PAPISTS PROTESTING Against Protestant-Popery. IN Answer to a Discourse Entitled, A Papist not misrepresented by Protestants. BEING A VINDICATION Of the Papist Mistress— represented and Represented, And the Reflections upon the Answer. LONDON, Printed by Hen. Hills, Printer to the King's most Excellent Majesty, for his Household and Chapel. 1686. PAPISTS PROTESTING AGAINST Protestant-Popery. MY Replier begins with Compliments; and I cannot but admire his art of weaving raillery into them so neatly, that every Eye will not discern which is which. But of all his Compliments I take the Reply itself to be the greatest. Now in good manners I should take my turn with my compliments: but am forced to drop these, and stand upon my guard; for the Replier, while he Compliments me with one hand, is giving me a box with the other; in his very next lines calling in question my honesty, without any mincing it at all. In the Misrepresentation of a Papist, he says, I have showed some Art, but very little Honesty. The Replier said just before that he would compliment no more, and is as good as p. 1. his word. As for me, I am much mistaken, if I find not upon occasion, more vouchers for my honesty, than Art: If I did by chance stumble into it, 'twas against my inclination, and I am sure I fell up-hill. But he would have my Art lie in this; that whereas I was told in the Answer, that some of those misrepresentations, which I had made of a Papist, and given out for the Protestant Character of Popery, were my own ignorant, or childish, or wilful Mistakes, I craftily insinuate, that they grant all my Misrepresentations of a Papist, to be ignorant, childish, or wilful Mistakes. Which is in short the Answer gives some, and I take all. And yet those two little words, upon which the whole Stress and Truth of his charge lie, are neither in the Answer nor Reflections; but are providentially juggled in here by himself, to give the Reader an early taste of his own Honesty, while he challenges mine. The Answerer had said, must the Character now supposed to be common to Protestants, p. 10. be taken from his ignorant, etc. Mistakes? The Reflecter says, Because you say my Character is made up of false apprehensions, ignorant, etc. Mistakes. What difference is here in sense at all? And what difference even in words; save that I add false apprehensions, which the Answerer likewise has in the very next page? Neither of us mention all or some, which the Replyer, not without reason, suspects of craft. As the Answerer thereof meant, I assure him, I meant; the whole Character, if he meant so; and part only, if he meant no more: Nor did I ever think of extending his Authority farther than he extended it himself. If the Replyer find any Art in this, I for my part, find no dishonesty; and think I have ill luck to fall into his bad opinion, for keeping precisely to my Adversaries sense, and almost precisely to his words. The Replyer comes after this with full Cry, and asks, what is the meaning of all this pother and noise about this double Character of a Papist misrepresented p. 3. and Represented? Truly I cannot tell, and think he would do well to ask those who make it; for they in all likelihood know best. I for my part thought it a very inoffensive thing, to let people know what Papists are, and pray God there be not a fear they should appear what they are, lest they be found to be unlike what they are made appear. They have been cried out upon, for keeping the people in Ignorance of their Doctrines; and when they expose them to open view, 'tis strange there should be a noise about it. Truly I did not expect it, and I could not imagine a bare Narrative of matter of Fact should fructify into Answers, and Reflections, and Replies. I did but relate, playing the Historian, not the Controvertist: Not but that, with the liberty of Historians, who deliver their own judgement of the matters they relate, and their reasons for it, I discovered what I thought, and sometimes said briefly why: But every Body will see, I made not Disputing my business. And yet, I know not how, it is taken it seems, for a piece of Controversy, and which is more unreasonable, against the Church of England, and defences made for her, as if my misrepresented Papist, were a Represented Church of England Protestant: Whenas I never gave that Character out for a Church of England Character of Popery, thought nothing of her Rule or Judgement, nor dreamt of concerning her, or any Body in my Misrepresentation, whose Conscience does not of itself concern them. All those, who have such Ideas of us, as I there draw, I said misrepresent us; and to those who have not, I said nothing. He that would know whether he be concerned or no, has but to ask his own Heart, to which I did then, and do still leave him. And yet notwithstanding this harmless justifying ourselves, there is a pother and noise it seems about the Papist misrepresented and Represented, and it is as fiercely assaulted on every side, as if it came to declare open war, and bid defiance to the world. The Answerer set upon it in the Mis-repesenting part, and will have that to be false apprehensions of the Author, to be taken from his ignorant, Childish or Wilful mistakes: And then the Papist Represented he endeavours to overthrow with whole volleys of Objections. Now comes the Replier, and though he makes it wonderful hard (p. 40.) to know what the Faith of a Papist is; yet he acknowledges it in the same page to be true, as the Representer has declared it, excepting some few points; and therefore passing by the Papist Represented with some light touches only, his main attack is against the Papist misrepresented: and not being willing this should be understood, as if made up of Childish, Ignorant or Wilful Mistakes, he will have it to be the very avowed Doctrine p. 3. and Practice of the Church of Rome. He will have the Papist misrepresented and Represented to be all the same, excepting some very few cases. And this he has urged so far, that I think, 'tis not now so much my Personal concern, to make an Answer, as the concern of as many as throughout the whole World profess themselves Catholics, to consider the truth of what is here charged against them. The Salvation of their Souls, their Eternity is at stake. If what is here positively asserted against them be true, 'tis high time for them to reform, and to leave off the Doctrine and Practice of so much Heathenism, under a Christian Name. Protestants in hopes of a mutual condescendence, may flatter them as they please, and tell them, they have Charity enough to think they may be saved; for my part I declare, if Popery be guilty of what he says, it cannot enter into my thoughts, there's any room for it in Heaven: and that there's any more possibility of a passage for its monstrous extravagancies through the Narrow way, then for those of Barbary and Turkey. The Popery, this Author describes, seems to me a flat Contradiction to the Commandments and the Gospel; and the Professors of it can have no other portion then with Idolaters, Murderers and Adulterers, whose Eternity is to be in utter darkness. He declares plainly that Popery is really that Antichristian Religion, which Protestants say it is; that it teaches and practices all those Fopperies, Superstitions, and Nonsense, which have been at any time charged against it by Protestants. His very Title of A Papist not misrepresented by Protestants, is a condemnation of the Religion to all those horrid shapes and monstrous forms, it has been at any time exposed in by Members of the Reformation. He tells his Reader in the name of all his Brethren, We charge them (the Papists) with nothing, but what they expressly p. 4. profess to believe, and what they practice: And in this one Assertion vouches for the Truth of all that Infamy, and profaneness which is laid at their doors. And so gives assurance, that their complaint of being misrepresented is but vain and idle; for that, what they call a Misrepresentation, is in reality a Representation in all the material Points, of the avowed Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome. That the Papist p. 2. 