A DISSUASIVE From POPERY Sent in a LETTER From A. B. to C. D.  
DUBLN. Printed by Benjamin Took and John Crook Printers to the King's Most Excellent Majesty; and are to be sold by Mary Crook & Andrew Crook at his Majesty's Printing-house in Skinner-Row. 1681.   

Honoured Sir,  
THe last time we were together, you told me, that a friend of yours longed to see in a paper under my hand the reasons of my unkindness to Popery. To which he (or you for him) obligingly added, that I did not appear unkind to the persons of Papists, and that indifferency in judging is there likeliest to be found, where Bitterness of humour is not prevalent.  
Now Sir though I know and very much honour you, yet I am not acquainted with your friend, and am sensible that use may be made of such a paper to my disadvantage. How ever I here send it you; for I do really look upon Protestancy (That of the Church of England) to be so high a Blessing both to the particular professors of it, and to the Country where it is embraced, that I could, adventure very far in whatsoever should promise the advancement of it.  
The paper may be shown as you or your friend shall think fit; but I would not have it published in Print; 'tis not studied enough for that.   

A Dissuasive from Popery.  
I Reduce my dislikes of Popery to two Heads, the incrediblenes of its Doctrines, and the grievousness of the Yoke imposed on its Professors. Of its incrdible Doctrines. I name first Transubstantiation.  
In the way of Nature this is not so properly called incredible, as absurd and impossible; It makes the Body of Christ to be in a Thousand places at once. It makes that Body wear its own quantity under the dimensions of a Wafer, that is, to have its own bigness but to be never the bigger for it. It makes the accidents of Bread and Wine Exist without a subject; that is, there is whiteness and there is moisture, but there is nothing Either white or moist, It makes the accidents of Bread and Wine to nourish the Eaters and Drinkers of them▪ that is, to be turned into Substances. etc. To all which it is answered that God's power is sufficient to overcome all these Difficulties, Neither will I dispute his Power where his Will is revealed. But I say it is incredible that Transubstantiation in the Eucharist should be the will of God. For All other Miracles recorded in the Holy Scriptures served to some End. Elias called fire from Heaven, to make it appear that the Lord is God, and that he was his servant So Christ raised up the widow's son, for the comfort of the widow, and for the manifestation of his own Power. But Transubstantiation serves to no End that has been yet named; It convices no body, it profits no body. Our Saviour says so, Jo: 6. the flesh profits not. That is, by being bodily Eaten. Christ's flesh profits by being taken into God; by suffering upon the Cross, by being believed on; but by being bodily Eaten, it has no effect either upon the body; or the Soul of the cater. Not upon the body, for that they confess is concerned only in the accidents of the bread and wine departed. Nor upon the Soul, for that feeds on Christ only Spiritually, viz. by Faith, Hope and Charity. Now is it credible that God would work so many miracles as are in the bowels of Transubstantiation, for no end in the World?  
2ly, The course of nature is certainly the will of God; therefore we must not believe it is inverted, but where God himself declares it is so. Here they say God has declared for Transubstantiation in these words: This is my body etc. I answer, no more then in these: that rock was Christ. Or then in these of the same Apostle: We are all one bread. For all three sentences are equally positive, and are equally the word of God. Now, was the rock which followed the Israelites in the wilderness turned into the substance of Christ not then born? Or are all Christians turned substantially into bread? No, all say, that rock was Christ imports no more than that rock was the representative of Christ. We are all one bread; that is, we are all represented by one bread; Why not then, this is my body, that is, this is the representative of my body? If it be lawful to take one word of God figuratively, it cannot be wicked to take another so, if the matter equally requires. And certainly there can be no greater necessity any where, than in the Eucharist of flying from Transubstantiation to a figure.  
3ly. 'tis Incredible that the Apostles or the Primitive Church ever thought of Transubstantiation; When our Saviour said I go to the Father, the Disciples asked what it was. When he told the Parable of the Sour, they asked what it meant, If they had thought of a change of substance by the words of Consecration, would they not have said: how can this be? do we not see there as formerly? and the bread and wine as formerly? But he had instructed them Jo. 6. how his flesh is meat indeed and his blood drink indeed, to wit Spiritually not bodily, therefore they boggled not.  
