CHAP. IV.

Of the fourth Mark of the true Church,
that it is Apostolick.

L. BY your last discourse I am fully satisfied how little
reason Papists have to assume and engross to themselves
the title of Catholicks: and that our Church of England
is a true and sound part of the Catholick Church.
And at the same time I do also perceive that the last mark
of a true Church doth as properly belong to it, viz. that it
is Apostolick.

T. This is indeed so very plain from what hath
been said under the former head, that I reckon there
is little need to spend much time in speaking particularly
to it. For, as I have often inculcated, our Church
receives all those Doctrines which we are certain were
taught by the Apostles, that faith which was delivered
by them to the Churches which they planted, as it
is to be found at large in their writings; and which is
summ'd up in that which we call the Apostles Creed,
as being the Summary of their Doctrine. All the Articles
of this Creed we do stedfastly embrace and profess;
and that in the plain sense of the words, according
to the commonly received interpretation of the
Church of Christ, in the first and purest ages. And
thus our Doctrine is Apostolical, so also is our Government,
our Worship and Administration of the
holy Sacraments, and therefore our Church doth most
justly deserve the title of an Apostolical Church.
For according to the precepts and example of the
Apostles, we worship the true God in the name of
his Son Jesus our only Mediator, and that in a language
understood by the people. We baptize with
water, In the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
And in the Lords-Supper do give both Bread and
Wine to the people, according to our Saviours own
institution. In a word we preach the very same Faith,
the same holiness and righteousness of life which the
Apostles did. But on the other hand it's most certain,
that as to the chief points wherein the Church of
Rome and we differ, the Apostles never delivered
those Doctrines, nor enjoyn'd those practices, which
are obtruded upon us by that corrupt Church. They
never taught that the Bishop of Rome is the supreme
and infallible Head of the Church. They never taught
us to pray to Angels or Saints, no not to the Blessed

Virgin her self; nor to make Prayers for the Dead,
that they might be delivered out of Purgatory; nor
to take away the Cup from the Laity, nor to worship
the consecrated Host, to adore Images, or to make
any use of them in Religious service. These things
with many others now used in the Church of Rome
were never taught or practised by the Holy Apostles,
and therefore so far that Church is not Apostolical.
L. I do verily believe it deserves not that name with
respect to those Doctrines and practices wherein it differs
from us. But I hear them often making great boasts, that
theirs must certainly be an Apostolical Church, because an
Apostle himself was once their Bishop, even St. Peter, and
he ordained another Bishop to succeed him, and so hath the
succession continued to this day, and therefore sure they must
needs be an Apostolical Church.
T. In answer to this, I shall wave the dispute whether
indeed St. Peter was ever Bishop of Rome or no;
and shall pass by all that may be said of the frequent
Schisms which have happen'd amongst them, by their
having sometimes two or three Popes at once, and
that for many years together; nor shall I tell of the
fine tricks and politick intrigues of the Cardinals at
the Election of a Pope; nor of those vile arts which
are frequently used by such as aspire to that dignity,
all which tends very much to abate their honour, and
shews how unlike they are to the Apostles, whose
Successors they boast themselves to be. But waving
these things, let me only desire you to consider how
little force there is in this argument to prove their
Church to be now Apostolical, that once there was
an Apostle Bishop of it, except there still continue
with them the same truth of Doctrine and purity of
worship which the Apostles did at first teach and establish.
For let us grant that St. Peter and St. Paul

