AND are you indeed got into the onely Catholick Church? And are you sure the Men you have lately be­lieved have not deceiv­ed you, as you fancy we [Page 2] have done? (for tho you may be so Charitable, as to think, that we have not inten­tionally couzened 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 truely Catholick Church does mean? Men of Sense and Reason al­ways believed, that a Church which hold's the truely Ca­tholick Faith is a true and sound Member of the Ca­tholick Church, and dares malice it self say, that we do not hold the Apostles, the Ni­cene, and Athanasius's Creed! The Church of ROME her [Page 3] self confesses, that these Creed's contain the truely Catholick Faith: And most certainly when the Nicene Councel 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 [Page 4] 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 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 [Page 5] 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 Idollatry, which we are commanded to shun, as much as Idollatry 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 wheadled 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? [Page 6] Is it because we will not be­lieve contrary to the Apostles Rule, that publick Prayers which are intended for the benefit are understanding of the Multitude, must be said in a Tongue unknown to the People? These must certainly be the reasons, why we cannot now passe with the Church of ROME for members of the Catholick Church? That these things were not in the Ancient 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 beleive, [Page 7] to judge, which is most likely to be the truly Catholick Church, our's or their's? our's that keeps to the truly antient Catholick Faith, or their's 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 Christs command, do not you Sin and allow of the Sin of that Church you are in? Is [Page 8] not your disobedience to Christs 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 dare you live in this Sin? You talk of the benefit of Confessi­on and absolution, when that very Priest to whom you con­fesse, 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 affraid when you are going to confesse, that God will laugh [Page 9] at your Mock Confession, since you neither confesse that Sin of living contrary to Christs 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 himselfe, 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 Lords Sup­per, is contrary to Christs in­stitution, who distinctly conse­crated the Cup, and gave that [Page 10] to his Disciples, who were re­presentatives of all Believers, as well as the Bread, and peremptorily 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 dispense 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 horrour seize on you, when [Page 11] 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 Your proficiency in Re­ligion to leave a Church [Page 12] 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 [Page 13] 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 could not supply you, for we dare say nothing and believe nothing with Di­vine Faith, but what Moses, and the Prophets, and Christ [Page 14] 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 [Page 15] than we did instruct you in? if they have, much good it may do them, We are not sond 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 infallibli­ty. And do you blame Us for not being so impudent as the Church of ROME? 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 [Page 16] to? If you say the Fathers, you know not what you say, for the Fathers differ many times as much in inter­pretation of the Scripture, and are as contrary to one another as any Men. If you say the Church that's a hard Word; if you mean Christs 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 it is 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 [Page 17] 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 Councel, or all Christian People, or whether all 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, [Page 18] nor did I ever see any Interpretation of the Bible made either by Pope or Coun­cel 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 [Page 19] 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 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 alwaies 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 Infallibil­lity is nothing but a juggle, a device to maintain a triple [Page 20] Crown, and an Engine to carry on a temporal Autho­rity? God indeed hath pro­mised that his Church dis­persed through 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 infer 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 [Page 21] but a sober rational man, that prays earnestly for 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, though he hath not recourse to a Visible infallible guide, and though himself be not in­fallible. Things may be very certain, though they are not infallibly so, and he that can make things cut so, that a prudent man [Page 22] cannot but give consent to them, and hath no just cause to doubt of their truth, may justly challenge beleif 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 goe over to the Roman Church, whereof the principal was this, that you were troubled in mind upon the account of your Sins, and could get no satisfaction in Our Church, though you sought it like Esau with teares; whereas you did no sooner confess to a Roman Priest, and receive absolution but you presently found un­speakable comfort.

