Naked popery, Chapter 3
CHAP. III.
II. YOU next Characterize the Prelatical Protestant: Having ſaid before p. 5. [Their Preachers in their Sermons have little Life or Zeal; and ſeldom diſcourſe of ſuch Truths as are apt to awaken Mens Conſciences, and make them lay to heart the great concern of the Salvation of their Souls. Or if they do at any time preach of Judgment, or of Hell, Repentance, or a New Life, they do it very coldly and imperfectly, and ſeem to talk like Parrots, of what they have learnt by rote or out of others Books, and not what they have had any experience of in their hearts.] And p. 6. [Generally ſpeaking, (I wiſh it were a ſlander) Prelatick Proteſtants are very Prophane, and give no ſigns of any interiour trouble of Conſcience: And if any of them begin to be heartily troubled for his ſin, he is obſerved either to turn Fanatick or Papiſt.]
Anſw. If by a Prelatick Proteſtant you ſhould unhandſomly mean only ſuch as are worldly Clergy-men, like too many of your Roman Prelates and their Curates, who take Gain for Godlineſs, and who allow their Fleſh, their Pride, their Covetouſneſs, and Voluptuouſneſs, and Sloth, to chuſe their Religion; whoſe God is their Belly, who glory in their ſhame, and who mind Earthly things, and are Enemies to Croſs-bearing; and through Enmity to thoſe that are better than themſelves, are Croſs-impoſers, and Perſecutors, and Silencers, of ſober faithful Miniſters, becauſe they croſs their Pride and worldly Intereſt; ſuch it's like may be no better Men than you deſcribe them. But why ſhould you take the Word in ſo narrow a ſenſe?
But if by Prelatick Proteſtants you mean all ſuch Proteſtants whoſe judgment is for Epiſcopacy, 1. You deceive, and I ſuppoſe are deceived, in your diſtinguiſhing theſe from Non-conformiſts: It's true that there are envious falſe-hearted Prelatiſts in the World, that make falſe names for their Brethren, to procure the belief of their falſe reports of them: And God will cut out the lying Tongue. But I will tell you the truth, whoſe malice ſoever is againſt it; there are Epiſcopal as well as Presbyterian and Independent Non-conformiſts now: Yea, divers that are againſt the late Wars of the Parliament, and againſt the Covenant, and never took it, and ſome that have been Souldiers for the King, and ſuffered for him: Yea ſo conſiderable is the number of them that are Epiſcopal, that in 1660. when the King called them to treat in order to agreement, they offered him no other Form of Church Government, than A. Biſhop Uſher's Reduction, in which not a Pin of Honour, nor one Farthing of their Revenue was deſired to be taken from Archbiſhops, Biſhops, Deans, Archdeacons; but only the Pariſh Miniſters enabled under them, to have done ſomewhat more that belongeth to their Office, inſtead of Lay-Chancellors, &c. Moſt Non-conformiſts of my acquaintance would be glad of the terms contained in the Kings Declaration about Eccleſiaſtical Affairs, where Biſhops and Archbiſhops are left as rich and high as they were before: So far are Non-conformiſts [Epiſcopal Proteſtants.]
2. And though Conformity be very much changed from what it was heretofore, Epiſcopacy is not. And I muſt tell you, that I do not think that the Chriſtian World hath more godly learned worthy Miniſters, than many of the Epiſcopal were heretofore. Do you know what men Biſhop Jewel, A. Biſhop Grindall, and many more of old were? And A. Biſhop Uſher, Biſhop Hall, Biſhop Davenant, and many more of late? Who hath written more earneſtly and hotly for Epiſcopacy, than Biſhop Downame (who wrote the great Latine Book to prove the Pope Antichriſt;) yet who that knew him did ever queſtion his piety or diligence? And if you look to the old Conformable Presbyters, read their Books, and enquire of the Lives of many of them, and then confeſs that they were better men and better Preachers than you deſcribe. Peruſe the Writings of Mr. Rob. Bolton, William Whateley, William Fenner, Dr. Preſton, Dr. Sibbes, Dr. Stoughton, Dr. Gouge, Mr. Thomas Gataker, Mr. Crook, and abundance of ſuch others, and enquire how they laboured and lived, and you may hear that they were neither ſuch Parrots nor prophane ones as you mention.
There may be ſome proportionable alteration ſuppoſed to be now made in the perſons of the Conformiſts, anſwerable to that which is made in Conformity it ſelf: But ſurely, if you know London, and many Miles near it, and many Pariſhes in the ſeveral Counties, you muſt confeſs that now there are many Learned, Pious Conformiſts, who Preach zealouſly, and live religiouſly, and hate Covetouſneſs and Perſecution, and long to ſee the promoting of Piety, Peace, and Concord.
But if you expect a better Vindication of them, I muſt deſire you to conſider of two things. 1. That in moſt Countries and Ages the worldlieſt men (that is, the worſt) have been the greedieſt ſtrivers and ſeekers for Church-Power and Perferments; and he that ſeeketh moſt diligently is the likelieſt to find: And that ordinarily the Vulgar do dance after the Pipe of him that is uppermoſt, and will be of the Religion of them that can help or hurt them, be it what it will be. Moſt will be of the Religion which is owned by Law, or countenanced by the Greateſt, be it right or wrong. In the beſt Countries, the moſt are too bad: And bad men will have a proſpering Religion, and not one that will expoſe them to Death, Baniſhment, Impriſonment, Beggary, Contempt, or Silence. Moſt will be on the upper ſide.
2. And remember that you your ſelf here confeſs the ſcandals of ſome of your Romiſh Party, and what carnal prophane ones they are. Had you not confeſſed it, I would have deſired you to read two Books, 1. Joſep. Acoſta, of the wicked ſlothful Prieſts in the Indies, as the great hindrance of their Converſion. 2. Stephanus his World of Wonders, taken moſt out of the Book of the Queen of Navarre, of the horrid Villanies of your Prieſts.
