Suppose we were by much the fewer. So hath the true church of God often been, without any the least prejudice to the truth of their religion. What think we of the church in Abraham's time, which, for ought we know, was confined to one family, and one fmall kingdom, that of Melchifedek King of Salem? What think we of it in Mofes's time, when it was confined to one people wandering in a wilderness? What of it in Elijah's time, when, befides the two tribes that worshipped at Jerufalem, there were in the other ten but seven thoufand that had not bowed their knee to Baal? What in our Saviour's time, when the whole Christian church confisted of twelve Apostles, and feventy difciples, and fome few followers befide? How would Bellarmine have defpifed this little flock, because it wanted one or two of his goodlieft marks of the true church, univerfality and fplendor? And what think we of the Chriftian church in the height of Arianifm and Pelagianifm, when a great part of Christendom was over-run with these errors, and the number of the orthodox was inconfiderable in comparison of the hereticks? But what need I to urge thefe inftances; as if the truth of a religion were to be eftimated and carried by the major vote; which as it can be an argument to none but fools, fo, I dare fay, no honeft and wife man ever made use of it for a folid proof of the truth and goodness of any church or religion? If multitude be an argument that men are in the right, in vain then hath the fcripture faid, Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil: for if this argument be of any force, the greater number never go wrong.

2. As to the point of antiquity. This is not always a certain mark of the true religion. For furely there was a time when Christianity began, and was a new profeffion; and then both Judaism and Paganifin had certainly the advantage of it in point of antiquity. But the proper question in this cafe is, Which is the true ancient Chriftian faith, that of the church of Rome or ours? And, to make this matter plain, it is to be confidered, that a great part of the Roman faith is the fame with ours; as, namely, the articles of the Apostles creed, as explained by the first four general councils. And these make up our whole faith, fo far as concerns matters of mere

and

and fimple belief, that are of abfolute neceffity to falvation. And in this faith of ours there is nothing wanting that can be shewn in any ancient creed of the Chriftian church. And thus far our faith, and theirs of the Roman church, are undoubtedly of equal antiquity; that is, as ancient as Christianity itself.

All the queftion is as to the matters in difference between us the principal whereof are, the twelve new articles of the creed of Pope Pius IV. concerning the facrifice of the mafs, tranfubftantiation, the communion in one kind only, purgatory, &c.; not one of which is to be found in any ancient creed or confession of faith generally allowed in the Christian church. The antiquity of thefe we deny, and affirm them to be innovations; and have particularly proved them to be fo, not only to the anfwering, but almoft to the filencing of our adverfaries.

And as for the negative articles of the Proteftant religion, in oppofition to the errors and corruptions of the Romifh faith; thefe are by accident become a part of our faith and religion, occafioned by their errors; as the renouncing of the doctrines of Arianifm became part of the Catholick religion, after the rife of that herefy.

So that the cafe is plainly this: We believe and teach all that is contained in the creeds of the ancient Chriftian church, and was by them efteemed neceffary to falvation and this is our religion. But now the church of Rome hath innovated in the Christian religion, and made feveral additions to it; and greatly corrupted it both in the doctrines and practices of it and thefe additions and corruptions are their religion, as it is diftinct from ours and both because they are corruptions and novelties, we have rejected them; and our rejection of these is our reformation; and our reformation we grant, if this will do them any good, not to be fo ancient as their corruptions; all reformation neceffarily fuppofing corruptions and errors to have been before it.

And now we are at a little better leifure to anfwer that captious question of theirs, Where was your religion beföre Luther? Where-ever Christianity was; in fome places more pure; in others more corrupted, but efpecially

in

in these Western parts of Christendom, overgrown for feveral ages with manifold errors and corruptions, which the reformation hath happily cut off, and caft away. So that though our reformation was as late as Luther, our religion is as ancient as Christianity itself. For when the additions which the church of Rome hath made to the ancient Christian faith, and their innovations in practice, are pared off, that which remains of their religion is ours. And this they cannot deny to be, every tittle of it, the ancient Christianity.

And what other anfwer than this could the Jews have given to the like question, if it had been put to them by the ancient idolaters of the world, Where was your religion before Abraham ? but the very fame in fubftance which we now give to the church of Rome, That for many ages the worship of the one true God had been cor rupted, and the worship of idols had prevailed, in a great part of the world; that Abraham was raifed up by God to reform religion, and to reduce the worship of God to its first inftitution; in the doing whereof he neceffarily feparated himself and his family from the communion of thofe idolaters? So that though the reformation which Abraham began was new, yet his religion was truly ancient; as old as that of Noah, and Enoch, and Adam: which is the fame in fubftance that we fay, and with the fame and equal reason.