with other holy men planted a Church at Rome, yet is
it not possible that there as well as at Ephesus, might
afterward arise men who should teach perverse things (as
we find it exprest, Act. 20. 30.)and thereby corrupt
the Doctrine of the Gospel? Was it not thus in many
other Churches? And may it not be so at Rome too?
yea most certainly we know it is so. For though we
grant that Church to have remain'd for a considerable
time pure and uncorrupted, yet for many ages bypast
to this very day, there have been such Doctrines
and practices currently received and established in that
Church as the Apostle never taught to them nor to
any others. And with respect to these I say they deserve
not the title of an Apostolical Church, meerly
because an Apostle at first planted it, and presided
over it. The Papists themselves will not now allow
this title to any of the Greek Churches, which were
planted by the Apostles, because they look upon
them as erroneous and schismatical; and certainly
they themselves have as little reason to challenge it
as any of their neighbours, being at least as grosly
degenerated as any, though they may have more prosperity
and greater numbers of people adhering to
them. It is not then so much the sitting in the same
Chair, as teaching the same Doctrines with the Apostles,
that makes a Bishop to be a true Successor of
them. Wherefore those Churches which were planted
by holy men after the Apostles were dead and gone,
if they receive the same Doctrine, and retain the same
worship and Sacraments which the Apostles did, these
may most justly be accounted Apostolical Churches,
sound members of the One, Holy, Catholick, Apostolick
Church of Christ.
L. I think there is great reason so to account them:
but it seems very unreasonable that any one Church should

stile it self the Apostolick Church, so as to exclude all
others from that title; especially so unsound a Church as
that of Rome, which is at this day so very unlike to what
it was in the times of the Apostles.
T. It is indeed every whit as unreasonable as to
arrogate to themselves alone the name of Catholick,
which we discoursed of before. Nay let us suppose
that the Bishops of Rome to this very day followed the
example of the Apostles, preached the same Doctrine,
led the same good lives, and used the same
holy worship and discipline, so that their Church indeed
deserved to be own'd as Apostolical, yet what
in reason could be infer'd from hence more than this,
viz. that the people in their own Diocess should be
subject to them, and that all other sister Churches
ought to give them due respect, and maintain such
communion with them as those at a distance are capable
of. But it does not in the least follow that the
Bishop of Rome is Christs Vicar upon Earth, and their
Church the only Catholick and Apostolick Church, so
that none must have this title but those who inslave
themselves to the Pope.
L. You have said enough to convince me how very
absurd it is for the Church of Rome to stile her self the
Catholick Apostolick Church, as if there were no other
Christians in the world but Papists; yet pray tell me, may
not the Church of Rome be reckoned a part of the Catholick
Church?
T. At the best it is but a small part, as I have before
told you, and also a very unsound part. Yea I
will not doubt to add, that take the Church of Rome
even in the largest sense, as comprehending all those
that submit to the Pope as Head of the whole Church
under Christ, they may justly be reckoned a Schismatical
party, dividing themselves from the rest of the

Catholick Church, setting up a false Head and Governour,
and appointing unlawful terms of communion.
And though in this respect the Masters and
leaders of the faction are in the greatest guilt, yet
the people who are seduced are also more or less
guilty, according to the capacity they are in of geting
better information. But yet notwithstanding this
schism they are in, and notwithstanding the many errors
and abuses that are amongst them, whilst they
profess the Christian Religion, and own their Baptism,
they may be allow'd the name of Christians,
such as belong to the visible Church of Christ. And
(how uncharitable soever they are to us) I hope there
are many good Christians amongst them, who do
heartily believe the Gospel, and live in obedience to
it, according to their knowledg, and who on that
account may be stiled true members of the Catholick
Church, as all honest, true hearted Christians are,
notwithstandig those errors and faults they may be
guilty of, which do not utterly violate their Baptismal
Covenant, nor destroy that faith and holiness by
which we are united to Christ the Head, and so are
living members of his body the Church. But still, I
say, this title belongs not to them as they are Papists
embracing the peculiar tenents of their own Church,
but as they are Christians holding the essential Articles
of the Christian Faith, together with our own
and all other churches. For as to Popery, it is really
a disease, a corruption of the Christian Religion. Yet
as a diseased man may have his vitals so sound, that
even the Plague or Leprosie may not kill him, so may
there be some amongst the Papists in whom the great
and common truths of Religion may be so deeply implanted,
and so faithfully retained and improved, that
the disease of Popery may not prove mortal. Whilst

