of Rome But this is adding Sin to Sin For he confess'd no such thing and I will add that he had no cause to confess it These words indeed I find in the Answer Did ever either of his Adversaries undertake to justify all that any Protestant Divine or Historian has at any time said in opposition to Popery Or was it not possible to give a more honest account of Popery than he did without such an Undertaking And again Tho it be no part of our business to bring off every thing that has been said or done by Protestants yet I shall a little examine what our Representer has charg'd those with whom he has singled out to expose them to the World For my own part where his Accusations in whole or in part fall justly there they shall lie for me nor will I make another Man's fault my own by going about to defend it But is this confessing that Misrepresentation was proved upon any one Author that was charged with it The Answerer it seems was resolved as became him never to wrangle either for a Friend or against an Enemy and he found in the long Bill one or two filly Sayings of Protestants which this Man called Misrepresentations for instance
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
have a strong Fansie that the Good Advice is the Representer's own But the Vindicator's good Words of it will not I guess make amends for undoing the Representer in his main Chance 7. For that Parallel which the Defender required to the account of things in Q. Elizabeths time for which Dr. Heylin is quoted this Man says no more than to this purpose That if it were not for some hot-headed Spirits these brangles about Religion might be ended Which is as much as to say that he insinuated something which his Superiours have forbidden him to own It seems that it was to be insinuated but not spoken plainly But because he forbears I shall do so too and refer my self to the World if he has not now made Nonsence of the Application of Heylin's Account 8. As to his being a Spy upon the Defender his Vindication of himself is the very Master-piece of his Answer For no Man that closely attends to his Words can tell whether he denies or confesses it tho to a Superficial Reader he seems to deny it His Words are elaborately put together and tho I am in very great haste yet I must needs let the Reader see them If I reflected upon your preaching it was from meer report but he might be at Church when he did not reflect upon the Defenders preaching for I assure you Sir what you were told of my being sometimes a part of your Auditory is like many other Stories which you abound with in all your Writings I suppose too from hear-say But if the Defender were not told of it but saw him at Church then this comes not within the Case because he had it not then from Hear-say but from Eye-sight Again if the Defender were told of it then indeed he had it from Hear-say but he might hear the Truth for all that The Vindicator was afraid of Proof and I advise him to be so still That which follows is just such another pleasant Strain it concerns the Sunday Night Conferences but the Reader shall go for that himself as he likes the other But whereas upon this occasion of the Defenders Preaching he bids him ask his Conscience Whether they who acknowledge only One God whom they must adore can be guilty of such a Horrid Crime as to give Divine Worship to Saints I have asked the Defender about it who has also asked his Conscience and in the name of his Conscience he says That they may be guilty of that Horrid Crime And more then that he intends to give these Men such Reasons for his Conclusion as he is in his Conscience persuaded cannot be fairly answered In the mean time I will give the Vindicator a Question for his Question and desire him to put it to his own Conscience Whether a Woman who acknowledges only one Husband to whom she must pay Conjugal Duty can be guil-of such a horrid Crime as to give her Husband's Bed to another And then let him use a little Conscience in the Application 9. For what next follows That he would not be thought to have abused the Defender's Auditory that the Defender had better give up the Cause that he gave ill Language and justified it that he believes every idle Report of the Bishop of Meaux Pag. 11 12. rather than his Vindication and his explaining of the Word Reveries this shall all pass off quietly 10. And so should his next Reflexion too but that he is so warm upon it that he must not be neglected The Defender had affirmed those Expressions of St. Germane St. Anselm and the rest of 'em concerning the Virgin which Crasset had transcribed to be horrid Blasphemies This the Vindicator could not endure The Defender therefore transcribed them out of Crasset and left the Reader to judge What now says the Vindicator Why truly he knew not well what to say To confess plainly that they were Blasphemies would be to vindicate the Defender To deny it plainly was yet a little too soon for tho New Popery was drawing on it had not yet breathed its last He took a middle Course and thus informs the Defender Pag. 12. Had you only said that Father Crasset had collected such Passages from those great Saints as if taken in that strict and dogmatical sense he brought them for might be called Blasphemies that Father must only have answered for them This Man has a notable Gift of Speaking and saying nothing which does him great service at a pinch He does not say That if those Passages were taken in that strict and dogmatical sense for which Crasset brought them then they might be called Blasphemies for this had been to bring Father Crasset upon his back with all those great Saints which Crasset had already raised up against Widenfelt And yet he does not say That if the Defender had said what he supposes for him that Father Crasset could have brought himself off No he answers more warily That that Father must only have answered for them which it may be he could and it may be he could not Now here he should have ended For Crasset may take himself to be sacrificed in what follows But to lay them to those Holy Saints Charges to call them Superstitious Men their Expressions horrid Blasphemies is what truly pious Ears cannot hear without Indignation For Father Crasset is in an ill case if to lay the Holy Saints Expressions in Crasset's sense to the charge of the Holy Saints be what truly pious Ears cannot hear without Indignation But I beg the Vindicator's Pardon for now I see how Crasset may be brought off again or rather the Vindicator For perhaps that which pious Ears cannot hear is not every Particular by it self but altogether i. e. pious Ears may hear those Passages laid to the charges of the Saints even in Crasset's sense but that therefore those Saints should be called Superstitious Men and their Expressions Horrid Blasphemies as they were not by Crasset but by the Defender this is what truly pious Ears cannot hear without Indignation Now after all this dexterity he has not offered to shew that those Passages which the Defender produced are not horrid Blasphemies or that they are capable of a good sense If the Reader has forgot them he may go to the Defender for them p. 89 90 c. and then he will be satisfied that all this shuffling comes to no more than this that the Vindicator cannot bear any thing that reflects dishononourably upon his Great and Holy Saints but his pious Ears can hear Expressions from them that do blasphemously reflect upon Almighty God without any Indignation at all 11. The Defender produced those Prayers and Ceremonies in the Consecration of a Cross which to him seemed to be Magical Incantations rather than Prayers The Vindicator to be even with him says That we use the like Prayers and Ceremonies in the Consecration of Churches and Chappels Now if we do then I for my part will say