And one thing I cannot diſregard: I marvel not if the Papiſts be moſt bad in Spain, France, Italy, &c. or the Lutherans in Denmark, Saxony, or Sweden; or the Calviniſts in Holland; or the Prelatiſts and Conformiſts in England; becauſe the moſt (who are commonly the worſt) will be of the ſtronger ſide. But that Greeks ſhould be ungodly in Turky, or Proteſtants in France, or Papiſts in England, where they are ſingular, and under the diſcountenance of the Times, and moſt hold their Religion with ſome ſelf-denyal, this ſeemeth to me a more grievous thing. And if it prove true, that even in England, where you make the World believe that you have ſuffered grievouſly, your Followers are too often found meer Formaliſts, living in Swearing, Drinking, Lying, Uncleanneſs, or ſome of theſe, what ſhall we think of ſuch a Religion as this, as in a Land of uprightneſs would teach men to do unjuſtly? I wonder not what ſhould make a Drunkard, Fornicator, or other debaucht Sinner to be a Papiſt in France, Spain, or Italy: But what ſhould make ſuch a one be a Papiſt in England, unleſs his Religion favour ſenſuality, or elſe he think that it will yet prove the upper ſide, I cannot eaſily conjecture.
But you accuſe the Prelatick Proteſtant for agreeing with the Puritan in expecting Salvation by the extrinſical righteouſneſs of Chriſt without him, not by any interior righteouſneſs in his own Soul.] Anſw. I told you your memory faileth you: Why did you before then deſcribe the Puritan as ſo well qualified within, and deſiring after more? But were you bred among Puritans, and yet talk ſo ignoranly and falſly? This had been more tolerable in a Cochleus, a Genebrard, or other tranſmarine Calumniator, that never knew us here. Read but Davenant de Juſt. and ſee how you ſlander the Conformiſts. And read my fore-named Books, and Mr. Trumans, Mr. Woodbridges, the Morning Lectures at S. Giles of Juſtif. Mr. Wotton de Reconciliat. Mr. Bradſhaw de Juſtif. Praefat. &c. Mr. Gataker in many Books, Jo. Goodwin of Juſtif. &c. and ſee how you ſlander the Puritans. In a few plain words, Sir, the Proteſtants do not expect Salvation by their own perſonal righteouſneſs as coordinate with Chriſts, but as ſubordinate to it, nor as a Righteouſneſs ſo denominated from the ſame Reaſon as Chriſts is, but from a lower Reaſon, and ſo as of a lower ſort. That is, [We all hold, that Gods Law to perfect man was perfect, being the Effect of his perfect Holineſs, and required perſonal perpetual perfect innocency and obedience in man: And that man breaking this Law, was according to the Juſtice of it lyable to its Penalty, which is temporal, ſpiritual, and eternal death, or to be forſaken of that God whom he forſook, and to be under the ſenſe of his diſpleaſure, or Juſtice: We believe that Chriſt Redeemed us from this Puniſhment, by the merit of his perfect Holineſs and Obedience, and the ſatisfactory ſacrificing of himſelf on the Croſs, where he was in his meaſure forſaken of God, as in our ſtead and for our ſins; whoſe puniſhment, as far as was fit for him to undergo, he voluntarily undertook to ſuffer. We believe that he never intended by this Redemption, to take man from under his ſubjection to God, or make him an ungoverned lawleſs Wight; but that by purchaſe he himſelf, as Mediator, became his Lord and King, and Gods chief Adminiſtrator of the Redeemed World: And his Lord-Redeemer, with the Will and Authority of God his Creator, made him a new Law and Covenant, freely giving Right to Impunity (ſaving paternal healing Corrections, and temporal death, and degrees of deſertion if men neglect Grace) and Right to the Heavenly Glory, as thus merited for us by Chriſt; and alſo the Communion of the Holy Ghoſt on Earth, to fit us by Holineſs for Heaven, and to conquer our ſins; and this to all that will by a true effectual Faith, accompanyed with Repentance, unfeignedly accept the Gift of God, that is, that will truly conſent to the Baptiſmal Covenant, taking God for their reconciled God and Father, Jeſus Chriſt for their Saviour, and the Holy Ghoſt for their Sanctifier and Comforter, renouncing the Devil, the World, and the Fleſh, and engaging themſelves as in a Holy War againſt them, as the Enemies of the bleſſed Trinity, and them. And this Covenant they muſt keep: For as it giveth Right to Life to ſuch Believers, ſo it denounceth certain damnation to Unbelievers and unthankful Neglecters of ſo great Salvation.
So that when by [RIGHTEOUSNESSE] we mean that which anſwereth Gods perfect Law, having no ſinful imperfection, we all profeſs that we have no ſuch Righteouſneſs of our own to truſt in, there being no man without ſin; and all ſin by the Law of Innocency denominating the ſinner unrighteous and puniſhable by death: But inſtead of ſuch a Righteouſneſs, Gods Juſtice is ſo far ſatisfied by the Sacrifice and perfect Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, as that he freely giveth us the foreſaid Covenant, and its Free Grace and Benefits: But becauſe we muſt be judged by the Redeemer according to his Law of Grace, therefore we muſt in our ſelves perſonally have the Righteouſneſs which that Law or Covenant hath made neceſſary to our Juſtification firſt, and our Salvation afterwards; which is firſt our foreſaid Faith or Covenant-Conſent, and after (to our ſalvation) our keeping of that Covenant in true Obedience and Holineſs to the end, and our Victory over the three Enemies which we renounced. So that briefly, God juſtifieth as the Donor and the Judge: Chriſt God and Man, as Mediator, juſtifieth us meritoriouſly, as aforeſaid, and by donation and final ſentence; our Jus ad Impunitatem & Gloriam, our Right to Impunity and the Heavenly Glory, juſtifieth us as our Formal Righteouſneſs (which is a Relation) againſt the Accuſation that we ought to be ſhut out of Heaven and damned to Hell. The Covenant of Grace juſtifieth us, by giving us Right to the Love of the Father, the Grace of the Son, and the Communion of the Holy Ghoſt: Even as Gods Donative and Condonative Inſtrument, or Act of Grace. Our Perſonal Faith including Repentance juſtifieth us, as the matter of our Formal Righteouſneſs, againſt that particular Accuſation, that we are Impenitent Unbelievers, and ſo have no part in Chriſt and his Covenant Gift. And our ſincere, though imperfect, Holineſs added to our Faith, is our material Righteouſneſs, againſt that particular Accuſation, that we are unholy, and ſo unqualified for Heaven: So that the formal Nature of Righteouſneſs being Relative, and the word having various ſenſes according to the variety of reſpects, and all theſe fore-mentioned having their ſeveral parts or offices, to the Being of our final perfect Juſtification, all theſe may accordingly be the Reaſons of our expectation of ſalvation. I forgot to adde, that we are ſo far juſtified by the Holy Ghoſt alſo, as he is the Author of this Holineſs, which is our neceſſary qualification for eternal life. 1 Cor. 6. 10. 11. Tit. 3. 3, 4, 5.