46

they hold the foundation, Jesus Christ and his Gospel,
though the hay and stubble which they build upon it
shall be burnt, yet may they through the mercy of
God in Christ, be saved, so as by fire, that is, with
great difficulty, 1 Cor. 3. 11, 12, &c. And their case
seems most pitiable, who through the disadvantage of
their education, want due means of instruction; and
what allowances our gracious God will make on that
and the like accounts is fittest for us to leave to his
own infinite wisdom: Only let us be careful to regulate
our own practices by the plain rule of Gods holy
Word, which through his favour we so plentifully
enjoy.
L. What you say shall teach me more charity to those
of them that are sincere, than they will allow to us. But
I do still more and more perceive how little reason there
is for my entring into communion with that Church, in
which there is so great hazard of Salvation, even no
more than for my venturing into a Pest-house full of infected
persons, because it's possible some of them may have
so much strength of nature as to overcome that dangerous
distemper.
T. The case is much the same.

CHAP. IX.

Of having Prayers in an unknown Tongue.

L. HE next goes about to vindicate their use of the
Latine Tongue in the Mass, and the rest of their
Service.
T. And pray what can he alledge in vindication of
their using this Language, when the people understand
it not?
L. Why first he says that the Priestly Garments, and
the ceremonies they use may serve to instruct it: for he
had before said how useful their ceremonies are for the exciting
of devotion; and then for further instruction they
must go to Catechisms and Sermons.

T. They had need to be very ingenious people
who can learn from Priests garments and dumb ceremonies
what's the meaning of Latin Prayers. Nay
their multitude of ceremonies are so far from instructing
the ignorant people, that rather they need much
instruction to know the meaning of them. And instead
of exciting devotion, they rather extinguish
and suppress it, by amusing their minds, and pleasing
their senses with a great deal of pomp an pageantry.
Whatever instructions their Priests may give at Catechisms
and Sermons, they are not like to make them
understand prayers uttered in a strange language.
L. He further adds that simple ignorant people may
easily be mistaken, if these high mysteries were done in the
vulgar tongue.
T. A wise method truly, to keep people in ignorance
for fear they should run into mistakes: as if a man
should blindfold a Travailer to prevent his missing the
way. But one would think they should here rather
employ themselves in the Catechisms and Sermons
they talk of, to give the people due instruction for
the preventing those mistakes they seem so much
afraid of. Though by the course they take with them,
in this and other instances, it's plain enough they are
more afraid of the peoples getting too much knowledg.
And no wonder, whilst its a common saying amongst
them, that Ignorance is the mother of Devotion;
and so truly it is of the devotion, or rather the
superstition of the Romish Church, whereas the most
clear and solid knowledg of the will and word of God
is the mother of true Christian piety and devotion. But
has your Author no better reasons than these for this
absurd practice?
L. Other reasons he has, whether better or not, do you
judg. He says it makes for the union of the Latin Church,

that Priests travailing into other Countries may say Mass
where ever they come.
T. Very follicitous they appear for the union of
the Latin Church, that is of their own party, and in
the mean time care little what divisions they make in
the Christian Church for their own carnal ends. But
of mighty consequence is this project for union which
your Author mentions. For what need is there I beseech
you that a Priest in a foreign Countrey should
officiate there where they may have Priests of their
own to do it? And can there not be union enough betwixt
foreign Churches, and the Priests that belong
to them, in their profession of the same faith, and
owning the same worship, except they speak the same
language, and use the very same words. One would
think they should rather consult for an union betwixt
Priest and people, that they might joyn together at
the same time in the same prayers, but this they regard
not. It's enough it seems with them for the people
to be spectators only even at publick prayers as
well as at the Communion, though they neither understand
the one nor partake of the other. For very
usual it is with them for the Priests alone to take the
Sacrament, whilst the people stand by and look on: a
most corrupt custom and meer innovation, contrary
to the first institution and design of this holy Ordinance,
and to the practice of all antiquity. And as
that cannot properly be called a Communion where
Priests and people do not communicate together, so
neither are those to be stiled common prayers in
which they do not joyn in common. Nor has your
Author hitherto produced any thing like a reason for
this custom of theirs.
L. And I doubt, you'l think his last argument as weak
as any, viz. that the holy Scriptures have been written in

