Attrition which is but an imperfect degree of Sorrow for fear of Hell and can produce only some faint and sudden thoughts of Amendment does qualifie Sinners for Absolution and we say whatever the Doctrine of their Church teaches the constant Practice of absolving all that confess without any apparent signs of Repentance and purposes of a new Life and that after many and repeated Relapses is apt to teach Men to place their Confidence in the Priest's Absolution without any serious intention to forsake their Wickedness VIII Of Indulgences WE charge the Church of Rome with teaching the Pope's Power to grant Indulgences not to commit Sin for the future but for the Pardon of those Sins which are committed that is for the remitting those Temporal Punishments which are due to Sin in Purgatory The Absolution of the Priest remits the Eternal Punishment of Sin and keeps Men out of Hell but still the Temporal Punishment in Purgatory remains due and this must be taken off either by humane Satisfactions and Penances of which presently or by the Pope's Pardon which surely is a differently thing from the Relaxation of Canonical Penances as the Representer states it for I never heard before that Purgatory Fire was a Canonical Penance enjoyned by the Church for sure the Decrees of the Church did not kindle Purgatory and it is strange the Church should grant so many thousand Years Pardon of Canonical Penances if they concern this Life as some Indulgences contain when few Men live an hundred Years in this World and then have no need of all the rest We say the Popes have and do to this day sell these Indulgences at different rates according to the nature of the Crime and Men who have Mony need not fear the Purgatory Fires and Men who have none must be contented to endure them this we grant with the Representer to be a great Abuse but it is an Abuse of their Popes and hardly separable from the Doctrine and Practice of Indulgences IX Of Satisfaction WE charge them with making human Penances necessary to satisfy for the Temporal Punishment which is due to Sin in Purgatory when the Eternal Punishment is pardoned for the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ which we say is injurious to the Satisfaction of Christ for all Men must grant that Christ had been a more perfect Saviour had he by his Death and Passion delivered us from the Temporal Punishment of Sin in Purgatory as well as from the Eternal Pains of Hell Yet we do not say that they believe very injuriously of the Passion of Christ that his Sufferings and Death were not sufficiently satisfactory for our Sins and therefore think it necessary to make Satisfaction for themselves but that they believe as their Church teaches them that they must satisfy themselves for the Temporal Punishment of their Sins and this is injurious to the Satisfaction of Christ. We do not charge them with evacuating Christ's Passion by relying on their own penitential Works but that they rely on Christ to satisfy for the Eternal Punishment of Sin and on their own Satisfactions for the Temporal Punishment which ascribes indeed the better half but not the whole to Christ and all this the Representer owns X. Of reading the Holy Scriptures WE only charge them with denying the People the use of the Bible in the vulgar Tongue as every body knows they do and as the Representer owns and defends it And to justify this Practice we say many of their Divines have charged the Scripture with being a very dark obscure unintelligible Book and that it is of very dangerous consequence to grant a liberty to the People to read it and this we think is not much for the Credit and Reputation of the Holy Scriptures But we do not as the Misrepresenter says charge the Papist with believing it part of his Duty to think meanly of the Word of God and to speak irreverently of the Scripture Whether denying the People the use of the Bible in a Language they understand be an Argument of their Respect or Disrepect to the Scriptures let any Man judg but for whatever reason they do it the Effect is plain that it keeps People in great Ignorance and as we fear occasions the eternal Damnation of many Souls though we do not say as the Misrepresenter does that they do it with this design That Men may be preserved in Ignorance and damned eternally But they know their own Designs best XI Of Apocryphal Books HEre can be no pretence of misrepresenting unless it be in the first clause which he usually takes care shall contain some Misrepresentation That he believes it lawful to make what additions to Scripture his party thinks good For as for their receiving such Apocryphal Books as Tobit Judeth Ecclesiastious Wisdom and the Maccabees into the Canon of Scripture which is all we charge them with the Representer owns and defends it This indeed we think to be making Additions to the Scripture but we don't charge them with believing that they may make what Additions to the Scripture they please for we believe they have so