Consciences c. 2. Whereas the Answerer excepted against his Representing Part wherein he pretends to keep to a Rule That the Representer shewed no Authority that he a private Man had to interpret the Rule in his own Sense against the Judgment of Great Divines as in the Question of the Popes Personal Infallibility and against the Determinations of Popes and Councils as in the Question concerning the Deposing Power The Representer replies That he followed the Council of Trent P. 5 6. which he does not interpret but takes in the Sense of the Catechism That he also kept to Veron's Rule of Faith and to the Bishop of Condom's Exposition so highly approved by Pope and Cardinals c. As to the Instances having first ran to the Book for two more he comes back with them to the two that were mentioned and replies 1. That whereas he limited the power of the Saints to help us to their prayers he followed the Council and the Catechism P. 7 8. 2. and the Bishop of Condom That he did not qualifie the Doctrine of Merit without Authority since it is so qualified by Trid. Sess 6. Can. 26. 3. That the Popes Personal Infallibility is not determined by a General Council 4 That the Deposing Power was never established under an Anathema as a Doctrinal Point P. 9 10. and those two are therefore no Articles of Faith 3. He makes these Reflections upon the Answerers proceeding in the Book That he either 1. owns part of the Representers Doctrine to be the established Belief of the Church of England P. 11. Or 2. Does without good Reason deny part of it to be the Doctrine of the Roman Church appealing from the Definitions of their Councils and sense of their Church either to some Expressions found in old Mass-Books and Rituals c. Or to some external Actions in case of Respect shewn to Images and Saints as Bowing Kneeling c. Or finally P. 12. to private Authors P. 13 14. Upon which follows a grievous Complaint of Misrepresenting upon the last account 4. From hence he goes back to the Answer to the Introduction where he was charged for saying That the Popes Orders are to be obeyed whether he be infallible or not P. 15 16. From whence it follows That Papists are bound to Act when the Pope shall require it according to the Deposing Power He replies That he gives no more to the Pope than to Civil Soveraigns whose Authority is not so absolute and unconfined but to some of their Decrees there may be just exception 5. From hence he flings again into the middle of the Book P. 16. and blames the Answerer for scouting amongst the School-men till the Question about Dispensations to Lye or Forswear was lost and that he offered no proof That the Dispensing Power was to be kept up as a Mystery and not used but upon weighty Causes Then he leaps into the Chapter of Purgatory P. 17. and affirms That St. Perpetua's Vision is not the Foundation of Purgatory P. 18. but only used by him as a Marginal Citation amongst many others Then a Complaint of Misrepresentation again and because Complaints are not likely to convince us Let us says he depend upon an Experience P. 19. Do but give your Assent to those Articles of Faith in the very Form and Manner as I have stated them in the Character of a Papist Represented and if you are not admitted into our Communion I 'le confess that I have abused the World Thus far the Reflections It is now time to compare Things and to see how much of the Cause is left standing I pass it by that the Answer to the Introduction See for this Answ to Pap. Protest p. 128. upon which the Representer spent his main Strength is in many most material Points untouch'd by the Reflections But this is a small Matter For 1. He has dropt the defence of his Double Characters his Representations and Misrepresentations For instead of going on with his Adversary in those Thirty Seven Points with which himself led the way he does nothing but nibble about Three or Four of them and that without taking notice of the tenth part of what was said by his Adversary to fix the true state of the Controversie even about them He has indeed thrown about four Loose General Exceptions amongst the Thirty Seven Chapters in which the Answerer Represented the several Doctrines and Practises of the Church of Rome but he has not with any one of these Exceptions come up fairly to what the Answerer has said upon any one particular Point And therefore I add 2. That for any thing our Representer has done to shew the contrary the Answerer has truly Represented the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome And then we have great Encouragement to turn Papists since the Representer tells us That if the Answerer has truly Represented the Doctrines of the Church of Rome He the Representer would as soon be a Turk as a Papist 3. He has absolutely dropt the defence of all his own Arguments not so much as pretending to shew where the Answers went upon a wrong State of the Question no nor trying to reinforce his Arguments where the State of the Controversie was agreed upon on both sides So that for ought I can see the Representer fell sick of his Thirty Seven Chapters all at once both as to matter of Representation and Dispute And this I think was pretty well for the First Reply The Second Answer to the Representer being a Reply to His Reflections BUT we are to thank the Reflections for one good Thing and that is for the Answer which they drew from another Learned Hand under the Title of a Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants In which I shall make bold