3. Represented (excepting some very few cases) professes to believe all that the Papist misrepresented is charged with. This the best and wisest Men, he says (viz. of the Reformation) have believed of them. p. 2. And in Fox's book of Martyrs we read how many were burnt for not believing, as the Papist misrepresented believes. This is the General Character of a Papist according to the freshest and most Modern draught of our Adversary; So that now to receive a true information of the Papist's Creed, we are not to consult the Council of Trent, or the Catechism ad Parochos, but the writings and Sermons of Protestants: For however Papists may not know what they believe themselves; yet Protestants give a true and exact account of them, and are so far Infallible, that the Papists certainly are, what they say they are; believe what they say they believe, since they charge them with nothing, but what they expressly profess to believe, and what they practice. Upon the assurance of this Affidavit, methinks, 'twill not be amiss here to receive the satisfaction of knowing, what a Papist really is, and what he certainly believes, beyond the possibility of all exception. For since all that proceeds from a Popish hand of this nature, is suspected and challenged, and the double Character of a Papist misrepresented and Represented (about which, as the Repliers says, there is so much pother and noise) is questioned as to its Method, its Sincerity and exactness, we'll now follow our Authors call, and learn what Popery is, from the Pens of Protestants: and especially from some of those, who are supposed to know what Popery is; but for the bad man, which the Replier excepts against, we'll make no advantage of him, but let a better P. 3. Man take his room. What Papists are according to the Character given by the most Reverend Father John sometime Lord Archbishop of York in his Book Written for the use of a Lady, to preserve her from the danger of Popery, where he brings in a Papist thus declaring the Belief and Doctrine of his Church. WE must Believe the Church of Rome, whether it teach true or false. If the Pope Believe there is no Life to come, we must Believe it as an Article of our Faith. We teach that the Gospel is but a Fable of Christ. That the Pope can dispense against the New Testament, that he may check when he pleases, the Epistles of St. Paul, and control any thing avouched by all the Apostles. That there is an eternal Gospel, to wit, that of the Holy Ghost, which puts down Christ's. That Christ is the Saviour of Men only, but of no Women: For Women are saved by St. Clare and Mother Jane. That we put away Mortal sins, by becoming Franciscans, by a Bishops Pardon for Forty days, and a Cardinals for a Hundred, and the Popes for Ever. That to become a Monk or a Nun, is as good as the Sacrament of Baptism. That Whoredom is allowed all the Year long, and another sin for June, July, August, which you must not know: Allowed for this time by Sixtus Quartus to all the Family of the Cardinals of St. Lucy. That the Pope can make that Righteous, which is Unrighteous. That the Bishop of Rome is a God. That the Pope may dispense with all Duties, and that our Principles set Men lose from all obligations in all relations whatsoever, between Magistrates and Subjects, Lords and Tenants, Husbands and Wives, Parents and Children, Masters and Servants, Buyers and Sellers. That there is not any sin, but is or may be Indulged amongst us; and scarce a known sin, but there is a known price for it, and at our Market-rate you may commit them when you will. What is the Belief and Doctrine of the Papists, as 'tis delivered by Tho. Beard D.D. in his Book Entitled, Antichrist the Pope of Rome. THey Believe that Saints departed aught to be Worshipped and invocated with trust and confidence as God himself. That the Pope can Canonize them to this Worship at his pleasure. That Images are to be adored with the same degree of honour as is due to their Patterns, contrary to an express precept of the Law. That the Pardon of sins here in this Life, and deliverance out of Purgatory in the Life to come, may be bought for Money, and where no Money there no remission. They make their unwritten Traditions, not one, but the principal part of God's word They place divers counterfeit Books, disguised under the Name of some of the Apostles, or their Disciples, full of Fables, Blasphemies, and Contrarieties, and yet commend them to the World as parcels of the written word of God, and Believe in them as Holy Scripture itself, as the Gospels of St. Nicodemus, of St. Thomas, etc. The Pope hath set up a new God in the Church, namely a piece of Bread in the Mass— and to their Breaden God they ascribe power to forgive sins, to defend from evil both Men and Beast, and to bring to Heaven— when as in the mean while most horrible Blasphemies against Christ himself are tolerated and slighted over. The Pope is above Angels and Magistrates, he exalteth himself above all that is called God, yea, above God himself. They prefer their Saints before Christ: They rely more upon the mediation and intercession of Saints, then upon the mediation of Christ. They not only equal St. Francis and St. Dominick unto Christ, but in some things prefer them before him. They affirm that whoever dies in St. Francis' habit cannot be Damned, and that it is as forcible for the remission of sins as the Sacrament of Baptism. What the Papists are as Represented by Mr. Sutcliffe in his Survey of Popery. THere is no point almost, wherein the Papist vary not from the ancient Church, the Article concerning the holy Trinity only excepted. They teach novelties and false Doctrines concerning the very grounds of Faith; for they believe the Church to be built upon the Pope. They speak what they can, in disgrace of the holy Scripture. They give the Office of Christ's mediation to the Virgin Mary, to Angels and to Saints, they make also Saints our Redeemers etc. For God they Worship Creatures, not only giving divine honour to the Sacrament, but also to Crucifixes and Images of the Trinity made of Wood etc. and they do adore not only Saints, but rotten bones and rags, they know not of whom. They overthrew grace and ascribe the merit of our salvation, not to God's mercy through Christ, nor to the merit of his passion, but properly to our own works and merits. They cut out the Second commandment, because it cannot stand with the Popish worship of Images. They pray before Stocks and Stones, nay they put their trust in them. They make no conscience to cut Christian men's throats for not yielding to all their abominations, and think it conscience