ENGLAND's DISTEMPERS, THEIR CAUSE and CURE. According to the Judgement of Famous Princes, Peers, Parliaments etc. OCCASIONED By a Book of a Learned FRIAR, Accusing the whole Nation of PERJURY For Abjuring TRANSUBSTANTIATION. And sent unto the Author for a Reply.  
Written in defence of The true Catholic Faith, By R. A. Pastor of the Church at Henfield in Sussex.  Psal. 60.2. 
— Heal the breaches thereof, for it shaketh.  
London: Printed for the Author; to be sold by Thomas Dring, at the Harrow at Chancery-lane end in Fleetstreet. 1677.   

To the King's most Excellent Majesty, CHARLES II. by the grace of God King of England, etc. Defender of the true, ancient, Catholic and Apostolic Faith.  
Dread Sovereign!  
I Am one of your Majesty's poor Subjects, that always loved Peace and Privacy: But like him that was born dumb, and never spoke, till he saw his Father ready to be murdered; so when I saw my dear Mother, the Church of England, ready to be strangled between two Thiefs, the Roman and Rakovian, who have already rob her of her Goods and good Name, and now have caught her by the throat, to take away her Life; I could not choose but cry out for Help; and to whom should I cry, but to your Majesty, the great Patron of our Church? The common Cry is, that the Church of England must go down: I humbly beseech your Majesty, she may have a fair hearing, which she never had yet since the Reformation, but hath always been oppressed with monstrous Outcries and railing Accusations. And not only the Protestant Religion, but Christianity itself lies at stake, whilst your Majesty's good Subjects are deceived, deluded, and divided with vain Words, without Truth, right Reason, or common Sense; as in some particulars I have made appear in this ensuing Discourse. And I humbly beseech your Majesty, to continue your Royal Favour to the poorer Clergy, who are many ways grievously oppressed, to the great scandal of the Church, and shame of the whole Nation. I never begged any thing for myself, though I have lost a fair Temporal Estate in the Service of Your Royal Father. For at Your Majesty's happy Return, I found Your Majesty pestered with swarms of importunate Suitors, that rather than be troublesome, I sat down with that resolution of Mephibosheth, 2 Sam. 19.30. Yea, let [them] take all, forasmuch as my Lord the King is come again to his own house in peace. The Lord give your Majesty all the Blessings of this Life, and that to come; the Heart of David, the Head of Solomon, and the Hand of Gideon: And let all the Enemies of Peace and Truth flee before the Sword of the Lord and King Charles; the daily Prayer of  
Your Majesty's most Humble, Faithful, and Obedient Subject, RICH. ALLEN.   

To the Right Honourable HENEAGE Lord FINCH, Baron of Daventry, Lord High Chancellor of England. AND To the Honourable Parliament.  
Most Noble Senators and Patriots,  
THe Noble Lord Chancellor, in his excellent Speech, May, 1662. calls to mind the excellent temper of the Time of Queen Elizabeth; the blessed Condescension and Resignation of the People then to the Crown; the awful Reverence they had then to the Governors and Government both of Church and State: And we may better remember the sweet times of King James, when we went all together to the House of God as Friends. Now to reduce the People to their ancient sweet temper, must be the work of God; and under him we have no hopes but only in the great Wisdom of his Majesty and this Noble Parliament. His Majesty hath done so much already, as if he had studied to do for this Nation, what a Roman Caesar said of his City, Marmoream se relinquere, quam lateritiam accepisset. (Suet.) And Your Honours have failed of nothing belonging to your high Trust. The first Cause of Breach clearly discovered, would doubtless point out the right way of Peace. The famous Parliament of Paris told their King once, That the only way to extirpate Heresy, Schism, etc. was first to reform their own Church after the example of the Primitive, who resisted Heresy with Preaching the Word of God. The Church of England is of an excellent Constitution; if all her Members were of as good a Complexion, her Beauty would allure many Thousands to return to her Communion, that now are gone astray. The Doctrine of our Church is pure, her Discipline good; neither of these so much as our vicious Lives, that opens the mouths of our Adversaries so wide against us. There be other Crimes more heinous in their own guilt, but Drunkenness is the greatest Eyesore: If that beastly Vice were suppressed, our Adversaries could have nothing to say, but what we can well answer and stop their mouths. False Brethren have always done more mischief, than professed Enemies. This present Discourse I was provoked to by the Challenge of a Learned Friar, and humbly present it to your Honour's grave Judgement. The most wise God be with you, and direct you in all your Consultations, to the good of our Church and Nation.  
Your Honour's most humble servant, RIC. ALLEN. May 21. 1677.   