I have here truly, diſtinctly, and plainly told you the Proteſtant and Puritan, that is, the Chriſtian Doctrine of Juſtification.
As to the ſenſe of the word [Imputing] ſee how we do, or do not own it, briefly in Mr. Bradſhaw's Preface, or largely in my Treat. of Juſtifying Righteouſneſs and Imputation. And in my Cathol. Theolog. I have done you and Chriſtianity the ſervice, to prove by plain Citations, that many of your Learnedeſt Divines do ſay herein the ſame as we, or very little differ from us; and if you will as a Make-bate prove the contrary, you will do it to the Diſſenters ſhame. If you truſt not Chriſt alone, as we do, you will find the want of a Saviour in your neceſſity, and Purgatory will not ſerve your turn.
But you tell us, that [Some of the Prelatick Clergie begin to ſcoff at the Doctrine of Imputative Juſtice: One of them lately, in a Sermon before his Majeſty, called it, and not improperly, the Mummery of Imputative Juſtice.] I will tranſcribe no more of your Scoff: It's dangerous mocking at ſuch matters: Imputed Righteouſneſs is oft mentioned by the Holy Ghoſt in Scripture. It is not ſome mens miſ-expoſition that will juſtifie your deriſion. It's no ſtrange thing for men of undigeſted thoughts on both ſides, publickly and privately to revile at each other as erroneous, when if they had but the skill of ſpeaking diſtinctly, and underſtanding one another, they would preſently profeſs that they are agreed; or if it be for want of underſtanding the matter, it's pity but they ſhould be quiet till they underſtand it. I am of their mind that think it is here ſafeſt to keep cloſe to Scripture phraſe; for want of which many wrangle about their own ambiguous or ill made words, that in the matter diſagree not.
But, Sir, when you ſay, pag. 6. [An Imputative holy man is a meer Chriſtmas Mummer;] And after your jeaſting with the Boys and Girls, and the Coblers and Botchers Regal Attire, and the Daw and her fine Feathers, you conclude [ſuch will be the ſad Lot of meerly Imputative Saints, who to themſelves and their Brethren ſeem very fine in the extrinſical Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, put on by their phantaſtical Faith, whilſt God and his Angels under all this conceited aſſumed Bravery ſee a laſcivious, wanton, covetous Miſer.] I muſt crave leave to call upon your Conſcience, to judge whether a man that profeſſeth that while he ſeemed a Puritan he was but an unholy, laſcivious, wanton, and covetous miſer, and ſince his turning Papiſt tells the World in Print, that he is now a moſt falſe calumniator, be a fit perſon to invite his Relations to ſuch a pitiful change, to ſave their Souls? While you talkt but of [Imputative Juſtice] ſome mens ambiguous words gave you an excuſe: For ſome Proteſtants think that nothing ſhould be called Juſtifying Righteouſneſs, which is not ſinleſs and perfect: But this is but a Controverſie about a Word or Name of Righteouſneſs. But when you here pretend, that they are for meerly Imputed Holineſs, I muſt ſay that I remember not that ever I read a more impudent Slander: And he that will dwell in Gods holy Hill muſt not receive a falſe Report, eſpecially in deſpight of the fulleſt evidence that man can deſire: Are not our Bookſellers Shops full of Books for the neceſſity of perſonal Holineſs? and that none can be ſaved but Saints? Is it not one of our diſlikes of your Way, that Saints muſt be made rare Canonized Perſons, when all Chriſtians hold, that without Holineſs none ſhall ſee God? When almoſt all the Sermons that ever I heard … by any man of ſenſe in my life profeſt this, and almoſt all our Books are on this very ſubject, who would have thought that a man on earth could have been found, that would deny it in the open face of the Sun? Yea, one that ſaith he was a Puritan, and an Univerſity Student? Even when the poor Puritans are ruined, and hunted about, and caſt into Goals, becauſe they dare not give over preaching the neceſſity of Perſonal Holineſs to ſalvation (for that is the moſt of all their Sermons that ever I heard) dare you ſtand forth with ſuch an accuſation as this? as if they held no Holineſs neceſſary but Imputative? Why then are we devoted in Baptiſm to the Holy Ghoſt? Yea what are the very Separatiſts more accuſed of, than that they would have none but real Saints in their Communion, too far preſuming to judge the Heart? You ſeem a zealous man, though very ignorant; I pray you ſtudy not to excuſe this, but let us hear that you as openly repent as you have ſinned.
The moſt of your further dealing with the Prelatick Proteſtant, is to tell him that his Ritual Principles lead him to turn Papiſt, or elſe he cannot anſwer the Puritan: I take not my ſelf any further fit to interpoſe herein, than to tell you, that in all things truly Indifferent, there is a juſt middle between any miſtaken Scruplers that hold them ſinful, and a Papiſt that maketh them a part of his Chriſtianity or Religion, and will not be of the ſame Religion and Church with thoſe that be not of his mind, nor will willingly ſuffer them to preach or live. I told you that S. Paul, and the Churches deſcribed by Socrates and Sozomen (about Eaſter) were of this middle way: They neither thought Liturgies or Ceremonies ſo bad (or unlawful at all,) as ſome on one ſide called Puritans do, not ſo neceſſary as to make them a Partition Wall between Churches and Churches, or to forbid Communion, or the Preaching of Chriſts Goſpel, or Chriſtian Peace, to thoſe that differ about them. And I think this middle way is approved by God and Angels, and by many at death, or after long experience, who were againſt it before in proſperity and paſſion.
The Inſtances which you give, are,
I. That [the Prelatick Proteſtant is very angry with the Puritan, that he will not abſtain from Fleſh in Lent, on Frydays, Emberdays, and Vigils of Saints—Though practically ſpeaking no body takes leſs notice of them than himſelf—And the poor Puritan, becauſe he will not ſolemnly invite the People to obſerve, what himſelf never intends to take the leaſt notice of, muſt for this be ſilenced and ſuſpended both from Office and Benefice.]
Anſw. 1. Here you ſhew what things they be that you turn Papiſt for: Is not eating Fleſh on Frydays, Lent, or Vigils, a worthy matter to make another Religion of, or to prove men to be of differing Churches?
2. I told you before, that the Puritans judgment is as Paul's, that ſuch things ſhould be left indifferent, or at leaſt make no breach among us; by our judging or deſpiſing one another: And that neither the Pope, nor any men on Earth, have Authority to make Univerſal Laws for them to all the Chriſtian World; and that there is no true Tradition of Apoſtolical Inſtitution of them: But yet that ſuch Faſts and Feaſts as are appointed by true Authority of Prince or Paſtors, not againſt the Laws of God, and ſuch as ſhall be proved to be inſtituted by the Apoſtles, they will obſerve.