Again, not one Apostle nor one Christian Doctor for above six hundred years after Christ either mentions this change of substances, or (in all those vast volumes) says one word that infers it. The Christians spoke not of it; neither did the Jews or heathens object it; Yet Transubstantiation in the eye of an unbeliever is a mass of contradictions.  
What work would Lucian have made with it? But no such matter is mentioned by that scoffer, or by Porphyry, or Festus, or Julian the Apostate etc. In so incredible a doctrine would Beringarius (above a thousand years after Christ) have been the first Heretic? If Transubstantiation had been the settled doctrine of the Church in the days of Charlemaigne, would that Emperor have writ to Bertram the Priest for his opinion of the real Presence? Would Bertram have positively answered that the host is not the same body of Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary? Only that body of Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary is to be adored, therefore the adoration of the host was not in fashion in bertram's days.  
4ly. As there is nothing in the Holy Scripture or ancient Fathers which can be rationally brought in favour of Transubstantiation, so there are in them very many sayings which seem incompatible with it. Mat: 26. Me ye have not always. Which was spoken because of his Death and Ascension. Hear St. Austin upon it. Non semper etc. Not always according to his bodily presence, but as to his Majesty, as to his Providence, as to his invisible Grace is fulfilled that: Behold I am with you to the end of the World. So Act. 3. 31. Whom the Heavens must contain till the restitution of all things. Yes, say they, he is only in Heaven locally, and in the Host but sacramentally and not as in a place; his whole body being in the least part of the Host if separate from the other parts. Which to St. Austin I am sure would have imported that Christ is really in Heaven and not really in the Sacrament; for he says upon Psalm. 33. Si spatia etc. If space of place be taken from a body it is no where, that is, it is not. Does this sound as if he understood the quillets of Transubstantiation? Again to Boniface ep. 25. Si Sacramenta etc. If Sacraments had not the likeness of the things whereof they are Sacraments, they would not be sacraments; and because of this likeness they often take the names of the things themselves; As therefore the Sacrament of the body of Christ is in some sort the body of Christ, and the Sacrament of the blood of Christ, is the blood of Christ, so the Sacrament of faith is faith. And against Adimantus the Manichee: Non dubitavit etc. he doubted not to say: this is my body when he gave the sign of his body. And upon Psal, 3. mira est patientia etc. Wonderful is the patience of Christ who entertained Judas at that banquet wherein he gave his disciples the figure of his body and his blood. And St. Ambrose de Sacramentis: Non iste panis etc. not that bread which goes down into the belly, but the bread of Eternal life which supports the soul. Many such other sayings the Reader may find cited by old Bertram and of late by all the Protestant writers; but not a word like them is in any Roman Catholic author since the Council of Lateran. The stile of the Doctors is not altered for nothing. And so much for Transubstantiation.  
Secondly, I name Purgatory for an incredible doctrine, Purgatory as maintained in the Church of Rome is a prison at the edge of hell, where souls are detained till by suffering they satisfy for such venial sins as they died under, or for mortal sins for which they had not perfectly done their penance. The pains differ from hell fire only in being Temporary; and the souls which suffer them are in high Charity, and at the last gasp were purged from all unfiting affections; yet must they lie here and fry for their past trespasses, till the utmost farthing be paid. And all their own charity avails nothing towards their deliverance, but they are ordinarily ransomed from long durance by the Charity of their friends on earth laid out upon Masses, Pilgrimages etc. And upon some occasions whole shoals are let out by the Pope's Indulgence.  
