REFLECTIONS Upon the ANSWER To the PAPIST misrepresented, etc. Directed to the ANSWERER.  
SIR, I have perused your Answer, and am glad to find it so moderate and calm: You make here and there some Personal reflections indeed; but this being done soberly, without heat and passion, I am still bound to thank you, if not on my particular, yet on the Public score; For having by this convinced the world, that men of different judgements may now treat of matters of Controversy, without making use of satire and Scurrility, or letting Cavil fill up the place of Judgement and Reason. This method I cannot but approve as most agreeable to Christianity; And if I pursue the same, in giving a farther explication of some most material Points, you have been pleased to question in my small Treatise, as also in letting you know my farther sense of Yours; I hope it may be done without offence, and that the shortness I shall use, will be easily pardoned, if it be but to the purpose.  
Sir, You let me know, my First Character of a Papist misrepresented is not satisfactory, as not founded on the sense of a Party, and the quotations of Authors, but being rather my own False Apprehensions, my ignorant, my childish, or wilful mistakes. Indeed had I been bred up in a Wood, and jumped forth into the world, with this Character in my head, I should have had reason to subscribe to you: 
Answer pag. 10, 11.  But because, upon examination, I find I was educated in a well-peopled Town, at the foot of the Pulpit, and lived always in Company and Conversation, I cannot imagine this Character so my own, as you seem to understand it, but rather my own, as I received it. And you need not wonder that I did not heretofore, by the help of Books or Friends, receive better information, and correct my false Apprehensions of Popery. For indeed, were I even at this time to be ruled by the greatest number of these, the Character of a Papist would be with me much blacker yet, 
pag. 11.  than I have there drawn it. There would be, but few strokes of reason or Christianity in it, but Beast and Barbarous all over. And pray do you see Sir, what weighty proofs are urged against me, to show how foul and monstrous a Religion I have chosen. They show me the Book of Homilies laying a good foundation, Mr. Fox's Book of Martyrs, Bishop Ridley's Writings, The Public Test, A Manual of three small Treatises, by John late Archbishop of York, for the use of a Lady, 
To. 2. p. 46. 54. 213. etc. Vol. 3. p. 515.  to preserve her from the danger of Popery. Printed London 1672. Then a large Description given by Mr. Sutcliffe in his Survey of Popery, where he undertakes to draw its several features; as (chap. 10.) That Popery is a sink of Heathenish Idolatry. (chap. 27.) That 'tis a most absurd and foolish Religion. (chap. 32.) That it is a Doctrine of Devils. (chap. 47.) That in many points 'tis more absurd and abominable than the Doctrine of Mahomet. Then the Anatomy of Popery printed at London 1673. 
pag. 181.  in which an Agreement is shown between Paganism and Popery in six and twenty Points; and with the Jews and Pharisees in other ten. Then Mr. Julian Johnson who has again set forth This Comparison of Popery and Paganism, 
pag. 99  especially as to Politheism and Idolatry; With the approbation of his Answerer Jovian, who assures him that He, with all the rest that have so thundered of late with the Thebean Legion, like it well, and are as well satisfied with it, 
Jou. Introd. pag. 4.  as he himself is, bating some irreverent Phrases. Now Sir, amidst these Authentic proofs, besides a great number of other Authors, who undertake to draw Popery in its own Colours; what convenience or even possibility had I, of framing any better apprehension of this Religion, than was here laid before me: Especially since my Friends were not wanting to vouch the truth of all this, and to assure me; they had heard all this over and over from Men of Character, and in Places, which gave it reputation beyond all question? Neither does it appear to me, had it been my fortune to have consulted you in this affair, that I should have been much rectified as to these my Childish or Wilful Mistakes concerning Popery; as is evident from the Character you give of it throughout your Answer, and especially at the end (pag. 161.) viz. That it is that you can never yield to, without betraying the truth, renouncing your senses and Reason, wounding your Conscience, dishonouring God, and his Holy Word and Sacraments; perverting the doctrine of the Gospel, as to Christ's satisfaction, Intercession and Remission of sins; depriving the People of the means of Salvation, which God himself hath appointed, and the Primitive Church observed, and damning those for whom Christ died.  
