IF heretofore you haue done mee the honour to repute mee a man of desert, and haue beene desirous of my saluation, I desire that now also you would haue mee in the like esteeme. To the end therefore that my al­teration of religion im­print in you no hard conceit of mee, I haue thought it fit to set downe the motiues, and rea­sons which haue induced mee to this change; beseeching you to beleeue (and my GOD knowes that I lie not) that I haue not had regard to any humane considerations, but on the contrarie haue not harkened to the promises and promoti­ons which the Romane Church offered vnto me; and haue lost the friendship of many personages, whom neuerthelesse I will not leaue to loue, and honour, and you principally, Sir, whose vertue, [Page 2]and good opinion I haue euer much esteemed, and desired. These considerations infuse a hope into mee that you will rellish well my reasons, which briefely, and summarily I will here set downe.

Giue me leaue then to tell you, Sir, that when I was the most zealously addicted to the Romane Religion, I had notwithstanding this perswasion that Religion is not subject to men, how great and learned soeuer they be, but that they are sub­ject to Religion. I also then held Religion to be the Rule of saluation giuen by GOD to men, to which euery man ought to be subjected, it being not permitted to any one to exempt himselfe, or to change, or diminish it. And thereupon en­quiring of some of the Roman Church (whom I reputed the most learned) where this Rule was giuen by GOD, they answered that it was con­tained in that booke commonly called the Bible, and that it was peculiar to this booke onely to be stiled the Word of GOD. According to their in­formation (hauing first inuoked GOD for increase of knowledge) I set my selfe to reade this booke, and hauing read intentiuely all the Gospell, I was much astonished to finde almost nothing in it that had beene taught me. I plainely perceiued that it was not there commanded to inuoke the Saints, nor to render any seruice to Images, nor to sacrifice IESVS CHRIST, nor to adore the Hoast, nor to pray to GOD without vnderstan­ding: I also clearely saw that there was no men­tion [Page 3]made of Purgatorie, nor of Lent, nor of Masses, nor of Merits, nor of Monkes, nor of diuerse Orders of Religion, nor of the Primacy of the Roman Church. In a word, I found few things there, which I thought to be expressly comman­ded in the Word of GOD; nay quite contrary, I found many passages contradictory to those things which in former time I had learned.

Being in this Labyrinth, I thought the next way to get out was, to addresse my selfe to some of the greatest Schollers of that Religion, and to implore their aide. Which I did, and receiued this answere from them, that it was not for mee to reade the Holy Scripture, and to enquire af­ter things which passed my capacity. Also they told mee that the Catholicke Roman Church had so ordained, to which the holy Scripture sends vs, saying that it is the pillar and the prop of Verity. 1 Tim. 3. vers. 15. Who heares not the Church, ought to be held for a Pagan, and a Pub­lican. Mat. 18. and IESVS CHRIST saith to S. Peter, I haue prayed that thy faith faile thee not: which manifesteth vnto vs, that the Roman Church founded vpon Saint Peter cannot erre in faith.

Discoursing of these things with my selfe, I thus said to my selfe. I beleeue that IESVS CHRIST died for mee, and that the promises contained in the word of GOD appertaine to mee as well as to any other of the Church. Wherefore then should I not dare to looke into those things which ap­pertaine [Page 4]vnto mee? If I had bookes of loue or fables, they would not take them from mee, and yet they will depriue me of that booke, which they themselues affirme to be the word of GOD. And if (as they say) it be not to be read but by the learned, no man should euer read it, since that no man can be learned in it before hee haue read it. I had thought that men had read the Scrip­ture to become learned in Piety, and to attaine to that heauenly wisdome, which out-shines all humane wisdome as much as the Sunne a candle. I also assure my selfe that the Scribes and Pha­rises were as learned as any now aliue, and as conuersant in the Scriptures as any of the Ro­man Church, and yet wee finde that CHRIST being demanded by his Disciples why the Scribes, and Pharises vnderstood him not, an­swered; that to them was not giuen to know the secrets of the kingdome of God. Yet the Papists would perswade vs that a man may be learned in the Gospell before he read it. Why do they al­ledge to me passages of Scripture, since they will not permit mee to see whether they alledge them faithfully or no. I would haue them to shew mee the places which they cite to proue the autho­rity of the Roman Church. As for that passage where the Church is called the pillar, and the prop of Verity, I finde that there is no mention at all made of the Roman Church, no more then of the Greeke, or Syrian. I may adde also, that there is no likelyhood that the Diuine truth [Page 5]should be founded vpon men, it being more con­uenient that men should make the word of GOD their foundation. S. Paul by these words mea­neth onely that the Church is established by GOD on the earth to maintaine, and defend the Truth against infidels, and enemies of the Truth: so that these words represent to the Church her duty, and not her authority. So the Syrian Church founded by Iesus Christ, and his Apostles was a pillar of verity against the Iewes and Pa­gans, but this did not free it from error. The same may also haue happened to the Church of Rome.