to leave out several Material Points which the Answerer offered too Consideration and take notice of no more than what I think may serve to shew with what Sincerity on the One Side and Insincerity on the Other this Controversie has been managed Wherefore 1. Whereas the Representer chose to justify his complaints of Misrepresentation not by taking the first Answerers Representations into examination but by referring us to other Books and to Sutcliff's sharp censures of Popery The second Answerer consider'd that the Representer called the Censures which Protestants puts upon the Avowed Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome Misrepresentations which was in the first Book discernible enough and spoken of in the Answer to it but was so grosly owned in his second Book that no man could now doubt of it For he made his Answerer guilty of Misrepresentation for saying That we cannot yield to that Popery which the Representer himself allows without betraying the Truth c. A Papist not Misrepr p. 4. This Answer therefore blames him for putting into the Protestant Representations of Popery those faults which we find and those ill consequences which
and which were put into the Misrepresenting Side to be taken off again in the Representing Side they are not matters of Representation but of Dispute To this purpose the Answerer argues leaving the Representer to apply these plain things to his Protestation against Protestant Popery which amounts to thus much That it could never enter into him that there should be any room for Popery in Heaven and that he would as soon be a Turk as a Papist if he thought as ill of the confessed Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome as we do Which would be a wise Speech no doubt tho we hope a true one For the rest P. 3. he saies That his Title related only to his own Book and the Book to the Character of a Papist Misrepresented and therefore 't is hard that he must be drawn in to answer for more than he knows even for all that any Protestant may have said concerning Popery since the Reformation and he thinks it strange that the Representer instead of defending his own Characters should hunt about for new Misrepresentations for him to Answer For since he has allowed the Distinction between matters of Representation and Dispute and can find no fault with his Adversaries performance about it it should seem we are agreed upon the Representation of Popery now at last P. 4. and therefore unless he were ashamed of his own Popery now we had clearly found it why should he divert from that to new complaints of their being Misrepresented by others The Answerer however was resolved to see what occasion there was for this fresh complaint 1. And he shews P. 5 6 7 8 9. That if what was transcribed out of the foresaid Archbishop of York 's Book be Misrepresentation it is not a Protestant but a Popish Misrepresentation For the Archbishop cites his Authors for what he saies tho the Representer left them out And this the Answerer thought good to shew from point to point And concludes That tho every Doctrine found in Popish Authors ought not presently to he accounted an Article of the Romish Faith yet a Church so watchful to purge expunge and censure in all Cases where her Interest is concern'd is Responsible for those Doctrines which have her Toleration and License and which any man among them is allowed to Teach and to Believe As for Dr. Beard and Mr. Sutcliff he saies P. 10 11 12 13. Those Sayings do not concern Representing but Disputing and that the Representer had unfaithfully concealed either their Authorities or their Reasons which had made the thing plain or curtail'd their sayings as he shews by several Instances out of Mr. Sutcliff but that when such Consequences are charged upon Popery it is more to the purpose to Confute them than to complain of Misrepresentation Finally As to the Book of Homilies those things which he hath taken out of it as the Answerer tells him P. 14. do no more than shew the Judgment of our Church about the Worship of Saints and Images in the Church of Rome in which he cannot prove us to be Misrepresenters otherwise than by confuting our Arguments which yet would but shew that we make a wrong Judgment in a matter of Dispute not that we Misrepresent a matter of Fact Upon this the Answerer shews That Papists protess and practice the same things that ever they did and that all this grievous cry of Misrepresenting is grounded upon nothing else but a Protestation That they do not believe those ill things of their own Doctrine and Practice which we do P. 15 16. which altho it be a new business yet there was no Reason for it since we never said they did In the mean time the Cause is the same that ever it was which is a sufficient Answer to all that he saies of Protestants and Papists shaking hands c. And whereas he makes the distinction between Representation and Dispute to be a speculation above the Vulgar and so was not to be regarded by him who drew the Character of a Papist as it lay in the peoples heads The Answerer thinks That he who undertakes to make Characters is bound to consider what belongs to it and withal P. 17 18 19. That our people are not so silly as to think for instance that Papists believe the Worship of Images to be Idolatry or that Idolatry is lawful because they Worship Images but that if he wrote his Characters for the Information of such Vulgar Heads P. 20. as he fancies he wrote to inform those that can neither write nor read 