Imprimatur,  
Jan. 7, 1686.  
JO. BATTELY.   

PAge 104. line 11. for the Jews r. their Persons. P. 119. line 9 for Cockles r. Cocleus.   

A VIEW OF THE Whole Controversy BETWEEN THE REPRESENTER AND THE ANSWERER, WITH AN Answer to the Representer 's last Reply:  
In which are laid open some of the Methods by which Protestants are Misrepresented by Papists.  
LONDON: Printed for William Rogers, at the Sun, against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet, MDCLXXXVII.   

A VIEW Of the Whole CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE Representer and the Answerer.  
THE Representer was loath to part with his Answerer without ask him in civility how he did: Reply, 
p. 1.  Now from so civil a person, I may, for aught I know, have the courtesy of a turn or two, for ask; which if he will allow me, I shall at last desire a word or two with him before we part, and that chief, in civility to ask him How He does? I would entreat him to go back with me as far as to a Papist Misrepresented and Represented, that we may see how matters have been carried all along, since that Book gave occasion to this Controversy. How I shall speed in this Request, Answ. to Pap. 
Prot. etc. p. 125.  is hard to say, for 'tis a favour that his Second Adversary did not obtain, who fairly led the way, when the Walk was not quite so long as it is grown since. But with, or without his Company, this is the way I must needs go; and because I will not do it, without giving the Representer a Reason, 'tis this: I hope to satisfy those who will go along with me, That he has but jested all this while; and (to make his words speak truth for once) has passed over all his Adversaries Answers with a light touch (most of them with none at all) and the most Artificial way of replying, Reply, 
p. 2.  with saying nothing to 'em, as can possibly be met with.  
It was well done of him to tell the Reader in the Title Page of his last Reply, That it was a Fourth Vindication of a Papist Misrepresented, etc. for if he had not said so, really men could not have believed it. There were Thirty seven double Characters of a Papist laid down with solemn order in the first Book, to tell the World what he is by us falsely said to be, and what he is truly in himself: And this later Character was fortified with such Arguments to justify his Faith and Practice, as could be had. What now is become of all this? What says the Fourth Vindication in defence of any one particular Complaint, Representation, or Argument? Why not a word that I can find, unless it be where he barely asks, 
P. 11.  What we think of Praying to Images, and of some few other things, and of more than he would speak of, which stand charged upon the Character of a Papist Misrepresented. He puts these Questions shortly and confidently, as if nothing had been yet said to any of them. And his behaviour would almost persuade a man, that his double Characters were yet to be considered, and his Reasons yet to be Answered. So one would think indeed by comparing his first and last Books together, without observing what has come between them; or, at least, that the Cause is dropped by one Side, or the other: And let him that thinks so, think so still; for that is the plain Truth of the Case, which I shall make out by an Argument that will do the business to the satisfaction of all men but the Representer; and that is, That He hath dropped it.  
This I shall do in the First place, if it be but to try whether he will take notice of it in the beginning of this Answer, though he would not bestow a word upon it, Answ. to Pap. 
Prot, P. 125.  when he found it at the end of another.  
And perhaps, now that the length of this Controversy, together with the wind and turn of the Representer, has made it something, uneasy to be comprehended; it may not be ungrateful to those that have concerned themselves in it, to have some general prospect of it, all at once before them; which I shall make as short and as easy as I can, in going through the several Books that have been written in this Cause, since the first.  

The First Answer to the Representer.  
THE first Book that called him to account, was The Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented; Answer to Introduction. in which, the Learned Author, having first made some Exceptions against the Representer's way of proceeding in his double Characters, went on to examine his Characters Point by Point. Every Question was particularly and exactly stated, and the sense of the Church of Rome about it was shown, by the Decrees of the Trent-Council, or their Roman Catechism, or their Public Offices, and their most approved Divines and Casuists, as the matter required. This was done very distinctly throughout the whole Answer, where he saw cause to correct the state of the Question; that the Reader might see the grounds of every particular charge, that we and our Fathers have laid against the Church of Rome. And thus, by the way, all the false colours of the Representer were taken off, where he thought it for his purpose to lay them on too Foul on his Misrepresenting, or too Fair on his Representing side.  
But this was not all; for whereas the Representer, not altogether trusting to his Arts of Representation, thought fit sometimes to urge, never failed to insinuate, Arguments in favour of his side of the Question; The Answerer, without omitting any shadow of Reason offered by the Representer, took all his Argumentations, and every pretence from Scripture, into particular examination: I say, he took them one by one in their place and order, and made it appear, that they were very faulty; as we at least thought, and as we may think still, for any thing that we have heard to the contrary.  
Nay, to give occasion to a more perfect understanding of these matters, He took Popery as Represented by the Representer himself in one Column, and gave him Our Reasons against it, in another.  
And because, to gain the greater opinion of sincerity, the Representer had with Anathema's disclaimed several points, which, as he said, are imputed to Papists by Protestants; the Answerer considered him here too, very particularly, and seemed to discover insincerity in the Representer, even where one would be most apt to believe him to be in good earnest.  
To all which I must add, That this was done throughout with that Calmness and Moderation, that his Adversary did not think fit to dissemble it. So that this Book wanted nothing to make it deserve a fair and full Reply, or at least some honourable sort of Concession, That the Subject would not bear it.  
For surely no Method of Answering the Representer could be more Complete, Honest, and Manly, than this was; nor serve better to put all those, for whose sake Books are written, into a way of judging what Popery indeed is, and whether we have rightly condemned it or no, if they were not already satisfied in these things; especially because all was done with that plainness and perspicuity, that if the Discourse was in any particular greatly defective, it could not but be obvious to an Adversary, that was, it seems, thought a fit Person by his Superiors, to Represent Popery to this Kingdom, and to defend it against this Church.   

The First Reply of the Representer.  
TO this Answer the Representer published a Reply under the Title of Reflections upon it. Now did he in these Reflections undertake to show from Point to Point, That the Answerer had without cause corrected either the Misrepresenting or the Representing Side, where he undertook to correct them? Did he, as the Answerer has done before him, take the Questions in their Order, to examine how they were stated, and where need was, did he pretend to state them better? Nay, Did he bear up fairly to any one point of Representation that his Adversary thought fit to alter, and try by the force of his Learning to reduce it to what it was when he left it? No truly, his mind did not serve him, for stating of Questions.  
But did he not stand up in defence of his anathemas which his Answerer charged, not without giving Reasons for it, with Art and Sophistry? No, he did not so much as offer at it.  
What then was the business of his Reflections? Did they turn upon our Reasons against Popery as Represented by the Representer? No sure; Nor was it likely that he should be forward to answer our Arguments, that had no Fancy to defend his own.  
What? Did he not betake himself to make good his own particular Arguments in behalf of Popery, against his Adversaries Answers? Nothing less, I assure you; he did not take care so much as of one Argument belonging to any one point, but fairly left them all to take their Fortune: Is it not enough for a man to bring Arguments, but he must be troubled to defend them? Well; From this time forward, the Representers business was not to Dispute, but to Represent. But was it so from the beginning? The Representer indeed has ever since so vehemently disclaimed Disputing, that perhaps he only Represented at first. Let us therefore try that a little.  
Were there not three Arguments for Veneration of Images, and for Praying to Saints? Were not Moses, Job, Stephen, the Romans, the Corinthians, the Ephesians, and almost every sick Person that desires the Prayers of the Congregation, engaged one way or other? Did he not argue for Transubstantiation from our Saviour's Words, from the Power of God, from the incompetency of Sense and Reason to judge in this, no less than in some other cases? I think this is Disputing. There were three Texts of Scripture to justify the Restraining of Christian people from reading the Scripture. And if they are not vanished out of the Book, there are about seven Reasons for Communion in one Kind: The 12th Chapter of the 2d Book of Maccab. was once thought one good Authority for the Doctrine of Purgatoy; and St. Matth. 12.32, another; And a little pretence of Antiquity there was beside, and three or four more Reasons for it; and in this strain the Book went all along: Now this I say, Those Arguments were not made by the Answerer, but they were answered by him, and so were all the rest, and now they may go shift for themselves.  
And yet this is the Gentleman, who with no small opinion of himself, takes his Adversary to task for letting his Arguments drop, nay, for not saying one word to all his own Reasons pressed against himself; Reply, 
p. 2, 3, 4, etc.  but letting the matter fall very cautiously, when it comes to his own turn of Disputing and Defending his own Reasonings, and that too in a Case directly appertaining to our main point of Representing, etc. Now this is a biting Accusation, if it be a True one; and before we part, I hope we shall have a word or two about that. But if it were as true, as I am well assured 'tis false, the Representer, of all men living, should have made no words on't; and that not only because himself is a most notorious example of forsaking his own Arguments in their distress, but because his Adversary was so generous to wink at him when he stole off from his Disputing post, upon the very first attack that was made upon him. For I do not remember that he charges him with this, in showing the progress of the Controversy; and indeed, considering all his other Advantages, there was no need of it. So that if the Representer had been content, this might have been forgotten still; but if a man owes himself a shame, he does well to pay it.  
Well, but what went the Reflections upon, all this while? By this time I think a stranger may guests the Truth, and that is, that the Reflections were to flutter up and down between the Answer to the Introduction, and the Answer to the Book; and to settle no where. And now I shall give as short and faithful an abstract of them, as I can. In the Answer to the Introduction, the Answerer declared himself unsatisfied with the Representers method to clear his Party from Misrepresentations; and particularly, that he should make his own ignorant, childish, or wilful mistakes, the Protestant Representations of Popery, as that the Papists are never permitted to hear Sermons which they are able to understand, and the like. Now from hence the Representer desires leave to assure his Friends, that the Protestant Representations of Popery are ignorant, Reply, 
p. 4.  childish, or wilful mistakes. One would not have expected so mean a Cavil, so soon after he had promised most material Points; 
p. 1.  But because I find in his Protesting Reply, that he is ashamed to own it, I shall take no further notice of this, than to tell him, He ought to have been more ashamed to deny it; it being so manifest, that what the Answerer said of some of his Misrepresentations, he applied to all that himself calls Misrepresentations, 
An. p. 10. Rep. p. 3, 4.  that his utmost Art will never be able to disguise it to any man that will take so much fruitless pains, as to compare the places. But to proceed,  
1. Whereas the Answerer justly exposed him for pretending to draw his Misrepresentantions exactly according to his own Apprehensions, 
Pag. 2, 3.  when himself was a Protestant; he now affirms, that he can justify his Protestant Characters of Papists, by Protestant Books, which he names, and out of one of them [Sutcliffs Survey) he produces some sharp say concerning Popery. Nay, he thinks to defend his Complaints of Misrepresentation, by those very words of the Answerer concerning that Popery which the Representer allows. we can never yield to it without betraying the Truth, renouncing our Senses and our Reason, wounding our Consciences, etc.  
2. Whereas the Answerer excepted against his Representing Part, wherein he pretends to keep to a Rule, That the Representer shown no Authority that he, a private Man, had to interpret the Rule in his own Sense, against the Judgement of Great Divines, as in the Question of the Pope's Personal Infallibility; and against the Determinations of Popes and Councils, as in the Question concerning the Deposing Power. The Representer replies, That he followed the Council of Trent, 
P. 5, 6.  which he does not interpret, but takes in the Sense of the Catechism: That he also kept to Veron's Rule of Faith, and to the Bishop of Condom's Exposition, so highly approved by Pope and Cardinals, etc. As to the Instances, having first ran to the Book for two more, he comes back with them to the two that were mentioned, and replies, 1. That whereas he limited the power of the Saints to help us to their prayers, he followed the Council, and the Catechism, 
P. 7, 8.  2. and the Bishop of Condom. That he did not qualify the Doctrine of Merit, without Authority, since it is so qualified by Trid. Sess. 6. Can. 26. 3. That the Pope's Personal Infallibility is not determined by a General Council. 4 That the Deposing Power was never established under an Anathema, as a Doctrinal Point; 
P. 9, 10.  and those two are therefore no Articles of Faith.  
3. He makes these Reflections upon the Answerers proceeding in the Book, That he either 1. owns part of the Representers Doctrine to be the established Belief of the Church of England: 
P. 11.  Or, 2. Does without good Reason deny part of it to be the Doctrine of the Roman Church, appealing from the Definitions of their Councils, and sense of their Church, either to some Expressions found in old Mass-Books and Rituals, etc. Or to some external Actions, in case of Respect shown to Images and Saints, as Bowing, Kneeling, etc. Or finally, 
P. 12.  to private Authors. 
P. 13, 14.  Upon which follows a grievous Complaint of Misrepresenting upon the last account.  
4. From hence he goes back to the Answer to the Introduction, where he was charged for saying, That the Pope's Orders are to be obeyed, whether he be infallible or not: 
P. 15, 16.  From whence it follows, That Papists are bound to Act, when the Pope shall require it, according to the Deposing Power. He replies, That he gives no more to the Pope, than to Civil Sovereigns, whose Authority is not so absolute and unconfined, but to some of their Decrees, there may be just exception.  
5. From hence he flings again into the middle of the Book, 
P. 16.  and blames the Answerer for scouting amongst the Schoolmen, till the Question about Dispensations to Lie or Forswear, was lost; and that he offered no proof, That the Dispensing Power was to be kept up as a Mystery, and not used, but upon weighty Causes. Then he leaps into the Chapter of Purgatory, 
P. 17.  and affirms, That St. Perpetua's Vision is not the Foundation of Purgatory, 
P. 18.  but only used by him as a Marginal Citation amongst many others. Then a Complaint of Misrepresentation again; and because Complaints are not likely to convince us, Let us, says he, depend upon an Experience; 
P. 19  Do but give your Assent to those Articles of Faith in the very Form and Manner, as I have stated them in the Character of a Papist Represented, and if you are not admitted into our Communion, I'll confess that I have abused the World.  
Thus far the Reflections: It is now time to compare Things, and to see how much of the Cause is left standing.  
I pass it by, that the Answer to the Introduction, 
See for this Answ. to Pap. Protest. p. 128.  upon which the Representer spent his main Strength, is in many most material Points untouched by the Reflections: But this is a small Matter: For,  
1. He has dropped the defence of his Double Characters, his Representations and Misrepresentations. For instead of going on with his Adversary in those Thirty Seven Points, with which himself led the way, he does nothing but nibble about Three or Four of them, and that without taking notice of the tenth part of what was said by his Adversary to fix the true state of the Controversy even about them: He has indeed thrown about four Lose, General Exceptions amongst the Thirty Seven Chapters in which the Answerer Represented the several Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome; but he has not with any one of these Exceptions come up fairly to what the Answerer has said upon any one particular Point; And therefore I add,  
2. That for any thing our Representer has done to show the contrary, the Answerer has truly Represented the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome. And then we have great Encouragement to turn Papists, since the Representer tells us, That if the Answerer has truly Represented the Doctrines of the Church of Rome; He, the Representer, would as soon be a Turk as a Papist.  
3. He has absolutely dropped the defence of all his own Arguments, not so much as pretending to show where the Answers went upon a wrong State of the Question; no, nor trying to reinforce his Arguments, where the State of the Controversy was agreed upon on both sides: So that for aught I can see, the Representer fell sick of his Thirty Seven Chapters all at once, both as to matter of Representation and Dispute: And this I think was pretty well for the First Reply.   

The Second Answer to the Representer, being a Reply to His Reflections.  
BUT we are to thank the Reflections for one good Thing, and that is for the Answer which they drew from another Learned Hand, under the Title of a Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants: In which I shall make bold to leave out several Material Points, which the Answerer offered too Consideration, and take notice of no more, than what I think may serve to show with what Sincerity on the One Side, and Insincerity on the Other, this Controversy has been managed. Wherefore,  
1. Whereas the Representer chose to justify his complaints of Misrepresentation, not by taking the first Answerers Representations into examination, but by referring us to other Books, and to Sutcliffs sharp censures of Popery; The second Answerer considered that the Representer called the Censures which Protestant's puts upon the Avowed Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, Misrepresentations: which was in the first Book discernible enough, and spoken of in the Answer to it; but was so grossly owned in his second Book, that no man could now doubt of it: For he made his Answerer guilty of Misrepresentation for saying, That we cannot yield to that Popery which the Representer himself allows, without betraying the Truth, etc. 
A Papist not Misrepr. p. 4.  This Answer therefore blames him for putting into the Protestant Representations of Popery, those faults which we find, and those ill consequences which we charge upon Popery, as if we would make the World believe, that Papists think as ill of what themselves profess and practice, 
P. 5.  as we do: And much more for putting these consequences, as owned by Papists, in the Front of the Protestant Characters of them, as if we pretended, they were the First Principles of Popery. As for the Doctrines and Practices of the Roman Church, which we charge them with, the Representer generally owned them; but he disowned, as he easily might, the belief of those Consequences and Interpretations which we charge upon them. And therefore his putting them into the Protestant Characters of a Papist, was his own Artifice of laying the fouler colours upon Popery on the one side, that it might look the fairer, when he took them off, on the other. Now to prevent these Deceits for the future, this Answer goes through the Thirty seven Articles again, 
P. 6. to p. 40.  to show under each Head, what we charge upon them as their Doctrines and Practices; which is properly matter of Representation: And likewise, what we charge upon such Doctrines and Practices, which is properly matter of Dispute: By the confounding of which two things, the Representer had made a colour for his unjust complaints of Misrepresentation.  
2. Whereas he pretended that he never delivered his own private sense and opinion in Representing a Papist; 
P. 44, 45.  the Answerer replies, that he certainly does so, when he determines concerning Questions which are disputed among themselves, whether they be Articles of Faith, or not; and that the Catechism may be interpreted by a private spirit as well as the Council. That Veron's Rule, had no more Authority than the Representer's Characters. That Bellarmine's Controversies had attestation from the Pope, as well as the Bishop of Condom's Exposition; And that Canus himself, who is referred to by the Representer, acknowledges that the Pope's approbation is not always to be accounted the judgement of the Apostolic See. As to the Instances, The Answerer shows, 
P. 45, 46.  I. Of his limiting the Power of the Saints to their Prayers; That no such limitation of their Aid and Assistance, is to be found in the Council; That the Representer would take no notice of what his first Answerer had said, to show that no such limitation was intended in the Council or the Catechism; And that he did not find this limitation in the Bishop of Condom. 
P. 12, 13.  2. Of Merit; That the Twenty sixth Canon of the sixth Session, mentions nothing of it; and that it is clear from Chap. 16. of that Session, That they make Good works truly and properly meritorious of Eternal Life, though they grant the Grace of God, and the Merits of Christ, to be the cause of their own Merits. Finally, That the Answerer did not Appeal to the Thirty second Canon to oppose the Representer's Qualification of the Doctrine of Merit, 
P. 46. P. 47, 48.  and was therefore unconcerned in his defence of it. 3. As to the Pope's Personal Infallibility; That he denies it to be of Faith, and makes it but a School point; whilst there are as many who deny it to be a School point, and make it a matter of their Faith. That the want of positive Determination by a General Council, does not prove it to be no matter of Faith, because neither the Infallibility of a General Council, nor of the Church, is positively determined by a General Council. That if Infallibility must be somewhere amongst them, they have the best Reason that place it in the Pope. 4. As to the deposing Doctrine, 
P. 49.  the Answerer shown largely and clearly, That Articles of Faith may be, and have been decreed without anathemas; That the deposing Decree includes a Doctrinal point; 
P. 54. P. 56.  That if it were merely a point of Discipline and Government, they must either acknowledge it Lawful for the Church to depose Heretical Princes, or consent that the Church is not secured from making wicked Decrees, in things that concern the whole Christian World. That when the Representer says, That some Decrees of Trent are not universally received, he does not tell us that the Council had no Authority to make them, and to oblige Princes to receive them. And lastly, That the Pope's letting so many asserters of the No-deposing Power to pass without any censure of Heresy, 
P. 57  does not argue a change of their Doctrine, but only of the Times.  
3. To the Representer's Reflections upon the Answerer's way of proceeding, as that 1. He owns in some part the Representer's Doctrine to be the established Doctrine of the Church of England; The second Answerer charges him with foul Misrepresentation upon this account, in as much as the first Answerer owned nothing which is peculiar to the Faith of a Papist, as distinguished from thr common Faith of Christians; and that the Representer might as well have said, 
P. 59, 60, 61.  That because Protestants own that Christ is to be worshipped, therefore they in part own the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, That Christ is to be worshipped by Images. And this he shown to be the very case in every one of those six or seven Points, which the Representer only named, but did not think fit to insist upon, to show how his Reflection was applicable to them. 2. And that the first Answerer appealed from the definitions of their Church, etc. 1. To some Expositions found in old Mass-Books and Rituals. 
