PAPISTS PROTESTING Against Protestant-Popery. IN Answer to a Discourse Entituled, A Papist not Mis-represented by Protestants. BEING A VINDICATION Of the Papist Mis—represented and Represented, And the Reflections upon the Answer.

LONDON, Printed by Hen. Hills, Printer to the King's most Excellent Majesty, for his Houshold and Chappel. 1686.

PAPISTS PROTESTING AGAINST Protestant-Popery.

MY Replier begins with Complements; and I cannot but admire his art of weaving raillery into them so neatly, that every Eye will not discern which is which. But of all his Complements I take the Reply it self to be the greatest. Now in good manners I should take my turn with my com­pliments: but am forc'd to drop these, and stand up­on my guard; for the Replier, while he Compliments me with one hand, is giving me a box with the other; in his very next lines calling in question my honesty, without any mincing it at all. In the Misrepresen­tation of a Papist, he says, I have shew'd some Art, but very little Honesty. The Replier said just before that he would compliment no more, and is as good as p. 1. his word. As for me, I am much mistaken, if I find not upon occasion, more vouchers for my honesty, then Art: If I did by chance stumble into it, 'twas against my inclination, and I am sure I fell up-hill.

But he would have my Art lye in this; that where­as I was told in the Answer, that some of those mis­representations, which I had made of a Papist, and [Page 2] given out for the Protestant Character of Popery, were my own ignorant, or childish, or willful Mistakes, I craftily insinuate, that they grant all my Mis-repre­sentations of a Papist, to be ignorant, childish, or will­ful Mistakes. Which is in short the Answer gives some, and I take all. And yet those two little words, upon which the whole Stress and Truth of his charge lie, are neither in the Answer nor Reflections; but are providentially juggled in here by himself, to give the Reader an early tast of his own Honesty, while he challenges mine. The Answerer had said, must the Character now suppos'd to be common to Protestants, p. 10. be taken from his ignorant, &c. Mistakes? The Re­flecter says, Because you say my Character is made up of false apprehensions, ignorant, &c. Mistakes. What difference is here in sense at all? And what difference even in words; save that I add false apprehensions, which the Answerer likewise has in the very next page? Neither of us mention all or some, which the Replyer, not without reason, suspects of craft. As the Answerer thereof meant, I assure him, I meant; the whole Character, if he meant so; and part only, if he meant no more: Nor did I ever think of ex­tending his Authority farther than he extended it himself. If the Replyer find any Art in this, I for my part, find no dishonesty; and think I have ill luck to fall into his bad opinion, for keeping precisely to my Adversaries sense, and almost precisely to his words.

The Replyer comes after this with full Cry, and asks, what is the meaning of all this pother and noise about this double Character of a Papist Mis-represent­ed p. 3. and Represented? Truely I cannot tell, and think he would do well to ask those who make it; for they [Page 3] in all likely-hood know best. I for my part thought it a very inoffensive thing, to let people know what Papists are, and pray God there be not a fear they should appear what they are, least they be found to be unlike what they are made appear. They have been cry'd out upon, for keeping the people in Igno­rance of their Doctrines; and when they expose them to open view, 'tis strange there should be a noise a­bout it. Truly I did not expect it, and I could not imagine a bare Narrative of matter of Fact should fructifie into Answers, and Reflections, and Replies. I did but relate, playing the Historian, not the Con­trovertist: Not but that, with the liberty of Historians, who deliver their own judgment of the matters they relate, and their reasons for it, I discover'd what I thought, and sometimes said briefly why: But every Body will see, I made not Disputing my business. And yet, I know not how, it is taken it seems, for a piece of Controversie, and which is more unreason­able, against the Church of England, and defences made for her, as if my Mis-represented Papist, were a Repre­sented Church of England Protestant: Whenas I never gave that Character out for a Church of England Cha­racter of Popery, thought nothing of her Rule or Judge­ment, nor dreamt of concerning her, or any Body in my Mis-representation, whose Conscience do's not of it self concern them. All those, who have such Idea's of us, as I there draw, I said Mis-represent us; and to those who have not, I said nothing. He that would know whether he be concern'd or no, has but to ask his own Heart, to which I did then, and do still leave him.

And yet notwithstanding this harmless justifying our selves, there is a pother and noise it seems about [Page 6] the Papist Mis-represented and Represented, and it is as fiercely assaulted on every side, as if it came to declare open war, and bid defiance to the world. The Answerer set upon it in the Mis-repesenting part, and will have that to be false apprehensions of the Author, to be taken from his ignorant, Childish or Wilful mi­stakes: And then the Papist Represented he endea­vours to overthrow with whole vollies of Objecti­ons. Now comes the Replier, and tho he makes it wonderful hard (p. 40.) to know what the Faith of a Papist is; yet he acknowledges it in the same page to be true, as the Representer has declar'd it, ex­cepting some few points; and therefore passing by the Papist Represented with some light touches only, his main attack is against the Papist Mis-represented: and not being willing this should be understood, as if made up of Childish, Ignorant or Wilful Mi­stakes, he will have it to be the very avow'd Doct­rine p. 3. and Practice of the Church of Rome. He will have the Papist Mis-represented and Represented to be all the same, excepting some very few cases.

And this he has urg'd so far, that I think, 'tis not now so much my Personal concern, to make an An­swer, as the concern of as many as throughout the whole World profess themselves Catholicks, to con­sider the truth of what is here charg'd against them. The Salvation of their Souls, their Eternity is at stake. If what is here positively asserted against them be true, 'tis high time for them to reform, and to leave off the Doctrine and Practice of so much Heathenism, under a Christian Name. Protestants in hopes of a mutual condescendence, may flatter them as they please, and tell them, they have Charity enough to think they may be saved; for my part I declare, if [Page 7] Popery be guilty of what he says, it cannot enter in­to my thoughts, there's any room for it in Heaven: and that there's any more possibility of a passage for its monstrous extravagancies through the Narrow way, then for those of Barbary and Turky. The Po­pery, this Author describes, seems to me a flat Contra­diction to the Commandments and the Gospel; and the Professors of it can have no other portion then with Idolaters, Murderers and Adulterers, whose E­ternity is to be in utter darkness.