2. As to his Representing That he did it not by a private Spirit since he followed the Catechism the Answerer had reason to ask Whether the Catechism may not be interpreted by a private Spirit as well as the Council since their Divines differ in Interpretation of both and as for the Popes Approbation P. 21. he said that Bellarmine's Controversies had it as well as the Bishop of Condom's Exposition to which the Representer would say nothing and he now says That by Canus his Rule the said Bishops Exposition has not the Authority of the Apostolick See unless the Pope had given Judgment for it ex Cathedra P. 22. which the Representer also would take no notice of But what he says further concerning the Nature and Design of the Approbations given to the Bishop of Condom I shall wholly pass over since it is by this time somewhat plain that this Bishops Authority has enough to do to shift for it self and is not in a Condition to spare any help to his Friends As to the limitation of the Aid of the Saints to their Prayers he acknowledges that it is to be found in the Bishop of Condom P. 118. though he missed it because it came not in in the right place But whereas the Representer justifies his renouncing the Popes Personal Infallibility and the Deposing Doctrine by the Authority of the said Bishop the Answerer plainly shews the Bishops great Judgment in having ordered Matters so as to save himself both with Protestants and with the Pope To the Representers Second Invitation he answers by making this Proposal Whether their Church would refuse him admittance P. 15. if he should come in upon Bellarmine's terms in these Points which contradict the Representer's though there be no reason for this Dispute since as he said before P. 16. he likes not the Roman Faith as the Representer has described it Now to his Replies in behalf of the Deposing Doctrine being no Article of Faith the Answerer says 1. That whereas the Representer would prove it was not so because no Anathema was fixed to the Decree it is something strange that he should now be content to say Every thing is not an Article of Faith which is declared without an Anathema for this is next to a downright Concession that his Adversary had baffled his Argument and shews manifestly that he
we charge upon Popery as if we would make the World believe that Papists think as ill of what themselves profess and practice P. 5. as we do And much more for putting these consequences as owned by Papists in the Front of the Protestant Characters of them as if we pretended they were the First Principles of Popery As for the Doctrines and Practises of the Roman Church which we charge them with the Representer generally owned them but he disowned as he easily might the belief of those Consequences and Interpretations which we charge upon them And therefore his putting them into the Protestant Characters of a Papist was his own Artifice of laying the fouler colours upon Popery on the one side that it might look the fairer when he took them off on the other Now to prevent these Deceits for the future this Answer goes through the Thirty seven Articles again P. 6. to p. 40. to shew under each Head what we charge upon them as their Doctrines and Practises which is properly matter of Representation And likewise what we charge upon such Doctrines and Practises which is properly matter of Dispute By the confounding of which two things the Representer had made a colour for his unjust complaints of Misrepresentation 2. Whereas he pretended that he never delivered his own private sense and opinion in Representing a Papist P. 44 45. the Answerer replies that he certainly does so when he determines concerning Questions which are disputed among themselves whether they be Articles of Faith or not and that the Catechism may be interpreted by a private spirit as well as the Council That Veron's Rule had no more Authority than the Representer's Characters That Bellarmines Controversies had attestation from the Pope as well as the Bishop of Condom's Exposition And that Canus himself who is referred to by the Representer acknowledges that the Popes approbation is not always to be accounted the judgment of the Apostolick See As to the Instances The Answerer shews P. 45 46. I. Of his limitting the Power of the Saints to their Prayers That no such limitation of their Aid and Assistance is to be found in the Council That the Representer would take no notice of what his first Answerer had said to shew that no such limitation was intended in the Council or the Catechism And that he did not find this limitation in the Bishop of Condom P. 12 13. 2. Of Merit That the Twenty sixth Canon of the sixth Session mentions nothing of it and that it is clear from Chap. 16. of that Session That they make Good works truly and properly meritorious of Eternal Life tho they grant the Grace of God and the Merits of Christ to be the cause of their own Merits Finally That the Answerer did not Appeal to the Thirty second Canon to oppose the Representer's Qualification of the Doctrine of Merit P. 46. P. 47 48. and was therefore unconcern'd in his defence of it 3. As to the Pope's Personal Infallibility That he denies it to be of Faith and makes it but a School point whilest there are as many who deny it to be a School point and make it a matter of their Faith That the want of positive Determination by a General Council does not prove it to be no matter of Faith because neither the Infallibility of a General Council nor of the