[Page 23] And are you sure Madam, that the 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 [Page 24] 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 rejoyce 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 Ministers of the Church of England, you [Page 25] say, gave me no absolution, which the Roman Priest did. Why, Madam, did any of our Ministers deny you 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 sincerly resolved to commit them no more, and did avoyd the very oc­casions of Evill? and what was this but absolution, which [Page 26] however you might have had performed with greater Cere­mony, if you had had a mind to it. It is no very hard matter to guesse 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, Its 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 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 [Page 27] new object, they never saw before, surprizes and charmes 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 embraceing 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 [Page 28] 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 thing's you never tried before, and working upon your affections, and moving your will 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 charmes in it, than our plain and honest [Page 29] 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 cheereful 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 layd 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 Sinn's [Page 30] whether men Repent or no, Then indeed you might have layd 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 be a false fire and a conterfeit 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, [Page 31] 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 needes 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 [Page 32] 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 Orders by their own confession be indeleble, then it was not all the thunders and Lightenings 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 [Page 33] 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 7th. and Henry 8th. (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 Convey­veyance [Page 34] 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 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 [Page 35] 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 Elizbeth (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 8th. dayes Bishop of St. Davids, under Edward the 6th. Bishop of Bath and Wells, under Queen Mary driven into Exile and return­ed [Page 36] under Queen Elizabeth, John Scory formerly Bishop of Chichester, Miles Coverdale formerly Bishop of Exeter, and John Hodgkins Bishop Suffragan of Bedford, not to mention that the Queens 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 [Page 37] that writes of it can onely transcribe out of them, and those that deny these Re­cords must be men of strange Foreheads, and of thegreat­est 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 Coun­cel of Nice, with your Church an Oecumenical Counsel, which received Bishop Anato­lius tho consecrated by Diosco­rus a Heretical Bishop (if I say Heresie doth not make the E­piscopal [Page 38] order void, then sup­pose, We were Hereticks our Priesthood which is derived from Popish Bishop, 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 your 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 [Page 39] they can shew neither where, nor when, nor by whom they they were corrupted. Those that talk so, seem neither to understand what a publick solemne 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 hundered 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 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 [Page 40] 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 thats guilty of very great cor­ruption both in Doctrine and manners, may have something thats good and allowable, and he that retains that, is not therefore guilty of her corrup­tion, nor espouses her Errours. [Page 41] 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 Jewes, but that neither made the Jewes approve of the Heathenish Worship, nor the Christians allow of the Jewish Errours. We are not so disingenious, as to make the breach between you and Us wider then 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, [Page 42] is not therefore obliged to take the Rubbish too, and if we have derived our Or­ders from you, that inferrs no necessity, that we must therefore consent to your Notorious depravations of the ancient 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 custome 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 [Page 43] 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 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 [Page 44] 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 Schollar, 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 [Page 45] 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 less then 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, [Page 46] 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 far thest off, is such an Argument of im­patience, that you only seem to have yeilded 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 [Page 47] our way of Worship. You plead, that you have been sit­ting up whole 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, whi­ther 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 [Page 48] 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 to them, by a Sign of their own choice, whether they are in it or no.) But then, if we pray to GOD to direct us, [Page 49] 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, [Page 50] 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 extroardinary 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, and done all this, not slightly, but seriously and solidly, Its impossible, [Page 26] 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 [Page 52] Women, not to men of Learn­ing, and that understand 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 it in the Margin, then 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 [Page 53] 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 Latine, 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 Pen­nances, which, you say, we have not in our Church; But it's a signe, 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 [Page 54] 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 humble holy way, than you are aware of.

