I. The Prepossessions of a false Religion; which commonly pretends two advantages on its side, Antiquity and Universality; and is wont to object to the true Religion Novelty and Sin­gularity. And both these are intimated both before and after the Text: [...]ut away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt: And chuse you this day [Page 15] whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land ye dwell. Idolatry was the Religion of their Fathers, and had spread it self over the great­est and most ancient Nations of the world, and the most famous for Learning and Arts, the Chaldeans and Egyptians; and was the Reli­gion of the Amorites and the Nations round about them. So that Joshua represents the Heathen Religion with all its strength and ad­vantage, and do's not dissemble its confident pretence to Antiquity and Universality, where­by they would also insinuate the Novelty and Singularity of the worship of the God of Is­rael. And it is very well worthy our ob­servation, that one or both of these have al­ways been the Exceptions of false Religions (especially of Idolatry and Superstition) against the true Religion. The ancient Idolaters of the World pretended their Religion to be an­cient and universal, that their Fathers served these gods, and that the worship of the God of Israel was a plain Innovation upon the an­cient and Catholick Religion of the world, and that the very first rise and original of it was within the memory of their Fathers; and no [Page 16] doubt they were almost perpetually upon the Jews with that pert Question, Where was your Religion before Abraham? and telling them, that it was the Religion of a very small part and corner of the world, confined within a little Territory: But the great Nations of the world, the Egyptians and Chaldeans, famous for all kind of knowledg and wisdom, and indeed all the Nations round about them, worshipped other gods: And therefore it was an intolerable arrogance and singularity in them, to condemn their Fathers and all the world, to be of a Re­ligion different from all other Nations, and hereby to separate themselves and make a Schisme from the rest of mankind.

And when the Gospel appeared in the world, which the Apostle to the Hebrews (to prevent the scandal of that word) calls the time of Re­formation; the Jews and Heathen still renewed the same Objections against Christianity. The Jews urged against it, not the ancient Scrip­tures and the true word of God, but that which they pretended to be of much greater Autho­rity, the unwritten Word, the ancient and con­stant Traditions of their Church; and branded this new Religion with the name of Heresie, After the way (saith St. Paul) that you call [Page 17] Heresy, so worship I the God of my Fathers; belie­ving all things that are written in the Law, and in the Prophets. By which we see, that they of the Church of Rome were not the first who called it Heresy to reject human Traditions, and to make the Scripture the Rule of Faith: This was done long before by their reverend Predecessors, the Scribes and Pharisees.

And the Gentiles, they pretended against it both Antiquity and Universality, the constant belief and practice of all Ages, and almost all Places of the World; Sequimur majores nostros qui feliciter secuti sunt suos, says Symmachus: We follow our Fore-fathers, who happily followed theirs: But you bring in a new Religion never known nor heard of in the World before.

And when the Christian Religion was most miserably depraved and corrupted, in that dis­mal night of Ignorance which overspred these Western parts of the World about the Ninth and Tenth Centuries; and many pernicious Doctrines and superstitious Practices were introduced, to the woful defacing of the Christian Religion, and making it quite another thing from what our Saviour had left it; and these Corruptions and Abuses had continued for several Ages: [Page 18] No sooner was a Reformation attempted, but the Church of Rome make the same outcry of Novelty and Singularity: And though we have substantially answered it a thousand times, yet we cannot obtain of them to forbear that thread­bare Question, Where was your Religion before Luther?

I shall therefore apply my self to answer these two Exceptions with all the brevity and clearness I can: And I doubt not to make it appear, that as to the point of Universality (though that be no wise necessary to justify the truth of any Religion) ours is not inferior to theirs; if we take in the Christians of all Ages, and of all Parts of the World: And as to the point of Antiquity, that our Faith and the Doctrines of our Religion have clearly the advantage of theirs; all our Faith being unquestionable anci­ent, theirs not so.

