of, increased our Charge against the Church of Rome in this Age; if there has been any difference, we have rather been more favourable and candid in our Cenfures of fome of their Doctrines, than the first Reformers were. Now is it likely, that the first Reformers fhould charge the Church of Rome wronfully? No man can be a Mif-reprefenter, but either out of Ignorance or Defign; which of thefe then can we; with any Probability, charge the first Reformers, with? As for Ignorance, is it a probable thing, that Luther, Melanthon, Oecolampadius, Zuinglius, Bucer, Calvin, or to come to our own English Reformers, that Archbishop Cranmer, and others, who had all been Papists. themselves, fhould be ignorant what was taught and practifed in the Church of Rome? It is now thought in this very Caufe, a very confiderable Proof, that Proteftants do Mif-reprefent Papifts, because fome Papists deny fuch Doctrines and Practices as Proteftants charge them with; and, fay they, can you think that Papists do not understand their own Religion better than Proteftants do? Now though this may be made a Que-ftion, and I am very apt to think, that compare the -Learned and the Unlearned Proteflants and Papifts together, there are more Proteftants than Papifts, who understand Popery and not onely Experience verifies this, but there is a plain reason why it fhould be fo; because it is the Principle of Proteftants, that they muft neither believe nor disbelieve any thing, without underftand it; but an implicite Faith in the Church, go-. verns the unlearned Papists, and many of those who fhould be learned too. But let that be as it will, this Argument fignifies nothing to our first Reformers: for if Papifts may be prefumedi fumed to understand their own Religion, the first Reformers, who were all educated in Popery, might be as well prefumed to understand what Popery then was ; and therefore there can be no reason to suspect that they Mif-reprefented Popery out of Ignorance. Nor is it more probable, that they fhould Mif-reprefent Popery out of Intereft and Defign: for if they were conscious to themselves, that Popery was not fo bad as they reprefent it to be, why fhould they themfelves have fet up for Reformers? and what hope could they have, that at that time, when Popery was fo well known, they fhould perfwade the World to believe their Mif-representations? Was it fo defirable a thing for men to bring all the Powers of the Church and Court of Rome upon themfelves, meerly to gratifie a Mif-reprefenting humour? Do these men remember what our Reformers fuffered, for oppofing Popery? the lofs of their Eftates, their Liberties, their Lives, all the Vengeance of a blind and enraged Zeal: And did they undergo all this with fuch conftancy and Chriftian patience, only for the fake of telling Lyes, and rafing fcandalous Reports of the Church of Rome? We think it a very good Argument, that the Apostles and first Preachers of Chriftianity were very honeft men, and had no defign, to cheat the World, because they served no worldly Interest by it; but chearfully expofed themselves to all manner of Sufferings in Preaching the Gospel: and why does not the fame Argument prove our first Reformers to be honest men, and then they could not be wilful Mif-representers ? Nay, if we will but allow them to have been cunning men (and it is evident, they did not want wit) they would never have undertaken fo hopeles a defign,as to run down Popery Popery meerly by Mif-reprefenting it; when, had their Exceptions against Popery been only Mifreprefentations of their own, all the World could have confuted them had the Reformers been onely Mifreprefenters, can we think, that they could have impofed upon such vast numbers of Men, Learned and Unlearned, who knew and faw what Popery was? They were no Fools themselves, and therefore could not hope to impofe fuch a Cheat upon the World. 