A Full ANSWER TO THE Second Defence Of the Exposition of the doctrine of the CHURCH of ENGLAND; IN A Letter to the Defender. SIR, WHen I first say your Book, I was presently induced to judge either that my Printer had betrayed my Sheets in the Press, or that what you say you have some reason to believe of mine, was more true concerning yours, that you were not the only person concerned in this second Defence: But when I came to peruse it, I must confess I was presently convinced that I had made a rash judgement, and do therefore here retract it, and acknowledge that I believe you are the only Author, and that you did not get my Book till about the time it was made public. But this does not hinder but that another conjecture of mine may be true; that not only several materials were formerly gathered, by yourself or others, for this Building,( tho' the over-hasty joining them together has not contributed to the solidity of the Work) but that some parts of it also might have been written by prevention, or brought in from some other Discourses, they are so little to the purpose. However, Sir, if you assure me to the contrary, I will believe you so far as to retract this also, and allow that the whole was written not only by yourself, but with that speed which your Party takes care to boast of. And now that the Work is out, an Answer is expected from me; but either You, or your Friends for you, think that a years time will be little enough for the Bishop of Condom and myself to put words together. Indeed if I would take notice of those who only put words together, and trouble myself to answer all your bold Assertions, unproved Conjectures, and( I must still use the word) unjust Calumnies, a years time might easily be cast away in such trinings. But, Sir, I here declare once for all, that as I intend to pass over all those things which bear not the face of an Argument, tho' perhaps they may be witty conceits; so am I resolved not to let any of your pretendeed proofs escape, or any thing that looks like a solid Answer pass unsatisfied. Impursuit of this intention, I come to your TITLE-PAGE; Which tells us, indeed, that the Book is A Defence of the Exposition against the new Exceptions of the Vindicator: But they who peruse the Work itself, will find that it ought rather to be called A free Confession of the matter of Fact in all those Exceptions. From thence I pass over your Dedication, because it is only words put together, without any one Argument, and come to your PREFACE. This seems to have been composed by advance, it takes so little notice of the necessary distinctions I have laid down in my Reply. You usher it in with a complaint of an ancient Father against a Heathen Philosopher, and take the liberty to apply it to us; but they who consider things aright, will find the Garment sits more closely upon others, and therefore does more properly belong to them. This Calumny is backed with an Historical Vindication, as you call it, of the distinction of Old and New Popery. page. iii. Here I expected some great performance, which you took so much care to preadmonish your Readers of in the Title-page and Table. But when I came to examine it, I found nothing in it to the purpose. You have amassed indeed some stories of New Converts, who had been deceived by the like Misrepresentations which we so justly complain of; And other hypocrites,( if what you relate of them be just) who continued to think them true. And if this be the way of giving Historical Accounts, you had best set up next time for an Historiographer, which will become you better than a Controvertist; you have Friends enough to furnish you with materials, but for your credit sake examine the truth of them, and apply them to some better purpose. First, you tell us that Monsieur Brueys, who acknowledged himself to have received a great part, if not his whole satisfaction, from M. de Meaux Exposition, exhorted the Protestants to return from their odious Separation, because Reason, Charity, the Glory of God, the peace of the Church, the good of the State, the interest of their Salvation required that at this time they should return from that odious separation, by putting matters into the same state in which they were before; and that the way was facilitated because it was to be sincerely acknowledged the doctrine and Worship of the Roman Church was never so clearly( not cleanly, Nettement Un discourse net; that is, A clear and intelligible Discourse. as you designedly render it) expounded as in our days; and that he could not but think that if their Forefathers had believed things to be as in effect they were, and are now proposed, they would never have separated from its Communion. Now, for my part, I stand in need of your spectacles, Sir, to see how this proves that there was a New and Old Popery any where but in the conceit of our Adversaries, their Forefathers as he calls them; especially seeing he invites them to put things into a state in which they were before, and tells them that in reality they are what they are represented. But, it seems, to praise the Bishop of Condom for expounding our doctrines and Practices more clearly and intelligibly than others had done before him, is with our new Masters of Expression to confess that he introduced a New Popery. Secondly, Ha. Pag v. Crasset is again brought upon the Stage for defending what he himself does not acknowledge to be an Article of our Faith, and therefore belongs not to what you call Popery at all. If therefore you took from thence an occasion to make that odious distinction of New and Old Popery, it