He declares plainly that Popery is really that An­tichristian Religion, which Protestants say it is; that it teaches and practices all those Fopperies, Supersti­tions, and Non-sence, which have been at any time charg'd against it by Protestants. His very Title of A Papist not Mis-represented by Protestants, is a con­demnation of the Religion to all those horrid shapes and monstrous forms, it has been at any time expos'd in by Members of the Reformation. He tells his Reader in the name of all his Brethren, We charge them (the Papists) with nothing, but what they ex­presly p. 4. profess to believe, and what they practice: And in this one Assertion vouches for the Truth of all that Infamy, and prophaness which is laid at their doors. And so gives assurance, that their complaint of being Mis-represented is but vain and idle; for that, what they call a Mis-representation, is in reality a Repre­sentation in all the material Points, of the avow'd Doct­rine and Practice of the Church of Rome. That the Pa­pist p. 2. 3. Represented (excepting some very few cases) professes to believe all that the Papist Mis-represented is charg'd with. This the best and wisest Men, he says (viz. of the Reformation) have believ'd of them. p. 2. And in Fox's book of Martyrs we read how many were [Page 8] burnt for not believing, as the Papist Mis-represented believes. This is the General Character of a Papist according to the freshest and most Modern draught of our Adversary; So that now to receive a true infor­mation of the Papist's Creed, we are not to consult the Council of Trent, or the Catechism ad Parochos, but the writings and Sermons of Protestants: For however Papists may not know what they believe themselves; yet Protestants give a true and exact ac­count of them, and are so far Infallible, that the Papists certainly are, what they say they are; believe what they say they believe, since they charge them with nothing, but what they expresly profess to believe, and what they practice. Upon the assurance of this Af­fidavit, me-thinks, 'twill not be amiss here to receive the satisfaction of knowing, what a Papist really is, and what he certainly believes, beyond the possibility of all exception. For since all that proceeds from a Popish hand of this nature, is suspected and challeng'd, and the double Character of a Papist Mis-represented and Represented (about which, as the Repliers says, there is so much pother and noise) is questioned as to its Method, its Sincerity and exactness, we'l now follow our Authors call, and learn what Popery is, from the Pens of Protestants: and especially from some of those, who are supposed to know what Popery is; but for the bad man, which the Replier excepts against, we'l make no advantage of him, but let a better P. 3. Man take his room.

What Papists are according to the Cha­racter given by the most Reverend Fa­ther John sometime Lord Archbishop of York in his Book Written for the use of a Lady, to preserve her from the dan­ger of Popery, where he brings in a Papist thus declaring the Belief and Do­ctrine of his Church.

WE must Believe the Church of Rome, whe­ther it teach true or false.

If the Pope Believe there is no Life to come, we must Believe it as an Article of our Faith.

We teach that the Gospel is but a Fable of Christ.

That the Pope can dispence against the New Testa­ment, that he may check when he pleases, the Epistles of St. Paul, and controul any thing avouched by all the Apostles.

That there is an eternal Gospel, to wit, that of the Holy Ghost, which puts down Christs.

That Christ is the Saviour of Men only, but of no Women: For Women are saved by St. Clare and Mo­ther Jane.

That we put away Mortal sins, by becoming Fran­ciscans, by a Bishops Pardon for Forty days, and a Cardinals for a Hundred, and the Popes for Ever.

That to become a Monk or a Nun, is as good as the Sacrament of Baptism.

That Whoredom is allowed all the Year long, and another sin for June, July, August, which you must not know: Allowed for this time by Sixtus Quartus to all the Family of the Cardinals of St. Lucie.

[Page 10] That the Pope can make that Righteous, which is Ʋnrighteous.

That the Bishop of Rome is a God.

That the Pope may dispence with all Duties, and that our Principles set Men loose from all obligations in all relations whatsoever, between Magistrates and Subjects, Lords and Tenants, Husbands and Wives, Parents and Children, Masters and Servants, Buyers and Sellers.

That there is not any sin, but is or may be Indulged amongst us; and scarce a known sin, but there is a known price for it, and at our Market-rate you may commit them when you will.

What is the Belief and Doctrine of the Pa­pists, as 'tis deliver'd by Tho. Beard D.D. in his Book Entituled, Antichrist the Pope of Rome.

THey Believe that Saints departed ought to be Worshipped and invocated with trust and con­fidence as God himself.

That the Pope can Canonize them to this Worship at his pleasure.

That Images are to be adored with the same degree of honour as is due to their Patterns, contrary to an express precept of the Law.

That the Pardon of sins here in this Life, and de­liverance out of Purgatory in the Life to come, may be bought for Mony, and where no Mony there no re­mission.

They make their unwritten Traditions, not one, but the principal part of Gods word

[Page 11] They place divers counterfeit Books, disguised under the Name of some of the Apostles, or their Disciples, full of Fables, Blasphemies, and Contrarieties, and yet commend them to the World as parcels of the writ­ten word of God, and Believe in them as Holy Scrip­ture it self, as the Gospels of St. Nicodemus, of St. Thomas, &c.

The Pope hath set up a new God in the Church, namely a piece of Bread in the Mass—and to their Bread­en God they ascribe power to forgive sins, to defend from evil both Men and Beast, and to bring to Heaven—when as in the mean while most horrible Blasphemies against Christ himself are tolerated and slighted over.

The Pope is above Angels and Magistrates, he ex­alteth himself above all that is called God, yea, above God himself.

They prefer their Saints before Christ: They rely more upon the mediation and intercession of Saints, then upon the mediation of Christ.

They not only equal St. Francis and St. Dominick unto Christ, but in some things prefer them before him.

They affirm that whoever dies in St. Francis's habit cannot be Damn'd, and that it is as forcible for the remission of sins as the Sacrament of Baptism.

What the Papists are as Represented by Mr. Sutcliffe in his Survey of Popery.

THere is no point almost, wherein the Papist vary not from the antient Church, the Article con­cerning the holy Trinity only excepted.

[Page 12] They teach novelties and false Doctrines concerning the very grounds of Faith; for they believe the Church to be built upon the Pope.

They speak what they can, in disgrace of the holy Scripture.

They give the Office of Christ's mediation to the Vir­gin Mary, to Angels and to Saints, they make also Saints our Redeemers &c.

For God they Worship Creatures, not only giving di­vine honour to the Sacrament, but also to Crucifixes and Images of the Trinity made of Wood &c. and they do adore not only Saints, but rotten bones and rags, they know not of whom.

