to which they refer he has taken another course with Mr. Sutcliff has set down only half sentences and concealed both the authorities and the reasons he alledges for what he saies which is in a strict and proper sense to misrepresent All that he answers to that distinction between representing and disputing which he allows to be good is this That the common people do not distinguish these matters but look upon all to be equally the Faith of Papists That is if they hear any man call the worship of Images Idolatry they do as verily think that Papists believe Idolatry lawful as he saies in his Character as that they worship Images risum teneatis and thus much for Representing The next dispute is about the rule of Representing In his Introduction to A Papist Misrepresented c. he appeals to the Council of Trent and Catechism ad Parâ—chos this the Answerer likes well but tells him 1. That he shows no authority he hath to interpret that Rule in his own sense against the Doctrine of many others as zealous for their Church as himself as he does in the Popes Personal Infallibility and the Deposing Power which he saies are no Articles of Faith though other zealous Papists say they are and asks what authority he has to declare the sence of the Council of Trent when the Pope has expresly forbidden all Prelates to do it and reserved it to the Apostolical See 2. The Answerer tells him That he leaves out in the several particulars an essential part of the character of a Papist since the Council of Trent which is that he doth not only believe the Doctrine there defined to be true but to be necessary to Salvation 3. That he never sets down what it is which makes any Doctrine to become a Doctrine of their Church 4. That he makes use of the Authority of particular Divines as delivering the sense of their Church when there are so many of greater Authority against them whereas if we proceed by his own rule the greater number is to carry it These were all very material objections and did deserve to be considered but as for the three last he takes no notice of them in his Reflections and says very little to the first The Answerer had asked How the Council of Trent comes to be the Rule and Measure of Doctrine to any here in England where it was never received p. 4. To this he answers in his Reflections p. 5. That the Council of Trent is received here and all the Catholick World as to all its Definitions of Faith But I told him in my Reply p. 51. that the meaning of that Question was not Whether it was owned by private Catholicks but by what publick Act of Church or State it had been received in England as it had been in other Catholick Countries and this he says nothing to and therefore might as well have let it alone at first I reinforced the Bull of Pope Pius 4th against any private mans interpreting the Council according to his own private Sense shewed the Reason and Policy of it and what a presumption it is for a private man when their Divines differ in their Opinions about any Doctrine to call one Opinion Popery Represented and the other Popery Misrepresented as our Author has done in the Articles of the Popes personal Infallibility and the Deposing Power as if Bellarmin and Suarez must not pass for good Catholicks but for Misrepresenters because they do not believe in these Points as our Representer does and this he takes no further notice of But to prove that he has not interpreted the Council according to his own private Sense he appeals to the Bishop of Condom's Exposition which is approved by the Pope himself and therefore has the Authority of the See Apostolick To this I answered that Bellarmin's Controversies had as great an Attestation from Pope Sixtus 5. as the Bishop of Condom's from this present Pope to which he gives no Answer and I observed from Canus that the Popes private Approbation is not the Authority of the See Apostolick but only his Judgment ex Cathedra and to this he gives no Answer but Shuffles a little about a private malicious and inconsiderate Judgment which I have now answered and makes a new Flourish about the several Translations and great approbation which has been given to this Exposition which I have again said something to tho I need not have said any thing had I before seen the Preface to the Answer to the Bishop of Condom and I guess our Author will never mention it more and then what becomes of his Characters He denied the Popes Personal Infallibility to be an Article of Faith because not positively determined by any General Council In answer to which I told him that other Roman Divines did believe it an Article of Faith That the Churches Infallibility was not determined by any General Council no more than the Popes Infallibility and yet was owned by them as an Article of Faith that if there be any Infallibility in the Church the Pope as the Supreme Pastor has the fairest pretence to it For Infallibility ought in reason to accompany the greatest and most absolute Power and this he has passed over silently Next comes the Deposing Power which has as evidently been declared in General Councils as Transubstantiation and how comes this to be no Article of Faith To this he answers that it wants an Anathema and that it is not decreed as a Doctrinal point but as a matter of Discipline and Government This I examined at large in my Reply and he is much concerned at it that I put him out of his Representing humour by disputing but he thought himself bound in Civility to say something to it and truly he has been wonderfully Civil as appears from what I have already said in Answer to him The Answerer in his Introduction had proved the Deposing Doctrine on him from two sayings of his own That the orders of the supreme Pastor are to be obeyed whether infallible or not and that Popes have own'd the Deposing Doctrine and acted according to it and others are bound to obey their Orders and consequently to act when Popes shall require it according to the Deposing Doctrine To this he answers in his Reflections that he only made a comparison between Civil and Ecclesiastical Power and therefore it is as unjust from hence to infer That all the Orders of the Pope must be obey'd as it would be to say that Subjects must obey their Princes in every thing they command whether it be good or bad and this I told him in my Reply I would acknowledg to be a good answer if he would grant the Deposing Doctrine to be a sin But this I suppose he was unwilling to do and therefore we hear no more of this matter In the next place in his Reflections he finds great fault with the
prove a Papist to be Misrepresented it seems there is something in the World called Popery which he is very much ashamed of and it is well if it does not prove to be his own beloved Popery at last I had told him as plainly as I could in Answer to his Character of a Papist Misrepresented what I called Popery and what I take to be the general sense of Protestants about it and shewed him evidently that what he calls a Misrepresentation is none nay in most cases I have allow'd his own Character of a Papist Represented and surely there is no Misrepresentation in that unless he has misrepresented a Papist himself and why is he not satisfied with this why so much Zeal to prove us Misrepresenters when we are willing to fall with the Market and to abate as much in the Notion and Idea of Popery as they are pleased to lower it Why must we be bound to justifie that Representation of Popery which some Protestants have formerly made of it when Popery was quite another thing than the Bishop of Condom and the Representer have now made it any more than they are bound to justifie every thing which Thomas Aquinas or Bellarmin or Vasquez have taught for Popery But let us consider that Character he has made of a Papist out of the Writings of Protestants only I must put him in mind that he must still distinguish between matters of Representation and Dispute If the matter of Fact they charge them with be true they are no Misrepresenters as for their Reasons and Arguments I will no more undertake to defend all the reasonings of Protestants than I suppose our Protester will all the reasonings of Papists The first Misrepresenter he brings upon the Stage is John Lord Archbishop of York in his Manual or three small and plain Treatises written for the use of a Lady to preserve her from the danger of Popery And all that I shall say to this is that if what he transcribes out of his Book be a Misrepresentation it is not a Protestant but a Popish Misrepresentation For the Archbishop cites his Authors for what he says as the very Title of the Chapter tells us which I shall here present to the Reader with all the References and Authorities as they are Printed in his Book and leave the Protester to consider of a good Reason why he left all these Authorities out CHAP. VI. Reasons of refusal to leave the Romish Religion collected out of Printed Authors I cannot leave my Religion I. Reason BEcause we must simply believe the Church of Rome whether it teach true or false Stapl. Antidot in Evang. Luk. 10. 