As concerning the passage, which sayes, that hee who heares not the Church ought to be held as a Pagan, and a Publican; hee that reads the precedents, and subsequents shall soone perceiue that these words serue not to proue that the Ro­man Church, which they call Catholike (that is to say Vniuersall) should be iudge in deciding controuersies of Religion. First, because in that place the Roman Chuch is not named. Second­ly, because that there it is not spoken of contro­uersies of religion, but of a quarrell betweene two brethren. Thirdly, it is euident that the Ca­tholike, or vniuersall Church is not there meant; for to take vp a quarrell betweene two brethren wee should in vaine expect the iudgement of the Church vniuersall: by the Church then in this place is meant the Pastors, and Conductors of some Church particular, endeauouring to ap­pease the mallice of particular men: and it is [Page 6]according to the precept of GOD in his word, that he, who will not consent to what they shall decree, be put in the same ranke with Pagans, and Publicans.

The third passage is that which most offends mee; for this seemes to mee to be a hard conse­quence; I haue prayed that thy faith faile not, Peter: then the Roman Church cannot erre. By the reading of the whole passage it does appeare most manifest that CHRIST speakes not at all to the Church, nor of the Church, but that hee di­rectes his speech onely to the person of S. Peter, preparing him for the temptation, into which he was shortly after to fall, that is, to deny his Sa­uiour. IESVS CHRIST promiseth him by these words that his faith shall not faile him in this temptation, but that hee should no sooner fall, but that the hand of GOD should raise him vp againe. Secondly, and if CHRIST should there haue meant the Church of Rome, is it possible that neither that place, nor any other passage of Scripture should mention it? Thirdly, which more is, if our faith be built vpon this suppositi­on, to wit, that Saint Peter is the head of the Church vniuersall, and that hee hath made the Bishop of Rome his successour, not onely in the Bishopricke of Rome, but also in the charge of being head of the Church, and that this charge hath succeeded in a direct line without variation of doctrine, and without interruption of succes­sion; If all this be true, I demand how the peo­ple [Page 7]shall be assured of it, since that to know it, many histories, and authors ancient, and mo­derne are to read; which are written in a tongue which the people vnderstands not. In this point also then I remaine vnsatisfied.