to obey the Pope's decrees, though very unlawful. The Fourth commandment concerneth the sanctifying the Sabbath, but the Papists profane it by Worshipping Idols, and frequenting the Idolatrous Mass. Papists think they do God good service when they murder true Christians. Amongst Papists, Adultery and Fornication are reckoned among lesser sins. By the Doctrine of Papists the Devils of Hell may be saved— To this purpose they say, that not only wicked and reprobate men, but also the Devils of Hell may have true and justifying Faith. Papists blasphemously make Christ not only a desperate Man without hope, but also an infidel without Faith. They deny Christ to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and affirming that his divine Essence had a beginning from some other, they fall within the Compass of the error of the Tritheites; which Heresy doth tear the Unity of the Godhead in pieces, and plainly makes more Gods then one. Papists do diminish the merit of Christ's satisfaction; and enervate, as much as in them lieth, the Cross of Christ, and the effect of his death and passion— They are teachers of Antichrist, opposite to Christ, and enemies of his Cross. That Christ is not the redeemer of all Mankind. They make Christ inferior to Saints and Angels, and prefer the Pope before Christ. Papists make St. Francis and Dominick, equal to Christ in divers things, and in some things Superior. They give equal honour to a Cross of Wood and Metal, and to Christ, and looking on a Wooden crucifix they say, thou hast redeemed us. They suppose the Virgin Mary more merciful than Christ. Papists account it a small sin to use common Women. Papists believe divers were by their Saints fetched out of Hell. Papists by their irregular Doctrines and Traditions, have not only corrupted, but also disannulled, for the most part, the law of God. They deny the Gospel to be a rule of perfection, but they doubt not to give that honour to the rules of Bennet, etc. they speak more Blasphemously of the Holy Scriptures, than the Turks or Saracens. To the Images of the Cross and crucifix, they give as much honour as they do to God. They fall down like Beasts before the Pope, and Worship him as God, ascribing to him most blasphemously the honour due to Christ. Popery as a sink, hath together with Heresy received into itself most gross and Heathenish Idolatry. Papists say they put no trust in Images, but never did the Gentiles trust so much in the Images of Juno or Jupiter, as the Papists trust in the Images of our Lady of Loretto, James of Compostella, etc. They give divine honour to Images, which they themselves cannot deny to be Idolatrous. They ascribe man's justification to his Works, and exclude justification, both by Christ's justice, and by Faith, etc. The Papists teach their disciples to distrust God's grace— and to trust rather in their own Works and Merits. Popery is nothing else, but a pack of old and new Heresies. Papists despise marriage as Pollutions and fleshly life. Bennet, Dominick, Francis and other authors of feigned religions took not their Rules from the Gospel, but thought they could frame a more perfect religion then the Gospel. As the Gentiles had one principal God, and divers demi and inferior Gods, so have the Papists. As the Gentiles believed that every one had his good and bad Genius, so the Papists assign to every Christian a good and bad Angel. The second Council of Arles cap. 23. showeth it to be a custom of Pagans, to worship Trees or Stones, or Fountains, yet our English Papists cease not to go on pilgrimage to St. Winifride's well, nor to worship Stock's and Stones. The Romish Church consists of a pack of Infidels. They forbid honest Wedlock. The Papist Preachers seldom teach the people, and when they do it, they preach their own inventions, and tell idle tales without edification. Both Priests and People are most ignorant of Matters of Faith, where Popery is professed. The Scriptures and Fathers they read not. In a member of the Catholic Church, (they say) neither inward Faith nor other virtue is required, but only that he profess outwardly the Romish Religion, and be subject to the Pope. The Papists promise Heaven to their followers, so they profess and set forward the Pope's cause, whether they be Murderers of Kings, or Massacrers, or Robels, or filthy Whoremongers, or Sodomites. They make more conscience to abstain from flesh on Friday, then to murder Christians. Divers points of Popish doctrine are specially said to proceed from the Devil. It is a common practice amongst Papists to give divine Worship to dead men. The Popish Church hath no true Bishops. The Pope is Antichrist. The Popish Synagogue hath no true Priests. Popery in many points is more absurd and abominable, than the doctrine of Mahomet. Papists, that positively hold the heretical and false doctrines of the modern Church of Rome, can not possibly be saved. What Papists are according to the Book of Homilies. IMages in Churches and Idolatry go always both together— Images in Churches have been, be, and ever will be none other but abominable Idols. Oenomaus and Hesiod show that in their time, there were Thirty thousand Gods; I think we had no fewer Saints to whom we gave the honour due to God, and they have not only spoiled the true living God of his due honour in Temples, Cities, etc. by such devices and inventions that the Gentile Idolaters have done before them, but the Sea and Waters have as well special Saints with them, as they had Gods with the Gentiles, etc. Papists make of true Servants of God, false Gods, and attribute to them the power and honour which is Gods, and due to him only. Image maintainers have the same opinion of Saints, which the Gentiles had of their false Gods. Image maintainers Worship Stocks and Stones, they give also the honour due to God to their Images, even as did the gentile Idolaters to their Idols. Who can doubt but that our Image maintainers agreeing in all Idolatrous opinions, agree also with them in committing most abominable Idolatry? In many points our Image maintainers have exceeded the Gentile Idolaters in all wickedness, foolishness, and madness, and if this be not sufficient to prove them Image-Worshipers, that is to say, Idolaters, Lo you shall hear etc. The Learned and Unlearned, Laity and Clergy, all Ages, Sects and Degrees of Men, and Women, and Children of whole Christendom have been at once drowned in abominable Idolatry, the space of Eight hundred years and more. This is the Protestant Character of a Papist, and such as I always looked upon no other, than of a Papist misrepresented; and whoever will take the pains to compare it, with what I set down under that Title, will find there's little other difference between them, but that this is the Fouler. But now it seems it must be no longer a Papist misrepresented, but Represented, and 'tis what the Best and Wisest Men have Believed of them. And here now what shall I p. 2. say? Our Replier says, these are Great and Good Authorities, and we may well suppose they knew what Popery was. And for my part because I love not quarrelling, I shall so far join with them; that if this be the Popery they have hitherto prosecuted with so much Fervour and Zeal; if this be the Popery, from whose infection they have so industriously Laboured to deliver the Christian World, they have done nothing but what is the duty of every