16. pag. 528. And if the Pope believe there is no life to come we must believe it as an Article of our Faith Bulgradus And we must not hear Protestant Preachers though they preach the Truth Rhem. upon Tit. 3. 10. And for your Scripture we little weigh it For the Word of God if it be not expounded as the Church of Rome will have it is the word of the Devil Hosius de expresso verbo Dei II. Reason You rely too much upon the Gospel and S. Paul's Epistles in your Religion whereas the Gospel is but a Fable of Christ as Pope Leo the tenth tells us Apol. of H. Stephen fol. 358. Smâ—ton contra Hamilton pag 104. And the Pope can dispense against the New Testament Panormit extra de divortiis And he may check when he pleases the Epistles of S. Paul Carolus Ruinus Concil 109. num 1. Volum 5. And controul any thing avouched by all the Apostles Rota in decis 1. num 3. in noviss Anton. Maria in addit ad decis Rotae nov de Big n. 10. And there is an eternal Gospel to wit that of the Holy Ghost which puts down Christs Cirellus a Carmelite set it forth III. Reason You attribute all your Salvation to Faith in Christ alone Whereas He is the Saviour of Men only but of no Women Dial. of Dives and Pauper compl 6. cited by Rogers upon the Artic. and Postellus in Jesuits Catech. l. 1. cap. 10. For Women are saved by S. Clare Mother Jane Som. in Morn de Eccles. cap. 9. Postellus in Jesuits Catech. Lib. 8. cap. 10. Nay to speak properly S. Francis hath redeemed as many as are saved since his days Conformit of S. Fran. And the blood of S. Thomas à Becket Hor. Beat. Virg. And sometimes one man by his satisfactions redeems another Test. Rhem. in Rom. 8. 17. IV. Reason In your Church there is but one way to remission of sins which you call Faith in Christ but we have many For we put away Our Venials with a little Holy Water Test. Rhem. in Rom. 8. 17. Mortals by 1. Merits of the B. Virg. Hor. B. Virg. 2. The Blood of Becket Ib. 3. Agnos Dei or Holy Lambs Cerem l. 1. t. 7. 4. Little parcels of the Gospel Breviar 5. Becoming Franciscans conf l. 1. fol. 101. 6. A Bishops pardon for 40 days a Cardinals for an 100. days and the Popes for ever Taxa Camer apud Esp. in 1 ad Tim. V. Reason You stand too precisely upon your Sacraments and require a true Faith in the partakers Whereas with us to become a Monk or a Nun is as good as the Sacrament of Baptism Aquin. de Ingres Relig. l. 2. c. 21. And the very true and real Body of Christ may be devoured of Dogs Hogs Cats and Rats Alex. Hales part 4. q. 45. Thom. parte 3. q. 8. art 3. VI. Reason Then for your Ministers every one is allowed to have his Wife or else inforced to live chastly whereas with us the Pope himself cannot dispense with a Priest to marry no more than he can priviledge him to take a Purse Turrianus found fault withal by Cassan. consult art 23. But Whoredom is allowed all the year long See Sparks 's Discovery pag. 13. and constitut Othen de concubit Cleric removend And another sin for June July August which you must not know of Allowed for this time by Sixtus Quartus to all the Family of the Cardinal of S. Lucie Vessel Grovingens tract de indulgent citat à Jacob. Laurent Jesuit lib. pag. 196. vide Jo. Wolâ—â—i lection memorab centen 15. pag. 836. For indeed the wickedness of the Church-men is a prime Argument of the worthiness of the Roman Church Bellar. l. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 14. artic 28. And the Pope can make that righteous which is unrighteous l. 1. Decretal Greg. tit 7. c. 5. And yet can no Man say unto him Sir why do you so In extrav tom 22. titul 5. c. ad Apostolatus VII and last Reason You in the Church of England have cast off the Bishop of Rome whereas the Bishop of Rome is a God Dist. 96. c. satis evidenter Panorm cap. Quanto Abbas The Use and Application of this Doctrine you may find in the next Chapter and a particular proof that some Doctrines of the Roman
Church destroy justice towards Men in all relations as the Popes power of dispensing with the duties of all relations their Doctrines of probabilities of mental reservations that the intention regulates the action that no Faith is to be kept with Hereticks that the Pope may depose Princes and dispose of their Kingdoms pardon nay canonize King-killers and absolve Subjects from their Allegiance c. I know our Author calls all this Misrepresentation but that is not our Dispute now but whose Misrepresentation it is It is plain this is not Protestant but Popish Popery for not Protestants but Papists were the Original Authors And I doubt not were it worth the while it might easily be proved that the grossest Misrepresentations which this Author charges on Protestants are only transcribed out of Popish Authors and this he seems to own when he is so angry with us for proving these Misrepresentations as he calls them by appealing to their own private but approved Doctors who have in plain terms asserted those things which poor Protestants must not repeat after them without incurring the Censure of Misrepresenters Now though we grant that every Doctrine which we find in Popish Authors ought not to be accounted an Article of the Romish Faith yet if such Books be published by the authority of Superiors and when they are published and known in the World escape the Inquisition and the Index expurgatorius the Doctrines contained in them ought at least to be looked on as licensed and tolerated Doctrines and therefore consistent with the Romish Faith not a Misrepresentation of it For will a Church so strict and severe in its Discipline and so jealous of Heresies which censures all the Ancient Fathers and expunges out of their Writings every passage which in the least savours of Heresie which will not entrust the People to use the Bible for fear of their learning Heresie from it I say will such a Church suffer their own Doctors to publish such Opinions to the World as Misrepresent her own Faith and Worship without condemning or passing the least censure on them And therefore though we cannot prove from these private Doctors what the Faith of the Church of Rome is and what all are bound to believe who are of that Communion yet by their Authority we may confute the charge of Misrepresentation For no Protestant can be justly accused of Misrepresenting the Doctrines of the Church of Rome who charges them with no Doctrines but what are allowed to be taught in that Church as all those Doctrines are which are allowed by publick Authority to be Printed and Read in the Communion of that Church especially as I observed before where the Press is kept under such strict Discipline as it is in the Church of Rome We must not indeed charge all Papists with believing such Doctrines because all are not bound to believe them as they are to believe the Decrees and Definitions of their Councils but we may say that they are not contrary to the Faith of the Church because all Papists are allowed to believe them who will for I presume all Men are allowed to believe that which any Man among them is allowed to teach However I hope it may be some excuse to the Archbishop that he Misrepresents only at second hand since our Author will have it to be a Misrepresentation and says no more than some Papists themselves say and resolves all into the Credit and Authority of his Authors and I cannot think it a greater fault in a Protestant to give an account of such pernicious Doctrines and Opinions as are owned by some of their own Writers than it is in the Church of Rome to suffer