was without any just reason, and you ought to recall it. Thirdly, page. vi. you subjoin a Letter written by Monsieur Ranchin, an eminent Convert, as you call him, upon his change, who tells you of a Faith practised by the People and the Tartuffs, different from that of the Bishop of Condom's Exposition and the wholesome Advice: But you have shown( if what you affirm from the Author's Dialogue be true) of what credit such a persons Authority is, who weighed things so little, as to sell his Religion for money and Preferments. Fourthly, page. ix. you give us such another account of one Monsieur Pawlet, a Minister, who made his Conscience comply to his Interest; a fit man to be brought in as one of your Witnesses for such an odious Accusation. Fifthly, After this the Inhabitants of Montauban are called, who acknowledged that the Abuses which were imputed to the Church, were not sufficient to oblige their Ancestors to separate from it; but yet desired leave to make Remonstrances to the Clergy to purge the Roman Church of many Abuses; which was granted them. This shows, indeed, that They were more moderate than You, but is not a very convincing proof that there was truly an Old and New Popery, excepting in their Imaginations. Sixthly, Mousieur Imbert's Case is again brought up, both as an Instance of this New and Old Popery, and to show that you did neither falsify nor calumniate when you translated these words; page. ix. Ecce lignum Crucis, in quo pependit salus mundi; venite Adoremus: Behold the wood of the across; come let us adore It: Instead of, Behold the wood of the across, on which the saviour of the World did hang; come let us adore. As for Monsieur Imbert's Case, which you give us only from his own Factum,( upon which you know a Sentence cannot be pronounced till his adverse party have put in their Reply) I neither know it, nor am I concerned to inquire into it. But the severe Reflections which you make, and that justly enough, against the proceeding of his Diocesan, and the Crimes he must be guilty of, if Imbert said the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth, will make unbiased persons think that this Imbert( who was more cautious than to accuse himself in his own Bill) was not just in the delivery of the matter of Fact, nor faithful when he said he was accused only for comforming to the Bishop of Condom's Exposition. The Bishop tells us of Extravagances committed in the Church, and I suppose, if it were worth while, he could prove them to you. And as to the false Translation, it is so manifest, that I need not make any more words of it; and if the Curate cried out, as Imbert accuses him, the wood, the wood, he was as much in the wrong as yourself. Lastly, you bring in the Titles of several Sections in the wholesome Advices of the Blessed Virgin to her indiscreet Worshippers. page. xi. Now indeed, Sir, if any of those Practices against which he gives those Admonitions had been established by the Church in the foregoing Ages as Articles of her Faith, and now only condemned by us, you would have had some reason to make your distinction of New and Old Popery, but not otherwise. This you foresaw, and therefore wisely prevent my telling you, that if any of those Extravagances have been practised, the Church is not to answer for them; seeing( I will add) she has always taken care to instruct them better. And as for your very scandalous insinuation( pardon me, Sir, you know 'tis such) that it was no longer ago than in the year 1679, that it was thought a Crime to be condemned not only by the Pope and the King, but by the Learned of all Nations, a Crime worthy of Banishment in this Life, and of Damnation in the other, but only to advice them better. You have given us in another place, it may be thro' forgetfulness, a short Answer to it; They who oppose that Book of wholesome Advice, 2 Def. p. 24. are not therefore Enemies to every one of those particulars. Thus much for the first part of your Preface. The second is an Enquiry, Pref. p. xii. What the thing called the Churches sense is, and how we may come to the knowledge of it? To pass by your ushering this Question in with the foregoing false and malicious insinuation, which you yourself knew to be so, as I have proved; I shall, tho' it has been done fully in my Reply, and elsewhere, yet condescend once more to answer both the Questions. First, the Churches sense in our case is that which she delivers as a doctrine of Faith, or a necessary practise: I say, as a doctrine of Faith, that is, a doctrine delivered down by an uninterrupted Tradition from authorized Pastors to authorized Pastors; which whosoever renounces, is justly cut off from being a Member of her Communion. I say also, necessary Practices, that is, such as she obliges all her Children to do, and condemns those that refuse, as Schismatics. Secondly, to know how you may come to the knowledge of this sense: I answer, by the voice of the Church, in her General and approved Councils; and by her univerfally practising such things as necessary. Till therefore you can prove by the express words of a General approved Council, or by the Universal practise of the Church, that what you term Old Popery, was delivered as a doctrine of Faith, or a practise necessary to Salvation; all you say will avail you nothing; for you bring only the private sentiments of men, which other Members of the same Church condemn; and so long as there is such a Dispute betwixt them whom she acknowledges to be her Children, and she does not determine it, any one may hold which side they please, as an Opinion; or suspend