A DISCOURSE against Revenge, &c.

FAlse Teachers without doubt are very dangerous Men. The Mur­therer kills the Body, these the Soul; and by the false Doctrines they sow in Mens Heads and Minds, they not [Page 2] only obstruct their Salvation, but lead them into Perdition: Indeed if the Er­rors be light and trivial, the hurt that's done is not great; and while the errone­ous Doctrine reaches no farther than Speculation, it can deserve no very se­vere Censure; but when it spoiles and sullies the Worship of God, or proves an impediment to the faithful discharge of our Duty to God and Man, Poison is not so prejudicial to the outward, as such Opinions are to the inward Man, and the better part. And such were the er­roneous Doctrines of the Scribes and Pha­risees: Blending the Traditions of their Fathers with the Law of God, and en­tertaining both, with an equal Faith and Veneration; they made an odd kind of Divinity, and quite perverted the de­sign i. e. Contra­dictions. of Religion, which was to make Men universally good. This was parti­cularly visible in the notion they had of the sixth Commandment, which they interpreted to the carnal advantage, and worldly Interest of their People, teaching them, that if they did but use that Care and Circumspection as not to kill a Man, they did not only answer the design of the Lawgiver, but would prevent the Penalty annex'd, and their being taken [Page 3] notice of by the Magistrate, and punish­ed accordingly: but as for Wrath, and Malice, and reproachful Language, whereby Murder and such bloody Pra­ctices are too often occasion'd and pro­moted, these they told them were things not forbid in the primary Intention of the Law of God, and consequently they need fear no Punishment. To which preposterous Exposition our Saviour op­poses his Divine Authority, proves the gloss of their Elders upon the sixth Com­mandment to be false; and shews, That what they thought did not deserve so much as a temporal Judgment, God would punish with eternal Vengeance, if not forsaken, or repented of betimes: Ye have heard, that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill, and whosoever shall kill, shall be, &c.

This is a Text upon which Criticks and Learned Men have bestow'd many excellent Observations, because the words relate to some antient Customes of the Jews, in their Judicial Proceedings against Malefactors and others: But as I do not think it proper to entertain you with Curiosities, so if there be need of making use of any of those Observa­tions, I shall do it no farther, than they [Page 4] serve to elucidate some of the obscurer Passages of the Text, and make way for the practical Points I shall insist upon for your Edification.

As to the Sense of the Words, it's briefly this:

1. Whether we render the Expression in the Original, [...], It hath been said by them of old time, or to them of old time, as some Translations read it, the difference is not very ma­terial: for as by those of old time are meant either the antient Masters of Tra­dition, who lived some hundred years before that time; or the Ancestors of the Jews, to whom those Masters of Tradi­tion pretended to deliver an oral Exposi­tion of the Law of Moses; so if we read, by them of old time, the meaning is, You have heard that it hath been deliver'd, and said by the antient Masters of Tra­dition: And if we render it, to them of old time, the sense is, You have heard it delivered to your Ancestors and Fore­fathers, by those antient Masters of Tra­dition. I restrain, you see, this Passage to Tradition; for though the Sense of it is to be sound in the Law of Moses, yet the Maxim, as it is related by our Saviour here, is not expressed there neither with [Page 5] that Connection: And therefore I con­ceive the antient Expositors of the Law contracted what Moses had said, into this Motto, Whosoever shall kill, shall be in danger of the judgment.

2. What is said here of Killing, is meant of killing a Man, and hath respect to the sixth Commandment, Thou shalt do no Murder. By which Law, as the killing of Beasts for Man's use could not be intended, nor destroying venemous and noxious Animals, nor executing of Malefactors by order of the Magistrate, nor depriving Men of their Lives in a just and lawful War, but an unjust de­priving a Man of his Life; so there was a Punishment suitable annex'd to the breach of that Law; which Punishment was to be ordered and inflicted by the Magistrate; and so far as the Law of God given by Moses went, all was right, and just, and reasonable; but here the Masters of Tradition had made a Di­stinction, that if a Man had hired ano­ther to kill his Neighbour, or had let loose a wild Beast upon him, whereby he died, the Magistrate was not to in­flict the Punishment of Death upon him, but he was to be left to the extraordinary Judgment of God; but if he killed him [Page 6] in person, either by a Sword, or by a Stone, or by some other Weapon, then the Magistrate was to execute the Penalty appointed by the Law of Moses, upon him; but this was not all, for they taught more­over, that though a Person who killed a­nother was liable to capital Punishments, yet the Wrath, the Anger, and the Ma­lice that prompted him to it, was a thing that deserved no Punishment, and there­fore this was not a thing to be feared; and here came in Tradition, which mis­interpreted the Law of Moses, though it stands to reason, that he who forbids a Sin, at the same time doth forbid the occasion of it, and all such things as do naturally lead to the Commission of it.

3. Our Saviour, to shew that Wrath, and Anger, and Malice, and reproachful Language, were liable to Punishment, as well as Murder, and that God would certainly lash them, as well as the greater Enormities, takes notice of several de­grees of unjust Wrath and Anger. The first is a sudden Effervescence, or Boyl­ing up of the Blood, or some violent A­gitation and Commotion of the Passi­ons upon a frivolous occasion; and there­fore adds [...], without sufficient cause, which though it be not in some Copies, [Page 7] yet must necessarily be understood here; not denying but that Anger in some cases may be lawful, but shewing withal, that if the occasion of the Anger be slight and trivial, and the Anger even in a lawful cause be excessive, and going beyond its just bounds, it provokes God's heavy Displeasure.

But then if this secret Anger within, or the first boyling over of the Blood, proceeds farther to contemptuous words, and that a Man in Wrath and Malice gives his Neighbour reproachful Lan­guage, despising and undervaluing him, by using Expressions and Names, which wound his Reputation, intimated by the word Rakah, i. e. vile and worthless Wretch; though I am apt to believe that an angry and threatning noise and po­sture is chiefly meant by that word in this case, the Sin rises higher, and becomes greater, and consequently deserves a se­verer Judgment; but then, if this An­ger mounts higher yet, and from an an­gry threatning Posture and Noise, which betrays Wrath and Indignation, it pro­ceeds to the calling our Neighbour Fool, i. e. wicked and reprobate Wretch, de­serving the eternal Anger both of God, and all good Men, which is the meaning [Page 8] of the word Fool in the Proverbs of Solo­mon; as the Sin becomes more heinous by this Aggravation, so the Punishment of it in the other World will be greater yet.

4. What our Saviour saith here of a certain Gradation of Punishments due to the several Lusts, and degrees of Wrath and Anger, Judgment, Council, Hell fire, must be understood of Penalties in the next World, yet with allusion to the de­grees of Punishment among the Jews in this Life. Now among the Jews, there were three degrees of publick Infamy, according to the nature of the Punish­ment inflicted on Men for their Crimes, and the more publick the Punishment was, the greater was the Infamy. If an Offendor were brought before the Court of Three and twenty, which was an in­feriour Court of Judicature called here, being guilty of the Judgment, and there condemn'd, he was infamous, and a great Disgrace it was to him, but in a lower degree: If he were brought be­fore the Sanedrin, or the Great Council of the Nation, consisting of LXX El­ders, in the nature of our Parliament, and by them adjudged to Death, the Infamy and Disgrace was greater: Yet if, last­ly, [Page 9] a Man were condemn'd to be burnt in the Valley of Hinnon or Tophet, where all the Trash and Filth of the City of Je­rusalem, the Garbage and dead Carcasses were burnt, and where antiently they offered their Children to Moloch, and where a perpetual Fire was kept to con­sume all things that were offensive and nauseous, and which by the Jews them­selves was look'd upon as an Emblem of Hell fire, the Infamy was greatest of all: According to these degrees of Infamy here on Earth, Christ shews there will be degrees of Punishment for the several degrees of unjust and unlawful Anger, in the other World; for most certainly this Threatning cannot be understood with respect to this Life, there being no such thing inflicted upon Men, for An­ger and reproachful Names, on this side the Grave; and whereas the Jews were generally afraid chiefly of Punish­ments in this Life, Christ thought fit to acquaint them and us, that we had far greater reason to be afraid of the Punish­ments in the next, as more dreadful and more grievous than any they could fear here on Earth. And this is the meaning of the Commination in the Text, Who­soever, &c.

[Page 10] From the Words thus explained, arise these following Truths:

• I. Antiquity is no warrant for erro­neous Doctrines and Practices.
• II. Murder is a Crime, which the Ma­gistrate must by no means suffer to go un­punish'd.
• III. Wrath and Anger without a just Cause, hath its degrees, and according to the degrees of the Sin, the Punishment in the next World will be proportionable.

1. Antiquity is no warrant for errone­ous Doctrines and Practices.

The Scribes and Pharisees here pretend­ed, that what they taught and practic'd concerning the sixth Commandment, was deliver'd to them by them of old time. But our Saviour shews, that this pretence could be of no use to them, but rather be­tray'd than cover'd their Nakedness.

Error pleads Antiquity as well as Truth; and though nothing be more an­tient than Truth, for it is from Eternity, and before ever Error appear'd in the World, Truth had the universal Monar­chy, yet Error is as antient as the Fall. As soon as the Apostate Angels forsook their Habitation and Integrity together, [Page 11] Error began to shew it self, which soon spread it self through the habitable World; when Man, tempted by the De­vil, consented to his false Principles, and went astray from the center of his Hap­piness. No doubt, Antiquity is venera­ble, but it must be in a good cause, and where Truth and that join together, the Argument is perswasive, and may be call'd invincible. But a thing is not therefore true because it is antient, nor doth it command assent, because of its uncommon Pedigree. Sin and Error lose little of their Deformity by appeal­ing to antient times, and an Error is so much the worse, by how much it defends itself by the Practice of former Ages.

Idolatry, and all the Vices in the World, may shelter themselves under this roof; and there is no Villany so great, but Men may find a President two or three thousand years ago. The Priests of the Temple of Diana at Ephesus, cal­led the Wicker-image of that Goddess [...], fallen down from Jupiter, meer­ly because it was antient; and the Tem­ple having been seven times ruin'd, and built up again, and this Image still pre­served, was to them an Argument that this Worship must be lawful. Indeed, at [Page 12] this rate, a Man might even defend So­domy with the Romish Arch-bishop Jo­annes Casa, because it was practised in the Cities which God destroyed with Fire and Brimstone and the Jews would have had a good Plea for their Adoration of the Queen of Heaven, because their Fa­thers had been used to it.

This very Argument makes the Alle­gations of the Roman Church from An­tiquity ridiculous, and they might as well espouse the Heresies of Ebian and Cerinthus, because they lived in and a­bout the Age of the holy Apostles. When God hath given a Standard of Truth, that must be the Rule whereby Truth and Error must be concluded; and when that saith a thing is true, it is not its being revived, or taught but yesterday, that can make it false; and whatever is con­trary to that Form of sound Words, must be erroneous and false, though it were as old as the Rebellion of Corah, Da­than and Abiram. The Worship of Ima­ges is not therefore lawful, because Irene a superstitious Woman 900 years ago, got a company of illiterate and passio­nate Men together, who decreed it in a Council; nor is Sedition and Disobedi­ence to Magistrates therefore justifiable, [Page 13] because Gregory II. Pope of Rome, in the eighth Century, shook off the Authori­ty of Leo Isaurus, his Emperor. And therefore let none of you plead for any Sin because it is the fashion, nor allow themselves in actions offensive to God's Holiness, because it hath been the Cu­stom of the Country to do so for many Ages. This will be but a poor defence in the last day to alledge, that you fol­low'd the sinful Practices of your An­cestors, or to say it was unmannerly to depart from that which was done before you for many Generations. To be sure, Men were good before they were bad, and there was a Golden Age before that of Iron took place in the World; and therefore if Antiquity be a motive, no­thing can challenge your Embraces more than Righteousness, and dominion over your Appetite and Passions, for that was in the World before Mankind knew what is was to depart from the living God.

Murder is as antient as the time of Cain; yet no civiliz'd Nation under the cope of Heaven will allow of it, because of its Antiquity: So far from it, that in all Countries it is order'd to be punish'd with the Death of the insolent Creature: Which calls me to the

[Page 14] II. Observation, That Murder is a Crime which a Magistrate must by no means suffer to go unpunished; for it hath been said, Thou shalt not kill, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the Judgment. The Substance of this hath been said by Almighty God, as well as by them of old time; and so far as God hath said it, it is a Law unalterable. Murder is a truly crying Sin, for the Voice of thy Brother's Blood crys unto me from the ground, saith God, Gen. IV. 10. This is a Crime which Nature it self trembles at; and yet we see there are Wretches and Monsters, who can steel and harden their Consciences against the Horror of it: But God thunders against it from Heaven; and because the Crime is so great, he hath made a Law, and given it to all Mankind, That whoso sheds Mans Blood, by Man, i. e. by the Magi­strates, shall his Blood be shed, Gen. IX. 6. Nay, if a wild Beast tears a Man, who is going about his lawful Occasions, in pieces, though an irrational Creature, God will strike that Beast dead, because it kill'd Sanctius his Animal, a nobler, and more sacred Fabrick. So tender is God of the Life of Man, nor would he suffer his Tabernacle or Sanctuary to be [Page 15] a refuge for such a barbarous Wretch. The Horns of the Altar could not save the Offender, and from the very Temple he was to be dragg'd to the Gallows, or place of execution. The whole Country comes to be defiled by the horrid Crime, where it goes unpunish'd; and that Ma­gistrate makes his Soul black with guilt, that connives at the inhumane Action; or out of respect to Greatness, or Rank, or Quality, pardons the intollerable Ex­travagance: Where this remains unpu­nish'd, when known, a Nation falls un­der the Curse of God; and whatever Judgments befal them, an ounce of the unpunish'd Murder, as the Jews say of the Sin of the Golden Calf, may be said to be an Ingredient of their Calamity.