But however I will not insist upon this point; He rather yield, than be contentious: And because you say, that my Character of a Papist misrepresented, is made up of False Apprehensions, Ignorant, Childish and Wilful Mistakes, He own it to be no better: But then, Sir, you must give me leave to make use of your Authority with my Friends and Acquaintance, in assuring them, that wheresoever they shall for the future either hear, or read such things charged upon the Papists, they must give it no credit, and esteem it no better, than the False Apprehensions, Ignorant, Childish and Wilful Mistakes of the Relatours. Upon this condition I close this point; only adding, that in laying down the Colours of a Papist misrepresented, I never thought of declaring the Articles of your Church; or by Misrepresenting the Papist, to represent you; 
pag. 9  as you seem to mistake me: But only to show the many Mistakes and Errors to be found amongst Protestants of what kind soever, concerning the notion of Popery, for Debtor sum sapientibus & Insipientibus. And though you seem willing in your Introduction, that your Reader should esteem this our complaint of being basely misrepresented, 
〈…〉  no better than a mere Pretence, or a Design of such who go about to deceive, by comparing it with the Complaints of the Arians, Pelagians, Nestorians, &c, Yet we are beholding to you soon after; 
pag. 9  when finding some of the dirt thrown at us, to fall upon your own Face, by your standing so near us, you then own it to be grounded, and Real, pitying the Weakness and Folly of those who Cast it pag. 10. And therefore I believe you will close with me in this Point, that Misrepresenting is Misrepresenting, though from those who descent from your Church. But we go on to the other Character of the Papist represented.  
And this too, it seems, affords you as little satisfaction, as the former, on several accounts. And First you move a Scruple by the by, (pag. 9) by your having no mind to ask, How the Council of Trent should come to be the Rule and Measure of Doctrine to any here, where it was never received? As if in this Character I had observed a Rule, which ought to be none Here, nor is owned as Such. And as to this, I need only Inform you; that the Council of Trent is received here and all the Catholic World over, as to all its Definitions of Faith; althò it be not wholly received in some places, as to its other Decrees, which relate only to Discpline. And therefore in appealing to this Council, for the vindicating all I have there asserted, to be the Doctrine of Catholics, I have done nothing but what I was obliged, and is justifiable before the whole World: and on the truth of what I have said concerning the Councils being universally received as to Doctrines of Faith, I'll allow the whole Cause between us to depend. But this only as to your mistake.  
Now supposing this to be the Rule of such Points of Faith, as are there set down for the Belief of the Papists, you raise your Difficulty (pag. 11.) because I show no Authority I have to Interpret that Rule in my own sense: it being a thing expressly forbidden by Pius 4th. And because several of my Representations depend upon my own private Sense and Opinion. Truly Sir, had I, in undertaking to state the Belief of our Church, Interpreted the Council of Trent in my own private Sense, or Obtruded any Opinion of mine for an Article of our Faith, you might justly have Arraigned me at that Barr. But you must give me leave here to tell you, that you Wrong me, and Impose upon your Reader. For so far was I from committing this Fault of Interpreting the Council of Trent in my own Sense: That I have only delivered it, as it is Interpreted to me and to all our Church, in the Catechism ad Parochos, composed and set forth by Order of the said Council and Pius 5th. for the Instruction of the Faithful in their Christian Duty touching Faith and Good Manners, in conformity to the Sense of the Council. And for this reason in my Conclusion, 
pag. 172.  I appealed to this Catechism, for the justifying of what I have represented to be the Faith of the Papists, to be really so. And that you may see, how vainly you have charged me with the Transgression of Pope Pius' Bull: 
pag. 10.  remember I appealed again in my Conclusion to Veron 's Rule of Faith, and to that set forth by the Bishop of Condom, for maintaining the Character of the Papist Represented, to be just. Now you must know the Latter of these, drew up a like Character in Paris, of the Belief of a Papist, and it being conform to the Principles of Piety and Christianity, it quite overthrew the foul charge of its Adversaries There, from their Books and Pulpits; and this so home, that they had no other way of preserving their Credit with their Flock, than to declare to them, that the Character set forth by the Bishop was not Exact and True; but only vampt up by him into that Form for the benefit of the Public cause. Upon which he Published another Edition with several distinct attestations of many Bishops and Cardinals, and of the present Pope himself, wherein they at large approve the Doctrine contained in that Treatise, for the Faith and Doctrine of the Church of Rome, and conform to the Council of Trent. And now Sir, in proposing the Faith of our Church, as I found it delivered by this Reverend Prelate, and supported by such Authentic approbations, wherein have I Entrenched upon the Privilege of the Apostolic See, of Interpreting the Council of Trent? Or what necessity of relying upon a private Man's Judgement, as you Phrase it, of no Name, and no Authority, instead of that of the Pope and Council? The Faith of a Papist I have delivered according to the Catechism Published by Order of the Council, or as Explicated by a Prelate, who brings along with him the Authority of the See Apostolic; and which part of all this is my private Sense or Opinion?  