THE PREFACE.  
A Most Noble King of this Nation was of opinion, That Discord among Subjects did alienate their minds, not only one from another, but also from their Prince; insomuch that the Bond of Unity, Peace, and Love, could never hold long between the Prince and his People, if the People were at discord among themselves. Moreover, That the cause of Difference among People, arose chief from difference in Religion; and that difference in Religion was fomented with nothing so much, as with names of Faction. Hereto assenteth a Learned Remonstrant, Groninchaev. who saith, That names of Faction were the Devil's device, and served to no other end, but to make and maintain Division. And hereof it seems his Majesty was very sensible, as appears in his gracious Act of Oblivion. There is a necessity of Names for distinction sake, to avoid Confusion; but the mischief is, when Names or Titles are given and taken falsely, to blast the reputation of some, and make them odious to the world; and advance others in the opinion of the world, with Names and Titles that no ways belong unto them; so that the world is merely cheated with vain Words, false Names and Titles without Truth, falsely imposed on Persons and things; as I shall endeavour to show in these following particulars.   

ENGLAND's Distempers, THEIR CAUSE and CURE.  

CHAP. I. Of Transubstantiation.  
THis barbarous word hath been the occasion of much Idolatry, and the cause of many Troubles in the World; and I am engaged to take notice of it in in the first place upon this occasion. A Person of Honour told me, That my History of Transubstantiation should be answered. After two years, a learned Friar sends me a Book called An Answer; wherein he chargeth our famous Church and Nation with Perjury, for abjuring Transubstantiation, in subscribing a Declaration set forth to that purpose, by Authority of his Majesty and the Parliament; requiring of me a Reply. My Reply is, That the very first words of his Book are a notorious untruth, as all the Nation can witness; and but little truth in the rest, save in two or three places, where the poor Infidel confesseth his Ignorance of the true Faith, and some other things that every Schoolboy knows. A full Reply I shall give him in four Assertions.  
1. That Transubstantiation was never heard of, or known in the Church, till above 1000 years after Christ, neither name nor thing.  
2. That it was never generally received by Learned Papists themselves, till the Council of Trent.  
3. That their Grounds and Reasons for it, are too weak to support it, and that monstrous weight of Doubts and Difficulties that depend upon it.  
4. That the Doctrine of the Church of England in this point, is most agreeable to Holy Scriptures, and to all pure Antiquity, and may be called Transmutation.  
I. To the first, the Friar saith, It was ever known and believed in the Church, quoad rem, though not quoad nomen: (i. e.) by certain equivalent terms; and for that citys Five Fathers, all rejected for spurious by their own Learned Men. His equivalent Terms are, Mutatio, Transmutatio, Transelementatio: the two first we admit in the same sense that the Fathers used them; the last is a change, Etiam ad materiam primam, saith a famous Schoolman, and will not serve his turn. There be other terms used by the Fathers, that will do him as little good; but I shall take no notice of more than he sends me.  
Anno Christi 420.] About this time lived St. Augustine, who Lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ. printed at Paris, Anno 1517. saith, Those words, Except ye shall eat the flesh of the Son of man, etc. are a Figure; and a little before hath these words, Literam sequi, & signa pro rebus quae his significantur, accipere, servilis est infirmitatis. This I am sure of, let the Friar make the best construction of it he can, St. Augustine was a famous Bishop, sat in several Councils, and was Precedent of some himself, and must needs know the Catholic sense of the Church at that time, better than our Friar.  
Anno 850.] About this time lived Bertram a famous Presbyter, who in his Book De Corp. & Sang. Christi, saith, That according to their substance the Bread and Wine remain in the Sacrament, after Consecration. The bold Friar calls this an Impertinency, when the whole University of Douai, in their censure of it, could neither deny the Book, nor answer it.  