Church is positively determined by a General Council That if Infallibility must be somewhere amongst them they have the best Reason that place it in the Pope 4. As to the deposing Doctrine P. 49. the Answerer shewed largely and clearly That Articles of Faith may be and have been decreed without Anathema's That the deposing Decree includes a Doctrinal point P. 54. P. 56. That if it were meerly a point of Discipline and Government they must either acknowledg it Lawful for the Church to depose Heretical Princes or consent that the Church is not secured from making wicked Decrees in things that concern the whole Christian World That when the Representer says That some Decrees of Trent are not universally received he does not tell us that the Council had no Authority to make them and to oblige Princes to receive them And lastly That the Pope's letting so many asserters of the No-deposing Power to pass without any censure of Heresy P. 57. does not argue a change of their Doctrine but only of the Times 3. To the Representer's Reflections upon the Answerer's way of proceeding as that 1. He owns in some part the Representer's Doctrine to be the established Doctrine of the Church of England The second Answerer charges him with foul Misrepresentation upon this account in as much as the first Answerer owned nothing which is peculiar to the Faith of a Papist as distinguished from thr common Faith of Christians and that the Representer might as well have said P. 59 60 61. That because Protestants own that Christ is to be worshipped therefore they in part own the Doctrine of the Church of Rome That Christ is to be worshipped by Images And this he shewed to be the very case in every one of those six or seven Points which the Representer only named but did not think fit to insist upon to shew how his Reflection was applicable to them 2. And that the first Answerer appealed from the definitions of their Church c. 1. To some Expositions found in old Mass-Books and Rituals P. 62. This Answerer says that he could find but one Instance of this relating to the Worship of the Virgin Mary viz. that scandalous Hymn O Felix Puerpera c. But that their Church is accountable for her old Missals which were the allowed and established Offices of Worship That even this has never been condemned but that Monsieur Widenfelts Book was condemned at Rome which was writ to bring the people to a bare Ora pro Nobis P. 63. to the Blessed Virgin 2. To some external Action as in case of respect shewn to Images and Saints To this the Answerer says That the Representer brings in this Exception without taking the least notice of what his first Adversary said concerning external Adoration P. 63 64. That it is a part of Divine Worship and that the Council of Trent requires it should be given to Images He shews further That since there is such a thing as external and visible Idolatry an Idolatrous action is nevertheless such P. 65. for the intention of him that is guilty of it not to commit Idolatry P. 66. That the worship of the Invisible Inhabitants of the other World tho with such external acts as may be paid to creatures has always been accounted Religious Worship That as the Degrees of Civil honour are distinguish'd by the sight of the Object So one certain distinction between Civil and Religious is P. 67. that the worship of an Invisible Object is always Religious and that to Worship
his Holiness to be read by all the Faithful Upon which occasion he puts himself into some Heat That we who protest against their Religion should pretend to understand it better than a Catholick Prelate eminent in the Church c. and than thos e who depend upon it for their Salvation P. 27. As to the Instances and 1. Of the Invocation of Saints he says Their Aid and Assistance is limited to their Prayers by the Bishop of Condom and cites the place but to what his Adversary said concerning the Intention of the Council and of the Catechism in this Matter he says nothing The Instance of Merit he passes by But 2dly P. 28 29. and 3dly As to the Popes Personal Infallibility and the Deposing Power he â—pleads the Authority of the Bishop of Condom that they are no more than matters of School-Debate and as if he had been in good earnest at first he does again promise we shall be admitted into his Church without the belief of these Articles So that he has every way Represented the Faith of a Papist aright and now has found out something in his Adversary to be answered with a smile That a Protestant should understand the Faith of a Papist better than the Papist himself does P. 30. And thus all being guarded by the Bishop of Condom's Authority and his own Proposal it was his mere Civility to take any notice of his Adversaries answers to his Argument about the Deposing Power from the want of an Anathema to the Decree And so he replies 1. That every thing is not an Article of Faith which is declared in a General Council without an Anathema 2. That to decree what shall be done P. 30 31. does not include a Virtual Definition of Doctrine as he thinks his Adversary himself shewed under the next Particular from the Council of the Apostles at Hierusalem 3. That the Deposing Decree does not relate to things necessary to Salvation P. 32. nor concerns the whole Church And whereas his Adversary imputes the Escape of those that oppose this Decree to a Change of Times and the Popes want of Power he tells us That Oracles are ceas'd now-a-days 3. As to Veneration of Images he says That although Acts