They overthrow grace and ascribe the merit of our salvation, not to God's mercy through Christ, nor to the merit of his passion, but properly to our own works and merits.

They cut out the Second commandment, because it cannot stand with the Popish worship of Images.

They pray before Stocks and Stones, nay they put their trust in them.

They make no conscience to cut Christian mens throats for not yielding to all their abominations, and think it conscience to obey the Popes decrees, tho very unlawful.

The Fourth commandment concerneth the sanctifying the Sabbath, but the Papists profane it by Worshiping Idols, and frequenting the Idolatrous Mass.

Papists think they do God good service when they murder true Christians.

Amongst Papists, Adultery and Fornication are reckoned among lesser sins.

By the Doctrine of Papists the Devils of Hell may be saved—To this purpose they say, that not only wick­ed [Page 13] and reprobate men, but also the Devils of Hell may have true and justifying Faith.

Papists blasphemously make Christ not only a desperate Man without hope, but also an infidel without Faith.

They deny Christ to be [...], and affirming that his divine Essence had a beginning from some other, they fall within the Compass of the errour of the Tritheites; which Heresie doth tear the Ʋnity of the Godhead in pieces, and plainly makes more Gods then one.

Papists do diminish the merit of Christ's satisfaction; and enervate, as much as in them lieth, the Cross of Christ, and the effect of his death and passion—They are teachers of Antichrist, opposite to Christ, and enemies of his Cross.

That Christ is not the redeemer of all Man-kind.

They make Christ inferiour to Saints and Angels, and prefer the Pope before Christ.

Papists make St. Francis and Dominick, equal to Christ in divers things, and in some things Superiour.

They give equal honour to a Cross of Wood and Me­tal, and to Christ, and looking on a Wooden crucifix they say, thou hast redeem'd us.

They suppose the Virgin Mary more merciful then Christ.

Papists account it a small sin to use common Women.

Papists believe divers were by their Saints fetch'd out of Hell.

Papists by their irregular Doctrines and Traditions, have not only corrupted, but also disanul'd, for the most part, the law of God.

They deny the Gospel to be a rule of perfection, but they doubt not to give that honour to the rules of Ben­net, &c. they speak more Blasphemously of the Holy Scriptures, then the Turks or Saracens.

[Page 14] To the Images of the Cross and crucifix, they give as much honour as they do to God.

They fall down like Beasts before the Pope, and Wor­ship him as God, ascribing to him most blasphemously the honour due to Christ.

Popery as a sink, hath together with Heresie receiv'd into it self most gross and Heathenish Idolatry.

Papists say they put no trust in Images, but never did the Gentiles trust so much in the Images of Juno or Jupiter, as the Papists trust in the Images of our Lady of Loretto, James of Compostella, &c.

They give divine honour to Images, which they them­selves cannot deny to be Idolatrous.

They ascribe mans justification to his Works, and ex­clude justification, both by Christ's iustice, and by Faith, &c.

The Papists teach their disciples to distrust Gods grace—and to trust rather in their own Works and Merits.

Popery is nothing else, but a pack of old and new Heresies.

Papists despise marriage as Pollutions and fleshly life.

Bennet, Dominick, Francis and other authors of feigned religions took not their Rules from the Gospel, but thought they could frame a more perfect religion then the Gospel.

As the Gentiles had one principal God, and divers demy and inferior Gods, so have the Papists.

As the Gentiles believed that every one had his good and bad Genius, so the Papists assign to every Christian a good and bad Angel.

The second Council of Arles cap. 23. sheweth it to be a custom of Pagans, to worship Trees or Stones, or [Page 15] Fountains, yet our English Papists cease not to go on pilgrimage to St. Winifrides well, nor to worship Stock's and Stones.

The Romish Church consists of a pack of Infidels.

They forbid honest Wedlock.

The Papist Preachers seldom teach the people, and when they do it, they preach their own inventions, and tell idle tales without edification.

Both Priests and People are most ignorant of Mat­ters of Faith, where Popery is profes'd.

The Scriptures and Fathers they read not.

In a member of the Catholick Church, (they say) nei­ther inward Faith nor other vertue is requir'd, but only that he profess outwardly the Romish Religion, and be subject to the Pope.

The Papists promise Heaven to their followers, so they profess and set forward the Popes cause, whether they be Murderers of Kings, or Massacrers, or Robels, or filthy Whoremongers, or Sodomites.

They make more conscience to abstain from flesh on Fri­day, then to murder Christians.

Divers points of Popish doctrine are specially said to proceed from the Devil.

It is a common practice amongst Papists to give divine Worship to dead men.

The Popish Church hath no true Bishops.

The Pope is Antichrist.

The Popish Synagogue hath no true Priests.

Popery in many points is more absurd and abominable, then the doctrine of Mahomet.

Papists, that positively hold the heretical and false doctrines of the modern Church of Rome, can not possi­bly be saved.

What Papists are according to the Book of Homilies.

IMages in Churches and Idolatry go always both to­gether—Images in Churches have been, be, and ever will be none other but abominable Idols.

Oenomaus and Hesiod shew that in their time, there were Thirty thousand Gods; I think we had no fewer Saints to whom we gave the honour due to God, and they have not only spoiled the true living God of his due honour in Temples, Cities, &c. by such devi­ces and inventions that the Gentile Idolaters have done before them, but the Sea and Waters have as well special Saints with them, as they had Gods with the Gentiles, &c.

Papists make of true Servants of God, false Gods, and attribute to them the power and honour which is Gods, and due to him only.

Image maintainers have the same opinion of Saints, which the Gentiles had of their false Gods.

Image maintainers Worship Stocks and Stones, they give also the honour due to God to their Images, even as did the gentile Idolaters to their Idols.

Who can doubt but that our Image maintainers agree­ing in all Idolatrous opinions, agree also with them in committing most abominable Idolatry?

In many points our Image maintainers have exceed­ed the Gentile Idolaters in all wickedness, foolishness, and madness, and if this be not sufficient to prove them Image-Worshipers, that is to say, Idolaters, Lo you shall hear &c.

The Learned and Ʋnlearned, Laity and Clergy, all Ages, Sects and Degrees of Men, and Women, and Chil­dren of whole Christendome have been at once drown'd in abominable Idolatry, the space of Eight hundred years and more.