P. 62.  This Answerer says, that he could find but one Instance of this, relating to the Worship of the Virgin Mary; viz. that scandalous Hymn, O Felix Puerpera, etc. But that their Church is accountable for her old Missals, which were the allowed and established Offices of Worship; That even this has never been condemned; but that Monsieur Widenfelts Book was condemned at Rome, which was writ to bring the people to a bare Ora pro Nobis, 
P. 63.  to the Blessed Virgin, 2. To some external Action as in case of respect shown to Images and Saints. To this the Answerer says, That the Representer brings in this Exception, without taking the least notice of what his first Adversary said concerning external Adoration, 
P. 63, 64.  That it is a part of Divine Worship; and that the Council of Trent requires it should be given to Images. He shows further, That since there is such a thing as external and visible Idolatry; an Idolatrous action is nevertheless such, 
P. 65.  for the intention of him that is guilty of it, not to commit Idolatry; 
P. 66.  That the worship of the Invisible Inhabitants of the other World, though with such external acts as may be paid to creatures, has always been accounted Religious Worship; That as the Degrees of Civil honour are distinguished by the sight of the Object; So one certain distinction between Civil and Religious is, 
P. 67.  that the worship of an Invisible Object is always Religious; and that to Worship the Image of an Invisible Being, must therefore be Religious Worship also; because 'tis referred to the Prototype. 3. To the sentiments of private Authors. And here the present Answerer challenges him to give one instance wherein the Judgement of private Authors was, as he pretended, set up against the declared sense of their Councils and Church: And moreover shows what use was made of private Authors, by particular Instances; 
P. 68, 69.  and that sometimes recourse is necessary to be had to them, and to the general practice of their Church, to know the sense of their Church.  
4. Whereas the Representer avoided the charge of their being obliged by his Doctrine to obey the Pope, when he commands them to act in pursuance of the Deposing Power; by pretending that the Decrees of Popes may be excepted against no less than the commands of Civil Sovereigns, as the case may be. The Answerer does acknowledge this Reply to be good, 
P. 58.  if the Representer be sincere in the Application, and will grant the Deposing Decree to command a Sin; and that Bellarmin and Canus were mistaken in asserting, That Popes and General Councils can make no sinful Decrees relating to the whole Church.  
5. To the complaint of discoursing upon Dispensations out of the Schoolmen, and bearing the Reader into a belief, that the Dispensing Power was kept as a Mystery, to be used upon weighty occasions, etc. the present Answer says, That there was reason for the former, this being one of the Instances wherein the whole sense of their Church is not to be had, but from the Practices of Popes, and the Opinions of their Great men. To the latter, That their own Doctors had declared it, as the Answerer had shown, before he said it himself. Then as to St. Perpetua's Vision, That if he did not think it gave some credit to the Doctrine of Purgatory, it was mentioned by him to no purpose. Finally, to the Representer's Invitation of us to come over to their Church upon his Terms, with promise of Acceptance; the Answerer returns, That he must like their Faith better first. And certainly the Invitation was something unseasonable, before the Representer had answered our Reasons against that Popery, which himself allows. And this for the second Answer.   

The Second Reply of the Representer, being an Answer, to a Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants.  
THE second Reply comes forth under the Title of Papists Protesting against Protestant Popery. 
Pap. Prot. p. 4.  In which the Representer beginning with a defence of himself as to his construction of the wilful mistakes, (see before, p. 8.) which if he pleases shall be forgotten from this time forward: falls a wondering that there should be such a noise about exposing of their Doctrines to open view; declares, that though he discovered what he thought, and sometimes said briefly, why; yet he made not disputing his business; and knows not how this should be taken as a piece of controversy against the Church of England, which he had not charged with Misrepresentation, nor any body else, but those only in general that are guilty. He complains that his second Answerer makes that which they call Misrepresentation, to be in all the material points, 
P. 6.  a Representation of the avowed Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome; and protests, That if Popery be guilty of what he says, it cannot enter into his thoughts there's any room for it in Heaven. For the very Title of his Book is a condemnation of the Religion to all those horrid shapes it has been at any time exposed in by the Members of the Reformation: 
P. 7.  And so is his pretence, that We charge Papists with nothing but what they expressly profess to believe, and what they practice. But since they must not learn what Papists believe from the Council and the Catechism, but from the Writings and Sermons of Protestants; he is resolved to give us a taft of their way of Representing Popery; and therefore,  
1. He recites several passages wherein Popery is Misrepresented, as he will have it, out of a Book of John, sometime Lord Archbishop of York, and a Book of Dr. Beard, 
P. 9 to p. 17.  and Sutcliffs Survey, and the Book of Homilies. And in conclusion he tells us. That this is the Protestant Popery, which since he protests against no less than the Answerer, Protestants and Papists may now go shake hands; and What ● possibility is there of farther divisions? But if this be intended for a true Representation of Popery, Roman Catholics suffer under the greatest injustice imaginable. And then follows a vehement expostulation against the iniquity of such Misrepresentation. 
P. 18.  And whereas the Answerer blamed him for putting into the Protestant Character of a Papist, those ill consequences we charge upon their Doctrines and Practices, as if we pretended that they think of their own profession and practice just as we do: 
P. 20.  He Replies, That this is a pretty speculative quarrel, and a acquaint conceit, but lost, sor coming in a wrong place. For the Representer's business was to draw the Character of a Papist, as it lies in the Peopels Heads, who when they hear one declaiming against Popery, do not distinguish between Antecedents and Consequents, between the Doctrine of the Papists, and the fault we find with it, but swallow down all in the lump; and whoever supposes otherwise, must conclude them to be better at separating, than the Chemists, and that in subtle Distinctions they are able to outdo Aristotle himself. 
P. 22.  This is in short, what he says with much circumstance, and no little contentment, for four Pages together; and 'tis all that he thinks sit to return to his Answerers careful distinction between matters of Representation and of Dispute, through all the Particulars: For though he confesses 'tis Learnedly done, yet the almost Forty Pages about it, might have been spared, because this Distinction is not to be found in the Notion the people have of Popery. 
P. 23.   
For the rest, about his denying the Belief of our Interpretations, and the two other Particulars, p. 24. They are so little to the Purpose, that I can afford them no room in this Abstract; and he that will not take my Word for it, may go to the Answer to Pap. Prot. p. 20, 21. and there satisfy himself.  
2. To his Adversaries Question, Whether the Catechism may not be expounded by a private Spirit, as well as the Council? He says, Thus a Question or two is a full Confutation of the Reflecter. To the Testimony of Canus, That that is not to be accounted the Judgement of the Apostolic See, which is given only by the Bishop of Rome, privately, maliciously, and inconsiderately, 
P. 25.  etc. He replies, That so Reverend an Authority, as that of the Bishop of Condom, is not to be thus overthrown, since his Exposition was examined with all due Deliberation, approved with all Solemnity, 
P. 26.  etc. and recommended by his Holiness to be read by all the Faithful: Upon which occasion he puts himself into some Heat, That we who protest against their Religion should pretend to understand it better than a Catholic Prelate eminent in the Church, etc. and than those; e who depend upon it for their Salvation. 
P. 27.  As to the Instances; and 1. Of the Invocation of Saints, he says; Their Aid and Assistance is limited to their Prayers, by the Bishop of Condom, and citys the place; but to what his Adversary said concerning the Intention of the Council, and of the Catechism in this Matter, he says nothing. The Instance of Merit he passes by: But 2dly, 
P. 28, 29.  and 3dly, As to the Pope's Personal Infallibility, and the Deposing Power, he ●pleads the Authority of the Bishop of Condom, that they are no more than matters of School-Debate: and, as if he had been in good earnest at first, he does again promise we shall be admitted into his Church, without the belief of these Articles: So that he has every way Represented the Faith of a Papist aright; and now has found out something in his Adversary to be answered with a smile, That a Protestant should understand the Faith of a Papist better than the Papist himself does. 
P. 30.  And thus all being guarded by the Bishop of Condom's Authority, and his own Proposal, it was his mere Civility to take any notice of his Adversaries answers to his Argument about the Deposing Power, from the want of an Anathema to the Decree. And so he replies, 1. That every thing is not an Article of Faith, which is declared in a General Council, without an Anathema. 2. That to decree what shall be done, 
P. 30, 31.  does not include a Virtual Definition of Doctrine, as he thinks his Adversary himself shown under the next Particular, from the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem. 3. That the Deposing Decree does not relate to things necessary to Salvation, 
P. 32.  nor concerns the whole Church. And whereas his Adversary imputes the Escape of those that oppose this Decree, to a Change of Times, and the Pope's want of Power, he tells us, That Oracles are ceased .  
3. As to Veneration of Images, he says, That although Acts of Honour expressed to any Image that has Relation to some Invisible Being, be supposed a Religious Honour, yet all religious Respect and Honour is not so a Divine Honour, 
P. 33.  as to make a God constructively of the thing to which it is paid: Otherwise Bowing to the Altar, and to the Name of Jesus; cannot be excused, 
P. 34.  since these things relate to the Invisible Inhabitants of the other World; nay, All religious Respect, besides to God, must then be constructive Idolatry: 
P. 35.  Therefore as the different Kind's and Degrees of Civil Honour are distinguished by the sight of the Objects, though the External Acts are the same, so the different Kind's and Degrees of Religious Honour are distinguished by the Intention of the Givers, and by Circumstances. He says further, as to the unalterableness of the Nature of Actions determined by a Law, 
P. 36.  That if this makes the Intention of doing no evil in Bowing or Kneeling to an Image, unable to excuse those from sin, who do this forbidden thing; this strikes as severely at Bowing to the Altar, and Kneeling to the Sacrament, as at them, since the Actions forbidden, are the same part of Divine Worship in both Cases. Finally, 
P. 36, 37.  That a Quaker may justify his Teas and Nays, by his Adversaries Rule, That no Intention can alter the Nature of Actions determined by a Divine Law, since it is said, Matth. 5.34. Swear not at all, but let your Communication, etc. And now to give him his due, setting aside the frivolous Instance of the Quakers, he has in this Particular come up fairly to his Adversary, and said what deserves; to be considered. Then he concludes with two or three Requests, which he hopes are not unreasonable; to which his Adversary gave such reasonable Answers, that we have heard of them no more since that time, [See Ans. to Pap. Prot. p. 124, 125.] and therefore we have no reason to be troubled with them here. And so let us now come to a Reckoning.  
1. He grants his Adversaries Distinction throughout, between matters of Representation, and matters of Dispute; which Distinction, since himself did not observe, he either wanted the Skill or the Honesty of a Representer.  
2. The Defence of his Argument, That the Pope's Personal Infallibility is not of Faith, from no General Council's having determined it, is dropped.  
3. He will not be brought to say, Whether the Council of Trent had, or had not Authority to oblige Princes to receive those Decrees which are not universally received; and so the Defence of his Argument, from some Decrees not being received, is dropped.  
4. His solemn Cavil, That the First Answerer owned some part of his (the Representer's) Doctrine, to be the Established Doctrine of the Church of England; and his Objection against him for appealing to old Mass-Books and Rituals, and that other for appealing to private Authors, are all three dropped.  
5. He will not say that the Deposing Decree commands a Sin; and to his Defence of himself against his first Answerer's Charge, That by his Principles he is bound upon the Pope's command, to act according to the Deposing Power, is dropped.  
6. His complaints against his first Answerer's Representing the matter of Dispensations; and his note upon St. Perpetua's Vision, are dropped: But his Invitation of us to come over to the Church of Rome upon his Terms, is not dropped; for we thank him, he has invited us again.   

The Third Answer to the Representer, being An Answer to a Papist Protesting against Protestant Popery.  
To the Representer's wonder, That such ado should be made about his First Book, the Answerer sales, 
P. 1.  That a Misrepresenter is so foul a character, that no man can wonder if we think ourselves concerned to wipe it off; which surely may be done without offence to any, but those that meant us, in the general Accusation. To his complaint that the Answerer makes, All that which they call Misrepresentation, to be in all the material points a Representation of the avowed Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome, he says, That he has done him all the service he can in distinguishing between matters of Fact, wherein if we charge them wrong, we do indeed Misrepresent them; and matters of Dispute, in which, if we should charge them wrong, it is not Misrepresentation, but merely a wrong Judgement upon what they profess and practise. 
P. 2.  And he had already shown, That all matters of Fact (excepting some few points) in the Character of a Papist Misrepresented, are confessed and defended in the Character of a Papist Represented. Now Representation or Misrepresentation is properly about matters of Fact. But as for the Consequences we charge upon their Doctrines and Practices, and which were put into the Misrepresenting Side, to be taken off again in the Representing Side; they are not matters of Representation, but of Dispute. To this purpose the Answerer argues, leaving the Representer to apply these plain things to his Protestation against Protestant Popery; which amounts to thus much, That it could never enter into him, that there should be any room for Popery in Heaven; and that he would as soon be a Turk as a Papist, if he thought as ill of the confessed Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, as we do. Which would be a wise Speech no doubt, though we hope a true one. For the rest, 
P. 3.  he says, That his Title related only to his own Book; and the Book, to the Character of a Papist Misrepresented; and therefore 'tis hard that he must be drawn in to answer for more than he knows, even for all that any Protestant may have said concerning Popery since the Reformation; and he thinks it strange, that the Representer, instead of defending his own Characters, should hunt about for new Misrepresentations for him to Answer. For since he has allowed the Distinction between matters of Representation and Dispute, and can find no fault with his Adversaries performance about it; it should seem we are agreed upon the Representation of Popery now at last, 
P. 4.  and therefore unless he were ashamed of his own Popery, now we had clearly found it, why should he divert from that, to new complaints of their being Misrepresented by others?  
The Answerer however was resolved to see what occasion there was for this fresh complaint.  
1. And he shows, 
P. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  That if what was transcribed out of the foresaid Archbishop of York 's Book, be Misrepresentation, it is not a Protestant, but a Popish Misrepresentation: For the Archbishop citys his Authors for what he says, though the Representer left them out; And this the Answerer thought good to show from point to point: And concludes, That though every Doctrine found in Popish Authors, ought not presently to he accounted an Article of the Romish Faith; yet a Church so watchful to purge, expunge, and censure in all Cases where her Interest is concerned, is Responsible for those Doctrines, which have her Toleration and Licence, and which any man among them is allowed to Teach, and to Believe. As for Dr. Beard, and Mr. Sutcliff, he says, 
P. 10, 11, 12, 13.  Those Say do not concern Representing, but Disputing; and that the Representer had unfaithfully concealed, either their Authorities or their Reasons, which had made the thing plain; or curtailed their say, as he shows by several Instances out of Mr. Sutcliff; but that when such Consequences, are charged upon Popery, it is more to the purpose to Confute them, than to complain of Misrepresentation. Finally, As to the Book of Homilies, those things which he hath taken out of it, as the Answerer tells him, 
P. 14.  do no more than show the Judgement of our Church about the Worship of Saints and Images in the Church of Rome; in which he cannot prove us to be Misrepresenters, otherwise than by confuting our Arguments; which yet would but show that we make a wrong Judgement in a matter of Dispute, not that we Misrepresent a matter of Fact. Upon this, the Answerer shows, That Papists protess and practice the same things that ever they did; and that all this grievous cry of Misrepresenting, is grounded upon nothing else, but a Protestation, That they do not believe those ill things of their own Doctrine and Practice, which we do; 
P. 15, 16.  which although it be a new business yet, there was no Reason for it, since we never said they did. In the mean time, the Cause is the same, that ever it was, which is a sufficient Answer to all that he says of Protestants and Papists shaking hands, etc. And whereas he makes the distinction between Representation and Dispute, to be a speculation, above the Vulgar, and so was not to be regarded by him who drew the Character of a Papist as it lay in the people's heads; The Answerer thinks, That he who undertakes to make Characters, is bound to consider what belongs to it; and withal, 
P. 17, 18, 19  That our people are not so silly as to think (for instance) that Papists believe the Worship of Images to be Idolatry; or that Idolatry is lawful, because they Worship Images; but that if he wrote his Characters for the Information of such Vulgar Heads, 
P. 20.  as he fancies, he wrote to inform those that can neither write nor read.  
2. As to his Representing, That he did it not by a private Spirit, since he followed the Catechism; the Answerer had reason to ask, Whether the Catechism may not be interpreted by a private Spirit, as well as the Council, since their Divines differ in Interpretation of both; and as for the Pope's Approbation, 
P. 21.  he said that Bellarmine's Controversies had it, as well as the Bishop of Condom's Exposition; to which the Representer would say nothing; and he now says, That by Canus his Rule, the said Bishop's Exposition has not the Authority of the Apostolic See, unless the Pope had given Judgement for it ex Cathedra, 
P. 22.  which the Representer also would take no notice of: But what he says further concerning the Nature and Design of the Approbations given to the Bishop of Condom, I shall wholly pass over, since it is by this time somewhat plain, that this Bishop's Authority has enough to do to shift for itself, and is not in a Condition to spare any help to his Friends. As to the limitation of the Aid of the Saints to their Prayers, he acknowledges that it is to be found in the Bishop of Condom, 
P. 118.  though he miss it, because it came not in in the right place. But whereas the Representer justifies his renouncing the Pope's Personal Infallibility, and the Deposing Doctrine, by the Authority of the said Bishop; the Answerer plainly shows the Bishop's great Judgement, in having ordered Matters so, as to save himself both with Protestants, and with the Pope. To the Representers Second Invitation; he answers, by making this Proposal, Whether their Church would refuse him admittance, 
P. 15.  if he should come in upon Bellarmine's terms in these Points, which contradict the Representer's; though there be no reason for this Dispute, since as he said before, 
P. 16.  he likes not the Roman Faith as the Representer has described it? Now to his Replies in behalf of the Deposing Doctrine being no Article of Faith, the Answerer says, 1. That whereas the Representer would prove it was not so, because no Anathema was fixed to the Decree; it is something strange, that he should now be content to say, Every thing is not an Article of Faith, which is declared without an Anathema; for this is next to a downright Concession that his Adversary had baffled his Argument; and shows manifestly that he would seem to say something, when he knew he had nothing to say to the purpose. 2. He shows that the Decree of the Council at Jerusalem did include a Virtual Definition of Doctrine. And 3. That the Deposing Decree concerns the whole Church; and if it be a wicked Decree, that it relates to a thing necessary to Salvation, by commanding to do that which it is necessary to Salvation not to do; and therefore he expects the Representers further Consideration of his three Answers.  
3. Concerning the Worship of Images, the Representer bids so fair for a Dispute, that the Answerer took the occasion, and examined not only what the Bishop of Condom hath delivered upon it, but the several ways of stating it by their Divines; showing that their Images are Representatives to receive Worship in the Name and Stead of the Prototype; that in this Notion Image-Worship is condemned in the Scripture, and in what the evil of it consisted; a more particular Abridgement of that just Discourse upon this Subject I cannot make, without either wronging the Answerer, or detaining the Reader here too long; and therefore I refer him also to the Book itself for an Answer to the Charge upon Bowing towards the Altar, 
P. 83.  etc. 
P. 106, etc.  And to the Apology for Image-Worship, from the Degree of the Honour that is given to Images: And to the Representers Objections against that way of distinguishing Religious from Civil Worship, by making that to be Religious, 
P. 37, 38,39, 40.  which is given to the Invisible Inhabitants of the other World; 
P. 123.  and likewise to the pretended Parity of Reason in the Quakers Case. And thus much may serve for the Answer to Papists Protesting against Protestant-Popery.   

The Third Reply of the Representer, in Return to the Foregoing Answer.  
THE Representer finds as little Comfort in Protesting, as Disputing, and so falls to Accommodate the Difference between the Representer and the Answerer; and calls his, Work an Amicable Accommodation. For now he grants the Protestants are not guilty of Misrepresentation in a strict and proper Sense, 
P. 1. 2.  and is very sorry that he and his Answerer understood one another no better before: He thinks indeed it was his Answerer's Fault, not to conceive him right at first; and that if his Book had never been Answered, the Peace had never been broke; but he is persuaded the Difference may be yet compounded; 
P. 3.  For the Case at first was no more than this, That he perceiving the Unchristian Hatred which grew in the Vulgar, upon that false Notion of Popery, 
P. 4.  which our Misconstructions, etc. had drawn in their Imaginations; He, I say, Good Man! No less in Charity to Protestants, than in Justice to Papists, drew his Double Characters, to show how Popery is Misrepresented. 
