« 上一頁繼續 »
Papists Protecting against Proteftant-Popery;
Being a VINDICATION of
Papifts not Mifrepresented by Proteftants :
A Particular Examination of Monfieur de ME AV X, late
INVOCATION of SAINTS,
WORSHIP of IMAGES,
Occafioned by that Difcourfe.
Printed for John Amery at the Peacock, and William Rogers
INCE the Protefter thinks my Anfwer to his Reflections fo great a Complement, I am refolved to oblige him a little farther, and to complement him very heartily, and I fee no reafon, but Complementing may be as good a word for Difputing as Representing is.
The Reply confifted of two parts, 1. Concerning the Mifrepresentation of a Papift. 2. Concerning the Rule of true Representing, and I fhall confider, what the Protefting Papift fays to each of them.
As for the Firft, a Mifreprefenter is fo foul a Character, that no Man can wonder, if we think our felves concern'd to wipe off fuch an imputation: and therefore I exprefly denied the charge, and made it appear from comparing his own Characters of a Papift Mifreprefented, and Reprefented together, that we had not charged them falfly in any matter of Fact, and therefore are no Mifreprefenters: for if we charge them with believing and doing nothing, but B
what they themselves confefs to be their Faith and Practice, wherein is the Mifreprefentation? Thus I particularly fhowed, that all matters of Fact (excepting fome points, where-~ in they difown the Doctrine of their own Church) in the Character of the Papift Mifreprefented, are confeffed and defended in the Character of the Papift Reprefented; and the Protefter himself acknowledges, that I have learnedly (as he is pleased to speak) diftinguished between matters of Difpute, and of Reprefentation; and if fo, then he ought to own, that we do not Mifreprefent them; and this is all I undertook to prove in the first part of my Reply, and for that reafon gave it the Title of, A Papift not Mifreprefented by Proteftants, wholly with relation to his Character of a Papift Mifreprefented, which I had proved to contain nothing in it, which in a ftrict and proper fenfe can be called a Mifreprefentation. We truly related what the Faith and Practice of the Church of Reme is,and this is true Reprefenting; and though we fay their Faith is erroneous, and their Practices corrupt or fuperftitious; contrary to the Laws of God, and the ufages of the Primitive Church; yet whether this be true or falfe, it is no matter of Reprefentation but Difpute; though we believe thus of their Faith and Practice, we do not charge them with believing fo, and therefore do not Mifreprefent a Papift. Whether they or we be in the right is matter of Difpute, and not to be determined by Character-making, but by an appeal to the Laws of God, and the dictates of right Reafon, and the Authentick Records of the ancient Church.. While we agree about matter of Fact there can be no Mifrepresenting on either fide, for there is a great deal of difference between a Mifreprefentation, and a falfe Judgment of things; and thus I hoped, the talk of Mifreprefenting would have feen at an end.
But our Author, though he confeffes I am in the right, will have us to be Mifreprefenters ftill; He fays, I declare plainly, that Popery is really that Antichriftian Religion, which Protestants fay it is, that it teaches and practises all those fopperies, superftitions and non fenfe, which have at any time been charged against
by Proteftants. But I never faid any fuch thing yet, but only faid and proved, that all matters of Fact complained of in
the Character of a Papift Mifreprefented, are owned by himfelf in the Character of a Papift Reprefented; and this, I thought, was proof enough, that we were no Mifreprefenters. But the Title of my Reply offends him, A Papift not Mifreprefented by Proteftants, which he fays, is a condemnation of the Religion to all thefe horrid fhapes and monftrous forms, it has been at any time expofed in by Members of the Reformation; by no means! If there have been other Mifreprefentations of them,which our Author has not yet given us an account of, I can fay nothing to them, till I fee what they are; but my Title related only to my Book, and that related only to the Character of a Papift Mifreprefented, which our Author had given us, and I undertook for that then, and will defend it ftill, that there is no Mifreprefentation in it.
Of the fame nature is what he adds, That I tell my Reader in the name of all my Brethren, we charge them (the Papifts) with nothing, but what they exprefly profefs to believe, and what they prattife; and thus fays the Protefter, in this one affertion vouches for the truth of all that infamy, and prophaneness, which is laid at their doors and thus, for ought I fee, I am drawn in for a great deal more than I intended; I fpoke with reference to his Characters, and now I muft difcharge the fcores of all Proteftants fince the beginning of the Reformation; but when a Man's in, he muft get out as well as he can: but would not one wonder, that there fhould not be one word of his own Characters all this while? that inftead of defending his own Mifreprefentations, which he has fo unjustly father upon us, he fhould be hunting about to pick up fome new Mifreprefentations for me to anfwer? There must be a reafon for this, and I believe, I can guess what it is.
But however he takes this occafion to ranfack the Writings of Proteftants, and to fee what fine things they have faid of Papifts, and to collect a new Character of a Papift Mifreprefented out of them. For fince all that proceeds from a Popifh hand of this nature is fufpected and challenged, and the double Character of a Papift Mifreprefented and exted (about which, as the Replier fays, there is fo much pother and noife) is queftioned as to its method, its fincerity, and exactness, we'll now follow our Author's call, and learn what Popery is, from the Pens of Prote