But you offer to make good this charge in some Instances. 
pag. 27.  As in the Invocation of Saints, I seem to limit their Power of helping us to Prayers only, which Limitation is not to be found in the Council of Trent. I cannot but acknowledge Sir, that the Council mentions their Aid and Assistance, which we may reasonably expect. But there being no other means, of their Aiding and Assisting us expressed in the Council, or in the Catechism ad Parochos, besides that of their Prayers to God to obtain benefits for us, through our only Saviour and Redeemer Jesus Christ. And it being thus limited by the Bishop of Condom on this Subject (pag. 33. Edit. Pa. 1681.) with the Pope and Cardinal's approbation; I think I need no farther vindication to show, that in the proposal of that Point, I followed not my own private sense or Opinion, as you endeavour to prove.  
In the Point of Merit you urge this again (pag. 56.) as if I had qualified this Doctrine with the dependence on Grace, on God's goodness and Promise, without the Authority of the Council; there being no such qualification expressed in Can. 32. read and cited by you. 'Tis true, 'tis not in this Canon. But if you please to look back to Can. 26. Sex. 6. you'll find it there clear enough to acquit me from the scandal of publishing my own private sense or Opinion.  
You instance again (pag. 11.) in the Point of the Pope's personal Infallibility, which I represent to be no matter of Faith: (pag. 42.) and what reason have you, you say, to adhere to my representation, rather than to that of many others, who assert the contrary? But this difficulty is nothing but your mistake: for I do not in the least deliver here my own private sentiment or opinion touching this point, in opposition to other Authors: But I only by way of Narative relate, that whereas some Divines endeavour in their School debates to prove and maintain this Personal Infallibility, yet it is not received amongst Catholics as any matter of Faith, because not positively determined by any General Council, and proposed to the Faithful to be embraced as such. And this Sir again is not my private sense or Opinion, but a bare Narative of matter of Fact.  
But I am now to encounter your Goliath-Argument, which shows itself throughout your Answer, and seems to defy all the Hosts of Israel. If I can find never a Stone to fling at it, I must even lie at its mercy. And it appears thus. 
pag. 12. 143.  In my Character of a Papist Represented I pretend to declare the Faith of a Roman Catholic, as 'tis defined and delivered in allowed General Councils; and yet though the Deposing Doctrine has been as evidently declared in such Councils, as ever Purgatory and Transubstantiation were in that of Trent, yet still with me 'tis no Article of our Faith. This is the main strength of it, as urged by you on several occasions.  
I answer it in short; that though all Doctrinal Points defined in any approved General Council, and proposed to the Faithful to be received under an Anathema, are with us so many Articles of Faith, and are obligatory to all of our Communion: Yet not so of every other matter declared in such a Council: There being many things treated of, and resolved on in such an Assembly, which concern not the Faith of the Church, but only some matter of Discipline, Government, or other more particular Affair. And these Constitutions or Decrees are not absolutely Obligatory, as is evident even in the Council of Trent, as is before hinted; whose Decrees of Doctrine are as much acknowledged here by Catholics in England and Germany, as within the Walls of Rome itself, or the Vatican: And yet it's other Constitutions and Decrees are not universally received, and it may be never will. Now Sir, although we allow some Councils have made decrees for deposing in particular Cases, yet the Power itself not being declared as a Doctrinal Point; and the Decrees relating only to matter of Discipline and Government, it comes short of being an Article of our Faith, and all that in your Answer depends on it, falls to the Ground. I have no place here to give you a distinct account of the several matters treated of in Councils, and of the difference between Decrees of Faith, and others which are not so; yet because you seem to require some satisfaction in these Points, I remit you to such Authors, who treat of them at large and most particularly the Considerations upon the Council of Trent, Canus, Bellarmine and others. This that I have here said may be sufficient to evince, that in my declaring the deposing Power to be no Article of Faith, I have not followed my own Private Opinion or merely the number of Authors, but rather the sense of the whole Church, Councils, and Popes themselves, who plainly enough own this, in letting so many open and Positive Assertors of the no-deposing Power, to pass without any Censure of Heresy: It being certain that, were this Doctrine any Article of our Faith, as likewise that mentioned in the preceding Paragraph, of the Pope's Personal Infallibility, the obstinate Opposers of them would no more escape without that brand, than those that deny other Articles of our Faith, as Purgatory and Transubstantiation.  