their judgement: page. xiii. but neither side is truly what you ought to mean by Popery. Thus, Sir, unless you prove directly from our General and received Councils, that we require other aid and assistance from the Saints than their Prayers, or that which God shall permit or command them to give, as ministering Spirits, you say nothing against Us, or the lawfulness of what We practise. Thus also, unless you can show that a General Council positively declares that it is lawful to implore the aid of Monuments, or Sacred relics; if you affirm that we believe it, you are a Misrepresenter. But, Sir, all the little tricks you have will never prove this, nor will you, whilst you continue to justify your Crime, ever pass amongst men that examine things, for other than a false Translator of the words of the Council of Trent upon this point. The art you think to elude it by, because people go to these Sacred Monuments and relics, to receive Benefit,( and the Representer as you say acknowledges it) will not justify your Translation, unless you prove that when they come there they pray to them,( those Monuments or relics) instead of desiring the Saints, whose they are, to pray for them. Moreover, if you accuse us of paying Divine Worship to Stocks and Stones, page. xiv. to Images and Crucifixes; unless you can show us that some of our General apporved Councils have positively defined this, or our Universal practise necessary establish it, you are still a Misrepresenter and a Calumniator too. But, Sir, tho' the Council of Trent affirm that due Honor and Veneration is to be given them, yet it does not follow that it is the Horor due to God which is there meant, tho' I am certainly informed this has been delivered in some Pulpits( I do not speak of yours, Sir,) to the scandal of those who examined the following words in that Council. And tho' Cardinal Capisucchi and others think that the across of Christ, as in its representative Nature, one with Him whom it represents, is to be worshipped with the same Worship as Christ himself; as the Garments of a King with the King, without any reflective distinction: yet seeing others of the same Communion reject this, and are not censured by the Church, it plainly follows that this is no necessary doctrine of our Church. And therefore whoever calls this Old Popery, is a Misrepresenter, a Falsifier, and a Calumniator. What I have said in this case, is applicable to all others. Pref. p. xviii. And tho' you may think you have sufficiently proved your Assertion by affirming that as we ought not to judge of the Pagan Religion from the Impertinenoy of their Poets, or the specious Discourses of the Philosophers, but from the Worship that was practised by public Authority; so ought we not to judge of the doctrines of the Church of Rome by the singular Notions of some private men,( tho' pretending to deliver nothing but the Churches sense) but by her Universal practise. Yet, tho' I admit the Parallel, I am certain it will never make any thing for you, till you can show that the Church does or did make use of Racks and Gibbets, and all sorts of Tortures, to oblige people to believe and practise those things which you call Old Popery, as the Heathens did to make them worship Idols, &c. Or that she does allow such wicked Practices as correspond to your Author's Example of Killing and Robbing, Pag. xx. and are as dangerous to the Church, as those are to a State. But you know, Sir, it is impossible to prove either of these; and every thing, I hope, that any one sancies to be ill, is not therefore to be reproved. Thus much, Sir, to your Preface; now to your BOOK. In It, after some few pages as an Introduction, you sand an Address to the Bishop of Meaux: but seeing in the beginning of it you question either my abilities or my sincerity in delivering a right interpretation of it; I shall refer that part to yourself, and if you desire any Answer from him, be you your own Interpreter, and then I hope there will be no mistakes. Passing over therefore all the Letter, which concerns not me, nor the doctrine of the Catholic Church which I am to vindicate, I come to your Second Section. In which I perceive nothing but Passion, Pag. 49. and that to such a degree, that it has very much perverted your judgement; for whilst you pretend to vindicate yourself from what you call false Imputations, you confess the Fact; and whilst you accuse me of horrid Crimes, you with the same breath pronounce yourself guity of them. First, In the Table you affirm, that the Principles of many of the Casuists of the Roman Church do allow the defaming of an Adversary by such Accusations as they know to be false. But this, Sir, as you here word it, is a false imputation. False, I say; for you have not brought one that allows it. You tell us indeed that some have maintained it in their public Acts to be but a venial sin in some cases: Pag. 51. But if you understood our Maxim, that no evil is to be done that good may come of it, and that if a Venial Sin would save a Nation, nay the World itself, from being destroyed, it is so far from being lawful to commit it, that we ought to perish rather than to do it; you would not have concluded from thence that such Casuists allow the defaming of an Adversary. But I positively denied your Assertion, and you now prove it. In general, 2 Def. p. 51. Sir, I grant, and that may be I hope without being obliged to deny every part of it, it was sufficient that the first part was absolutely false, viz. that some men do think that any thing may be done against an Heretic. This is indeed a doctrine I have