much Wit as to know it safer to do it than to say it may be done XII Of the Vulgar Edition of the Bible ALL that we charge them with here is that they make the Vulgar Latin Edition of the Bible so Authentick as to allow of any Appeals to the Originals for the Interpretation of doubtful places and we know not what Authority can make a Translation more Authentick than the Original That this is truly charged on them the Representer cannot deny though the Misrepresenter makes tragical work with it as any one may see who will divert himself with reading that Character which though in some parts it may have too much Truth in it was never before made the Character of a Papist but we must give them leave to speak some blunt and bold Truths of themselves XIII Of the Scripture as the Rule of Faith XIV Of the Interpretation of Scripture WE do not charge them with denying in express words the authority of the Scripture to be a Rule but with saying that which is equivalent to it That the sense of it is so various and uncertain that no man can be sure of the true meaning of it in the most necessary and fundamental Articles of the Faith but by the Interpretation and Authority of the Church which does effectually divest it of the authority of a Rule for that is my Rule which can and must direct me which it seems is not the Scripture considered in it self but as interpreted by the authority of the Church which makes the Faith and Interpretation of the Church not the Scriptures my immediate Rule But why does he now complain of Misrepresentation When the Representer owns and justifies every particular of it except it be those goodly Introductions That he believes it lawful nay that it is his Obligation to undervalue the Scripture and take from
IMPRIMATUR C. Alston R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. Ã Sacris Domesticis Decemb. 29. 1685. A PAPIST Not Misrepresented by PROTESTANTS BEING A REPLY TO THE REFLECTIONS Upon the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented LONDON Printed for Ric. Chiswel at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVI A REPLY to the REFLECTIONS upon the ANSWER to the Papist Misrepresented c. I Do not love to be behind-hand in Civility with any Man and therefore in the Name of the Answerer I return the Reflecter his Complement and that with some advantage For I heartily thank him for the Civility of his Language and more for the Civility of his Arguments and having done this once for all I shall apply my self to consider his Reflections and will complement no more His Reflections consist principally of two general Heads I. What concerns the Misrepresentation of a Papist II. Concerning the Rule of true representing I. The Misrepresentation of a Papist And here I confess he has shewed some Art but very little Honesty He was told in the Answer that some of those Misrepresentations which he had made of a Papist and given out for the Protestant Character of Popery were his own ignorant or childish or wilful Mistakes As that Papists are never permitted to hear Sermons which they are able to understand or that they held it lawful to commit Idolatry or that a Papist believes the Pope to be his great God and to be far above all Angels These I think may pass for Misrepresentations and very childish and ignorant ones too and hence the Reflecter craftily insinuates that we grant all his Misrepresentations of a Papist to be ignorant childish or wilful Mistakes and is willing to end this Dispute and I very much commend him for it upon these terms that his Character of a Papist misrepresented should be confessed to be made up of false Apprehensions ignorant childish and wilful Mistakes and that he may use the Authority of the Answerer to assure his Friends and Acquaintance 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 Relators This would be a great Point gained indeed and I am sorry we cannot oblige him in it Especially since he has taken the Pains to prove by great and good Authorities that his Character of a Papist misrepresented is not made up of such childish Mistakes but is indeed what the best and wisest Men have believed of them and this we thank him for He alleadges the Authority of the Homilies a Book which we greatly reverence Fox's Book of Martyrs where we read how many were burnt for not believing as his Papist misrepresented believes Bishop Ridly ' s Writings a very learned and holy Man who may be supposed to have understood what Popery was and that he was not so fond of misrepresenting as to burn for it The publick Test a very authentick and lasting Proof of this Matter with several other good Authors he mentions whose Credit is never the worse because he hath thrust one bad Man into the Company Nay he has been so civil as to grant the Answerer to be as very a Misrepresenter as the rest and he had been a very strange Answerer if he had not which argues great Modesty in him to desire leave to use his Name and Authority to condemn the Misrepresentation