true Believer. And if 'twas for the not Embracing this Popery, those Martyrs Recorded by Fox passed the Fiery Trial, their Cause was surely a Glorious Cause; and I question not the Triumphs and Crowns of Glory that waited for them in Heaven, were not inferior to what those enjoyed, who suffered under Decius or Dioclesian. And for my part I am so far in earnest, had I a Thousand lives, I would rather choose by the assistance of Heaven, to lose them all at the Stake, than in the least assent to so much Heathenism, to so Foul and Monstrous a Religion. And what need now of any longer disagreement? What necessity of keeping up Names of Division? Protestant and Papist may now shake hands, and by one Subscription close into a Body, and join in a fair and amicable correspondence. Popery has been hitherto the only cause of Separation; one part seeming to avow and support it, the other as Zealously endeavouring its overthrow. And all the strife it seems has been about a Word. For now we have been informed from Great and Good Authorities, what this Popery is; what Papist in the World is there, that will not so far become Protestant, as to give his hand for the utter suppressing this kind of Popery? And when Protestants and Papists concur for the rooting out of Popery, what possibility of Farther Divisions? But if on the other side, this Character of a Papist be intended, for the setting forth the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome; if this be designed as a True Representation of the Faith and Religion of Roman Catholics: Then returns afresh my complaint of their being misrepresented; that they suffer under the greatest injustice imaginable; that they are exposed in Bears and Tigers Skins, so to become a Bugbear to the Multitude: That they are maligned and rendered odious for the maintaining such Doctrines, which they as heartily Detest, as those that urge the charge; and that 'tis no wonder that Papists are put in the List with Turks and Infidels, since their Religion is thus injuriously loaded with Calumnies, and they made the Professors of such Tenets, which bid open defiance to Truth, Honesty, and Christianity, which strike at the World's Redeemer, and are impossible to be entertained by any Creature, that is one degree above a Beast. I will not deny, but whosoever will look into the Church of Rome, as the Scavanger does into the City, who stops no where but at a Dunghill, may rake together so much as to defame her with the Inconsiderate and Unwary; alas the Vices of Men in her Communion, their abuses of the most Sacred things, too abundantly furnish matter of this kind. But yet whosoever shall expose this for the Doctrine and Practice of their Church, and describe her, and all in her Communion by these Rubbish Collections, cannot possibly avoid the scandal of being unjust, and might with as good reason decipher London by those loathsome heaps where all her filth is emptied. And now since 'tis evident, the Adversaries of the Church of Rome do generally thus deal by her, scraping out of every corner of that vast Communion and in every Age, whatsoever can possibly contribute to make her infamous; there is too too much reason to complain of her being misrepresented, and no just exception can be made against the Character of the Papist Misrepresented, which lays open to the World the Artifice of these unwarrantable proceedings. But here now strikes in the Replyer, who undertakes to explain a Mystery in this Character; and the Reflecter, he says, will have no reason to glory, that he gave the occasion of it. And this Mystery it seems, P. 3. are some faults he has discovered in the Misrepresentation. 1st. He says such things are put into this Character of a Papist, as no Man in his wits ever charged them with: And yet those very things almost in express terms, and others far more absurd, we see charged (as is showed above) by the Best and Wisest of Men, of great and good Authority with the Replyer, as he confesses himself. (p. 2.) And this too is to me a Mystery as well as to him; that what no Man in his wits ever urged, and what the former Answerer calls Childish, and Ignorant, or Wilful mistakes should be now seen Fathered upon Men of so high a Character. 2ly. and 3ly. He complains, that the Opinions of Protestants, and the consequences they draw from P. 4, 5. Popish Doctrines, are put into the Character of a Papist misrepresented, as if they were his avowed Doctrine and Belief. This is a pretty speculative quarrel, I confess, and might deservedly find room here, were it our business to consider the due method of Misrepresentation in the abstract: But as our present concern stands, here's a acquaint conceit lost, for coming in a wrong place. For what had the Author of the Papist misrepresented to do with these Rules? He did not intend to misrepresent any body. His Province was only to draw forth the Character of a Papist, as 'tis commonly apprehended by the Vulgar, or the Multitude, with the common prejudices and mistakes that generally attend such a notion. Now I would fain know, whether this Character, as it lies in the people's heads, is distinguished into Antecedents and Consequents: Whether they, when they hear one declaiming against Popery, for committing Idolatry, as bad or worse than that of the grossest Heathens, Worshipping Stocks and Stones for God, distinguish between the Doctrine of the Papists, and these Interpretations and Consequences charged against it. Alas they swallow all down greedily and in the lump; Antecedents and Consequents go down with them all at once. Neither do I find much care used to prevent this misunderstanding in the People. For who is there in laying open the folly, as they will have it of the Papists, and positively charging them, that They make Gods of Stocks and Stones, that They make Gods of dead Men, and raise the Virgin Mary to be copartner with Christ in Heaven, etc. Does afterwards tell his Auditory, that This is not what the Papists themselves Believe and Teach; but only what himself Believes and Infers from their Doctrine, as the Consequence or Interpretation of it, but they deny. Truly were our Adversaries so sincere as to tell their hearers, that all their charge against Popery is nothing more, than what they think of our Faith and Doctrine; I would so far agree with the Replier, that this ought not be called Misrepresenting, but only saying of us, what is not true. But they go beyond this, and instead of saying we think so, they positively say so it is: And possess as many as take Ideas from their words, not barely that they think we Teach and Practise Idolatry, u.g. but absolutely, that we do. Nay our Image-worship, is Worshipping Stocks and Stones for Gods, says the Replier in his very next leaf without remembering his thinking. And when the People read Books, intended as preservatives against the danger of Popery, they are still exposed to the like deceit. For what ordinary Reader is there, that finds it positively asserted as above by the Archbishop of York. Papists Believe the Church of Rome, whether it teach true or false. And if the Pope Believes there is no Life to come, they must Believe it, as an Article of their Faith. What ordinary Reader, I say, is there, that will not swallow this presently as the Faith and Doctrine of the Papists; when at latter end 'tis only what he thinks, and a Consequence far fetched