Now I say this is an incredible doctrine in itself, for, 1. the Christian faith is that Christ satisfied for the sins of the World, how then can souls suffer merely for the satisfaction of the Divine Justice? Punishments in this World are our corrections, but punishing when there can be no amendment must be a mere wrecking of vengeance, 'tis so in hell, and they say it is so in Purgatory. 2. 'tis incredible that God should so horribly afflict those Souls which so entirely love him, and which he so highly loves. 3. 'tis incredible that venial sins which upon earth are purged with an Ave, a Pater noster, a thump on the breast, or sprinkling of a little holy water should after death merit such horrible torments, and which for ought I can hear may last many years. 4. If these sins do merit the great pains of Purgatory, then 'tis incredible that a Mass, or a pilgrimage should pay the debt. 5. If Purgatory be a necessary and also an assured passage into heaven, 'tis incredible that any fire there can be a torment; for the way to bliss is happy, In this world hope of salvation made Martyrs endure tortures with patience, but that torture which brings with it assurance is matter of triumph. 6. 'Tis incredible that souls should be sensible of bodily fire: who can imagine what a scorched Soul is? or how fire can torment the understanding or the Will? And the separated soul has nothing in it besides them two. But to all this I am answered as I was about Transubstantiation, that God's power is incomprehensible, and his ways past finding out. However, I say Purgatory being so Irrational in itself has need to be well pro'vd from abroad; I mean by Texts of Scripture, and Expositions of ancient Fathers: But there is not one Text in the whole Bible applied to this Purgatory till after S. Austin. Nay 'tis impossible that many of the Ancient Fathers should hold Purgatory as it is now held in the Church of Rome; for they held that no Souls (at least very few of the most perfect) go to Heaven till the day of Judgement; and that in the interim they are kept in receptacles without any pain but that of delayed Happiness; and that at the day of Judgement they must all pass through fire; Origen: in Psalm: 36. Vt ego arbitror etc. As I think it is necessary for us all to come to that fire: though one be a Paul or a Peter; Such a one indeed shall be told: though thou goest through the flame it shall not burn thee; But a sinner like me shall come to that fire like Peter or Paul, but shall not go through it like them. Ambros: in comment: Psalterji: Igne nos etc. David says: thou hast tried us by fire, therefore we shall all be tried by fire: and if we be not consumed yet we shall be scorched. Lactant: 7 instit C. 1. Sed & justos &c. When God Judgeth even the just, he will examine them with fire, than they whose sins are great either in weight or number shall be vehemently scorched: the ripe in virtue shall not feel that fire. Hieronym: tomo 3. in Amos: Vocatus ignis etc. The fire called to Judgement, first devours the Abyss, that is, all the kind's of sins, Wood, Hay, Stubble. Aug: in 15. Gen. Ad solis etc. At the setting of the Sun, that is, at the End, By that fire is signified the day of Judgement, separating those carnals who are to be saved by fire, from those who are to be damned in the fire. And in Psal. 6. Talem me etc. Render me such now as shall not need amendment by fire. And 20 de civ: Dei: Out of what has been said it seems evident that in the judgement some will suffer some purging pains.  
I take this labour to clear the Purgatory held by some of the ancient, because their sayings and the Texts which they cite for their Purgatory are all which they bring now for the Purgatory maintained in the Church of Rome; whereas 'tis impossible that they who held the former Purgatory should hold this latter, for, 1. the former Purgatory was in the judgement, this Latter is immediately after Death. 2. The former Purgatory was for the amendment of the person, this latter punishes for Sin when the person is perfect. 3. The former Purgatory afflicted the person till he had pay'● the utermost farthing, that is, till all hi● disorderly affections were worn off; this latter clears a man out of prison for the goo● deeds of others upon Earth viz. Prayer Pilgrimages, Masses, Indulgences etc. an● without this Appendix of Indulgences th● Pope would not lift up a Finger for Purgatory. In fine, he that in the Church of Rome holds no other Purgatory but that which the forequoted Fathers held, will be declared haeretical, of which Tho: White late an English Priest of the Church of Rome is an example. See his book de medio animarum Statu.  
But it may be said: The ancient Fathers holding one sort of Purgatory, and the present Church of Rome holding another sort, how come we Protestants to hold none? I answer: The Church of Rome is to account for throwing off the Purgatory maintained by some of the Fathers; for she had thrown it off long before our Reformation; We indeed threw off that Purgatory which is maintained by the present Church of Rome, as new and invented; which is thus demonstrated out of the foregoing discourse. The present Church of Rome maintains a Purgatory absolutely inconsistent with that which was maintained by the ancient Fathers (as is proved above); therefore the Purgatory of the present Church of Rome came not by tradition from the Fathers, but was invented by their children.  