Latin, Greek and Hebrew, these three languages being
written upon Christs Cross, they are therefore called Sacred,
and its permitted to these three Nations to use them
at Mass.
T. I confess I am utterly to seek for the force of
this argument, if it be fit to call it so, whilst it argues
just nothing to the purpose. The holy Scriptures were
written originally in Hebrew and Greek, and have been
translated not only into Latin but several other Languages,
for the benefit of those of several Nations,
who were converted to Christianity, (of which more
hereafter) and accordingly they had their worship
also celebrated in the same languages which the people
understood, as our ancestors in this Kingdom had.
And this surely every mans own reason may tell him
is most profitable and necessary in order to true devotion,
that they may understandingly and affectionately
joyn with the Priest in the publick worship and service.
This you will find expresly delivered by the Apostle
Paul himself in 1 Cor. 14. 16, &c.where he disapproves
the use of strange Tongues in the Church, as not tending
to edification, for that he who understood them
not could not say Amen to the Prayers or Praises
uttered in those unknown Tongues. As to those three
Languages he mentions being written upon the Cross,
and therefore allow'd to be used in publick worship, it
is such an idle and insignificant fancy, that I am ashamed
to take notice of it. If he had infer'd the quite contrary,
that therefore they must not be used, the reason
had been every whit as good, that is stark naught.
But what will not men devise, when they are put to
their shifts?
L. I wonder what makes them so stiff in a practice so
contrary to Reason, Scripture, and the usage of the Primitive
Church.

T. It is not very easie to give the reason, since
some amongst themselves seem ashamed of it; and
many of their Bishops in the Council of Trent desired
to have publick Prayers in a known Tongue, but it
would not be granted. The reason of which (as of
many other corruptions being still continued) seems
to be partly from their fear, that if they should make
one alteration a great many more would follow: (for
if they own themselves to have erred in one thing, why
not in more?) and partly to encrease the peoples admiration
of the Priest and his Prayers: (for the less
they understand the more prone they are to admire.)
And lastly, perhaps there may be this peculiar reason
for it, that hereby the people may more easily be perswaded
of the efficacy of the Priests words for the
working that prodigious miracle of Transubstantiation.
For if they should hear him speak only plain
words in their own mother-tongue, they could hardly
think them of force enough to work such a mighty
change, whereas in hard words there may be some
hidden virtue which they are not aware of. But let
us go on to what follows.

CHAP. XIII.

Of Praying by Beads.

L. THE next thing my Author attempts to vindicate,
is their praying by Beads, which serve to number
their Pater Nosters and Ave-Maries; of which as I perceive
by him, Sixty three Ave-Maries and Seven Paternosters,
and one Creed, make a Bead-roll.
T. Very like, and this number, as I take it, they
call our Ladies Crown; and an Hundred and Fifty
Ave Maries, and Fifteen Pater-nosters makes a Rosary,
of which there is a kind of Order in their Church,
called the Confraternity of the Rosary. Into this Society
all manner of people may be admitted, and these
(as I find in one of their Authors who gives an account
of it) are obliged to say over the whole Rosary
once in a week at least. And these Prayers are to be
offered up in a certain manner to Almighty God in
honour of the Blessed Virgin. Now, lest this should
be two burdensome, there is provision made, that if
they have any lawful impediment, they may get another
to say their Prayers for them, and it shall be accepted.
They who enter into this Society, must solemnly
devote themselves to the Honour, Love and