to discredit Popery with the Vulgar? And when he's told by another hand, that the Common Answer of Catholics to excuse themselves from Idolatry in their adoration of the Eucharist, is because they Believe the Bread to be God: Has not he here a fair occasion again of taking this for the Belief of a Papist; and that he Worships, what he Believes to be a Breaden God? Certainly he must be no small Logician that can discover, whether this be an Antecedent or Consequent, whether it be the Faith of the Papist, or only a Consequence of it. For my part, when I see Popery described, as if none could be of that Communion, but he that can bring his mind to Believe the Word of God to be writ but for a few Years only, and afterwards to be abrogated and annulled. That whatsoever God says, shall be null and void, unless the Bishop of Rome, will and command the same. When I hear that the Pope is Antichrist, and Rome the Whore of Babylon, that the Papists have taken away from the People the Holy Communion, the Word of God, the true Worship of the Deity, the right use of the Sacraments and Prayers, and instead of them, have given to please them, Salt, water, Oil, spital, Bulls, Jubilees, Indulgences, Crosses, Incense and an infinite number of mere Toys and Baubles, and that in these they have placed all Religion; when I hear, I say, Popery thus described to the People by eminent Apologizers for the Church of England, I cannot conceive, but 'tis to let them know, what notion to frame of it. And yet whosoever shall suppose, that after such directions, they'll conceive a regular Idea of it, without a confusion of Faith with its Interpretations, of Doctrine with its charges, must conclude them to be better at Separating than the Chemists, and that in subtle distinctions they are able to outdo Aristotle himself. But 'tis too much to be feared, that those who expose Popery to the People after this way, are not willing they should apprehend it in its genuine Purity, and as free from this disingenuous mixture: 'Tis so like those who impose upon the Multitude with artificial Monsters, by putting the wrong end forward, and showing the Tail for the Head; that if they are not deluded into a mistake, 'tis because they are not so credulous as they should be, and suspect something of a Trick in him that makes the show. And has not the Reflecter now reason to repent after all, that he gave occasion to the Replier of explaining the Mysteries, he has discovered in the Character of the Papist misrepresented; since the faults he endeavours to lay open, are not in the Misrepresentation, but in those, who by Misrepresenting the Papist, raised a false Idea of Popery in the People's heads? The Character of the Papist misrepresented, was intended only, as the Author expresses himself in his Introduction, for a Copy of Popery as Painted in the Imagination of the Vulgar: And being conform to that, 'tis exact and perfect: And if there be any faults in it, the blame must fall on those who drew the Original. But however we'll compound here again for this; if the Replier will but undertake to undeceive the People, and give them a more exact Notion of Popery, the Reflecter will undertake to reform the Character accordingly. But till then the Character of the Papist misrepresented stands good; and till the abused people are taught to distinguish between Antecedents and Consequents, between the Faith of Papists and the Consequences charged against it; the Character must remain as it is; and any Reformation in it would but make it irregular, and unlike that from whence it was taken. The Replier therefore might very well have spared the almost Forty pages he has spent on this Subject; in which, though he has learnedly distinguished between matters of Dispute and of Representation: Yet this distinction being not to be found in the Notion the People have of Popery, 'tis nothing to our purpose. And the only end it can possibly serve for, is to let the World understand, how much the Papists are generally wronged in their reputation; whilst so many gross absurdities, which are often positively exposed for Articles of their Faith, are here acknowledged by the Replier himself, not to be their Faith, but only the Interpretations and Consequential charges of their Adversaries. These are the Misrepresenting Arts and Faults he mentions. For the Representing Faults he alleges. 1. That I deny the Belief of their Interpretations. And the reason is, it may be, because he thinks, no body charges us with that Belief: Which if it be but true, than I have not so much as contradicted any body, and there is no fault, I hope, in that. 2. I generally own the Doctrines and Practices, which they charge us with. And how could this possibly be otherwise, if they charge us with none, but what we expressly profess to own? 3. That in some cases I disown that to be the Doctrine and Belief of our Church, which manifestly is so and has been proved on them. Then for all his word to the contrary, we are in some cases charged with more than we expressly profess to Believe. As for his manifestly, and his proving, let that go for no more than what it is, his Opinion: 'Tis none of mine, and I think 'twill be no bodies else, when the matter comes to a Trial. And here now we must turn over so many Leaves, till we meet with some other matter in the Reply. And the first that occurs, are some exceptions against the Rule observed by the Representer in declaring the Faith of a Papist, who to clear himself from the Scandal of Interpreting the Council of Trent by his own private sense and opinion, alleges the Catechism ad Parochos, which he had followed in delivering the sense of the Council. This the Replier could not pass by without an Answer, and therefore gives a satisfactory one. And is he sure, says he, that all his Representations are conformable to the sense of this Catechism? May he not play tricks with the Catechism, and expound that by a private Spirit, as well as the Council? Thus a Question or two is a full Confutation of the Reflecter. He alleged again the Bishop of Condom's Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, which being approved and attested by the Pope himself, by several Cardinals and Bishops, brought along with it the Authority of the See Apostolic. But this it seems, works nothing upon the Replier: Canus has put a scruple in his head; and because he finds in this Author, that That is not to be accounted the judgement of the Apostolic See, which is given only by the Bishop of Rome privately, maliciously, (a word slipped over by the Replier) and inconsiderately, or with the advice only of some few of his own mind; he cannot therefore think, but that the Bishop of Condom's Exposition comes short of the Authority of the Apostolic See; and that the Reflecter is out, in taking shelter under one, whose Authority is nothing, as he says downright, pag. 46. This is Answering I confess with a witness, thus to endeavour to overthrow so considerable and Reverend an Authority, without any Authority at all, besides that of an ungrounded and ill-turned consequence; viz. Because that is not to be accounted the Judgement of the Apostolic See, which is given only by the Pope, privately, maliciously, and inconsiderately, or with the advice only of some few of his own mind; therefore this Learned Prelate's Exposition of the Catholic Faith is to be thrown by, as