1. As to the Point of Universality; which they of the Church of Rome, I know not for what reason, will needs make an inseparable proper­ty and mark of the true Church. And they never flout at the Protestant Religion with so good a grace among the ignorant People, as when they are bragging of their Numbers, and [Page 19] despising poor Protestancy because embraced by so few. This pestilent Northern Heresy (as of late they scornfully call it) entertained it seems only in this cold and cloudy Corner of the World, by a company of dull stupid People, that can neither penetrate into the Proofs nor the Possibility of Transubstantiation; whereas to the more refined Southern Wits all these difficult and obscure Points are as clear as their Sun at Noon-day.

But to speak to the thing it self. If Number be necessary to prove the truth and goodness of any Religion, ours upon enquiry will be found not so inconsiderable as our Adversaries would make it. Those of the Reformed Religion, ac­cording to the most exact calculations that have been made by learned men, being esteemed not much unequal in number to those of the Romish persuasion. But then if we take in the ancient Christian Church, whose Faith was the same with ours; and other Christian Churches at this day, which all together are vastly greater and more numerous than the Roman Church, and which agree with us, several of them in very considerable Doctrines and Practices in dispute between us and the Church of Rome, and all of [Page 20] them agree in disclaiming that fundamental point and main hinge of the Roman Religion (as Bellarmine calls it) I mean the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome over all Christians and Churches in the World; then the Number on our side will be much greater than on theirs.

But we will not stand upon this advantage with them. 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 small Kingdom, that of Melchisedec King of Salem? What think we of it in Moses his time, when it was confined to one People wandering in a Wilderness? What of it in Elijah's time, when besides the two Tribes that worshipped at Jerusalem there were in the other ten but seven thousand that had not bowed their knee to Baal? What in our Saviour's time, when the whole Christian Church consisted of twelve Apostles, and seventy Disciples, and some few Followers beside? How would Bellarmine have despised this little Flock, because it wanted one or two of his goodliest marks of the true Church, [Page 21] Universality and Splendor? And what think we of the Christian Church in the height of Arria­nism and Pelagianism, when a great part of Christendom was over-run with these Errors, and the number of the Orthodox was inconsiderable in comparison of the Hereticks?

But what need I to urge these Instances? As if the Truth of a Religion were to be estimated and carried by the Major Vote; which as it can be an Argument to none but Fools, so I dare say no honest and wise man ever made use of it for a solid proof of the truth and goodness of any Church or Religion. If multitudes be an Argument that men are in the right, in vain then hath the Scripture said, 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 surely there was a time when Christianity be­gan, and was a new Profession; and then both Judaism and Paganism had certainly the advantage of it in point of Antiquity. But the proper Question in this Case is, Which is the true Anci­ent Christian Faith, that of the Church of Rome, or [Page 22] Ours? And to make this matter plain it is to be considered, that a great part of the Roman Faith is the same 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, so far as concerns matters of meer and simple Belief, that are of absolute necessity to Salvation. And in this Faith of Ours there is nothing wanting that can be shewn in any ancient Creed of the Christian Church. And thus far Our Faith and theirs of the Roman Church are undoubtedly of equal An­tiquity, that is, as ancient as Christianity it self.

All the Question is, as to the matters in dif­ference between us. The principal whereof are the twelve Articles of the Creed of Pope Pius the IV, concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass, Transubstantiation, 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 these we deny, and affirm them to be Innovations; and have particularly proved them to be so, not only to the answer­ing, [Page 23] but almost to the silencing of our Adver­saries.

And as for the negative Articles of the Pro­testant Religion, in opposition to the Errors and Corruptions of the Romish Faith, these are by accident become a part of our Faith and Religi­on, occasioned by their Errors; as the renoun­cing of the Doctrines of Arrianism became part of the Catholick Religion, after the rise of that Heresy.

So that the Case is plainly this; We believe and teach all that is contained in the Creeds of the ancient Christian Church, and was by them esteemed necessary to Salvation: and this is Our Religion. But now the Church of Rome hath innovated in the Christian Religion, and made several Additions to it, and greatly cor­rupted it both in the Doctrines and Practices of it: And these Additions and Corruptions are their Religion, as it is distinct 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 so ancient as their Corruptions: All [Page 24] Reformation necessarily supposing Corruptions and Errors to have been before it.