of Honour expressed to any Image that has Relation to some Invisible Being be supposed a Religious Honour yet all religious Respect and Honour is not so a Divine Honour P. 33. as to make a God constructively of the thing to which it is paid Otherwise Bowing to the Altar and to the Name of Jesus cannot be excused P. 34. since these things relate to the Invisible Inhabitants of the other World nay All religious Respect besides to God must then be constructive Idolatry P. 35. Therefore as the different Kinds and Degrees of Civil Honour are distinguished by the sight of the Objects tho the External Acts are the same so the different Kinds and Degrees of Religious Honour are distinguished by the Intention of the Givers and by Circumstances He says further as to the unalterableness of the Nature of Actions determined by a Law P. 36. That if this makes the Intention of doing no evil in Bowing or Kneeling to an Image unable to excuse those from sin who do this forbidden thing this strikes as severely at Bowing to the Altar and Kneeling to the Sacrament as at them since the Actions forbidden are the same part of Divine Worship in both Cases Finally P. 36 37. That a Quaker may justifie his Tea's and Nays by his Adversaries Rule That no Intention can alter the Nature of Actions determined by a Divine Law since it is said Matth. 5.34 Swear not at all but let your Communication c. And now to give him his due setting aside the frivolous Instance of the Quakers he has in this Particular come up fairly to his Adversary and said what deserves to be considered Then he concludes with two or three Requests which he hopes are not unreasonable to which his Adversary gave such reasonable Answers that we have heard of them no more since that time See Ans to Pap. Prot. p. 124 125. and therefore we have no reason to be troubled with them here And so let us now come to a Reckoning 1. He grants his Adversaries Distinction throughout between matters of Representation and matters of Dispute which Distinction since himself did not observe he either wanted the Skill or the Honesty of a Representer 2. The Defence of his Argument That the Popes Personal Infallibility is not of Faith from no General Council's having determined it is dropt 3. He will not be brought to say Whether the Council of Trent had or had not Authority to oblige Princes to receive those Decrees which are not universally received and so the Defence of his Argument from some Decrees not being received is dropt 4. His solemn Cavil That the First Answerer owned some part of his the Representer's Doctrine to be the Established Doctrine of the Church of England and his Objection against him for appealing to old Mass-Books and Rituals and that other for appealing to private Authors are all three dropt 5. He will not say that the Deposing Decree commands a Sin and to his Defence of himself against his first Answerer's Charge That by his Principles he is bound upon the Pope's command to act according to the Deposing Power is dropt 6. His complaints against his first Answerer's Representing the matter of Dispensations and his note upon St. Perpetua's Vision are dropt But his Invitation of us to come over to the Church of Rome upon his Terms is not dropt for we thank him he has invited us again The Third Answer to the Representer being An Answer to a Papist Protesting against Protestant Popery To the Representer's wonder That such ado should be made about his First Book the Answerer sales P. 1. That a Misrepresenter is so foul a character that no man can wonder if we think our selves concerned to wipe it off which surely may be done without offence to any but those that meant us in the general Accusation To his complaint that the Answerer makes All that which they call Misrepresentation to be in all the material points a Representation of the avowed Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome he saies That he has done him all the service he can in distinguishing between matters of Fact wherein if we charge them wrong we do indeed Misrepresent them and matters of Dispute in which if we should charge them wrong it is not Misrepresentation but merely a wrong Judgment upon what they profess and practice P. 2. And he had already shewn That all matters of Fact excepting some few points in the Character of a Papist Misrepresented are confessed and defended in the Character of a Papist Represented Now Representation or Misrepresentation is properly about matters of Fact But as for the Consequences we charge upon their Doctrines and Practices
Scholar that we have not so much as Certainty of our Faith nay not of one Point of it and which is still more false that we cannot pretend to it No wonder that we find it so hard a matter to get a little Discourse about Religion with those whom they have had the breeding of when we see what an absurd pretence to Religion they represent ours to be all at once especially since they take care to let them know that 't is not well possible for any two Protestants or Sectaries to be of one Religion Id. p. 42. every man expounding the Scriptures as he lifts and no one having power to control the others Exposition of it Which if their Schollars believe they must needs conclude the Protestants must profess as many Religions almost as they are men and Women since it is not well possible for any two of them to be of one and the same Religion And I think any body may see that this is taught to discourge all who are educated in this perswasion of us