no Church before him therefore it can be no true Church at all To which we answer that this cause is no cause For though Luther had no being before Luther yet none can deny but that he was when he was though he could not be before he was So there may be a true Church after Luther though there was none for some ages before him as since Columbus his time there have been Christians in America though there were none for many Ages before for it does not follow that nothing but a Church can possibly get a Church nor that the present being of a true Church depends necessarily upon the perpetuity of a Church in all Ages for though I cannot deny the Churches perpetuity yet that 's not here necessary to our difference but that a false Church by Gods providence over ruling it may preserve a means of confuting their own Heresies and so reduce men to truth and raise a true Church I mean the integrity of the word of God with men Thus the Jewes preserve means to make men Christians and Papists preserve means to make men Protestants and the Protestants false Church as the Romans call it preserves men Papists nor does it appear that the perpetuity of the Church is the truth of the Papists Church for they speak as if they were the onely Christians in the World before Luther when the whole World knowes that this is but talk and that there were other Christians besides the Papists that might have perpetuated the Church though there had not been then one Papist in being for sure there was a Catholick Church before the Roman one Next the Papist say to hold that the visible Church is not perpetual is a Heresie so that Luthers Reformation being but particular and not universal nor but of late date it can have nothing to do with the visible and perpetual Church which the Protestants answer thus To say the visible Church is not perpetual is properly a Heresie but the Papists cannot deny but that the Apostles who preach'd the Gospel in the beginning did believe the Church universal though their preaching at the beginning was not so So Luther also might well believe the universal Church though his Reformation was but particular the Church in the Apostles time being universal de jure of right but not de facto in fact Nor did Luther and his followers as the Papist are pleased to mis-cal many Protestants forsake the whole Church but the corruptions of it in renouncing some of their corrupt practices and this the Protestants say they did without Schism because they had cause to do it and no man can have cause to be a Schismatick because he is onely one who leaves the Church without a cause for 't is not onely seperation but a causeless seperation from the Church that is Schismatical and I think t' will not be amiss before I go any farther to distinguish the difference between Heresie and Schism Heresie is anobstinate defence of any error against any necessary Article of the Christian Faith Schism is a causeless separation of one part of the Church from another Now we Protestants say still that we never forsook the whole Church or the external Communion of it but onely that part of it which is corrupted and is to be fear'd will still continue so viz. The Papist Church and forsook not but onely reformed an other part which part they themselves were and sure the Papists will not say the Protestants forsook themselves nor their own Communion and therefore the Papists argument must be a very weak in urging that the Protestants joyned themselves to no other part of the Church therefore they must separate from the whole Church which the Protestants say is a false conclusion in as much as they themselves were part of it and still continue so and therefore the Protestants could no more separate from the whole then from themselves So that by the Rule of Reason if Protestants be Schismaticks because they differ from one part of the visible Church by the same reason the Protestants may say that the Roman Church is in a manner made up of Schismaticks for the Jesuits are Schismaticks from the Dominicans and the Dominicans from the Jesuits and the Jesuits from the Canonists the Fransciscans from the Dominicans and the Dominicans from the Fransciscans for all these as the World knowes differ in point of Doctrine and betwixt them there is an irreconcileable contradiction and therefore one part must be in error And if the Papists will but stand to justifie what they declare as truth that every error against a revealed truth is a Heresie they holding for certain as a revealed truth the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary then consequently the Dominicans that hold and declare it an error in Doctrine must necessarily hold a Heresie Now it may be a fault to be in error because it many times proceeds from a fault but sure Protestants forsaking error it cannot be a sin unless to be in error be a vertue so hardly do Papists deal with us Protestants as they will either damn us in making us follow their false opinions or else brand us as Schismaticks for leaving them And yet the rational sort of Papists can hardly deny but the Protestant Religion must be a safer Religion than theirs in worshipping Pictures in Invocating Saints and Angels in denying the Lay-men the Communion in both kinds as was commanded by our blessed Saviour in celebrating their Church Service in an unknown Tongue which was condemned by St. Paul in adoring the Sacrament and in all these a rational Papist cannot deny but he is on the more dangerous side as to the committing of sin and the Protestant