of no Authority. So that our Replier, has here concluded without any more ado, that the approbation of this Book was only given privately, maliciously, inconsiderately, or else with the advice only of some few of the Popes own mind, otherwise the Consequence will not hold. But to show how little the Replier has weighed this matter, and with how little pains he can undervalue any thing when he pleases: I need only remit the Reader to the perusal of the Book itself, which is lately published in English; the Advertisements affixed to it will satisfy him, that there has not a Book appeared in this Age supported by greater Authority than This. He'll find it examined with all due deliberation, approved with all solennity imaginable, by Men of known Integrity, Piety and Learning, by Abbots, Cardinals, Bishops, and by this present Pope himself, and recommended by his Holiness to be Read by all the Faithful. He'll find it not only thus approved, but even twice Printed at Rome itself, and in the Press of the Congregation de Propaganda Fide, Translated out of the Original French, into divers Languages, as Latin, Italian, English, Irish, Flemish, High-Dutch, and this done by eminent Men of these Nations: So that besides the Attestations of those great Men there specified, it may be said to have the General Approbation of all these Catholic Prelates, who in proposing it to their Flock, sufficiently recommend it for a True Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church. And yet notwithstanding all this, with the Replier, it has not the Authority of the Apostolic See; nay its Authority is just nothing. Now methinks, I would willingly here know of the Replier, whether Those Great and Good Authorities above mentioned, who pretend to make a Survey of the Faith and Doctrines of Catholics, have better Authority and Grounds for what they assert and charge, than this Reverend Prelate for the Exposition which he gives. And whether it be not a great Mystery, that every Divine of the Reformation shall be thought to have Authority sufficient, for defaming the Church of Rome, with whatsoever extravagant Opinions he can but find in one or two Writers of what condition soever: And yet a Catholic Prelate, Eminent in the Church for his great Virtue and Learning, in expounding the Faith of his Church, with the Consent, Approbation, and Authority of the Greatest Men of his Communion, and even of his Supreme Pastor, shall be slighted, and thrown by as of no Authority at all. For my part I cannot understand this uneven kind of justice, and reasoning: Or why those who profess a Religion, and depend on it as to their Salvation, shall be thought less to understand it, than others who protest against it, and look no farther into't, than to render it Ridiculous. But it must be so in an Age, in which a Papist is not to pass for a Christian, and must not be believed; we'll therefore go on to the other points. And for the clearing the most material of them, we need not look beyond the Exposition delivered by this Prelate. 1st. As to the Invocation of Saints he declares expressly, that They have no other capacity of assisting us, but only by their Prayers. And though the Replier pretends, there's no such limitation found in this Author; yet methinks he should not have been so popositive, in a case, in which he's so easily disproven. The French Edition Printed at Paris 1681. has it expressly, pag. 32. The First English Edition Printed likewise in Paris 1672. pag. 29. And now this last Correct Edition, which came forth the last Week, pag. 9 So that, though the Answerer has made some little objection; yet the Representer is sufficiently vindicated, in thus declaring the Faith of a Papist: since what he said, is founded not upon his own private sense, but upon an Authority beyond all exception, besides that of mere Cavil. 2ly. And 3ly. As to the Pope's personal Infallibility, and the Deposing Power, the Representer declared, that, though there were Men of his Communion maintaining these Points by way of Opinion, yet that they were no part of the Catholic Faith; and that Papists had no obligation from their Church of assenting to such Doctrines. And for thus delivering a matter of Fact, he has the Authority again of this Great Prelate, who having declared the Primacy of St. Peter, and acknowledged the same in his Successors in the See of Rome, immediately adds: As for those things, which we know are disputed of in the Schools, though the New Edit. p. 50. Ministers continually allege them to render this Power odious, it is not necessary we speak of them here, seeing they are not Articles of the Catholic Faith. It is sufficient we acknowledge a Head established by God to conduct his whole Flock in his Paths, which those, who love Concord amongst Brethren, and Ecclesiastical Unanimity, will most willingly acknowledge. And is not this a sufficient discharge of the Representer from all the exceptions of his Adversaries? For if this learned Author, having proposed the Primacy of St. Peter's Chair to be acknowledged as the common Centre of all Catholic Union, does purposely wave all other Points relating to the Authority of that Chair, as being no part of the Catholic Faith: And his Book in this form is owned and approved by the Pope himself, by the most eminent of the Cardinals, and other great Prelates of the Church after a most strict examination, what ground of quarrel with the Representer in his following this so Authentic a Rule? 'Twas the main design of the Bishop of Condom in that Treatise to separate the opinions of Divines and School Debates, from the Doctrine of the Catholic Faith. And since he omitted to expound those Points of the Pope's Personal Infallibility and the Deposing Power as not belonging to the Catholic Faith, with so full and Authentic an approbation, as has been declared; where is the crime of the Representer in not allowing them a place in that List? And here I cannot but run the venture of another smile from the Replier, upon the reinforcement of my former Proposal. I desired that the decision of the quarrel with the Representer might depend upon the experiment of any one's being judged capable of being received into the Catholic Church, upon his assenting to matters of Faith, in that form as delivered by the Representer. The Replier, having smiled first, thought it not fit to put it to that issue; but chose rather to own that the Faith, as declared by the Representer, was really the Faith of a Papist, excepting p. 40. the Deposing Doctrine, and some other few Points. Here then let him make the Proposed Trial, if he pleases, or any friend for him; and if, notwithstanding his refusal to admit the Deposing Doctrine and the Pope's Infallibility, but as Stated by the Representer (that is, not as Articles of Catholic Faith) he be not judged sufficiently qualified as to those points, to be received into the Communion of the Roman Catholics, I will grant he has reason to charge the Representer not to have done his part in those Particulars. This will be a much shorter and surer Conviction than twenty Answers and Replies, fit only to cast a mist before the Readers eyes, and which such a trial as this will quickly dissipate. And this now is all that is requisite for a full Vindication of the Representer. For it being frankly owned by the Replier himself, that he has made a p. 40. true Representation