them to be published by Authority and to pass without any Censure if they dislike the Doctrine As for what he transcribes out of Doctor Beard and Mr. Sutcliff I presume he intended we should take it all upon his Authority for he has not directed us where to find any of those passages he has cited and it is a little too much to read two great Books in Quarto to pick them out Without looking on the Books we might easily perceive that those sayings he has transcribed out of them do not concern Representing but Disputing and I never undertook to justifie every saying in Protestant Writers against Popery but yet some things sounded so harsh that I vehemently suspected foul play and therefore had the curiosity to examine and found it to be as I suspected Some passages for which they produce their Authorities and that very good Authorities as the World went then are cited by the Protester without any Authorities as he dealt before with the Archbishop or what they prove by variety of reasons is nakedly Represented without any reason to back it or their words are curtailed or transplaced which alters their sense and signification I shall give some few instances of this out of Mr. Sutcliff to let the World judge who are the Misrepresenters Quotations out of Mr. Sutcliff in the Papists Protesting c. Mr. Sutchliff's Survey of Popery THey speak what they can in disgrace of the Holy Scriptures FInally they say they are obscure and hard to be understood they speak what they can in disgrace of the Holy Scriptures P. 6. They give the Office of Christ's mediation to the Virgin Mary to Angels and to Saints they make also Saints our Redeemers They give the Office c. teaching that by their Merits Christians obtain their desires and are delivered out of Purgatory Ibid. They overthrow Grace and ascribe the merit of our Salvation not to Gods mercy through Christ not to the merit of his Passion but properly to our own Works and Merits Albeit they exclude not Grace from the work of our Salvation yet making Grace a Habit or Vertue they overthrow Grace c. p. 9. They cut out the Second Commandment because it cannot stand with the Popish worship of Images They cut out the Second Commandment in the Offices of our Lady and their Primers because c. Ib. They pray before Stocks and Stones nay they put their trust in them Nay they put their trust in them for if this were not so why should they hope for better success at the Image of our Lady of Loretto or Monserat than at any other Image or form of our Lady p. 10. Papists think they do God good service when they murder true Christians Proved from the cruel Executions in England France Germany Spain p. 23. By the Doctrine of Papists the Devils of Hell may be saved They teach that the Devils of Hell may have true Faith but our Saviour saith John 3. that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life So it followeth by the Doctrine of Papists that the Reprobates and Devils in Hell may be saved p. 28. Papists blasphemously make Christ not only a desperate Man without hope but also an Infidel without Faith p. 13. They take from Christ both Faith
and hope Aqui. p. 3. q. 7. art 4. So that which they falsely objected to Calvin doth rightly fall upon the Papists that they blasphemously make Christ c. That Christ is not the Redeemer of all Mankind They affirm the Virgin Mary to be conceived without original Sin c. of which it follows that Christ is not the Redeemer of all Mankind for what needed they a Redeemer who were not born sinners p. 41. They make Christ inferiour to Saints and Angels They say Masses in honour of Angels and Saints but he in whose honour a Sacrifice is offered is greater than the Sacrifice doth it not then appear that while they offer Christs Body and Blood in honour of Saints and Angels they make Christ inferior to Saints and Angels p. 42. They prefer the Pope before Christ. They prefer the Pope before Christ for Christ's Body when the Pope goeth in progress is sent before with the Baggage and when the Pope is near goeth out to meet him while all the Gallants of Rome attend on the Pope p. 43. To the Images of the Cross and Crucifix they give as much honour as is due to God p. 14. To the Images c. teaching their followers that it is but one honour given to the Image and the thing Represented by the Image p. 74. They fall down like Beasts before the Pope and worship him as God ascribing to him most blasphemously the honour due to Christ. They fall down c. Paulus Aemilius l. 2. telleth how the Ambassadors of Sicily cried thus to the Pope Thou that takest away the sins of the World have mercy upon us Stapleton to Greg. 13. calls him supremum numen in terris They call him Vicar of Christ the Monarch of the Church the Head the Spouse the foundation of the Church ascribing to him most blasphemously the honour due to Christ. p. 72. They give divine honour to Images which they themselves cannot deny to be Idolatrous They confess is Idolatry to give divine honour to Creatures But they give divine honour to the Sacament to the Cross and to Images of the Trinity which I hope they will not deny to be Creatures The Romish Church consists of a Pack of Infidels p. 15. Faith is of things as the Papists say in their Catechism only proposed to us by the Church so that if the Church propose not to us the Articles of Faith we are not to believe them if these Men teach truth Further this sheweth the Romish Church consists of a pack of Infidels for if the same believed not without the authority of the Church then she did believe nothing of Christ seeing the Papists acknowledge no other Church but that of Rome and no Church can teach it self p. 178. Scripture and Fathers they read not Spoken of the Schoolmen not of all Papists upon the authority of Ferdinando Vellosillo p. 200. In a member of the Catholick Church they say neither inward Faith nor other virtue is required but only that he profess outwardly the Romish Religion and be subject to the Pope This Opinion he attributes to Cardinal Bellarmin and cites de Eccles milit cap. 2. They make more Conscience to abstain from flesh on Friday than to murder Christians They make more Conscience c. as their curiosity in keeping the Fast and their cruelty in massacring Christians declares p. 205. Divers points of Popish Doctrine are especially said to proceed from the Devil He instances in forbidding Marriage and commanding to abstain from meats which he says are called in Scripture Doctrines of Devils p. 213. That the Popish Church hath no true Bishops that Popery in many points is more absurd and abominable than the Doctrine of Mahomet That Papists that positively hold the heretical and false Doctrines of the modern Church of Rome cannot possibly be saved are the Titles of several Chapters in which he endeavours to make good these charges how well let our Author consider but all men will see that this is not Representing but Disputing This is abundantly enough to give the Reader a tast of the Protesters honestly in Representing and how little I am concerned in these Quotations If some Protestants have charged the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome with such consequences as they cannot justifie wiser Protestants disown it and Papists may confute it if they please which will be a little more to the purpose than to cry out so Tragically about Misrepresenting But to make good this charge of Misrepresenting against us he concludes with several passages out of the Homilies concerning the worship of Saints and Images Now if our Church be guilty of Misrepresenting in her very Homilies which we are all bound to subscribe we must acknowledge our selves to be Misrepresenters But wherein does the Misrepresentation consist Do they not set up Images in Churches And do they not worship them Have they not a great number of Saints whom they worship with Divine Honours The matter of fact is plain and confessed and therefore our Church does not misrepresent them So that the only Misrepresentation he can complain of is that he does not like the judgment of our Church about the worship of Saints and Images and we cannot help that This is the belief of our Church and this is our belief and let him prove us to be Misrepresenters in this if he can for that is not proved meerly