P. 5.  But than comes an Adversary and says, He has proved that the Character of a Papist Mispresented contains nothing in it, which in a strict and proper Sense can be called a Misrepresentation. Now really he never meant to Fight for a Word; and had he but imagined, that his Adversary had contended for no more, 
P. 6.  he would have spared him the Charges and Sweat of laying down his Proofs the second time.  
Wherefore to end the strife, he solemnly declares, that the Title of the Papist Misrepresented, is not to be taken in its strict and proper Sense, as Misrepresenting signifies only downright Lying, or falsely charging matter of Fact, the whole Character being not indeed of this Nature; but in its larger or less proper Sense, as it comprehends both Lying, Calumniating, Misinterpreting, Reproaching, Misconstruing, Misjudging, and whatever else of this kind.  
But that we may know what a Lover of Peace he is, he must, assure the Answerer, That this Condescension is purely out of good Nature; 
P. 7.  for betwixt Friends, he does not think the Answerer has advanced any thing that has the Face of a proof, That there can be no Misrepresenting where there is an Agreement about matter of Fact.  
Representing, he says, 
P. 8  being nothing more than showing a thing as it is in itself; as many ways as a thing can be shown, otherwise than 'tis in itself, so many ways may it be properly Misrepresented; so that the Description must agree with the Thing, not only in Matter of Fact, but likewise in Respect of Motive, Circumstance, Intention, End, etc. But according to the Awswerers' Rule, had the two Tribes and an Half, 
P. 9  been declared Guilty of setting up Altar against Altar; and Hannah been set out amongst her Neighbours for a Drunken Gossip; here had been no Misrepresentation, because of some Matter of Fact in the Case. The Elders too, that offered Proof against Susanna, since they saw her in the Garden, etc. 
P. 11.  were no Misrepresenters: Nor the Jews against; our Saviour; nor Infidels against the Apostles and Christians; nor shall any be excluded from a share in this Favour, but they that have Malice enough to Calumniate, but want Wit to give a Reason for what they do, etc. So much was the Representer overcome with pure good Nature, that for Peace sake he would yield to a Principle that can do such things as these, if his Word may be taken for the Reason; but we have another Reason in the Wind presently; For if this same Principle which he has ordered to protect the lewdest Defamations and Perjuries, will but do its Office upon the Church of England, he has had his Reward: And so he shows what execution he can do in the Mouth of some Zealous Brother, whose Honour and Interest engages him to set out the Church of England, as we Represent the Church of Rome: To which Purpose he puts a Sermon into his Mouth, which whether it be a Copy or an Original, the Dissenters may say when they please. But the Heads of it are such as these,  
After a solemn Preface of Exhortation to keep out of the Swing and the Sweep of the Dragon's Tail, he lays down his Doctrine, 
P. 13, 14.  That the Church of England men's Marks are the Marks of the Beast, which he proves by the large Revenues and State of their Prelates, 
P. 15.  who wear the Mitre and the Crosier upon their Coaches while they Live, and upon their Tombs when they are Dead: 
P. 16.  By the Weekly Bill of London, which shows that Mary has Nineteen Churches, and Christ but Three; by the Pictures in their Bibles and Common-Prayer-Books; and by many other Marks as good as these; 
P. 17, 18, etc.  which because they stick fast to us, as he thinks, for any thing the Answerer has said, must come over again in another place, and therefore the less Repetition shall serve now.  
Sermon being done, he asks whether this be Misrepresenting in a strict and proper Sense; and if not, 
P. 34.  he is contented that the Word Misrepresenting in his Book should not be taken so, i. e. for downright Lying; but, as we heard before, for wry Interpretations, weak Reasonings, etc. And here ends the Amicable Accommodation.  
For his picking up New Misrepresentations, he says he did it to show that the former were not his own childish Conceits: For leaving out the Authorities of the Arch-Bish p of Y●rk; that this makes nothing against him, because the Question is not, What some private Authors say; 
P. 35.  but, What the Church believes; 
P. 36.  whose Faith cannot be fairly Represented from their Books though published by the Authority of Superiors: For producing what Sutcliff laid to their Charge, without producing his Reasons; that his Reasons were none of the Representers concern, 
P. 37.  because they nothing belong to Representing, nor has the Answerer put his Approbation to them.  
He charges the Answerer with leaving out propter Deum in a Citation out of the Pontisical, and this because the Words were not for his purpose.  
In Conclusion, he is resolved not Dispute, since the Answerer knows no Reason for all this Dispute, p. 26. and he cares not whether the Answerer likes his Religion or not; 
P. 38.  He will be no other than a Representer still; for We wise Converts do not love to go out of our way, but upon very good Grounds: The Bishop of Condom has undertaken his own Vindication; 
P. 39  and if he does but come off as well as the Representer, and 'tis strange if he should not, let Bellarmine and other Eminent Approved Authors say what they can, he has no Concern in it, but his Representation, and the Bishop's Exposition, are the Authentic Rule for the Exposition of the Council of Trent; for the embracing the Catholic Faith, as Expounded by one, and Proposed by the other, is sufficient for a Person to be received into the Communion of their Church. 
P. 40.   
We are now coming to the Foot of the Account; for besides other Particulars of less moment that are dropped,  
1. Whereas his only Reply to the clear and, particular Distinctions of his Answerer between Matters of Representation, and Matters of Dispute, was this, That these Matters did not, and could not lie in Vulgar Heads, with that Distinction; his Defence of that Reply, and consequently of his confused and deceitful way of Representing, is wholly Dropped.  
2. The Defence of his Arguments, That the Deposing Power is no Article of Faith; is now at last wholly Dropped.  
3. His Defence of the Worship of Images, against his Adversary's Discourse, is Dropped; or to use his own Words, her took the Freedom gravely to turn over his Answerers Occasional Pages about it. 
P. 39   
And now if the Reader will please to put all together, he will find by an easy Computation, That this was the poor Remainder of a Controversy begun by the Representer upon no less than Thirty Seven Articles: So that these Points having had the hard Fate to be served by the Representer as their Fellows were before, I reckon that he has Dropped and Dropped, till the whole Cause is Dropped at last; but this is one of those Things in which he is not concerned; for though the Papist Misrepresented and Represented, be in a very forsaken Condition, yet himself, the Representer, was never more diverting, nor in better Humour all his Life: And who can blame a Man for not being sorry for what can ne'er be helped? And therefore since he sped no better with his Grave Undertaking, it was not amiss to call a merry Cause, upon Misrepresenting in a strict and proper Sense, and to bring in a Fanatic Representing the Church of England in a Ridiculous Sermon.   

The Fourth Answer to the Representer, being An Answer to the Amicable Accommodation.  
THE Answerer has no Reason to be displeased, that the Representer now grants we do not Misrepresent the Papists in a strict and proper sense, 
P. 4.  viz. by Imputing such Doctrines to them as they do not own. But he says that the Design of the Representer in his First Book, was to persuade our people that we were such Misrepresenters; but that failing in the performance, he would now make good his Title of Misrepresenting in a less proper sense, 
P. 6.  inasmuch as he thinks we do unjustly condemn the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome. But why he should tax us for this at all, the Answerer wonders, and that very justly, one would think, because the Representer has sometime since disclaimed Disputing, without which it cannot be seen whether we be Misrepresenters or not in this less, proper sense: And therefore he tells him, That if he will vindicate the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, he must quit his retreat of Character-making, 
P. 8.  and fall to Disputing as their Fathers did; in which, he is ready to join issue with them: But that it was by no means civil to charge us with Lying, how prudent soever it might be upon another account, since if he proceeds, in this way, he may be secure, that no civil person will care to dispute with him. Now whereas the Representer did in effect recall his grant, by attempting to prove largely, That there may be a Misrepresentation where there is an Agreement about the matter of Fact; because there may be Mispresentation upon other accounts, viz. in respect of Motive, Circumstance, Intention, End, etc. Here the Answerer shows that these things do indeed belong to true Representing; but that they were too nicely distinguished by the Representer from matter of Fact; for he had given him no occasion for the Distinction, since he had considered these things in those matters which he charged upon the Church of Rome; For Instance, That not only Worshipping of Images, but the Worshippers Intentions, and all other circumstances, without which the Nature of the Fact cannot be throughly understood, were taken into consideration. Then he shows through all the Representer's Instances, That Misrepresentations were in Matters of Fact; 
P. 12.  but wonders why he did not produce one Instance of the like nature out of his Answers, if he thought there were any. For what could he gain by showing, That in such and such cases others have been Misrepresenters, unless, he proved withal, that we were Misrepresenters in like cases? His instances show, that they who tell a piece of a Story, may Misrepresent; but not that they do so, who faithfully relate the whole matter of Fact, with all its circumstances; which is our case; and he has not produced one example to the contrary; though so to have done, had been more to his purpose, than all his other Instances. In short, this matter was so fully Answered, that when we hear next of the Representer, we do not find one word more about it.  
To the Zealous Brother's Harangue, he says, though it be granted that the Dissenters Misrepresent our Church, yet this does not prove that we Misrepresent the Church of Rome; and therefore this is nothing but a device to get rid of us, 
P. 15.  by throwing us upon the Dissenters. But we are not for pursuing every New Game, 
P. 16.  but will keep to our old scent. And yet he has made the Dissenter say such silly things of us, as no Dissenter will own, unless he has heard them among the Quakers. This the Answerer plainly showed through, almost all his Fifteen particulars of the Charge against the Church of England, and by the way, where it was any thing needful, he taxed the unreasonableness and folly of the Charge, which yet was more than he was bound to, since if it came to the Trial, we have some reason to think that there is not a zealous Brother in England, no nor Friend neither, but would be ashamed to own it. So that this design of Representing and Misrepresenting, to which I may add the Representer's yielding in pure good Nature, that henceforth Misrepresenting shall be understood in its less proper sense, ends only in Ridiculing the Church of England, with which we are content, if they will permit us truly to Represent theirs.  
To what the Representer offered, for seeking out new Misrepresentations, the sum of what is Answered, is this, That it is in the main agreed what the matters of Fact are with which the Papists may be charged; and since these only are the proper Subject of Representation, the ill consequences which Protestants have urged against their Doctrines and Practices, ought not to have been put into the Character of a Papist Misrepresented, 
P. 24.  unless he could show, that we say that Papists do believe those Consequences: And therefore the Representer vainly endeavours to excuse himself for putting them into that Character, by hunting about for new pretended Misrepresentations, to employ his Answerer withal. This I gather to be the Answerer's sense, from his reference to what he had proved before.  
As to the Archbishop of York; the Answerer says, he did not Misrepresent the Church of Rome in saying that Stapleton said, 
P. 25.  We must simply believe the Church of Rome whether it Teach True or False. The most that can be made of it, is, That according to one of their allowed Doctors, Thus a Papist must believe. And therefore if it be a Misrepresentation of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, Stapleton is to be thanked for it in the first place, for saying so; and in the next, the Church of Rome for allowing him to say so; and then the Archbishop for reporting what he said, though he does not say that one Doctor may make Doctrines for the Church of Rome.  
The Case of Mr. Sutcliff, he says, is different; and he shows that he expressly distinguishes between what the Papists teach, 
P. 26, 27.  and what himself concludes from such Doctrines; and therefore that he does not Misrepresent the Papists. So that how little soever the Representer thought himself concerned in Sutcliffs Reasonings, because Reasoning belonged not to a Representer; yet surely it belonged to a Representer to distinguish between the Doctrines we charge upon the Papists on the one side, and the Arguments we bring against these Doctrines on the other.  
To the Charge of omitting to render propter Deum into English; He says, It was omitted he knows not how or why; but very jus; tly blames the Representer for insinuating that it was dishonestly omitted, since it was the whole Design of that Discourse about the Worship of Images, 
P. 28.  to show that Image Worship is Evil, though God was worshipped by it. I will upon this occasion add, that the Answerer could not but know his own foul Dealing in this Charge, which is so very manifest; that this Injustice, if there were nothing else, does assure me, that he must make another Change, before we can expect much sincerity from him.  
With like honesty, he disingages himself from all Obligation to dispute concerning the Worship of Images, etc. 1. Because the Answerer knows no Reason for all this Dispute; which words did not at all relate to that Dispute, but to the Question about the Bishop of Condom's Authority. 2. He was never concerned whether the Answerer liked his Religion or not. But if he could have answered that Discourse, all that the Answerer could have said would not have hindered him. 
P. 29.   
For the Rest; the Answerer says, that the Representer and the Bishop of Condom, reasoned and argued at first, as well as Represented; and since their Representation is offered as a Rule by which we may be taken into the Roman Church, they were the more concerned to justify their own Reasonings; 
P. 30.  which since it is declined, our People will be apt to think why Papists decline the Dispute, who are never known to avoid Disputing, when they think they can get any thing by it. And thus the Answerer takes leave of the Representer, believing that this Matter is driven as far as it will go.   

The Fourth Reply of the Representer, in behalf of his Amicable Accommodation.  
THis last Reply is made up;  
1. Of insulting over the Answerer, for offering no more than he did in Answer to the Zealous Brother's Sermon against the Church of England.  
2. Of more and more out-cries upon the Protestants for Misrepresenting the Papists.  
But the Particulars that come under these Heads, together with his Reflections by the buy, will be best produced in the following Answer, where I shall consider what Reason he has for this kind of proceeding.   

The Fifth Answer to the Representer in Return to his last Reply.  
IF the Seven and Thirty lost Points had been recovered, the Representer could not have entered the Lists with more seeming satisfaction, in himself, than he shows in his last Reply. But he has made a shift to forget them, and that's as good. What the Answerer said, that the Matter was driven as far as it would go (whatever the Representer imagines) I find still to be true. For with reference to the chief matter of Dispute betwixt us, we are parted; and, I think, never like to meet any more about it. Indeed as to the manifold Charge sunsted up against the Church of England, that matter, as he truly observes, is not driven as far as it will go: And it seems he intends to drive it farther and farther. But why that should ever come to be a matter of Debate betwixt us, any one who considers the Controversy from first to last, must needs wonder.  
The Design of what has been said on behalf of the Church of England has been to make evident these three Things.  
1. That we do not charge the Papists with some things which the Representer will have us to charge them with.  
2. That some things which he faith we falsely charge them with, are maintained and practised by them.  
3. That allowing them to maintain and practise only, what themselves acknowledge that they do maintain and practise, yet there are sufficient Reasons why we cannot comply with Popery, although refined after the newest Fashion.  
This is the sum of what has been argued on our side. Now how comes his Zealous Brother's Cant to be an Answer to all this? I know not I must confess how to imagine any Dissenter to be so ridiculous as to object against us, what the Representer makes him to Object: And without Flattery or Fawning, I may safely affirm that there are not many who do it. But suppose there should; will such their Objections prove against the First particular above mentioned, that we charge Papists with what we deny we charge them with? Or against the Third, That allowing them to maintain and practise, what themselves acknowledge that they maintain and practise, we ought to comply with Popery. I think that no Man in his Wits will assert this. And therefore we may justly ask what is to be done with all that has been said upon these particulars? and whether there not having been any thing that is material urged against them, does not imply that there is nothing material to be urged; and consequently, if the Answerer had not some Reason to say, that the matter was driven as far as it will go?  
As to the second particular, viz. that several things which we are said falsely to charge them, with are maintained and defended by them; This indeed the Character which he made, little more than in Jest, for his Zealous Brother, doth seem more directly to oppose. And yet it might be easily answered, that this Brother in his Zeal might urge what was False against Us, though we urged nothing but what was True against the Papists. Which with a great deal more the Answerer offered to the consideration of the Representer; and he is now told that he pssed over this same charge upon the Church of England, with a Light Touch, etc. And much ado there is, because he was not for pursuing every new Game, but for keeping to the old Scent. 
P. 3, 4.  For what could possibly come more cross to the Representer, than that after all his Doubling and Shifting, he should start new Game for us, and yet we should be for keeping to the old Scent? And therefore I do not wonder to hear him complaining in this manner. And is it possible then that the Disputing humour is so soon off? We have heard of nothing hitherto so much as of Disputes— and yet the Answerer is as unwilling to Dispute as the Representer— Here's not a word now of Disputing— And is it not strange that be should draw me out to Dispute— and when his own Turn comes of Disputing he should let the matter Fall, because, forsooth, he'll keep to his old Scent?  
Now really this would almost persuade a Man to let him go for good and all; as he might have done if he had observed but a little moderation. But he gives it out, that in his Brother's Character of the Church of England, Almost every Point urged with the same Proofs of Scripture and Reason, which Protestants produce against the Papists: That there is scarce an Argument in the Character, but is exactly parallel to what the Church of England uses in her Defense against Popery; that the Grounds of the Arguments are the same, the manner of urging them the same, the Maxims on which they stand the same, and then the Reasons which press them home, are they not the very same which the Answerer himself in his former Discourse urges against him? And he turns it upon his Answerer, That a little prudence would serve him to say nothing in such a Cause as will admit no better a Defence. This I must needs say, is a little too tyrannical in a Representer under his Circumstances; and would tempt a Man against his own Inclinations to follow him a little farther now, under his new Shape.  
I tell him therefore, in the first place, that a close Disputant would have pressed him to show, that the Reasons upon which we proceed in our manifold Charge against the Papists are false and unsatisfactory; and not have suffered him to run out into an Inquiry, whether the Reasons upon which his Zealous Brother proceeds against us, be the same with them, or no. Or, if this were to be allowed him, we might be well excused from answering him in this matter; since the particular Controversies which the Church of England hath with the Dissenters, have been managed on her behalf, not so long since that it should be forgotten; and the difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome, and of Dissenters from the Church of England, was shown after all, and that in very good earnest. For this being not taken notice of by Representer, it might very well set off our Debt to him for a Charge upon the Church of England, which himself meant little more than in jest. Besides, although he glories in this Charge more than in all his other Performances, yet since he frequently intimates that he intended no more by it, than to Ridicule our Charge against the Church of Rome, 'tis all one, as if he had given it under his hand, that his Cause is more safe by ridiculing what we say, than buy replying to it like a Disputant. Now on the other hand, we think our Charge must needs have been carefully laid, and well defended, if at last it will admit of none but Ridiculing Replies: And so we might without much danger, leave things as they are, and put it to the venture, whether the World will not think so too. But because he boasts so very much, that this Discourse which he has composed for the Brother, is not yet sufficiently answered, and as some think, he may grow a little popular by it; I care not if I go on with him in some part of his own way; and, in compliance with the Opinion of others, inquire into the difference of those Objections upon which we proceed against the Church of Rome, from those upon which his zealous Brother proceeds against the Church of England.  
1. I grant that our Prelates have Revenues, and I believe Coaches, Mitres, Crosiers and Copes. Now if there be any reason why his Brother calls these: Popish, 'tis this, that these things were not in use in our Saviour's, and in the Apostles times. But when did we ever object against any thing that is merely circumstantial amongst them (as these things are) that it was not used in our Saviour's, or in his Apostles Times? Have we not said it a thousand times, that we like nothing the worse because the Papists, approve it, provided it be useful; nay, if it be innocent and harmless? As for their Ornaments and Ceremonies, where does any one find that in the Controversies now on foot betwixt us, we do at all insist upon them? Tho we cannot but think many of them to be neither grave nor decent, their Number too great, and too much Religion placed in them by some People. So that, though there is scarce an Argument in the Character, but exactly parallel to what we use, and though ALMOST EVERT Point is urged with the same Proofs, etc. yet surely the First Point is none of them. And therefore let's try the next.  
2. It is objected against us, that we make Gods of dead Men, and this is proved by the weekly Bills of Mortality, where our Churches are called by the same Titles that they had in times of Popery. Now if by, making Gods of dead Men, be meant making the Saints so many, Independent Deities, there is then a great deal of difference between what the Zealous Brother objects against us, and what We object against the Papists, as well as between the Reasons of our Objections: For we never object this against them. But if by this Expression be meant, giving that Worship to the Saints, which belongs only to God and our Saviour; we then allow our Objection to be the same, but do think that we have much better Reasons to object this against the Papist, than that of a weekly Bill of Mortality. For we appeal to the Public Addresses which are made to Virgin Mary, and other Saints, with all the Circumstances of External Adoration; to their Litanies and to the Hymns of their established Offices, wherein they are often in voked after the same manner, as God himself is; to their appropriating to particular Saints, distinct Powers of doing good to their Worshippers; to their Acknowledgement, that the Saints are Mediators of Intercession; to the Prayers that are made to them in all places, as if they were omnipresent; to the Sense also of their Council of Trent, that they are to be prayed unto with mental as well as vocal Prayer, as if they knew our Hearts. All which I hope is something more than that in the weekly Bill of Mortality, and in common Conversation, we call our Temples by the same Names they formerly had. And yet the Representer asks, Wherein have I Ridiculed the Church of England? I have done no more in my Character against her, than what they have been doing these hundred and fifty Years against the Church of Rome? so that it seems we have for these hundred and fifty Years charged them with Worshipping the Saints upon no better grounds than their weekly Bills of Mortality. Only, saith he, what I have done in a kind of jest, and without endeavouring to delude any body with such kind of Sophistry, they have been doing in the greatest earnest, and by it making good their Cause. So that he confesses his Charge upon our Church to be carried on with a kind of Sophistry: only what he has done in a kind of jest, we have been doing against them in the greatest earnest; i. e. we have in good earnest charged the Church of Rome with giving that Worship to Saints which belongs to God only, upon nothing else but the Titles of Churches, such as ours have in the Bills of Mortality. But surely his greatest Sophistry of all lies in this, that he endeavours to delude People into this Opinion, which yet if he could, he must delude them into another Opinion too, that Bellarmin and all the famous Champions of old Popery, were a company of Fools, to be at so much Sweat and Charges to maintain the Worship of Saints, and to defend it, as they have done, when they could so easily have denied it. For that nothing is easier than to make good our disowning it against the ground upon which he charges us with it, I shall presently make appear.  