3. But the poor Puritan is indeed in hard Circumſtances, were there no life after this! Some of them have no Fleſh to eat, either on Frydays, or any day in the Week, but live thankfully upon Bread and Milk, and ſome ſuch things; Fiſh they would gladly eat, if they could get it. There are now among them ſuch as with many Children have for a long time lived almoſt only on brown Ryebread and Water: Many of them take it for a ſufficient quantity to eat one temperate Meal a day, though they are in no want; and the Papiſt that forbeareth Fleſh, and eateth better than the Puritan feaſteth with, or that faſteth with one Meal a day, which is many Puritans fulleſt Dyet, doth condemn the poor Puritan as an Heretick, and perhaps burn him at a Stake, or caſt him into the Inquiſition, for not Faſting. Poor John Calvin did eat but one ſmall Meal a day, and the Papiſt who faſt much at the rate as Calvin feaſted, record him for a gluttonous perſon. And ſo did the Phariſees by Chriſt and his Diſciples; why do not thy Diſciples faſt, &c.
II. Your ſecond Inſtance is, [The Prelatick Proteſtant wonders the Puritan ſhould ſcruple adorning the Communion Table, with two Wax Tapers, &c.]
Anſ. The former Anſwer ſerveth to this: Hear, O ye Puritans, wherein the Roman Religion doth ſurpaſs yours! Their Altars have lighted Tapers on: Do you not deſerve to be burnt your ſelves, if you will not burn Candles on your Altars?
Yea the Pope, who hath power to ſet up and take down Emperours and Kings, being not only the King of Rome, but the Monarch of the whole World, doth appoint theſe Lights as a Profeſſing ſign [before God and Man that he is of that Church which in the Primitive Times for fear of Perſecution ſerved. God by Candle-light in Dens and Caves,] And is not this to prove the immutability of their Church, that vary not in a Circumſtance from the Apoſtolioal Inſtitution? Doth his domineering over Kings and Nations, and the Hoſts of Great Princes, Cardinals, Prelates, Abbots, Clergy, Regulars, Seculars, that obey him, ſhew alſo that he is of that old Candle-lighted Church?
But while you ſeem ſtill to plead Apoſtolical Tradition for all theſe Great Parts of your Religion, tell the poor Puritan, whether it was by Propheſie, or how elſe, that the Apoſtles delivered to the Church the uſe of theſe Lighted Tapers, in commemoration of that which was done in Dens long after the death of theſe Apoſtles? I doubt rather, the Pope doth by this practice condemn himſelf, and ſets up theſe Lights to ſhew the World how much he and his Church are changed ſince thoſe forementioned days.
III. You next ſay, [The Prelatick Proteſtant wonders what hurt the Puritan can ſee in making the ſign of that on the forehead of a new baptized Infant, yet ſmiles at a Papiſt when he makes it on himſelf, or his Victuals, &c.]
Anſ. None of us are aſhamed of the Croſs of Chriſt, nor loth to profeſs this as openly as you: But if we do it by Word, by Writing, by Obeying, or by Suffering, we are of another Religion from you, (it ſeems by you,) unleſs we will do it alſo by croſſing: The Jews were the Croſsmakers: And there are now ſo many Croſs-makers in the World, whoſe Trade we like not, that we are not forward to ſet up their ſign at our doors. But yet there are Puritans and Prelatiſts, that were they among the Deriders of a Crucified Chriſt, where the uſe were not a Formality, or worſe, but convenient to tell the Infidels their mind, that they are not aſhamed of the Croſs of Chriſt, would not refuſe ſeaſonably to Croſs themſelves. But the Puritans think, that when it is made [a ſolemn ſtated ſign of the Duty and Grace of the New Covenant, dedicating there by the perſon to God, as one hereby obliging himſelf to profeſs the Faith of Chriſt Crucified, and manfully to fight under his Banner againſt the Devil, the World, and the Fleſh to the death, in hope of the Benefits of his Croſs and Covenant, and ſo is made a Badge or Symbol of our Chriſtianity,] then it is made a Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace, added to Chriſts Sacrament of the ſame uſe; or at leaſt too like it, though the Name be denyed it: And they think that Chriſt hath given none power to make ſuch new Sacraments or Symbols of Chriſtianity; he having done that ſufficiently himſelf. They have a conceit that the King would not be pleaſed with them that either frame a new Oath of Allegiance added to his, as the Badge of his Subjects Loyalty, nor yet that would make a new Badge of the Order of the Knights of the Garter, without his conſent. At leaſt, the Puritans think that Baptiſm, and Chriſtianity, and Chriſtian Burial ſhould not be denyed to thoſe Children, whoſe Parents do not offer them to be baptized with this additional Symbol: And if the poor men be deceived in ſuch thoughts, it is but in fear of ſinning againſt Chriſt, and not that they are more aſhamed of his Croſs than you, or more diſobedient to Authority.
IV. Your next inſtance is, [The Prelatick Proteſtant wonders that the Puritane can doubt the holy Euchriſt is really and truly the body of Chriſt, &c.] And you cite Dr. Coſins Hiſt. Tranſub. p. 44.
Anſw. 1. The Prelatick Proteſtant and the Puritane differ not at all about the real preſence of Chriſts body in the Sacrament, as I have ſhewed you elſewhere. What need you more proof than King Edwards old Rubrick againſt the Real Preſence in a groſs ſence, lately reſtored to the Liturgie. And as for Dr. Coſins words and book, I again tell you, all the Doctors of the Roman Church are never able to anſwer his full proof that Tranſubſtantiation is a late innovation; and none of the doctrine of the ancient Churches. We challenge you all to give any reaſonable anſwer to that book: And you ſtill Cunningly bawke the main Controverſie between us and you, which is not whether Chriſts Body be there, but whether Bread and Wine be there. For I have told you, 1. That we who know not how far a Glorified Spiritual Body is extenſive and inviſible to us, cannot tell you where it is preſent or abſent, no more than of an Angel. 2. But we all hold, as a piece of Plate or Silver Barrs, is really and truly turned into the Kings Coine, ſo the Bread and Wine is really and truly turned into Chriſts Sacramental Body and Blood; and yet one is Silver and the other is Bread and Wine ſtill: The change is true, but Relative by its Separation to that holy uſe: as a Common perſon may be Really Changed into a King, or a Lord, or a Judge, or a Captain, or a Biſhop, or a Doctor, and yet be a man ſtill. This real change we all Confeſs. But the queſtion is, whether there be no Bread.