by his calling it Misrepresenting Only I would gladly know of this Author what he takes the judgment of the Church of England to be about the worship of Images Whether it be Idolatry or not If he thinks our Church charges them with Idolatry in worshipping Images which I suppose he means when he complains of Misrepresentation and picks out some passages which look that way there is the authority of Doctor Godden against him unless he has changed his mind lately who accuses Dr. St. with contradicting the Church of England in his charge of Idolatry upon the Church of Rome and makes it a certain mark of Fanaticism to do so and then however we may be thought to misrepresent the Church of Rome in this charge of Idolatry we do not misrepresent the Church of England in it which is some satisfaction to us that we are not Misrepresenters on both sides But these Men take great liberties in Representing the Faith and Doctrines of Churches In one Kings Reign the Church of England does not charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry in the next it does though their Articles and Homilies be the same still but they deal with the Church of England no worse than they do with their own Church in one Age a Bellarmine truly Represents the Doctrine of their Church in another a Bishop of Condom and though the Council of Trent be but one and the same the Faith of it alters very often as it may best serve the interest of the Catholick Cause Our Author having exposed the Protestant Character as he calls
supposes the same and the Decree to abstain from Blood and from things Strangled includes this doctrinal Definition That it was unlawful for Gentile Christians at that time to use their Christian Liberty in those matters to the offence and scandal of believing Jews The matter in short is this Every Decree which commands the doing any thing must contain a virtual Definition that such a thing may be lawfully done and every Decree which forbids the doing any thing does withal define that such a thing is either absolutely unlawful in it self or highly inexpedient and therefore unlawful in such Circumstances to be done this is as necessary as it is to command nothing but what is lawful and to forbid nothing but what is either unlawful or highly inexpedient And therefore when the Church of Rome Decrees the deposing Heretical Princes or the favourers of Hereticks She virtually defines that it is lawful to depose Princes which is a doctrinal Definition and may in a large sense be called an Article of Faith as that signifies all Doctrinal points proposed to us to be believed as I observed in my Reply p. 50 3. The third Enquiry was Whether the Authority of the Church be not as sacred in decrees of Manners as in Articles of Faith for the proof of which I urged the Council at Jerusalem and shew'd That Rules of Discipline and Government to direct the lives and manners of men is the only proper subject of Ecclesiastical Authority P. 55. And here where he should have taken notice of the Council of Jerusalem he says nothing of it but only says p. 32. that I urge out of Canus and Bellarmine that General Councils cannot err even in such decrees when they relate to things necessary to salvation and which concern the whole Church And when I have proved the Deposing Decree to be of this nature and esteemed as such by their Church I may then deserve a farther consideration What their Church will esteem if he may be the Expounder of it is nothing to the purpose for we argue not from their private esteeming but from their publick Definitions and if a General Decree for the government of the whole Church concern the whole Church and if to command a sin concerns mens salvation then the Deposing decree does for if it be unlawful to depose Heretical Princes it is more than a single sin to do it and if they will grant that General Councils cannot command a sin then they must grant that it is lawful to depose Heretical Princes and I agree with him that this does deserve a farther Consideration and shall be glad to hear his thoughts of it This Author in his Reflections p. 10. proves that Popes themselves own that the deposing power is no Article of Faith in letting so many open and positive asserters of the no-deposing power pass without any censure of heresie This in my Reply p. 57. I attribute to their want of power For Princes will not be deposed now nor suffer those to be censured who deny the deposing Power This in his protestation p. 32. he says Is spoke like an Oracle but he expects some better Argument than my bare assurance of what the Pope would do if he had power And I thought I had given him a better argument than my bare word for it viz. the experience of former Ages what Popes did when they had power for tho the infallible Chair may dissemble a little when circumstances of affairs require it yet sure it is not given to change What follows about the worship of Saints and Images I suppose has been sufficiently answered already but I cannot but observe a very pleasant argument he has against what I assert That no intention can alter the nature of actions which are determined by a divine or human Law Whereby I prove that if they do such things as in the account of the Divine Law are idolatrous their intention not to commit Idolatry will not excuse them This he says p. 36. a Quaker might as reasonably make use of for the justifying his yea's and his nay's and his other points of Quakerism For if he should say No intention can alter the nature of actions which are determined by a divine or human law but Swear not at all neither be ye called Masters and let your communication be yea yea nay nay are actions or things determined by the divine law therefore the intention of doing no evil in them cannot excuse the dâ—ing otherwise than is there determined from the guilt of sin But will our Protester say that the Divine Law does forbid all swearing then I grant that the Quakers are in the right and no intention will justifie swearing but St. James must be expounded so as to reconcile his words with other passages in Scripture which allow of swearing and could he show us where bowing and kissing and kneeling and praying before an Image is in any sence allow'd in Scripture then we would grant also that the direction of the intention would justifie such a use of these actions as the Scripture allows but what is absolutely forbid to be done no intention can excuse which is our present case here He concludes all with two or three Requests which must be briefly consider'd 1. That he the Replier will use his interest with Protestants to hold to what he saies they do ond charge us with nothing but what we expresly profess to Believe and Practice Now I can assure him there is no need of using my interest with Protestants to do this for I hope they are naturally inclined to to be honest but there are so many us's among them that possibly some Protestants may mistake one us for another They practice indeed generally much alike but they believe differently and they represent differently and they expound the Doctrine of their Councils differently and I hope Protestants may without any offence say how and wherein they differ and I think we cannot be justly charged with misrepresenting while we relate matter of Fact truly what their practice is and what their different sentiments and opinions are about these matters 2. That they Protestants pick not up the abuses of some the vices and cruelties of others the odd opinions of particular Authors and hold these forth for the Doctrines and Practices of our Church and that in charging any practises they charge no more than are concerned Now this is very reasonable if he speaks of such abuses as are not allowed and countenanced by the Church and of such cruelties as are not practised encouraged commended by the Governours of the Church and justified by the Decrees and Canons of Popes and Councils or of such odd opinions of particular Authors as steal into the world without publick authority and are censured as soon as they are known but as far as the Church gives any countenance and authority to such abuses cruelties odd opinions I see no reason why Protestants may not complain of