that is to confute his own Book which in all the material Points proves what he calls the Misrepresentation I wo'nt say not to be ignorant Mistakes but to be the avowed Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome which is the only way I know of that it can be confuted for unless he condemn it himself I am sure this Reflecter can never confute it Well but what then is the meaning of all this pother and noise about this double Character of a Papist misrepresented and represented Why are we so angry with what he calls the Misrepresentation if it be true or what is the fault of it This is a Mystery which ought to be explained and I doubt our Reflecter will have no reason to glory that he gave the occasion of it And I shall do these two things I. Show you what are the Faults of the Misrepresentation II. That allowing for such Faults the Papist represented excepting some very few cases professes to believe all that the Papist misrepresented is charged with I. As for the Faults of the Misrepresentation they are briefly these 1. That he puts such things into the Character of a Papist as no Man in his Wits ever charged them with and these the Answerer calls childish and ignorant or wilful Mistakes 2. That the Opinions of Protestants concerning Popish Doctrines and Practices and those ill Consequents which are charged and justly charged upon them are put into the Character of a Papist misrepresented as if they were his avowed Doctrine and Belief which is misrepresenting indeed but is his own not our Misrepresentation We charge them with nothing but what they expresly profess to believe and what they practise and we tell them what we think of such Doctrines and Practices what their Nature and what their Consequences are but do not charge them with believing as we believe concerning these Matters and therefore it is not fair to put such things into a Protestant Character of a Papist misrepresented As to give an Instance of a like nature There are some dissenting Protestants who think it lawful to resist their Prince and take up Arms against him this we say is Rebellion and yet it would be a very ridiculous Misrepresentation of such Men to say they are those who believe it lawful to rebel for no Man believes Rebellion no more than Idolatry to to be lawful and they no more believe taking up Arms in such cases to be Rebellion than the Papist thinks his Worship of Saints and Images to be Idolatry which shows how unjust it is to put the Interpretations and Consequences of Mens Opinions and Practices which they themselves disown into their Character And tho we never do this the Misrepresenter has done it for us which makes it a false Character tho every thing which is said in it may be true 3. It is still so much the worse when the Interpretations and Consequences which are charged upon Mens Practices and Opinions are set in the front of the Character as first and Original Principles As to keep to our former Instance To say that Men believe Rebellion to be lawful and therefore make no scruple of taking up Arms against their Prince is a very different thing from saying that Men believe they may lawfully take up Arms in some Cases and in doing so are guilty of Rebellion These are some of the principal Arts our Author has used in drawing the Character of a Papist
abuse of Christianity to coin such Miracles to nurse Men up in Superstition which is the general design of them So that here the matter is not represented so bad as it is which is the only Misrepresentation I have hitherto met with XXXIII Of Holy Water THe Papist misrepresented is said highly to approve the superstitious use of many inanimate things and to attribute wonderful Effects to Holy Water Blessed Candles Holy Oil and Holy Bread The Papist represented disproves all sort of Superstition but yet is taught to have an esteem for Holy Water c. So that when we charge them with using such Religious Charms as these we do not misrepresent them for they own they do so but the Misrepresentation is in charging these usages with Superstition but if this be misrepresenting it is not to misrepresent a Papist but to misrepresent Popery We charge them with nothing but what they own and justify but we charge their Doctrines and Practices with such Guilt as they will not own but this is not matter of Representation but of Dispute XXXIV Of breeding up People in Ignorance WE do indeed charge them with breeding people up and keeping them in Ignorance because they deny them the means and opportunity of knowledge will not suffer them to read the Bible nor say their publick Prayers in a Language which they understand and forbid them to read such Books as might inform them better Is this true or not If it be then though they may have a â—â—at many Learned Men among them their Learned Men may keep the People in Ignorance We deny not but they do instruct People after a fashion but yet they take care to let them know no more than they are pleased to teach