We have a Distinction in our Law be­twixt Mans Slaughter and Murder; A Distinction, which I wish did not too of­ten cover that Bloody Crime, which ought to be avenged by publick Justice. The Word of God knows no such Distin­ction; and tho' it provides for Chance­medly, and gives pardon to the Man that unawares, and without any intent to kill, proves the occasion of another's Death; yet this is nothing to that Act, which Wrath and Anger, whether sudden, or [Page 16] premeditate, doth produce to the Horror of the Creation.

Neither doth the Law of the Gospel, nor the Law of Moses in this case before us, reverse the Law of Nature; and God is so resolute, that the Magistrate shall punish such Offenders with Death, that where they do not, himself sometimes takes the Sword in hand, and executes the presumptuous Destroyer of his I­mage: Nay, many times makes the Wretch that did the Fact, and escapes the Magistrates Sword, his own Execu­tioner: Alphonsus Diazius, a Spaniard, and a Roman Catholick, having kill'd his own Natural Brother for turning Pro­testant, for which he receiv'd the Praises and Applauses of considerable Men in the Church of Rome, haunted and hunt­ed at last by the Furies of his own Con­science, desperately hang'd himself at Trent, de callo Mulae suae, saith the Histo­rian, upon the Neck of his own Mule.

It's true, there are those, who guilty of such Crimes, do yet escape the reveng­ing Arm of God and Man here, but the more terrible will be their Cup of trembling hereafter; and God lets some, like stall'd Oxen, grow fat on this side the Grave, that with greater Terrour [Page 17] they may fall a Sacrifice, when they die, to hellish Furies. Nor can Duels and single Combats upon an Affront re­ceiv'd, and Challenging one another to fight, be excused from sharing in the Heinousness of this Guilt; for what­ever fine Names, and plausible Descri­ptions, the Law of Honour may have made of such Actions; he that kills a­nother in a Duel, though he gets a Par­don of his Prince, will be Arraign'd in the last day among the Murtherers, who shall have their Portion in the Lake which burns with Fire and Brimstone.

I do not deny, but that in the dark times of Popery such Combats have been allow'd of, and publick Prayers have been said for Success in such Duels, but what Credit can a Cause receive from Ages, in which to understand Greek was a Crime, and Hebrew next to He­resie. We need not wonder, that Baby­lon the Mother of Harlots should per­mit such things, whose Garments have been died Red with the Blood of the Saints of God, and which hath Tricks and Ways to Canonize Assassins, to con­secrate Murther, and to Christen Mas­sacres, Services of Religon. To call upon you to take heed of having a hand [Page 18] in Blood, were to discourage you from drowning or poisoning your selves, or running a Sword into your own Bowels, for indeed this is no better, and what­ever varnish may be put upon it, it is precipitating your selves headlong into the Gulf of Perdition. There is in this Sin, all that can aggravate a Deed; it is to raise a Hell in your Bosom, and the thing it self speaks so much abominati­on, that to name the Sin, is to give you a thousand Arguments against it. But then that ye may not be under any temptation to this Sin; let bitterness, and wrath, and anger be put away from you with all Malice, which leads me to the third Proposition.

III. That Wrath and Anger without a just cause have their Degrees, and accor­ding to them, the Punishment in the next Life will be proportionable. For whoso­ever shall be angry with his Brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the Judgment; and whosoever shall say to his Brother Raca, shall be in danger of the Councel; but whosoever shall say thou Fool, shall be in danger of Hell­fire.

That some Anger is lawful, is evident, [Page 19] from hence, because Christ himself was angry, and very angry sometimes, and so were the Apostles; and we are per­mitted to be so, but with this Cau­tion, be angry and sin not, i. e. so as not to Sin, Eph. IV. 26. So that all anger is not a mark of Damnation. But then when the Author and Captain of our Salvation, Christ Jesus, and his Holy Apostles were angry, it was only against Sin, and out of a Zeal to Vertue, and when Men were obstinate and would not be perswaded to do their Duty; and a Sense of God's Glory kindled the fire of their Passion; in which Case to be angry is a Perfection, and to be passionate, a Christian accom­plishment; provided still that the bounds of that Anger be observed, and it's heat do not turn into Wild-fire; that it be not attended with unseemly Expressions, nor accompanied with furious Gestures and Actions. I do not deny but a Man may be angry with his Servant, a Fa­ther with his Children, and a Master with his Schollars, and proceed even to Correction; but then it must be, because they neglect their Duty, or will not hearken to wholsome Admonitions, [Page 20] and when gentler Addresses will do no good, and the Anger must be more up­on the account of their Sin, than out of any Desire to revenge, and it must be an Anger mingled with Pitty and Com­passion, and which ends in Prayer for the Offenders, and it must be free from Fury and reviling Language: And being kept within these bounds, I find no fault with this Anger. But this is not the Anger my Text speaks of, and against which Christ levells his Commination here, for that's anger without sufficient cause, even Anger, because our worldly Interest is not promoted, as we expected, or because our Honour and Reputation is touch'd, or because something, which gratifies our Lusts, is with-held from us, or because our vain Desires are not cocker'd and flatter'd, or because such a Person hath not given us the Title and Respect we look'd for, or because we cannot digest a Reproof, or because we are cross'd in our Designs, or because such a Man is not of our Opinion, or because he will not conform to our Humour. These are the things which commonly provoke to Passion, and this Anger, the farther it goes, the worse it grows, if from thoughts [Page 21] and secret grudges; it proceeds to contume­lious, reproachful, and reviling Language, to calling the party ill Names, Fool and Rogue, and Villain, and Rascal and Knave, and Cheat, and Hypocrite, and such other Titles, as modesty will not suffer us to name, it becomes grea­ter; and if from Words and Expressi­ons it goes farther yet, even to Actions of Revenge, and settles in Hatred, in Rancour, and inveterate Malice; it then shuts out the righteousness of God, and lets in the Devil, and invites evil Spi­rits to come and Lodge in that house, and the last Estate of that Man grows worse than the first.

And is not this the Case of abundance of you? Do not you see something in this Glass that's very like you, and re­sembles your Temper? And do but con­sider, what weakness, what impotency of Reason, and Spirit you betray and discover by such doings? Is not this an inlet to confusion and every evil work, Jam. III 16. Is this the Chri­stian Spirit? is this to know, what man­ner of Spirit you are of? Is this tread­ing in your Masters steps? Is this fol­lowing his Example, Who when he was [Page 22] reviled, reviled not again? Dare you ap­pear before the Son of Man in the last day with such a Disposition of Soul, never yet seriously repented of? Is this to resist the Devil? Is this to purifie your Hearts? Have you so learned Christ? Is this to be Children in Ma­lice, as you are bound to be by your Pro­fession? Is this to crucifie the Flesh with the Affections and Lusts, upon the least Provocation, presently to be in a huff, presently to let your Tongues loose, and to break forth against your Brethren in Language fitter for Turks and Indians, than for Christians? Is this to be meek as Doves? Is this to Love one another with a pure Heart fervently? Is Hell-fire no­thing but painted Flames? Hath our great Master threatned it, and do we make light of it? Can you seriously reflect upon this Commination, and be unconcerned? And is not this threatning a Call to Repentance? What a mercy is it, that God will ac­cept of a sincere Repentance after such Provocations? But how can you repent of your Passion, if you do not mortifie it? How can you mortifie it, if you do not conquer it? How can you conquer it, [Page 23] if you do not strive? How can you strive, if ye do not use the proper means and weapons God hath appointed in the Gospel? How can you profess sorrow for this Sin, when you fall willfully in­to the same Sin again? Do you call a mock Repentance, godly Sorrow! Or do you take that to be Repentance which is separated from actual Reformation?

Ecclesiastical History tells us of two Bishops that fell out, and proceeded e­ven to reviling Language, and so parted; toward night one of them sent the other word, Brother, the Sun is going down; with that, the angry Man remembred St. Pauls saying, Let not the sun go down upon your wrath, and made haste, and found out his offended Brother, and fell on his Neck and kissed him. The Py­thagoreans, though Heathens, did the like, for if they had quarrell'd one with another in the day time, they would not go angry to Bed, but shak'd hands before Sun-set. Did Heathens do so, and shall Christians be strangers to this Practice? Flatter not your selves with this, that you kill no body in your An­ger, so did the Pharisees, but must ye therefore act against the Law of Rea­son [Page 24] and Religion, because you do not run stark Mad? Do you own your selves Disciples of the Lord Jesus, and will not you believe what he saith in the Text? Hath he peremptorily for­bid you all Bitterness and Wrath, and speaking evil one of another, and will not you obey him? Doth he assure you, that it renders you obnoxious to Hell-fire; and do not you think, what if I should fall into that Fire in my anger? Are you sure you shall not? Hath God told you, that he will not strike you dead in a Fit? Do not you express all that's terrible by Hell-fire? and is not the possibility of falling into it, a suffici­ent Defence against this inordinate Pas­sion? Do you hope for Christ's Re­wards, and will you deprive your selves of them by your willful disobedience?

Did you go about mortifying that bitterness of Spirit, like Men in good earnest; how could ye fail of Success? Did ye pray fervently against it, watch a­gainst it, chide your selves frequently for it, shun the occasions of it, check it when ye find it rising, set before you the dan­ger and believe it. Call to mind the meekness of your great Master, and the [Page 25] wonderful Patience of the Holy Apo­stles in their private Injuries, how could your undertakings miscarry? Doth an­ger according to Solomon's Verdict, rest in the bosom of Fools, and do you take your selves to be wise Men for it? O be better advised, and if the Mercy, the Patience, the Clemency, the Compas­sion of God toward you, cannot melt down your angry, your wrathful Con­stitution; stand in awe however of your Ruin, of your everlasting Ruin, and remember who it is that said and pro­tested, and will Act according to his Protestation, Whosoever shall be angry with his Brother without a Cause, &c.

Questions and Answers con­cerning the Two Religions, &c.

An Account of the Conference betwixt a Jesuit of the Savoy and my Self, the 2d. of January. Present Mr. Stephens on my side, Mrs. Chamberlain, and Mr. Cham­berlain, and the Book-binder about whom the Conference was held (he having been six years of the Church of Rome, but somewhat unsatisfied) and Mr. Lamb. About Seven of the Clock at Night.

THE first thing Discoursed was about the Doctrine of Calvinists, which the Jesuit said, made God the Author of Sin.

I told him, that there are several Ex­pressions, which if a favourable Con­struction be put upon them will appear to be otherwise.

Next he fell upon Luther, who should say that no Man could be damned if he would, but for his Infidelity.

[Page 56] I said it was true, that God condem­ned no Man, that professed himself a Christian, but for his Infidelity.

The Jesuit asked whether, if a Man committed Theft, he may be call'd an Infidel? I said, he acted like an Infidel and in that Act was so, because he act­ed contrary to his Belief.

Mr. Chamberlain putting in something about that place, 1 Tim. 2. about one Mediator. The Jesuit argued, he won­derd we should talk of one Mediator, when every Man that pray'd for the other was a Mediator.

I told him in a large Sense he might be called so; but in the Controversie before us, were meant Mediators which are religiously worshipped.

Here happened a great rambling Dis­course about Faith, As distinguished from all good Works; but I told them, that by Faith I did not mean the bare Assent to the Doctrine, but a practical Belief, as it takes in the whole Word of God, and living according to it.

The Book-binder was gone to call Mrs. Chamberlain, and coming again by this time: The Jesuit said, they were come to satisfie Persons under some Doubts, [Page 57] and therefore must fall upon some more material Points, and since we Prote­stants sent people to the Scripture; it was necessary we should begin to talk of the Rule of Faith, and therefore he desired to know; how we knew the Scripture to be the Word of God, and from whom we had received our Bible?

I told him, we had received it from the Catholick Church, whose Testimo­ny was very considerable in this Case.

He ask'd hereupon, when we went off from the Church? From what Church we did immediately receive it?

I answered him, both from the We­stern or Roman; and from the Churches of the East. However I told him, I would fairly grant him, that we had re­ceived it immediately from the Church of Rome, and I desired him to make the best of it.