and he has endeavoured to make his Readers believe that there is yet in truth there is none in most parts of the Character For what does strictly belong to Representation that is all matter of Fact is the same in both For 1. He having put the Opinions of Protestants concerning Popish Doctrines and Practices into the Character of a Papist Misrepresented as if they were his avowed Doctrine and Belief in the Character of a Papist Represented he denies that he believes those Interpretations and Consequences and this he might very easily do because as he observes p. 24. no body charges him with that belief and whereas he says then he contradicts no Body and he hopes there is no fault in that he is so far in the right but his fault is that he imposes upon his Reader with an appearance of a Misrepresentation when there is none and by his denying that they believe such things would perswade the World that Protestants charge Papists with believing all these ill things themselves which we say of their Faith and Worship a sign that he was hard put to it to find out some Protestant Misrepresentations of Papists And 2. As for matter of Fact which alone is proper for a Character he generally owns the Doctrines and Practices we charge them with and his saying how could this possibly be otherwise if they charge us with â—ore but what we expresly profess to own in which he reflects upon what I had said in my Reply that we charge them with believing nothing but what they expresly profess to believe is nothing to the purpose for it is not absolutely what we charge them with but what he himself makes us charge them with in his Character of a Papist Misrepresented and calls us Misrepresenters for doing so that he owns in the Character of a Papist Represented as I particularly shewed in my Reply now the question is why he calls one Character a Misrepresentation and the other a Representation when the matter of Fact is the same in both But then 3. I observed that in some cases he disowns that to be the doctrine and belief of their Church which manifestly is so and has been proved on them beyond all possibility of a fair Reply by the learned Answerer To which he Answers then for all his word we are in some cases charged with more than we expressly profess to believe But he must know we do not take the profession of the Roman Faith from every private Character-maker but from the authentick Records of their Church and if they deny what their Church teaches and requires them to believe it is not indeed their Faith but yet it ought to be so and though he may huff at manifestly and proving I suspect he will take a little time before he brings it to the Tryal This is a sufficient answer to his fresh complaint of Misrepresentations I now proceed to the second part of the Reply The rule of true Representing or the Rule whereby the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is to be known He appealed to the Council of Trent and the Catechism ad Parâ—chos and these I acknowledged to be authentick Rules but since Catholick Divines differ about the sense of the Council and Catechism the question is Why we must prefer his sense of the Council and Catechism before Cardinal Bellarmin's or any other Divines of Note and Eminency in the Church of Rome who lived since the Council of Trent and may be presumed to understand the meaning of it as well as the Representer and therefore to remove this difficulty in his Reflections he appealed to the Bishop of Condom as the Authentick Expositor of the Council and Catechism and told us how his Book had been approved by many Bishops and Cardinals and by the present Pope himself and therefore has the authority of the See Apostolick To this I answered in my Reply p. 44. that the attestation given to Cardinal Bellarmin's Controversies was not inferior to that given to the Bishop of Condom's Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church that it was Dedicated to Pope Sixtus 5. and that with the Popes leave and good liking which is not much inferior to a testimonial under the Popes hand and why then are not Bellarmin's Controversies as authentick a rule for the Exposition of the Catholick Faith as the Bishop of Condom's But to this he thought fit to answer nothing And whereas he pretends that the Popes approbation gives it the authority of the Apostolick See I acquainted him out of Melchior Canus That the name of the Apostolick See does not signifie the Pope in his private capacity but in his Chair or doing such things and in such a manner as belong to the Papal Chair that is not giving his own private sense but proceeding in Council with the advice of good and learned Men and therefore that is not to be accounted the Judgment of the Apostolick See which is given only by the Bishop of Rome privately maliciously and inconsiderately or with the advice only of some few of his own mind but what he determines upon a due examination of the thing by the advice and Counsel of many wise Men. To this the Protester answers that it is only an ungrounded and ill-turned consequence that because that is not to be accounted the judgment of the Apostolick See which is given only by the Pope privately maliciously and inconsiderately or with the advice only of some few of his own mind therefore this learned Prelates Exposition of the Catholick Faith is to be thrown by as of no Authority so that our Replier has here concluded without any more ado that the approbation of this Book was only given privately maliciously inconsiderately or else with the advice only of some few of the Popes own mind otherwise the Consequence will not hold But I thought Canus had told us what was necessary to make the Popes approbation the judgment of the Apostolick See as well as what hinders it from being so That the Pope must give judgment according to the due form and method of proceedings belonging to the Apostolick Chair in full Council after due examination and with the advice of many wise Men. Now I only desire to know whether the Pope in a full Council of Cardinals did give judgment ex Cathedrâ that the Bishop of Condom's Book was a true Exposition of the Catholick Faith For if he did not though the Pope and all his Cardinals should singly for themselves give their own private judgment and approbation of it according to Canus his rule it is not the judgment of the Apostolick See for it is a private judgment whether it be malicious or not which I was so far from concluding without more ado that as the Protester observes I did not so much as translate it though I put it in the Latine Quotation in the Margin which is an argument I did not designedly conceal it because I thought it
Supreme God and created Spirits and Glorifyed Souls of dead men and therefore if it be necessary to distinguish between the Worship of God and Creatures we must worship no Invisible Being but only the Supreme God The Protester proposes some ways whereby the different kinds and degrees of Religious Worship may be distinguished as by the intention of the Giver but this is not a Visible Distinction For mens intentions are private to themselves and there is no difference in the Visible Acts of Worship to make such a distinction or by some Visible Representation that is by Images This I grant would make as visible a Distinction between the Worship of God and Christ and the Virgin Mary as the presence of the person distinguishes the Kinds and Degrees of Civil Honour for when we see whose Image they worship we may certainly tell what Being they direct their Worship to but the fault of this is that it is forbid by the Law of God of which more in the next Section or by Determination of other Circumstances but what these are I cannot tell and therefore can say nothing to it The Church of Rome indeed does appropriate the Sacrifice of the Mass to God as his peculiar Worship which must not be given to any other Being and if this be so then indeed we can certainly tell when we see a Priest offering the Sacrifice of the Mass that he offers it to the Supreme God but there are a great many other Acts of Worship which we owe to God besides the Sacrifice of the Mass and in every Act of Worship God ought to be visibly distinguished from Creatures and yet if all the other External Acts of Worship be common to God and Creatures where is the distinction And