[Page 17] This is the Protestant Character of a Papist, and such as I always look'd upon no other, than of a Pa­pist Mis-represented; and whoever will take the pains to compare it, with what I set down under that Title, will find there's little other difference between them, but that this is the Fouler. But now it seems it must be no longer a Papist Mis-represented, but Represented, and 'tis what the Best and Wisest Men have Believ'd of them. And here now what shall I p. 2. say? Our Replier says, these are Great and Good Au­thorities, and we may well suppose they knew what Popery was. And for my part because I love not quarelling, I shall so far joyn with them; that if this be the Popery they have hitherto prosecuted with so much Fervour and Zeal; if this be the Popery, from whose infection they have so industriously La­boured to deliver the Christian World, they have done nothing but what is the duty of every true Be­liever. And if 'twas for the not Embracing this Po­pery, those Martyrs Recorded by Fox pass'd the Fiery Trial, their Cause was surely a Glorious Cause; and I question not the Triumphs and Crowns of Glory that waited for them in Heaven, were not inferior to what those enjoy'd, who suffer'd under Decius or Dioclesian. And for my part I am so far in earnest, had I a Thousand lives, I would rather choose by the as­sistance of Heaven, to loose them all at the Stake, than in the least assent to so much Heathenism, to so Foul and Monstrous a Religion. And what need now of any longer disagreement? What necessity of keeping up Names of Division? Protestant and Pa­pist may now shake hands, and by one Subscription close into a Body, and joyn in a fair and amicable correspondence. Popery has been hitherto the only [Page 18] cause of Separation; one part seeming to avow and support it, the other as Zealously endeavouring its overthrow. And all the strife it seems has been about a Word. For now we have been inform'd from Great and Good Authorities, what this Popery is; what Papist in the World is there, that will not so far be­come Protestant, as to give his hand for the utter sup­pressing this kind of Popery? And when Protestants and Papists concur for the rooting out of Popery, what possibility of Farther Divisions?

But if on the other side, this Character of a Papist be intended, for the setting forth the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome; if this be design'd as a True Representation of the Faith and Religion of Roman Catholicks: Then returns afresh my com­plaint of their being Mis-represented; that they suffer under the greatest injustice imaginable; that they are expos'd in Bears and Tigers Skins, so to become a Bugbear to the Multitude: That they are ma­lign'd and render'd odious for the maintaining such Doctrines, which they as heartily Detest, as those that urge the charge; and that 'tis no wonder that Pa­pists are put in the List with Turks and Infidels, since their Religion is thus injuriously loaded with Calum­nies, and they made the Professors of such Tenets, which bid open defiance to Truth, Honesty, and Christianity, which strike at the Worlds Redeemer, and are impossible to be entertain'd by any Creature, that is one degree above a Beast.

I will not deny, but whosoever will look into the Church of Rome, as the Scavanger does into the City, who stops no where but at a Dunghil, may rake to­gether so much as to defame her with the Inconside­rate and Unwary; alas the Vices of Men in her Com­munion, [Page 19] their abuses of the most Sacred things, too abundantly furnish matter of this kind. But yet whosoever shall expose this for the Doctrine and Practise of their Church, and describe her, and all in her Communion by these Rubbish Collections, can­not possibly avoid the scandal of being unjust, and might with as good reason decipher London by those loathsome heaps where all her filth is emptied. And now since 'tis evident, the Adversaries of the Church of Rome do generally thus deal by her, scraping out of every corner of that vast Communion and in every Age, whatsoever can possibly contribute to make her infamous; there is too too much reason to complain of her being Mis-represented, and no just exception can be made against the Character of the Papist Mis­represented, which lays open to the World the Ar­tifice of these unwarrantable proceedings.

But here now strikes in the Replyer, who under­takes to explain a Mystery in this Character; and the Reflecter, he says, will have no reason to glory, that he gave the occasion of it. And this Mystery it seems, P. 3. are some faults he has discover'd in the Mis-repre­sentation.

1st. He says such things are put into this Character of a Papist, as no Man in his wits ever charg'd them with: And yet those very things almost in express terms, and others far more absur'd, we see charg'd (as is shew'd above) by the Best and Wisest of Men, of great and good Authority with the Replyer, as he confesses himself. (p. 2.) And this too is to me a Mystery as well as to him; that what no Man in his wits ever urg'd, and what the former Answerer calls Childish, and Ignorant, or Willful mistakes should be now seen Father'd upon Men of so high a Cha­racter.

[Page 20] 2ly. and 3ly. He complains, that the Opinions of Protestants, and the consequences they draw from P. 4, 5. Popish Doctrines, are put into the Character of a Papist Mis-represented, as if they were his avow'd Doctrine and Belief. This is a pretty speculative quar­rel, I confess, and might deservedly find room here, were it our business to consider the due method of Mis-representation in the abstract: But as our present concern stands, here's a quaint conceit lost, for com­ing in a wrong place. For what had the Author of the Papist Mis-represented to do with these Rules? He did not intend to Mis-represent any body. His Province was only to draw forth the Character of a Papist, as 'tis commonly apprehended by the Vulgar, or the Multitude, with the common prejudices and mistakes that generally attend such a notion. Now I would fain know, whether this Character, as it lies in the peoples heads, is distinguish'd into An­tecedents and Consequents: Whether they, when they hear one declaiming against Popery, for committing Idolatry, as bad or worse than that of the grossest Heathens, Worshipping Stocks and Stones for God, distinguish between the Doctrine of the Papists, and these Interpretations and Consequences charg'd against it. Alas they swallow all down greedily and in the lump; Antecedents and Consequents go down with them all at once. Neither do I find much care us'd to prevent this misunderstanding in the People. For who is there in laying open the folly, as they will have it of the Papists, and positively charging them, that They make Gods of Stocks and Stones, that They make Gods of dead Men, and raise the Virgin Mary to be co-partner with Christ in Heaven, &c. Does af­terwards tell his Auditory, that This is not what the [Page 21] Papists themselves Believe and Teach; but only what himself Believes and Infers from their Doctrine, as the Consequence or Interpretation of it, but they deny.

Truly were our Adversaries so sincere as to tell their hearers, that all their charge against Popery is no­thing more, than what they think of our Faith and Doctrine; I would so far agree with the Replier, that this ought not be call'd Mis-representing, but only saying of us, what is not true. But they go beyond this, and instead of saying we think so, they positively say so it is: And possess as many as take Ideas from their words, not barely that they think we Teach and Practice Idolatry, v.g. but absolutely, that we do. Nay our Image-worship, is Worshiping Stocks and Stones for Gods, says the Replier in his very next leaf without remembring his thinking.