Add to this St. Austin ad Dulcitium q. 1. It is not incredible, says he, that such a thing should be after this life, and inquiry may be made whether it be so, and it may be found out, and it may be hid, that some of the faithful through a certain Purgatory fire should be saved sooner or later as they did more or less love the good things that perish. He says Purgatory is not incredible (that is, some sort of Purgatory) that it may be enquired after, and perhaps it may be found, and perhaps not. A good while after him Gregory said to Peter the Deacon, that many things are now known of separate souls which were not known of old.  
And Bede says that Purgatory became known in England upon the miraculous deliverance of a soldier from his bonds by the sacrifice of the Mass. In fine, the Greek Church never owned Purgatory, and yet to them (as to gospel matters) was declared the whole council of God. Act. 20. 27.  
But suppose Transubstantiation and Purgatory are fictious, is the Error Damnable? I do not say whether it be or no; but I am sure that all error is dangerous to the soul, because it is its blindness; and if the blind lead the blind etc. Besides, error has a spawn of consequents in which the blackness is often more sensible than in the dam. For instance, the opinion of Transubstantiation has (though not by good consequence to my reason) borough forth a sacrilegious detention of the Cup from the Laity. Adoration of the Host is another and a true birth of the same opinion; and that has in it many symptoms of Idolatry. But what soul-killing venom comes from Purgatory? Why, 'tis a gross disparagement of the passion of Christ which we do accuse of imperfection, while we think it necessary to join our ownsufferings with it for the satisfaction of the divine Justice.  
I have done with Transubstantiation and Purgatory, and need not name any more of the incredible doctrines of Popery; for this is one of their doctrines, that he who denies one Article of the Faith, denies all; because the proposal of the Church is the only reason of believing any. Out of which I infer; that if they are baffled in any one Article; they are undone as to all; for their proposal has lost its infallibility. Therefore in the next place, as the doctrines of Popery are incredible and dangerous to our condition in the world to come, so I say the yoke of it is very grievous and the burden almost insupportable in this world. For,  
First, Popery deprives us of several rights of nature. It requires us to believe things naturally absurd, without giving us any supernatural proof, as appears in the instances of Transubstantiation and Purgatory; and yet if we doubt, we are damned to the fire of this world, and that of the world to come. Again, to make us pray and praise God in an unknown tongue; What is it but to rob us of the common rights of humanity: Parrots and Pies learn words, but to understand them is the privilege of mankind. And he that should worship God only by saying what he does not understand, were degenerate into a beast as to his religion. St. Paul says if in the Church they all speak with tongues, (though themselves do understand them) that a stranger coming in, will think them mad. Is it not madder for them all to speak with tongues which they do not understand? That Papist must be very much stupifyed to whom this imposition is not grievous.  
2dly. Popery is a great Invader of our Civil Rights. The Pope can excommunicate a King; and by so doing, his Subjects are absolved from their Oath of fidelity, and are commanded to pay no Obedience; so the Prince loses his government, and the people not only, lose their Protection but also are Embarrased in insoluble doubts of conscience, between the pretensions of the Pope and those of the King. And this was the Popish Doctrine long before the Jesuits, as appears in Thomas Aquinas' Summ. Neither has the Pope ever been drawn to declare against that Branch of his power; though in several Provinces he might by such a declaration have delivered abundance of his people from very great troubles. Nay the Pope disposes of unforfeited Kingdoms. He gave away the Kingdoms of Mexico and Peru; though those Kings had never been under his Jurisdiction, and S. Paul says; what have we to do with them that are without? But there is an instance of this grievance about which I am more concerned. Our King John had troubles from his Subjects to that height, that he was fain to resign up his Crown to the Pope, and to receive it again from Pandol● his Legate, and to hold it thenceforth as from the Pope. This they say and brag off, and upon this account pretend a Title to England at this day. Here are several matters hard to be understood. If the Pope was partner in the Rebellion, what can be more dangerous than he to Sovereignty? If he was no partner in the Rebellion, how came he to get the Crown by the Success of the Rebels? Again, if John was Persecuted as an Usurper, why was not the Crown given to the right Heir? But nothing can be more unpolitick than their pretending a Title to England from this Transaction with King John; for it entitles them to the just Indignation of every King of England and of all his good Subjects.  