yet the Sacrifice of the Mass can be offered only by the Priest so that the whole Layety cannot perform any one Act of Worship to God which is peculiar to him and therefore can make no Visible Distinction in their Worship between God and Creatures And yet the very Sacrifice of the Mass is not so appropriated to God in the Church of Rome but that it is offered to God in Honour of the Saints This the Bishop of Condom p. 7. endeavours to excuse by saying This Honour which we render them the Saints in Sacrificing consists in naming them in the Prayers we offer up to God as his Faithful Servants and in rendring him thanks for the Victories they have gained and in humbly beseeching him that he would vouchsafe to favour us by their Intercession Now it is very true according to the Council of Trent the Priest offers the Sacrifice only to God but they do somewhat more than name the Saints in their Prayers for they offer the Sacrifice in Honour to the Saints as well as to God which the Bishop calls to Honour the Memory of the Saints Now if Sacrifice be an Act of Honour and Worship to God it sounds very odly to worship or honour God for the Honour of his Saints which seems to make God only the Medium of Worship to the Saints who are the terminative object of it and that the Saints are concerned in this Sacrifice appears from this That by this Sacrifice they implore the Intercession of the Saints that those whose Memories we celebrate on Earth would vouchsafe to intercede for us in Heaven The Bishop translates implorat by Demand for what reason I cannot tell and makes this Imploring or Beseeching to refer to God not to the Saints whose Patronage Patrocinia and Intercession they pray they would vouchsafe them contrary to the plain Sense of the Council and I think to common Sense too For I do not well understand offering Sacrifice to God that he may procure for us the Intercession of the Saints for if he can be perswaded to favour us so far as to intercede with the Saints to be our Intercessors he may as well grant our Requests without their Intercession and yet the Bishop was very sensible that if we offer up our Prayers to the Saints in the Sacrifice of the Mass it does inevitably entitle them to the Worship of that Sacrifice which they say must be offered only to God He alleadges indeed St. Austin's Authority who understood nothing of this Mystery of the Sacrifice of the Mass and how far he was from thinking of any thing of this Nature is evident to any man who consults the place But the Church of Rome as the Bishop observes p. 8. has been charged by some of the Reformation not only with giving the Worship of God to Creatures when they pray to the Saints but with attributing the Divine Perfections to them such as a certain kind of Immensity and Knowledge of the Secrets of hearts for if they be not present in all places where they are worshipped how can they hear the Prayers which are made to them at such distant places at the same time If they do not know our thoughts how can they understand those mental prayers which are offered to them without words only in our secret Thoughts and Desires for even such Prayers are expresly allowed by the Council voce vel mente Now to this he answers very well that though they believe the Saints do by one means or other know the Prayers which are made to them either by the Ministry and Communication of Angels or by a particular Revelation from God or in his Divine Essence in which all truth is comprised yet never any Catholick yet thought the Saints knew our Necessities by their own power no nor the desires which move us to address our secret Prayers to them And to say a Creature may have a Knowledge of these things by a light communicated to them by God is not to elevate a Creature above his Condition This I grant and therefore do acknowledge that they do not attribute the Divine perfections of Omniscience and Omnipresence to the Saints either in thought or word but yet actions have as natural a signification as words and if we give them such a worship as naturally signifies Omniscience and Omnipresence our worship attributes the incommunicable Perfections of God to them For it is unnatural and absurd to worship a Being who is not present to receive our worship to speak to a Being who does not and cannot hear us and since God has made us reasonable Creatures to understand what we do and why he interprets our Actions as well as words and thoughts according to their natural signification And herein the natural evil of creature-worship consists That every act of religious worship does naturally involve in it a Confession of some excellency and perfection which is above a created nature and thereby whatever the worshipper thinks or intend does attribute the incommunicable Glory of God to creatures If the Saints are not present in all places to hear those Prayers which are made to them and if they cannot hear in Heaven what we say to them
tacite acknowledgement that Jesus was born of her and that the Son must be a very Glorious Prince when the Mother is so highly exalted upon account of her Relation to him as to have so many devout Prayers and Hymns offered up to her But does this prove that the Prayers which are immediately directed to the Virgin Mary are principally directed to Christ because Mary was his Motâ—â—â— which is the whole Mystery of the business Suppose Christ should think himself honoured by those Prayers which are offered to his Mother yet is there no difference between praying to Christ and that Honour we do him in praying to his Mother A late Author indeed tells us that the Veneration which we give to Mary redounds to Jesus All Honour given to the Mother tending to the Glory of the Son for as he communicates with her in Flesh and Blood so also doth he partake with her in her Qualities and Perfections and therefore he is a sharer in that Homage and Observance that is made to her This is a new sort of Consubstantiation and Communication of Properties but yet how much soever we honour Jesus when we pray to Mary yet we do not pray to Jesus when we pray to Mary and therefore these Prayers are principally and immediately directed to Mary not to God or Christ and therefore to offer ten Prayers to Mary for one to God look very like honouring Mary much more than her Son or God the Father Well but she is the Mother of God and Blessed amongst Women but how does her being Christs Mother entitle her to a greater share in our Prayers and Devotions than Christ himself It is indeed a great Honour to her to be the Mother of Jesus but does this entitle her to that Worship and Homage which is due to her Son She is the happiest Mother among Women but does this advance her above Angels and Arch-Angels For my part I see no reason to think that her bearing Christ in her Womb which was a singular Favour conferred on her but has nothing of Merit in it should advance her above the most Eminent Apostles and Martyrs who with undaunted Courage and unwearied Industry propagated the Gospel throughout the World and were the great Ministers of his Kingdom I am sure our Saviour does not seem to attribute any such mighty Vertue to the Maternity of Mary when a certain Woman said unto him Blessed is the Womb that bare thee and the Paps which thou hast sucked he answered yea rather Blessed are they who hear the Word of God and keep it And in another place when some told him behold thy Mother and thy Brethren stand without desiring to speak with thee he answered and said unto him that told him who is my Mother And who are my Brethren and he stretched forth his hand towards his Disciples saying behold my Mother and my Brethren for whosever shall do the Will of my Father which is in Heaven the same is my Mother and Sister and Brother Which prefers his meanest Disciples before the Mother of his Flesh considered only as his Mother which he would not have done had the bare Maternity of Mary advanced her above all other Creatures Well but she is most acceptable to God in her Intercession for us Did the Angel tell them this too as well as that she is Blessed among Women Whence then do they learn it Is it only because she is a Mother Have all Mothers then such a natural Authority over their Sons even when they are Soveraign Princes Cannot