prejudice and neglect of due consideration we should condemn these Practices as contrary to the Laws of God and injurious to mens Souls though they were not so I grant even this may be called Misrepresenting for 't is to call good evil and evil good light darkness and darkness light and whoever is guilty of this kind of Misrepresentation is guilty of a very great Sin and does great mischief in the World not by falsifying matters of Fact but as much as in him lies by changing the nature of things And upon these terms the dispute of Misrepresenting may be easily accommodated Let him plainly confess that we are not Misrepresenters in the first sense that we do not falsly charge any Doctrines or Practices on the Church of Rome which she disowns that we do not teach our People that the Church of Rome believes or practices otherwise than she does and we will give him leave to call us Misrepresenters still if he can shew that we charge their Doctrines or Practices with such guilt as they do not deserve But it is by no means a sufficient answer to this Charge to call us Lyars which for ought I can see is all we are like to get in Answer from this man Of all the several projects for ending Controversie the most effectual that I ever yet heard of is that which our Author hath set on foot for he would now insinuate that he has vindicated the Church of Rome from our Misrepresenting not onely matter of Fact but the guilt we charge them with upon those matters that are confessed by themselves Now I have shewn him as well as I could that some of their confessed Doctrines are false and some of their confessed Practices are unlawful and that their best Apologies for them are insufficient What says the Accomodator to all this He answers that all this is Misrepresenting as that signifies Lying But how the dispute should be carried on upon these Terms otherwise then by giving him the Lye back again I do not comprehend And therefore because neither true Religion or good Breeding will suffer me to carry on a Dispute at that rate the Controversie should seem even upon this account to be at end and I give him joy of the honour that he is like to get by it And yet I think an indifferent Reader may observe that his fastning the Lye upon us for Misrepresenting them in the less-proper sense as he pretends we do is but an after-game to which he is reduced by the extremity of a bad Cause The design of our Author in his Twofold Character of a Papist was to perswade our People that we were Misrepresenters in the first and most proper Sense that we had belyed the Church of Rome with imputing such Doctrines to her as she did not own and this all men that ever I met with understood to be the design of it But since he cannot make good his Charge against us he will now make good his Title of Misrepresenting in a less-proper Sense not that we misreport the Doctrines and Practices of their Church but that we unjustly condemn them and though we will rather allow him to call this Misrepresenting than dispute about a word yet if this be all he intended to acquaint the World that Protestants think worse of Popery than Papists do it was a wonderful discovery and he took as notable a way to rectifie such mis-apprehensions He disclaims all disputing and thinks to confute Protestant Misrepresentations by giving onely a true Character of a Papist with reference to his Faith and Practice out of the most authentick Records of their Church Now if the Misrepresentation does not concern matter of Fact but only mens judgments and opinions about such matters how can a meer Character rectify such Misrepresentations When we know what the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome is and yet think very ill of it Can the meer relating what the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome is cure our ill opinion of it And yet this is all the business of a Character to tell us what a Papist is which might indeed reconcile us to Popery had we disliked Popery onely because we did not understand it or took it to be something more formidable than it is but cannot cure such dislikes as arise from a true understanding of Popery He appeals to the Definitions of the Councils of Trent and the Bishop of Condom's Exposition c. to vindicate Popery from the Misrepresentations of Protestants that is to show us what the genuine Doctrines of Popery are And how can this confute our Misrepresentations unless by Misrepresenting he understood Misrepresenting matter of Fact charging such Doctrines on their Church as were never decreed by their Councils nor owned by their most authentick Expositors For the Authority of the Council of Trent is nothing to us any otherwise than as we own it to be the Rule and Standard of the Romish Faith and therefore he can prove nothing against us out of the Council of Trent but onely that those are not the Doctrines of the Church of Rome which we say are and this cannot confute Protestant Misrepresentations of Popery unless our Misrepresentations consist in charging them with such Doctrines as their Church and Councils do not own And therefore though he is now willing to grant that we are not Misrepresenters as that