And when the People read Books, intended as pre­servatives against the danger of Popery, they are still expos'd to the like deceit. For what ordinary Rea­der is there, that finds it positively asserted as above by the Arch-bishop of York. Papists Believe the Church of Rome, whether it teach true or false. And if the Pope Believes there is no Life to come, they must Believe it, as an Article of their Faith. What or­dinary Reader, I say, is there, that will not swallow this presently as the Faith and Doctrine of the Papists; when at latter end 'tis only what he thinks, and a Consequence far fetch'd to discredit Popery with the Vulgar? And when he's told by another hand, that the Common Answer of Catholicks to excuse themselves from Idolatry in their adoration of the Eucharist, is because they Believe the Bread to be God: Has not he here a fair occasion again of taking this for the Belief of a Papist; and that he Worships, what he [Page 22] Believes to be a Breaden God? Certainly he must be no small Logician that can discover, whether this be an Antecedent or Consequent, whether it be the Faith of the Papist, or only a Consequence of it. For my part, when I see Popery describ'd, as if none could be of that Communion, but he that can bring his mind to Believe the Word of God to be writ but for a few Years only, and afterwards to be abrogated and annull'd. That whatsoever God says, shall be null and void, unless the Bishop of Rome, will and command the same. When I hear that the Pope is Antichrist, and Rome the Whore of Babylon, that the Papists have taken away from the People the Holy Communion, the Word of God, the true Worship of the Deity, the right use of the Sacraments and Prayers, and instead of them, have given to please them, Salt, water, Oyl, Spittle, Bulls, Jubilees, Indulgences, Crosses, Incense and an infinite number of meer Toys and Baubles, and that in these they have placed all Religion; when I hear, I say, Popery thus describ'd to the People by eminent Apo­logizers for the Church of England, I cannot conceive, but 'tis to let them know, what notion to frame of it. And yet whosoever shall suppose, that after such directions, they'l conceive a regular Idea of it, with­out a confusion of Faith with its Interpretations, of Doctrine with its charges, must conclude them to be better at Separating than the Chymists, and that in subtle distinctions they are able to outdo Aristotle himself. But 'tis too much to be fear'd, that those who expose Popery to the People after this way, are not willing they should apprehend it in its genuine Purity, and as free from this disingenuous mixture: 'Tis so like those who impose upon the Multitude with artificial Monsters, by putting the wrong end for­ward, [Page 23] and shewing the Tail for the Head; that if they are not deluded into a mistake, 'tis because they are not so credulous as they should be, and suspect something of a Trick in him that makes the shew.

And has not the Reflecter now reason to repent after all, that he gave occasion to the Replier of ex­plaining the Mysteries, he has discover'd in the Cha­racter of the Papist Mis-represented; since the faults he endeavours to lay open, are not in the Mis-repre­sentation, but in those, who by Mis-representing the Papist, rais'd a false Idea of Popery in the Peoples heads? The Character of the Papist Mis-represented, was intended only, as the Author expresses himself in his Introduction, for a Copy of Popery as Painted in the Imagination of the Vulgar: And being con­form to that, 'tis exact and perfect: And if there be any faults in it, the blame must fall on those who drew the Original. But however we'l compound here again for this; if the Replier will but undertake to unde­ceive the People, and give them a more exact Notion of Popery, the Reflecter will undertake to reform the Character accordingly. But till then the Character of the Papist Mis-represented stands good; and till the abus'd people are taught to distinguish between Antecedents and Consequents, between the Faith of Papists and the Consequences charg'd against it; the Character must remain as it is; and any Reformation in it would but make it irregular, and unlike that from whence it was taken. The Replier therefore might very well have spar'd the almost Forty pages he has spent on this Subject; in which, tho he has learnedly distinguish'd between matters of Dispute and of Representation: Yet this distinction being not to be found in the Notion the People have of Popery, [Page 24] 'tis nothing to our purpose. And the only end it can possibly serve for, is to let the World understand, how much the Papists are generally wrong'd in their repu­tation; whilst so many grosse absurdities, which are often positively expos'd for Articles of their Faith, are here acknowledg'd by the Replier himself, not to be their Faith, but only the Interpretations and Conse­quential charges of their Adversaries.

These are the Mis-representing Arts and Faults he mentions. For the Representing Faults he alledges. 1. That I deny the Belief of their Interpretations. And the reason is, it may be, because he thinks, no body charges us with that Belief: Which if it be but true, then I have not so much as contradicted any body, and there is no fault, I hope, in that. 2. I generally own the Doctrines and Practices, which they charge us with. And how could this possibly be otherwise, if they charge us with none, but what we expresly profess to own? 3. That in some cases I disown that to be the Doctrine and Belief of our Church, which manifestly is so and has been prov'd on them. Then for all his word to the contrary, we are in some cases charg'd with more than we expresly profess to Believe. As for his manifestly, and his proving, let that go for no more than what it is, his Opinion: 'Tis none of mine, and I think 'twill be no bodies else, when the matter comes to a Trial.

And here now we must turn over so many Leaves, till we meet with some other matter in the Reply. And the first that occurs, are some exceptions against the Rule observ'd by the Representer in declaring the Faith of a Papist, who to clear himself from the Scandal of Interpreting the Council of Trent by his own private sense and opinion, alledges the [Page 25] Catechism ad Parochos, which he had follow'd in delivering the sense of the Council. This the Replier could not pass by without an Answer, and therefore gives a satisfactory one. And is he sure, says he, that all his Representations are conformable to the sense of this Catechism? May he not play tricks with the Catechism, and expound that by a private Spirit, as well as the Council? Thus a Question or two is a full Confutation of the Reflecter.

He alledg'd again the Bishop of Condom's Expo­sition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church, which being approv'd and attested by the Pope himself, by several Cardinals and Bishops, brought along with it the Authority of the See Apostolick. But this it seems, works nothing upon the Replier: Canus has put a scruple in his head; and because he finds in this Au­thor, that That is not to be accounted the judgment of the Apostolick See, which is given only by the Bi­shop of Rome privately, maliciously, (a word slipt over by the Replier) and inconsiderately, or with the advice only of some few of his own mind; he cannot therefore think, but that the Bishop of Condom's Exposition comes short of the Authority of the Apostolick See; and that the Reflecter is out, in taking shelter under one, whose Authority is nothing, as he says down­right, pag. 46.