the Eternal Son of God chuse an Earthly Mother but he must admit her into the Throne with him and govern his Kingdom if not by her Commands yet by her Importunities and Requests This is thought a great weakness in Earthly Princes and usually proves fatal to their Government and yet it is much more tolerable in Earth than in Heaven What has the Mother of his Flesh to do to intermeddle in the affairs of his Spiritual Kingdom which she is not capable of managing She had no Authority in the Church while she was on Earth which methinks her Maternity might give her as much Right to as to be Queen-Regent of Heaven When Christ was a Child he lived in Subjection to Mary and Joseph though he began early to give them a Specimen of a Superiour Power he had and such a work to do as discharged him from Subjection to Earthly Parents When he was but twelve years old he told his Mother how was it that ye sought me wist ye not that I must be about my Fathers business When his Mother at the Marriage in Cana of Galilee acquainted him that their Wine was spent and insinuated her desire that he should help them he rebukes her for it Woman what have I to do with thee my hour is not yet come She was not to direct him what to do in such matters and can we think then that now he is advanced to the Right Hand of God he will suffer her to intermeddle in the administration of his Kingdom But our Author believes it damnable to think the Virgin Mary more powerful in Heaven than Christ or that she can in any thing command him It is well the Impera Redemptori command the Redeemer is at last disowned by them though it may be some may think it a little too much to call it damnable because whatever Papists believe now there was a time when this was used in the Missals of the Roman Church and will he say that it was damnable then to use that Hymn I believe no Papist ever thought the Virgin Mary to be-Omnipotent much less that she can do more than Christ can or can command him by a direct and Superior Authority nor did any man that I know of ever charge them with this and if it be only in this sense that he denies the Virgin to be more powerful in Heaven than Christ it is nothing to the purpose for it is possible for a Subject to be more powerful than his Prince though he cannot command him and can do nothing but by his Princes favour but if he have so much the ascendant of his Prince that he can deny him nothing that he does whatever he will have him and such things as no other consideration should incline him to do but the desire of such a powerful Favourite this man is really more powerful than the Prince because he has the direction and Government of the Princes Power He has the Prince himself in his Power and therefore is more powerful than he And if this be the case of the Blessed Virgin that she has the Disposal of Christ's Grace and Mercy though not by a direct Authority yet by her Interest in her Son if he never denies that which she asks but grants that at her Intercession which he would not grant without it if the Papists believe this they believe her to be more Powerful than Christ
man in Mind of what he has heard or read of Christs dying upon the Cross but if he know nothing of the History of Christs Sufferings the bare seeing a Crucifix can teach him nothing Children may be taught by Pictures which make a more strong impression on their fancies than Words but a Picture cannot teach and at best this is but a very childish way of learning 3. But devout Pictures are of great use in Prayer the sight of which cures distractions and recals his wandering thoughts to the right object and as certainly brings some good things into his mind as an immodest Picture disturbs his heart with naughtiness But can men read their Prayers as well as learn the Articles of their Creed in a Picture too For even good thought are a distraction in Prayers when they call us from attending to what we ask of God and it is to be feared then that Pictures themselves may distract us unless we are sure they will suggest no thoughts to us at such a time but what are in our Prayers the Church of Rome indeed teaching her Children such Prayers as they do not understand and therefore cannot imploy their thoughts may make Pictures very necessary to entertain them but if our thoughts and our words ought to go together as it must be if the Devotion of Prayers consists in praying devoutly an Image which cannot speak and a Prayer which is not understood are like to make Men equally devout should Men when they look upon a Cruci fix run over in their Minds all the History of our Saviours Sufferings should the sight of our Saviour hanging on the Cross affect us with some soft and tender Passions at the remembrance of him which it is certain the daily and familiar use of such Pictures cannot do yet what is this to Prayer Such sensible Passions as the sight of a Picture can raise in us are of little or no account in Religion true devout Affections must spring from an inward Vital Sense which the Picture cannot give to those who want it and is of no use to those who have it Thus I have as briefly as the Subject would permit examined the Doctrine of Praying to Saints and Worshipping Images according to the Exposition of the Bishop of Condâ—m to whom our Author appeals in these Points and this I hope will satisfie him what we think both of the Bishops Authority and his Exposition and how little we like Popery in its best dress And now it is time to return to our Protester And I hope by this time he sees that there is something more needful to clear the Matters in Controversie between us than barely M. de Meax his Authority and therefore he resolving not to look beyond the Exposition delivered by this Prelate I might here very fairly take my leave of him but I cannot do this tho' he be a perfect Stranger to me without dismissing him civilly with a Complement or two more 1. Then as to the Invocation of Saints he observes that I deny the Bishop has limited it only to their Prayers which I own is a mistake and this is such a Complement as must never be expected from a Doctor of the infallible Church for he had occasion enough for it had he had a Heart to do it but I hope I have abundantly made amends for this now by a fair and particular Examination of the Bishops Exposition as to that Point and indeed M. de Meaux himself gave the occasion for this by not owning it in its due place when he expounded the Decree of the Council which teaches them to fly to the aid and assistance of the Saints as well as to their Prayers but shuffling it into the middle of a sentence at some distance where no Man would expect it When Expositors dodge at this rate they may thank themselves if they are mistaken 2ly and 3dly He takes Sanctuary again in the Bishops Authority to justifie his renouncing the Popes personal Infallibility and the deposing Doctrine as no Articles of Faith But tho' the Bishop indeed do wave some things as he says which are disputed of in the Schools as no Articles of Faith yet he does not say what they are much less name the Popes personal Infallibility and the deposing power and one would think he could not mean the deposing power which is determined by General Councils and therefore must be an Article of Faith The Truth is the Bishop has here plaid a very cunning Game and men may make what they please of his words as their interest or inclination leads them if Protestants object the Doctrine of the Popes infallibility and Deposing power he can easily tell them that these are School disputes and not Articles of Faith if the Pope or Roman Doctors quarrel at it he has then said nothing in disparagement of the Popes infallibility and Deposing power but has taught that Fundamental Principle on which these Doctrines depend as in Truth he has when he makes the Primacy of Peter the Cement of Unity and gives this Primacy to the Bishops of Rome as Successors of the Prince of the Apostles to whom for this cause we owe that Obedience and Submission which the holy Councils and Fathers have always taught the Faithful though they have not said one word till of late of any such obedience and submission due to them especially when we consider what he means by the Primacy of the Pope that he is a Head established by God to