I must needs confesse to you also that after I had learned that the Roman Church held, that conse­cration, and Transubstantiation is not at all in the Masse vnlesse the Priest haue intention to consecrate, I feared much I might at one time or other commit Idolatry, knowing that often­times the Priest hath his mind otherwise busied, or does not beleeue himselfe that which he does, or is a derider, and a profane man: from whence it necessarily followeth, those who adore that which the priest liftes vp, adore bread, and call it their creator, and their GOD. I fell into this per­plexity by reading the Gospell, where I found the institution of this Sacrament no way to be con­sidered by the Papists. First, for I found that in the Gospell all the assistants did communicate; but in the Masse ordinarily the Priest alone eats. Secondly, likewise euery one receiued both the species. Saint Paul 1 Cor. 11. speaking to the peo­ple commands euery one to proue himselfe, and to drinke of this cup; but in these daies the cup is taken from the people. Thirdly, IESVS CHRIST did not lift vp the Hoast as doe the Priests. Fourthly, the Apostles did not adore the Hoast, as in these times the people doe. Fiftly, in the whole institution of this Sacrament there is [Page 8]no mension at all made of Sacrifice, nor is it com­manded that IESVS CHRIST be sacrificed for the liuing, and for the dead. Sixtly, IESVS CHRIST spake in a tongue which the people vnderstood. Seuenthly, the Gospell saith that IESVS CHRIST tooke bread and broke it: cleane contrary, the Roman Church affirmes that the Priest does not breake bread, but the accidents of bread, to wit, the colour and roundnesse of bread, &c. Eightly, the Ghospell witnesseth that IESVS CHRIST tooke bread, broke it, and gaue it on the contrary, the Roman Church holds that the Priest giues not bread. 10. I finde also in Saint Mat. 26. vers. 29. and in Saint Mar. 14. vers. 25. that IESVS dranke of the fruite of the vine, that is to say, wine; it was then wine when hee dranke it: for although two cups are menti­oned, as appeares by Saint Luke; yet Saint Mat­thew, and Saint Marke speaking onely of the cup of the Sacrament cannot questionless vnderstand by the fruit of the vine the wine of a cup, of which they speake not. 11 I also finde in S. Paul, Cor. 10 ve. 16. & cha. 11. ve. 26. that wee eate and breake bread: but the Roman Church saies that wee neither eate, nor breake bread. 12. It is ap­parant that Saint Paul expounds these words in forme of a Paraphrase, in this manner, the bread, saies hee, which wee breake is the Communion to the body of CHRIST.

But the Roman Church denies all this, and saies that it is not bread, and that wee breake not [Page 9]bread, but the speeies, and apparences of bread: from whence it followeth that these apparances of bread should be the Communion to the body of CHRIST. 13. I finde also in the Acts of the Apostles that the Disciples assembled them­selues to breake the bread. Chap. 2. vers. 46. and Chap. 20. vers. 7. It would seeme a thing ridicu­lous to the Papists if one of their religion, going to receiue the very body of CHRIST at Easter, should say that hee goes to breake bread.

14 I see that the Ghospell according to Saint Luke Chapter. 22. and the Apostle Saint Paul 1 Corinthians. Chapter. 11. informes vs how these words (this is my body) are to be vnderstood: for when they come to speake of the cup, in steed of (this is my bloud) they thus expound, this cup is the New Testament in my bloud. The bread then is the body of our Sauiour in like manner as that which is in the cup is a Testament; which is not in substance, but in a Sacrament, As also IESVS CHRIST calleth it a commemoration, And as ordinarily in Scripture, signes and Sa­craments take the names of that which they signifie. 15 If the Cup bee the Testament in the blood of CHRIST, as saies Saint Luke, it is not then the very bloud of CHRIST; for it were absurd to say that the bloud of CHRIST is in the blood of CHRIST.

I will further confesse vnto you that when I was at the height of my ignorance this manner of [Page 10]speaking (as to lift GOD, to carry GOD, and by the mouth to receiue the creator) seemed to mee harsh, and grosse. Also, I could not heare without griefe some of the reformed religion to vpbraid vs with our Priests making GOD, and that they sold GOD for a little mony in priuat Masses; and that if IESVS CHRIST be in the Hoast, he which steales away the Hoast, must ne­cessarily steale away IESVS CHRIST. They also in way of mockage told vs that our greatest Do­ctours held that the body of CHRIST might be carried away by Mice, which would make any mans haire to stand an end, that hath in a deare esteeme the honour of IESVS CHRIST, our bles­sed Sauiour, the eternall Sonne of GOD. More­ouer, to affirme that CHRISTS body is in so many places, and that it is in euery crum of the bread, is not agreeable to the Ghospell, which giues him a body like to ours, that he might be our brother. They who alledge that his body is now glorified doe not consider that when hee made this Sacra­ment his body was yet infirme, and not glorified. Further, his glorification hath not changed his humane nature, but hath onely taken away the infirmities of it.