of the Faith of a Papist; with the exception only of some few Points. And it being here made evident, that what the Representer delivered as to those very Points, is according to the sense of the See Apostolic, of the greatest Prelates, nay, I may say of the whole Church: The Papist misrepresented and Represented, stands untouched. And all that has been said against it, have been nothing more, than so many artificial endeavours to persuade the World, that the Protestant understands better, what the Faith of a Papist is, than the Papist does himself; which will be easily answered after his manner, with a smile. What the Replier adds after this, belongs not to the Representer, who being to Represent, and not to Dispute, is not concerned with those tedious arguments; however, not to be uncivil, we'll go so far with him, though it be out of our way. 1. He proves at large that all Definitions of Faith, declared in General Councils are not concluded with anathemas; and in this we willingly agree with him: p. 51. But this does not at all prove, that whatsoever is declared in such a Council without an Anathema, is an Article of Faith; and therefore nothing against us deserving any farther answer. 2. He endeavours to prove the Deposing Power not to be a matter of Discipline and Government, but to p. 53. be a Point of Doctrine, and this from a Principle lately published in the vindication of Dr. Sherlock's Sermon, viz. that To decree what shall be done, includs a virtual definition of that Doctrine on which that Decree is founded. And this he says, as we have been lately told. But what respect can I possibly have for what has been lately told us by another hand, since the Replier himself, however he urges it in one page, plainly undervalues it and contradicts it in his very next; where he tells us, that in the Council of p. 55. the Apostles at Jerusalem there was a Decree of Manners, yet it contained no Definition of Faith. And for my part I think the Replier in the right, and must needs stand with him against the Vindicator of the Sermon; that to decree what shall be done, does not include a virtual Definition of Doctrine. And the example produced by the Replier evidently shows it: For though the Apostles in their Council (Acts 15.) decreed abstinence from blood and strangled meats: Yet this Decree of what was to be done, did not include a virtual Definition of that Doctrine, on which the Decree was founded: For if it had, than the Doctrine of abstaining from blood and strangled meats, had been an Article of Faith; which I am sure is not agreeable either to the Principles or Practices of either of our Churches. And the reason of this may be, because Decrees of what shall be done, are often made with relation to particular circumstances, of time, persons, place, etc. and not built upon Definitions of Faith, but upon Prudential Motives, upon Probable Opinions, upon the Testimonies and Informations of Men; and so may be suspended or quite abrogated, as also confirmed a new, or wholly changed, according to the alteration of Circumstances: Nothing of all which can stand with Articles of Faith, which being the indispensable Doctrine of Jesus Christ, are not subject to change or alteration. 3. But suppose this Decree to be ranked only among the Decreta Morum, which concern only the Discipline p. 54. and Government of the Church, yet our Adversary here urges out of Canus and Bellarmine, that General Councils cannot err even in such Decrees, when they relate to things necessary to Salvation, and concern the whole Church. And when the Replier has proved the Deposing Decree to be of this Nature, and esteemed as such by our Church, he may then deserve a farther consideration. What the Replier adds of this Subject (p. 57) That the Pope permits the positive Assertors of the no-Deposing Power to pass without any Censure of Heresy, because he wants Power to do it, is spoke like an Oracle I confess; but because these are ceased now a days, we may very well suspend our assent, till we have some better Argument, than his bare assurance of what the Pope would do if he had Power. The Last Argument, is concerning the veneration p. 63. of Images. And though the Answerer was willing, without any more ado, to condemn the Papists of Constructive Idolatry from some external Acts of Adoration used before Images: Yet our Replier readily grants, that those Actions are in themselves indifferent and capable of being paid to God and Men, and to be used as the expressions either of a Civil or a Religious Honour. But he has given us an infallible Mark, by which to distinguish between Civil and Religious Honour, notwithstanding the very same External p. 66. Actions being used in both; and 'tis, that Civil relates to this World, and Religious to the Invisible Inhabitants of the next. This he says is a distinction allowed by all the rest of Mankind; and though by all the rest he seems willing to exclude me, yet since he has given his word for it, I'll come in for one of that number, at lest so far as to suppose it. So that here we have it now laid down as a Principle by common agreement, that External Actions of Honour paid to things relating to this World, is a Civil Honour, Respect, Veneration or Worship. And when they are paid to things relating to the invisible Inhabitants of the next, 'tis a Religious Honour, Respect, Veneration, or Worship. And hence 'tis concluded by him, that these External Acts of Honour expressed to any Image, that has Relation to some Invisible Being must of necessity be a Religious Honour. This is what the Replier proves, and we at present agree to. But if he thinks, as he says, that this puts an end to the Dispute, I think him mistaken, we being as yet only in the beginning. For though it hence follows that Papists give a Religious Honour to Holy Images, yet till it be proved that all Religious Respect and Honour, is so a Divine Honour, as to make a God of the thing to which it is paid, at lest constructively; he has not concluded Papists to be Idolaters, or guilty of constructive Idolatry; which is the thing he intended and undertook. And that he cannot possibly prove it from these Principles, without proving too much, and bringing himself in for a share, I think may easily be made appear. For if Papists must be condemned of this constructive Idolatry, because they use External Acts of Adoration to an Image, which has a Relation to some invisible Being: must not all those come into the same List, who use the like External Acts of Adoration to other things, which have a like Relation to the same invisible Being? What excuse shall there be for him, who Bows to the Altar, or Communion Table, to the Name of Jesus, etc. All these things Relate to the invisible Inhabitants of the next World, and all External Acts expressed to them must by consequence be a Religious Worship: then, in the words of our Replier, If to Worship any Invisible Being, be to give Divine Honours to it; then to be sure, to Worship the thing Relating to such an Invisible Being, must be p. 67. Religious Worship also. For if the Worship be referred to that Invisible Being, which the thing relates to, it cannot be Civil but Religious Honour; and whosoever gives Religious Honour to a thing, does immediately ascribe Divinity to the object of that Worship, and in our Repliers Phrase, by construction of Fact is an Idolater. And now how many here are included in this consequence? Certainly as many as admit of any Religious Respect besides to God: Which yet the Replier himself was not unwilling (p. 60.) to give to Relics, allowing a due Veneration and Religious Decency to the Bodies of Saints and Martyrs: And the Learned Dr. Stillingfleet is well enough disposed to acknowledge Def. p. 862. 