Here he asked, how we could re­ceive the true Bible from a corrupt Church?

I asked him, whether I might not re­ceive a Pearl from a Chimney Sweeper?

He said, we looked upon them for Rogues and Rascals.

[Page 58] Whereupon I told him, we give them no such Language: However sinc he used these Names; whether a Man might not receive a 100 l. in very good Money from Rogues and Rascals.

He then argued, That we look'd up­on the Church of Rome as a corrupt Church; and how can we be sure, that we have the true Bible, since we cannot be sure that a corrupt Church had not corrupted it.

I told him, that they confessed them­selves they had not corrupted it; and be­sides, they could not corrupt it, for the Cheat would have been found out, by the comparing of ancient and modern Copies.

He then asked again, what we coun­ted the Rule of Faith?

I told him, the Scripture.

He asked, whether with a true In­terpretation or without it?

I told him, the Scripture with true Interpretation?

He then replied, how we should know the true Interpretation.

I told him, things necessary to Salva­tion needed no great Interpretation, and the words are deliver'd so plainly, that [Page 59] any one that runs may Read it.

He then asked, whether every Man was a true Interpreter of Scri­pture?

I said, every Man had a Judgment of Discretion; but there was no Que­stion, there were several Persons that might mis-interpret it; but if a Man went this way to work, read the Scri­pture, pray for Illumination, and go to it with a pure Intention; he might under­stand things necessary, and he could not err damnably, and in things more difficult, consult by his Guides.

He said, this would establish every Man in his Religion, and a Mahometan ought to be directed by his Guide; and why must we follow the Guides of our Church, and not the Guides of the Ro­man Church?

I told him, that People bred, and born, and baptized in this Church; had greater reason to consult their own Guides, than others; because they had greater Obligations to them.

Still he urged, no Man could be ascer­tain'd of the true Interpretation of the Scripture without some Judge.

[Page 60] I desired him to name that Judge o­ver and over, but could not bring him to it.

I know not how the Discourse came in here about different Interpretations; and I said the Writers of their Church differ'd in their Interpretation.

He said none of their Writers dif­fer'd from one another in the Interpre­tation of places relating to Articles of Faith.

I asked him, what he thought of Ex­treme Unction?

He said it was an Article of Faith.

Very well, said I, then I'll prove that Cajetan interprets that place of St. James of another Unction, and saith, contrary to the Council of Trent, that Extreme Unction cannot be proved from that place.

He said, the Council of Trent did not denounce Anathema to him that should interpret that place of St. James, of ano­ther Unction.

I then fetcht him down out of my Study the Council of Trent, and shew'd him that, Sess. 14. it did denounce Anathema to them that should not believe.

[Page 61] So then he said, they laid not the strain upon that place; but St. Peter and St. Paul had spoken of it too.

I challeng'd him to shew me any place in St. Paul or Peter, that had spo­ken of this Unction.

He then turn'd it off, and said he did not mean it of any express mention, but only that the Apostles did not use to con­tradict themselves.

After this either the Jesuit, or Mr. Stephens, moved it that there might be another Meeting, and that we should write down all.

I told him I agreed to it; and accord­ingly we appointed Wednesday next the 4^th of January, at Four a Clock in the Afternoon, and so they departed, the Jesuit and Mr. Lamb; The Bookbinder and Mr. Chamberlain, and his Mother, and another young Woman. And the Bookbinder and Mr. Stephens, and my self, and Chamb. and his Mother staid a while; when I fell in discourse about Invocation of Saints, and fetcht him down the Office of the Virgin Mary; The Contempt of the Glories of the Virgin Ma­ry; and shew'd him, that they did not only pray to Saints to pray for them, [Page 62] but begg'd the same Blessings of them they did of God.

The Bookbinder said, the Contemplati­ons of the Glory of the Blessed Virgin was not allow'd of in their Church: He said if they did more than pray to Saints to pray for them, he did not righly un­derstand his Church.

A DISSWASIVE from Popery, being a Letter to a Lady to preserve her from Apostacy from the Commu­nion of the Church of England.

AND are you indeed got into the only Catholick Church? And are you sure the Men you have lately believed have not deceived you, as you fancy we have done? (for tho' you may be so charitable as to think, that we have not intentionally cozened you; yet since you cannot suppose us to be both in the Right, you must necessa­rily conclude, that we have at least igno­rantly abused and imposed upon you) and did you ever rightly consider what a truly Catholick Church does mean? Men of Sense and Reason always be­lieved, that a Church which holds the truly Catholick Faith, is a true and sound Member of the Catholick Church; [Page 66] and dares Malice it self say, that we do not hold the Apostles, the Nicene, and Athanasius's Creed? The Church of Rome her self confesses, that these Creeds contain the truly Catholick Faith: And most certainly, when the Nicene Coun­cil was celebrated, and in Athanasius's time, that Church was counted a sound Member of the Catholick Church, that held that Catholick Faith, which is ex­pressed in those Creeds; and do we not hold that Faith? Do we not stand up at it to express our Readiness to defend it? And what have we done, that we must not be counted a Catholick Church? Is it because we will not receive things which the Church of Rome hath since added to the Catholick Faith? Is it be­cause we will not admit of the Doctrines which that Church was first induced to believe by the Darkness and Ignorance of the Ages it lived in, and at last loath to part withal for fear they should be thought to have been so long in an Error? Is it because we will not yield to things which we apprehend to be directly a­gainst the Word of God, and destructive to that Catholick Faith the Christian World hath professed in all Ages? Is it [Page 67] because we will not deceive the People of the Cup in the Blessed Sacrament, which Christ intended as a mighty com­fort to them? Is it because we will not believe the Miracle of Transubstantiati­on against four of our Senses, and Reason, and Scripture to boot? Is it because we will not suffer the Worship of God, or that which is very like it, to be given to Crea­tures, because of the very appearance of the evil of Idolatry, which we are com­manded to shun, as much as Idolatry it self? Is it because we will not believe a Purgatory Fire, which cleanseth little, but Peoples Purses of their Money? Is it because we will not indulge the Pride and Arrogance of a Man at Rome, who having first wheedled the Christian Prin­ces out of their Means and Power, hath at last made that Power and Riches he­reditary to his Successors, under a pre­tence of a Legacy from Christ? Is it be­cause we will not believe, contrary to the Apostles Rule, that publick Prayers, which are intended for the benefit and understanding of the Multitude, must be said in a Tongue unknown to the People? These must certainly be the Reasons, why we cannot now pass with [Page 68] the Church of Rome for Members of the Catholick Church. That these things were not in the Antient Catholick Creeds, I hope you are convinced; for you have read them over, and found none of all these Additions in them: And now I beg of you, in the name, and by the mercy of that Jesus in whom you believe, to judge, which is most likely to be the truly Catholick Church, ours or theirs? Ours that keeps to the truly antient Catholick Faith, or theirs that hath added things contrary to Scripture, and Reason, and Antiquity? And dare you continue in a Church where your very Communion with it is an Appro­bation of their Actions, which are direct­ly contrary to the command of Christ? Can there be any thing more contrary to it than their denying the Cup to the Laity? And when you receive the Sa­crament but in one kind, contrary to Christ's Command, do not you sin and allow of the Sin of that Church you are in? Is not your Disobedience to Christ's Command a Sin, or can you imagine that you are more obliged to obey Men than Christ himself? You confess you dare not live in any one Sin; But how [Page 69] dare you live in this Sin? You talk of the benefit of Confession and Absolution, when that very Priest to whom you confess, and who absolves you, lives in that Sin you are guilty of, and neither absolves himself nor you from it; and you both continue in it, as if the Blind had a mind to lead the Blind? How dare you act thus against your Reason and Conscience? Are you not afraid when you are going to confess, that God will laugh at your Mock Confession, since you neither confess that Sin of living contrary to Christ's Command about the Cup, nor are willing to part with it? Tell me not here that you drink the Blood of Christ in eating his Flesh; if so, to what purpose doth the Priest con­secrate Wine for himself, if he drinks the Blood of Christ in eating his Flesh? But suppose the Bread were transubstan­tiated into the Flesh and Blood of Christ, you know that the not giving the Cup of Blessing to those that come to the Lord's Supper, is contrary to Christ's Institution, who distinctly consecrated the Cup, and gave that to his Disciples, who were Representatives of all Belie­vers, as well as the Bread, and peremp­torily [Page 70] commanded, Drink ye all of this, and, I hope, you do not call eating the consecrated Wafer drinking the Wafer. But let Us grant you your strange Do­ctrine, that you do participate of the Blood of Christ in eating the consecrated Wafer, who gave your Church Autho­rity to alter Christ's Institution? How can Men dispence with an express Law of God? Can they annull what God would have Established, and continue to the Worlds end? And can you con­sent to so great a Sacriledge? Doth not some horror seize on you, when you seriously think that you approve of the Priests sinning against so notorious a Precept, and which he that runs may read? And pray Madam, wherein have you bettered your self in going over to the Roman Church? Is this your profi­ciency in Religion to forsake a Church, where you felt the lively Oracles of Hea­ven coming warm upon your Soul, and to joyn your self to a Church, where you hear nothing but Latine Prayers, and where the Priest, if he be not a good man, may as well Curse you as Bless you, for any thing you understand of his Language or Devotion? Is this [Page 71] Your proficiency in Religion to leave a Church where you were taught to Wor­ship God in Spirit and in Truth, and now to cleave to one where they teach your Prayers to go upon Crutches of Cruci­fixes, Beads, and Images? Doth this look like that Noble Religion which Christ taught the World, and whose design was to advance our Rational Souls by Contemplation and Meditation? O, Ma­dam, you are too Young to know the Tricks of that Church you live in; they are more politick Heads than yours is, that had the contriving of it. Bold Men, that had Learnt not to Blush at a Lye, and then thought it their interest to Hector the World into a belief of it. We that can Read Books as well as they, and know the History of the Church as well as they, can see through all these devices, which they perceiving are an­gry with Us for discovering the Cheat. What was it Madam, that you wanted in our Church to carry you to Heaven? did you want that which the Apostles and the Primitive Christians never wanted? I mean did you want more Articles of Faith than they subscribed and believ­ed! If you wanted that, we Confess we [Page 72] could not supply you, for we dare say nothing, and believe nothing with Di­vine Faith, but what Moses and the Prophets, and Christ and his Apostles have taught us. If the Scripture con­tains all things necessary to Salvation, then we teach all that. If the Church of ROME knows more Articles than Christ or his Apostles knew of; we will admire her insolence, but cannot satisfie her unreasonable desire. Did you want strictness of Life in our Church? If all the Commands of the Gospel can make you Holy, We teach them all and press them upon the People, and I pre­sume you do not aim to be Holier than Christ and his Apostles would have you to be. Hath the Church of ROME another Gospel to teach you than that we did instruct you in? if they have, much good it may do them, We are not fond of the Apostle's Curse, Should an Angel from Heaven bring another Gospel to you let him be accursed. I know your common Plea that We Protestants can­not rightly interpret the Scripture, be­cause We pretend to no infallibility. And do you blame Us for not being so impudent as the Church of ROME? [Page 73] There is no Protestant but would be glad there were an infallible Interpreter of Scripture instituted by God and re­commended to Mankind.

But where shall we find him? Who is it that God hath imparted this Honour to? If you say the Fathers, you know not what you say, for the Fathers dif­fer many times as much in interpretation of the Scipture, and are as contrary to one another as any Men. If you say the Church that's a hard Word; if you mean Christ's Universal Church, disper­sed all the World over, you must tell us where it is that this Church hath left an infallible Comment upon the Bible, and how is it possible for a man that will be resolved in a point to go to all Chri­stian People in the World; if you say the Church of ROME, you must first shew Us her Commission for this infal­lible interpretation. Secondly, you must prove She hath infallibly interpreted the Scriptures, and that those interpretati­ons are infallible in all places. Thirdly, you must agree among your selves what part of your Church is infallible, whe­ther the Pope, or an Universal Council, or all Christian People, or whether all [Page 74] these together. To say, that this In­fallibility lies in the Church, though you know not where, is to say a Needle lies in a Bottle of Hay, and he hath good luck that finds it. Nay, I think, the Church of ROME hath been so mo­dest, that notwithstanding all her preten­ces to infallibility, She never hath dared to obtrude a Comment on the Bible as infallible, nor did I ever see any Inter­pretation of the Bible made either by Pope or Council which hath pretended to Infallibility. If that Church be in­fallible why do not their own Divines agree in Interpretation of Scripture? if there be an infallible Sense of the Scri­ptures in that Church, then the Mem­bers of that Church are mad not to keep to that infallible Sense, especially if they know where to fetch it, and they offer great injuries and affronts to their Church in differing so much about in­terpretation of Scripture, when their Church can give them an infallible Sense of it. For that Church having, as they pretend, the Holy Ghost to guide them in all things, I suppose that Spirit assists her in Interpretation of one place of Scripture as well as in another: if they [Page 75] say it doth infallibly assist them in some places and not in all, they destroy their own Principle, and how shall a man be sure, that just in those Points that are in dispute between Us and them, they are Infallible? Is the Spirit divided? Or is he not always the same? Or doth not he exert his power upon all occasions?