We indeed do not or­dinarily inflict them on all persons, because we know not their constitution, nor what their nature will bear, nor have we any command for [Page 55] it in the word of GOD, but these things we leave to every mans 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, [Page 56] 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 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 tast it, nor see it, nor feel it, nor Smell it, and how do you [Page 57] know it? what? because the Priests of that Church do tell you so? No, say you, It is, because Christ saith in express termes, 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 beleive a transubstantiation. Here in­deed a Faith is neeessary, strong enough to remove mountaines, and though ne­ver any Miracles were [Page 58] wrought, but were wrought on purpose to convince our senses, yet here we must be­lieve one which neither sence nor reason can discover. When Christ gave the Sacra­ment to his Disciples, 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 litteral sense, and in the very next sentence, pronounced with the same breath, cannot admit of a Litteral sense; for the word is, in the second sentence must necessarily stand for shall be, because Christs Body, when he gave the Bread, [Page 59] was not yet broken: If it will not admit of a Litteral 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 litterally, when the absurdity is far greater; Nay that the word is should not be capable of being under­stood litterally 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 [Page 60] we cannot comprehend: And when the Apostle, speaking of the Lords Supper or 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 [Page 61] well conclude, that Christ is a Door made of boards and nailes, because the Scripture sayth, 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 a sense, which is not [Page 26] 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 its 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 be­leive, that no Jew, before Christs time, was so sottish to think, when it's said, the flesh is the Passeover, Exod. 12. 11. [Page 62] that the flesh or blood was really the Passeover, 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, 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 [Page 64] 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 Vermine; 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 consequences: But since, Ma­dam, you do insist so much upon that place of Scripture, [Page 65] John 6. 53. Except you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you. Ile but breifly shew you, how ill a Logician you are, either to believe that this is spoke of the Sacrament, or that these words infer a Corpo­ral manducation of Christs 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 to the Sacrament at the time he spake these words, for he speakes 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 [Page 66] 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 Sacr­ment 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 Passe­over, 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 Passeover, the last, [Page 67] which Christ was at, which was no less than a twelve month after, John. 11. 55. John. 12. [...]1. So that the Sa­crament of Christs 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 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 [Page 68] 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 Christs 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 54th. and 56th. Verse, where every one that [Page 99] 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 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 Christs body, and drinking his blood, have Eternal life in them, and that Christ dwels in them, and are true Children of GOD, and heires of Heaven, con­trary to the unanimous consent of the Holy Prophets and [Page 100] 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 Christs 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 have her Children Colliers, and believe what the Church be­lieves, [Page 101] 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, for that was not thought necessary by the 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 therfore were glad they would excuse you from that Wor­ship; [Page 102] 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 confefs, 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 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 [Page 103] seemed very bitter at first, is swallowed, and become sweeter than hony, 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 300 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 [Page 104] useful, as your Church pre­tends, it is., He would not have so peremtorily com­manded, Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorifie me. Psalm. 50. 15. and it's pro­bable, the Apostles, in pre­scribing so many useful things of far less concern, would not have left us in the dark as to the mighty usefullness 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, [Page 105] 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 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 [Page 106] 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 be­lieve, that the Church of ROME onely 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 [Page 107] 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 onely 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 Ca­techisme doth prescribe, for there it is, that it is not on­ly useful, but that we ought [Page 108] to pray unto Saints, and in­deed should any 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 [Page 109] 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 your­self 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 addiressed to Saints, as Medi­ators, contrary to his order and injunction? What Kings suffer here on Earth, in let­ting their Subjects address themselves by their Servants [Page 110] 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 [Page 111] 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 Commandements 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 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 onely pray to [Page 112] 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 [Page 113] 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 dispense those Blessings to them, and thus commit Idollatry by your willful connivance, whose blood will certainly be re­quired at your Churchmens hands one day. Examine but your Prayers to the Virgin Mary in your own Manuals, when you have prayed to her, and begged of her all that you can pray of GOD, you add a word or two of her intercession, which in good truth is nothing but a [Page 114] 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 one, O my Lady, Holy Mary, I com­mend my 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 [Page 115] merits, all my words and actions may be directed and disposed according to thine, and thy Sons Will, Amen.