signifies down-right Lyers who charge the Church of Rome with Believing and Practising what she does not yet it is apparent that this was what he intended in his Title of a Papist Misrepresented to accuse Protestants of charging Papists with such Doctrines and Practices as they do not own and if this be not the intent and design of his Book there is a great deal less Sense in it then I thought there had been For if by Misrepresenting he only meant that we reproach and calumniate the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome and charge them with such guilt as they do not deserve not that we charge them falsly with such Doctrines and Practices as they do not own as he now would have it though I grant this may be called Misrepresenting if the charge be false yet it is not such a Misrepresenting as is confuted only by a Character or by true Representing it is wholly matter of Dispute as I have often told him for he must not think that we Protestants shall believe ever the better of Popery because he professes to believe very well of it in his Character of a Papist Represented If he will vindicate the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome from that guilt which Protestants charge on it if he will justifie the Worship of Saints and Angels and Images Transubstantiation the Adoration of the Host half Communion Prayers in an Unknown Tongue c. and prove us to be Misrepresenters he must quit his retreat of Character-making and fairly dispute the points in question which is the way the
generous Advocates of the Church of Rome have always taken to defend her by the Authority of Scriptures Fathers Councils and here we are ready to joyn issue with them And thus for ought I see this Controversie is at an end though he had not charged us with Lying for whatever he at first pretended he grants now that we are not in a strict and proper sence Misrepresenters and thus farewel to Character-making since Papists and Protestants who understand these matters are in the main agreed what the Character of a Papist is though they differ in their opinions about him which can never be decided by Characters but by Reason and Argument And yet our Author after all his pretences to an Amicable Accommodation is unwilling the matter should end thus at least unless we will acknowledge our selves very much beholden to his good nature for it Why what is the matter now Have I not plainly proved that we are not Misrepresenters in the strict and proper notion of Misrepresenting That we do not charge the Church of Rome with any matter of Fact with any Doctrines or Practices which she does not own And can we Misrepresent them when we charge them with nothing that is false Yes he says my principle that there can be no Misrepresenting where there is an agreement in matter of fact has more of the counterfeit in it than true standard is supposed to be certain but without the support of Authority or Reason That is though we charge the Church of Rome with nothing but what she her self owns though we represent a Papist just as a Papist represents himself as to his Faith and Practice yet we may be Misrepresenters and then we may indeed be Misrepresenters for ought I know if we may Misrepresent when we say nothing but what is true If he can make good this I must acknowledge him to be a man of Art and therefore shall briefly examine how he proves it He says Misrepresenting seems to stand in opposition to Representing and proper Representing being nothing more than the describing or shewing a thing as it is in its self as many ways as a thing can be shewn otherwise than it is in its self so many ways may it be properly Misrepresented This I agree to and therefore let us proceed Now says he it is certain that for the description to bear on exact resemblance with the thing it must not only agree with it in matter of fact but likewise in every other respect which it pretends to declare as in motive circumstance intention end c. The agreement in any one of these being enough to quite change the nature of the thing notwithstanding the matter of fact being still the same And this also I agree in that motives circumstances intention end are all to be considered in representing but I want a reason why he distinguishes these from the matter of fact for by matter of fact I understand an action cloathed with all its circumstances without which it is impossible truly to represent any action For circumstances alter the nature of actions As suppose a man be killed this may be done by accident or with design in heat of blood or of premeditated malice which makes it either Chance-medley Man-slaughter or Murder and therefore the consideration of these things falls under the matter of fact and are the proper matters for a Jury to inquire into who yet are judges onely of Fact And thus I understood matter of Fact when I asserted that we did not Misrepresent the Church of Rome in any matter of Fact that we did not onely charge them with nothing but what they did but that we truly Represented all the circumstances of what they did as far as the moral nature of the action is concerned in it and indeed I know not how we can either Represent or