V. You ſay [The Prelatick Proteſtant wonders that the Puritan when he is going out of this world ſhould find difficulty to make a particular Confeſſion of his ſins, if any grievous matter lye on his Conſcience, and humbly deſire the Prelatick Prieſts abſolution, ſaying &c.].
Anſw. I know of no difference between the Prelatiſt and the Puritan about Confeſſion or Abſolution. Dr. John Reynolds a true Puritan, received Abſolution before he dyed: Meer Puritans believe that it is a duty to Confeſs our ſins to men. 1. In Caſe of ſuch injury to any as muſt have a Confeſſion towards the injured perſons Satisfaction: and forgiveneſs. 2. In Caſe of ſuch difficulty about either the nature of the ſin, or Conſequent dangers or dutyes, as make a particular Guide neceſſary, who cannot reſolve our doubts till he know the Caſe. 3. In Caſe that the Conſcience be ſo burdened with the ſin, as that the ſinner cannot by other means find eaſe, till he have disburdened himſelf by ſuch Confeſſion. 4. In Caſe it be neceſſary to heal any ſcandal given to others; It is a very great duty for drunkards, fornicators, deceivers, and ſuch others to go to their Companions, and lament their ſin, and perſwade them no more to do as they have done: And if required by the Paſtors to take publick ſhame before the Congregation, and acknowledg that the doctrine of Chriſt never countenanced them in any ſuch ſin, that Religion and the Church may not bear the reproach of their delinquency. And to beg the prayers of the Congregation for their pardon, and that the Paſtor by virtue of his office will pronounce it.
But we are not aſhamed to confeſs that neither Puritans nor Prelatiſts think it lawful to make the people believe that they muſt needs tell the Prieſt of all the ſins that they commit, and dutyes that they omit; Nor to uphold pragmatical Prieſts in the trade of knowing all mens thoughts and ſecret actions, even Princes, by which they may betray them. 1. The number of people and of their ſins, is ſo great as render it impoſſible: In this Pariſh it's thought there is above threeſcore thouſand ſouls: How many thouſand ſinful thoughts, or words or deeds a great part of theſe may commit in a year, I leave to your Conjecture: only I muſt tell you that if all men High and Low, that are called Papiſts about us, ſhould but tell the Prieſt of every time they are drunk, and every Fornication they have committed, every prophane Oath they have ſworn, every Lye they have told, (eſpecially againſt the Proteſtants,) and of every filthy and prophane Word that they have ſpoken, and every Oppreſſion of the poor, and every filthy or covetons thought that hath been in their hearts, they had need of a very Traditional Memory to remember them, or great plenty of Ink and Paper to record them, and a whole Dioceſs of Clergy-men in one Pariſh to hear them. How many hundred Prieſts muſt this Pariſh have, if all ſhould thus confeſs all ſins of Commiſſion and Omiſſion? every cold Prayer, and omitted Prayer, Exhortation, Alms, Example, &c. eſpecially the great Omiſſions of the Soul, in the defects of the exerciſe of Faith, Hope, Love, and Patience, &c.
2. And what good will it do a man, that is himſelf of ſound underſtanding and integrity, to open his Conſeience to an ignorant or unconſcionable man, that will call evil good, and good evil, and will put him upon ſin; as you here do by your Relations; or that dare himſelf ſin as boldly as you here do, when you accuſe Puritans and Prolates as holding meer Imputed Holineſs.
3. And how great a temptation and injury may this be to your Prieſts, in ſuch inſtances as Montaltus the Janſenist mentioneth, with which I will not defile my Paper? when, alas! moſt of them are not men fit to bear ſuch temptations: What if twenty thouſand People in one Pariſh ſhould each make this Confeſſion to a Papiſt Prieſt, [I am afraid I have ſinned in believing the common Report, that you are a very ignorant drunken ſot; and a common whoremaſter, and a proud, covetous lying man;] would it not be like to enrage the Prieſt into an enmity againſt his Flock? If all the Fornicators in ſuch a Pariſh ſhould tell ſuch Prieſts of all their filthy thoughts, and words, and their immodeſt actions, and actual Fornications; how like were it to make ſuch impreſſions on the poor Prieſts Phantaſie, as would pollute him with many filthy imaginations.
VI. You adde, [The Prelatick Proteſtant wonders at the Puritan's niceneſs, that he can by no means be perſwaded to bow at the Name of Jeſus: When Nature teacheth us a Relative Reverence, &c. The ſound of the Name Jeſus is vaniſhed and gone, before the ſuperſtitious Worſhipper can make his mimical Congie: Whereas the Picture, a far more lively repreſentation of the ſame great Lord, remains.]
Anſ. 1. The Puritans think it not unlawful to bow when God or Jeſus are named. But, 1. They are loth to ſerve thoſe men, that would turn all ſerious Religion into a dead Image of it. 2. And they like not bowing at the Name Jeſus, and not at the Name [God], or [Chriſt, or Immanuel, or Jehovah, or the Holy Ghoſt.]
2. As to Images, I will but refer you to Dr. Stillingfleet's laſt Book againſt Godwin, which hath fully proved, that you uſe them as truly Idolatrouſly as did the Heathens.
VII. Your next Inſtance is, [The Conformiſts rejecting the Popiſh Girdle, Stole, and Caſuble, and yet wondring at the Puritans rejecting the Surplice.]
Anſ. The former Anſwers ſerve to this: Some Puritans would uſe the Surplice, if that would ſerve and ſatisfie. But they ſee, that if they ſay [A] firſt, they muſt ſay [B] next, and ſo on to the end of your Alphabet. But ſtill you tell us what great things your new Religion doth conſiſt of, and what great cauſe you had to turn from the Puritans to the Papiſts? If you had known no more than Books can tell you, and your Grandfather had not known better than Baronius himſelf, what the Apoſtles did and inſtituted, we ſhould never have known that the Religion which is integrated by a Surplice, Girdle, Stole, and Caſuble, had been herein Apoſtolical, and not rather a novel thing.
VIII. Your eighth Inſtance is about praying for the dead: But whatever you ſay of the Rector of S. Martins in Oxford, there is no difference between the Puritans and the Prelatick Proteſtants in that point: You miſtake the matter: It is another paſſage, or two or three at Burial, which the Puritan ſticks at, viz. which pronounceth of every individual perſon in the Kingdom, Atheiſts, Infidels, Papiſts, and Impenitent Sinners that we bury, except only the Excommunicate, Unbaptized, and Selfmurderers, that [God of his mercy hath taken to himſelf the Soul of this our dear Brother, out of the miſeries of this ſinful life, &c.]