Service of the Blessed Virgin: Even as solemnly as a
Man can consecrate himself to the Service of Almighty
God our Heavenly Father, do they give up themselves
to her as the Mother of all Christians: For so
they say she is to be esteemed, because our Saviour said
of her to St. John, Behold, thy Mother. To each of
these Votaries is given by the Father who admits him
a set of Beads, which are Blest, and Crost, and
Sprinkled with Holy-Water. And most wonderful
Priviledges are bestowed by sundry Popes upon those
who devoutly recite this Rosary. They may gain a
Plenary Indulgence for themselves, and may every day
release a Soul out of Purgatory, which surely they are
very uncharitable if they will not do. Nay, which
seems strangest of all, even those in Purgatory may be
admitted into this fraternity, if any particular Friend
of theirs on Earth shall desire it; and will perform on
their behalf what is required, and so may they share
in the merits of the whole Society. Though by the
way, I wonder that any body should leave a particular
Friend in Purgatory, when he may so easily deliver
him thence, as you heard before. But I'le entertain
you no longer with this fulsom ridiculous stuff. Let
us return to your Author, and see what he says for
this manner of Praying, which a Parrot may go near
to learn, and use it with as much devotion as multitudes
of them.
L. He says that the Ave-Mary is used Sixty three
times, because the Blessed Virgin Mary lived just so many
years.
T. A wise Reason truly! But I wonder where he
had so good intelligence. Some of her Worshippers
it's like have heard it from her own mouth: For heretofore
nothing more common than for her to appear
to them, and talk familiarly with them, if we may

believe their own Legends, which I confess is somewhat
hard to do. Yet I grant there is as much certainty in
the story of her Age, as strength in the Argument
taken from it, that is just none at all. Why do they not
by this Reason say the Lords-Prayer Thirty three times
because our Saviour lived so many years? And it
might also be asked, why but one Lords-prayer for
nine Ave-Maries? But waving these things, let us hear
his pretence for this odd way of Praying, by running
over the same words so many times together, as if
they would make up with the number what they want
in weight and devotion; and then telling them by their
Beads, as if they were afraid of being someway
cheated if they did not keep so exact a reckoning.
Certainly we have neither precept nor example in
Scripture to recommend such a way of worship.
L. All that he says is, that David said his Prayers
Seven times a day, and our Saviour in the Garden repeated
three times the same prayer. He demands therefore, whether
it be ill to say ones Prayers by number when he has
reason so to do?
T. No surely: But when a Man has no reason so to
do, it's very vain and absurd. And by all that he alledges,
it seems they have no reason, else sure he
would have given some. For, I beseech you, where's
the consequence, that because David prayed Seven
times in a day (that is very often) therefore it's a good
thing to repeat one and the same Prayer Seventy times
seven in a day, or at least as often as we well can? Or
when our Saviour in his Agony doth with great fervour
and affection offer up his Petition to his Father thrice
in the same words, which were suitable to his present
state, is this any thing like the Papists way of running
over an Ave-Mary, Ten, Twenty, Thirty times together,
with a Pater-noster now and then intermixed