To let pass his Suggestion, that the London Churches were first built by the Papists; his adding that we rebuilt them, with the same Titles, Invocations and Dedications which they use, shows how little he is to be trusted in a Question of Antiquity, who talks so carelessly of things that are notorious in our own Days. Our Fathers indeed found the Titles convenient enough, and the Churches themselves reasonable good Churches, and retained them both. But when we raised them out of their Ashes, we dedicated them to no Saint, whatever has been done in this kind formerly; nor have we since invocated any Saint in any one of them, but we keep the Titles still. And does our new Representer expect that we should Answer such Objections as these? At least I desire him not to think that we will make a practice of it. Must our retaining these Titles, necessarily infer a virtual Dedication of our Temples to those Saints, by whose Names they are distinguished from one another? But what if we had called them by the Names of those Streets only where they stand, had they then been dedicated to the Honour of the Streets? We say that the Hundred Thirty and Two Churches here, which are known by the Names dead Men and Women, are with us God's Houses, and dedicated to his only Service, no less than the Five that are distinguished by the Names of Christ and the Trinity. And me thinks so acute a Disputant as he is grown, might have seen that the Title of one Church distinguishing it from the rest, does not show who is served and worshipped there, when the same Service and Worship is used in all of them. That which we blame them for is, that they continue to worship Dead Men and Women in those Churches which bear their Names, and in those which do not. For if in Christ's Church they call upon the Blessed Virgin; though the Church has its Title from Christ, yet 'tis a House of Prayer to Her as well as to Him. And if in the Churches which are known by her Name, we call upon God only, and worship him alone, they are his Houses entirely, and none of Hers. But after all, where does the Answerer press him with the Titles of their Churches? And yet the Reasons which press home the Arguments, are they not the very same which the Answerer himself urges against him the Representer?  
3. I confess that I have seen Pictures in some English Bibles and Common-prayer Books, and Moses and Aaron painted on each side of the Commandments upon some of our Altar pieces; which things how they have crept in amongst us I cannot tell, for they have no public Authority from our Church. The Answerer made his guess, and perhaps it will not be easy to mend it. But upon this great Occasion, the Representer has brought in his Rigid Brother making us worse than the Papists themselves, forgetting that he undertook to represent us not altogether so Bad, and therefore he should at least have corrected himself in this manner; Indeed, Beloved, I told ye at first, that these Churches-of-england-man are within the Swing of the Dragon's Tail; but I had not lied to say that they are under the Feet and the Belly, more than the Papists themselves are. For the Papists do no more towards the placing of Image-Worship in the Word of God, than by a cleanly conveyance of that Commandment which forbids it, out of the way. But these Church-of- England-Men, as they are called, have given that Abomination of Images themselves, a place in every Leaf of their Bible, in the very Word of God; which is the greatest Argument of Sovereign Honour. Nay, in some of their Bibles you shall find Moses and Aaron stand in the very next Leaf to the Ten Commandments; which what is it, Beloved, but a Defiance to the Second? Whereas the Papists being more modest than to affront it, have put it away far from them. But this is not all, my Brethren, for they pray to their Pictures; for if you but look over their Shoulders, you'll see their Pictures in the very heat of their Devotion, under their very Eyes, in the Leaves of their Common-Prayer Books; And therefore, mark me now Beloved, if we must believe our own Senses, they pray to the Pictures, and to the Leaves, and to the Idol Common-Prayer Books and all.  
This indeed had been something like, and would have pieced well with what follows, that our Altars have their Images too, and that in a more profane way than the Papists, etc.  
Well; but let us suppose our Church bound to answer for these Pictures; and for Moses and Aaron, etc. Are we enjoined to pay them any Worship, as they of the Romish Communion are obliged to pay to their Images? The Council of Trent has determined, That due Honour and Veneration must be given to Images, and that the Honour which is given to them is referred to the Things which they represent. Has the Church of England done any thing like this? We read of several Prayers used at the Consecration of Images amongst them: But whoever heard of any such thing practised at the setting up of Moses; and Aaron? We know that they walk many Miles in Pilgrimage to particular Images, and that they think much more good is to be expected from some, than from others: But who ever thought so among us, or imagined that the Pictures of Moses and Aaron in Cornhill, were more to be honoured than those in Woodstreet, or in any other place? So that how silly soever the Zealous Brother may appear to be in imputing to us, upon such frivolous grounds, the worship of Images; I am sure that he who made the Harangue for him, is either much more so, or something that is worse, in pretending that when we urge the same against the Papists, the Reasons we go upon are no better than his.  
But we do at least make Images and Pictures, which the second Commandment expressly forbids, as he makes his Brother say. And now a Reason of the Answerer is produced, that no Intention can alter the nature of Actions which are determined by a Divine Law. I would therefore know of him, whether there be, or be not good reason to make us certain, that the second Commandment does not absolutely forbid the making of Images and Pictures, but only with reference to worshipping them. If there be no good Reason for it, let him then tell me, whether any Intention can justify the making of Images against an absolute Law to the contrary. If there be, let him then but confess what he thinks of this Objection that he has put into his Brother's Mouth; and there's one labour saved.  
I confess, it were not ill for him if some Intention might justify the breaking of the ninth Commandment; for he pretends that the New Common-Prayer-Books do not profess that hatred to Image-Worship, which the Old ones did: When in the Commination to which he refers, the very first instance runs thus; Cursed is the Man that maketh any carved or molten Image to worship it. Does he think that his Dissenting Brother must answer for these things.  
4. Neither is he more Just to us in making his Zealous Brother to object against us that we worship Saints and Angels. For, to pass by the Argument about erecting Temples to them, to which we have already spoken; Is our giving Thanks to God upon set Days for such eminent Examples of Faith and Virtue, as the first Propagators of the Gospel were? Is our commemorating their Patience, and all their other Divine Graces, to excite one another to the Imitation of them? Is our Praying to God that we may be Followers of them, who through Faith and Patience inherit the Promises? Is this, I say, any thing like to what the Council of Trent declares, That they think wickedly who deny that Saints are to be Invoked? Is it of the same nature with owning them to be Mediators of Intercession, the same with putting up them that sort of Petitions which are fit to be offered to God only? Or does our Praying upon St. Michael's Day, that by God's appointment his holy Angels may secure and defend us, come near even so much as to one single Holy Michael Pray for us? which Form of Words, though much inferior to what is sometimes used in the Church of Rome, we never dare to venture upon, because we cannot make Addresses either to him, or to any other Angel or Saint, but by interpretation we must ascribe the Divine Attribute of Omnipresence to them, and for many other Reasons, which yet we have not been able to get an Answer to from these Men. But he says that we Pray on St. Michael's Day, as if God were not able to defend us, and therefore we seek shelter under the Angel's Wings: And this surely is to worship Angels. By like reason if we pray for our Daily Bread, we pray as if God were not able to preserve us without it: And this would be to worship Bread. The Representer makes too bold with his Zealous Brother, and with us too, if he would have it thought that we reason against them at this rate. But by this time I hope he sees to how little purpose he applies that of the Answerer to this matter, viz. that All worship of Invisible Being's  Religious Worship, etc. For as yet he has not proved that we worship Saints or Angels; and if he has done his best towards it here. I will be bold to say, that he knows he cannot prove it against us; as we can against them, if there were any need of it: But there is no need of it, because they confess it.  
5. As for what is objected about our Idolatry in Receiving the Sacrament; if I did not know the Prompter, I should be ashamed to find it amongst such Instances as are said to be built upon the same Maxims, that our Objections against the Papists are. For how far soever We and the Zealous Brother might in other cases be said to agree in the Reasons of what we Object; I am sure it is most unreasonable to say we agree in this. For do we, as the Papists, hold that the Bread and Wine are changed into the natural Body and Blood of Christ? Do we require any worship to be paid to the Elements after Consecration? Do we elevate or carry them about, on purpose to have them adored by the People? Nay, with reference to our receiving the same in the posture of Kneeling, is it not as fully as can be declared, That what posture is meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ to all worthy Receivers; That no Adoration is hereby intended, for that the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural Substances, and the Natural Body and Blood of our Saviour are in Heaven and not here? Which Declaration is the more significant, one would think, as being made by our Church in Opposition to those who do Adore the Sacrament: Especially since it was not the posture of Kneeling when the Sacrament is received, which of itself could make such a Declaration needful, but the Scandal which they give to the World who Adore it. Had this been considered by the Representer, his Brother's Zeal might well have been spared in saying, They may say, they do not pay Religious Worship to the Bread and Wine, and Honour the Sacrament as God: But what, must we not believe our senses in so plain a Case? Or else his Zeal should not have stopped here, but carried him a little farther, to appeal to his own Eyes that we honour the Patin and Chalice as Gods too, by falling down to them on our Knees, for this is as plain a Case as the other; and our Church has made no Declaration against it in solemn and particular Terms neither, as it has against the Adoration of the Bread and the Wine. But I guess that the Zealous Brother when he is once at liberty to speak for himself, will confess that he sees neither the one nor the other; and that it is no affront to his Eyes to acquit us of Adoring the Sacrament, and to yield that when we receive it, we Adore God and him only, in a posture which as we think, well becomes the thankful Receivers of such Holy Mysteries.  
However, though we, it seems, must not be believed when we say that we do not adore the Sacrament at all; yet we will not be so hard to the Church of Rome, but believe her telling us that she does Adore the Sacrament, and that with Divine Honour too. And when the Zealous Brother gets our Church at any Advantage like this, or can find out any practices amongst us like those above mentioned, we shall hear him, I doubt not, speaking to better purpose for himself, than as his Brother here has taught him.  
And now, I think, I have omitted nothing in the first Five of the Fifteen Parallels, that required the least notice, but have rather ventured being laughed at by the Representer for giving any serious Answers, where he meant only to Ridicule. But by this he may see what little reason there was to Crow over his Adversary as he does upon this occasion; which was all that I intended. And therefore since it is needless to drive the Parallel any farther with that circumstance which I have hitherto used; I must not do a needless thing, which according to one of his weighty Observations, would be  a piece more for the Curious: Especially since the Answerer has done Reason enough to the remaining Particulars. For though the Representer, to save himself from any further Reply, comes off with telling him that he answered the whole charge with, The Dissenters never charged us with this or that, etc. and nothing else; yet the Reader will find more said than this comes to, if he will consult the Answer itself, instead of taking the Representers word. But I hope Five of his Particulars have been handled his own way: And now I offer him this, either in full Satisfaction, or in part of Payment; let him choose, as he likes, 'tis all one to his Humble Servant. And therefore if he will please to call upon me for Arrears, I promise him that our calling upon the Birds, the Beasts, and the Fishes, shall not be forgotten, nor our crying out to Dead Men, in our most solemn Devotion, nor the Apochryphas in the Liturgy, nor the Rochet, the Alb, and the Tunicle, nor any thing else which yet wants a Vindication, as he says: But, to return him one of his familiar Phrases, I shall take occasion of playing him the same Tune over again as distinctly upon the remaining Ten, as he has had it already upon his first Five Particulars.  
And now let us go on with his Reply; in which the next thing I observe, is, that he will needs have the Answerer to bid fair for the good opinion of Dissenters and to curry closely with the Dissenters, and to throw those scandals upon his own Church in good earnest, 
Pag. 5.  which the Representer did little more than in jest. If the Representer could have turned his Adversaries Pen against the Dissenters, there are some would have had a better opportunity of currying closely with the Dissenters; and I shall tell him who they are, before I have done with him. But, it seems, we are not for doing every good thing, in the very nick when he would have it done. And so to be revenged on us, we must be represented as currying with the Dissenters; which yet we are as far from, when we own our Agreement with them in those many things, which they no less than we, object against the Papists; as from currying with the Papists, when we confess that we agree with them in those fewer things that are to be objected against the Dissenters. And yet currying with the Dissenters is not so great a Fault, but he could tell them upon the Spot, how their Sufferings are at an end, now our Church's power has been something checked, 
Pag. 5.  which he thinks they may Reflect upon. But if the Representer would win their good opinion, he should of all things beware of putting them in mind to Reflect; lest when they begin to Reflect upon those things of which he speaks, they should chance to Reflect upon other things of which he speaks not.  
Me thinks too, I may reasonably suspect a little currying of the Representer in what comes next. For, whereas the Answerer thought the Dissenters too wise and cautious to take Characters [of us] from [Their own] open and professed Enemies; (for that was his plain meaning) the Representer understands him, as if he had meant our, i.e. the Church of England's professed Enemies: 
Pag. 6.  and then hopes that our People will henceforth be so wise, as not to take Characters of Popery from us, who are, as he says, Enemies to Papists. But whether he was resolved to make this mistake for the sake of the neat Turn, or to save himself from saying whether he was Friend or Enemy to the Dissenters, I leave him to resolve. But I hope he does not expect that I should take notice of every such little Reflection, as he knows this to be.  
And yet I must needs vindicate the Answerer from that Charge, that whereas the Representer granted, that his Protestant Character of a Papist was not made up wholly of downright Lies, the Answerer stretches this Courtesy with a witness, 
Pag. 9 Pag. 10.  and concludes that we have the Representer's word for it now that we are guilty of no Misrepresentation at all of matters of Fact, which he, the Representer, never did, nor will allow. But in this the Answerer is wronged, who very well remembered, that his Adversary did a little dispute his Churches owning the Deposing Power, and two or three Points more, which he thought fit to drop at last. Now therefore, as the Answerer had frequently said before, that the matters of Fact were the same in both Characters, very few things excepted; so in his last Answer, he was to be understood in course with the same Exception, viz. that we now had our Adversaries Confession, that in the Character of a Misrepresented Papist, there were no Protestant Misrepresentations of Popery properly so called; and so, that a very few Points excepted, we are agreed on both sides upon the matters of Fact. And this one would think was plain enough in the last Answer, where the Answerer thus interprets the Concession of his Adversary. Whatever he at first pretended, he grants now, that we are not in a strict and proper sense Misrepresenters; and thus farewell to Character-making, since Papists and Protestants that understand these matters, Answ. to An. Accom. 
p. 8, 9  are in the main (not absolutely in every point, but in the main) agreed what is the Character of a Papist, though they differ in their Opinions about him, etc.  
I know indeed the Representer would extend the downright Lies, from which he does not absolutely acquit us, to more Instances than those excepted, by the Answerer. For which he appeals to his own Character of a Papist misrepresented, where he has represented the Protestants as Liars, in charging the Papists with other things disowned by the Church of Rome: Which is one of the finest Fetches that is possible. For though in that Character, he has made the Protestant to charge the Papist with all that we indeed charge him with; yet he has made him do more, and therefore might safely appeal to his own Character, to prove that we are Liars in some things; always supposing that he is the honestest Man in the World, in representing the Protestant Representations of Popery. But how often must he be told, that he has been a false Representer of us as to this matter? That he sometimes brings in Protestants charging Papists, (1.) In ambiguous Terms, which admit of different Interpretations; for instance, under the Head of Praying to Images, which is the first Point he mentions. (2.) With owning the dangerous Consequences of their Doctrines and Practices, as that Papists do believe their Sins to be infallibly remitted upon Absolution, whether they resolve upon Amendment or no: which is his second Instance, and there are two or three more, to the same Tune. (3.) With some things that we do not impute to 'em at all, either as Principles or Consequences; witness that Instance which he has the forehead still to insist upon. For, says he, Are their Sermons in Latin? Do they teach in unknown Tongues? as if we charged them with this. I know not what every Protestant in the World may have said in his heat against Papists: But I am apt to think that it will be as hard to find a Protestant that hath said this against them, as to find a Zealous Brother that will own the Canting Sermon he hath made against us. Upon one or other of these three accounts he might well appeal to his own Characters to convict us of Lyihg, and ask the Answerer what he thinks of this, or that which Protestants charge upon Papists; supposing, as I said before, that he delivers Oracles always, when the is setting us out to the World.  
And now, I say, 'tis too late for the Representer to ask us, what we think of these things; because, not to mention the second Answer, his first Answerer has told him very particularly what we think of them, what we do charge them with, and what not. And since he has said nothing to it, it is unreasonable to expect that we should do the same thing over and over again, as often as he is pleased to put the Question to us. As for firing the City, and kill Sir Edmundbury Godfrey, etc. what have these things to do in the Character of Popery? I suppose 'tis no Article of the Representer's Faith; that Papists did not these things; I am sure 'tis none of mine, that they did.  
Having upon no better grounds than these accused the Answerer of Misrepresenting him, he runs out into general and passionate Expostulations concerning the injustice of those who for their own Interest support the false Notions which the People have of Popery, lest themselves should appear the Deceivers. At length he asks, whether although the People must be preached into a Dread of Popery, it be a Christian Method to make use of Artifices to increase the Horror? 
Pag. 12.  Why should every thing the Papists do be stretched and strained, and forced to make it ugly?— 'Tis true, this is proper enough to win upon the Mobile, who make no distinction between Real and Artificial Monsters; 'tis well enough, where the Interest is best maintained by the madness of the People. But where's the Christianity all the while, where's Truth and Charity? Why truly not so much as there should be, where either these things are done on the one side, or falsely said to be done on the order. Now it must not be quite forgotten that the Representer wrote his Protestant Characters of Popery, as they lay in his own and the People's Heads; and made all his Answerers work in distinguishing between Representation and Dispute; between Principles that are owned, and Consequences that are denied by the Papists, utterly useless; because things did not and could not lie thus distinctly in the People's Heads. For Instance, Because if a Preacher should say that though the Papists think it lawful to worship Images, yet it is plainly forbidden in God's Word so to do, and that too as an Idolatrous Action; the poor People presently conclude, that the Papists believing it to be Idolatry, differ from us in no other thing, but that we think Idolatry, and forbidden Worship, to be unlawful, and the Papists do not think so. But if the Representer believed this of the People; Where was Christianity, where was Truth and Charity, when he wrote his Representation of Popery, under colour of disabusing the People; and made one part of a Papist's Character to be this, that he abhors Idolatry? for thus the People would he betrayed into a belief, that he does not so much as worship Images; for Consequents and Antecedents are so jumbled in the People's Heads, that nothing can lie distinctly there. We indeed do not think so meanly of them, and therefore might honestly urge Arguments and Consequences against that and other Practices of the Roman Church. But he, it seems, believed they could not distinguish between the one and the other; and then I am sure if they acquitted Papists of the Consequence, it would go hard if they did not acquit them of the Fact too; and therefore whether he put the Denying of the Consequence into the Papist's Character with an honest Design, at least, whether he had any reason to object against the distinct proceeding of the Answerer, I dare almost now appeal to himself. But, as I observed before, the Answerer made him ashamed of imputing this kind of madness to the People, and so we heard no more of it in his next Reply. But yet the Interest we are said to have in the People must still be imputed to their madness. And what madness is it now? Why they cannot distinguish between Real and Artificial Monsters: Which is as much as to say, that we have made the Papists Monsters, by telling notorious Lies of them; and the People are so mad that they cannot find it out. But may not I take my turn now to ask, Where's Christianity all this while; where's Truth and Charity? Why must we be branded with the Imputation of Falsehood and Calumny, and our Christian Brethren treated in that manner, as if they were mere stupid Creatures, and more fit to herd with Beasts; than to live amongst Men?  