IX. Your laſt Inſtance indeed toucheth the quick of our Controverſie with Rome: You ſay [The Prelatick Proteſtant wonders at the Puritan's Pride, that he will not ſubmit his judgment in matters of Faith, to the determination of a Council of all the Reverend Biſhops of the Land, his Majeſty as Supreme Head and Governour preſiding,] yet ſubmit not [to the determination of a General Council of all the Learned Biſhops of the Chriſtian World, his Holineſs the Pope as Supreme Paſtor preſiding, and believe as the Univerſal Church of Chriſt believeth: It's fitting, ſays the Conformiſt, that for Order ſake in Chriſts Church, there ſhould be in every Nation ſome Supreme Governours, to whoſe Directions in matters of Divine Worſhip, all ſhould ſubmit; elſe we ſhall have as many Chriſtian Religions and ways of Worſhip, as there are Pariſhes, Families, or Perſons. The Puritan replyeth, It ſeems as rational that Chriſt ſhould for the ſame Reaſons of conſerving union, decency, and order in his Church, appoint one Supreme Paſtor over all Chriſtians, diſperſed in all the Nations of the World, whom all ſhould obey in the vacancy of General Councils.]
Anſ. This deſenveth our wakeful Remarks: I. So your ſacred Cardinal Bertrand (in Biblioth. Patrum) ſaid, that God had not been wiſe elſe, if he had not placed one Supreme, as his Vicar over the World. And ſo you can tell what God hath done, by your ſuperlative Wit which can tell us what he ought to do. God doth all wiſely: But if he had not made an Univerſal Head of the World under him, he had not done wiſely; ergo, he hath made ſuch an Head, &c. This is Hiſtorical Logick.
II. But is this Monarch the Head in Civil Government, or only in Eccleſiaſtick? Why is your One Church no more One in anſwering this Queſtion? Nay why were poor Barclay, Withrington, and ſuch others, whoſe Writings Goldaſtus hath preſerved, ſo hardly judged of, for pleading for Kings Supremacy in Civil Government? And if you are of their mind, tell us if you can, why God muſt not be judged as unreaſonable and unwiſe, if he have not made One Univerſal Civil Monarch of all the World? I undertake, when you will come to a due tryal, to prove, that Civil Government is ſuch as may as well, and far better, be done by Officers and Deputies than the Eccleſiaſtical Government can: And I pray who is the Univerſal Monarch? Or who muſt be he? Or how muſt he be choſen? I would have our King have no mortal King ſet over him, at leaſt without a chuſing Vote. And ſhall they meet in a General Council of Kings to chuſe one? By that time the Place and Time be agreed on, and the Kings have all left their Kingdoms, and be come from the Antipodes, and the Terra Auſtralis incognita, and all other Kingdoms to that Council to chuſe a Monarch of the World, they will be too old to return home again. Or ſhall they fight it out, till one have Conquered all the reſt? Alas, who ſhall bear the charge of the Conqueſt at the Antipodes, and who ſhall anſwer for all the Blood? When one cannot get all Europe at a cheaper rate, than will be expreſſed by many Kingdoms groans, and the Soil dunged with mens fleſh and blood. I have long ago on this ſubject given (in my Key for Catholicks) an Anſwer to Richlieu, and to Carol. Boverius, who wrote for the Honour of Eccleſiaſtick Monarchy, from the ſimilitude of Civil, to have perverted our late King; as if he would have made him believe, that the World muſt have one mortal Monarch.
Contrarily, If it be Madneſs and Hoſtility to all Kings and States, for any one man on earth to claim and ſeek to be the Monarch of all the World in Civil Government, it is madneſs and hoſtility to Kings, Paſtors, and People, for any one man to claim and ſeek to be the Monarch of all the World in Eccleſiaſtick Government. But the former is true: Ergo, ſo is the latter. I am ready to make good the Compariſon.
III. But, Sir, if the Pope be S. Peter's Succeſſor, is not his Apoſtolick office as Univerſal as his Monarchy or Ruling office? Surely the firſt part of the Apoſtles office was to preach and baptize, and make Chriſtians and gather Churches, and the Governing of them was but the ſecond part: And is the Pope the Apoſtle of all the world? Then it ſeemeth that he is a betrayer of moſt of the whole earth to the Devil, that neither preacheth to them per ſe vel per alios. But S. Peter's Charge was not Vniverſal but Indefinite. And even as to Government, why did he never ſo much as ſend his Deputies to govern the Abaſſins for ſo many hundred years? Nay hence it ſeemeth to follow, that all the preaching and Church-order that hath been for ſo many hundred years, either there or in any other Nation, by which millions have been turned to Chriſtianity and edified, without the miſſion or Commiſſion of the Roman Monarch, ſhould have been left undone, and all was unlawful?
IV. But muſt your Pope be obeyed as Supreme but in the Vacancy of General Councils? Dare you preach this at Rome? 1. How then come the Councils of Conſtance and Baſil for ſuch Doctrine to be unapproved or reprobate Councils? How came Pope Eugenius to keep up and continue the ſucceſſion, when ſo great a General Council had depoſed him as Heretical, Simoniacal, and many ways flagitious? 2. And what? Have we a Catholick Church with two Heads? that are pervices the Vicars of Chriſt? A Pope one year, and a Council another? Then ſure they are two Churches, ſeeing the Pars imperans is the ſpecifying part. 3. But the beſt is, it is at the Pope's will, whether ever there ſhall be a General Council more? And he knoweth which ſide his Bread is Buttered on? Nay, they ſay, no Decree is valid without his approbation: And if ever a John, or Eugenius of them all will approve of his own Depoſition for Hereſie, Simony, Adultery, &c. he is not the Man that I took him for. 4. But if the name [General Council] be not a Cheat, and taken for a Council very far from being General, as to the whole Chriſtian World, let the Pope ſet his heart at reſt, I will undertake to ſecure him from the danger of ſuch a Council, and to prove that ſuch there never ought to be, will be, or can be, unleſs Chriſtianity come much nearer to be rooted out of the Earth, and the Church brought into a narrower room.