2. Ask them again, How old this Complaint is, of Proteftant Mif-reprefentations of Popery? how long it has been discovered, that Popery has been thus Abused. and Mif-reprefented were the first Reformers charged with thefe Mif-reprefentations by their Adverfaries in a those days? did they deny, that they gave Religious Worship to Saints, and Angels, and the Virgin Mary, tổ Images and Reliques? did they cry out of Mif-reprefentations, when they were charged with fuch Doctrines and Practices as thefe? or did they defend them, and endeavour to answer thofe Arguments which the Reform. ers brought against them? And yet methinks if Popery had been fo grofly Mif-reprefented by the Reformers, this would as foon have been difcovered by the Learned Papists of those days, as by our late Reprefenter; but it is most likely they did not then think Popery fo much Mif-reprefented, for if they had, they would certainly have complained of it: So that the high improbabibility of the thing, is a fufficient Reafon to Unlearned Prote stants, to reject this Charge of Proteftant Mif-reprefentations of Popery, as nothing else but a Popish Calumny against Proteftants; and to conclude, that if Popery be Mif-represented now, it is onely by themselves, and that is the very truth of the Cafe. Secondly, Secondly, Let us confider this Charge of Mif-repre fentations in the Confequences of it: It would a little puzzle a man to guess, what fervice they intend to do the Church of Rome by it. For, 1. By complaining of fuch Mif-representations of Popery, they plainly confefs, that thofe Doctrines and PraEtices, which we charge the Church of Rome with,are very bad, and fit to be rejected and abhorred of all Chriftians. This the Reprefenter himself confeffes, and is very Copious and Rhetorical upon it. Now this is of mighty dangerous confequence; for if it appears, that we have not Mif-reprefented them, that the Doctrines and PraEtices we charge them with, are truly the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, then by their own confeffion, Popery is a very bad Religion, and to be rejected by Christians: Then there was a very just reason for our Separation from the Church of Rome, and we are no longer either Schifmaticks or Hereticks; and if the Cause be put upon this Iffue, we need defire no better Vindication of the Church of England: for if they cannot prove us Hereticks or Schifmaticks, till they can prove us Mif-representers, I believe, we are pretty fecure for this Age. 2. These men, who complain fo much of Mif-reprefenting, endeavour to make the Doctrines of the Church of Rome, look as like Protestant Doctrines, as poffibly they can, as if there were little or no difference between them: Now methinks this is no great reafon for a Protestant to turn Papift, that the Popish Faith is fo much the better, the nearer it comes to the Proteftant Faith. The truth is, the chief Mystery in this late Trade of Re presenting and Mif-reprefenting, is no more but this, to joyn a Proteftant Faith with Popifh Practices; to believe as Proteftants do, and do as Papists do. As to give fo me fome few inftances of this in the Papift Mif-reprefented and Represented. The Papist Reprefented, believes it damnable to Worship Stocks and Stones for Gods, to Pray to Pictures or Images of Christ, the Virgin Mary, or any other Saints. This is good Proteftant Doctrine: but then this Papift fays his Prayers before an Image, Kneels and Bows before it, and pays all external Acts of Adoration to Chrift and the Saints, as reprefented by their Images; though it is not properly the Image he honours, but Christ and his Saints by the Images. Which is down-right Popery in Practice. Thus he believes it is a most damnable Idolatry, to make Gods of men, either living or dead. Which is the Proteflant Faith: but yet he prays to Saints, and beggs their Interceffion, without believing them to be Gods, or his Redeemers; which is Popery in Practice. He believes it damnable, to think the Virgin Mary more powerful in Heaven than Christ. Which is Proteftant DoEtrine: but yet he prays to Her oftner than either to God or Chrift, fays ten Ave-Maries for one Pater Nofter; which is a Popish Devotion. He believes it unlawful to commit Idolatry, and most damnable to Worship any Breaden God. Which is spoke like a Proteftant; but yet he pays Divine Adoration to the Sacrament, which is done like a Papift. And thus in most of those thirty seven Particulars of the double Characters of a Papist Mif-represented, his great Art is to Reconcile a Protestant Faith with Popish Practices. So that this New way of Representing Popery, is no reason to a Proteftant to alter his Faith, because, it seems, they believe in many things just as we do; but, I think, it is a very great reafon for a Papift to alter his Practice, because a Proteftant Faith and Popish Worship do not very well agree. Those who would not make Gods of N Stocks |