Madam, who so blind as those that will not see? Who sees not that the pre­tence of Infallibility is nothing but a juggle, a device to maintain a tripple Crown, and an Engine to carry on a temporal Authority? God indeed hath promised that his Church dispersed thro' the World, shall last to the World's end, and that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her, but that promise dif­fers very much from a promise of Infal­libility; and suppose it did inferr an In­fallibility, how comes the particular Church of ROME to ingross it to her self, that is at the best but a Member, and a very unsound one, of Christ's U­niversal Church? It is one thing to be secured against being destroyed, and another to be free from all possibility of Errour. There is no doubt but a sober rational man, that prays earnestly for [Page 76] illumination, and reads the Scripture much, and considers the Circumstances the Holy Writers were in when they writ, and the Occasions of their writing, and hath the advantage of Learning, of Languages, and History, may give a very true Interpretation of Scriptures, such an Interpretation as no man can rationally contradict, tho' he hath not recourse to a Visible infallible Guide, and tho' himself be not infallible. Things may be very certain, tho' they are not infallibly so, and he that can make things out so that a prudent man cannot but give consent to them, and hath no just cause to doubt of their truth, may justly challenge belief from other men. But I will not insist up­on this point because I never heard you speak much of it. I will come a little clo­ser to those reasons, that moved you to go over to the Roman Church, whereof the principal was this, that you were troubled in mind upon the account of your Sins, & could get no satisfaction in Our Church, tho' you sought it, like Esau, with tears; whereas you did no sooner confess to a Ro­man Priest, and receive Absolution, but you presently found unspeakable comfort.

And are you sure, Madam, that the [Page 77] peace and satisfaction, you found in that Church was not delusion? you tremble at that word; but lets consider the Na­ture of your peace. When you were in our Church, either you did truly repent of all your Sins, or you did not. If you did not, most certainly you could have no solid peace, but if you did truly repent, as you say you did, what could hinder you from applying the Promises made to pe­nitent Sinners, to your self, which are the true grounds of comfort and satisfaction? may be you wanted a Voice from heaven to confirm the Promise of the Gospel, but have you since heard such a Voice from heaven in the Church of Rome? I think not; if you truly repented in our Church, then certainly by the Word of God you were assured that your Sins were pardon­ed, and if they were pardoned, why should you not comfort your self with that pardon? That which makes you re­joice now, is because you believe your Sins are pardoned; but if when you were of our Church, you verily believed you truly repented, you could not but believe that your Sins were pardoned, and conse­quently you might have taken as much comfort, as you do now. But the Mi­nister [Page 78] of the Church of England, you say, gave me no absolution, which the Roman Priest did. Why, Madam, did any of our Ministers deny your Absolu­tion, when you could assure them that your Repentance was sincere? did you ever ask Absolution, and were you refu­sed? Nay, I appeal to your Conscience, did not those Ministers you conversed withal assure you over and over, that you need not doubt of the pardon of your Sins so long as you did detest and abhor them, and watch, and strive, and pray against them, and were sincerely resolved to commit them no more, and did avoid the very occasions of Evil? and what was this but Absolution, which however you might have had performed with greater Ceremony, if you had had a mind to it. It is no very hard matter to guess at the rise and progress of your peace and satisfaction in the Roman Church. All new things please, and provided they have but a good face, al­lure our fancy, and this being pleased, it's very natural to defend them; and having once defended them, our Love to them advances, and by degrees we think our Honour and Credit is too far [Page 79] engaged to part with them. We see how Children are quieted with new tri­fles (pardon the uncourtly comparison, I know not how to shun it) and the new object, they never saw before, surprizes and charms them, makes them fix their Eyes upon it and cry, if they cannot have it. In the nature of Children we see our own, and embracing new objects, which our sickly fancy is roving after, is but the Scene of Childrens longing for new play things, changed; the Novelty of the thing you were venturing upon, the new Church (new indeed, new to you, and new to Almighty God) which you were to joyn your self to, the Stool of Confession in the Church, and the Priests new habit, and mortified face (which perhaps he owes more to his Country, than to his Vertue) and affe­cted gravity, and assuring of you that their absolution had a wonderful Vertue and Efficacy, all these together surpriz­ed you, and raised your expectation, and struck some kind of reverence into you. Your mind being thus possessed with the Idea's of these new things you never tried before, and working upon your affections, and moving your will [Page 80] to confess to this man of Wonders, you naturally fell into a fancy, that so much Formality and Ceremony different from that you had been used to in our Church, had more charms in it, than our plain and honest way, and then laid the stress of your pardon upon the new Priests ab­solution in that formal manner, where­with your fancy being impregnated, it soon diffused a cheerful air in your coun­tenance, and raised some gladness in your heart, because you had now done something more than ordinary, as an An­tidote against your Sin. And from hence arose your pretended peace and satisfa­ction, or delusion rather, because you laid the stress of your pardon upon the absolution of that Roman Priest, and not upon the sincerity of your repentance. If a Priest could forgive Sin's, whether men Repent or no, Then indeed you might have laid the stress of your Par­don on that forgiveness of the Priest, but since by your own Confession, that ab­solution of the Priest signifies nothing except people truly repent, for you to build your comfort on that Absolution, when it should have been founded up­on your sincere Repentance, cannot but [Page 81] be a false fire, and a counterfeit comfort; if you say, you did not fetch your Peace from that Absolution, but from the sin­cerity of your Repentance, you catch your self; for if your true Repentance must be the foundation of it, then you might have taken the same comfort in our Church: If you still reply, you could not, you only mean you would not, for true Repentance is true Repentance in any Church; and if true Repentance causes true comfort, it would have cau­sed true comfort in our Church as well as in the Roman, and therefore there must be some cheat in this comfort.

The fancy you have since taken up, that the reason why you found comfort in the Church of Rome, upon your Con­fession and Absolution, and none in ours, must needs be, because the Priests of that Church are true Priests, and those of ours are not, is as solid as your Peace. If we have no true Priests in the Church of England, then most certainly the Church of Rome hath none. The Bishops, which in the beginning of our Reformation did ordain Bishops, Priests, and Deacons a­mong us, were ordained by Bishops of that Church; and if the Character of [Page 82] Orders, by their own confession, be inde­lible, then it was not all the Thunders and Lightnings of Excommunication at Rome could annul it. It's true, your ghostly Father very confidently tells you, (a Quality incident to that sort of Men) That our first Protestant Bishops never received Orders from Bishops of the Church of Rome; but one would ad­mire what Spirit doth possess these Men, that they dare contradict all the publick authentick Records we have of their being consecrated by Bishops of the Church of Rome; they might as well deny, that there were no such Kings of England as Henry VII. and Henry VIII. (for we have nothing but publick Re­cords to shew for it) as deny that the Bishops of the Reformation were never consecrated by Bishops of the Roman Perswasion. I am perswaded that if any Papist should come into trouble about the title of an Estate he hath, and did but know that the name of his Ance­stors, the manner of the Conveyance, and his just Title were in some publick Record or Register, he would soon make use of it, alledge it as a sufficient proof, and thank God for preserving a [Page 83] Record that is so much for his advan­tage. I know not what can be a better Testimony in matters of fact next to Re­velation, than publick Records and Re­gisters; and we dare venture our Repu­tation upon it, that in the Authentick Registers of the respective Arch-bishops of Canterbury, where fear of being coun­ted Knaves and Fools, for putting in things contrary to what was publickly known, may justly be supposed to have kept the publick Notaries from assert­ing things notoriously false. In these Registers I say it will be found, what Succession our first Protestant Bishops had; how Arch-bishop Parker, the first Arch-bishop of Canterbury under Queen Elizabeth (to go no higher) was conse­crated December 17. 1559. by four per­sons then actually Bishops, and who had formerly been Ordained by Bishops of the Church of Rome, (viz.) William Barlow in Henry the Eighth's days Bi­shop of St. Davids, under Edward the sixth Bishop of Bath and Wells, under Queen Mary driven into Exile, and re­turned under Queen Elizabeth, John Sto­ry formerly Bishop of Chichester, Miles Coverdale formerly Bishop of Exeter, and [Page 84] John Hodgkins Bishop Suffragan of Bed­ford. Not to mention that the Queen's Letters Patents (in case any of the other should be sick or forced to be absent) were directed to three Bishops more, that had formerly been Popish Bishops, and were turned Protestants, (viz.) An­thony Bishop of Landaff, John Bishop Suffragan of Thedford, and John Bale Bishop of Ossery. But all this hath been so clearly demonstrated out of the pub­lick Records, first by Mr. Mason, and since by Arch-bishop Bramhal, that he that writes of it can only transcribe out of them; and those that deny these Records must be Men of strange Foreheads, and of the greatest Disingenuity. From these Men that had their Priesthood from the Church of Rome, our Priesthood is line­ally derived; so that if our Priesthood be not valid, theirs cannot be; and if He­resie doth not make the Episcopal Office void, nor disable a Man from conferring Episcopal Order on other Men (as is e­vident from the second Council of Nice, with your Church an Oecumenical Council, which received Bishop Anato­lius, though consecrated by Dioscorus, a Heretical Bishop;) if, I say, Heresie [Page 85] doth not make the Episcopal Order void, then suppose we were Hereticks, our Priesthood, which is derived from Po­pish Bishops that turned Protestants, must be a true Priesthood still; and to this purpose I remember one of your Church said lately, Once a Priest, for ever a Priest.

Madam, if you desire to know the Truth, be honest and sincere; you should act like a Person that hath a mind to be satisfied, and search the publick Records, and till then believe not every Tale that's told you: The common plea of your Priests, that our Records are sophisticated, and that we have put in what we please, argues only Boldness and Ignorance, when they can shew nei­ther where, nor when, nor by whom they were corrupted. Those that talk so, seem neither to understand what a publick solemn thing the Consecration of a Bishop is in England, nor to reflect, how difficult it is to fill a publick Regi­ster with Falsities, as to matters of fact, when there are so many hundred Men that know what is done at such a time, and view the Records, and would most certainly speak of it, if they found a flaw [Page 86] in the Relation. But if we should deal thus with the Church of Rome, question all their Registers in the Vatican, and say, which we might do with far greater reason, that they are things packed and invented by Men, that have a mind to keep up a Faction, I know what Lan­guage we should meet withal. But will you boast, say you, of having derived your Orders from the Church of Rome, when you believe the Church of Rome to be an idolatrous Church? Madam, it is not the Office of a Bishop in your Church we find fault withal, but the Abuses of it. A Church that's guilty of very great corruption both in Doctrine and Manners, may have something that's good and allowable; and he that retains that, is not therefore guilty of her cor­ruption, nor espouses her Errors. Your Idolatry is one thing, and your Orders are another. The Jews did take many good things from the Heathens, and the Christians many commendable things from the Jews; but that neither made the Jews approve of the Heathenish Worship, nor the Christians allow of the Jewish Errors. We are not so disin­genious, as to make the breach between [Page 87] you and us wider than needs. So far as you go with Scripture and true Antiqui­ty, we hold with you; where you con­tradict both, we cannot with a safe Con­science bear you company. He that sees a Pearl lye among a great deal of Trash, if he take the Pearl, is not there­fore obliged to take the Rubbish too; and if we have derived our Orders from you, that infers no necessity that we must therefore consent to your Notori­ous Deprivations of the antient Simpli­city of the Gospel. The Christians heretofore, that approved of the Bap­tism of the Donatists, did not therefore presently acknowledge the Truth of their Opinions; and he that should take a good custom from the Turks, cannot be therefore said to approve of all things that are in the Alcoran.