Anno 1057.] About this time lived Berengarius, Archdeacon of Anjou, who denied Transubstantiation. Pope Nicholas 2. Concil. Lateran. 2. made him recant and make this public Confession, That the very Body and Blood of Christ, in the Sacrament, was truly and sensually broken and bruised in pieces with the teeth of the Faithful; and this Confession the Pope and Council allowed for Catholic. Our bold Friar saith it is false; I shall prove him a Liar presently. For this Confession is recorded by Lombard. l. 4. dist. 12. D. and De Conser. didst. 2. Ca Ego Berengarius. And their own Carranza testifies, That the Pope did force and compel him to it: And that it was allowed for Catholic by Pope and Council, appears clearly; because Lanfranc of Canterbury, who sat in that Council, sharply rebukes Berengarius for recanting that Confession, as afterwards he did. This Confession was as near the Capernaites as could well be. But where is now our bold Friars Catholic sense of the Church for Transubstantiation? Here is no appearance of it, name or thing, according to the Friars own terms.  
Anno 1150.] About this time lived Peter Lombard, Bishop of Paris, the likeliest man alive to know the Catholic sense of the Church; because he made it his study and business to search the Fathers, and collect Sentences out of their Writings; and yet he saith (l. 4. dist. 11. A) Si autem quaeritur, etc. If it be demanded, what manner of Conversion is in the Sacrament, or of what kind, Definire non sufficio: I am not able (saith he) to determine. We acknowledge a Conversion as well as they; but if Lombard, in all his reading, could not learn what manner of Conversion it was; than it may be the same that we allow, and the Fathers understood no other.  
II. My second Assertion is, That Transubstantiation was never generally received by Learned Papists themselves, till the Council of Trent. For their most eminent Schoolmen (some of them Cardinals) say, That they receive it out of reverence to the Church, because she hath so decreed; but otherwise in their own judgement, rather approve that Opinion which saith, That the substance of Bread and Wine remains in the Sacrament, as most agreeable to holy Scripture and right Reason; and that Transubstantiation was a rash Opinion, having no ground in Scripture. This was the more common Opinion of the Schoolmen for above 200 years. The Friar saith, I wrong the Doctors, and will prove it; I know not when. But let him unmask himself, that I may see the right face, and then I shall return him his own challenge, and let him put it to trial when he dares.  
III. My third Assertion is, That their own Reasons or Grounds for Transubstantiation, are too weak to support it, and the monstrous weight of Doubts and Difficulties that depend upon it. Their general ground is the power and truth of Christ, God Almighty, who made all the world by his word; hence they infer Possibility, Verity, Necessity. The Answer is, that an Argument from the Creation, is but à particulari ad particular, and holds not; nor à posse ad esse, from Possibility to Verity: as to say, It may be so, therefore it is so; or, God can do this and that, therefore he doth it, or it is done; all such Arguments are inconsequent, irrational, and ridiculous. An Argument may well follow from the Will of God to his Power, but not from his Power to his Will. Particular Reasons or Grounds they have.  
1. The Time when Christ spoke the words; a time (say they) when all Figures were ended; but that is apparently false: for there is a plain Figure in the Cup, which they neither deny nor can avoid.  
2. Some argue thus; The Bread which Christ gave in his last Supper, came down from Heaven; But Baker's bread came not down from Heaven; therefore he gave not Baker's bread, but the substance of his own Body. It is retorted thus; The substance of Christ his natural Body was taken of the B. Virgin, and came not down from Heaven: But the bread which Christ gave came down from Heaven: Therefore the Bread which Christ gave, was not the substance of his natural Body. Considering the weakness of their Argument, and inconvenience of the retort, they fly to other grounds; as  