As for ourselves being thus urged, we beg leave to appeal to All that know us, whether this odious Character be any way suitable to our Conversation; and then, whether we have deserved it for the management of this Controversy in particular, we appeal to the World. We appeal to all Men of Sincerity and Understanding, what colour of Reason the Representer had here to ask, Why praying to Images, leave to Sin for Money, Forgiveness without Repentance, etc. should be urged against them to make them the Object of Hatred, and the Subject of popular Fury? Have not his Answerers more than once published clearly and distinctly what we do, and what we do not charge them with in every one of these Respects? Has he convinced them of any Insincerity, nay, of any mistake in the stating of these things? Has he taken notice of any thing they have said about them? Why would he not be brought to confess the Justice of our charging them so far as we have done, and our Justice to them in charging them no farther, or at least to confute us by showing wherein we had done unjustly? What other Construction now can Truth and Charity make of these Proceed, but that he would not confess that we do them no wrong, and yet could not prove that we do? But then certainly he should at least have been silent, and not go on as he does to declaim against us; as if he really believed we were those odious Misrepresenters and Falsifiers, which he would have the World believe that we are.  
He says indeed, that the Answerer unhappily takes it to himself, as if He and His were arraigned of Lying and Calumny, etc. whereas the Representer spoke only in general, without so much as hinting upon any party or person in particular. But surely when after the first Answer that was made in behalf of the Church, of England, the Representer without telling us the particulars why, could yet declare that he would be a Turk as soon as a Papist, if the Answerer had rightly represented Popery; we must have as little understanding, as he allows to the Mobile, not to find that we are principally intended in these general Declamations. He thinks the Answerers over solicitude to prove his Innocence, may in some breed a suspicion of his Gild. But whether it be Innocence or Gild that makes us solicitous to clear ourselves, we may now leave the World to judge. One thing, I take it, is easy to be discerned, that though our Adversary Rowls in Figures to heighten the injustice under which He and His have suffered by Misrepresentations, yet he throws the Gild so faintly upon the Church of England, as if he were conscious of being unjust to us all the while.  
As for the People of our Communion, whom he compliments under the Title of the Mobile, we may say without vanity, that how scornfully soever the Representer treats them, we shall never be ashamed to compare them with their Neighbours; and that it would be a better World for the Representer, if they were as ignorant and stupid as he would have them thought to be.  
But no more of what he has said in this fit of Anger; for here's a sudden change, and now behold him the gayest and merriest Man alive. He fancies the Answerer left him to wonder who those We are that are not Misrepresenters in a strict and proper notion of Misrepresenting, i.e. who do not belie the Papists. For indeed he would gladly know who those We are, that he might return them his thanks for this so kind Office— Did he but know the Men, he would never permit them to lie obscured under the general name of We. No, he would particularise them to the World— For why? are not such Men Prodigies of Truth, Honesty, and Justice?— Men that never misrepresented the Papists! Why these are admirable Men indeed, and not to be heard of every day! Now really this, with all that belongs to it, is allowed to be very well for the kind, and so much the better, because it more and more appears, that though he can be angry without a cause, yet a small matter will please him again. For he is delighted beyond measure with wondering who these We are, and wishes there be no mistake in it, and makes it hard to imagine who they should be: But I'll warrant him, he has 'em presently, as hard as it is. For in the very next place he tries whether the Answerer by his We, should mean We Protestants. And that is a pretty near guess for the First. But then alas! who can believe it, that We Protestants should be no Misrepresenters? He, for his part, would willingly give something for the sight of the Man that thinks so, who would be the greatest Misrepresenter of All, in vouching for the Truth of All that has been invented against the Papists these hundred and forty years. Why then, surely, they are not We Protestant's. But for all that, upon consideration, he thinks he may take it for granted that they are We Protestants. For the Answerer vindicates Protestants, and for himself, one may swear he's a staunch True Protestant, ●s never scrupling at any thing that's for running down the Papists, though it be currying favour with and colloguing the fanatics. And thus the Answerer coming cross in his way, his Fit takes him again; for he cannot abide the Answerer, and so there's and end of his Mirth: And now in sober sadness we must suppose that the Answerers We, are We Protestants. For which reason the Representer gins the World again, and is resolved to prove out of the Sermons and Books of Protestants, that We Protestants are Misrepresenters: And so he falls to work about it in good earnest through the remaining part of his Book. Now I am so far from being angry with him for this, that I rather wish some merry Youth were to take him up here, to requite his Raillery, and keep up the good humour a little longer. And if it should come into any Body's Head hereafter, who is given that way, to lay the Pleasant and the Angry Representer together, as it might be done: The Jest would go rarely forward, and that to some Bodies cost too, that may be thinks little on't.  
For, was it not the Representer that would be glad to know who these Men are that do not misrepresent Papists, these Admirable Men that are not to be heard of every day; these Men, that were he but assured of the Being of such Men, he should begin to think Astrea was returned again! Did he not wish to know them, that he might particularise them to the World, nay and have their Names Blazoned in every Sheet upon Pillars erected to their Memory? Yes surely, this was the Representer himself. Why then, Dear Sir, be happy and joyful, for many such Admirable Men, as these, are in being I assure you, and to be heard of every day; But because it will be too great a charge to erect Pillars for 'em All, I shall at present recommend but two of 'em to your Acquaintance, who are already particularised to the World, by the Names of the Firsst and Second Answerers to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented. What pity is it that such Friends should be obscured so long under the general Name of We, and be no better known to one another? These, Sir, are the Men whom you desire to honour, as if they were made on purpose for it. For why? Tho very honest, Gentlemen they are, and their Words may go for as great a matter, yet they have a notable Quality besides, never to think of Representing the Church of Rome, without proving what they say. Why, Sir, they have been lately tried upon no less than Thirty and Seven Points of Popery; and have born the Test of a severe, watchful, double-dealing Adversary; and one as vehemently desirous to find false Representers among Protestants, as you can be to know the true ones. Now, Sir, judge if these two are not likely to prove Right and True Men: For the Adversary is to this day roaming up and down amongst other men's Books to get Protestant Misrepresentations for them to Answer; a plain sign, you will say, that he has found none of their own to call them to an Account for. And so having found out your Admirable Men for you, I wish you much joy of one another.  
Now this is too Blunt, I confess, to go for Raillery; but 'tis True tho, and that's almost as good: And the Representer may see by it how another would have handled him upon this matter, if he had not by good fortune fallen in my way. It is to me a most unaccountable thing, why the Representer should search for more and more Misrepresentations, Misquotations, and such like faults in Protestant Authors, and forsake the Defence of his own double Characters, if indeed he thinks they may be defended: But if he does not think so, it were but an honest Man's part to confess it, and then I think the Controversy were at an end. Certainly the design of his first Book, which he still pretends to vindicate, was to give us an account of the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, upon which score he took upon himself the Title of a Representer. 'Tis true he pretended to dispute for them too; but that design fell to the ground upon the first Attempt that was made upon him, and I believe he will hardly stoop to take it up again. But then to illustrate the Representing part, he shown on the other side how Protestants, as he says, have Misrepresented Papists. So that here was a solemn Controversy begun upon so many several points, about Representing and Misrepresenting; and it was, one would think, very fairly carried on by the First Answerer, who we know went on with the Representer from point to point, discovering, where need was, his Ambiguities and Fallacies on both sides, mending his Characters, and giving a correct and plain account of the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, in opposition to that lame and deceitful account thereof. which the Representer had published. The sum of the performance was to show how much and no more we absolutely charge upon the Church of Rome, and in matters of charge not so clear as the rest, how far and no farther we accuse them; every Particular being guarded with reasonable Proofs and Testimonies. They second Answerer perceiving into what mistakes the Representer was wand'ring, by confounding the proper Subject of Representation, with Subjects of Dispute, went as particularly through all the points, and plainly distinguished those things under every one. Now would not any Man of common sense imagine, that, if the Dispute were pertinently carried on, the Question must be this, Who gave the truest account of the Faith and Worship of the Church Rome, the Representer, or the Answerer? And if it were pertinently managed, that this Question must be driven through all the Thirty Seven Points, as it has been done once and again on our behalf. And, therefore to what end the Representer should trouble himself to find out new Representations in the Books of other Protestants, a Man may well wonder for a while, though at last he will settle upon the true Reason, that the Representer was Sick of defending his own.  
If it be said, that one part of his business at least, goes forwards still, which was to show, that some Protestants have been Misrepresenters; I desire it may be considered too, whether this was not in order to the settling of a clear and indisputable account between us, what are, and what are not the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, as to the Thirty Seven Points. For granting now, (and 'tis a good large Grant to be made at once) that the Representer did sincerely give in his own former Protestant thoughts of Popery, and (as far as he could understand them) those apprehensions what Popery is, which lay in the Heads of the Vulgar; then so far as the Answerers confessed this was not a true Representation, if Protestants did thus charge the Church of Rome, so far I say they complied with the Representers design, which was to correct such, if there were any such mistakes going amongst Protestants. But so far as they owned the charge in the Protestant Character to be good against the Church of Rome, if the Representer disowned it, he had in this case nothing to do, but to confute their Testimonies, and to show that in those particulars as well as in others, his Church was Misrepresented. And therefore if he had been sincere, the Controversy had proceeded thus on his side; and nothing could have diverted him from proceeding in this manner, if he had been able to make any thing of it. But instead of this, he has for some time forsaken his Thirty and Seven Chapters, and employed himself in turning over some Books of Protestants, to find out such Say as he thinks there is any colour to call Misrepresentations; nay, he is fallen so low as to pick out what Misquotations of Authors he can find amongst them, and to tax them here and there for Historical Passages.  
But did ever either of his Adversaries undertake to justify all that any Protestant Divine, or Historian has at any time said in opposition to Popery? Or, was it not possible to give a more honest account of Popery than he did, to discover his fallacious way, of representing his own Church, and the true state of the Questions that have been hitherto disputed, without such an undertaking? Nay have not his Answerers effectually done it, without any such undertaking? so effectually that he has forsaken the defence of his double Characters under the Thirty Seven Points? Why then must they be bound to Answer for all that every Protestant has said against the Church of Rome? Will he answer for all the Popish Misrepresentations of Protestants, that I can bring before him? I shall try him a little as to this before I have done: And I think with some better Grace, than this Task has been put upon us withal. For if it be but a mean way of carrying on the Controversy, as I confess it is, yet he has forced us to it by insisting upon it so obstinately, that we have now no other way to let him see the inconveniency of it, but by turning it upon himself. And, which is something too, we have cleared our Hands of him as to the Original Controversy, for he has dropped that quite away, and so having no Arrears to be reproached with, we may handsomely enough talk with him upon this new Score; and I will venture beforehand to say thus much, that he is likely to be as deep in our Debt for this, as he is for his first deal with us. Nor am I afraid thus to speak may belief in this matter, though he seems to have taken up a way of writing now, that will not fail him in haste; for as long as he can but find out any new severe Say of Protestants against Popery, 'tis but furnishing out a new Book with 'em, and he may as well call it by the Title of a Fifth or a Sixth Vindication of himself, as by any other Title whatsoever. Nay the Vindication will go forward, if he can but find out a Vulgar Head without a Name, to say that he believes the Popish Sermons are in a Unknown Tongue, or any other thing as extravagant as that.  
But though it be no part of business to bring off every thing that has been said or done by Protestants, yet I shall a little examine what our Representer has charged those with, whom he has singled out to expose them to the World. For I am much mistaken if even here, he has not exposed himself a great deal more than any Body else: Since he does often take the liberty to fill up his Tragical Declamations against Protestants, by spiteful Constructions, weak Inferences, and now and then by false Accusations, which is never more intolerable, than when a Man is in the same Breath exclaiming against the Misrepresentations of others. For my own part, where his Accusations in whole or in part fall justly, there shall they lie for me, nor will I make another Man's Fault my own by going about to defend it. And if he had taken the same care not to make himself Guilty, by accusing the Innocent, he had come off better upon this Theme of Arraigning particular Men, as wild as it is.  
He gins firsst with Sutcliffs Inference from Aquinas, which I confess is a very silly one; though I think it had been not only for Sutcliffs credit that this matter had been let alone, but for Aquinas' too, whose Principle is no very wise one. But I see no reason why the Answerer should have been ashamed to print it over again, since he did it only to show that Sutcliff inferred his Accusation by Consequence from what an Author of their own had said, but not to justify the Inference. And for any thing the Answerer has said, the Representer is at liberty to go on with his charge of Ignorance or Malice against him that drew the Consequence, to call him a Fool in this business, if he believed the Consequence to be Good, or a Knave if he did not.  
But I would gladly know how the Representer can clear himself from gross. Misrepresentation in the next Instance, where falling upon the Author of the Representing Catechism for charging them with praying to Images, 
P. 19  he makes it to be a Crime, which his first Answerer had cleared them from in saying, that we do not charge them with praying to Images without any farther Respect. For many not a Man pray to Images, and yet not pray to them without any further Respect? This would make one believe that he writes only for the Mobile, in whose Heads things cannot lie distinctly. But 'tis not so honest tho, especially in a Man that complains of Misrepresentations. But by this time, I hope, he is made sensible of his miscauriage here, by what the Author of the Catechism has done to justify his charge. And so I pass over this complaint, and come to the next.  
Which is of a Sermon that charges them with praying to Relics too. Now whether the Preacher had any particular Testimonies that there are some amongst them who do not only Worship, 
P. 20.  but likewise call upon Martin's Boots, etc. I know not and therefore cannot at present pass Sentence against him; especially since I am well assured that the Council of Trent condemns those in general, 
Concerning the Construction of Eorum opis impetrand● causâ. Sess. 25. See Defence of Exp. of Doctr. of Ch. of Engl. p. 24, 25.  who affirm that the Memories of the Saints are in vain frequented, for the obtaining of help from their Relics, and other their sacred Monuments, or Remains. Now if Martin's Boots and Joseph's Breeches, etc. are the Relics of Saints, than they are not only to be venerated, as the Council affirms, but the Memories where they are, must be frequented also, for obtaining help from them. This, I think, is no Misrepresentation, no wry Interpretation, no Imputation upon them from Ignorance or Malice in drawing the Consequence.  
In the next place the Answerer of Catholics no Idolaters, is made a Misrepresenter for saying, that the common Answer of Catholics, that their Adoration of the Eucharist cannot be Idolatry, is because they believe the Bread to be God, just as the Worshippers of the Sun, believed the Sun to be God: 
P. 20.  whereas the Catholics do not believe the Bread to be God, etc. To which I say, 'tis so notoriously known that Papists believe (as they tell us) the Bread to be Transubstantiated, that if the Answerer's Words be as they are here fet down, 'tis yet a mere Cavil to pretend that he would insinuate as if the Papists believed that which they Adore to be Bread, as we believe it is no more. And the Argument is good thus, if their mistake, who believed the Sun to be God, did not excuse their worshipping the Sun from being Idolatry; neither will their mistake, who believe what they worship to be Bread no longer, but God, excuse them, if it be Bread still. But I suspect the Words are more clear and full in the Answerer, at least, I make no doubt that they are sufficiently secured from the Representer's Interpretation of them, by other Passages in Connexion. For the Representer has not referred us to the Page, where he has picked up this Exception, which omission I believe was designed, because he has neglected such reference in four or five Instances more. But though I have upon this disadvantage given him a particular Answer here, yet I do not intent to use him to it. For the employment he has found out for us at present, is not of that weight, that I should be obliged to turn over whole Books, and some of 'em no small ones neither, to find out a single Passage that he thinks fit to carp at. And therefore, at present; I will not be concerned with the Vindication of those Deductive Absurdities, which Dr. St. would persuade to be Doctrines of the Roman Church: For the Representer here refers to the general current of his Discourse ● and which is yet more unreasonable, 
Pag. 21.  has given me a whole Book written in confutation of the Doctor to answer. For the like reason as he has referred the proof of a hundred and fifty Lies (without giving one Instance) against John Fox's Acts and Monuments, to the Examen of John Fox 's Calendar, p. 3. p. 412. so do I too. Thus also the Archbishop of York misquoting St. Thomas and Bellarmine; 
P. 22,23,24.  and old Dr. willet's proof out of St. Bernard, that the Pope is Antichrist; and Bp. Taylor's misquotations and corruptions of Authors, which some Answerer of his has made to appear, shall with all the rest of this kind, pass off together without any further notice. For still I say 'tis too hard an Imposition, for the Representer in a few Lines to oblige us to read over so many Books; and which is by no means to be submitted to, unless the Fate of the cause depended upon it, which I am not yet convinced it does. And therefore once again, I must desire him to give in his particular Exceptions against our Authors in their own Words, if he thinks fit to go on in this way, and to tell us the particular Page or Section where such Passages are to be found; and then he shall have my Judgement in the case: But if he leaves all upon his own and his Friend's credit, I shall be so civil as to do so too.  
I come now to his charge upon Dr. Tillotson, for abusing Estius; but whether Estius be not more obliged to Dr. Tillotson than to the Representer, I leave it to others to judge, when I have given a particular account of this matter. I do acknowledge that those Words cited by the Representer are in Estius; but though I cannot say whether the Dr. minded them or not, yet I believe it will either way appear, that the Representer had but little reason to make this an Instance of our endeavouring to prove some Folly upon the Papists, out of their own Authors, and then bringing in Authors quite contrary to their own sense and words. Estius concludes that the Fire which the Apostle speaks of, 1 Cor. 3.15. is the Fire of the Day of Judgement, which shall prove every Man's work, and purge that which is not already purged. And at length he comes to speak of the Purgatory of Souls after this Life, which seems not only not to be supported, but to be overthrown also by this place of the Apostle, since the whole purgation is reserved to the last Judgement. To this he answers, that thus much is manifest against the Sectaries, from his Interpretation of the place, that in the World to come some Sins are to be forgiven, viz. theirs who shall be purged and saved by Fire. Nor, says he, does it follow from the Purgatory Fire of the last day, that no Purgatory of Souls is left before that day, any more than it follows from the Purgatory of Souls, that there is no purging in this Life; which, allowing for the principles of his Church, is with the rest that follows to this purpose, a good and solid Answer to the foresaid Objection. And this was the Doctor's Ground for saying, that Estius contends that it cannot be concluded from hence that there is no Purgatory. But then he goes on, Besides, we must know that as the Scripture often leaves a particular Judgement to be understood, under a general Judgement, and from the last day in which all shall be judged, will have the day of every one's Death to be understood in which each Man is judged by himself; so from the Fire that is to go before the Face of Christ at the general Judgement, and to purge whatsoever at that time remains to be purged, it leaves a certain Fire to be understood, in which a particular Judgement is exercised for the purging of Souls presently after this Life. Then come in the words cited by the Representer. Wherefore by this way the Punishment of Souls in Purgatory is well and solidly gathered. But how is it well and solidly gathered this way? Does Estius say that the punishment of Souls in Purgatory is implied in, or that it does any way follow from that general Purging which is to be at the Day of Judgement? No, he says not a word than looks this way; but only that one leaves the other to be understood, that is to say, if a Man has a mind so to understand it, but not else. For 'tis a shame to repeat that, because where the Scripture speaks of a general Judgement, it supposes that we must die first; therefore when it speaks of a general Purgatory of Men, it leaves a Purgatory of Souls beforehand to be understood, or well and solidly gathered. But the Representer will say, the Question is not whether Estius' way of gathering Purgatory from this Text, be good and solid; but whether Estius does contend for no more than that Purgatory cannot be overthrown by it, as the Dean pretended. I grant this, to be the Question, and it shall have an Answer, if it has not had it already. Whether the Dean made the same observation that I have made upon this mysterious business, I cannot certainly say, having never spoken with him about it: But I presume he did, because it will clear him from any great matter of blame, in taking no notice of the Passage cited by the Representer. The Case in short is this, Estius was very clear in this Point, that St. Paul does not here speak of a Purgatory of Souls, but of that Fire which is to prove the works of. All at the day of Judgement. But then he must guard himself as well as he could from the charge of interpreting this place, otherwise than the Latins had interpreted it at Florence; which made it necessary for him to bring in his third Question, An & quomodo probetur, whether and how it can be proved from this place, that there is a Purgatory for Souls after this Life, in pursuance of which Question he says what we have already cited. Now, although in his Interpretation of this Text, he could own, as he did, with great; modesty and good reason, that he did not follow Bellarmine, Lensaeus, Vicus; Bonaventure in all things; yet when the Name of a Council lay cross to him, no other kind of modesty would serve but some appearance at least of submission to it. And therefore observing that the Latin Fathers thought that Purgatory was to be established upon this place, though the Greek Fathers dissented; he also thought it needful to gather it as well and solidly as he could, from this place too. For by that time he had done his best, proving was dwindled to gathering; and to such a way of gathering too, that, the premises being considered. I leave it to all impartial Men to consider, whether so Judicious a Man as Estius was, contended for the point; or rather if the modest Estius, in the straight he was in, did not choose to talk beneath himself, in compliance with the Latin Fathers at Florence. So that at last we have here an Example of the Servitude of Ingenuous Minds in the Church of Rome; but not of charging Folly upon the Papists out of their own Authors. For this was that which the Dean declined the doing of; whereas if he had said, Nay, All that Estius contends for from this place is, that it cannot be concluded from hence that there is no Purgatory, although he makes a hard shift to avoid falling foul with the Florentine Council; here had then been no colour for accusing him of Misquotation, it had also done his business as well; only this had been to charge Folly upon Estius, and upon the Latin Fathers too, which it seems the Dean had no mind to do.  