There is also another inconuenience in the Roman Church, which draue mee from it, which is, that whereas Saint Paul in the 10. Chap. to the Hebrewes saith that wee are sanctified onely by the death of IESVS CHRIST, the Romish Priests say that the Masse is the same sacrifice with that [Page 5]of the Crosse, and that they sacrifice IESVS CHRIST really, and truely for our redemption. Which I vtterly dislike; for whereas at first the Romish Priests taught me that the death of IESVS CHRIST was the onely price of our re­demption, now they giue me for the price of my redemption the sacrifice of the Masse, which not­withstanding is not the death of Iesus Christ. It can­not be said that the Masse is the continuation of the sacrifice of the Crosse; for then it should be the continuation of the death of Christ, and so CHRIST should die continually. To conclude, they which affirme that the Masse is the sacrifice of IESVS CHRIST, say withall that it is the ap­plication, and commemoration of the sacrifice of CHRIST on the crosse: from whence this con­sequence may be deriued, that it is not the sacrifice of IESVS CHRIST: for as the application of a plaister, is not a plaister: or as the application of a medicine, or a rule, is neither a medicine, nor a rule: so the application of the sacrifice of IESVS CHIST is not the sacrifice of IESVS CHRIST. The same may also be said of commemoration.

Purgatory is another cause of my separation from the Romish Church. I learned at last that the Popish Purgatory was built vpon this tenent, to wit, that IESVS CHRIST by his death, and suffering hath satisfied for the punishment of sinnes before Baptisme, but that he hath not sa­tisfied for the punishment of sinnes committed after Baptisme. I was very inquisitiue after this [Page 12]doctrine; as iudging it to be a point most behoo­full of all for a Christian to vnderstand, since that it explaines vnto vs what CHRIST hath done for vs. But though with all diligence I read the Scriptures yet could I not finde there any menti­on at all made of Purgatory. I then grew bolder, and thus questioned some of the Romish religion. Hath not IESVS CHRIST payed inough to de­liuer vs from Purgatory? And if hee haue payed inough, why does not GOD accept, and take this payment for as much as it is worth? 2 And since that Christ makes intercession for vs in heauen, why should not the soules be rather quit of Pur­gatory by his intercession, then by the indulgen­ces of the Pope? 3 And if (as the Papists hold) none of the faithfull which shall liue at the day of Iudgement shall goe to Purgatory, why cannot GOD as well exempt vs, without violating his iustice? 4 It is true, that nothing defiled shall enter into Paradis: but Saint Iohn in his 1 Epist. chap. 1. saith that the bluod of Iesus Christ doth cleanse vs from all sinne. 5 The Roman Church also holds that in Purgatory sinnes are not pur­ged away but punished; it may therefore more fitly be stiled a Tormentary, then a Purgatory. The ordrus, and blots of our soules are not pu­nishments, or paines, but sinnes, of which Iesus Christ doth cleanse vs. 6 It is necessary that the satisfaction of our Sauiour be applied to vs: but it is GOD that must prescribe the meanes how to apply it, for to vs it is not permitted to inuent [Page 13]them. Moreouer, the ineanes applied to a thing ought to be contrary to the thing, there being no medicine which is applied with poyson. In like maner the way to apply vnto our selues the remis­sion of our debts by Iesus Christ, is not to make vs pay them. The meanes to apply to out selues his grace, and mercy, is not in tormenting vs in a fire. Truely the holy Scripture produceth vs ex­amples of persons receiued into Paradise, and en­tred into peace, and glory, incontinently after their death; as the thiefe. Luke. 2.29. Saint Paul 2 Timo. 4.8. and Esay. 57. vers. 1. and 2 Apocal. 14. vers. 13. But wee finde no example of any man sent to Purgatory. 8 The onely light which hath directed vs to finde out the errour of this Purga­tory is experience, which shewes vs that it is a thing meerely inuented for gaine: for no man sees particular Masses but for those that giue money: poore men must content themselues with gene­rall prayers, in which the rich haue also a part. The Mendicant Friers neuer goe to the funerall of a poore man, and yet his soule hath cost as much, and is no lesse precious in the eye of GOD then an Emperours. The letters of Indulgence, and personall dispensation, which the Pope grants, is not but for persons of quality.

Another thing also much moued mee; to wit, that a man cannot be assured of his saluation; which made mee thus to reason with my selfe. Shall I any longer remaine in a religion which (after I haue made a hurde of merits, and satisfa­ctions, [Page 4]nay, haue bought the satisfactions of o­thers) cannot assure mee after all this whether I be the childe of GOD, or of the Diuell? what religion can this be which teacheth such distrust? On the contrary, through the whole Scripture GOD exhorts vs to trust in him, and to come to him with a full certainty of Faith. Heb. 10.22. and bids vs with boldnesse to trust in him with a liuely faith in Iesus Christ. Ephe. 3.12.