Madam, There is nothing more easie than to cavil at the most prudent Action in the World, especially where People take a slight survey of things, and do not with Seriousness and Deliberation weigh the Circumstances of the Fact, and do not examine the inside as well as the outside; and I must confess, upon the best Examination of your Actions and [Page 88] Proceedings in this Revolt to the Church of Rome, you never took the right way to be satisfied; for instead of pondering the Arguments and Motives of our De­parture from the Church of Rome, and of the Reasons we alledge for our Church and Doctrine; you made it your chief Imployment to read their Books, and believed what they said to be Oracles, for no other Reason but be­cause they talked with greater Arro­gance and Confidence. If you say, that you could not judge of Arguments ha­ving never been bred a Scholar, I would but ask you how you durst change your Religion then? Did you change it with­out reason and without ground? and if you are not able to weigh the strength of Arguments, how can you be sure that you are in the true Church at this time? It is not talk, but Arguments that must demonstrate the Truth of a Religion; and if you have not sufficiently weighed the Arguments of both sides, it is a thou­sand to one you may still be in the wrong way; and you know not but you may be as much out now, as you were for­merly. Madam, so great a thing as the change of your Religion, upon which no [Page 89] less than Eternity depends, might justly have challenged some years study, be­fore you had resolved upon it. To do a thing of this nature upon so slight a Sur­vey, consider whether it doth not argue Rashness and Weakness, rather than Pi­ety and Devotion. To leave a Religion you have been bred and born in, a Reli­gion founded upon the Word of God, and which you had liberty to examine by the Scripture, upon reading a Popish Book or two, without diving to the bot­tom of the several Controversies, with­out reflecting on the Importance of the Points in question, without studying a considerable time which Religion comes nearest to Scripture, and which goes far­thest off; is such an Argument of Impa­tience, that you only seem to have yield­ed to a dangerous Temptation of the De­vil. If the Controversies between the Church of Rome and us, are so intricate, as you say, and above your capacity to dive into them, you have then run over to that Church in the dark, and have as little reason to be satisfied with your Proceedings, as you believe you have with our way of Worship. You plead, that you have been sitting up whole [Page 90] Nights, and weeping and praying, that God would discover to you which is the true way to Salvation, and from that time forward you found Inclinations to go over to that Church; and is this a sufficient Argument to justifie your For­wardness? When you had already be­gun to doubt, whether our Church were a true Church or no, because you found not that Satisfaction in it your sickly De­sires wanted; it was then an easie matter to give ear to confident People, that magisterially and peremptorily assured you, that you would find Satisfaction in their Church; and being fed with this hope, your Inclinations to that Church grew stronger every day, as our Mo­ther Eve, the hopes of being like God, suggested to her by the Serpent, did egg and spur her on to eat of the fatal Tree.

We do not forbid People to pray to God, to lead or direct them into the right way: (though sometimes it may be a perfect tempting of God, when People are in the right way, to desire God to discover to them, by a sign of their own choice, whether they are in it or no.) But them, if we pray to God to direct [Page 91] us, we must not neglect the means God hath appointed in order to our Satisfacti­on, but must compare Scripture with Scripture, and Books with Books, and Arguments with Arguments; and search which Religion agrees most with the Doctrines and Practices of Christ and his Apostles; and as the Noble Berrhe­ans did, examine all the Doctrines ob­truded to our Belief, by the Scripture; and doing thus, and continuing this search, and these Prayers together, no doubt but God in his own good time, will answer us and direct us. But to pray to God to direct us, and not to use the means, in the use of which he hath promised to direct us, we do in a manner mock him, or desire him to work a Mi­racle for us, or to vouchsafe us some ex­traordinary Revelation, when we have Moses and the Prophets, and may hear them. And I am confident, had you joyned this way with your Prayer, exa­mined the Doctrines of the Church of Rome, and compared them with the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, seen whether there be any thing like it in the Bible, and searched whether Christ and his Apostles ever taught such Doctrines, [Page 92] and done all this, not slightly, but se­riously and solidly, it's impossible you could ever have turned Papist; for if our Gospel be true, that Religion can never be true, for there is nothing in the World can run more counter to the Go­spel, than the Doctrines of that Church, wherein we differ from them, and they had need put the Bible among prohibi­ted Books; for should the People have liberty freely to peruse it, the Church of Rome would grow very thin and despicable.

I am sensible your Priests find fault with our Translation of the Bible, and cry out, that there are great defects in it; but when they talk so, they had need talk to Women, not to Men of Learn­ing, and that undestand Greek and He­brew, the Languages in which the Word was originally written. The Ho­nesty of our Translators appears suffici­ently from hence, because if any Sen­tence in the Bible be capable of a double Sense, they express the one in the Text, and the other in the Margin; and where they do but in the least vary from the Original, they either discover it by the Italick Character, or give you notice of [Page 93] it in the Margin, than which there can be nothing more honest. And let any Papist of you all shew us, wherein any thing in our Bibles is ill translated out of Malice or Design, or expressed in words, which the Original will not bear.

If we examine Translations by the Original, then sure I am, there is few Translations go further from it, than the Vulgar Latin, or the Rhemist Testa­ment, as were an easie matter to prove, if I intended more than a Letter.

You are much taken with their Mor­tifications and Penances, which you say we have not in our Church: But it's a sign, Madam, you did not rightly un­derstand our Religion: We are so far from condemning Mortification and Se­verity of Life, that we do commend it, provided it be in order to subdue the body of Sin, and to raise our selves to a greater pitch of Vertue; provided these Severities be separated from all opinion of Merit, and from an opinion of their being satisfactory, and expiatory, and used only as helps, to work in us a per­fect Detestation of Sin. And I will as­sure you there are more in the Church of England, that use Severities in this [Page 94] humble holy way, than you are aware of.

We indeed do not ordinarily inflict them on all persons, because we know not there Constitution, nor what their nature will bear, nor have we any com­mand for it in the Word of God; but these things we leave to every Man's Discretion, urging, that where Sins re­quire stronger Remedies, there Men ought to make use of them; and if their Corruptions will not be gone by Rea­sonings and Arguments, that there they must inflict Mulcts and Penalties on themselves to drive the Unclean Spirit out. Though I must say still, that Reli­gious Severities and Austerities are not certain signs of a true Religion; for Heathens do use them as much as Chri­stians, nay more than Christians, wit­ness the Brahmanes in the Indies, and the Religious Pagans dispersed through all the Eastern parts; and if you conclude, that therefore the Church of Rome must be in the right, because they inflict great Pennances and Severities, and make daily use of them, I am afraid you only for­bear turning Turk or Heathen, because you never saw their far greater Severi­ties [Page 95] in Religion, than the Church of Rome can boast of: But still the Pro­testant Church hath not the real Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Sacra­ment, which the Church of Rome hath: And are you sure the Church of Rome hath it? I am perswaded you did never taste it, nor see it, nor feel it, nor smell it, and how do you know it? What? because the Priests of that Church do tell you so? No, say you, it is because Christ saith in express terms, this is my Body. And here, I confess, I stand ama­zed, that Men, with Learning and Rea­son about them, can sink into an opinion so contradictory, that, if all the conse­quences of it be considered, there is no­thing in nature can be more absurd, or irrational; and the Church of Rome had need oblige Men to deny both their Rea­son and Senses, to believe a Transubstan­tiation. Here indeed a Faith is necessa­ry strong enough to remove Mountains; and though never any Miracles were wrought, but were wrought on pur­pose to convince our Senses, yet here we must believe one which neither Sense nor Reason can discover. When Christ gave the Sacrament to his Disciples, [Page 96] saith the Apostle, 1 Corinth. 11. 24. He brake the Bread, and said, Take eat, this is my Body, which is broken for you. It is a wonderful thing, that the word is, in the first Sentence, this is my Body, should have a literal Sense, and in the very next Sentence, pronounced with the same breath, cannot admit of a lite­ral Sense; for the word is, in the second Sentence must necessarily stand for shall be, because Christ's Body, when he gave the Bread, was not yet broken: If it will not admit of a literal Sense in the very next Sentence, because of the Absurdity that would follow, that Christ was crucified, before he was crucified; why should we understand it in the first Sentence literally, when the Absurdity is far greater? Nay, that the word is should not be capable of being under­stood literally in the second essential part of the Sacrament, This Cup is the New Testament; that here I say it should im­port, and can import nothing else, but signifies, or is a sign of the New Testament; and yet must not be understood so in the first part of the Sacrament, is a thing we cannot comprehend: And when the A­postle, speaking of Lord's Supper or [Page 97] Eucharist, 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Cup of Blessing which we bless, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ? and the Bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? Let the rigidest Papist, that hath not quite ba­nished his Reason, tell me, how he will make Sense of the word is here, except he understand it figuratively; most cer­tainly it cannot be understood literally; for the Cup is not that Communion, but is a sign of it: One would admire, how Men can be so obstinate in a thing as clear as the Sun; and you might as well conclude, that Christ is a Door made of Boards and Nails, because the Scripture saith, he is a Door; and that he is a real Vine with green Leaves and Grapes about him, because the Scripture saith he is a Vine. But suppose the word is in these words, This is my Body, must be understood literally, how doth this make for Transubstantiation? Are the words is, and is transubstantiated, all one? A thing may be said to be a thousand ways, and yet without Transubstantia­tion; so that, if by the word is you under­stand Transubstantiation, you your selves must go from the literal sense, and as­sume [Page 98] a sense, which is not expressed in that saying. All the Jews are so well versed in the sense of Sacramental Ex­pressions, that by the word is they un­derstand nothing, but signifies or repre­sents; and therefore it's a horrid shame, that Christians, meerly for fear of being laughed at, for departing from an absurd opinion, and losing the credit of a pre­tended Infallibility, should make them­selves ignorant in that, which the mean­est Jew, even before the Gospel, under­stood without a Teacher; for we may confidently believe, that no Jew, be­fore Christ's time, was so sottish to think, when it's said, the flesh is the Pass­over, Exod. 12. 11. that the Flesh or Blood was really the Passover, but only a sign and representation of it, or a to­ken to them, as Moses calls it, ver. 13. I will not here put you in mind of the strange Absurdities that must follow from this Doctrine of Transubstantia­tion, viz. that Christ, when he did eat and drink in this Sacrament, must have eaten his own Flesh, and that the Apo­stles must have eaten his Body, while he was at the Table with them, and before it was crucified, &c. I could tell you, [Page 99] that this Doctrine is against the great Article of our Faith, that Christ is as­cended into Heaven, and there sitteth at the Right hand of God until the day of Judgment.

That it is against the Nature of a real Body to be in a thousand places at once. And that from hence it must follow, that the Body and Blood of Christ is capa­ble of being devoured by Vermin, ca­pable of being poisoned, and instead of giving life may be so order'd, that it shall kill and murther; witness Victor the third, Pope of Rome, and Henry the VIIth. Emperour, who were poisoned in the Sacrament, not to mention a thou­sand more of such Monstrous consc­quences: But since, Madam, you do in­sist so much upon that place of Scri­pture, John 6. 53. Except you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you. I'le but briefly shew you, how ill a Logician you are, to conclude that this is spoke of the Sacrament, or to con­clude that these words infer a Corporal manducation of Christ's real Body and Blood: if they be meant of the Eucha­rist, it will necessarily follow, that Christ oblig'd the Jews, and his hearers to come [Page 100] to the Sacrament at the time he spake these words, for he speaks of their pre­sent eating and drinking, (Except ye eat, &c.) But this he could not possibly do, for the Sacrament of his Body and Blood was not instituted till at least a whole twelve months after, nor did any of his disciples, at that time, dream of any such thing, as his dying and being cru­cified, nor doth Christ speak the least word of it in the whole Chapter, which he must necessarily have done, if he had intended the Sacrament by it, which is all together founded in his Crucifixion. For this Sermon of Christ, concerning eating and drinking his flesh and blood, was delivered just about the Feast of the Passover, ver. 4. After which feast, as it is said, John 7. 1. 2. the Jews cele­brated the feast of Tabernacles, and af­ter this they kept another feast of the Passover, the last, which Christ was at, which was no less than a twelve month after, John 11. 55. John 12. 21. So that the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood, not being instituted before the last Passover, as all the Evangelists a­gree, it was not possible, that either the believing Jews, or the Apostles could [Page 101] understand it of the Sacrament (and I suppose Christ intended to be under­stood) because there was no such thing as yet instituted. Besides, it is impos­sible, that it can be understood of the Sacramental eating and drinking of the Body and Blood of Christ, for without this eating and drinking there is no Sal­vation to be had, as it is said, Joh. 6. 53, 54. and if it were to be understood of the Eucharist, we must exclude all Christians from Salvation, that are not in a capacity, nor in a possibility of re­ceiving it, which, I am sure, your own Church will not do.

And that these words of Christ can­not possibly be understood of a Corpo­ral eating Christ's flesh, and drinking, his Blood, but must be understood of a Spiritual eating and drinking, that is, believing in him, and obeying him, and hoping for pardon through his Death, which is the spiritual Food of the Soul, is evident from the 54^th. and 56^th. Verse, where every one that eats of his Flesh, and drinks of his Blood, is said to have actually eternal life in him, and Christ dwelling in him, and he dwelling in Christ. That is, Christ loves him with [Page 102] a love of complacency, he is a Child of God, and beloved of him, and an Heir of Heaven; but since wicked men come to the Sacrament, not only in our Church, but even in the Church of Rome, it would follow, if a corporal eating were understood, that wicked men, eating Christ's Body, and drink­ing his Blood, have Eternal life in them, and that Christ dwells in them, and that they are true Children of God, and Heirs of Heaven, contrary to the unanimous Consent of the Holy Prophets and Apo­stles, who call wicked men Children of the Devil, and blinded by the Devil, the God of the World, and Heirs of Damnation. And indeed it is strange, that people should contend for this cor­poral and sensual eating of Christ's Flesh, and drinking his Blood, when Christ himself saith, v. 63. That the flesh pro­fiteth nothing, and that this eating and drinking must be understood spiritually, i. e. of Spiritual eating and drinking, which is believing, as it is said, v. 64.