them and they may be very ignorant for all that But I think though this be a very great fault it belongs neither to the Character of a Papist misrepresented nor represented but is the fault of their Governours their Popes and Bishops and Priests and I charitably hope it will be some excuse to the Ignorant and deluded People XXXV Of the Uncharitableness of the Papists WE here charge them with damning all who are not of their Church and Communion and this we think very Uncharitable For it damns far the greatest number of Christians in the World The Representer does not deny that they do this only endeavours to prove that it is not Uncharitableness in them to do it I am not to dispute this point with him now but if this be his charity I like it as little as I do his Faith XXXVI Of Ceremonies and Ordinances WE charge them with corrupting the Christian Worship by a great number of Ceremonies and Ordinances which we judge useless burdensom or Superstitious unworthy of the simplicity and spirituality of the Christian Worship and a great infringement of true Christian liberty That they do command great numbers of such Ceremonies the Representer grants and therefore we do not misrepresent them in it whether they do well or ill in this is no part of the Character but the matter in Controversie between us XXXVII Of Innovations in matters of Faith AND so is his last Character about Innovations a meer dispute and cannot be made a Character unless we should charge them with believing those Doctrines to be Innovations which we say and prove to be so but never charge them with believing so at this rate he may make Characters of a Papist misrepresented out of all the disputes which are between us It is but saying what we charge their Doctrines and Practices with and this makes the Character of a Papist misrepresented and it is but denying this charge in another Column and then you have a Character of a Papist represented if we charge them with believing any thing which they do not believe or with doing what they do not then indeed we misrepresent them but he has not given any one instance of this in all his 37 Characters But if to condemn their Doctrines and Practices if to charge them with contradicting the evidence of Sense of Reason and of Scripture that they are innovations in Faith and corruptions of the Christian Worship be to misrepresent them we confess we are such misrepresenters and for ought I can perceive are like to continue so unless they have some better arguments in reserve than ever we yet saw for Character-making will not do it so that all this cry about misrepresenting is come to just nothing We like a Papist as little as he has represented him as when we see him represented by a Protestant Pen for there is no difference at all in the Parts Proportions and Features though there is some difference in the Colours A Papist is the same in both Characters only with this difference that a Protestant thinks him a very bad Christian and a Papist we may be sure thinks him a very good one A Protestant thinks the Faith and Worship of a Papist to be contrary to Sense Reason and Scripture and the Faith and Practice of the Primitive Church a Papist thinks it agreeable to all these Rules or can give a Reason why it should not And therefore I could not but smile at his concluding Proposal to convince us that the Faith as he has represented it is really the Faith of the Papist which we believe is true excepting the deposing Doctrine and some few other Points which I have already observed that the decision of this whole Affair depend upon an experience Do but you or any Friend for you give your assent to these Articles of Faith in the very form and manner as I have stated them and if upon your Request you are not admitted into the Communion of the Roman Catholicks and owned to believe aright in all those Points I 'll then confess that I have abused the World c. and truly I am apt to think so too but we must like his Faith better before we shall make the Experiment Secondly But it is time now to proceed to his other Reflections which concern the Rule whereby the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is to be known For though the Faith of their Church be infallible it is wonderful hard to know what their Faith is Now his Reflections may be reduced to two general Heads First Concerning the Authority of the Council of Trent in England and the Rules of expounding it Secondly Concerning the false Rules the Answerer has used in judging of the Faith and Doctrine of the Church of Rome First Concerning the Authority of the Council of Trent and the Rules of expounding it The Author of A Papist misrepresented and represented in drawing the Character of a Papist represented professes to follow the Doctrine prescribed in the Council of Trent This the Answerer says he finds no fault with and therefore would not ask How the Council of Trent comes to be the rule and measure of Doctrine to any here where it was never