it that Authority which Christ gave it and that he believes his Church to be above the Scripture and prophanely allows to her an uncontroulable Authority of being Judge of the Word of God For though there may be some truth in such Consequences as these from their Doctrine yet they were never charged upon them by us as their Principles or Faith Which is the chief Art he uses in drawing up these Misrepresentations XV. Of Traditions WE charge them with making some unwritten Traditions of equal authority with the Scripture and believing them with a Divine Faith This we say derogates from the perfection of the Scripture or the written Word of God For if our Rule be partly the written partly the unwritten Word then the Scripture or written Word is but part of the Rule and part of a Rule cannot be a whole and perfect Rule And we say That these unwritten Traditions are but humane Ordinations and Traditions of men but we do not say a Papist believes them to be Humane but Divine though unwritten Traditions and therefore though we affirm that they give equal authority to such Traditions as are in truth no better than humane Ordinations as to the Scriptures themselves yet we do not say that they admit what they believe to be only humane Traditions to supply the defects of Scripture allowing equal authority to them as to the Scriptures themselves which is the only Misrepresentation in this Character all the rest being owned by the Representer himself who then had very little cause to complain of Misrepresenting XVI Of Councils THe difference between the Misrepresenter and Representer in this Article is no more but this That the Papist Misrepresented is said to receive new Additions to his Creed from the Definitions and Authority of General Councils and to embrace them with a Divine Faith The Papist Represented owns the Authority of General Councils as well as the other and receives all their Definitions and believes them as firmly but though they define such Doctrines for Articles of Faith as were never heard of in the Christian Church and least were never put into any Christian Creed before yet he will not believe them to be Additions to his Faith or to what was taught by Christ and his Apostles But Pope Pius the 4 th his Creed must be the Faith of the Church from the Apostles days Now here I fancy our Author mistook his side for the Papist Represented has much the worse Character that he is so void of all sence that he cannot tell which is most twelve or four and twenty Articles in a Creed This is a hard case that Men must believe all the Definitions of their Councils but though they see their Creed increase every day must never own that their Faith receives any Additions However I think he has no reason here to complain of Misrepresenting since he owns all that any Protestant charges him with such an Implicit Faith in General Councils as receives all their Definitions and rather than fail in defiance of Sense and History will believe that to be the old Faith which was never defined till yesterday XVII Of Infallibility in the Church THe Misrepresenter says a Papist believes that the Pastors and Prelates of his Church are infallible which if it be understood of every particular Pastor and Prelate no Protestant ever charged them with and therefore the Representer might very safely deny it and this is all the difference between them except it be this That what the Misrepresenter barely affirms the Representer endeavours to prove viz. the Infallibility of the Church at least as assembled in General Councils and yet this must be called Misrepresenting too a Word which I suppose must have some secret Charm in it to Convert Hereticks XVIII Of the Pope HEre the Misrepresenter is very Rhetorical and facetious and we may give him leave to be a little pleasant with his own Universal Pastor He says the Papist believes the Pope to be his great God how great I cannot tell but some Flatterers of the Papal greatness have given the Title of God to the Pope and possibly some Protestants have repeated the same after them but never charged the Papists with believing it much less do they charge them with denying Christ to be the Head of the Church or with saying That the Pope has taken his place but we do charge them with making the Pope the Universal Pastor and Head of the Church under Christ and this I hope is no Misrepresenting for it is asserted and proved after this Fashion by the Representer But why is the Pope's personal Infallibility put into the Character of a Papist Misrepresented Why not as well the Infallibility of General Councils Since he grants some Papists do believe the Pope's Infallibility and such Papists are not Misrepresented by charging them with it and there are others who do not believe the Councils Infallibility without the Pope which therefore cannot be an inherent Infallibility in them The truth is the Infallibility of the Church is the Faith of a Papist but in whom this Infallibility is seated whether in the Diffusive Representative or Virtual Church in Pope or Council or the whole Body of Christians is not agreed among them But neither of these are Misrepresentations of a Papist unless you tell what particular sort of Papists you represent and then I am sure you misrepresent a Jesuit if you make him deny the Pope's Infallibility XIX Of Dispensations HEre I confess the Misrepresenter and Representer do flatly contradict each other and I am heartily glad to hear the Representer so fully disown those Principles which are destructive to all Religion as well as to Humane Societies and should be more glad still had there been never any foundation for what he calls the Misrepresentation However this he does very ill in to charge Protestants with this Misrepresentation of a Papist for I know no Protestant that charges these Principles upon Papists in general but I hope it is no Misrepresentation to charge those Men with such Principles who charge themselves with them and I suppose our Author will not say that these Principles were never taught or defended by any Papist Whenever he is hardy enough to say this I 'll direct him to such Popish Authors as will satisfy him about it XX. Of the Deposing Power HEre the dispute between the Misrepresenter and Representer is only this Whether the Deposing Power be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome For it 's granted on all hands that it is or has been the Doctrine and Practice of many Popes Divines and Canonists but that it has been condemned by other Divines and some famous Universities tho I do not hear that it was ever condemned by any Pope But what does he think of this being decreed by General Councils Does not this make it the Doctrine of their Church This he says nothing to here but we shall meet with it by and by in his