Misrepresent any action without its circumstances we may tell what is done but the matter of the action is the least thing considerable in Representing because it may be either good or bad in most cases according to its different circumstances and we cannot say which it is without considering all circumstances As for instance We do not onely charge the Church of Rome with Praying to Saints and Worshipping Images but we consider what is the Doctrine of their Church about these matters in what manner they do it and with what circumstances we admit of all the excuses and apologies and fair representations that they can make of it and then consider what the nature of the action is and what the Scriptures and Primitive Fathers declare it to be This he knows I did in the Book which he now pretends to answer To put an end to this Dispute about Misrepresenting I told him we did not like Popery as he and the Bishop of Condom had Represented it and shewed him our Reasons why we did not like it as to the Object of Religious Worship the Invocation of Saints and the Worship of Images And had he thought fit to have considered these we might have obliged him so far as to have confined the Dispute to his own Characters and the Bishops Exposition in the other points of Popery but he says not one word about this but advances a new Paradox that men may be Misrepresenters though they do not Misrepresent any matter of Fact because they may Misrepresent the Motives Circumstances Intention and End as if this were not to Misrepresent matter of Fact Or as if we had Misrepresented them in this manner when he had not and cannot give any one instance wherein we have done so This short account shews how impertinent all his examples of Misrepresenters are who as he says did Misrepresent without belying men in matter of Fact for though this is nothing to us unless he could prove us to be such Misrepresenters which he has not once attempted to do yet the Examples he produces do not prove what he brings them for for all their Misrepresentations are in matters of fact Thus the ten Tribes suspected that the Children of Reuben and Gad and the half Tribe of Manasseh had built an Altar for Sacrifice in the borders of Iordan over-against the Land of Canaan whereas the true matter of Fact was that they had built an Altar not for Sacrifice but as a witness and memorial of their right to Gods Altar to offer their Sacrifices and burnt Offerings in the place which God should choose When Eli thought Hannah had been drunken because she prayed in her heart only her lips moving this was Misrepresenting matter of fact for she was not drunk And surely he will grant that the two wanton Elders did foully bely Susannah though she was alone and naked in the Garden and that they represented the fact quite otherwise than it was And methinks our Author should grant that the Jews did misrepresent matter of fact when they charged our Saviour with being a Sabbath-breaker a Glutton a
Friend of Publicans and Sinners unless he will say that our Saviour was all this for if he were not then they did belye him in matter of fact and so they did the Apostles and Primitive Christians when they accused them as Troublers of the City and Movers of Sedition that they murdered Infants and eat their Flesh that they Worshipped the Sun and adored an Asses head for God for I suppose he will grant that the matter of fact was false But still says the Accommodater they had some matter of fact whereon their Accusations were grounded and which gave some colour and pretence to them Sometimes they had and sometimes they had not But is not this a pleasant inference that because those who tell onely a piece of a story may misrepresent therefore those who faithfully relate the whole matter of fact with all the particular circumstances of it may be Misrepresenters also If he can give any one example of this nature I will onely desire him to tell me the difference between Misrepresenting and true Representing Men who have wit and malice enough may put very spiteful constructions upon the most innocent and virtuous Actions by altering or concealing some circumstances or the end and intention of doing them but this is to misrepresent the fact to represent a thing done otherwise or for another end than really it was but if a man who tells the whole truth not onely what was done but the end why and the manner how it was done can be a Misrepresenter the honestest man in the world may be a Misrepresenter When an action is truly and fairly Represented men may still pass a false judgment upon that action may think that evil and forbidden by God which God has not forbid or that allowed and approved by God which God abhors but this is not properly Misrepresenting but judging falsly which differ just as matter of Fact and matter of Law do in Civil Affairs In all Causes Criminal and Civil there are two distinct questions what the Fact and what the Law is what is done and what judgment the Law passes on such Actions To falsifie in matters of fact is to Misrepresent the person and the action to give a wrong judgment is to Misrepresent the Law and thus it is in our case We are first to enquire what