And if they will ftill complain of the newness of our reformation, so do we too; and are heartily forry it began no fooner: but, however, better late than never. Befides, it ought to be confidered, that this objection of novelty lies against all reformation whatsoever, though never fo neceffary, and though things be never fo much amifs. And it is in effect to fay, that if things be once bad, they must never be better, but must always remain as they are: for they cannot be better, without being reformed; and a reformation must begin fome time, and whenever it begins it is certainly new. So that if a

real reformation be made, the thing justifies itself; and no objection of novelty ought to take place against that which upon all accounts was fo fit and neceffary to be done. And if they of the church of Rome would but fpeak their mind out in this matter, they are not fo much

displeased

difpleafed at the reformation which we have made because it is new, as because it is a reformation. It was the humour of Babylon of old, (as the Prophet tells us, Jer. li. 9.), that she would not be healed: and this is ftill the temper of the church of Rome; they hate to be reformed; and rather than acknowledge themselves to have been once in an error, they will continue in it for ever. And this is that which at first made, and ftill continues the breach and feparation between us; of which we are no ways guilty, who have only reformed what was amifs; but they, who obftinately perfift in their errors, and will needs impose them upon us, and will not let us be of their communion, unless we will fay they are no

errors.

II. The other prejudice against the true religion is, the contrariety of it to the vitious inclinations and pra&tices of men.

It is too heavy a yoke, and lays too great a restraint upon human nature. And this is that which in truth lies at the bottom of all objections against religion, Men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.

But this argument will require a discourse by itself, and therefore I fhall not now enter upon it; only crave your patience a little longer, whilst I make fome reflexions upon what hath been already delivered.

You see what are the exceptions which idolatry and fuperftition have always made, and do at this day ftill make against the true religion; and how flight and infignificant they are.

But do we then charge the church of Rome with idolatry? Our church most certainly does fo; and hath always done it from the beginning of the reformation, in her homilies, and liturgy, and canons, and in the writings of her beft and ableft champions. And though I have, as impartially as I could, confidered what hath been faid on both fides in this controverfy; yet I must confefs, I could never yet fee any tolerable defence made by them against this heavy charge. And they themselves acknowledge themfelves to be greatly under the fufpicion. of it, by faying, as Cardinal Perron and others do, that the primitive Chriftians for fome ages did neither worship images, nor pray to faints, for fear of being thought to approach

approach too near the Heathen idolatry. And, which is yet more, divers of their most learned men do confe's, that if tranfubftantiation be not true, they are as grofs idolaters as any in the world. And I hope they do not expect it from us, that, in compliment to them, and to acquit them from the charge of idolatry, we thould prefently deny our fenfes, and believe tranfubftantiation; and if we do not believe this, they grant we have reafon to charge them with idolatry.

But we own them to be a true church; which they cannot be, if they be guilty of idolatry. This they often urge us withal; and there feems at first fight to be fomething in it: and for that reafon I fhall endeavour to give fo clear and fatisfactory an answer to it, as that we may never more be troubled with it.

The truth is, we would fain hope, because they still retain the effentials of Chriftianity, and profefs to believe all the articles of the Chriftian faith, that, notwithstanding their corruptions, they may ftill retain the true effence of a church: as a man may be truly and really a man, though he have the plague upon him; and for that reafon be fit to be avoided by all that wish well to themselves. But if this will not do, we cannot help it. Therefore, to push the matter home, are they fure that this is a firm and good confequence, that if they be idolaters, they cannot be a true church? Then let them look to it. It is they, I take it, that are concerned to prove themselves a true church, and not we to prove it for them. And, if they will not understand it of themselves, it is fit they should be told, that there is a great difference between conceffions of charity and of neceffity, and that a very different ufe ought to be made of them. We are willing to think the best of them: but, if they diflike our charity in this point, nothing against the hair. If they will forgive us this injury, we will not offend them any more: but, rather than have any farther difference with them about this matter, we will for quietnefs fake compound it thus: That till they can clearly acquit themfelves from being idolaters, they fhall never more against their wills be efteemed a true church, And now, to draw to a conclufion,

If it feem evil unto you to ferve the Lord, and to wor

VOL. II.

N

fhip