heard some Roman Catholics accused of; but, as I then said, I have always found the Calumny stand at the Accusers door. If other persons have held Lying and Calumny only a Venial Sin, their Position did not affect the Church, and it has been justly condemned( as you acknowledge) by the Supreme Pastor of it. Secondly, Pag. 54. your next progress is to show that you have just cause to believe that I have proceeded according to these Principles, from four Heads: Of every one of which you are far more guilty yourself than I; and therefore you give me just reason to retort the Argument. The first Head is, From the Accusations themselves, page. 54. of which you give several Instances by way of Specimen, that is of Obliging Titles which you say I bestow upon you. But in this I assure you, Sir, you exceed me far; and, would I take the pains to sum up what you have industriously expressed in this kind only, in the three foregoing leaves of this your second Defence, From pag. 49, to 54. the World would see that you are more delighted with those strains of Rhetoric than myself. Secondly, page.. 56. From laying hold on the lightest and most pitiful occasions to run out into the most grievous Accusations against you. But, Sir, will you call those pitiful light things, which you made so much use of, as to draw an Argument from them. I assure you, Sir, if you had not varied your Character in your We suppose, and formed an Argument from it of our want of proof, I should not have called it what you see you cannot now deny it was, a Falsification. And as for the other, if you know not how any thing can be offered in a true and proper Sacrifice, without being offered up to death, you should have argued so, and not have told us that the Bishop of Meaux observed 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. These are the only two you could pitch upon as light and trifling; and you conclude from thence that I have a Calumniating Spirit. But let any one be judge betixt You and Me. page. 82. You accuse the Translator of the Bp's Letter( for this indeed was not my own) of above a dozen mistakes in that Translation, and have taken care to mark them in the Bishop's Letter; but any one will see that the sense has not at all been perverted in those places, nor any Argument so much as pretended to be drawn from them; nay, the very first you have challenged me with, is your own mistake; for the words, Mais quamd j ' aurois adjoustè des Cartons a une Impression deja feat, are not literally as your nor my Translation, but this; What if I had added some leaves to an Impression already finished? And therefore, if your consequence against me be good, your Accusations were guided by such a Spirit as that which you so freely accuse me of. Thirdly, page. 59. you say I bring such Allegations as I could never be sure were true; and this because I could not dive into your thoughts. I shall say nothing to this, but that if you would not give others leave to judge of your intention by your outward Actions, you should not take the liberty yourself, nor in your forth Reason tell me that I accuse you of such things as I certainly knew were false. page. 61. It seems you have some Enthusiastic Spirit, or some Hypochondriac Lady,( a Mrs. James, perhaps) to deliver Oracles of this nature to you, tho' we have none. For my own part, I declare in the presence of Almighty God, the searcher of hearts, and avenger of all wilful crimes, that I never accused you of any thing, but what I thought( nay have proved) you evidently guilty of; See the Letter to the Author of the Discourse concerning Extreme Unction. and I think I have now satisfied the world, that in the very instance you now bring you are what I affirmed you to be, a Falsifier. And, were it not that I fear to increase your guilt, I would challenge you( if you dare speak truth) to deny positively that you were not satisfied to the contrary in those very things upon which I had occasion to appeal to your knowledge or your Conscience. Your second part of this Section is taken up with a Refutation, Pag. 66. as you call it, of two points. 1. Of those scandalous Reflections, which you say I have cast upon the generality of the Church of England. 2. Of those Imputations I have laid upon yourself in particular. I. As to the first part, I refer you for the proof of whatever I have said, to a late Book called Good Advice to the Pulpits, which is alone enough to make your Party ashamed, if they have any sense of Honor or Conscience in them. And yet I might wish you to remember the Misrepresentations of our doctrine, which have been thundered from the Pulpits into the Peoples ears, and inserted into your Writings, ever since your pretended Reformation; some of which( for it is impossible to give them all) have been noted by the Papist Misrepresented and Represented, the Acts of the General Assembly of the French Clergy, and others. And till we see your Party repent, and make some satisfaction, we shall have reason to accuse them of persisting in Calumnies, Misrepresentations, Falsifications, &c. to serve a turn. I might pass to the next, but that I find you call Dr. Heylin's account of the bitter Revilings in Qu. Pag. 76, 77, 78. Eliz. time to secure her Title, and Arohbishop Land's Moderation in hindering such things from being Re-printed, a very dangerous story; and my charitable Admonitions that you would not upon any politis design keep our bleeding Divisions open, to the ruin both of Church and State, as dangerous insinuations: whereas I see to such danger in them, unless you esteem it a dangerous insinuation