in the more secure way as to the avoiding it For in all these things if Protestants say true the Papists do that which is impious but on the other side if the Papists were in the right yet the Protestants might be secure enough too for their fault would be onely this that they should onely not do some things which the Papists themselves confess is not altogether necessary to be done And truly the Protestants are so charitably civil as only to say of Papists as St. Austine did of the Donatists That Catholicks approved the Doctrine of the Donatists but abhorred their Heresie of Rebaptization So Protestants approve the Fundamental and necessary Truths which the Papists retain by which many good souls among them may be saved but abhor the many superstitions they use in their Religion And supposing these errours of the Popish Church were in themselves not damnable to them that believe as they profess yet for us Protestants to profess what we do not believe and esteem those as Divine Truths which we believe not to be either Divine or true would be doubtless damnable as to us for 't is certain Two men may do the same thing and it may be sinful to one and not to the other as suppose a
bring so many that have sense and reason to believe it But I shall pass by their adoring this Sacrament their praying to Saints and a multitude of their superstitious observances never used in the primitive Church and shall onely desire you Madam to observe in general that the Papists follow the Gospel just as they read Hebrew that 's backward for God plainly commands that all should search the Scripture And our Blessed Saviour ordered the Sacrament to be administred in both kinds 1 Cor. 11. Chap. 28. v. And St. Paul forbids publick prayers in an unknown Language but that which is most for Edification 1 Cor. 14 c. 15 16. v. But these plain positive commands do not hinder the Church of Rome from declaring that unlearned men shall not read and search the Scriptures but if we believe St. Paul before the Pope we may read in the 17. of the Acts 11. v. how he commended the Noble Bereans for searching the Scriputes and therefore if searching the Scriptures had not been not onely lawful but a commendable act certainly St. Paul would never have commended them for so doing So that the Popish Clergy forbids the reading the Scriptures under a pretence that their Laity might not truly understand them Next the Church of Rome allows onely their Clergy except free Princes for they are excepters of persons though God is not to receive the Communion but in one kind though our Saviour commands that all drink of the Cup and the Papists cannot deny but that the Communion was taken in both kinds in all Christian Churches for above a Thousand years after Christ And Lastly for the poor vulgar sort they shall onely hear their publick prayers in an unknown Tongue viz. Latine which a Tenth part of them do not understand and therefore how that can be most for Edification let the Papists tell if they can I am sure we cannot nor do we believe they can without the help of another Transubstantiation-Miracle and make an unknown Language to most to be chang'd at the same time into a common known Language to all And now Madam I shall humbly desire you to consider in general that though the Papists do out-noise us as shallow rivers do still the the deepest with the high and mighty Rodomontades of their Churches infallibilitie yet such high Rants without true proof are but like School-boyes paper-Kites which soar high and loftie but have nothing else worth taking notice of They will have the confidence to tell you that their Popish Church is the Roman Catholick and onely true Christian Church in the whole world But the Protestants Answer to this their boasting is that all the Christian Churches in the whole world besides the Popish Churches though more in number than they declare quite contrary They will ask you where your Protestant Church was before Luther which was wittily answered by one where the Papist Church never was in the Bible The Papists do divert themselves very much at our stiling our King Head of the Church as we do for their doing so for we esteem our King Head onely in his own Dominions without the Popes title of infallible and sure 't is more rational that those of a Kingdom should allow their King to be Head of the Church in his own Kingdoms than that a few Cardinals should make the Head of the Church over all Kingdoms And for all their Jeasting I am sure we can shew in sober earnest Scripture-presidents for Kings being Heads of Churches in their own Dominions which is more than the papists can shew for their Pope or his Churches infallibilitie for sure they cannot object against it as new Doctrine though Doctrine that 's new is their greatest Trade that the Kings of Judah and the first Christian Emperors were Heads of the Jewish Churches and in their own Dominions And Solomon tells us That a Divine Sentence is in the lips of the King and his mouth transgresseth not in Judgement which I am sure Popes have not witness Liberius and Solomon gives the reason because the Heart of the King is in the Hand of the Lord. If the Papists will pretend so much Scripture for their Pope I shall onely answer 'T is more than ever Protestants read or the Apostles writ The Papists will tell you with a great deal of confidence that though we say the Bible is the Religion of Protestants yet there is no Protestant Religion or Church mentioned in the whole Creed which are the Articles of the