And now we are at a little better leisure to answer that captious Question of theirs, Where was your Religion before Luther? Where-ever Christianity was; in some places more pure, in others more corrupted; but especially in these Western parts of Christendom overgrown for several Ages with manifold Errors and Cor­ruptions, which the Reformation hath happily cut off, and cast away. So that though our Reformation was as late as Luther, our Religion is as ancient as Christianity it self. 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 Answer 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 same in substance which we now give to the Church of Rome? That for many [Page 25] Ages the Worship of the one true God had bin corrupted, and the Worship of Idols had pre­vailed in a great part of the World; that Abra­ham was raised up by God to reform Religion, and to reduce the Worship of God to its first Institution; in the doing whereof he necessari­ly separated Himself and his Family from the Communion of those 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 same in substance that we say, and with the same and equal reason.

And if they will still complain of the New­ness of our Reformation, so do we too, and are heartily sorry it began no sooner; but however better late than never. Besides, it ought to be considered, that this Objection of Novelty lies against all Reformation whatsoever, though ne­ver so necessary, and though things be never so much amiss: And it is in effect to say, 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 sometime, and when ever it begins it is certainly new. So that if a [Page 26] real Reformation be made, the thing justifies it self; and no Objection of Novelty ought to take place against that which upon all accounts was so fit and necessary to be done. And if they of the Church of Rome would speak but their minds out in this matter, they are not so much displeased 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 Propbet tells us) that she would not be healed; Jer. 51. 9. and this is still 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 still continues the breach and Separation between us; of which we are no wise guilty who have only reform'd what was amiss, but they who obstinately per­sist in their errors, and will needs impose them upon us, and not let us be of their Communion unless we will say they are no Errors.

II. The other Prejudice against the true Re­ligion is, the contrariety of it to the vicious inclinations and practices of Men.

[Page 27]It is too heavy a yoke, and lays too great a restraint upon humane 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 it self, and therefore I shall not now enter upon it; only crave your patience a little longer whilst I make some Reflections upon what hath been already delivered.

You see what are the Exceptions which Idolatry and Superstition have always made, and do at this day still make, against the true Religion; and how slight and insignificant they are.

But do we then charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry? Our Church most certainly does so, and hath always done it from the be­ginning of the Reformation; in her Homi­lies, and Liturgy, and Canons, and in the Wri­tings of her best and ablest Champions. And though I have, as impartially as I could, con­sider'd [Page 28] what hath been said on both sides in this Controversy; yet I must confess I could never yet see any tolerable defence made by them against this heavy charge. And they themselves acknowledg themselves to be greatly under the suspicion of it, by say­ing (as Cardinal Perron and others do) that the Primitive Christians for some Ages did neither worship Images, nor pray to Saints, for fear of being thought to approach too near the Heathen Idolatry: And which is yet more, divers of their most learned men do confess, that if Transubstantiation be not true, they are as gross Idolaters as any in the World. And I hope they do not expect it from us, that in complement to them, and to acquit them from the charge of Idolatry, we should pre­sently deny our senses, and believe Transub­stantiation; and if we do not believe this, they grant we have Reason 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 seems at first sight to be something in it: And for that reason I shall endeavour [Page 29] to give so clear and satisfactory 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 Essentials of Christi­anity, and profess to believe all the Articles of the Christian Faith, that notwithstanding their Corruptions they may still retain the true Es­sence of a Church: as a man may be truly and really a man, though he have the plague upon him; and for that reason 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 sure that this is a firm and good consequence, 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 Con­cessions of Charity and of Necessity, and that a very different use ought to be made of them. We are willing to think the best of them; [Page 30] but if they dislike 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 further difference with them about this matter, we will for quietness sake compound it thus; That till they can clearly acquit themselves from being Idolaters, they shall never more against their wills be esteemed a true Church.