the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome are and then of what nature they are whether true or false good or evil If we affix such Doctrines or Practices on them as they do not teach or alter any material circumstance relating to them then we are Misrepresenters in a proper sence as misreporting matter of fact and this we utterly deny and they can never prove that we do thus misrepresent them that as our Author misrepresents us we usher in with they teach this they believe that they say this they affirm that and under these preambles charge the Papists for asserting and believing such Blasphemies which they would sooner loose their lives than assent to Which he has boldly affirmed without giving one instance of it but as for judging of their Doctrines and Practices we do indeed pass such a judgment on them as I doubt not but they will call Misrepresenting but whether it be so or no is matter of Dispute and must be decided by appealing to Scripture and Reason and we are not ashamed of being called Misrepresenters by them when that signifies no more than censuring and condemning their Faith and Practise But he has one example more of this Misrepresenting and that as he thinks a very nicking one and that is the Fanatical Misrepresentations of the Church of England To this end he brings in a Dissenter charging the Church of England with Popery and several other ill things which is intended to serve more purposes than one Had he first proved us to be Misrepresenters it had been a very proper way to make us sensible of the evil of it to appeal to our own resentments of such usage But what if Dissenters Misrepresent the Church of England does this prove that the Church of England Misrepresents the Church of Rome If we indeed Misrepresent the Church of Rome we have less reason to complain that the Dissenters Misrepresent us but if we are no Misrepresenters we have reason doubly to complain both for being charged with Misrepresenting and for being Misrepresented And therefore the Answer to this long harangue is very short and plain however the Church of England be Misrepresented whether by Papists or Fanaticks we justifie our selves either by denying matter of Fact when that is false or by confuting the Charge We are not afraid of Disputing with our Adversaries when that is needful but justifie the Doctrines and Practices of our Church by Scripture and Reason which is a more generous way than meerely to complain of being Misrepresented without daring to right our selves which is the case of our late Character-makers If the World will be moved by their complaints to believe that they are Misrepresented all is well and they have what they desired but if you will be so perverse as not to believe that they are Misrepresented though they tell you they are and will needs be a disputing the point with them they have done with you for their business is not to Dispute but to Represent The difference between us in this matter is no more but this We are not afraid of Misrepresentations because we know we can defend our selves whereas they find they cannot defend themselves and therefore have no other remedy but to complain of being Misrepresented And yet I must confess this is as artificial a way of saying nothing as I have met with Our Accommodator is very sick of this talk of Misrepresenting and knew not how to get rid of it but by diverting the Dispute and therefore though it be nothing to the purpose instead of proving that we are Misrepresenters he desires us to consider how the Dissenters Misrepresent us but we have considered that enough already and when there is occasion for it will do so again our business at present is not with Dissenters but Papists and we are not for pursuing every new Game but will keep to our old scent It would be a pleasant Scene could he at this time of day engage the Church of England and Dissenters in a new Quarrel but thanks be to God many of our Dissenters are grown wiser now and I hope more will every day whatever they have formerly suspected of our inclinations to Popery they find now that they were mistaken in us and whatever defects they may charge our Worship with I believe they will call it Popish and Antichristian no longer to be sure they will never think us the more inclined to Popery because a Papist says so While these Gentlemen lay behind the Curtain and acted the part of a Zealous Brother under several disguises there was much more danger of them than now They have