These Instances I look upon as the most Principal throughout your whole Reply, because in them you have made use of a Medium directly opposite to the Intent of my Book, and which if it had been effectual, would have showed, that I have not Represented the Faith of the Papist according to the Rule of approved General Councils, as I pretend; but rather according to my own private apprehension or Opinion; which I confess would have been a full Answer to it as to such particulars. But how far you have failed of your endeavours even in this Point, I leave now to the Prudent Considerer to judge. But the way you take in all other Parts of your Book, seems to me not to answer your design, nor to agree with the Title of it. For whereas I undertake to propose the Faith of a Roman Catholic, as he is really taught to believe in Conformity to the Definitions of Ecumenical Councils: Bating those Points I have already spoke to, in your Answer,  
You either own the Doctrine, to be the established Belief of your Church, as in part that of the Power of Priestly Absolution, Confession, of due veneration to the Relics of Saints, of Merit, of Satisfaction, of the Authority of the Church, of General Councils, etc.  
Or you show the Doctrine I have delivered, not to be the Faith of our Church, by appealing from the Definitions of our Councils, 
pag. 34, 35.  and sense of our Church, to some expressions found in Old Mass books, Rituals etc. as if this were a serious way of truly Representing the Doctrines of the Church of Rome. Can any Religion stand this Test? Will not many Expressions in all sorts of Prayers, Preaching, and Devotions, if separated from the sense of the Church, prove unjustifiable and Ridiculous? Let but an Atheist take this liberty even with the Scripture itself, and thus separate infinite number of expressions there, and see what will be presently the colour of all Religion, and whether Christianity will be better than Turcism: And especially whether the allowed Psalms in Meeter will prove the devotion of men of sense and reason; though all may be reconcileable to Piety and Religion, if taken in the sense of the Church.  
Or you appeal again from the Declarations of our Councils, and sense of our Church to some external Action, as in case of respect shown to Images and Saints, 
pag. 21.  upon which from our external Adoration, by construction of the Fact, viz kneeling, bowing, etc. you are willing to conclude us guilty of Idolatry: As if a true judgement could be made of these Actions, without respect to the Intention of the Church, that directs them, and of the Person, that does them. As if they were not in themselves Indifferent, and capable of being paid to God, or to Men. Or as if your measures being followed, Abigail ought not to come in, and share with us in our constructive Idolatry, because she fell before David on her face, 
1 Sam. 25. 24.  and bowed herself to the ground, and fell at his feet. Joshua likewise, because he fell on his face to the earth, 
Jos. 5. 14.  and did worship the Angel. And as many who on their knees pay their respects to the King and bow before him: As likewise all the Beggars in Lincolns-Inn fields, who on their knees, with their hands lifted up, ask an alms of Passers-by: Must not all these by construction of Fact come into the list of your Idolaters?  
Or finally, not being willing the Doctrine should pass for ours, in the form I have stated it, you appeal again from our Councils and Sense of the Church, which I follow, to the Sentimetns of some of our own Private Authors, and so you come often with, this French Author says this, Vives says that, Wicelius says another thing, and Lessius another; by this method endeavouring to convince your Reader, that the Belief of a Papist, is much different from what I ahve represented it. But Sir, this way may do well enough with the unwary; but it ill suits with what you pretend. The Frontis piece of your Book puts us upon expecting The Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly Represented. And when we come to peruse it, we find several Doctrines proposed, but without any Authority of Church or Councils, but this Author says this, and that Author says that; as if the Sense of every Author, were immediately the Doctrine; of our Church. The Church speaks to us in her approved General Councils, and from them you might have truly Represented her Belief and Doctrine but from particular Authors, some of which may Write upon a Pique, others upon a Passion, others upon some other Bias, nothing more can be Collected besides their own Opinion, and with understanding Men it passes for no more. So that nothing can be more unjustifiable, than to make a Collection of private men's sentiments, and obtrude them for the truly Representing the Doctrine of the Church in whose Communion they are. And this is not the Case of our Church alone, there's no Church or Congregation in the World will stand this Test. And if it come a little home to you, it may be you will be more sensible of this truth. For althô you seem to maintain in your Answer, 
p, 57  that good works of justified Persons are not Free; yet 'tis not just, this Doctrine should be immediately charged for the Belief of your Church. Althô Mr. Thorndike seems to allow Prayers for the Dead, yet neither from him are we to take a true representation of the Doctrine of his Church. Tho' a worthy Divine declares, 