Thirdly, Popery is very grievous to the private purse etc. consequently dwarves any people that embraces it. Of what boundies numbers are their Clergy and Religious? The present state of France says that one third of that Kingdom is theirs; and it must be worse in Spain. Then, their Pilgrimages, Ransoms from Purgatory, Offerings at shrines and Divifications are notable Pickpockets. But how do divifications work? Why the people look upon a new Saint as a new Adoucate for them in Heaven.  
But here it may be said, that some of our people think the Protestant Clergy (Especially of the Church of England) pretty chargeable. I answer, that the means of our Clergy is so small a pittance in comparison of that which went away with Popery, that they must be very unreasonable who grudge it. And really I never knew any malign the decent maintenance of our Church but such as discovered a great many other vices. In our late confusions, all that were against the Church were against God and the King and their fellow Subjects: they were shamefully profane, and yet Hypocrites in contempt of all our senses. But this is a digression. The truth is, Religion must be in some degree Chargeable: for if we will serve God only out of that which costs us nothing; then in our Eye the service of God is nothing worth. But there may be too much taken as well as there may be too little given.  
I might add other grievances: as the horrible imposing on the vulgar by miracles; to which no man of reason among themselves gives any credit. Then how restless are their Bigotts in Plotts! But they are told of that by Enough. We had here a Barbarous Rebellion in the year 1641. I do not know whither the Pope raised it or no; but he owned it, and encouraged it, and hindered all expedients offered for a closure of the Wound, to the undoing of very many Gentlemen of that party, who yet are so well natured as to love his Holiness never the less. Nay of late Fanaticisme thrives by Popery. The Presbyterians say the Indulgence to them and others was but to cover that to the Papists; But I never believe it the sooner for their saying it. No I think the Papists helped the fanatics only by Antiperistasis. The late Plot makes them look so black, that the Ignorant people run to those Religions which pretend to greatest distance from Popery.  
I would now draw to a conclusion, but that I find my work is not done against Popery till I clear Protestancy from some dirt thrown on it, which I shall endeavour to do as briefly as I have done the rest.  
Ob: 1. Protestants generally yield that a Papist may be saved, how then came Reformation from Popery to be necessary? why should the unity of the Church be broken for That without which we may be Eternally happy? I answer, we condemn no man; there is one that will judge the world, and charity commands us to hope that well meaning Papists will be saved in that day. But if any man thinks the Popish doctrines false, and yet professes them as Articles of the Christian Faith, his Hypocrisy is a damnable sin. Hence the Reformation became necessary. God opened the Eyes of several people: They saw errors in the Church, refused to own them, declared against them, and in some Countries prevailed against them. They must either do so, or be Hypocrites in professing what they did not think. Not that men are every where bound to proclaim their Religion, but in the Church of Rome they are. There they must profess every thing with the Church, or suffer as Heretics. In Sum, the Church of Rome kept the Christian Faith, therefore we did not, neither might we leave it because of some erroneous superstructious; not, for example sake, because they believed Transubstantiation and adored the host; but because they compelled us to believe and to do so.  
Ob 2. If it be lawful for Protestants to reform from Popery for conscience sake; than it is lawful upon the same account for Presbyterians to reform from Protestants, and for Independents, and for Anabaptists, Quakers etc. without end. And if this be allowed, in what a perpetual toss of troubles will Christian Countries be? One crying up one way to Heaven, and another crying up another way, and their words often proceeding to blows, each one party condemning all the rest: but most of them joining against the Chief Magistrate? Besides the unity of the Church is gone, the Communion of Saints is gone, and the Church will soon be gone; for division is not many steps before destruction.  
This objection goes a great way with many people, therefore I will set down my answer distinctly in branches.  