This is Answering I confess with a witness, thus to endeavour to overthrow so considerable and Re­verend an Authority, without any Authority at all, besides that of an ungrounded and ill-turn'd conse­quence; viz. 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; [Page 26] therefore this Learned Prelate's Exposition of the Catholick Faith is to be thrown by, as of no Autho­rity. So that our Replier, has here concluded with­out any more adoe, 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 to shew how little the Replier has weighed this matter, and with how little pains he can undervalue any thing when he pleases: I need only remit the Reader to the perusal of the Book it self, which is lately published in English; the Adver­tisements affixt to it will satisfie him, that there has not a Book appear'd in this Age supported by greater Authority than This. He'l find it examin'd with all due deliberation, approv'd with all solennity imaginable, by Men of known Integrity, Piety and Learning, by Abbots, Cardinals, Bishops, and by this present Pope himself, and recommended by his Ho­liness to be Read by all the Faithful. He'l find it not only thus approv'd, but even twice Printed at Rome it self, and in the Press of the Congregation de Propaganda Fide, Translated out of the Ori­ginal French, into divers Languages, as Latin, Ita­lian, English, Irish, Flemish, High-Dutch, and this done by eminent Men of these Nations: So that be­sides the Attestations of those great Men there spe­cified, it may be said to have the General Approba­tion of all these Catholick Prelates, who in proposing it to their Flock, sufficiently recommend it for a True Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church. And yet notwithstanding all this, with the Replier, it has not the Authority of the Apostolick See; nay its Authority is just nothing.

[Page 27] Now methinks, I would willingly here know of the Replier, whether Those Great and Good Autho­rities above mention'd, who pretend to make a Sur­vey of the Faith and Doctrines of Catholicks, have better Authority and Grounds for what they assert and charge, than this Reverend Prelate for the Ex­position which he gives. And whether it be not a great Mystery, that every Divine of the Reforma­tion shall be thought to have Authority sufficient, for defaming the Church of Rome, with whatsoever ex­travagant Opinions he can but find in one or two Writers of what condition soever: And yet a Ca­tholick Prelate, Eminent in the Church for his great Vertue and Learning, in expounding the Faith of his Church, with the Consent, Approbation, and Authority of the Greatest Men of his Communion, and even of his Supream Pastor, shall be slighted, and thrown by as of no Authority at all. For my part I cannot understand this uneven kind of justice, and reasoning: Or why those who profess a Religion, and depend on it as to their Salvation, shall be thought less to understand it, than others who protest against it, and look no farther into't, than to render it Ri­diculous. But it must be so in an Age, in which a Papist is not to pass for a Christian, and must not be believ'd; we'l therefore go on to the other points.

And for the clearing the most material of them, we need not look beyond the Exposition deliver'd by this Prelate.

1st. As to the Invocation of Saints he declares ex­presly, that They have no other capacity of assisting us, but only by their Prayers. And tho the Replier pretends, there's no such limitation found in this Au­thor; yet methinks he should not have been so po­positive, [Page 28] in a case, in which he's so easily disprov'd. The French Edition Printed at Paris 1681. has it expresly, pag. 32. The First English Edition Printed likewise in Paris 1672. pag. 29. And now this last Correct Edition, which came forth the last Week, pag. 9. So that, tho the Answerer has made some little objection; yet the Representer is sufficiently vindicated, in thus declaring the Faith of a Papist: since what he said, is founded not upon his own pri­vate sense, but upon an Authority beyond all excep­tion, besides that of meer Cavil.

2ly. And 3ly. As to the Popes personal Infallibility, and the Deposing Power, the Representer declar'd, that, tho there were Men of his Communion maintaining these Points by way of Opinion, yet that they were no part of the Catholick Faith; and that Papists had no obligation from their Church of assenting to such Doctrines. And for thus delivering a matter of Fact, he has the Authority again of this Great Prelate, who having declar'd the Primacy of St. Peter, and acknowledg'd the same in his Successors in the See of Rome, immediately adds: As for those things, which we know are disputed of in the Schools, tho the New Edit. p. 50. Ministers continually alledge them to render this Power odious, it is not necessary we speak of them here, seeing they are not Articles of the Catholick Faith. It is sufficient we acknowledge a Head establish'd by God to conduct his whole Flock in his Paths, which those, who love Concord amongst Brethren, and Ecclesiastical Ʋnanimity, will most willingly acknowledge.

And is not this a sufficient discharge of the Re­presenter from all the exceptions of his Adversaries? For if this learned Author, having propos'd the Pri­macy of St. Peters Chair to be acknowledg'd as the [Page 29] common Center of all Catholick Union, do's pur­posely wave all other Points relating to the Authori­ty of that Chair, as being no part of the Catholick Faith: And his Book in this form is own'd and ap­prov'd by the Pope himself, by the most eminent of the Cardinals, and other great Prelates of the Churh after a most strict examination, what ground of quar­rel with the Representer in his following this so Au­thentick a Rule? 'Twas the main design of the Bishop of Condom in that Treatise to separate the opinions of Divines and School Debates, from the Doctrine of the Catholick Faith. And since he omitted to expound those Points of the Popes Personal Infalli­bility and the Deposing Power as not belonging to the Catholick Faith, with so full and Authentick an ap­probation, as has been declared; where is the crime of the Representer in not allowing them a place in that List?

And here I cannot but run the venture of another smile from the Replier, upon the reinforcement of my former Proposal. I desir'd that the decision of the quarrel with the Representer might depend up­on the experiment of any ones being judg'd capable of being receiv'd into the Catholick Church, upon his assenting to matters of Faith, in that form as deliver'd by the Representer. The Replier, having smil'd first, thought it not fit to put it to that issue; but chose rather to own that the Faith, as declar'd by the Representer, was really the Faith of a Papist, ex­cepting p. 40. the Deposing Doctrine, and some other few Points. Here then let him make the Proposed Trial, if he pleases, or any friend for him; and if, notwith­standing his refusal to admit the Deposing Doctrine and the Popes Infallibility, but as Stated by the Re­presenter [Page 30] (that is, not as Articles of Catholick Faith) he be not judg'd sufficiently qualified as to those points, to be receiv'd into the Communion of the Roman Catholicks, I will grant he has reason to charge the Representer not to have done his part in those Particulars. This will be a much shorter and surer Conviction then twenty Answers and Replies, fit only to cast a mist before the Readers eyes, and which such a tryal as this will quickly dissipate.