V. But you have a reflecting Compariſon between the Kings preſiding and the Popes, and between a National Council and the Biſhops of the whole Chriſtian World. To begin at the later part. Alas poor ignorant Man, if you believe this your ſelf? And alas unfaithful Man, if you believe it not and yet dare ſay it? Do you yet know no difference between the orbis Romanus, and the orbis univerſalis? Or will you with William Johnſon, alias Terret, prove your Councils to be Univerſal, becauſe ſuch places as Thracia had Biſhops there, as if Thracia had been without the Empire? or becauſe ſuch a name as Johannes Perſidis is found at Nice? Read all the ſubſcribed names, and return to a ſounder mind! Theodoret knew what he ſaid, when he gave the reaſon why James Biſhop of Niſibis in Perſia, or near it, was at the Council of Nice, Becauſe Niſibis was then under the Roman Emperour.
Do you not know that moſt of the Chriſtian World (two to one) are not of the Pope's Subjects; and are All the Biſhops of the Chriſtian World then on your ſide? And do you not know that when Conſtantine preſided at Nice, his Dominion was full as large as the Biſhop of Rome's was, and a little larger.
VI. But becauſe you ſhall find us reaſonable, we will tell you, that we conſent to General Councils where the Pope conſenteth not? We conſent to what the great Councils at Calcedon and Conſtantinople, before mentioned, ſay of the Humane Inſtitution of his Primacy, and the Reaſon and Mutability of it; and ſo doth not the Pope? We conſent to the Councils at Conſtance, Baſil, Piſa, that the Pope may be depoſed as a Heretick, and worſe; but the Pope doth not: Is it not he then that diſſenteth from all the Biſhops of the World?
VII. And for the Kings preſiding we wholly own it: He is the Governour of Clergy-men, as well as of Phyſicians; and he is to ſee that they abuſe not their Function to the common hurt. The difference is here, 1. Our King Governeth but his own Dominions: But your Pope would Govern all the World. 2. Our King hath an undoubted Title: Your Pope is an Uſurper. 3. And as to your name [Head] he hath given the World full ſatisfaction, that he did never claim to be a Prieſt-Head or Governour, a Conſtitutive Head of a properly called Church, nor to have the power of Word, Sacraments, and Keys, ſo as to adminiſter them; but to be a Civil Head and Governour of Prieſts, and the Churches in his Dominions; as he is of Phyſicians, &c.
VIII. And you miſtake the Puritans, if you think they are not for this Government: Why elſe take they the Oath of Supremacy? Yea, and if you think that they are not for as much Unity and Concord of all the Churches in a Kingdom, as can be had without a greater hurt, than the leſſer particularities of their concord will do good: And they are not againſt National Synods for ſuch Concord: And they hold the King to be the Regular Head or Governour, or Principium of that Concord: But not principium eſſentiale ipſius Eccleſiae: And therefore the Puritans differ from judicious Ric. Hooker, who ſaith, [If the King be the Head of the Church, he muſt needs be a Chriſtian:] For we hold that an Infidel King may be ſo the Head, that is, the Rightful Governour of the Chriſtians and Churches in his Dominion; or elſe how ſhould they be obliged to obey him?
IX. And you are miſtaken, if you think that the Puritans and the Prelatiſts differ about ſubmitting our Faith to the judgment of the Church: We ſubſcribe the ſame Articles, which ſay that General Councils may erre, and have erred, even about matters of Faith.
X. But I muſt tell you, that the Puritans, who are accuſed of diſorder and confuſion, do many of them loath diſorder and confuſion, even in words and doctrine. And they diſtinguiſh here between the Churches keeping and teaching the Chriſtian Faith, and the Churches judging in matters of Faith. The firſt they are wholly for: We muſt receive our Faith from our Teachers, and oportet diſcentem fide humana credere. But if by Judging you mean ſtrictly a Deciſive judgment, in which we muſt reſt, which way ſoever the ſentence paſs, as if the Church might not only teach us the truth of our Religion, but judge in partem utramlibet, whether it be true or not, the Puritans own no ſuch power in the Church, nor will ſo ſubmit their Faith to the judgment of it. They believe that Paſtors in Councils have power to judge that there is a God, Almighty, &c. a Chriſt, a Holy Ghoſt, that Chriſt dyed, roſe, &c. that the Scripture is true, that there is an abſolute neceſſity of Holineſs, that there is a Reſurrection and Life everlaſting, that Gods Commandments muſt be kept, and ſin not committed, &c. But that no Council hath power to judge that there is no God, no Chriſt, or the contrary to any one of theſe, or any other revealed Truth of God.
XI. And I muſt not let paſs your Schiſmatical inference, that [elſe there ſhould be as many Religions and ways of worſhip as Pariſhes or perſons] if ſome ſupreme Governour determined not in matters of worſhip: For 1. It was not ſo, when no Supreme Governour determined, on earth: 2. But either you mean the Subſtantials of Gods Worſhip or the Circumſtantials: In the firſt as faith is not to be got by force, ſo neither is Godlineſs, but yet Governours ſhould here do their beſt: But as to the other we abhor the Conceit, that there are as many Religions, as there is difference about veſtures, geſtures, days and meats:
But perhaps you take the word Religion in the Romane ſenſe, as you confine it to thoſe that you call [the Religious] (as if you took the people of your Church to be irreligious:) And ſo you have indeed too many Religious, however they come to make one Church: The Religion of the Carthuſians is one, and of the Benedictines another, and of the Franciſcans another; I cannot name them all: One eateth Herbs and Fiſh, and another eateth Fleſh ſeldom, another often; one weareth one habit, and another weareth another; one Religion hath one Rule of Life, and another hath another. But with us there is but one Religion (which is the Chriſtian) though one man wear cloth and another ſtuffe, one white and another black, one eat Fleſh and another Fiſh, and another can ſeldom get either; though one wear his Hair long and another ſhort, though one be old and another be young, yet we are all of one Religion: Yea, though one preach and pray in Engliſh, another in Welch, another in French, and another in Dutch, yet we take not theſe to be ſo many Religions: No nor though one think Free praying fitter for Miniſters than an impoſed Form, and another think an impoſed Form only fit, and a third think as the meer Puritan, that both having their Conveniences and Inconveniences, there ſhould be ſeaſons for both.
And I pray you here tell me two things if you can. 1. Whether the great difference of Liturgies (which are the very Words and Order of the Churches Worſhip) be not liker a difference of Religions, than the colour of our cloaths, or the meat we eat, or the lighting of a Candle, &c. And yet do I need to tell you how many Liturgies are recorded in the Bibliotheca Patrum? Yea, that it was ſix hundred years and more before the Churches in one Empire uſed all one and the ſame Liturgy? and for ſome hundred years, that every Church uſed what the Biſhop pleaſed? Yea, that the firſt reſtraint of free-praying that we find was, by a Council ordaining that the Presbyter ſhould firſt ſhew his Prayer to the Fathers that they might be ſure it was ſound? And had Baſil and Chryſoſtome, and all others that varyed, as divers Religions as Liturgies?
