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
which owns the Authority of all Councils called by the Pope and confirmed by him tho as we say neither Free nor General and ascribes an unerring Infallibility to them and so puts an end to all inquiries into the Grounds of their Faith We are sorry we are at such a distance from the Church of Rome that there are few things besides the common Principles of Christianity wherein we can own any part of their Doctrine and if we own no more than the Answerer has done I think the Reflecter has no great Reason to Glory in it 2 ly The Reflecter charges the Answerer with appealing from the Definitions of their Councils and sense of their Church to some Expressions found in old Mass-Books Rituals c. what this c. means I cannot tell for I find but one instance of this in the whole Answer relating to the Worship of the Virgin Mary That famous Hymn O felix puerpera nostra pians scelera Jure Matris impera Redemptori O happy Mother who dost expiate our sins by the right of a Mother command our Redeemer being found in the old Paris Missal which the Answerer himself has seen and as Balinghem a Jesuit saith in the Missals of Tournay Liege Amiens Artois and the Old-Roman Now I confess I should not have thought it so great a fault to have taken the sence of their Church from their Missals be they never so old for their Missals are not like private books of devotion but are the allowed and approved worship of their Church as our Liturgy is and therefore is either the sence of their Church at present or once was so and if it be damnable to own that the Virgin is more powerful than her Son or can command him which seems to be an argument of greater power it is very hard to charge it upon an Infallible Church that her publick Offices did once contain damnable Errors for surely She was not Infallible then which may bring her Infallibility into question still And therefore old Missals have so much Authority still that nothing contained in them ought to be thought damnable And yet the Answerer does not appeal from the Definitions of Councils to old Mass-books for the Church of Rome has never condemned this Hymn nor the Doctrine of it The Council of Trent in her Decree for Invocation of Saints faith nothing in particular of the Worship of the Virgin Mary and yet all Roman Catholicks make a vast difference between the Worship of the Virgin and other Saints how then shall we learn the Sense of the Church but from her Practice from her publick Offices and Hymns And tho since Hereticks have been Inquisitive into these matters they have reformed some of their Hymns yet they have never condemned the old ones And if he remembers the Answerer in the same place told him a notable Story whereby he might guess at the Sense at least of the governing part of their Church still That a Book which was writ by a Gentleman ten Years since to bring the People to a bare Ora pro nobis to the blessed Virgin was so far from being approved that it was condemned at Rome and vehemently opposed by the Jesuits in France and a whole Volume published against it 3 ly He complains that the Answerer appeals from the Declaration of their Councils and Sense of their Church to some External Action as in case of respect shewn to Images and Saints upon which from our External Adoration by construction of the Fact viz. Kneeling Bowing c. you are willing to conclude us guilty of Idolatry As if a true Judgment could be made of these Actions without respect to the Intention of the Church who directs them and of the Person that does them The Paragraph in the Answer p. 21. to which the Reflecter refers us is but a short one and if he had thought fit to answer it it would have cleared this point He saies To Worship Stocks or Stones for Gods as far as we charge them with any such thing signifies to give to Images made of Wood and Stone the Worship due only to God and so by construction of the Fact to make them Gods by giving them Divine Worship And if they will clear themselves of this they must either prove that External Adoration is no part of Divine Worship notwithstanding the Scripture makes it so and all the rest of mankind look upon it as such even Jews Turks and Infidels or that their External Adoration hath no respect to the Images which is contrary to the Council of Trent or that Divine Worship being due to the Being represented it may be likewise given to the Image and how then could the Gnosticks be Condemned for giving Divine Worship to the Image of Christ which Bellarmin confesses and is affirmed by Irenaeus Epiphanius St. Austin and Damascen Wherein now does the Answerer appeal from the Declarations of their Councils and sense of their Church to External Actions Does the Council forbid such External Acts of Adoration as Kneeling Bowing Offering Incense c. to be paid to Images No it injoyns it Does the Council then deny that the Worship which is paid before the Image has regard to the Image No both the Trent Council and Catechism teach the Worship of Images The whole Mystery of this pretended Appeal from their Church and Councils to External Actions is no more than this that they do not believe the giving such Worship to Images to be giving the Worship due to God to Images and the Answerer considering the Nature of those External Acts of Adoration knows not how to excuse them from it but has put him into a way of doing it if he can if he can either prove that External Adoration is no part of Divine Worship or that they do not give this External Worship to Images or that Divine Worship being due to the Being Represented it may likewise be given to the Image then he will grant that they are not guilty of Worshiping Stocks and Stones for Gods but till he can do this he must give us leave to Interpret such Actions as all Mankind besides themselves Interpret them But our Reflecter did not like this he is for Judging of Actions by the intention of the Church that directs them and of the Person that does them Well and what is their intention in it Is it not to Worship Images Yes this is the Intention and the express Declaration of their Church Right but their Church does not intend to break the Second Commandment and to commit Idolatry in the Worship of Images and therefore you ought not to charge this upon them Very true nor did ever any man in the World intend to commit Idolatry We charge them not with any such intention but if they Worship Images we desire to know how they excuse themselves from breaking the Second Commandment and committing Idolatry Whether they are Idolaters or not let God Judg but