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
Reflections and therefore will dismiss this Cause till then XXI Of Communion in one kind HEre we charge the Church of Rome with altering the Institution of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper for Christ instituted it in both kinds but the Church of Rome denies the Cup to the Layity but yet we do not say That a Papist believes that he is no longer obliged to obey Christ's Commands than his Church will give him leave but we say that herein he transgresses the Institutions of our Saviour to comply with the Innovations of his Church And does the Representer deny this Yes he denies that they alter the Institution of Christ for he says Christ did not command them to receive in both kinds but left it indifferent But does he deny that the Church of Rome takes away the Cup from the People No this he owns and justifies Wherein then do we Misrepresent them For we charge them only with taking away the Cup whether this be agreeable or contrary to the Institution of our Saviour is not Matter of Representation but of Dispute XXII Of the Mass. HEre we charge them with making the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper as the Council of Trent defines a true proper propitiatory Sacrifice for the Quick and the Dead And this we say infers an insufficiency in the Sacrifice made by Christ upon the Cross. For if Christ by his Death upon the Cross had made a complete and perfect Atonement and Propitiation for sins by his once offering himself what occasion can there be for the repetition of such a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the only reason the Apostle assigns why the legal Sacrifices were so often repeated was because they could not make the Comers thereunto perfect Hebr. 10. But we do not charge them with believing an insufficiency in the Sacrifice made by Christ on the Cross. Much less do we say that they are taught wholly to rely on the Sacrifice of the Mass and to neglect the Passion of Christ and to put no hopes in his Merits and the Work of our Redemption The first is a Consequence which we charge upon their Doctrine and Practice but do not charge them with believing it The second was never charged on them that I know of before So that if there be any Misrepresentation here it must be in charging them That they believe the Sacrifice of the Mass to be a true proper propitiatory Sacrifice for the Quick and Dead But this is the very definition of their Council and an Anathema pronounced against those who deny it and this the Representer acknowledges though he conceals as much of it as he can calling it a Commemorative Sacrifice representing in an unbloody manner what when the Blood of Christ is actually shed in the Sacrifice of the Mass is it still an unbloody Sacrifice the bloody Sacrifice which was offered for us upon the Cross But is it a Propitiatory Sacrifice or not Does it make an actual Propitiation for our Sins If they do not own this then indeed we misrepresent them if they do as they must if they own the Council of Trent we represent them truly and whether the Consequences we charge upon this Doctrine be true or false that is no part of the Representation we may argue ill but we represent right though we are ready to justify that too whenever they please XXIII Of Purgatory TO carry on the humour of Misrepresenting he complains of Misrepresenting here too when all that is charged on them is the belief of Purgatory a middle place between Heaven and Hell where Souls departed who are acquitted from the Sentence of Eternal Punishment must undergo a Temporal Punishment for those Sins which were not expiated in this Life That there is such a State the Representer most industriously and zealously proves Why then is the belief of Purgatory thrust into the Character of a Papist misrepresented All that I can perceive is That the Misrepresentation consists not in charging them with believing a Purgatory but with believing it contrary to all Reason the Word of God and all Antiquity for the Representer says he believes it damnable to admit of any thing for Faith that is contrary to Reason the word of God and all Antiquity Damnable is a very dangerous word especially when it is applied to believing things contrary to Reason and therefore though it may serve now and then to bluster with I would advise him to use it sparingly but though I must confess we think that they do believe a Purgatory and a great many other things which are contrary to Reason Scripture and Antiquity yet we do not say that they admit any thing for Faith which they believe contrary to Reason Scripture and Antiquity and therefore this is no part of their Character and therefore no Mirepresentation XXIV Of praying in an unknown Tongue HEre indeed I meet with somewhat of Misrepresentation For he says He the Papist misrepresented is counselled by his Church to be present at Sermons but never permitted to hear any he is able to understand they being all delivered in an unknown Tongue This is misrepresenting with a witness But no Protestant ever charged them with preaching as well as praying in Latin but the meaning of this is easily understood to perswade those People who place all their Religion in hearing Sermons that it is no matter what Language their Prayers are in which they care not much for hearing when they are in English if they have but English Sermons to entertain their Curiosity and itching Ears And it is I confess a cunning Suggestion and I hope will warn all sober Christians to joyn more devoutly in the Prayers of the Church which they do understand and that will teach them the difference between an English Liturgy and Latin Mass-Book The rest of the Character only charges them with praying in Latin a Language which the People do not understand and therefore whatever other devout Thoughts they may have they cannot joyn with the Priest in offering up the same Petitions to God when they do not understand what it is he says All this is granted on all hands to be true and yet this also which the Representer owns is called misrepresenting XXV Of the Second Commandment WE charge them with making the second Commandment which forbids the Worship of Images only a part and branch of the first which forbids the Worship of other Gods which is designed to obscure the true sense and interpretation of that Law and to excuse all Men from the Sin of Image-worship who are not so sensless to believe the Images to be Gods And yet not thinking themselves safe in this they dare not trust the People with the second Commandment but leave it out of their Catechisms and Manuals and such Offices are like to come into Peoples hands Is this charge true or is it not The Representer grants the whole and excuses it thinks the second Commandment too great a burden to Mens