1. I confess that divisions in the Church do naturally tend to the destruction of it; but of this Evil they only are guilty who cause the division. Now who caused our departure from the Church of Rome, we that were driven, or they who drove us away? If it be said: who drove you away? I answer: They that made it mortal for us to stay. We must either hear our Conscience, or them, or the Word.  
2dly. Every man is bound to reform himself according to his conscience, that is, he is bound not to profess that which he does not believe, and not to do that which he thinks is unlawful. But though every man's reason be his own guide; yet no one man's reason is the guide of other men (unless they make it so as in the case of Magistracy etc.) therefore no particular person ought to press the Reformation of other men, unless he be authorised by God or man. Yet it is possible, that private persons may think themselves bound in conscience not only to reform themselves but others also; to Preach and perhaps fight up their own way. And when this frenzy is prevalent, 'tis a great judgement from God both upon the persons possessed with it, and upon the Nation in which it happens. But the rule is, that as they follow their own erroneous conscience in these pranks; so the chief Magistrate is to follow his conscience, which is not to suffer them to do hurt to the Church or State.  
3ly. I confess that our being subject to troubles from Presbyterians &c. is an imbecility in our Church; but 'tis common to us with the Church of Rome; We are vexed with Sectaries, and they are vexed with the same Sectaries, and with us too.  
4ly. But I shall be told that the strength of the Objection is in this, That by our Reformation from Popery We gave a Precedent inviting others to Reform from Us; To this I say, that in our Reformation the King and People were of a mind and Reformed according to order of Law; therefore Our Reformation is no Precedent for the tumultous, and violent Endeavours of Presbyterians etc. Again, the Sectaries have not the same necessity of Separating from us as we had for Separation from Rome; for we could not stay there without declaring for Transubstantiation etc. which we could not believe; but the Presbyterians, Anabaptists etc. may hold their own Opinions in our Church without ever being enquired into about it, nay if they are known to be of such Opinions, there is not the least punishment for it. So that our Reformation was of Necessity, Their's of Wantonness. We are no Precedent for them. To conclude upon this Objection, I say human affairs cannot but be subject to inconveniences; & therefore we must not reject any thing for an adhering Inconvenience, unless its Opposite be less Inconvenient. Let us then consider whether possible Troubles from Sectaries, or the certain Intolerablenes of the Roman Yoke upon our Consciences, Lives, and Fortunes be the greater Inconvenience.  
Ob. 3. At least the Romish Religion, by the power it has upon people's Consciences seems apt than the Protestant to keep the people in Obedience to a Catholic Prince, and so ought to be cherished by such Princes. I answer: Popery is not so good at keeping Subjects quiet as it is at raising tumults; witness the French League against a Roman Catholic King. Yes, Popery has made many Rebellions where no interest was concerned but its own: but where did it ever hinder a Rebellion to which other interests invited? Did it hinder the Baron's Wars in England? Did it hinder the Rebellion of almost all Spain against Charles the first? Did it hinder Massanello in Naples? Did it hinder the Suiss-Cantons from revolting from the house of Austria? Papists have often Rebelled, But we can say of the Protestants (I mean the Church of England) that they have never yet rebelled, & that if ever they would Rebel; they would have done it in the late times, when their Loyalty contended with all the miseries of an unsuccessful War, of long penury, of Captivity, of banishment, of shameful Deaths. But they bore all these; and also despised Cromwell's many slattering invitations. Whereas the Papists of England were then said to offer in purchase of their Liberty an Abjuration of the Royal Line and a Submission to the Line of that Usurper. I am not absolutely sure of this last; but I perfectly sure, that in those day's Mr. White a Romish Priest of England published a book (Dedicated to Sr. Kenelm Digby) entitled Of Government and Obedience; wherein he pretends to prove that God Himself is no otherwise Monarch of the World than by his Omnipotence, and consequently that an Earthly King losing his Power▪ loses his Authority: and that neither aught others to raise troubles for the recovering of his right, nor would he, if honest, desire it. Certainly what ever Religion a King himself is of, he has reason to wish for Protestant Subjects.  
FINIS.