I proceed next to his Charge upon the Author of The Devotions of the Church of Rome. And first he accuses him of quoting Escobar for that which he does not say in the place cited; nay, there is not one word of it to be found in him there. Now to know whether this be so or not, it is but fair to take the whole Passage of that Author, for which he refers us to Escobar, and not as it is slily gelt by the Representer. The Passage is this: They tell us there is a vast number of Sins in their own Nature Venial, which are so very inconsiderable that an infinite Number of them altogether, will not deprive a Man of the Grace and Favour of God, or make up one Mortal Sin; and for the pardon of which there is no need or occasion for the Mercy of God. Now Escobar in the place cited, Tract. 2. Exam. 1. Chap. 4. in answer to that Question, N. 15. Whether many Venial Sins of themselves, and formally speaking, can make up one Mortal Sin? says thus, No, because innumerable Venial Sins do not deprive a Man of the Grace of God. But the Representer will not allow, that there is one word of that Passage, at least, to be found there, that for the pardon of such Sins there is no need, or occasion, for the Mercy of God. But I am sure the thing is to be found there; For he says N. 1. that a Venial Sin is that which does not render a Man worthy of Eternal Punishment: And now if innumerable Sins of this sort do not of themselves make up one Mortal Sin, I think it is plain that take them altogether, and there is no occasion for God's Mercy in the pardon of them, unless it be Mercy to pardon where there is no desert of Punishment. 'Tis true, Escobar says that they are worthy of Temporal Punishment: but our Author was not obliged to take any notice of that, because that which he complained of was not, that these Doctrines brought men's Fortunes, in this World, into danger; but that by reason of 'em, Men are in wonderful danger of being cheated in a matter of so great moment as their Eternal Salvation. So that although the Representer professes that this Doctrine is contrary to their Belief, yet, at least, he must confess that it was not contrary to Escobar's; and therefore that he hath wronged our Author in charging him here with Misquotation.  
The same Book says in another place, p. 56. That their saying the same thing so often over, in their Jesus Psalter, is not contrived to help and assist attention, etc. but out of pure Vanity and Ostentation, or as it were to flatter our B. Saviour, or the Saint they pray to. And this the Representer calls throwing Dirt blindfold, 
Pag. 26.  etc. and such Misrepresenting, that if the State or Civil Government were served so, there would be a— at the end of it. By which, I guess, he would be content that the Author were hanged. But one would be willing to know first what he has done to deserve it. Why, says the Representer, This is the Reason he gives of our Devotion. What? that all who use those Forms of Devotion which the Author censures, have no other End or Intention, but pure Vanity and Ostentation or Flattery? so indeed the Representer would insinuate: But, as I shall make appear, the Author's meaning was that the Repetitions themselves which he spoke of, were purely vain, and do not serve to any good and prudent End: For which he chief blames the Contrivers of 'em, as the words plainly enough show. But what reason he had to say this, was laid down just before in these words. Their Manuals of Devotion are so full of Tautologies, and vain Repetitions, than they must needs come under the censure of our B. Saviour, Matth. 6. though they use his holy Name. For so in the Jesus Psalter, at the end of the Manual of Prayers and Litanies, printed at Paris, in English, An. 1682. in a Litany of Fifteen Petitions, the Name Jesus is repeated over above 130 times: And in the same Book, in the Litany of the B. Virgin, they pray to her by 40 several Names, being only so many distinct Praises of her. Now this the Representer thought fit to suppress, which would have shown that he did not make Vanity, etc. to be the Reason of the People's Devotion, but that he charged their Forms of Prayer with vain Repetitions. And here the Representer should have shown, if he were able, that the Repetitions mentioned do not fall under our Saviour's prohibition of vain Repetitions; that they could be contrived for some good and prudent End; that they serve to any thing better than Ostentation or Flattery: Here, I say, he should have employed his Skill, and told us what are vain Repetitions, if these are not. But this was something a harder Task, than to take a Passage by itself, without that Connexion which would have explained it, and to represent the Author by it as odiously as he could. For, I say it again, he does not make Vanity, etc. the Reason of their People's Devotion, even in using these vain Repetitions. But indeed he says plainly enough, that they are so contrived for Vanity, and Ostentation or Flattery, that they are not Helps, but Hindrances to Devotion. But however, does not this Author make Vanity to be the End and Reason of their Contrivance, who composed those Forms? No, not that neither; for though that Expression out of pure Vanity, etc. be, I confess, something obscure, and seems to look that way, yet it was not his meaning, as any Body will say is plain beyond all Exception, that consults the whole place. For thus gins that particular to which this Passage belongs. Seventhly, Their Manuals and Books of Devetion, which they give their People to read instead of the Scripture, which they forbidden to be used, though they may DESIGN THEM AS HELPS, yet I must range them amongst the Hindrances of Devotion. By which it is evident, that he meant not to charge even the Contrivers of these Tautologies, with any design to lead the People to Vanity, because he supposes that they might design them as Helps, and not Hindrances. The Book which he carps at, is written with great Judgement, and no less Modesty; as one may discern by this, that the Representer could not find a more convenient Passage for his Anger to work upon, than that which we have seen. But we must not forget that he is all this while making good his Title of a Representer.  
And now the Bishop of Kilmore is called to account for misrepresenting the Papists, by putting them upon the same File with Infidels and Pagans. For, as Delphos worshipped Apollo, etc. So, in Popery, England worshipped St. George, 
Pag. 26.  etc. And as the Pagans had their Gods for the several Elements, for Cattle and Fruit, for several Professions, and several Diseases, to pray to: So, in Popery, they have one Saint for the Fire, etc. Now if this be misrepresenting at all, 'tis misrepresenting with a witness, i. e. in the Answerer's Phrase 'tis misrepresenting in a strict and proper sense, and in the Representer's Phrase, downright Lying. For I do not find that the Bishop affirms any thing in all this, but matter of Fact. But will the Representer say that Papists have not Tutelar Saints for several Countries, and several Saints to pray to, for their Cattle, and the Fruits of the Earth? Is it true or false that St. Roch is prayed to in case of the Plague, St. Petronella under Agues, St. Apollonia against the Toothache? I shall expect his Answer to this; and if he dares not deny it, as I am persuaded his Modesty will not suffer him: I shall then ask him where the misrepresenting lies? If it be said to lie in this, that the Bishop puts them upon the same File with Pagans, let us see how far he does so. He had laid down that Rule of God's Word a little before, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. And then he proceeds to the Comparison, in which indeed he must be supposed to tax the Papists with contradicting that Rule, by their practice of worshipping their diversity of Saints, no less than the Pagans by serving their several petty Gods. But he is so far from saying, that in all respects they are as bad as Pagans, which one would understand by putting them all upon the same File, that he does not enter upon a Comparison of Aggravations, in respect to this very matter of Worship; but only shows that Rule is violated this way, no less than that. Now if this be a true Charge, I conceive it is no ill manners to speak the Truth in a Case of such vast Concern. If it be False, the Representer had done more Service to his Cause, and won more deserved Thanks from his own Communion, as well as ours, by showing the difference between the one and the other, with respect to that Commandment, than by declining, as he has done, not only the Justification, but very craftily the Confession too of the Fact upon which the Charge is grounded: Insomuch as they in whose Heads nothing lies distinctly, would be almost persuaded, that the Representer accused the Bishop of downright Lying, and that perhaps the Papists have not their Tutelar Saints, and Saints proper for several Occasions to pray to, as the Bishop pretended. But any thing in the World shall serve to swell the Charge, when Protestants are to be set out for Misrepresenters.  
As littie reason do I find for his severe charge upon the same Bishop, for observing that some place their whole Worship of God in Bodily Exercise; meaning, 
Pag. 26, 27.  as I have good reason to offer for it, not All, but Some Papists. For the Bishop proceeded to lay the same charge upon the Dissenters (without any currying I assure you), nay, to those of our Communion also, as any one may fee, pag. 11. And what was said particularly of the Externals, in which those Papists trust, whose Religion runs out into nothing but External Show, seems to me to note no more, than the greater danger they of the Roman Communion are in of falling into this kind of Hypocrisy, by reason of the vast number of Ceremonies and Observations which they, above all other Christians in the World, have brought into Religion. These are the Passages which Anger and Illwill have picked out of the whole Sermon, to expose the Bishop to His Majesty's Displeasure; by which one may see what little cause the Representer had to say, that he pretends to His Majesty's Word for abusing them. If the Reader desires to know the motives he had for Preaching and Publishing this Sermon, he will not take them, I suppose, as they are Ridiculed by the Representer, but go for 'em to the Preface itself, which declares what they were; and then he will find that the Representer has abused the Bishop.  
Now whereas he found some Passages in the Book of Homilies of the same strain with what he had noted in the foresaid Sermon; 
Pag. 2 ●.  the same Answer will therefore serve for both: And what he adds besides, in contempt of those Divines that compiled the Homilies, is as easily answered with Contempt. And so I come to that hearty Family-Prayer, which, as he says, has raised up from Turk and Pope, defend us Lord, a Note or two higher; in as much as it runs thus. O Lord confound Satan, Antichrist, with all Hirelings and Papists. This Prayer, he tell us, is added to the end of the Singing Psalms, in a common Prayer Book, Printed at Oxford, in the Year 1683, in Twelves; by which I guess he would bring that University too, as well as the foresaid Bishop, under His Majesty's Displeasure. And therefore this Accusation is not to be passed lightly over. Now Henry Hills could have given him abundant satisfaction in this matter, if he had been consulted. For, upon the best Inquiry I can make, I find that no Psalms, in Twelves, were Printed in Oxford before the the Year 1684, and therefore no such Impression, as the Representer means, could be there in 1683. But this is not all: for neither had those Printed in 1684, that hearty Family-Prayer, which he talks of. But the Truth of the Case is this, Henry Hills, or he and his Partners, had Printed these very Psalms, in Twelves, which the Representer mentions, and that to a vast number, as I am informed by those who will make it out, if it be required. Now if Henry Hills bound up his Psalms with the Oxford Common-Prayer Books, the University is no more to answer for that, than if he had bound up his own Life with one of them. It is such another Suggestion the Representer offers at in a Marginal Note elsewhere, 
Pag. 30.  where he makes the Fire of London to be imputed to the Papists, in the Plates of the Common-Prayer Books Printed at Oxford, An. 1680. For no such Plates were Printed there, however they came to be bound up with some Common-Prayer Books Printed that Year at the University. I am apt to think Henry Hills is able to give as good an account of this too, as another. And I believe he can guests very nearly, who did not only Print since 1678, but hes also very lately Sold, a certain Confession of Faith, as hearty as the foresaid Family-Prayer; for there Idolaters and Heretics, Papists and Anabaptists, are all put together, as Limbs of Antichrist. But some Men take themselves to be privileged to do these bold things themselves, and to accuse others of the like when they have done. I am sure that either the Representer, or he, is not a little to blame for these unhandsome Insinuations; my own suspicions in this case I do not care to tell, and therefore I leave it betwixt them Two, to set the Saddle on the right Horse, as the Representer speaks upon another occasion.  
Another way of Mis-representing them which he complains of, is in laying on the colours with so much craft on the Papists Tenets, that though they are the very same, with what the most learned Protestants hold themselves, yet they shall appear so foul and monstrous, as if nothing less than a certain Damnation attended their Abetters. This, he says, is done in several instances; which makes me wonder that he chose so unlucky an instance, as that of our rendering them so , for not allowing Salvation to any out of their own Church; in a word, for damning Protestants. But do we Misrepresent them in this? mark how the Representer makes it out, Dr. Tillotson in the  Sermon, inveighing against the uncharitableness of Papists— at last in a rapture of Charity concludes, I have so much Charity (and I desire always to have it) as to hope that a great many among them who live piously, and have been almost inevitably detained in that Church by the prejudice of Education and an invincible Ignorance, will upon a general Repentance find mercy with God. Now instead of this, the Representer expected from the Doctor some extraordinary piece of Charity both for the Reformation and example of the Papists; and yet, says he, after all the outcry and bustle, he want allow one more grain of Mercy to the Papists, than the Papists do to them, that is only to such who having lived piously and truly repent of their Sins, have an invincible Ignorance to atone for all other errors of the understanding, which is the very Doctrine of the Papists, in respect of such who die out of the Communion of their Church. So that we have misrepresented Papists in pretending that they do not allow as great hopes of Salvation to us continuing and dying Protestants, as we allow to them continuing and dying Papists.  
Now I confess I am under some temptation to show who is the Misrepresenter in the Case; but this is so good a hearing, that I will not go about to clear ourselves from being Misrepresenters upon this occasion, but take him at his word, that here we are Misrepresenters: nay, more than that, I will thank him for taking all opportunities to report us for such Misrepresenters, to the people of both Communions; for thus it may be hoped that we shall never more be troubled with that Argument to persuade Ours, and to confirm His, in the Communion of the Roman Church, that since we grant the Papists a possibility of Salvation, and they utterly deny a possibility of it to us, the Communion of the Roman Church must needs be the more safe, inasmuch as both parties agree in a possibility of Salvation in that Church, but they do not both agree upon such a possibility in ours. And since we are proclaimed Misrepresenters upon this account, I desire also that from this time forward, the Trade of going up and down with peremptory denouncing Damnation to all of our Communion, may be at an end, and never heard of more: And that no advantages may be made of our charitable hopes and concessions in behalf of some that die in the Communion of the Church of Rome, since it seems the Doctrine of the Papists is the very same in respect of such who die out of that Communion: Or at least, that no regard be given to those of the Roman Church who shall hereafter positively denounce Damnation against us, since the Representer will have it that we are as positive against them, inafmuch as to say that Papists are guilty of sins inconsistent with Salvation, is but to say, they are damned in another phrase. The Representer I say, who takes upon him to correct all false notions of Popery, and is therefore much to blame, if he be ignorant of the Doctrines of Popery, has declared to the World, that whether in the way of Hoping, 
P. 28.  or of Censuring, Protestants and Papists say the same thing of each other: And therefore I think the foresaid Requests are very reasonable ones; so that this one matter is in a way of being fairly compounded, and if the Representer likes it, I am sure both parties are well pleased.  
For want of other complaints, he takes up one at length, which he had dropped some time since, viz. That we rake together some odd and extravagant Opinions of some Authors, 
P. 29.  to set them down for the received Doctrine of the Church. Which complaint he supports by nothing else but supposing that the so often-mentioned Archbishop of York is guilty of this in citing Bulgradus, etc. and that this is enough to make any extravagancy pass for an Article of Faith. Now he does not so much as make it appear that this Archbishop pretends the Extravagancies for which he brings those Authorities, to be Articles of Faith in the Church of Rome. But how far their Church is chargeable with the several Extravagancies of their Authors, and what use we may and aught to make of their Divines and Casuists, etc. in the Controversies now on foot, the Representer has been already told very distinctly; 
Pap. not Mis. rep. by Prot p. 67, 68, 69.  and when he thinks fit to Reply, he shall not want an Answer. Answ. to Pap. 
Prot. p. 9  In the mean time, to convince us of the unwarrantableness of this method, and what a wretched thing it is to charge private Doctrines upon a Church as Articles of her Faith, he brings in a Popish Preacher inveighing against the ill Manners, and especially the disloyalty of Protestants, upon one passage in the Decay of Christian Piety, 
P. 30, 31, 32.  another in Sir R. Baker, and a third in Jovian. Now I say, let them who do thus argue against the Church of Rome, as he makes his Popish Preacher to inveigh against us, let them I say take the shame of it. But for any thing that he has done hitherto, the men are yet to be found out: though I do not know but upon very diligent search some one such or other may be taken amongst us; and when that happens, he shall go for me, and keep company with that once Protestant who believed the Sermons of the Papists were made in a language unknown to the People. Now he confesses all this Harangue to be a piece of Sophistry, which he has put into the mouth of a Popish Preacher: 
P. 33.  Which is enough for me, and I am not at all moved by his pretending this was done to make us ashamed of practising it in good earnest, as he has seen and heard that we do. For this is a reason I am now pretty well used to, it being the very same wherewith he defends that ridiculous Sermon which he composed for the Zealous Brother. And therefore I shall even pin this Harangue to the remainder of that Brother's Sermon, that when one is called for, the other may not be forgotten.  
And so at last we come to Mis-representing, in relation to some matters of Fact and History, and here he hopes the Reader will discover notable things. The first Misrepresentation of this Kind, in which he instances, was the Misrepresenting of the Rich Hang, the Massy Plate, and other things which Adorned the Altars in the times, 
P. 33.  before the Reformation, the Candlesticks, Crucifixes, and Shrines; Three Episcopal Houses, with Four or Five Churches, etc. For these were Represented as Superstitious, or Superfluous, and forthwith were immediately blown up. Now a man shall not presently find how this comes to be Mis-representing, the Papists in relation to some matters of Fact and History. He names but one Protestant, speaking of these things, viz. Dr. Heylin, and he too, is brought in agreeing with the Representer in charging those do upon Covetousness, Ambition and Envy; nor is any other Cited as contradicting him. Was not the Representer full of choler and bitterness, that he must needs ease himself whether it be in fit place or not? I see the bottom of this business plainly enough: If that Reformation of Doctrine and Worship which our Church made, be not blackened enough already, he is resolved to charge upon it all the faults of the great Men that made advantages by the Change. But must the Vices of the Statesmen in those days necessarily affect the Reformation? Why then must not, the Vices of Popes affect Popery? If he has a mind to it, let him represent the former ten times worse than they were, and when he has done, I will show him as many Popes Represented, by their own Historians as really bad, as he has made those by Fiction, and this too by Historians of no less Credit amongst them, than Dr. Heylin is with us. The Representer owes us a good Turn, and if he can but bring in the word Misrepresenting. 'tis all the pertinence he cares for, though it be Misrepresenting Plate and Hang.  
Again, 
P. 34.  because he fancies that King Henry the Eighth made way for Protestantism to enter into the World (in which however, he is mistaken) he taxes him boldly of Vile Extravagancies, the respect that is due to Crowned Heads, no nor the consideration of that Line in which this Prince stood amongst them, being not able to restrain him. But where is the Misrepresentation complained of? Certainly the Pope's Power here might be an Usurpation, though the motive upon which Henry the Eighth threw it quite off, (as it had been kerbed by his Predecessors before) should not prove the best in the World: But let the Representer here also use his liberty of rendering him as odious as he can, remembering all the while that the Faults of that Prince reflect no less dishonour upon the Church of Rome, then upon the Church of England, as 'tis now Reform: For 'tis certain, that in all other points he was a Papist, excepting that only of the Supremacy; unless the Representer will say that the whole of their Religion is in effect this, that the Pope should be all in all, in the Dominions of every Christian Prince in the World.  
Luther comes next upon the File for Marrying a Nun contrary to his Vow of Chastity. 
P. 34.  By which he means a Vow of Caelibacy, as if the Marriage Vow, were not a vow of Chastity too. But do not their own Divines say, that the vow of Continency may be dissented with? And has not the Pope dispensed in greater matters? Had Luther married with his Dispensation, he had it seems committed no fault at all. And we are apt to think that if notwithstanding his Vow, he had good reason to marry, he might do it safely enough without the Pope's Dispensation. But where's the Misrepresentation now? Why, here's a Vow of Continency Represented as a rash and inconsiderate Vow, and this is Mis-representing Papists in relation to matters of Fact and History. And thus also honest Sir William misrepresented Chalices, 
P. 35.  Crosses, Images, nay, Guineas, etc. Into Popish Trinkets and Trumpery, and made them fit for seizure. But I say neither was Sir William honest in doing it, nor the Representer over wise in mentioning it here.  
His next Fling is at Sir Richard Baker, who upon the Executions of several great Men in Queen Mary's Reign, chanced to say according to his wont Eloquence: Now the Cataracts of severity will be opened, that will make it rain Blood. Well, but to bring off honest Sir Richard for once, he does not say that this severity was Tyrannical or Unjust, for if he had, certainly the Representer had brought us all under the lash for it: But the ends of these great People being Tragical, he thought good to set the matter off with a Tragical, or, as the Representer calls it, a pat phrase, without any further design. And then as for the other Blood spilt in Queen mary Reign, which he seems to charge altogether upon Provocations, Tumults, Seditions, and Rebellions; he is guilty of the same fault, which he accuses Protestants of, viz. Of Representing things by halves. Were none put to death in those days but for such causes? Were Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Taylor, and almost all the 300 spoken of, burnt for Heresy or not? Was not the Question concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, the burning Question? For those that were guilty of the Abuses he mentions, they might thank themselves, we defend them not. But what colour is there for Representing all as such? And why will the Representer put us upon talking of these things, who had said nothing of them, if he had not forced us to it in our own defence.  