from hearing what we have to say for our selves since by hearkning to one or two of us they are never the nearer but must talk perhaps with a million before they can understand the Religion of Protestants nay and shall then be as much to seek for it as they were at first For what he says of every mans expounding the Scripture as he lists no one having power to control the others Exposition of it It is also an untrue suggestion if by expounding the Scripture as we list he means arbitrary and groundless Expositions of Scripture Which when the Representer pleases I can prove the Church of Rome to be more guilty of then any Church that we know in the World besides If any are guilty of it amongst us there is a power in our Church to control them which has also been used upon occasion unless by power he means a Cudgel and this we do not take to be Church power Again he says that all Heretics pretend equally to the Scripture for their Novelties and Heresies Id. p. 44. which is not true neither no one of them ever yielding to another Which is notoriously false for many of those whom he calls Heretics have yielded to the reasonings of others out of the Scriptures who are also Heretics with him And this plainly shews that some of these men care not what they say to disgrace us when they will so positively affirm a thing which 't is impossible for them to know but it may be false nay which 't is not well possible for them not to know that it is false 'T is after the same way that our Doctrines and Practices are represented by retail of which I shall give you but one instance which I well remember and that is where the Catechist assuring his Scholar that their Laiety receive whole Christ under one kind Tells him also that this is incomparably more than the pretended Reformers have under both Id. p. 205. who receive onely a bit of Bakers Bread with a poor sup of common Vintners Wine By which scandalous way of representing our Communion to a Novice he would be apt to believe that when we celebrate the Eucharist out great business is to send to the Baking-house for Bread and to the Tavern for Wine and so we fall to eating and drinking without any more ado If he would be Steeling his Novice against us he should at least have been so just to us as to let him know that we do not give the people common Bread and Wine though we do not pretend to give them the natural substance of Christ's Body and Blood For that way of Misrepresenting us by charging the particular opinions of some Protestants upon all They have the confidence to do it even in those points wherein neither Protestants nor Papists are of the same mind among themselves And though the Doway Catechism represents us so divided that 't is not well possible for any two of us to be of the same Religion yet when again 't is for their turn to Represent us otherwise there is not an odd opinion of any Protestant but forthwith it belongs to the Religion of all the rest Thus we have been charged for making God the Author of Sin and that for nothing but for the sake of those Opinions held by some Protestants which are no less vehemently defended by some Papists In which kind of Representations no man I think has out done the Reconciler of Religions whoever he was printed in the year 1663. They teach says he profane false and ungodly Doctrines as for example That God is the Author of Sin that Christ despaired upon the Cross Which later Opinions this man and Fevardentius and divers others as I well remember fasten upon Calvin and then talk as if it was the received Doctrine of all Protestants So says he P. 14. They say that Christ suffered the pains of Hell upon the Cross and that this was is his Descention into Hell See Calvin here Psal 15. Now I think Calvin does say so But 't is so small a matter in Comparison to charge what one says upon All that I shall lay no great stress upon it But that which follows is admirable Neither says he are they miserably mad only but also diabolically malitious for it s of meer purpose they say and do thus lest that by clear places of Tradition and Scripture they should be constrained to confess that there is a Purgatory Are not these rare Men thus at once to charge us with what we do nat say or do and withal to pronounce concerning our Intentions in so doing and that in this Vile manner that no honest Heathen ever used his Neighbour so Nay if you will believe this Representer Ibid. They that hear Sectarian Ministers are not Believers for they do not truly believe in God the Father Almighty nor in Jesus Christ his only Son For he knows their Hearts better then they do themselves P. 15. and let them be never so confident that they do he will prove that they do not believe in the Holy Ghost And he peremptorily says that they do not believe the Communion of Saints And lastly That neither do they believe forgiveness of sins For which he brings an excellent Reason Because they say say The Priests cannot forgive Sins Though we do not say that neither but only that they cannot forgive Sins Absolutely which now they would perwade us too to be their own Doctrine P. 16. Thus he has made us Infidels almost throughout the Creed only at last he grants that we believe the Resurrection of the Flesh and the Life Everlasting which I wonder at because it was as easie to invent a reason why we believe not this neither as for all the rest But then even in this matter we are no better Believers then the Devil For says he this they believe and so do the Devils No