You see, Madam, what it is not to make use of your own reason, but to en­slave it to the Faith of a Church, which loves to act in the Dark, and would [Page 103] have her Children Colliers, and believe what the Church believes, and know little more than the great Mystery of an Ave Maria, or a Rosary.

Time was, when you were pleased to tell our Ministers, that though you were gone over to the Church of Rome, yet you had Liberty not to pray to Saints, nor to fall down before Images, that was not thought necessary by the for Church of Rome, which only recom­mends praying to Saints, and Venera­tion of Relicks and Images, as a thing useful, and which men have received much benefit by. And indeed I remem­ber, I was told, you thought, that pray­ing to Saints was a kind of Idolatry, and therefore were glad they would ex­cuse you from that Worship; but since, I hear, that you are grown as devout a Worshipper of Saints, and peculiarly of the Virgin Mary, and do prostrate your self before them, as much as the most tractable Papist in the World. I con­fess, I did smell a Rat at first, when your Priests assured you, that Invocation of Saints was not a thing commanded but recommended as useful, and was then confident that before a year came [Page 104] to an end, for all these soft Expressions and Dispensations with your Omission of this Worship, they would perswade you to that Worship, which then you thought unlawful: My Prophecy is come to pass, and the Pill, which seem­ed very bitter at first, is swallowed, and become sweeter than Honey, and look'd upon as an excellent Medicine. And this, I must needs say, is more than you could have in our Church. But this is our Comfort, that the more ingenuous Men of the Church of Rome confess, that this praying to Saints or Angels was not heard of, or used in the Chri­stian Church, for the first Three hundred years after Christ. And if the Christian Church, for the first Three hundred years, did not think it useful at all, it is a strange Degeneration from their Prin­ciples, to press it now as useful: Cer­tainly, if God had thought this Invo­cation so useful, as your Church pre­tends it is, He would not have so pe­remptorily commanded, Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorifie me. Psal. 50. 15. and it's probable the Apostles, in prescrib­ing so many useful things of far less con­cern, [Page 105] would not have left us in the dark as to the mighty usefulness of this Invo­cation; especially, when they had oc­casion to mention the Spirits of men made perfect, and did so often converse with Angels. The Angel, Revel. 22. 8, 9. thought it a very useless thing, and would not admit of so much as a Reli­gious prostration of the Evangelist be­fore him, because it look'd like Sacri­ledge, and robbing God of his due.

But since your Church in this Ado­ration takes Pattern so much by the Courts of Princes, give me leave to suggest to you, how you think, a So­veraign Prince would take it, if a Sub­ject should give any of his Servants the the Title of Majesty, or any other Ti­tle, which properly belongs to him. There are few Titles, that God hath, and inspired Men have given to him, but you give them to the Blessed Vir­gin, and though, when you are charg'd with it, you fall to Distinctions, and turn, and wind your selves to get out, yet that shews only a bad cause, because it requires so much artifice and cunning to defend it: But, alas! it must be Chil­dren, that are perswaded and coaxed to [Page 106] believe, that the Church of Rome only counts it useful not necessary, when it is well known, that the generality of that Communion pray to Saints more than to God (which in the Scri­pture phrase is honouring the Creature more than the Creator) and they never leave that Person, that goes over to them, till they have brought him to that Worship of Saints and Angels.

Its pretty to hear these Men talk, that it is only recommended as useful, when the Bishops and Preachers of that Church are injoyned, and take their Oath upon't, to commend this Invoca­tion to the People, as profitable; and the People are obliged to hearken to their Priests in all things; so that though a Man at first may think this Invocation not necessary, upon the account of its being only useful, yet from that other Obligation he hath to obey the Priest in all spiritual things, it becomes necessa­ry: But from this scruple we are deli­vered, Madam, by the Confession of Faith, which the Roman Catechism doth prescribe, for there it is, that it is not only useful, but that we ought to pray unto Saints, and indeed should any [Page 107] Man live in that Communion, and omit it, he would soon be looked upon as prophane, and but a half Convert to their Church; they would soon let him know their Displeasure, and either fright or flatter him into Conformity. And is this the Worship, Madam, which Christ and his Apostles have injoyned the World? Are not you afraid of do­ing things, that do so nearly border up­on robbing God of his honour and glo­ry? Idolatry is a frightful word, and you do not love to hear it, and there­fore I will trouble you with it as little as I can. But when God hath com­manded you to come to him directly, without mentioning the Intercession of Saints and Angels, how dares your Church of her own head, bring in a Worship so dangerous? who should prescribe the way how God is to be worshipped, but God himself? And if God requires you to address your self to him without any other Mediator, but Christ Jesus, Have not you just rea­son to be afraid, that God will reject your Prayers, which are addressed to Saints, as Mediators, contrary to his or­der and injunction? What Kings suffer [Page 108] here on Earth, in letting their Subjects address themselves by their Servants to them, can be no example here, for God, as he intends not to regulate his Court by the Court of Princes, so we know it is against his Order, to go to his Servants, when we are commanded to come directly to him, and it is such a voluntary humility as deprives us of our Reward, as the Apostles expresly tells us, Coloss. 2. 18. God knew well enough if men addressed themselves to his Servants, to have access to him, some­thing of the Worship due to him would stick by the way, and rest upon his Ser­vants to his Dishonour and Disparage­ment, and therefore he mentioned no­thing of this mediate Address. Its true, we desire our Neighbours here on Earth to pray for us, but for that we have a Command; for the Invocation of Saints departed we have none, and in vain do they worship me (saith God) teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men, Mat. 15. 9. But besides, when you desire your living Neighbours to pray for you, I hope you do not fall down upon your knees to them, nor use the same Zeal and Devotion to [Page 109] them, as you do to God, and for whole hours together, as you do to Saints de­parted. But why will you blind your self in a thing which your own Practice contradicts you in, you know you do not only pray to Saints departed to pray for you, but you do many times, with­out making any mention of their Prayers for you, beg of them, with the same re­verence, and prostrations you use to God, to deliver you from all evil, and con­sequently you beg the same Blessings of them you beg of God. And it is but a weak excuse to say, that you intend by those Prayers nothing else, but that by their Intercession they may get those Blessings for you, for you go contrary to the nature of things, and whereas words ordinarily are Interpreters of the mind, you make your minds Interpre­ters of your Words and Actions, which is a strange evasion, and if such a thing be intended, why do you lay a snare be­fore the Common sort of People? who, being ordered to pray to Saints for such and such Blessings, know nothing to the contrary, but that they are able to dispence those Blessings to them, and thus com­mit Idolatry by your willful connivance, [Page 110] whose Blood will certainly be required at your Church-mens hands one day. Examine but your Prayers to the Virgin Mary in your own Manuels, when you have prayed to her, and begged of her all that you can pray of God for, you add a word or two of her Intercession, which in good truth is nothing but a blind, that you may not be said to commit down right Idolatry. You know those Prayers to the Virgin Mary, which in the Latine, and I think in the English Manual too, are ordered to be said to the Virgin, Morning and Evening. The [...]

O my Lady, Holy Mary, I commend­my self my Soul and Body to thy blessed Care and singular Custody, and to the bosome of thy mercy this day, and every day, and in the hour of my going out of the World. All my hope, and all my com­fort, all my afflictions and miseries, my life, my end I commit unto thee (speak seri­ously what can you say more to God) that by thy most Holy Intercession, and by thy merits, all my Words and Actions may be directed and disposed according to thine, and thy Sons Will, Amen.

[Page 111] Where it's worth noting, that first you do put as much trust in the Virgin as you do in God; and then afterwards, to make these harsh Expressions softer, you desire her to interceed for you, that your Works may be directed according to Christ's Will, nay and her own, as if she were a Lawgiver too? Then follows, Maria Mater Gratiae, &c. O Mary, Mo­ther of Grace, Mother of Mercy, protect us from the Enemy, and receive us in the hour of Death; which St. Stephen thought was fitter to be said to Christ when he cried, Lord Jesu receive my Spirit. Then follows the Evening Prayer to the Virgin Mary; O Mary, Mother of God, and gracious Virgin, the true Comforter of all distressed Creatures that call upon thee (this Epi­thete by the way the Scripture gives to the Holy Ghost) by that great Joy where­by thou wast comforted, when thou didst know that Jesus Christ was risen the third day from the Dead impassible, be thou the Comforter of my Soul; and by the same, who is thine and God's only Son, in the last day, when with Body and Soul I shall rise again, and give an account of all my Acti­ons, do thou vouchsafe to help me, that I may escape the Sentence of perpetual Dam­nation [Page 112] by thee Pious Mother and Virgin, and may come happily with all the Elect of God to Eternal Joys, Amen. Then fol­lows, Under thy Protection we flee, Holy Mother of God, despise not our Prayer in our Necessities, but deliver us from all dan­gers always, O glorious and blessed Virgin. Not to mention any more Prayers of this nature, whereof there is a vast num­ber.

If God be a God jealous of his Glory, how can he like and approve of such do­ings? It's true, the Honour done to his Servants is done to him; but then it must be such Honour, as they are capa­ble to receive; so to honour them, as to give them the Epithetes and Titles which the Scripture gives to none but God; so to honour them, as to use in your Prayers to them the same outward Prostrations, that you use to God, when you pray to him; so to honour them, as to spend more time in your Addresses to them than you do in Supplications to God, as is evident from your Rosary; so to honour them, as to say more Pray­ers to them than to Christ; so to ho­nour them, as to joyn their Merits with Christ's Merits: This is an Honour [Page 113] which, I believe, will oblige God to say one day, Who hath required these things at your hands? And how unlike the Worship of the true God is that Ve­neration you express to the Images and Pictures of Saints, and to the Relicts? How unlike that plain and simple Wor­ship which the Gospel enjoyns? One would think it should a little startle you to see, that your Church is afraid to let the Second Commandment be known to the People; you know they leave it out in their Primers and Catechisms; or if they mention it, they do so mince it, that one sees plainly they are afraid the People should see the contrariety of their Worship to the express Word of God. In the beginning of the Refor­mation, the very sight of this Com­mandment made People run away from the Church of Rome as much as any thing: Indeed to consider the general terms God uses there, Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image, &c. Thou shalt not only not Worship them, but not so much as fall down before them; would make a Person, that is not taken more with the Golden Legends than with Scripture, afraid of Prostrations be­fore [Page 114] Images, upon the account of Devo­tion: It is not all your plea, that you do not terminate your Worship on the I­mage, but on the Person represented by the Image, that will excuse you at the great tribunal; for not to mention, that in the same manner the Heathen used to defend their grossest Idolatry, and that you are forced to borrow their very Arguments; your own Authors do con­fess, that the common People are apt to pay Adoration, and do pay Adoration to the Images themselves, and why will you lay such a Stumbling-block before the People?

Much might be said of the Adoration you pay to the consecrated Host: You confess, that the Worship you give to it, is the same Worship you give to God: What if that Wafer should not be turned into the Body and Blood of Christ? What if it should remain as very a Wa­fer, as it was before Consecration? What if it should not be God, as you have all the Demonstration that Sense or Rea­son can give you, that it is not changed into another Substance? What mon­strous Idolatry would this be? Ay, but we believe it to be God: Why, Madam, [Page 115] doth your Belief that such a thing is God, or Christ, excuse you from Idola­try? Should you believe a Stone to be God, and adore it, might not you just­ly be charged with Idolatry? You look upon the Heathens as Idolaters, because they adore the Sun: Ay, but they be­lieve that Sun to be God; and how then, according to your plea, can they be Ido­laters? If there be such a Transubstanti­ation in the Sacrament, as you fancy, and an Adoration of the Hoste so very necessary, what's the reason the Apostles of our Lord, that saw Christ before their eyes, (only could not believe that there were two Christs, one sitting at the Ta­ble, the other reached out to them:) What's the reason, I say, that they sate still, and paid no Adoration to the Bread, which according to you was transub­stantiated into Christ? If they did not adore it, what a Presumption is it in you to give the highest Worship to the con­secrated Bread upon a pretence that that Bread is God, under the accidents of Bread? But of this I have said enough before, and could you but find time to read what our Authors have written upon this Subject, it could be nothing [Page 116] but hardness of Heart, and Resolution to be blind, could keep you in a Church, that fills your Head with Doctrines con­trary to the nature of a Sacrament, con­trary to all that Moses, and the Prophets, nay, and all sound Philosophers have said.