But to see now how much there goes in the telling a story: Queen Elizabeth put to death, as he says, 
P. 36.  Two hundred Persons upon the score of Conscience, without any actual Crime or Misdemeanour against the Ancient Statutes of the Land. Two hundred Persons! Truly I do not know but in her long Reign of about 40 Years, so many might be put to death. But I wish the Representer, since he pronounces in general with so much confidence, had named One or Two that were put to death upon the score of Conscience, and likewise what point of Conscience it was. However something is necessary to be said in general Answer to that Charge which he plainly intends, though he would not plainly speak it out. In short therefore, about ten Years after the Queen came to the Crown, Pope Pius Quintus sends over his Bull for the Excommunicating and Deposing her, upon which followed the Statute against the Execution of it: Which yet did not hinder several Priests and Jesuits from trying to have it Executed, in pursuance whereof the Queen's Life was more than once in danger. And therefore when no other Remedy would serve the turn, all Popish Priests of the Queen's Subjects, were banished under the Penalty of Treason, and had forty days given them to prepare for departing. This Law was made at least twelve years (I believe more) after the Pope's Breves were sent hither: And upon this Law some Priests that were afterwards found here, were Executed, and some were not, who though coming into England contrary to the Law, yet withal, giving security for their dutiful Behaviour to the Queen, were, without changing their Religion, set at liberty: For, if we may, believe one that knew these things better than the Representer seems to do, though our Princes judged it necessary for their own safety, that this Law should continue in force, yet to avoid the doing of any thing that looked like putting men to death upon the score of conscience, they qualified the rigour of it by their own Mercy, where a Treasonable design did not otherwise appear. For when Goodman a Jesuit, was Reprieved by King Charles the 1st, 
An. 1640. Jan. 25.  and the King was Expostulated with by the Parliament about it, he signified the cause to be this, that Goodman had been found guilty, merly as being a Priest, which was the reason of the King's mercy, and that in this clemency he did but follow the examples of his, Father, King James, and of Queen Elizabeth. Now whether we should believe King Charles the Martyr, or our Representer, I leave others to judge. This general account may serve for, his general charge; and I do not think fit to run out into more particulars, unless the Representer gives occasion; but I leave him to consider better of these things: And when he has done it, he may perhaps feel a little shame for having said just before in the Case of Queen Mary, Now one would think to be just to Crowned Heads, the Blood should not be exposed alone to the People, but likewise the Occasions and Provocations given: And in Queen Elizabeth's case I will add, And the mercy also that was s; hewn, notwithstanding those Occasions and Provocations that were given her.  
But whereas he calls the Law we speak of a Law of her own contriving, a Law so cruel that the like is scarce to be found among the Mahometans, who though they have conquered many Christian Nations, yet never, as he has heard of, made it Treason for their Natives to profess their own Religion, or maintain their Pastors. To let pass the Misrepresentation he insinuates, of making it Treason to profess their own Religion, it would almost tempt a man to search the Records of old Time, to see if something has not passed in the World as cruel as this Law, if it had been executed to the utmost rigour. For why? should Queen Elizabeth, under whose Reign our Nation purchased some Glory abroad, suffer now at home the imputation of being the most Tyrannical Prince that ever was in the World; beyond the examples of Mahometans? and of Mahometans too in their severity towards the Christian Nations which they have Conquered; why, this is strange indeed, and not to be taken upon the Representers word: For there are Annals that speak of a certain Law, not indeed for the Banishing of people upon the score of Conscience, but the keeping of them at home to be tormented for their Conscience. Had they been suffered to use the Liberty that our Saviour once gave, of Flying, into another Country, when they were Persecuted in their own; it had been a favour in comparison to the restraint; and Death had been a mercy to the Vexations they endured. The like to this indeed is scarce to be found even amongst those whom the Representer speaks of: And which made the case yet harder, this People had not deserved ill of the State, they neither sided with Foreign Powers, nor with Domestic Rebels; nay, they had behaved themselves so well, that there was nothing but their Virtue to make them feared. But Histories say that those of them who escaped by miracles of Providence, were well received everywhere, and especially by a Prince who was not of their Religion, but yet to his immortal Glory gave them Refuge and Relief in his own Countries.  
As to the Powder Plot which he next mentions: His insinuation concerning my Lord Cecil, has been so often exposed, and if it were true, is so unable to lessen the guilt of those that were concerned in it, that I see no reason why I must needs enter into that History: We do not charge all of that Communion with it, but we have reason vehemently to suspect all that went about to excuse, and positively to condemn all that thought fit to praise the Traitors. But if we should have charged, as he pretends we do, the Church of Rome with this Treason, yet I am confident the Rebellion of the West stands not altogether so fair to be imputed to the Church of England: For surely there was, no Act of this Church for the Excommunicating and Deposing of the King; but it was the fight of the Pope's Brief to such a purpose as that, inspired one of the Traitors, as himself confessed, with those thoughts that at last settled upon the Powder Plot. And I think it was a Church of England Parliament, and a Church of England Army that so loyally served his Majesty upon that occasion in the West: But let the Representer show, if he can, that the Papists were as serviceable in the prevention of the Powder Plot.  
We are now drawing to an end of a tedious Complaint, which surely cannot last much longer, when he is fain to spin it out, with a story of the long devilish Knives which Papists were said to procure for cutting of the Protestants Throats. 
P. 39  For I am so perfect a stranger to the least report of this matter, till I met with it here, that I can say nothing to it. As for the Fire of London, that I confess I have heard of, and likewise that many charged it upon the Papists; now for those that did so, I hope I may without offence offer that excuse for their credulity, which I take a hint of from the Representer himself: It could not be expected but that the grief of so undoing a Calamity in vast numbers of suffering People, should discharge itself in accusing those as the Authors of it, who, as they believed, were well pleased with it: As for the Representer, what his thoughts are towards London, he has given us plainly to understand, in calling it a Protestant Sodom, which Heaven consumed. Now I dare say this was not meant for a lamentation over the sins and sufferings of the City: But if men will go on to insult at this rate, they should however, be less clamorous against those mistakes of which the greatest occasions are given by themselves.  
Then as to that which he calls a Monsieurs Invention: They that gave credit to it, have this to say for themselves, That Du Moulin's public offer to make full proof of his story, when Authority should require it, stood many years, even to the day of his death; which was no improbable argument that he was provided with reasonable good testimony, though it was not thought fit to call upon him for it. This may be said to show, that if there were never so many that swallowed the story, yet this was no reason for the Representers furious exclamations: For I am by no means satisfied that they who believed it, did so in defiance to all their Senses; for though there were Actors and Contrivers of the Murder of King Charles the First, as public as the noon-light, yet I do not feel any such contradiction in supposing that some Contrivers there might be who were not as public as the noon-light: And when the Representer thinks of it better he will say so too, unless he will say, that because the Contrivers of that dark Treason of the Powder Plot, were at last as public as the noon-light, therefore that it was in all likelihood a Contrivance too, of the good Lord Cecil, cannot be credited, but in defiance to all our Senses. And yet after all, how does it appear that we have laid any such stress upon Du Moulin's Relation, as the Representer intimates: For my own part in all the conversation I have had amongst Protestants, I can remember nothing concerning it, but that it has been sometimes a little wondered at, that he was never required to prove his story. And therefore I doubt the Representer has here played the part of an unwise man, in reviving a story to the disadvantage of the Papists, which died with the first report of it, as we thought at least; for unless the Representer thought we had some reason to believe it, why should he go about to complain that we do believe it? I think we have been more Just to his Party, than he has. For our sense as to this matter is, that since now the story is not capable either of being proved, or disproved, it is to be let fall, and the World is no more to be troubled about it; though whilst Du Moulin was alive, it was not to be expected but that one or other would be harping upon it.  
At last he comes to the Garagantua Misrepresentation of them all, that is, 
P. 40.  the Divine Oats with his Popist Plot. And here, as from a Castle where he is safe from all possbility of Assault, he bids defiance to us with all the Rhetoric, that Anger and Scorn can inspire a man withal. But because he lets fly at the Pulpits for this, and so makes the Clergy to have given what Authority they could to Oats his lies from their Pulpits, I must needs change a word or two with him about that in our own Defence, and tell him that neither is himself of that Credit, nor the thing itself so likely, but that it stood in great need of particular proofs. I know not but that amongst Ten thousand Men, here and there one might deliver the news of the Pilgrims, and the Black Bills from the Pulpit. But I never heard of any that did, and I almost think that if the Representer had known a few Instances of this Kind, out they had come, if it had been for nothing but to support the Credibility of his general Accusation. And to go further with him, whereas he confidently says, that the WHOLE Plot was received with that welcome and Credit, that what would have been questioned in the very Scripture, was entertained without any scruple. I will make bold to ask him, by whom it was entertained, did himself believe the whole Plot, while he was a Protestant? If he did, undoubtedly we have not lost one of the wisest of our Party, If he did not, neither did any body else; that ever I could hear of, though perhaps many might believe more than was true. But for a more particular account who believed much, who little, who nothing at all of Oats his Discoveries, and the reasons of the several Opinions, he must excuse me for that; I am resolved not to be drawn in. Nor have I lately spoken with every Man in the Nation. And 'tis only for a Representer to talk of these matters, and to pronounce generally without exception, though he does it also without examination of the particulars before hand.  
Thus far I have waited upon the Representer in examining the Reasons, upon which he pretends that we use I know not how many Methods to  Papists, though it has been every step out of the way: For if all had been true that he pretends, what is all this to the Defence of his Thirty Seven Chapters? What is it to his Answerers, who had no more to do then to rid their hands of those Thirty-Seven Chapters? And they have done it so effectually, that the Representer has thought good to rid his hands of them too.  
But I think by this time, it may appear that he has all this while given us just cause to complain, that we are many ways misrepresented by Papists, though the Representer without just cause, was resolved to be before hand, in the same Complaint against us.  
For not to repeat those Mis-representations, False Constructions, and Wry Interpretations of Protestant Authors, etc. which I have shown him to be guilty of, in examining some of his Complaints; it were a very easy matter to convict him of no less untrue than spiteful insinuations against all Protestants without exception in this, and in his other pieces. I shall at present give but one Instance, and that in this his last Reply, where he says, that the Protestant Persuasion has its Name, Being, 
P. 17.  and support not from what it is in its self, but from what it is not, in defying and protesting against their Neighbours. 'Tis easy to see what notion of Protestants such Passages as these are intended to imprint upon the minds of Men. But does the Representer in good earnest, believe that our Religion is a mere Negative Religion, and that we should have none at all, if we had no Neighbours to defy, and to protest against? Or does he believe that our Religion so far as it is Negative, is supported by defying and protesting against other Men; does he not know that we at least pretend to support it by Reason, Scripture, and Antiquity? Nay, does he believe that there are no Affirmative points of Religion which we maintain against them, and in respect of which they do in reality protest against us, though it seems we have got the Name of Protestants. If he does believe thus of us, much more if knowing the contrary, he says so however, Where ' s Truth, Charity, or Justice? If we take the Religion, of Protestants, as it stands in opposition to the Errors of the Church of Rome, it is in many Points Affirmative, and the Negative is on that Church's side. For instance, that God only is to be Worshipped, is as Affirmative a Conclusion, as that God is but One, and that Christian people are bound to read the Scriptures is as Affirmative, as that they are bound to say their Prayers, and that the Laiety have a Right to the Communion under both Kind's; is surely as Affirmative, as that they have a Right to One only. Why then does the Representer say, that the Protestant Profession has its Name, Being, and Support; not from what it is in its self, but from what it is not? But to let this pass, what although the Points held by us in opposition to the Church of Rome, were only Negatives; yet, why must we be so bitterly represented, as if our Persuasion were supported by nothing but pievishness and a Spirit of Contradiction to our Neighbours? Why must we be brought in as defying and protesting against our Neighbours? As if we opposed their Doctrines and Practices, in despite to the Jews, and not rather blamed them for saying and, doing thing which we at least think are not to be justified? There are divers things surely, which neither Christians nor Men ought to do; And so far as our Religion stands in not doing such things, one would it is not the worse for being Negative, nor our Practice to be blemished for having its Name from what it is not. And therefore when Men come in with their Negatives in Religion, and their protestations against false persuasions and evil practices, they are not without more ado to be represented as Defying and Protesting against their Neighbours. But least of all, should it be insinuated, as if our whole Religion in effect, stood in this Defying and Protesting: For we do in the first place Glory in this, that we are Christians, though we are not ashamed to be called Protestants. In our Religious Assemblies, where we confess our Faith before God and the World; we protess not other Articles of Faith, than those in which the Church of Rome agrees with us. By this it is that we are Christians, and it is this that makes them so. This Faith which we profess, and into which we were baptised, is the Foundation of our assurance, that if we live accordingly, we shall be saved, and of our hopes that those among them, who are disposed to receive the Truth, and repent hearty of all known sins, shall find Mercy with God, notwithstanding their Captivity to those Errors, which if we should profess, we could not have the least hope for ourselves. In the mean time for our Negatives against that Church, we offer in our own defence, that the Religion which the Scriptures teach, is such a Negative Religion as ours, they not enjoining, and in some points forbidding what we do not do; and that the truly Primitive Fathers neither professed those Doctrines, nor did those things, which the Church of Rome would have us to profess and to do; so that their Religion was not more positive, nor less Negative than ours. But if it grieves good Men in the Roman Communion, that there should be amongst Christians, any Protestation of one Party against what is done by another, it is a grief also to us; only with this, difference, that we cannot help it, but they can. For if they will Reform the Terms of their Communion by the Scriptures, and Primitive Antiquity, they shall soon see an end of our protesting, and that our Persuasion is not supported, as this Representer faith, by defying and protesting against our Neighbours; than which he could not have said a viler thing against us, no not if he had put us upon the same File with Infidels and Pagans; since this is in effect to say, That we have no Religion but in crossness to other, People.  
But at this rate we have been used all along, though we have made no complaints of it, only they force us to it now, whether we will or no: Thus even in their Catechisms, where one would expect plainness and sincerity, we find ourselves misrepresented in that manner, as if there was no such way of making Novices fast to their Church, but by giving them false notions of ours: For at present; to name no more than their famous Douai Catechism, there you find shall find the Teacher giving this wise reason, Why Protestants are so so divided, and damn one another for Misbelievers? Because, 
Abridgement of Christian Doctr. p. 42. Douai 1655.  forsooth, it is the very groundwork of Protestancy that all men, even the whole-Church of God, are fallible and subject to error. We say indeed that all men are subject to error; but the very groundwork of Protestancy is not as this Catechist pretends that the Church of Rome and every other Church is subject to error, but that she hath actually erred, and that grievously too. And his Inference from hence is no less a Misrepresentation than his principle: So that, says he, they cannot pretend to Certainty or Infallibility in any one point of their Belief. So that because he is pleased to put Certainty and Infallibility together, he must needs teach his Scholar that we have not so much as Certainty of our Faith, nay, not of one Point of it; and which is still more false, that we cannot pretend to it. No wonder that we find it so hard a matter to get a little Discourse about Religion with those whom they have had the breeding of, when we see what an absurd pretence to Religion they represent ours to be all at once; especially since they take care to let them know, that it is not well possible for any two Protestants or Sectaries to be of one Religion, 
Id. p. 42.  every man expounding the Scriptures as he lifts, and no one having power to control the others Exposition of it. Which if their Scholars believe, they must needs conclude the Protestants must profess as many Religions almost, as they are men and Women; since it is not well possible for any two of them to be of one and the same Religion: And, I think, any body may see that this is taught to discourge all who are educated in this persuasion of us, from hearing what we have to say for ourselves, since by harkening to one or two of us they are never the nearer, but must talk perhaps with a million before they can understand the Religion of Protestants, nay, and shall then be as much to seek for it as they were at first. For what he says of every man's expounding the Scripture as he lists, no one having power to control the others Exposition of it: It is also an untrue suggestion, if by expounding the Scripture as we list, he means arbitrary and groundless Expositions of Scripture. Which when the Representer pleases, I can prove the Church of Rome to be more guilty of then any Church that we know in the World besides: If any are guilty of it amongst us, there is a power in our Church to control them, which has also been used upon occasion, unless by power he means a Cudgel, and this we do not take to be Church power. Again, he says that all Heretics pretend equally to the Scripture for their Novelties and Heresies, 
Id. p. 44.  (which is not true neither) no one of them ever yielding to another: Which is notoriously false; for many of those whom he calls Heretics, have yielded to the reasonings of others out of the Scriptures, who are also Heretics with him: And this plainly shows that some of these men care not what they say to disgrace us, when they will so positively affirm a thing which 'tis impossible for them to know but it may be false; nay, which 'tis not well possible for them not to know that it is false.  
'Tis after the same way that our Doctrines and Practices are represented by retail; of which I shall give you but one instance which I well remember, and that is where the Catechist assuring his Scholar that their Laiety receive whole Christ under one kind: Tells him also that this is incomparably more than the pretended Reformers have under both, 
Id. p. 205.  who receive only a bit of Baker's Bread, with a poor sup of common Vintner's Wine. By which scandalous way of representing our Communion to a Novice, he would be apt to believe that when we celebrate the Eucharist, out great business is to send to the Baking-house for Bread, and to the Tavern for Wine; and so we fall to eating and drinking without any more ado. If he would be Steeling his Novice against us, he should at least have been so just to us, as to let him know that we do not give the people common Bread and Wine, though we do not pretend to give them the natural substance of Christ's Body and Blood.  
For that way of Misrepresenting us by charging the particular opinions of some Protestants upon all: They have the confidence to do it, even in those points wherein neither Protestants nor Papists are of the same mind among themselves: And though the Douai Catechism represents us so divided that 'tis not well possible for any two of us to be of the same Religion, yet when again 'tis for their turn to Represent us otherwise, there is not an odd opinion of any Protestant, but forthwith it belongs to the Religion of all the rest. Thus we have been charged for making God the Author of Sin; and that for nothing but for the sake of those Opinions held by some Protestants, which are no less vehemently defended by some Papists: In which kind of Representations no man, I think, has out done the Reconciler of Religions (whoever he was) printed in the year 1663. They teach, says he, profane, false, and ungodly Doctrines, as for example: That God is the Author of Sin; that Christ despaired upon the Cross. Which later Opinions, this man and Fevardentius, and divers others, as I well remember, fasten upon Calvin; and then talk as if it was the received Doctrine of all Protestants. So says he, 
P. 14.  They say that Christ suffered the pains of Hell upon the Cross, and that this was is his Descension into Hell. See Calvin here, Psal. 15. Now I think Calvin does say so: But 'tis so small a matter in Comparison, to charge what one says upon All, that I shall lay no great stress upon it. But that which follows is admirable: Neither, says he, are they miserably mad only, but also diabolically malicious; for it's of mere purpose they say and do thus, lest that by clear places of Tradition and Scripture they should be constrained to confess that there is a Purgatory. Are not these rare Men, thus at once to charge us with what we do nat say or do, and withal to pronounce concerning our Intentions in so doing, and that in this Vile manner, that no honest Heathen ever used his Neighbour so? Nay, if you will believe this Representer, 
Ibid.  They that hear Sectarian Ministers are not Believers, for they do not truly believe in God the Father Almighty, nor in Jesus Christ his only Son. For he knows their Hearts better than they do themselves: 
P. 15.  and let them be never so confident that they do, he will prove that they do not believe in the Holy Ghost. And he peremptorily says that they do not believe the Communion of Saints: And lastly, That neither do they believe forgiveness of sins. For which he brings an excellent Reason, Because they say say, The Priests cannot forgive Sins: Though we do not say that neither, but only that they cannot forgive Sins Absolutely; which now they would perwade us too, to be their own Doctrine. 
P. 16.  Thus he has made us Infidels almost throughout the Creed, only at last he grants, that we believe the Resurrection of the Flesh, and the Life Everlasting; which I wonder at, because it was as easy to invent a reason why we believe not this neither, as for all the rest. But then even in this matter, we are no better Believers than the Devil. For, says he, this they believe, and so do the Devils.  