603. a Reverence and Religious Respect due to Sacred Places and Things. So that I believe the Replier has overshot himself in this Argument: And that upon consideration, he will admit of some Degrees in Religious, as well as in Civil Honour: And that every thing is not immediately set up for a God, which is Honoured with a Religious Respect, however this Honour may be ultimately terminated in God. And this thought now brings into my mind, a close piece of Arguing used by the Replier, in urging this matter; and it lies thus: (p. 66.) Civil Respects are confined to this World; But we have no intercourse with the other World, but what is Religious: Therefore as the different kinds and degrees of Civil Honour are distinguished by the sight of the Object, to which they are paid, though the External Acts are the same: So (says he) the most certain mark of distinction between Civil and Religious Worship is this, that the one relates to this World, the other to the invisible Inhabitants of the next. Here we have a Consequence and a Comparison, and both so excellent in their kinds, that if any better connexion can be found in them, than betwixt the Monument and the Maypole, it must be by one, who has found one trick more in Logic, than ever Aristotle knew. If instead of his So in the end of his Conclusion, he had made this application, So are the different kinds and degrees of Religious Honour distinguished by the Intention of the Givers, or by some visible representation, or determination of other circumstances. This might have been inferred with some dependence on the Premises: And by it we might have compounded for the matter in hand: but as the Replier has it, it neither proves, nor is any thing. Another Argument we have just before this, which proves again too much, and is so unlucky as not to harm us, without cutting the Throat of his own Cause: The source of it may be thus expressed: No intention can alter the nature of Actions, which are determined by a Divine or Humane Law; Therefore since the External Acts of kneeling or bowing to or before an Image, are determinately forbidden by the Divine Law, the intention of doing no evil in them, cannot excuse them from Sin. For does not this as severely strike at the Bowing down to the Altar, and Kneeling to the Sacrament as at us? For those very Actions are part of the Divine Worship, and Bowing down is the very Idolatrous Action expressly forbid in the Commandment: And then, If there be any such thing, (as the Replier says here) as External and Visible Idolatry, it must consist in External and Visible Actions; for we can never know what men's intentions are, but by their Actions; and then (says he) if Men do such Actions as are Idolatrous, how can the intention excuse them from Idolatry? So that by this way of reasoning he can never throw us down, but we must fall both together. For though the Sacrament, or the Altar are not expressed in the Commandment; yet since the External Action of Adoration is a Religious and Divine Worship (according to the Repliers Principle before established) the Bowing down and Kneeling to them cannot be excused from the guilt of Constructive Idolatry. And whatsoever hole the Replier can possibly find, to get out at with his Altar, the Representer will easily follow him at the same with his Image. But that the Replier may see, how far his Argument concludes, I would fain know whether a Quaker might not as reasonably make use of the same, for the justifying his Yeas and his Nay's, and his other points of Quakerism? For if he should say; No intention can alter the Nature of Actions, which are determined by a Mat. 5. 24. Divine or Humane Law: But Swear not at all, Neither Mat. 23. 10. be ye called Masters, and let your Communication be Yea, Yea, Nay, Nay, are Actions or things determined Mat. 5. 37. by the Divine Law: Therefore the Intention of doing no Evil in them cannot excuse the doing otherwise then is there determined, from the guilt of sin. This has equal force from a Quaker as from a Replier, and makes evident, that the same Arguments which persuade to a Reformation from Popery, do upon the same grounds plead still for a farther Reformation. Thus far have I followed the Replier beyond my business of Representing, and I hope I have so far obliged him in it, that however he has Questioned my Honesty, he will not at least, now call me uncivil. Before I take my leave, I will be so free as to offer him a Request or two, which will not be thought unreasonable, I hope, since he himself has put them into my Mouth. 1. That he will use his interest with Protestants, to hold to what he says they do, and charge us with nothing, but what we expressly Profess to Believe and Practice. 2. That they pick not up the Abuses of some, the Vices and Cruelties of others, the odd Opinions of particular Authors, and hold these forth for the Doctrine and Practice of our Church. And that in charging any Practices, they charge them upon no more than are concerned. 3. That as often as they tell what they think of our Doctrines and Practices, They would likewise at the same time inform their Hearers, that those Thoughts are, as the Replier says, Opinions, Interpretations and Consequences, of their own, concerning our Doctrine, and not our avowed Doctrine: But that we think as ill of those Crimes which they charge, as they themselves do; and that We, our Doctrine and Practices, are as free from them, as They think of their own; and that in this consists the Difference betwixt us. These are but very Reasonable Requests, I think, and what every Man may very well expect from his Christian Neighbour; they being not so much Favours as Duties: And what every one, who understands that Golden Rule, of Doing as they would be done by, will comply with without long entreaties. This is desired by those of the Reformation too, who require in their Synod of Dort, that None judge of the Faith of their Churches, from Calumnies picked up here and there, or passages of Particular Authors, which are often falsely cited, or wrested to a sense contrary to their Intention: But from the Confessions of Faith of Conel. Syn. their Churches, and from the Declarataion of their Orthodox Doctrine unanimously made in that Synod. And this is a caution of so great importance, that where 'tis not observed, 'tis no wonder to see Men contending for the Truth of Christianity, and to lose it amidst their Uncharitable Dissensions. 'Twas my intention not to increase, but to diminish these heats, and for this end I put forth the double Character of a Papist misrepresented and Represented. 'Twas this was the design of the Bishop of Condom in his Exposition of the Faith of the Catholic Church, and of the Clergy of France, in the Acts of the General Assembly lately published. The method is inoffensive, and free from provoking Reflections; and if by this I have let the World know what our Church Believes and Teaches, 'tis what I intended: And as for Disputing I leave that to such, who think it worth their while. FINIS.