I will not say any thing here of your strange unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass, a thing unheard of in the purer Ages of Christianity, and which the Scripture is so great a stranger to, that one would wonder how Mankind came to light up­on the notion. Nor of your Doctrine of Merits, because I find your Priests have two strings to their bow, and tell the People one thing, and their Adver­saries, when they dispute with them, another; affirm and deny it as they see occasion, and necessity requires. Only one thing I must needs take notice of be­fore I take my leave, and that is the Gi­gantick Argument, that some of your Gentlemen boast of, and which strikes all Protestants dead at the first hearing of it. If there be any thing true, this must be true, that there is a God; if there be a God, there must be a true Re­ligion; if there be a true Religion, there [Page 117] must be a true revealed Religion; if there be a true revealed Religion, the Christian Religion must be that true re­vealed Religion; and if the Christian Religion be true, then the Religion of the Church of Rome must be true; for the Argument that proves the Christian Religion to be true, proves the Religion of the Church of Rome to be true, which is this, Either the Christian Religion was propagated without Miracles, or by Miracles; if by Miracles, then it must be Divine; if without Miracles, then it is the greatest Miracle, that a Religion, so contrary to Flesh and Blood, should pre­vail with sensual Men. The same, say they, is true of the Religion of the Church of Rome. For if it be propaga­ted by Miracles, it must be Divine; if without Miracles, it must be so much more, because it prescribes things con­trary to Flesh and Blood, as Penances, Austerities, &c. and thousands of Peo­ple do embrace it. It will not make my self merry here in a thing so serious, else I could have told you, that I have heard of an Argument, when I was at School, somewhat like this; He that drinks well, sleeps well; he that sleeps well, commits no [Page 118] Sin; he that commits no Sin, will be saved: therefore he that drinks well will be sa­ved. But I forbear; And as to the a­foresaid Argument, whereby one of your Priests, that hath printed it, thinks to end all Controversies, I will say no more but this. First, that as there is no Chri­stian but must readily confess, that the Miracles Christ and his Apostles wrought, were a Confirmation of the Divinity of their Doctrine; so there is no Man of any brains can admit of the other part of the dilemma as universally true, that a Religion that goes against Flesh and Blood, if propagated without Miracles, must therefore be necessarily Divine. Secondly, that so far as the Religion of the Church of Rome agrees with the truly Christian Religion, so far it is undoubtedly true; and it will natu­rally follow, that if the Christian Reli­gion be true, the Religion of the Church of Rome, so far as it agrees with the Christian Religion, must needs be true. And the same may be said of the Pro­testant Religion; but that the Roman Religion must therefore be true, where it goes away, and differs from the truly Christian Religion, revealed to us in the [Page 119] Gospel, is a consequence which none but Children can approve of. Thirdly, with this Argument a Man might prove the Divinity of almost any Religion in the World. He that is no stranger to Histo­ry, must needs know what Severities, what Austerities of Life the Brachmans, or the Heathen Friers in the Indies, do both prescribe and practice, and what Prose­lites they make, and how full the King­dom of the great Mogul is of them; how some wallow in Ashes day and night, how others go charged with heavy Iron Chaines all their days; how others stand upright upon their Leggs for whole Weeks together, &c. How in Japan, and other places of the Indies, the Priests perswade the People to fast themselves to death, to go long Pilgrimages, to give all they have to the Priests, to throw themselves down from steep Rocks, and break their Necks, and all to arrive the sooner to the Happiness of another World, &c. I think there cannot be things more contrary to Flesh and Blood, than these, and yet we see these Doctrines are propa­gated daily without any force of Arms, only by Example and Perswasion, to be sure without any Miracle; but, I hope, [Page 120] that doth not prove their Religion to be Divine. It's a dictate of the light of Na­ture, that the way to Heaven is straight, and therefore People that are religiously inclined, are easily won over to those Men, whom they see exercise such Severi­ties upon themselves.

To conclude, Madam, when all is done, what the true Church is, must be tried by the Writings of the Evangelists and Apo­stles. We see, that even in the Apostles days, Corruptions crept into the Church, witness the Churches of Corinth, Galatia, and Colosse, &c. and the Simplicity of the Gospel began even then to be perverted, and mingled with idle and foolish Opini­ons and Practices; and therefore we must needs think, that after the Apostles de­cease, the Church of Christ was subject to the same fare; so that if there be any Standard or Touchstone left, whereby the Truth and Sincerity of a Church can be tried, (and we must needs think so well of God's Providence that he would not leave his Church without some Rule to rectifie their Errors by, in case she should be infected with any) it must be the Primitive Institution of the Christian Religion; and that Church, as I said be­fore, [Page 121] which teaches things that approach nearest to that Primitive Institution, must be the true Church.

And, Madam, do but once more for your Souls fake, and for your Salvations sake, compare the Doctrines and Practi­ces of the Church of Rome, with the Do­ctrines and Practices of the Gospel, the Fountain of Christianity, and try whe­ther you can find there the Doctrines of Communion under one kind, of publick Prayers in a Tongue unknown to the People, of Purgatory, of the Mass, of Transubstan­tiation, of the Church of Rome's Suprema­cy and Infallibility, of Worshipping and A­doring the Virgin Mary, and Praying to Saints, of Veneration of Relicks and Ima­ges, of Adoration of the Hoste, &c. Do not force any places of Scripture, and try whether you can make sense of any of these Doctrines by Scripture: View the stream of the Gospel, and search whether there be any thing like these Doctrines in it: Why will you make your Reason a Slave to your Priests magisterial Senten­ces? How can you answer it to God, that you did not improve your Reason more? What have you your Reason for, but to judge what is agreeable to the [Page 122] Word of God, and what is not? Is not this acting like a Creature void of Rea­son, to be guided altogether by what a few blind Guides say to you, without enquiring at the Law and Testimony, whe­ther things are so as they say or no? Wonderful Stupidity! I stand amazed at it. It is not all the seeming Holiness of those Priests you converse withal, that make the Church you are in, a true Church. There is no Sect in the World, but when they are under a Cloud, Neces­sity, and the Discouragement they are under, and their desire to make Prose­lites, makes them outwardly Religious. There may be, and no doubt are zea­lous and outwardly pious Men in all Re­ligions in the World; but that doth not make every Religion true and divine. An outward shew of Piety is the only way of propagating any Religion. The Devil himself could not propagate Hea­thenism and Idolatry, but by the pre­tended Zeal, and Piety, and Abstinence, and Mortification of Apollonius Tyaneus; who yet by the confession of the whole Christian World, was no better than a Wizard and Conjurer. I make no appli­cation to any particular Priest in the [Page 123] Church of Rome: I do not deny but Men may be in great Errors, and be very zealous for their Errors, and seem­ingly very pious in their Zeal; and when their Errors are not very willful, and de­stroy not the true Worship of God, for ought I know, they may find Mercy in the day of our Lord. I grant there is a great shew of outward Piety in the Church of Rome, very dazling and very moving; but the great danger lies here, that the Worship they give to God with one hand, they strike and pull down with the other: I know too well the practice of their Churches; and a Heathen, that should come into their Temples beyond Sea, would verily believe that they wor­ship a Multiplicity of Gods as well as he, whatever their Pretensions may be to the contrary: It is not what People say, so much as what they do, that God takes notice of; and though you should Ten thousand times protest, that you worship and adore God alone, yet while God sees you adore the Virgin Mary, with as great Zeal and Reverence as you do him, pray to her oftner than you do to him, make as many bows to her, and other Saints, as you do to him, and other things of that [Page 124] nature, how can he believe you? Reli­gion is a thing that will not bear Jests and Hypocrisie; God will not be put off with Contradictions between Speeches and Practices.

Madam, I do from my Heart pitty you, and as it might be the weakness of your Judgment, that might lead you in­to this Erroneous Church, so I beseech you, for Christ's sake, to return to the Church you have rashly left, where you cannot run a hazard if you will but fol­low the plain Doctrines of the Gospel, besides which we preach nothing, and enjoin nothing as necessary to Salvation. Should these Intreaties and Beseechings be alledged against you in the last day, as things which you have, contrary to Reason, refused and slighted, how dread­ful would your Condition be? I have discharged my Duty, and given you warning; I would not have your Guilt lie at my Door, and therefore have let you know my real Thoughts and Senti­ments concerning your Condition, and the Church you are in. The Great God of Heaven open your Eyes, that you may see and fear.

Time was when you would have be­lieved [Page 125] us as much as you do now the Priests of the Church of Rome. It's strange, that now they should speak no­thing but Truths, and we nothing but Falshood. Do you think we do not un­derstand the Scriptures, and Fathers, and Antiquity, as well as they? And can we all be so besotted with Interest and Pas­on that none of us should yield to the dictates of their Church, if we could pre­vail with our Sense and Reason to be­lieve, that the things wherein they differ from us were agreeable to the Gospel? Sure we have a great many Men among us that are great Lovers of Peace, and would be glad that the whole Christian World were agreed; and would these Men stand out against that Union, if it could be done with a safe Conscience? Certainly we have Men as learned among us, as ever the Sun did shine upon; nay the Church of Rome hath at this day few Men to equal ours for Learning and Knowledge. And would all our Learned Men be so stubborn and obstinate, as not to agree with the Church of Rome, if they did not see plainly, that there is Death in that Pot; and that the Errors in that Church cannot be subscribed to [Page 126] without hazarding the Welfare of their Souls? I will but use your own Argu­ment, when you went over to the Church of Rome, and were perswaded by the Earnestness of her Priests to yield to their Reasonings, what pleasure can we take in promoting your Damnation? What can be our Interest in deceiving you? You used that Argument on their side, why will you not use it on our side; Judge you, whither we, that have the Gospel on our side for what we teach are not in a safer way, than that Church which for all the new Doctrines they have added to the Old Creeds, are for­ced to run to the broken Cisterns of Tra­dition; and I know not what Fathers whose Writings they know not whe­ther they be genuine or no? As you are now, you live in wilful opposition to the Doctrine and Precepts of the Gospel and O remember what St. Paul doth say 2 Thess. 1. 7, 8. That the Lord Jesus wi­ere long come down from Heaven with a [...] his Holy Angels to take Vengeance on thos [...] who have disobeyed the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Once more therefore charge you before Almighty God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, to repent of your [Page 127] Errors, and to return to the bosom of that Church, in which you received your Life and Being, and the Principles of Religion and Christianity. But if all this seem to you no more but Bugbears, I have delivered my own Soul, and should be forry that this Discourse should stand as a Witness against you in the Last day, which God knows was only intended as a Motive to draw you back to that Fold from which you have wan­dred and gone astray. I am,

AS in the publishing of this Letter I had no other design, but to pre­vent the fall of others into the like dan­gers, so I have particularly insisted on those motives, which have of late temp­ted some persons to go over to the Ro­man Church, and though I have repre­sented these motives as yours, yet in this I have been so far from doing any thing against the Laws of private Discourse, or Friendship, or Acquaintance, that I have only touch'd upon the common stumbling-blocks, which make unwary people joyn themselves to that Church; Blocks, which might easily be removed, if Men or Women would but give themselves leave to think, and would prefer the solid Dictates of their reason before the Suggestions of their soft, and sickly Passions. One thing I had almost forgot, and which indeed is the great Bug-bear, whereby your Church-men fright their people from running over [Page 129] to us, and that is, that our Church be­gan but about an hundred and fifty years ago, that Luther and Zwinglius were the Authors of it, and that we had no Church before; pittiful shifts in­deed to keep people from seeing the Sun at Noon. Suppose our Religion did but begin then, why, must people be al­ways in an Error? Must they never re­form when they have done amiss? if there were monstrous Errors in the Church of Rome, which the aforesaid Persons saw would be the Death of Chri­stianity, and which they could not sub­scribe to without debauching their Rea­son, or wronging both their own and other Mens Consciences, was it not ra­tional, they should protest against such things, to give their fellow Christians warning? When the House is on fire, would you have no body awake to alarm the Neighbours to look to themselves? did they see so many thousand Men ready to be drown'd, and would you have had them hold their Tongues, and barbarous­ly suffered them all to be drown'd? Did they see the Christian Religion like to be swallow'd up by Darkness and Ignorance, and was it not time to rouze the slum­bering [Page 130] World? But however, that these Men were the first broachers of our Re­ligion, is notoriously false: First, be­cause long before them, there were Men that lived in the external Communion of the Church of Rome, but dislik'd the Errors, as they crept in, and grew dan­gerous, and though they were over­aw'd and silenc'd many times by the higher Powers of the Roman Court, yet they both detested those Corruptions, and as they had opportunity, protested against them, as were an easie matter to prove from age to age, if it had not been done already over and over by Di­vines of our Church, so that though these Men, that lived long before Luther, and whom God still rais'd to vindicate his Truth, as it grew more and more pol­luted, were not call'd Protestants by the People, yet in effect they were so, and consequently there were Protestants many years before Luther and Zwinglius: And though they were not suffered by the Ignorant, and imperious Ecclesiasti­cal Powers, to meet and assemble them­selves in publick, yet they made a Church, as much as the followers of Holy Athanasius did, when the whole [Page 131] World was turned Arian; as much as E­lijah, and those seven thousand, the Oracle mentioned, made a Church, when the whole Country was over-run with Ido­laters. These seven thousand we read lay hid, and durst not appear in publick, being oppress'd by the Idolatrous pow­ers, that sat at the Stern, and thought there was no good fishing but in trou­bled waters. And indeed in this manner our Church was dispers'd long before Luther, among the greater multitude of the followers of the corrupted Roman Church, as a handful of wheat lies scat­ter'd in a bushel of Chaff, and though it it did not appear in Pomp and Gran­deur, yet that external Splendour is not essential to the truth of a Church, your own men may be convinced by the afore­mentioned examples.