Papist must believe but does he say The Church says thus or only Stapleton Stapleton might be a Misrepresenter in delivering this as the Faith of the Church That we must simply believe the Church of Rome whether it teach true or false but the Arch-Bishop does not Misrepresent the Church in saying that Stapleton saies so What is the Authority of private Doctors is not the Dispute but whether Protestants be Misrepresenters for saying That such Doctrines are taught by such Doctors of the Church of Rome The Case of Mr. Sutcliff another of his Misrepresenters is somewhat different For besides what he cites from their own Authors which is set down by the Protester without taking notice that he quotes his Authors for it he many times charges them with the Concequences of their Doctrines and Practices not that he charges them with owning such Consequences but proves such Doctrines on them from what they do profess and own and such sayings as these the Protester sets down as charged on the Church of Rome in the first instance as her avowed Doctrine When Mr. Sutcliff only alledges them as the just interpretations and Consequences of her Doctrine which differ just as much as Misrepresenting and Disputing as saying what a Church professes to believe and what the consequence of such a Faith is As to show this by an instance or two The Protester sets these Propositions down as Mr. Sutcliffs Misrepresentations That Papists speak what they can in disgrace of the Holy Scriptures That they give the Office of Christs Mediation to the Virgin Mary to Angels and to Saints That by the Doctrine of Papists the Devils in Hell may be saved Now indeed had he said That the Papists teach this in express Words he had been a Misrepresenter in a proper Sense for they teach no such thing but Mr. Sutcliff never charges these Doctrines Directly upon them but saies That they say the Scriptures are obscure and hard to be understood and this is to speak in disgrace of the Holy Scriptures That they teach that by the merits of Saints Christians obtain their desires and are delivered out of Purgatory And this is to give the Office of Christs Mediation to the Virgin Mary and to Saints That they teach that the Devils in Hell may have true Faith and yet our Saviour saith Whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life So it follows by the Doctrines of Papists That the Reprobrates and Devils in Hell may be saved So that he expresly distinguishes between what the Papists teach and what himself concludes from such Doctrines and therefore he does not Misrepresent the Papists for he charges them with owning no Doctrines but what they do own but if he be guilty of any fault it is in reasoning and Disputing and there is no way that I know of to confute such Consequences but by Reason and Dispute the very Name of which is very uneasie to the Representer and there is good reason why it should be so And this I suppose may satisfie the Accommodator Why I charged him with setting down these sayings of Mr. Sutcliff seperated from the Reasons of them for how little soever he may think himself concerned in his Reasons yet it is of great Consequence in the matter of Representing to distinguish between the Doctrines of Papists and what is charged on them only as the Consequence of their Doctrines To charge them with teaching such Doctrines as they do not teach is Misrepresenting and therefore had these sayings which he Transcribed out of Mr. Sutcliff been charged upon the Papists as their sayings it had been Misrepresenting and this was the design of the Protester in quoting these sayings without giving an account upon what occasion they were said to perswade his Readers that Mr. Sutcliff had directly and immediately charged these Doctrines upon Papists as expresly taught by them and then he had been a Misrepresenter indeed But since it is otherwise it is plain Mr. Sutcliff was Misrepresented by the Protester but he did not Misrepresent Papists as that signifies charging them immediately with such Doctrines as they do not own In the next place he charges me with translating dishonestly for not rendring proper Deum or for Gods sake in English in the form of consecrating the Cross. Now I confess why this was not translated I cannot tell and knew nothing of it till I was informed by him had it been in a dispute about the nature and reason of that worship which they pay to the Cross these words had been very considerable but it relating only to the manner of consecrating the Cross they signified nothing as any one will see who consults the place Especially considering that the whole design of that Discourse about the Worship of Images against which he has not one word to object but this Omission was to show the evil of Image-worship tho they gave no Worship to the material Image but only worshipped God or Christ or the Saints by Images and therefore I had no occasion at all to conceal the English of propter Deum In my Answer to Papists protesting against Protestant-Popery I took occasion to examine the Bishop of Condom's Exposition in two very concerning Points viz. The Invocation of Saints and Worship of Images our Accomodator it seems could see no reason why he should engage in this Dispute and therefore thinks it sufficient to show that my Reasons for this Dispute are not cogent and he names two such as they are 1. That I know no reason for all this Dispute But this saying related to the Dispute about the Bishop of Condom's Authority not about his Exposition of the Catholick Faith 2. His second Reason is like the first Because I said He was not satisfied with my bare telling him That I was not satisfied with his Religion and therefore now I would give him my Reasons for it which he huffs at and says he was never concerned with my not liking his Religion What pretty Reasons will serve to excuse a Man from Answering a Discourse