3. To Ubiquity, through Personal Union of both Natures: But this overthrows the grounds of their own assertion. For as they handle the matter, their ubiquity is not ubique, (good Mr. Friar.) But the direct answer is this; Although both Natures are united in one Person, yet the essential properties of either are reserved to each nature, and not communicated. So that as Christ God-man died, but not the Godhead; so also Christ God-man is every where, but not the Manhood. That follows in Concreto, which does not follow in Abstracto.  
4. Another ground for Corporal Presence, is our Incorporation into Christ, Ephes. 5.30. We are Members of his Body, flesh and bones: and 1 Corinth. 10.16. The breaking of bread is the communion of the Body of Christ. By corporal presence. But it is Communio, not Commixtio, as their own Learned say; and Communio effectiuè operans, not needing Corporal presence, but only the presence of a Supernatural, Sacramental Grace, Power, and Virtue from his Body. Our Saviour's words are plain to this purpose, Joh. 6.35. He that believeth in me, shall never thirst, never hunger, but be satisfied with my body and blood by Faith in believing. And (ver. 56.) He that eateth my flesh, etc. dwelleth in me, and I in him: What manner of dwelling it is, the Apostle tells you, Ephes. 5.17. Christ dwells in our hearts by Faith. And sure the Apostle knew the mind of Christ better than all the Friars in the world.  
5. They have another Argument, From the long continuance of their Doctrine in the Church, ever since the Apostles time. It hath been disproved already, and proved, That the Church in all Ages taught the contrary, till a few years before our age. Another Argument they have from the promise of Christ, To keep his Church from error. The promise is true, and holds good; but their Argument so vain, that I will not spend Paper about it.  
Now the Doubts, Difficulties, and Absurdities that accompany Transubstantiation, are, Locatum sine loco; Quantum sine quantitate, etc. In a place, possessing no place; a body without quantity, or other accidents; and accidents subsisting of themselves, without a body or subject. Fraction, or breaking in the Sacrament, and yet nothing broken, but only in show or appearance. And the Apostle calls it breaking of Bread, because it seems so to the eye. If there be any Jugglers in the world, these are plain Jugglers, who cast a mist of senseless words before men's eyes, to make them believe they see that, which is not. The Friar professeth to keep close to our Saviour's words; but where then doth our Saviour say, This is my spiritualised Body; or, This is a Spirit? Or, This is my body under the species of bread? Or where doth St. Paul say, The species of bread which we break? etc. The Friar may be ashamed of these shifts. I desire the Reader to take notice of Three things.  
1. That Species, a word used by the Fathers, is taken by them for substance of bread, and is commonly taken so at this day, for substance, especially by Physicians.  
2. To Consecrate never signified to Transubstantiate, but only to dedicate a common thing to a sacred use.  
3. It is an usual manner of Speech in Scripture, when it speaks of Sacraments, to call the Sign by the name of the thing signified.  
iv My Fourth and last Assertion is, That the Doctrine of the Sacrament held by the Church of England, is most agreeable to Holy Scripture and to all pure Antiquity. We may call it Transmutation, a word found often in old Writers, and alloweth a change great and marvellous, not in substance, but in Virtue, Power and Operation. There must be a wonderful Change, else there could not follow such a powerful Operation: But this change is not in substance, for that remains still unchanged. For proof whereof, I refer the Friar to the usual Argument of the Fathers against the Eutychian Heretics, and from thence downward to all Learned Writers, even their own best Doctors; let him search and see. We acknowledge, that the very Body and Blood of Christ are in the Sacrament, truly received, truly eaten, etc. We contend not about the matter, but the manner; we receive the very Body of Christ by Faith, in a Spiritual divine manner. The Friar promiseth to give my little History another broad side; but to save a labour, he fairly yields the cause, (pag. 10. of his Book) in these words: His natural Body to eat in a spiritual divine manner; and (pag. 9) His true body existing in a spirtual divine manner; and so I hope we shall agree at last.   