Secondly, if your Champions speak strictly of the Religion, which we pro­fess in the Church of England, they are under a mistake, when they make Lu­ther or Zwinglius the Authors of it, for our Reformation began some time after, and was both begun, and carried on with great deliberation and considerati­on under Edward the 6th. by publick Au­thority, [Page 132] whose proper province it is to take notice of what is amiss in a King­dom or Commonwealth, whether it be in Church or State, and to reform and mend it. It's no great matter, when a Reformation begins, so the Reformation be but just; and if such a Reformation had begun but yesterday, that would not have made it unlawful, and that our Reformation was just and necessary hath been prov'd by our Divines beyond all reasonable contradiction, and how could it but be just, when the Decrees of the Church of Rome controll'd the Word of the Living God, and vyed with the O­racles of the Gospel. How and when the several Errors crept into that Church, is not material to determine, it's enough we found them there, and it was God's mercy not to give all the learned Men of that age over to believe a lye. But it's pretty to hear your Church-men talk of the novelty of our Religion, when it is evident to all the understanding World, that our first Reformers began no new Religion, but desired only to keep to the Old. All their endeavour was to keep to the Religion of the Bible, and to cut off all superfluities, and things prejudicial [Page 133] to Salvation, and was there any hurt in that? They saw, that many things then in use in the Church of Rome were dia­metically opposite to the Doctrines and practises of the Primitive Church, and they justly thought it their Duty to re­duce the Church to the antient Pattern; the prouder Clergy of the Roman Church would not yield to it, but would have all their new fangles, and all their addi­tions to the antient Symbols received as Articles of Faith, though all perish'd, and the coat of Christ were rent into a thou­sand pieces; the more humble, and more moderate of the Clergy, saw the pride and insolence of the other, and trembled, and thus we and they parted; we kept to the old Religion, and your Men chose the new, and much good it may do you with it; and pray Judge by this, which is the Schismatick Church, we or they? we that would have healed Israel, or they that would not be healed; so that it is not our Religion that began so lately as 150 years ago, about Luthers time, but it's yours that commenced then; for you then embraced the new additions to the antient Catholick Creeds with greater greediness, and were resolv'd to maintain that by Bravado's, which you were not [Page 134] able to defend with Arguments. It's a very ordinary thing for people, who once incline to the Communion of the Roman Church to demand of us, before they go over, whither a person may be saved in that Church. The Charity and moderation our Divines usually express in their answer to this Query, I am sensible hath done our Church some harm where­as the Roman Priests, being bold in their uncharitableness, and damning all that are out of their Communion, make some weak people believe, that they must be in the right, because they are more da­ring in their Asseverations. We have far greater reason to be peremptory in ex­cluding the Members of the Church of Rome from Salvation, than they have to exclude us, for if that Church be guilty of Idolatry (as I see, your Divines find it a very hard task to answer the Argu­ments of our learned Men, that prove it.) Those that are guilty of this Crime may soon be resolved by the Apostle what their lot is like to be in another World; for No Idolater, saith St. Paul, meaning one that lives, and dies so, shall inherit the Kingdom of God, 1 Cor. 6. 9. yet we are modest, and whatever the principles of that Church may lead Men [Page 135] to, we hope, there may be many in that Church, that either, while they live in the Communion of that Church, have an aversion from the dangerous, and Ido­latrous practices of it, or sometimes be­fore they die do heartily repent of the absurd, and unreasonable Doctrines, and Worship, they have too long asserted, and complied with, and of such we can­not but entertain a very favourable opi­nion, and indeed I could name you some very famous Men both in France and I­taly, who, though they have continued in the Communion of that Church, i. e. have not joyn'd themselves to any par­ticular publick Protestant Church, yet have not approv'd of such things in the Roman Church, as manifestly obstructs Mens Salvation, and though like Nicode­mus they have not dared openly to avow their dislike of such Errors, for fear of danger, yet in their hearts they have ab­horr'd them, and declared so much to their Friends, and intimate Acquaintance. And though their seeming Communion with a Church so Erroneous, cannot be totally excused, because it looks like a ta­cite approbation of her Errors, yet since we read of Joseph, that he was a Disciple of Christ secretly, and notwithstanding his [Page 136] not confessing Christ publickly, accepted of God, we hope such Mens continuing in the external Communion of the Ro­man Church is not a willful Error, but rather a pardonable Infirmity, a timo­rousness which hath nothing of malice in it, and therefore will not hinder them from Salvation. We know not what mercy God may shew to many poor peo­ple in that Church, who are invincibly Ignorant, and never saw a Bible, from whence they might rectifie their mi­stakes, and do live honestly in this pre­sent World; but we must withal confess, that the Servant, who hath known his Masters will, and hath not done it, shall be beaten with many stripes, and whe­ther those that have been enlightened in our Church, and have tasted the good Word of God, and cannot but see our A­greement with the Gospel, and after all this embrace the Errors of the Roman Church, whether these will be excusable at the last day, we justly doubt of; to live in great Errors is to live in Sin, but where that living in Errors is joyn'd with resistance of great light, and know­ledge, there the Sin becomes all Crimson, which was but of a faint red before; and if this be the Character of Christ's Friends [Page 137] to do whatsoever he commands us, then the inference is very easie, that those can­not be Christ's Friends, nor reign with in Heaven, that willfully leave undone, what they know he hath commanded, and set up a new Worship, which he hath no where commanded: Madam, had you never seen such a thing as the Scri­pture, your going over to that Church might have deserved some Apology, but when you were surrounded with the beams of that light which shines in dark­ness, as St. Peter calls the Word, with all those rayes about you, to shut your eyes, and desperately to venture upon the Church, which enjoyns Men to live a­gainst some of Gods Laws, as against, Exod. 20. 5, 6. and Matth. 26. 27. &c. and consequently obliges them to pre­pare for God's displeasure; this, I confess, is an Action, which, as it savours of great willfulness, so I question, if you die in't without serious repentance, whe­ther the Joys you hope for, will ever fall to your share. If your Church-men do mean honestly, and do truly aim at the Peace of Christendom, and in good earnest design the Union, of Men that profess the Name of Christ, why will not they part with those Doctrines that are so great an [Page 138] offence, not only to all Protestants, but to Jews and Mahometans too? If that worshipping of Saints and Images be not necessary, but only useful, why will not they quit that Worship, which by their own pretences is needless, especi­ally when they might do so much good by it? If the Cup was formerly given to the Laity, why will not they to ef­fect the aforesaid Union, restore it to the Laity? If the substance of the Sa­crament, and the comfort arising from it, may remain entire, without obliging Men to believe a Transubstantiation, or Adoration of the consecrated Wafer, why will not they for peace sake lay aside such Doctrines, which neither themselves, nor any Creature understands? If Heaven and Hell are sufficient motives to a Holy Life, why will not they for quietness sake renounce their Doctrine of Purga­tory, which by their own confession hath no ground in Scripture?

Madam, I have that charitable opinion of you, that if you had but taken a view of the Worship of the Church of Rome, as it is practic'd beyond Sea, in places where there is no fear of contradiction from any Hereticks, where they may freely and securely act according to their [Page 139] principles, had you seen the mode of worshipping the Virgin Mary at Rome, or in Spain, or Italy, the sight of it would have certainly discourag'd you from em­bracing that Religion, which now you seem to be mainly delighted with; for indeed the Religion of the Church of Rome at this time, if a Man were to guess from that, which hath the greatest out­ward Veneration, is little else than a Wor­ship of the Virgin Mary. The very Beg­gers beyond-Sea in begging of Alms, beg more for the Virgin Mary's sake, than for Christ's sake. This, Madam, I know to be true, who am no stranger to Foreign parts; and I will assure you, that in those Cities or Towns, where both Papists and Protestants have the free exercise of their Religion, you shall live Twenty years in a Town before you hear that any Pro­testant is turned Papist, (so few charms are there in the Exercise of their Religion beyond Sea) but you shall not be above a year or two in such a Town, before you hear that several Papists are turned Pro­testants (such a force hath truth;) The Religion of the Church of Rome, as it is practis'd in England, looks harmless. Now and then upon some great Festival they shew you a Picture of the Virgin Mary, [Page 140] or of some other Saint, and the honest Priest qualifies every Doctrine, makes the Errors soft and plausible, and they dare not, living in a Protestant Country, serve the Host of Heaven, I mean Saints and Angels with all their Appertenances, as they do in places, where there are no Protestants to watch them.

Here their Religion seems to be with­out a sting, and is clad in the fleece of Sheep; but if you could but make a Voyage into Spain or Italy, I doubt not but you would see the Venome of it, and avoid it: and the only way not to be of the Church of Rome, would be to go to Rome, provided you do not go without your Bible. In good truth, that Church hath turn'd Christianity into a meer out­ward Pomp and Splendor, which ravishes the eye, but can never content a Man's reason. The glistering Gold in their Tem­ples, the curious Images of Saints and Angels, the numerous and stately Altars, the mighty Silver Statues, the rich and glorious Vestments you see up and down in their Churches, strike the Senses into a kind of extasie, and it must be Sense on­ly, for a considerate mind, that searches the inside of things as well as the outside, cannot be so easily gull'd and deceiv'd; [Page 141] and this outward Pomp they make not the least sign of the truth of their Church, not remembring, that if this be a good sign, the idolatrous People in Japan and China, whose Temples are infinitely more shining and glorious, will have a better Title to the true Church than they: I must confess, that in Policy, and Worldly Craft and Cunning, the Church of Rome exceeds ours, for they have not only turn'd the Spiritual Worship of the Go­spel into a Sensual Service, into outward Religious Formalities, a thing strangely pleasing to flesh and blood; but they have Shooes that will fit all sorts of Feet, great and small, and have Remedies for all Distempers, and you may go to Hea­ven in that Church either through the straight way, or through the broad, which you please; they can fit the Melancholy Person, and the Jovial; they have Mona­steries and Nunneries, and Severities to content the one, and know how to allow greater liberty to the other; they can ei­ther send a Man to Happiness through a tedious task of Mortification, if he likes that method best, or help him thither by a quicker dispatch, by Confession, Attri­tion, and Absolution upon a Death-bed, when the Man can hold Sin and the [Page 142] World no longer: Live, or die, you can­not do amiss in that Church, for living you may be forgiven, and after Death you may be pray'd out of Purgatory, sooner or later, according as you will spend Money upon Masses, for Gold doth strangely quicken these Supplications.

Such a Church, Madam, you have e­spoufed; and divorced your self from one that prefers the Wisdom of God, and of the Gospel, before the Wisdom of the Flesh, and glories in dealing plainly and honestly with all Men, that keeps close to the Scriptures, and yet is not against those pious Customes of Antiquity, which are not contradictory to the Scriptures, that generously maintains the Prerogative of God; and gives no other Honour to Saints and Angels, but what may consist with the Glory of her Creator; that hath made no new Articles of Faith, but keeps to the old, and thinks it Rebellion against God to enjoin things as necessary to Sal­vation, which God never made so; that urges the strictest Life, and encourages nothing but what may promote true Pie­ty and Devotion; that hath no more Cere­monies but what are decent, and labours to free Religion at once from Slovenliness and Superstition; that secures the Right [Page 143] of Soveraign Princes, and teaches her Children to live like good Subjects, and good Christians; and though it be her misfortune, that too many of her pretend­ed Members live like Enemies of Christi­anity, yet that's not long of her Doctrines and Constitutions, but long of the Stub­bornness of Men, who will not be reform'd by her Precepts: As no Man blames Christ or his Apostles, because Judas was a Hypocrite, or because Simon Magus pro­fess'd their Religion; so they betray great Ignorance and Simplicity, that, for the monstrous Impieties of many that profess themselves Members of our As­semblies, despise and slight our Church, which in her Principles is most averse from all such practices; a Church, which as for mine own particular, I have delibe­rately and premeditately embraced and chosen, so, I hope, I shall never be so much for saken of God, or of my Reason, as to quit it to become a Papist. I have not been altogether a careless Observer of the several Christian Churches, dispers'd through the World. Desire of mine own Salvation hath made me take particular notice, what Corruption there is in them, and what Affinity they have with the Primitive Professors of Christianity: And [Page 144] I must freely confess upon a serious Exa­mination of the Scripture, and the Fa­thers of the three first Centuries after Christ, that from my Heart I think there is no Church this day in all the Christian World, be it Eastern or Western, that in her Principles and Constitutions bears so much of the Image of the truly Primi­tive Church, or comes so near it, as the Church of England; a Church, which as your Fore-fathers had courage to burn for, so I verily believe, that he under­stands not her Innocent Designs, and ex­cellent Rules, that dares not die a Mar­tyr in her cause.