And this now is all that is requisite for a full Vin­dication of the Representer. For it being franckly own'd by the Replier himself, that he has made a p. 40. true Representation of the Faith of a Papist; with the exception only of some few Points. And it be­ing here made evident, that what the Representer de­liver'd as to those very Points, is according to the sense of the See Apostolick, of the greatest Prelates, nay, I may say of the whole Church: The Papist Mis-represented and Represented, stands untouch'd. And all that has been said against it, have been no­thing more, then so many artificial endeavours to perswade the World, that the Protestant understands better, what the Faith of a Papist is, then the Papist do's himself; which will be easily answer'd after his manner, with a smile.

What the Replier adds after this, belongs not to the Representer, who being to Represent, and not to Dispute, is not concern'd with those tedious ar­guments; however, not to be uncivil, we'l go so far with him, tho it be out of our way.

1. He proves at large that all Definitions of Faith, declar'd in General Councils are not concluded with Anathema's; and in this we willingly agree with him: p. 51. But this do's not at all prove, that whatsoever is [Page 31] declar'd in such a Council without an Anathema, is an Article of Faith; and therefore nothing against us deserving any farther answer.

2. He endeavours to prove the Deposing Power not to be a matter of Discipline and Government, but to p. 53. be a Point of Doctrine, and this from a Principle lately published in the vindication of Dr. Sherlock's Sermon, viz. that To decree what shall be done, in­cluds a virtual definition of that Doctrine on which that Decree is founded. And this he says, as we have been lately told. But what respect can I possibly have for what has been lately told us by another hand, since the Replier himself, however he urges it in one page, plainly undervalues it and contradicts it in his very next; where he tells us, that in the Council of p. 55. the Apostles at Jerusalem there was a Decree of Man­ners, yet it contain'd no Definition of Faith. And for my part I think the Replier in the right, and must needs stand with him against the Vindicator of the Sermon; that to decree what shall be done, do's not in­clude a virtual Definition of Doctrine. And the ex­ample produc'd by the Replier evidently shews it: For tho the Apostles in their Council (Acts 15.) de­creed abstinence from blood and strangl'd meats: Yet this Decree of what was to be done, did not include a virtual Definition of that Doctrine, on which the De­cree was founded: For if it had, then the Doctrine of abstaining from blood and strangled meats, had been an Article of Faith; which I am sure is not agree­able either to the Principles or Practices of either of our Churches. And the reason of this may be, because Decrees of what shall be done, are often made with relation to particular circumstances, of time, persons, place, &c. and not built upon Definitions [Page 32] of Faith, but upon Prudential Motives, upon Pro­bable Opinions, upon the Testimonies and Informa­tions of Men; and so may be suspended or quite a­brogated, as also confirm'd a new, or wholly chang'd, according to the alteration of Circumstances: No­thing of all which can stand with Articles of Faith, which being the indispensable Doctrine of Jesus Christ, are not subject to change or alteration.

3. But suppose this Decree to be rank'd only a­mong the Decreta Morum, which concern only the Dis­cipline p. 54. and Government of the Church, yet our Adversary here urges out of Canus and Bellarmine, that General Councils cannot err even in such Decrees, when they relate to things necessary to Salvation, and concern the whole Church. And when the Replier has prov'd the Deposing Decree to be of this Nature, and esteem'd as such by our Church, he may then deserve a farther consideration.

What the Replier adds of this Subject (p. 57.) That the Pope permits the positive Assertors of the no-Deposing Power to pass without any Censure of Heresie, because he wants Power to do it, is spoke like an Oracle I confess; but because these are ceas'd now a days, we may very well suspend our assent, till we have some better Argument, than his bare assurance of what the Pope would do if he had Power.

The Last Argument, is concerning the veneration p. 63. of Images. And tho the Answerer was willing, with­out any more ado, to condemn the Papists of Con­structive Idolatry from some external Acts of Adoration us'd before Images: Yet our Replier readily grants, that those Actions are in themselves indifferent and capable of being paid to God and Men, and to be us'd as the expressions either of a Civil or a Religious [Page 33] Honour. But he has given us an infallible Mark, by which to distinguish between Civil and Religious Honour, notwithstanding the very same External p. 66. Actions being us'd in both; and 'tis, that Civil relates to this World, and Religious to the Invisible Inhabi­tants of the next. This he says is a distinction al­low'd by all the rest of Mankind; and though by all the rest he seems willing to exclude me, yet since he has given his word for it, I'le come in for one of that number, at lest so far as to suppose it. So that here we have it now laid down as a Prin­ciple by common agreement, that External Actions of Honour paid to things relating to this World, is a Civil Honour, Respect, Veneration or Worship. And when they are paid to things relating to the invisible Inhabitants of the next, 'tis a Religious Honour, Respect, Veneration, or Worship. And hence 'tis concluded by him, that these External Acts of Honour express'd to any Image, that has Re­lation to some Invisible Being must of necessity be a Religious Honour. This is what the Replier proves, and we at present agree to. But if he thinks, as he says, that this puts an end to the Dispute, I think him mistaken, we being as yet only in the beginning. For tho it hence follows that Papists give a Religious Ho­nour to Holy Images, yet till it be proved that all Religious Respect and Honour, is so a Divine Ho­nour, as to make a God of the thing to which it is paid, at lest constructively; he has not concluded Papists to be Idolaters, or guilty of constructive Idolatry; which is the thing he intended and undertook. And that he cannot possibly prove it from these Princi­ples, without proving too much, and bringing himself in for a share, I think may easily be made appear.

[Page 34] For if Papists must be condemn'd of this constructive Idolatry, because they use External Acts of Adora­tion to an Image, which has a Relation to some in­visible Being: must not all those come into the same List, who use the like External Acts of Adoration to other things, which have a like Relation to the same invisible Being? What excuse shall there be for him, who Bows to the Altar, or Communion Table, to the Name of Jesus, &c. All these things Relate to the invisible Inhabitants of the next World, and all Ex­ternal Acts express'd to them must by consequence be a Religious Worship: then, in the words of our Re­plier, If to Worship any Invisible Being, be to give Divine Honours to it; then to be sure, to Worship the thing Relating to such an Invisible Being, must be p. 67. Religious Worship also. For if the Worship be refer'd to that Invisible Being, which the thing relates to, it cannot be Civil but Religious Honour; and whosoever gives Religious Honour to a thing, do's immediately ascribe Divinity to the object of that Worship, and in our Repliers Phrase, by construction of Fact is an Idolater.