CHAP. II. Of Consubstantiation.  
THis Opinion also hath been the occasion of much Superstition, and cause of much Trouble, especially in Germany, upon this occasion. Zuinglius observing how near the Decree of Pope Nicholas, and his Council of Lateran, drew to the Capernaites; he withdrew as much to the other side, showing his Arguments to one Carolostadius. Carolostadius uttered the same in his own name at Wittenberg and other places, allowing less than Zuinglius did, nothing but Bread and Wine, with bare figure and signification of Christ's Death. He offered a Defence of his opinion against Luther; but Luther drew him so far from his grounds of bare figure, that he was ashamed of his attempt, and recanted his, Error. Luther made the Question public, and allowed the corporal presence of Christ's Body and Blood, jointly and together with the Bread and Wine, calling it Consubstantiation. Oecolampadius, and at last Zuinglius, oppose against Luther at Zurich; and this Contention continued very sharp between them and their Copartners above forty years. At last the Reformed Ministers of France, in their Synod at Charenton, 1631. took this Doctrine of Consubstantiation into consideration; and conceiving there was no great venom in it, by their public Act they received the Lutherans into their Communion. God send Peace and Truth, Unity in Verity.   

CHAP. III. Of Roman Catholics.  
THis glorious Title makes a great gap in our Nation, and many thousands are dazzled and drawn away with the splendour of it, merely for want of a right understanding. For this title doth no way belong to those that appropriate the same to themselves, but most properly to Protestants, especially of the Church of England. For St. Paul was the first Founder of the Church at Rome, where he planted the Christian Faith, once famous all the world over, Rom. 1.8. Spoken of throughout the world, and that was Catholic enough. Now this very same Catholic Faith that St. Paul taught the Romans, we of the Church of England teach and profess to a syllable; let St. Paul himself in all his holy Epistles be our Judge: And therefore we are the true Roman Catholics, and not they that have deserted the true Roman Faith. The common talk of St. Peter's Chair at Rome, where they say he sat as Bishop twenty five years, are but vain words without proof. For what should St. Peter's Chair do in St. Paul's Church, planted by him? to whom was committed the Gospel of the Uncircumcision, as the Gospel of the Circumcision was unto Peter, Galat. 2. and thereupon they were agreed; and vers. 9 St. Peter gave St. Paul the right hand of fellowship, that he should go to the Gentiles. Now if St. Peter set his Chair at Rome, it was contrary to his own covenant or agreement. Or (2.) If St. Peter's Headship is so necessary a point of the Faith, for the good of the universal Church, sure our Saviour would have spoken of it in more solemn plain words. Or, (3. St. Paul in his Salutations or Greetings sent to the Saints at Rome, would surely have remembered the chief Pastor, if there had been any such; or if St. Peter had been the man. Or, (4.) If St. Peter was ordained Universal Pastor and Head of the Church, St. Paul did not well to take upon him the care of all the Churches, 2 Cor. 11.28. when that belongs to the chief Pastor; except they will say, that St. Paul was St. Peter's Curate. However, it is not the Chair, but the Doctrine; nor a succession of persons, but truth of Doctrine, that makes a true Church. People are then much mistaken, to call Popery the old Religion, when the Protestant Religion is the most ancient, clearly founded in Holy Scripture; and the other but new, not to be found in Holy Scripture, nor in any Record of pure Antiquity. So that we have no difference with the true Church of Rome, but with a prevailing Party or Faction, called in our Laws, not Roman Catholics, but Popish Recusants.   

CHAP. IU. Of Tradition.  
TRadition is a Monster that lives merely by Air. Our learned Friar calls it, Uncontrollable Tradition. If he takes it for the manner of delivery, called Oral Tradition; or for the matter delivered, called, Unwritten Verities; they are both controllable, and controlled by daily Experience, and found guilty of falsehood. The Council of Trent itself hath overthrown Tradition, with their too much zeal to establish it: For by joining it with Holy Scripture, instead of building it up, they cast it down; because Tradition is no more able to stand with Holy Scripture, than Dagon before the Ark of God. Hereof a learned Carmelite, present in that Council, gave them warning; advising them to consider first, Whether the Christian Doctrine hath two parts, one written by the Will of God, the other forbidden to be written, but only to be taught by word of mouth: or whether in the whole body of Christian Doctrine, it happened accidentally, that all being taught, some part of it hath not been committed to writing. It is (said he) that in the Old Testament God shown a necessity of writing it, and therefore writ the Decalogue with his own finger, and laid it up in the Ark, to be kept. In the New, as the Holy Ghost did direct the Apostles to write and preach the Truth, so he did not forbid them to write any thing, and hold it in a Mystery, as in some false Religions they do. For then how were the Apostles Successors able to write that, which was forbidden of God? And if it happened accidentally, that derogates from the Providence of God, in directing the Apostles to compose the New Testament. And therefore he thought it not fit to make it an Article of competition against the Holy Scriptures. Thus reasoned the Learned Carmelite, to whom the Council gave no other but a check, by the mouth of Cardinal Pool. But we may reason thus: If Holy Scriptures, the same that we receive as well as they, be the Word of God, as that Council hath decreed, than they are of Divine Authority and Credit sufficient to be believed for themselves, and whatsoever they say is divine truth; and if so, then Tradition is clearly cast out, as useless or needless. For Holy Scriptures say of themselves, that they are sufficient and most certain: Joh. 20.30, 31. Jesus did many more things, but these are written that we may believe, and believing may have life through him. The written Word is sufficient of itself, Luc. 1.3, 4. It seemed good to write unto thee, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou art instructed. For Scripta manent, and are a certain Rule; when Instructions by word of mouth vanish, or in time are mistaken. And it is incredible to imagine, that stories for 1600 years, passing through so many mouths of men, of various Judgements, Tempers, or Affections, etc. should not be altered, or corrupted; when we see it is so, by daily experience, in very short time. Tradition now is quite out of doors, cast out by the Word of God; which will not endure the fellowship of such an Idol, and Teacher of Lie. And if this main Pillar fail, their whole Religion falls to the ground.   