to show that your Party have upon all occasions clapped a deformed Vizard upon us, which when once detected, will certainly redound to your own Confusion. You may make them seem dangerious, by aisrepresenting them, and drawing ill consequences from your own Misrepresentations. I suppose no one will deny, but that these brangles about Religion, many of which might be ended, if some hot-headed Spirits did not augment them, are no great benefit either to Church or State; and this was the plain English of my expressions, and all that can be rationally deduced from my words. But a Cavilling and Calumniating Spirit can draw ill consequences out of any thing. II. And now, Sir, I come to those Imputations which you say I have unjustly laid upon you. But how have you cleared yourself? As to, first, the hard names I gave you, and secondly, page. 78. the wilful faults I laid to your charge, I have already answered you. 3. If refleted upon your Preaching, it was from mere report; 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: Of this nature is your other also of my critical Sunday-night-Conferences, where your Sermons have been sometimes( if you be rightly informed) put upon the Rack by me. But, Sir, if you had never told your Auditors from the Pulpit, that we give Divine Worship to Saints, I suppose you would have denied the Charge. And if your Conscience tell you that you did, ask that Conscience, Whether We, who acknowledge only One God whom we must adore, can be guilty of such a horrid Crime? As for calling your Auditory Learned, I suppose, tho' some of them might truly deserve that Character, yet they did not all; And we know that it is these later sort that take all things as Truths which flow from an Eloquent Preacher's mouth. 4. You promise great matters in answer to those Calumnies, page. 82. Falsifications, &c. which I have justly charged you with; but if you have no better success in the following part of this Defence, than you have had in this first, you had better give the Cause up, which you show cannot be justly managed. 5. The ill language I charged you with, you cannot deny; nay, page. 83. which is worse, you justify it, and that in the worst sense too. How you have treated the B. of Meaux, appears plain enough by your believing every idle Report rather than his Vindications, and if the term Raillery, which I made use of, was too soft for your expressions, call them Railings if you please; your calling St. Pag. 51. Thomas of Aquin's Opinions, or his proofs of them, Reveries, in the worst sense, that is, downright Ravings; St Germain's, St. Anselm's, the Abbot of cells, St. Antonine, St. Bernardine, nay even the devout St. Bernard's Expressions, horrid Blasphemies; and your vindicating the Charge when you have done, and yet pretending that no one is so scrupulously careful to avoid ill language as yourself, shows indeed such a new kind of scrupulous Conscience, as I have seldom met with. Had you only said that Fa. 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: but to lay them to these holy Saints charges, page. 89. to call them Superstitious men, their Expressions vain and extravagant, nay horrid Blasphemies, and such as proceeded from an indiscreet Zeal, &c. is what truly-pious ears cannot hear without indignation. Lastly, as to your calling the pious and significant Ceremonies of the Church Magical Incantations; page. 85. had I not intimated to you that you yourselves use such-like Prayers and Ceremonies in the Consecration of Stocks and Stones too, See the Form of consecrating a Ch. or chapel, Sparrow's Can. p. 375. in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; Churches I mean, and chapels: you had been more excusable, and your reflection that you did not speak against the Catholic Church would have had more force. But seeing you yourselves are accused for setting Persons and Places a part for the Service of your Maker by Prayer and Ceremony, and that you think the charge unjust; why is it not also an unjust charge against us, to call our setting things apart by the like Ceremonies, a Magical Incantation? Your third Section is taken up in giving us a catalogue of Books unanswered: but you should first have told us whether they were worth answering in particular or no, when all that is said in them is obviated in many Treatises. There are several likewise of Ours which remain unanswered; the Guide in controversy especially, which for any thing I see must remain so, unless some such bold attempter attack them as has attacked the other Discourses of the same Author lately published at Oxford, with the like misfortune. And now, Sir, having passed thro' this your pretended Defence, I think I have great reason to give you thanks for it, seeing you have been so far from invalidating any thing I have said, that you have justified my Accusations. I should not have thought it convenient, much less necessary, to make these Reflections, but that seeing you are pleased to promise an Answer to the arguing part of my Reply, I would willingly have it done in such a manner, that if you have any Reason for your Separation, we might not be put off with Trifles. Pray therefore, good Sir, make not so much hast in your next, but weight your Arguments well, if you have any; and let us not have Scolding instead of Arguing, nor Flourishes and Wit instead of Reason. I am, Sir, Your humble Servant. Dec. 6. 1687. London: Printed by Henry Hills, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty for His household and chapel; And are to be sold at his Printing-house on the Ditch-side in blackfriars. 1687.