And now how many here are included in this conse­quence? Certainly as many as admit of any Religi­ous Respect besides to God: Which yet the Replier himself was not unwilling (p. 60.) to give to Reliques, allowing a due Veneration and Religious Decency to the Bodies of Saints and Martyrs: And the Learned Dr. Stillingfleet is well enough dispos'd to acknow­ledge Def. p. 862. 603. a Reverence and Religious Respect due to Sacred Places and Things. So that I believe the Replier has overshot himself in this Argument: And that upon consideration, he will admit of some Degrees in Re­ligious, as well as in Civil Honour: And that every [Page 35] thing is not immediately set up for a God, which is Honoured with a Religious Respect, however this Honour may be ultimately terminated in God.

And this thought now brings into my mind, a close piece of Arguing us'd by the Replier, in urging this matter; and it lies thus: (p. 66.) Civil Respects are confin'd to this World; But we have no intercourse with the other World, but what is Religious: There­fore as the different kinds and degrees of Civil Honour are distinguisht by the sight of the Object, to which they are paid, tho the External Acts are the same: So (says he) the most certain mark of distinction between Civil and Religious Worship is this, that the one relates to this World, the other to the invisible Inhabitants of the next. Here we have a Consequence and a Compa­rison, and both so excellent in their kinds, that if any better connexion can be found in them, than be­twixt the Monument and the May-pole, it must be by one, who has found one trick more in Logick, then ever Aristotle knew. If instead of his So in the end of his Conclusion, he had made this application, So are the different kinds and degrees of Religious Ho­nour distinguisht by the Intention of the Givers, or by some visible representation, or determination of other circumstances. This might have been infer'd with some dependance on the Premises: And by it we might have compounded for the matter in hand: but as the Replier has it, it neither proves, nor is any thing.

Another Argument we have just before this, which proves again too much, and is so unlucky as not to harm us, without cutting the Throat of his own Cause: The sorce of it may be thus express'd: No intention can alter the nature of Actions, which are [Page 36] determin'd by a Divine or Humane Law; Therefore since the External Acts of kneeling or bowing to or be­fore an Image, are determinately forbidden by the Divine Law, the intention of doing no evil in them, cannot excuse them from Sin. For do's not this as se­verely strike at the Bowing down to the Altar, and Kneeling to the Sacrament as at us? For those very Actions are part of the Divine Worship, and Bowing down is the very Idolatrous Action exprefly forbid in the Commandment: And then, If there be any such thing, (as the Replier says here) as External and Visible Idolatry, it must consist in External and Visible Actions; for we can never know what Mens intentions are, but by their Actions; and then (says he) if Men do such Actions as are Idolatrous, how can the intention excuse them from Idolatry? So that by this way of reasoning he can never throw us down, but we must fall both together. For tho the Sacrament, or the Altar are not express'd in the Commandment; yet since the External Action of Adoration is a Religious and Divine Worship (according to the Repliers Prin­ciple before establish'd) the Bowing down and Kneeling to them cannot be excus'd from the guilt of Con­structive Idolatry. And whatsoever hole the Replier can possibly find, to get out at with his Altar, the Re­presenter will easily follow him at the same with his Image.

But that the Replier may see, how far his Argument concludes, I would fain know whether a Quaker might not as reasonably make use of the same, 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 determin'd by a Mat. 5. 24. Divine or Humane Law: But Swear not at all, Neither Mat. 23. 10. [Page 37] be ye called Masters, and let your Communication be Yea, Yea, Nay, Nay, are Actions or things determined Mat. 5. 37. by the Divine Law: Therefore the Intention of doing no Evil in them cannot excuse the doing otherwise then is there determin'd, from the guilt of sin. This has equal force from a Quaker as from a Replier, and makes evident, that the same Arguments which per­suade to a Reformation from Popery, do upon the same grounds plead still for a farther Reformation.

Thus far have I follow'd the Replier beyond my business of Representing, and I hope I have so far oblig'd him in it, that however he has Question'd my Honesty, he will not at lest, now call me Ʋncivil. Before I take my leave, I will be so free as to offer him a Request or two, which will not be thought unreasonable, I hope, since he himself has put them into my Mouth.

1. That he will use his interest with Protestants, to hold to what he says they do, and charge us with no­thing, but what we expresly Profess to Believe and Practice.

2. That they 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 Doctrine and Practice of our Church. And that in charging any Practices, they charge them upon no more then are concern'd.

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 avow'd Doctrine: But that we think as ill of those Crimes which they [Page 38] charge, as they themselves do; and that We, our Doctrine and Practices, are as free from them, as They think of their own; and that in this consists the Difference betwixt us.

These are but very Reasonable Requests, I think, and what every Man may very well expect from his Christian Neighbour; they being not so much Fa­vours as Duties: And what every one, who under­stands that Golden Rule, of Doing as they would be done by, will comply with without long entreaties. This is desir'd by those of the Reformation too, who require in their Synod of Dort, that None judge of the Faith of their Churches, from Calumnies pick'd up here and there, or passages of Particular Authors, which are often falsly cited, or wrested to a sence contrary to their Intention: But from the Confessions of Faith of Conel. Syn. their Churches, and from the Declarataion of their Or­thodox Doctrine unanimously made in that Synod. And this is a caution of so great importance, that where 'tis not observ'd, 'tis no wonder to see Men contending for the Truth of Christianity, and to lose it amidst their Uncharitable Dissentions.

'Twas my intention not to increase, but to dimi­nish these heats, and for this end I put forth the double Character of a Papist Mis-represented and Represented. 'Twas this was the design of the Bishop of Condom in his Exposition of the Faith of the Catholick Church, and of the Clergy of France, in the Acts of the Ge­neral Assembly lately publish'd. The method is in­offensive, and free from provoking Reflections; and if by this I have let the World know what our Church Believes and Teaches, 'tis what I intended: And as for Disputing I leave that to such, who think it worth their while.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.