CHAP. V Of the Council of Trent.  
I Had not spoken of this famous Council, but that the Friar provokes me to it with his learned follies. I question not their great wisdom and learning; I believe many of them were devout holy men in their mistaken way; but most of them, I believe, more politic than pious, seeking their own more than the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. The Protestants have many Objections against this Council; the two principal, the Actions of the Council itself, and some Concessions of R. H. in his Considerations upon that Council, will make good, though Soane, or Padre Paul had never writ a word.   

CHAP. VI Of the Church of England.  
THe Friar tells me, that the Church of England, meaning (saith he) the Prelatical Protestants, is no universal, but a particular Sect; no Church or Sect in the world agreeing or communicating with it. No, Mr. Friar? The Harmony of Confessions tells you what you are; and so do many other Writings between us and all the Reformed Churches, full of Kindness, Unity and Love, yea between our Doctors and some of yours; there were many passages of love and kindness passed between your Bellarmine and our learned Whitaker, whom the Cardinal had in great esteem for his great Learning: as every valiant man loves a man of valour, though his enemy. But it hath been long observed, that our English Jesuits, Priests, etc. are more bitter enemies to our Church, than any Strangers of foreign Parts; as Bishop Bramhall and others, by their own relation found true by experience, when they were in France, during our late Troubles; they found Strangers civil and kind, our own very uncivil: hereupon I conclude our Friar is an Englishman, by his uncivil language.  
But for a full Reply I say, That the Church of Christ is Universal or Particular; Universal absolute, or respective: Absolutely considered, it is the whole company of Believers, of all times and places, elect of God to Salvation in Jesus Christ, called in Scripture, The Spouse of Christ, Household of God, etc. In this Church there is no Condemnation, as out of it no Salvation. Or, the Catholic Church is taken respective, in respect of Men, Places, Times, Doctrine, and particular Congregations. Now though the Church of England be a particular Church, part of the universal, and called, The Church of England, from the place where it is seated; and the Church of Rome was no more at the best: yet the Church of England is Catholic in respect of her Doctrine, agreeing with all true Churches, yea with the true Church of Rome itself. And in this respect the Church of Rome (now so called) is not Catholic, because she is fallen from the true, ancient, Catholic Faith. I have done now with our Friars scandalous Libel, charging our Nation with Perjury, which all the Friars in the world will never be able to prove.   

CHAP. VII. Of Dissenters in Opinion.  
OUr Church is at Unity in itself; and hath no differences, but such as our Adversaries themselves scatter and cherish about in corners, with feigned words deceiving the hearts of the simple. The most considerable party of Dissenters is not so far gone, but may easily be reconciled. I know no difference between us, but two words of one signification, and one word plainly mistaken. I should be sorry to grieve the hearts of any that are truly Godly, and have no other design but to keep a good Conscience, and to live in the fear of God. I desire them in love to consider the distracted condition of their Native Country, and not stand upon terms, that have no ground in Scripture, whereto the Covenant doth no way oblige them, and whereof the Learned Reformed of Foreign Churches are quite weary, as they told our Divines at Dort. Other Dissenters our Adversaries have sent, as Pioniers to undermine us. The most troublesome are Quakers, a poor deluded people; but if they would speak directly to some few Questions, I believe a short Answer would stop their mouths.   

CHAP. VIII. Of Dissenters in Life and Manners.  
SUch are all Drunkards, Blasphemers, Liars, etc. And these make the greatest breach in the Nation of all the rest. I was told once, that all I could say, was, that they drew the Judgements of God down upon the Nation. I never thought to hear such an answer from the mouth of a Christian. But these lewd Livers are the greatest Schismatics; they are a scandal to our Church; a shame to our Religion; a reproach to our Nation; bring contempt upon our good Laws and Government. Specially the beastly Sin of Drunkenness ruins many a hopeful Youth, brings them to Beggary or worse; and makes all that use it, unserviceable and unfit for public Employment. One good Law, such as our Honourable Parliament hath given an excellent pattern of already, would remedy all. Let the bleeding condition of our Neighbours make us beware, before it be too late; Repent of our Sins, lest our Land mourn too, and the people languish for all their Abominations.  
Psalm 50.22. Consider this, ye that forget God, lest he tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.    

ERRATA.  
IN the Preface, Pag. 1. l. 16. read Groninchou. p. 7. l. 2. deal and. ibid. read to a trial. p. 8. l. 18. after Christ, put a Comma. p. 11. l. 8. deal he. p. 14. l. 23. r. manifest (said he). p. 15. l. 9 r. no other answer.  
FINIS.