which he knows he cannot answer The plain case is this The Representer made his Appeals and put great confidence in the Bishop of Condom's Authority whose business is to put the softest sense he can upon the Doctrines of the Council of Trent and such Interpretations of the Catholick Faith as have been condemned by other very Catholick Doctors In my Reply to the Reflections I considered what this Bishops Authority is and in my last Answer I examined what the Protester had returned in the defence of it which our Accommodator now says not one word to But yet I told him I knew no reason for this dispute Whether the Bishop of Condom's Exposition were to be the standard of the Roman Catholick Faith for if we should allow this yet Popery is a very corrupt Religion tho the Bishop of Condom were the Authentick Expositor of it And to show that it is so I undertook to examine that Bishops Exposition in those two great Articles of the Romish Faith the Invocation of Saints and Worship of Images and how this should be a Reason for our Accommodator to take no notice of it I cannot imagine Had he any zeal for his Religion and could have answered that Discourse I believe all that I could have said would not have hindred him To conclude this whole matter He peremptorily adheres to his first Title of a Representer and declines all manner of disputation tho in vindication of the Bishop of Condom's Exposition to which he so often Appeals The only point he sticks to is That to assent to the Catholick Faith as expounded in his Character and by the Bishop of Condom is sufficient for any Man to be received into the Communion of the Church of Rome But both he and the Bishop of Condom do not meerly Represent but Reason and Argue also and I should have thought they had been a little concerned to justifie their own Representations and Reasonings But whether this Reasoning and Disputing were agreeable to his design or not it was very necessary to ours For when they endeavour to soften the Doctrines of their Church and to abate a great deal of Bellarmin's Popery to reconcile our people to them it is necessary for us to warn them of the snare and to show them what an ill thing Popery is in its best dress and therefore I as little desire that he should answer what I have said to this purpose as he cares for doing it I never writ a Book with a desire to have it answered but to inform those who otherwise might be imposed on And I suppose our people will think never the worse of any Book because Papists decline the dispute who were never known to avoid Disputing when they thought they could get any thing by it And thus I take a fair leave of the Representer for this matter I think is driven as far as it will go We have by his own confession cleared our selves from being Misrepresenters in the true and proper sense of the Word for we have not falsly charged them with any Doctrines and Practises disowned by their Church and as for their Character of a Papist Represented tho' it falls very short of what some great Divines among them of equal Authority with the Bishop of Condom have thought to be the Doctrine of the Council of Trent yet we are willing to joyne issue with them upon their own terms and to shew them our Reasons why we cannot comply with this refined and new-modelled Popery But this is to dispute and that does not agree with a Representer whose business is to make Characters without any concern to defend them And I am not so fond of disputing as to dispute with him whether he will or no. FINIS Amicable Accommodation p. 6. P. 7. P. 8. 22 Josh. 1 Sam. 1. 13. P. 12. See Foxes and Firebrands P. 25. P. 31. P. 35. P. 36. P. 37. P. 38.
upon themselves Neither they nor we pretend to dispence with Vows made to God but we think no Vow can oblige men to Sin and since all men have not the gift of Continency as our Saviour says If such Persons are ensnared in a rash Vow it may be while they were Children or before they understood their own Temper and Complexion since we cannot think the Fornication of Priests a more holy State than Marriage we think it more justifyable to repent of a rash Vow than to live in a constant state of Temptation and Sin It is likely enough as he says that Dissenters may complain of Persecution tho they themselves have been declared Enemies to an unlimited Toleration and it will be hard to find a medium between a general Liberty of Conscience and those restraints which are laid on Dissenters But it must be considered whether the Church or the State be chargeable with this The several Laws which have been made against Dissenters have been more for the security of the State than of the Church have been occasioned by a restless humour which has threatned the publick Peace and have been rarely executed but at the instance of Civil Authority to provide for the security of the State and I suppose he will not parallel this with some other Persecutions But to make the Dissenters quarrel at the Assistance given to the Low-Countries and proffered to the French in their Rebellion and the hard usage of the Queen of Scots and the late Murder of Charles I. argues he matters not much what he says and to charge these Intrigues