for variety sake, and this very oft in the midst of
company, without the least shew of devotion, and as
I take it, in the Latine Tongue, which few of them
understand? And which is prettiest of all, when they
are busie themselves, though it be but at sports and
pastimes, they may then get some idle body patter over
these their Prayers for them. And I have heard it
often reported by those who have conversed much
with them, that sometimes two of these devout people
will play a game at Cards which shall say Prayers
for the other at such a time. So that it seems they
take them for a kind of penance, being glad when
they are over, as a School-boy when he has done his
Task. And is this like the Devotion of the Holy
Psalmist, who prayed to God, and praised him with
all his Heart and Soul, and sang praises with understanding,
and with great affection and delight? Or
much less is this like to that of our Blessed Saviour,
who in the days of his flesh offered up Prayers and Supplications
with strong cries and tears, as we have it, Heb. 5.7.
He continued, indeed, sometimes whole nights in
Prayer; and his holy Apostles were very constant and
frequent in this duty, and have enjoyned us to pray
continually, and in every thing to give thanks. But do
you find them any where directing us to say over the
same words so often in an hour or a day? And to make
use of a sett of Beads to keep true reckoning? Is this
a Worshipping of God in Spirit and in Truth? Is this
like the fervend Prayer of the Righteous, which St.
James tells us is so effectual? Is this like the Intercession
of Abraham or Moses, the Wrestlings of Jacob, the
earnest Prayer of Elias and other holy men recorded
in Scripture? Nay, so far is it from being agreeable
to such examples, that it seems plainly contrary to
our Saviours command, Not to use vain repetitions in

L

praying, as if we thought to be heard for our much speaking,
Matt. 6. 7.
L. So it seems truly, and nothing can be more weak
and impertinent than what my Author talks of, saying Five
Pater-nosters in honour of our Saviours Five wounds, he
means, I suppose, those in his hands and feet, and that on
his side: But what he means by our saying the Lords-Prayer
in honour to those wounds I cannot well tell.
T. Nor can I resolve you: He might as well talk of
saying it Twelve times in honour of the Twelve Apostles;
and then Seventy times for the Seventy Disciples:
and after that, as oft as you please in honour
of what you have a mind to. For they forsooth have
a certain peculiar manner of offering up their Prayers
to God in honour to other persons and things, which
I confess I am utterly ignorant of; nor do I think
they themselves can give a rational account of it. Of
such blind devotions as these well may Ignorance be accounted
the Mother.
L. But my Author is by no means pleased that this way
of praying by Beads should be thought fit only for ideots
that cannot read: For he says that Kings and their Courts,
the Pope and his Cardinals make use of Beads, who can
read better than Sectaries.
T. There may be some question of that for all his
confidence, since it's commonly said that the present
Pope (though much commended for some other good
qualities) can scarce read their Latine Service. But
let them be able to read never so well, that will hardly
prove all good which they do. And if we speak
of examples, I must confess I had much rather follow
our Saviour and his Apostles than the Pope and his
Cardinals.
L. And so had I too: But he says they have Books of
Devotion as well as Beads; that both are good, and variety
delighteth.

T. They had need truly to have some variety to
refresh them: For sure they can neither have much delight,
nor much profit from a tedious repetition of
the same words over at the same time, especially
whilst some of them understand not what they
say, and do also say some such things as would not
much help their Devotion though they were understood.
L. He says there can be no better Prayers than the Pater-noster,
the Ave, and the Creed.
T. As to the Ave and the Creed, they are no
Prayers at all: the former being the Angels Salutation
to the Blessed Virgin, Luke 1.28. and it is an absurd
piece of superstition to turn it into a Prayer, such as
never any Christian was guilty of for many hundred
years after that Salutation was first uttered. The
Creed contains a confession of our Faith, and though
the frequent repetition of it, with serious reflections
upon it, may be of great use, viz for the engaging
of us to live according to our profession; yet is it by
no means a Prayer, nor any thing like one. The Pater-noster,
or the Lords-Prayer, is indeed a most admirable
form of Prayer, which may not only serve as
a pattern to direct us how to pray, but is also most
proper and fit to be frequently used as a Prayer, and
may very well be joyn'd with any other Prayers which
we make to Almighty God. But yet we must not
think there is any devotion exprest, or any advantage
got, by repeating it over so many times in an hour, or
a day, as if there were some secret virtue and force
in the bare rehearsal of the words, whilst we little
or nothing attend to the sense of them; which
is fitter for Mag-pies and Parrots than for reasonable
creature, from whom God expects a reasonable
Service, wherein their Hearts and Souls are

L2

to be employed as well as their Tongues. But let
us proceed.