No wonder therefore that he comes afterward, and puts us upon the same File with Turks and Heathens. As the Turks are divided and subdivided among themselves, so are the Protestants. The Turks wheresoever they come, demolish Churches, destroy Crosses, and beat down and break Altars, 
P. 37.  and Images; so do the Protestants. The Turks cannot abide Praying to Saints; no more can the Protestants. The Turks love not Beads nor Holy Water; no more do the Protestants. The Turks above all things, hate the most Holy Sacrifce of the Mass, and so do the Protestants; which alone is enough to show that in their Religion or Belief, they are like Turks and Heathens. This I think may serve at least, to set against the Bishop of Kilmor's Parallel: Though I ought to ask the Bishops Pardon for making the Comparison. For as to that Parallel between Protestants and Turks, it is not in every particular true, for Protestants do not demolish Churches wheresoever they come, nor break, down Altars, nor destroy Crosses, nor always Images. And as to the particulars that agree to both, how much malice soever there may be, I am sure there is little Wit in putting them and us together upon these Accounts. For certainly, we are no more obliged to do any ill things, because the Turks themselves forbear them, than we are obliged to forbear any useful or innocent Customs, merely because the Papists use them. Had this Reconciler shown our Agreement with the Turks in some Practices. that we could not but confess they are to blame for; this indeed, had been a shrewd Instruction to us, to amend that in ourselves, which we cannot but condemn in People so grossly deceived as they are. Now this it was, that the Bishop of Kilmore did in that Comparison of the Papists Worshipping their Tutelar Saints, with the Heathens Worshipping their Petty Gods. The Papists do with us, justly condemn these Practices of the Heathens. The Bishop only desires them, being thus prepared, to look at home. But to infer that in our Religion, we are like Turks and Heathens, because we forbear those things, which the Turks are to be justified in not doing; is a Misrepresentation of us, upon so wry an Inference, that if there be not want of Wit, to excuse it, it will be found equivalent to a downright Misrepresentation, which the Genius of this Author, as it appears, by the particulars of this Book, makes me fear it is.  
And of a great many particulars which I might note, there is one not to be let pass, and that is, 
P. 16.  that he does in very good earnest, affirm that we adore the Sacrament, though the Representer would be thought to charge us with it, little more than in Jest. For says the Reconciler, Though they say thus of us, for Worshipping of Images, yet they can dispense with themselves in Worshipping their Sacrament. And if this be not jesting, 'tis something a great deal worse; for it is as notorious, that we do not Worship the Sacrament, as it is that the Papists do.  
But to go on with him a little farther. Their Preachers faith he, what are they forsooth? Intruders, Thiefs and Robbers; Hypocrites, Ravenous Wolves, and Murderers; Sons of Belial, False prophets, 
P. 51.  and Priests of Baal; which is their Heresy, Rebellion and Stubbornness against the Church.— And if the Preachers be so, What must the Hearers be? Why sure enough, they shall both fall into the Ditch of Everlasting burning Brimstone and Fire, etc. Unless they be Converted, do Penante, and live in the Church. Now this way of Misrepresentation by railing at, and damning us, is as crafty a method, as any they have to imprint upon weak minds an incurable prejudice against our Communion. For when we are confidently represented as damnable Wretches, that shall certainly be Damned, if we continue Protestants; especially by Men, that at other times talk demurely, and always look gravely when they give us these good words, it cannot be expected, but that some or other should believe there is more than ordinary Reason for it, though they are not able to find it out. We may say what we will in our own Defence, let but these Men go on to say still that we are Damned, and the very noise and din of these words, and the like, shall make them deaf to all the Reasons we can bring. And therefore every degree of this dealing, is to be condemned in any party, wherever it is found, because it is a way to work upon the Passions and Imaginations of People; and instead of directing, it does but confound their Judgement. But I must needs say, we have suffered under this injustice by those of the Church of Rome, beyond any examples that I have yet seen.  
Of which, I will give the Representer one instance so remarkable, that it may serve instead of a great many. Mr. Harding, who had to do with no less a Man than Bishop Jewel, thought fit to use us in this Fashion, 
Confut. Fol. 202.  as follows: Ye are moved by the Instinct of Satan; the Devil hath you fast bound, and ye are the Children of the Devil: Ye are the limbs of Antichrist. Our Church, he calls the Synagogue of Antichrist and Lucifer; and we are no better with him, then Profane Hellhounds, 
F. 195.  Wicked cain's brood, Turkish Huguenots worse than Infidels; nay, he says that the Fiends of Hell begat Lutherans and Calvinists; and that we would say if we durst, that Christ is the Abomination of Desolation, 
F. 194. F. 225.  and that Antichrist is the true God. And then I think he had reason to say, That the Devil coming from Hell, hath carried us away. Thus in his rejoinder he bids the Hellhounds of Zuinglius and Luther 's, Litter, 
rejoined. p. 178, 207, 111.  bark until their bellies break; and calls the Defender one that is like a mad Dog; and for all this, tells him that he will leave his Vile Eloquence to himself, [the Defender.] He that has a mind to see more of this, may find two Pages in Folio full of it, just before the Preface to the Bishop's Defence of his Apology. Now it is easy to Judge what effects this kind of Eloquence will work upon weak minds, especially when he that uses it, has the Face to say as Harding did in the Preface to his Confutation. The manner of writing, which I have here used, in Comparison of the Adversaries is sober, soft, and gentle, and in respect of their heat, bitterness, and railing, as many tell me, over-cold sweet, and mild.  
I do not say, that they never speak of us, but in this strain; for I do well remember that the Apology for the Papists which came out about Six or Seven Years after the Restoration, treats us after another manner, I mean Us of the Church of England; for than it could call us Men, Brethren, and Fathers, and would fain unite them and us together against the Fanatics: For why? then we were somebody, and it was not amiss to curry with us: But there was a time when we indeed were as nobody; and then the Dissenters were worth being curried with; insomuch that Dr. Holden, who was always esteemed by us as a person of the best temper and truest moderation among them, could not forbear showing the difference he put between them and us, even where there was no necessity at all so to do, but the mere necessity of currying: For to a Discourse concerning Infallibility in Religion, Printed at Amsterdam 1652. Dr. Holden gave his approbation in these words amongst others, That the Book demonstrated the false Foundations of the Presbyterian Consistory; of the Socinian Ratiocination; of the Independents Private Spirit; and of the ERRONEOUS, OR RATHER NO GROUNDS OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LATE PARTICULAR ENGLISH PROTESTANT SCHISMATICAL STNAGOGVE. But why are the several Dissenters so softly and gently touched? Presbyterian Consistory, what harm in a Consistory? or in Ratiocination? Nor is much anger expressed in giving the Private Spirit to the Independents. Why, surely these are all complemented in comparison to the Church of England, which is the Particular English Protestant Schismatical Synagogue of Erroneous, or rather of no Grounds or Principles at all. But why this difference I say? Why, nothing is plainer, it was then THE LATE Church of England: But when the Apology came forth, it was then the Present Church of England again. Then was Then, and Now was Now. Thus we are used by some of the very best of them.  
But to return to our Reconciler, He wisely considered that we might take sanctuary in the Bible against the hard words and reproaches they persecute us with; and therefore to spoil that retreat, he will not allow that we have the Word of God amongst us; for thus he faith, The Protestants, or Sectarian Bible is defective, therefore evil, and consequently not the Word of God; for, besides, what we have above said, almost every year they correct it and mend it, chop it and change it, as do their Almanacs, adding thereunto what they will, and subtracting what they please. This is such Mis-representing, that I had rather the Representer should give the proper name to it, then do so myself: Nay, if this man were to be believed, we make such material alterations in the Version or Edition of our Bible every year, as infers a necessity of altering our Religion upon it, the Bible being the ground of our Religion; for says he, Neither do they change their Bible only, but also their Religion and Fashion thereof grounded on it. If then every following years Bible be better than the former, 
Recon. p. 38.  why may not the next years Bible be better than this year, and so to the end of the World? and in the mean time the Sectarian Bible never be perfect, or better than a yearly Almanac; not so good as an Almanac for Ever; as is Erra Pater, or the Shepherd's Prognostication, or Seaman 's Calendar. Why then should it be more the Word of God than Aesop 's Fables, or the Turkish Alcoran? One would think now that he had done his worst against our Bible; but he understood his trade better than so, & therefore because this calumny needed it very much, he was resolved to help it with a good share of that confidence, which I observed before, was peculiar to these men. For as if he had been yet over cold, sweet, and mild, he mends the matter by saying, that our Bible is worse than Aesop 's Fables; it is Diabolical Inventions, and Heretical labours, and a Sacrilegious Instrument to deceive and damn all such poor Souls as believe it, 
P. 41.  and therefore worthy to be burnt with Fire in the middle of the Market at noon, and let all the people say Amen, so be it. This was a good hearty man I warrant him, and would not willingly lose his business by doing it by halves.  
I should now have done with him, but that I find him afterwards imposing upon his Reader with as shameful a Downright Misrepresentation of us, as ever was invented: 
P. 50.  For says he of our Clergy, All their Mission was either the inspiration of a Spirit they know not what, or the Commission of a Child, or the Letters Patents of a Woman, or the illicit and invalid ordination or mission of or by one Scory an Apostate Monk, who ordained the first Bishops at the Nagg's-head in Cheapside, in Queen Elizabeth 's time. Now I would desire the Representer to consider with himself how he would have set us forth to the World, if we had invented the story of Pope Joan, as they have done this of the Naggs-head Ordination: Why, surely he would have mustered up all his Figures to represent us as the lewdest Varlets upon the face of the Earth? But though we have received that story from their own Authors, and know what advantages to make of it, if we needed them; yet we are very willing to hear what any learned man can say to disprove it, and to allow all reasonable presumptions against it. Of our Adversaries we beg none of this candour, and desire no more of them than not to tell tales of us of their own invention. As to this Nagg's-head business, I ask the Representer two things, one is, Whether himself believes it? the other, Whether they have not commonly and boldly reported it up and down amongst us? Let him then remember how he declaimed against us for creating in the people such an aversion to Popery, which he did not wonder at, because he considered that ten thousand Pulpits have been for many years declaiming against them, Reply 
p. 43.  where every man has had a liberty of exposing them as he pleased, etc. Well, but what must we have expected by this time, if the Ten thousand Pulpits had been all this while at their Service, when they have not been afraid to publish such scandalous untruths againsst us, even whilsst they had not all the liberty of doing as they please, which he imagines we have taken: If they take this freedom of telling of Tales, even here amongst us, without any colour of proof, and against the Testimony of unquestionable Recods; we may, I think, without Uncharitableness guests that where they are under no restraint, they represent our Doctrines, as they please, and charge them with what Consequence and Interpretations they please, and expose our Practices as they please, etc. And make Narratives of us as they please, and make us as guilty as they please, and have made Truth and Gospel of any thing against us as they please. And when I consider these things, I cannot wonder that in some parts of Spain (where the Mis-representing Trade has gone rarely forward) they are made to believe that we English, since we turned Heretics, are grown Satyrs, and have gotten Horns and Tails.  
I am now something weary of this unprofitable Labour, and shall therefore add but one thing more, which is, That some of them are wont to Reproach their Adversaries only by their Faults, when they pretend to give them their whole Character, and to add what they have any Colour for, out of their own Heads, and sometimes without any Colour at all; but especially when the manner and circumstances of their dying are to be related, for here the Attention and Passions of the Reader are commonly raised very high. Of all which Bolsec's Life of Calvin, is a memorable Instance: Thus when he brings him to his declining Age, he tells us the several Diseases which afflïcted him for many years to the last Gasp, 
Bolsec. Vit. Calv. c. 22.  were a certain and express Token and Testimony of God's anger against him; and answers that Objection against it, from the Calamities that befell Job, by the deliverance God sent him at last: Which kind of reasoning gives every man to the Devil that dies of painful and tormenting Diseases. But not content to argue from those Diseases by which Beza said that he ended his Life, viz. Consumption, Cholic, Stone, etc. incident all of them to Old Age, and especially to Men of a Sedentary Life: Bolsec adds one out of his own Brain, With which, as he says, God's open Enemies by his just Judgement have been punished, viz. That he had a most filthy and poisonous Ulcer about his lower parts, which were corroded by Vermin. Thus, says he, Honorius the Second King of the Vandals, Dyed, after he had persecuted the Orthodox Church eight years; thus Maximianus, the most cruel Enemy of the Christians; and thus Antiochus; and thus Herod, who Usurped the Honour of God; thus many more Hypocrites and Enemies of God perished, who under pretence and colour of Sanctity and Zeal, had fought against the Truth, and after a miserable death in this World, have been thrown headlong into the Everlassting Torments of Hell. And in this manner, as he says, was Calvin marked out; nay, he affirms it to be most true, that the Wretch not being able to bear his horrible Tortures, called upon the Devil, and expired with Oaths, Curses, and Blasphemies. Well, but one would expect now a very notable proof of so wonderful a matter as this was, and of all the rest that he says upon this occasion: Why, says Bolsec, they have given Testimony to this, who were about him in his Sickness to the last: And therefore let Beza and others deny it as they please, the thing is sufficiently plain. Was ever malicious Story supported by more feeble Testimony than this? It seems we must take Bolsec's word, that Calvin's Friends and Servants reported these things: But can any man be so silly as to think that if Bolsec had come to the knowledge of this by any certain or probable means of Intelligence, that he, I say, would have suffered us to go without it? But then if he had pretended particular Proofs, he had laid himself open to be particularly baffed: for which reason the safest way, was to say in general, The Servants said so, and the thing is plain, and there's an end.  
Thus also Cochles represents Luther's Death, viz. That he went to Bed merry and drunk, and was next morning found deal in his Bed; his Body being black, and his Tongue lolling out, as if he had been strangled, which some think was done by the Devil, some by his Wife; and as they carried him to the Church to bury him, his Body stank so that they were constrained to throw it into a Ditch, and so they departed. Which is a very pleasant story, but that another tells it so crossly, that 'tis impossible but one of them must be guilty of Losing. The truth is, they were so impatient, that these kind of Tales were told and sent up and down before the Man himself was dead, as I shall further acquaint the Representer when he desires it.  
In the mean time I forbear, as he says, and wish there may be no occasion given, to carry on the Controversy in this manner. This very little that I have said of a great deal more that remains, being designed only to show them what may be done, if the think fit to leave the Question, and to fall upon us for Misrepresenting them, instead of maintaining their Doctrines like Scholars and Disputants.  
There remains now but one thing more to be considered, and that is, What Reason the Representer had to tax the Author of the Exposition of our Doctrine, with wishing for Moderation in the deepest satire, condemning the want of Civility in others, with the most exasperating Reflections of his own, and a great deal more to this purpose; which according to the most impartial Judgement that I can make, is all said without Cause given. And the declamation of the Representer here upon, shows only that if he had lighted upon a fit Subject, the man does not want words to set it out to the Life. Reply, 
p. 45.  But what has that Author done? He charges them with their Art of Palliating, with want of Fairness and Civility, with laying aside Moderation, and falling into a vein of Lightness and Scurrility, forgetting that Religion is the Subject, and Christians and Scholars their Antagenists, etc. These things I confess he lays to their charge: But where's the satire? Where are the Exasperating Expressions? The Pen steeped in Gall, and the Uncharitable Exposing, for which he seems, to the Representer, but to make a serious Droll? 'Tis true enough, that to accuse men of Palliating their Religion, of want of Fairness, of falling into Lightness, of trivial Jesting, and accommodating their writings to the Genius of Sceptics, who divert themselves at the expense of all Religion. This I do acknowledge to be Satyrical, and as the Persons may be upon whom it falls, Exasperating. But then the satire and the Sharpness lies not here in the Manner of saying, but in the Truth of what is said: And I hope that Author does not deserve ill of these men, for speaking the plain Truth of them in Expressions so soft and inoffensive, as if he had taken time to choose the gentlest: If they do not now represent their Religion with that Sincerity which one would expect from Christians, I know a great many sharper words whereby one might justly express that Fault, but scarce one that has less keenness, then that they Palliate. If they bring in a Zealous Brother Ridiculing our Church, instead of Defending their own; could any thing be more cool, then to complain of want of Fairness and Civility, then to resent their Falling into a Vein of Lightness and Scurrility; and to put them in mind that Religion is the Subject, and Christians and Scholars their Antagonists. If this be turned into matter of Accusation too, we have an ill time of it, who must have to do with men that can well enough endure to do all these things, but cannot endure to hear of it again, though in the mildest way of Representing it: Had that Author, whose Books the Representer may be ashamed to acknowledge that he has read; had he, I say, written in the Representer's strain, had he said any thing like making the King's Capital City a Protestant Sodom, and the Fires of Southwark and the Temple, our Evangelical Proofs against the Papists; and the Preachers Theme the alarm to keep the drowsy Flock from nodding; had he set the Representer any example of such unhandsome levitieses as these are; and which, to say no more, are hardly tolerable upon the stage, than indeed the justice of his charge would not have born him out in his management of it: But when that excellent man had charged them with no more than what he has terribly proved, and that is Palliating, or with no more than what is flagrant in their last pieces, viz. Want of Fairnese and Civility, etc. in a word, with no more than what is true; and this without virulency or so much as levity of expression, (for which I leave the World to judge by those very phrases which the Representer has picked out of his last Book) and yet for this, his Pen must be said to be steeped in Gall, and his Antagonists exposed under the most odious character imaginable. I might well make more, but I cannot make less of it, then that some men are very much exasperated by being shown to themselves.  
And now, if I had a mind to take every occasion, he has given no small one by bringing in that Parable in the Scripture, Of the Trees choosing a King; to illustrate his own seriousness in the Drolling Sermon he composed for the zealous Brother: But I forbear at present, because he pretends to forbearance too.  
For the advice that he has given the forementioned Author, I do acknowledge that it were very good, but that it wants pertinence and occasion; and for that reason looks more like an unjust Accusation, than a charitable Admonition. But if he thinks good counsel is always to be received with thanks; I say to him what he says to our Expositor, Let him turn to such of his own Communion who have given bad examples in the business of Mis-representing. And let him too that gives good advice take it also; which though it be not so easy, it will yet be better for him: But above all things, Let him endeavour that their Arguments and Methods for the defeating of Protestants, be not such as any Jew may take to strike at Christianity, and every Atheist to make a shame of all Religion. Which advice is so good, that 'tis pity it should be lost upon those that need it not; and therefore I desire him to recommend it to the Author of the Parallel between the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. Let the Representer do his duty well upon this occasion; and I can hereafter tell him of others wherein his interest will prevail more than mine.  
But because the Representer is sincerely of our Expositor's mind, That this way of handling Controversies, doth rather exasperate then heal our Divisions. I will tell him an effectual way to prevent it, Let them Represent their Religion like men that are not afraid to let the people know the bottom of it; and when they offer to defend their Doctrines, let them not pretend to go on with their first undertaking, when they leave it, and fall into Invectives against their Adversaries: for if they would honestly confess that their business is to make us look as odiously as they can, they should, for me, go on in this way till they are weary, without any recrimination. If the Representer desires also that these Controversies may have an end, let him persuade his Friends not to produce testimonies out of the Fathers for Popery, without taking notice of the Answers that have been so often made to them: Which advice, if it had been given and taken, we had not seen the Consensus Veterum, and the Nubes Testium. Let them not furnish out Books with Arguments that have been often offered, and as often answered; but take the Controversy where it was left by their Predecessors and ours, and then go on with it if they can; which had been very good advice to Mr. clench. Let them not begin all over again, to spin out the time, and to make our Disputes endless: Let them write and do like men that hope to gain upon the World by Reason and Argument. As for our parts we shall be careful to follow his last Advice, and to prove ourselves true Members of the Church of England, not only by maintaining the Truth which She hath taught us, but by practising those Principles and that Loyalty which we Preach; that as we are sensible to whom we own the Liberty we enjoy, so we may approve ourselves not altogether unworthy of it, but be always able to give some good account of ourselves, with respect to these Controversies, both to God and the King.   
THE END.   

THE Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented; in Answer to a Book entitled, a Papist misrepresented and Represented, etc. Quarto.  
An Answer to a Discourse entitled, Papists Protesting against Protestant Popery ●eing a Vidication of Papists not Misrepresented by Protestant's: and containing a particular Examination of Mons 〈…〉 ●●aux, late Bishop of Condom, his Exposition of 〈…〉 of the Church of Rome, in the Articles of ●●●ocation of Saints, and the Worship of Images, occasioned by that Discourse. Quarto.  
An answer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Difference between the Representer and the Answerer. Quarto.  
Bishop Wilkin's Fifteen Sermons. Octavo.  
Sermmons and Discourses, some of which never before printed, the third Volume. By the Reverend Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury.  
A Manuel for a Christian Soldier. Written by Erasmus, and Translated into English. Twelve.  
Printed for W. Rogers.