of State upon the Church of England is to forget that he is in England and not at Rome where Kings make Peace and War not the Pope with his Council of Cardinals And yet our Accommodator has kept the sweetest bit for the last For he brings in the Dissenter accusing the Church of England for giving every man a liberty of Judging and yet requiring Obedience to her own Constitutions which the meanest Sectaries among them challenge and practice and it is not very modestly done of them to blame that in us which they do themselves They all judg for themselves and therefore form Churches and Communions of their own and they will not receive any into their Communion without owning their Faith and submitting to their Order and Discipline and this is all that the Church of England challenges only with this difference that being established by Law her Communion and Government is enforced by Laws And what a mighty Absurdity and Contradiction is this that men should be taught to use their own Reason and Judgment in Religion and yet required to submit and conform to a Church whose Faith and Worship is consonant both to Scripture and Reason Well but after all this Liberty granted by the Church of England Whosoever will follow her must shut his Eyes stifle his Reason and be led only by the Nose Why What 's the matter now The charge is no more but this That in matters of Order and Decency and such things as are left to the Determination of Church Governours as are neither forbid nor commanded by God we must submit to the Determinations of Authority whatever private Judgement or Opinion we may have of things A great fault this that tho every man must judge for himself in good and evil yet every private mans Judgement must be over-ruled by the publick Judgment in matters of Order and external circumstances of Religion Much of the same nature is his concluding Charge That we are a wavering and unsetled Church subject to continual Variations because some Rites and Ceremonies formerly used are now laid aside And what then Does the settlement of the Church consist in external Ceremonies Is it any fault in a Church which challenges to her self a Power to appoint and constitute and alter external Rites to exercise this Power as She shall think most for the Edification of the Church which is the only Rule of right and wrong in this Case which may therefore change with the Change and Alteration of times and Persons and other external circumstances of Affairs Now let every man judg whether there were ever such a Speech made for a Dissenterbefore which in every Point of it is directly contrary to his own Profession and Practice It is time for our Author to have done with his Trade of Representing for no man would know what it was he Represented did he not take care with the unskilful Painter to write over his uncouth Figures what they are This is an Horse and this an Ass. And thus this hopeful design of Representing and Misrepresenting ends only in ridiculing the Church of England a Liberty which if we needed it is not mannerly for us to use at this time but we are contented they should ridicule our Church if they will permit us truly to Represent theirs But to proceed Our Accommodator grants that he is still in Arrears and certainly never any Bankrupt paid less in the Pound than he offers and this is his Accommodating which Merchants call Compounding In my Answer to his Reflections I proved that what he calls the Character of a Papist Misrepresented has nothing of Misrepresentation in it properly so called for there was no matter of Fact misreported in his Answer which he calls Papists protesting against Protestant Popery instead of justifying his Character he seeks out for new Misrepresentations this in my last Answer I enquired the reason of Why instead of justifying his own Misrepresentations which he had so unjustly fathered upon us he should hunt about to pick up some new Misrepresentations for me to Answer And the Reason he now assigns for it is Because I had little to say against the former except that they were not to be called Misrepresentations in a strict Sense Now the less I had to say it was the more easily answered tho I know not what more need to be answered to the charge of Misrepresenting than to prove that it is false But he says he fathered his Misrepresentations on no Body and so much the worse for that for a general charge includes every Body And yet he was as unfortunate in his new Misrepresentations as in his old ones He brings in the Arch-Bishop of York for a Misrepresenter whereas the Misrepresentations he Transcribes out of the Arch-Bishop the Arch-Bishop cites out of Popish Authors and names the Authors where they are to be found but the Protester to make a Misrepresenter of him conceals all these Authorities and sets down the Words as the Bishops own and this he did only to consult the Credit of the Prelate In what Sir That he might have the entire Glory of being a Misrepresenter without being thought to steal out of Popish Authors But he saies The Bishop is still a Misrepresenter in charging these sayings of private Doctors upon the Church But where does he do that Yes He saies He that is the