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 Christs Will, nay and her own, as if she were a Law giver 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 [Page 116] Cryed, Lord Jesu receive my Spirit. Then followes the Evening Prayer to the Virgin Mary. O Mary, Mother of GOD, and gratious 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 GODS 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 [Page 117] help me, that I may escape the Sentence of perpetual Dam­nation by thee Pious Mother and Virgin, and may come happily with all the Elect of GOD to Eternal joyes, Amen. Then follows, vn­der thy protection we flee, Holy Mother of GOD, despise not our prayer in our necessities, but deliver us from all dangers alwayes, O glorious and blessed Vir­gln. 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 [Page 118] 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 Christs merits: This is an Honour which, I believe, will oblige [Page 119] 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 Re­licks? How unlike that plain and Simple Worship which the Gospel enjoynes.? One would think it should a little startle you, to see, that your Church is afraid to let the second Commandement be known to the people, you know they leave it out in their Primmers and Catechismes, or if they mention it, they do so mince it, that one sees plain­ly, they are afraid the People should see the contrariety of the [...]r Worship to the express [Page 120] word of GOD. In the be­ginning of the Reformation, the very sight of this Com­mandement made people run away from the Church of ROME as much as any thing; indeed to consider the gene­ral termes 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 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 [Page 121] 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 confesse, 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 Hoste; you con­fess, that the worship you give to it, is the same wor­ship, you give to God; What [Page 122] 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, 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 [Page 123] 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 [Page 124] 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 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 [Page 125] 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; affirme and deny it as they see occasi­on, and necessity requires On­lyone 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 [Page 126] 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 must be a true revealed Religion, if there be a true revealed Re­ligon, 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 [Page 127] 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. I will not make my self merry here in a thing so serious, else I could have told you, that I have hard of an [Page 128] Argument, when I was at School, somewhat like this, He that drinks well, sleeps well, he that sleeps well, com­mits no 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 [Page 129] 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, [Page 130] revealed to us in the 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 practise, and what Proselites they make, and how full the Kingdom of the great Mogol is of them, how some Wallow in ashes day and night, how others go charg­ed with heavy Iron Chaines all their dayes, how others stand upright upon their Leggs for whole weekes to­gether, [Page 131] &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 things­more contrary to flesh and blood, than these, and yet we see these Doctrines are pro­pogated daily without any force of Armes, only by Ex­ample and perswasion, to be sure without any Miracle, but, I hope, that doth not prove their Religion to be divine. It's a Dictate of the [Page 132] light of Nature, that the way to Heaven is strait, 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 tryed by the Writings of the Evange­lists, and Apostles. We see, that even in the Apostles dayes, 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 practises, and therefore we must needs [Page 133] think, that after the Apostles, decease, the Church of Christ was subject to the same fate, so that if there be any stand­ard or touch stone left, where­by the truth and sincerity of a Church can be tried (and we must needs think so well of GODS 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, which teaches things, that approach nearest to that primitive institution, must be the true Church.

And, Madam, do but once more for your Souls sake, and [Page 134] for your Salvations sake, compare the Doctrines and practises of the Church of ROME, with the Doctrines and practises 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 Tran­substantation, 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 [Page 135] 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 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 stnpidity! I stand a­mazed [Page 136] 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 discourag­ment they are under, and their desire to make Proselytes, 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 Heathenisme and Idolatry, but [Page 137] by the pretened Zeal, and Piety, and Abstinence, and Mortification of Apollonius Tyaneus, who yet by the con­fession of the whole Christian world, was no better then a Wizard and Conjurer; I make no application to any particu­lar Priest in the Church of ROME; I do not deny, but men may be in great Errors, and be very Zealous for their errours, and seemingly very pious in their Zeal, and when their Errors are not very wil­ful, 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 dazeling and [Page 138] very moving, but the great danger lyes here, that the Worship they give to GOD with one hand, they strike and pull down with the other: I know too well the practise 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 pretentions 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 [Page 139] as great Zeal and reverence, as you do him, pray to her oftener then you do to him, make as many bowes to her, and other Saints, as you do to him, and other things of that nature, how can he be­lieve you? Religion is a thing that will not bear jests and Hypocrisy, GOD will not be put off with contradictions be­tween speeches and Practises.

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 Christs sake, to return to the Church, you have rashly left, where you cannot run a hazard if you will but follow the [Page 140] plain Doctrines of the Gos­pel, besides which, we preach nothing, and enjoyn nothing as necessary to Salvation. Should these entreaties 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 lye 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.

[Page 141] Time was when you would have believed 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 passion that none of us should yied 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 [Page 142] 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 stubborne 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 Errours in that Church cannot be sub­scribed to without hazarding the welfare of their Souls? I will but use your own Ar­gument, [Page 143] when you went o­ver to the Church of ROME, and were perswaded by the earnestness of her Priests to yeild 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 Creedes, are forced to run to the broken Cisterns of Tradition, and I know not what Fathers, whose writings they know [Page 144] not whether they be genuine or no? As you are now, you live in willful opposition to the Doctrine and Precepts of the Gospel, And O Remem­ber what St. Paul doth say 2 Thes. 1. 7, 8. That the Lord Jesus will ere long come down from Heaven with all his Holy Angels to take Vengeance on those who have disobeyed the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Once more there­fore I charge you before Al­mighty GOD, and our Lord Jesus Christ, to repent of your Errours, and to return to the bosome of that Church, in which you received your life, and being, and the Principles of Religion and Christianity. But if all this [Page 145] seem to you no more but Bugbears, I have delivered my own Soul, and should be sorry 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 Wandered and gone astray.