pag. 152.  that in case a Popish Julian indeed should Reign over us, he should Believe him uncapable of Repentance, and upon that supposition should be tempted to pray for his Destruction; yet would it not be honest hence to blacken his Church with this Dis-loyal Principle, as if she allowed her Members, though not to Fight against, yet to Pray for the Destruction of such a Prince. The like may be said of King James the First his holding Christ to be truly present in the Sacrament, and there also to be truly adored, maintaining in his Epistle to Cardinal Perron the Doctrine of the Real Presence to be the Doctrine of the Church of England: and again what the aforesaid Mr. Thorndike delivers of the same Real Presence and Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist, 
Epilogue. 1. 3. c. 5.  practised in the Ancient Church from the beginning; and thereupon owning the Eucharistical Sacrifice to be truly the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, in as much as the Body and Blood of Christ are contained in them; and then farther adding, that the Sacrifice of the Cross being necessarily Propitiatory and Impetratory both, it cannot be denied, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist, in as much as it is the same Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, is also both Propitiatory and Impetratory. Will you give me leave from hence to infer; that because these are the sentiments of such Eminent Persons in the Communion of the Church of England, that therefore they are the Doctrine of that Church, I suppose you will not; and therefore in the true Representation of the Doctrine of yours or our Church, I suppose, you will easily grant, that no appeal ought to be made to such Private Authors; but the Undertaker is obliged to keep close to the sense of either Church, declared in their Councils and Decrees, and as explicated by their Authority: And as far as you have effectually proved this against what I have represented for the Faith of a Papist, so so far will I allow you have given me a just Answer; And as much as you fail of this, so much you come short of what you undertake, which I recommend to your own perusal to examine.  
But for any of these ways they are insignificant to your design, and deserve not to stand under the Title of an Answer. For how does your acknowledging our Doctrine to be yours: your producing some broken Expressions out of Mass-Books, your putting Objections from external Actions, from private Authors, or your own Opinion, any ways prove, that the Faith of a Papist, as I have represented it, is not according to the Council of Trent, and what really he is bound, as a Papist, to Believe? And yet this is the thing you ought to have proved, to make good your Title. But instead of this, you generally let your Reader understand, that I have indeed stated the matter aright, and only tell him, that you have something to say against the Doctrine, and do not like it. But your saying I hope (or if it could be proving) that Catholics do not do well to Believe, as I Represent, is no Argument to prove that I do not Represent well. This as to the Representing the Doctrine of our Church.  
I should say something to your concluding Argument which comes so home (p. 14.) I allow it seems, the Orders of the Supreme Pastor are to be obeyed, whether he be Infallible or no. I confess likewise in another place, that some Popes have owned the Deposing Doctrine, and Acted according to it. And here you infer, Therefore the Papists are bound by the Doctrine of their Church to Act, when the Popes shall require it, according to the Deposing Power. And does this bring the matter home? Why then Sir, you must e'en give me leave to make another inference: That, What brings the matter home is nothing but an ordinary piece of Sophistry, and let the Reader judge. The Representer (p. 42.) speaking of the Pope's Authority, says, that as in any Civil Government, the Sentence of the Supreme Judge or Highest Tribunal is to be Obeyed, though there be no assurance of Infallibility or Divine Protection from Error or Mistake: So is he taught should be done to the Orders of the Supreme Pastor, whether he be Infallible or no.  
Where a Parallel is made between the Orders of Popes and Civil Powers, as to the Obedience due to them from their Subjects. Now Sir, if it be your Opinion that this Authority and Power in these Supreme Governors is so Absolute and Unconfined, that like to God himself there can be no just exception made to any of their Actions or Decrees, whatsoever they be: then indeed your reasoning Answers your intent. But if the Case be possible, that these may so Act or Command, that the not-following or not-obeying in Inferiors may be no Crime; than you come but short of home, and prove just nothing. Now change but the matter of your Argument, and see how far it goes. The Orders of a Prince, being Supreme Governor, are to be Obeyed, whether he be Infallible or no: But some Princes have done thus and thus; therefore the People by the Law are bound to Act so and so: Does this hold in every Action or Order of a Prince, without Limit or Exception? Tho a Prince be to be obeyed, yet it follows vot that his Word is the Law? So that whosoever takes this for a concluding Argument, must neither understand Law nor Logic.  