2. Whether all the doctrinal Controverſies among your ſelves, as between all your School Doctors about Predeſtination, Grace, and free will, about Perſeverance, about the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, about the Power of the Pope over all Kings in Temporals, and about the killing of excommunicate Kings, and the abſolving their Subjects, and whether after excommunication they are Kings or no, (of which Hen. Fowlis hath cited great ſtore on one ſide,) and all the Moral Controverſies about loving God, about Perjuries, Vows, Murder, Fornication, Lying, Stealing, Drunkenneſs, Gluttony, (of which you may ſee great ſtore in Montaltus's Letters, The Myſtery of Jeſuitiſme, and Mr. Clarkſons late Book called The Practical Divinity of the Church of Rome:) I ſay, is not Religion as much concerned about all theſe differences, and all the reſt among you which make many Horſe-loads, yea I think Cart-loads of Volumes, as it is in the colour of the Preachers Cloaths, or the Meat he eateth? And are not Proteſtants (that is, meer Chriſtians diſowning Popery) as juſtifiable in their Unity and Charity, for taking Men to be of the ſame Religion, who uſe not the ſame Garments, Geſtures, and Ceremonies, and that bear with differences herein, as your Church that beareth with all theſe loads of different Doctrines in your moſt Learned Famous Doctors (and not in the weaker Prieſts alone) even whether excommunicate Kings may be killed or no; and whether the Pope hath Power to put down and ſet up Emperours and Kings? If you ſay that your One Religion and One Church hath no ſuch difference, it muſt be by ſaying that you all agree to Gregory the ſeventh in Concil. Rom. & Innoc. 3. in Concil. Lateran. on the worſer ſide, and all own the Doctors cited by H. Fowlis aforeſaid: But indeed I muſt ſpeak better of you, even that ſome are of a better mind, whom Goldaſtus hath gathered and preſerved, and divers of the Learned Men of France, and ſome in Spain. But we think the difference even between the Prelatiſts, Presbyterians, Independants, yea and the moderate Anabaptiſts, to be far leſs than theſe which your unanimous agreeing Church doth conſtantly bear with, without Silencing, Impriſoning, Ejecting, or Condemning, or ſo much as diſowning the judgments of the worſer ſide.
He that readeth Parſons on one ſide, and Watſon's Quodlibets on the other; Barclay and Witherington on one ſide, and Zuarez and the far greater prevalent Party on the other, will either wonder at the ſtrength of your Unity which no doctrinal differences even about the Blood of Kings can at all diſſolve; or elſe he may wonder at the laxe and ſandie temperament of ſuch Proteſtants as cannot bear with a Man that readeth not in their Book, and ſingeth not in their Tune; and is ſtill crying out againſt others as Sectaries, becauſe they have piped to them and they have not danced; and ſuch as no Man can live quietly within reach of, unleſs they ſwallow every Morſel which they cut for them, having Throats neither wider, or at leaſt no narrower than theirs. As if King Henry the eighth's days were the meaſure of true Diſcipline, when one Man was burnt for being too far from Popery, and another hanged, or beheaded, for being Popiſh, and it was hard to know the middle Region, and harder to know how long it would be calm? till ſtrangers cryed, Deus bone, quomodo hic vivunt Gentes. But as none are more cruel in Wars than Cowards, (nor in Robberies than Women,) nor any more gentle and pitiful than valiant experienced Souldiers; ſo few are ſo inſolent and bloody obtruders of their Dictates and Wills upon the World, as thoſe that being leaſt able to prove them good, have nothing but Inquiſitions and Priſons, Silencings and Baniſhings, Fire and Faggot, effectually to make them good.
But if St. James be in the right, who ſaith, that Pure Religion and undefiled is this, to viſit the Fatherleſs and Widows in their adverſity, and to keep our ſelves unſpotted of the World, then certainly the Jeſuits Morals, and the Myſtery of Jeſuitiſm, and Clarkſon's Roman Practical Divinity, and Fowlis's Treaſons of the Papiſts, contain more of the concerns of Religion, than preaching in a conſecrated or unconſecrated place, and than eating Fleſh, Fiſh, or neither, in Lent or on Fridays, doth. O the ſtrange difference between your Unity and Concord, and the Proteſtants! How faſt is yours? How looſe is ours?
And it is to be conſidered we pretend not to ſo much perfection in this world, as ever to expect that all Men ſhould be juſt of the ſame Size and Complexion, or ſpeak the ſame Language, or have all the ſame Opinions, Thoughts, or Words: If we can keep the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace, in the ſeven Points named by the Apoſtle, Eph. 4. 3, 4, 5, 6. ſo far as we have attained do walk by the ſame Rule (of Love and Peace) and mind the ſame things, till God reveal more to ſuch as differ, (Phil. 3.) we ſhall be glad of ſuch a meaſure of Union: For we believe it impoſſible to be perfect in Concord, while moſt, yea all are ſo wofully imperfect in Knowledge, Faith, Love and Obedience. We wait for perfection of all in Heaven; and we find that few things in the World ever did ſo much againſt Unity, as pretending to more than is to be hoped for, and laying ill on ſo high terms, and ſo many as we know will never be received. Therefore our Mutual Love and forbearance with different Forms and Circumſtances, is agreeable to the Principles of our Religion.
But for you that pretend to Unity, Concord, and Infallible Judgement, to tolerate Cart-loads of Doctrinal Controverſies, divers Expoſitions of many hundred Texts of Scripture, divers readings of the Text it ſelf, contrary Doctrines about God's Grace, about all the Ten Commandments, about the Eſtates and Lives of Kings, and never ſo much as to condemn either ſide nor ſilence the Preachers, never impriſon them, or baniſh them five miles from Cities and Corporations, never put them to any diſgrace, but ſtill honour them as renowned Doctors, as if the Lives of Kings, and the reſt of theſe things were leſs than a Form of Prayer, or a Ceremony, yea when your Inquiſition torment poor Proteſtants for ſmaller matters, (as reading the Bible, or a Proteſtant Book;) methinks all this ſheweth that Chriſtian Concord is founded on better Principles than yours, and that yours is but the Bond of your Clergy intereſt.