Consider also, Sir, with mee, that the com­mandements of the Roman Church are much more honoured & obserued then the commande­ments of GOD. 1. Because it is there taught, that the Roman Church authoriseth the holy Scrip­tures, that is to say, that the ordinances of men authorise the commandements of GOD. 2 To cate flesh vpon a good Friday is a greater sinne then to commit murther, or adultery; yet is this the Friday, on which ordinarily Christ did eate the Paschall Lambe. 3 To blaspheme the name of GOD in this world is a small offence; but to speake ill of the Pope (especially in Italy, and Spaine) is an vnpardonable, and a burnable of­fence. 4 The Iewes haue a religion which af­firme Christ to be a cousner: but to say, that there is no other Purgatory but the bloud of Iesus Christ is a crime deserues the Inquisition. 5 Euery Bishoppe of France may giue absolution for faults committed against the law of GOD, but cannot absolue men of sinnes committed against the Pope, and his Sea. Also in the [Page 9]Roman Church they teach things absolutely contrary to the word of GOD, in his Ghospell. 1 GOD saith Exod. 20. Thou shalt not make the likenesse of things which are in the heauens, or in the earth, thou shalt not bow downe before them, &c. But in the Roman Church they paint the Trinity, and kneele before the images of Saints. 2 GOD saies in his law, Six daies shalt thou labour: The Pope saies thou shalt not labour six daies, but shalt obserue the feasts of euery weeke. GOD saies by his Apostle. 1. Tim. 3. vers. 2. & 4. that a Bishop should be a husband of one wife onely, and that his children should be subject to him in all reuerence: but the Roman Church willeth that a Bishop haue neither wife, nor chil­dren. 4 GOD commandes by his Apostle. 1 Cor. 10. that when we are inuited to the houses of Infidels we should eate of all that which is set be, fore vs, without making any scruple. On the con­trary, the Roman Church commands thee, when thou art inuited into the houses of Heretiques, not to eate of all that which is set before thee in Lent, and on Good-Friday. 5. GOD saies by his Apostle, 1 Cor. chap. 14. that it is better to speak fiue words in the Church in a tongue vnderstood of the people, then ten thousand in an vnknowne tongue: On the contrary the Roman Church serues GOD in an vnknowne tongue. Neither doth she onely erre in this point, but in many o­thers also. But it may be, Sir, you thinke that the [Page 16]Multitude warrants a religion. I finde that Iesus Christ. Mat. 7. vers. 13. would that we enter in by the strait dore, saying that the way is large through which the multitude passeth, and lea­deth to destruction. If you argue against me with signes, and miracles; I must answer you with my Sauiour, that an adulterous nation demands signes; and in the 13 of Saint Marke hee saith that false Doctors should come, making signes, and miracles to seduce. If you seeke to conuince mee with the chaire of the Pope, I answere you that the Pharises obiected to Christ the chaire of Moses, and their succession, and yet were the e­nemies of Iesus Christ. Also Iesus Christ sends vs not to Chaires, but to his word, saying in Saint Iohn 10. that his sheepe follow him, and heare his voyce. And in the 8 chapter hee sayth. If you perseuer in my word, you shall be truely my Dis­ciples. Moreouer, at this day the Syrian, and Greeke Churches, more ancient then the Ro­man, vant of the like succession, and condemne the Roman Church.

If you reply that in the word of GOD there are difficulties, and obscure passages, I answere that I make my selfe in such things neither iudge, nor interpetor, but this I am sure that I vnder­stand inough in the Scripture to saue me. And I assure you that since I turned to the true religi­on of Iesus Christ, I haue learned more in two months then I did in all my life before. I haue learnd since to belieue no longer by another mans [Page 17]faith. The consideration of these odious errours makes mee exhorte you, as you tender your sal­uation, to thinke of these things, and to deliuer your soule from this captiuity, to the end that you may glorifie GOD on the earth, if you desire to be glorified in heauen. I beseech GOD that you may be, Sir and rest.

FINIS.