I need not put the Reader in mind, how often you make your digressions amongst the Schoolmen, and leave not scouting among them, till you have lost the matter in hand: And dispute about their Opinions, instead of matter of Faith; how in the Point of dispensations, where we speak of the Moral Law; and assert the Pope cannot dispense with it, as give leave to break the Commandments, to lie or for-swear: You show your learning, in proving he can dispense with other Laws and Positive Institutions, a thing scarce to be doubted of, and nothing to our purpose. I'll say nothing of the admirable close of Your Chapter of Dispensations, in which though you have not produced one proof of Dispensations, for lying or for swearing being allowed in our Church on any account whatsoever, you yet give this assurance to your Reader; We know this Dispensing Power is to be kept up as a great Mystery, and not to be made use of, but upon weighty and urgent Causes— as their Doctrines declare. Where certainly one proof of the Who, the Where and the When, had been much more Satisfactory, than the Positive We know, and Their Doctrines declare: For though many are willing to take this upon trust, yet it would have gone farther, 
pag. 117.  if you had proved it down right, without taking Sanctuary in a Mystery. I'll pass by your dexterity wherewith you have managed the History of St. Perpetua in the Chap. of Purgatory: Where after you have disguised it to your purpose in the Relation, and droled the Vision of a Martyr, and so esteemed by St. Augustin, into a young Lady's Dream, you at last set it forth for the Foundation of our Church's Doctrine, and would persuade your Reader, that Our Tenent of Purgatory is built upon it; when 'tis used by me for no more, than a Marginal Citation, amongst several others: And yet this is our Foundation, and our Doctrine is built on it: Here I fear, you had forgot your promise made in the beginning of being sincere, 
pag. 9  and using no Tricks. But I forbear,  
And will only conclude, that if you have truly represented the Doctrines of the Church of Rome, I would as soon be a Turk as your Papist; whose character you have drawn at large throughout your Book, and in little in pag. 161. which, however you may call truly Representing, I can look upon no better than truly Misrepresenting. And by what I see, I think I might with as good reason go to a Pharisee, to be informed of Christ, and receive the Character of a Christian from a Mahometan; as come to you, to know what a Papist is, what his Belief and Doctrine. Neither do I wonder, that you come thus wide of what you pretend to: The method you take, would bring a Scandal even upon the Apostles themselves, and render the Church of those purer times, of the same colour with ours. Observe but the same, in drawing the Features of your own Church, and then tell me whether this be the way of truly representing. If a man were but to bring into public your School-debates, the differing Opinions of your own Authors, concerning the Scriptures, Predestination, Freewill, the Authority of the Church, the Reformation, Traditions, etc. all expressions of Sermons, Prayers, etc. and out of these, and all others of this kind, pick out and patch up a Religion according to the best contrivance of the Undertaker, and then show it forth to the world, do you think, this would be yours truly represented? Why then must such another Jumble as this be exposed to the World for ours? If you'll let your Flock see what our Religion is, send them to the Council of Trent, the Catechism ad Parochos, this we'll own and stand by: But for you to pick here a bit and there a bit, to patch as you please, to make your Inferences and Applications at pleasure, and then to tell your Reader, these are the Doctrines of the Church of Rome truly Represented; this is to abuse the World and yourselves, and to render us Infamous for principles which are nothing of our Religion. And in Case you do not judge what I have here said sufficient to convince you, that the Faith, as I have Represented it, is really the Faith of a Papist, I'll be content all these Reasons at present pass for nought; and that the decision of this whole affair depend upon an Experience. Do but you, or any Friend for you) give your Assent to those Articles of Faith, in the very form and manner, as I have stated them, in the Character of the Papist Represented; and if upon request, you are not admitted into the Communion of the Roman Catholics, and owned to Believe aright in all those Points, I'll then Confess, that I have abused the World, that my Representing is Misrepresenting the Faith of a Papist, and that my design has been not to undeceive, but to deceive the People. But if on the contrary it shall appear, that the Faith, as I have Represented it, is the approved Doctrine of that Church, and sufficient for any one to be received a Member of it, I may then justly renew my Complaint of its being misrepresented, that the Religion of the Papist is nothing like what 'tis commonly rendered; and that 'tis a hard fate, that the Professors of it should be so injured in their Reputation, and by this means become so Odious, that even amongst Fellow-Christians, Atheists, and Jews, shall be tolerated with less regret than they.  
FINIS.