conduct his whole Flock in his paths which gives him a Supremacy over bishops and Secular Princes and how naturally this infers infallibilty and a power of deposing Heretical Princes every one sees and we have reason to believe the Bishop expounded his Doctrine to this Orthodox Sence in his Letters to the Pope from the Popes Testimonial that his Letters shewed his submission and respect to the Apostolick See As for the Popes personal infallibility our Author in his Reflections p 8. denies it to be an Article of Faith because it is not positively determined by any General Council in my reply p. 47. I told him this is no proof that it is not an Article of Faith because the infallibility of the Church it self which they all grant to be an Article of Faith was never positively determined by any General Council and therefore some Doctrines may be Articles of Faith which never were determined by any General Council and I added that if the Church be infallible the Pope must if he be the Head of the Church for infallibility ought in reason to accompany the greatest and most absolute Power but our Author thought fit to let fall this dispute and to resolve all into the Bishop of Condoms Authority His Proposal which follows I have already answered without a smile but I cannot forbear smiling once more to hear him complain of disputing which he says belongs not to the Representer who being to represent and
these things and charge the Church of Rome with them and not like that Church ever the better which suffers such abuses and applauds such cruelties as Papists themselves who have not put off all humanity cannot but abhor 3. That as often as they tell what they think of our Doctrines and Practices they would likewise at the same time inform their hearers that those thoughts are as the Replier says Opinions Interpretations and Consequences of their own concerning our Doctrine and not our avowed Doctrine But this is a very needless caution as I observed before for our people do not think that the Papists themselves believe all that ill of their own Doctrines and Practises which we charge them with and I cannot easily see how our disputing against the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome and answering the Arguments whereby they justify themselves should betray people into such a mistake for it is no natural proof that two men are of the same mind because they dispute against one another Thus much for the Protester And to conclude the whole I shall give my Readers a short view of the whole progress of this dispute that they may see what shuffling Adversaries we have to deal with When the Book entituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented was exposed to publick view and mightily applauded by those of the Roman Communion and industriously dispersed and earnestly recommended to the perusal of Protestants a very learned and charitable hand undertook to make a true representation of the Doctrines and Practises of the Church of Rome which he performed with such full and plain evidence that the Misrepresenter hath not so much as attempted to charge him with any one false Citation nor to show in any one particular that he has misrepresented their Doctrines and Practises but instead of this in his Reflections on the Answer if the Reflecter and Misrepresenter be the same person as he owns himself to be he makes fresh complaints of Protestants misrepresenting Papists which if it had been true is no confutation of that representation which the Answerer had made of Popery The question then was Whether the Church of Rome believes and practises as the Answerer says she does and proves by unquestionable authorities that she does But this was too plainly proved to be a question any longer and therefore he rather chose to debate that general question about the Rules of Representing and how we must know what is the Faith of the Church of Rome and whether the Bishop of Condom's Exposition have not a sufficient authority given to it by the Pope and Cardinals and Bishops of France and what the authority of private Doctors is and the like but has not in any one particular shown wherein the Answerer has misrepresented them that the authorities he alledges are not good that he has put any forced and unnatural sense upon the words of their Council or Catechism or Doctors or that their Church has by any publick acts contradicted what he charges to be her Doctrine or Practise This he has not done and therefore we have reason to believe this he could not do and this is reason enough to conclude that the Answer contains a true Representation of the Doctrines and Practises of the Church of Rome I did not think such Reflections as these worth the notice of the Learned Answerer and therefore undertook to reply to them my self and particularly examined every thing he had said in return to this he publishes another Answer which he calls Papists Protesting against Protestant Popery and I thought it would come to bare protesting at last for his Reason and Argument run very low before this I have now considered and I think have not suffered any thing to escape without an answer but that the Reader may the better understand what a formidable Adversary this is I shall briefly compare the Reply with his Answer and then leave him to judg of the ingenuity and honesty of the Protester In answer to his fresh complaint of Misrepresenting in my Reply I considered what it is to Misrepresent viz. To charge them with such Doctrines and Practises as the Church of Rome dâ—sowns and proved from his own Character of a Papist Misrepresented that we are no Misrepresenters for what he makes us charge them with believing and doing in the Character of a Papist Misrepresented that he owns and defends in the Character of a Papist Represented and the only difference in most Cases between these two Characters is this That in the Character of a Papist Misrepresented he puts in all the ill things which Protestants say of their Faith and Worship and in the Character of a Papist Represented he says all the good things he can of it but this I told him does not belong to Representation but Dispute and therefore whatever guilt we charge their Doctrines and Practises with this is not to misrepresent while we charge them with nothing but what is their Faith and Practise to Represent in this sense is only to report matter of fact and he who reports truly cannot misrepresent If we charge them with any guilt which they think they are not chargeable with this becomes matter of dispute and it is not enough to confute such a charge to tell the World that they do not believe so ill of their own Doctrines and Practises as we Protestants do By this Rule I examined the Thirty seven particulars of his Character and carefully distinguished between matters of representation and dispute and all this he grants and yet in his Answer falls a protesting against Protestant Popery as if we had made a new Religion for them whereas we only tell them what the faults of their Religion is and this he calls Protestant Popery That is the judgment of Protestants concerning Popery and this he protests against which is a much easier way than to confute it And now instead of defending his own Characters wherein he had charged us with misrepresenting Papists and which I had proved and he in effect granted to be no misrepresentation he seeks about to find out some new Protestant Misrepresenters and fills up several Pages with Citations out of the Manual of John Archbishop of York Mr. Sutcliff and others Now in the first place he ought to have shown that the distinction between matters of representation and dispute by which I answer'd his own Characters will not justify these Misrepresenters also as most certainly it will and a Hundred more if he can find them but he saies not one word of this but only cites their words and calls it misrepresenting But besides this he has used very foul play to make Misrepresenters of them The Archbishop only transcribes out of Popish Authors and cites his authorities the Protester sets all down as the Archbishops words without letting his Reader know that Papists teach these things and that the Archbishop only repeats them after them But besides concealing the Popish authorities