Christian Faith and they will tell you that their Church is the Catholick Church and to believe the Catholick Church was an Article of the Christian Faith from the very infancie of the Church in the beginning of the Apostles time Now let the Papists tell us if they bring this as an Argument against the Protestant Religion in the Bible or not if not what cause have they to name it or what need have we to answer it but if it be one we make this reply That the Roman Church is no more named in the Apostles Creed than the Protestant Church is fâ—r the Apostles Creed was made before the Roman Church was a Church and this I am sure they cannot deny so that since the Catholick Church was then in being and the Roman Church not in being it must necessarily follow that the Roman Church cannot be the Catholick Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed and consequently is not the Mother-Church as the Papists would have her to be thus the Papists have so overcharg'd this Argument to shoot at us as it recoils and flyes in their own faces And of kin to this is their grand Battering piece of all which so thunders in the ears of all Papists and makes the Popes power so absolute and the poor credulous Papist so obedient and that is the power given by our Saviour to St. Peter in the 16th of St. Matthew beginning the 18th verse Thou art Peter and on this Rock I will build my Church and give thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and whomsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whomsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven and these words the Papists understand literally that St. Peter's person is the Rock that Christ builds his Church on which cannot possibly be by the verses just following for there when our Saviour tells his Disciples of his going to Jerusalem where he must suffer many things and be killed and raised again the Third day Peter took him and began to rebuke him be it far from thee Lord this shall not be unto thee But our Saviour turned and said unto Peter Get thee behind me Satan thou art an offence to me for thou savourest not the things that be of God but those that be of men By which words 'tis most clear and evident that our Saviour did not mean Peters person could be the Rock of the Christian Church for if Peter's person had been that
married woman gives her self out to be a widow and one knowing her Husband to be alive marries her doubtless his injoyment of her was adulterous but a second man comes and after seeing her pretended Husband buried marries her and dies without the least information of her First Husbands being then alive his ignorance sure protected him from sin and the second Husbands knowledge of the sin he acted condemned him of Adultery and though his fault might be palliated with some excuses yet it can never be defended by any just Apology And so though we read in Scripture that it was St. Paul's Judgement that meat offered to Idols might lawfully be eaten yet he says it any should eat it with a doubtful conscience he should sin and be condemned for so doing And supposing we Protestants ought not to have forsook the Papists Church for sin and errours if she had not enjoyn'd and imposed them on us yet since she does maintain them with such obstinacy and imposes them with such Tyranny we ought certainly to say with St. Peter and St. John 'T is better to forsake men than God and leave the Popish Church communion rather than commit or profess known errours as Divine Truths for as the Prophet Ezekiel tells us that to say The Lord hath said so when the Lord hath not said so is a high presumption and great sin be the matter never so small and therefore when St. Paul spoke concerning Virgins abstaining from marriage he said He had no commandment of the Lord but I declare my own judgement of it Now if St. Paul had given this as God's command surely we might have justly contradicted him and made a distinction between divine Revelation and humane Judgement So that for a Protestant to abide in the Communion of the Roman Church is so far from securing him from errour as that if I or any Protestant should continue in it I am confident I could not be saved by it and the reason is because the Papists will not admit of my communion without professing the entire Popish Doctrine to be true and profess this I cannot but I must perpetually exulcerate my conscience and though the errours of the Roman Church were not in themselves damnable yet for me to resist known Truths and to continue in the profession of known Errours and Falshoods is certainly a capital sin and of great affinity with the sin which shall never be forgiven In short if the errours of the Roman Church did not warrant our departure yet the tyrannous imposition of them would be our sufficient justification for they force us either to forsake the Papists Communion or profess as Gospel truths what our conscience assures us is very little a kin to them so that the Protestants were oblig'd to forsake those errours of the Popish Church and not the Church but the errours and we Protestants did and do still continue members of the Church having onely left what appear'd most plain to us to be superstitious and impious And we separate no more from the Popish Church than she has separated from the Ancient Church and indeed to speak properly our difference is more against the Court than Church of Rome which has introduced so many new ceremonies and practices in the Popish Church as was never heard nor practised in the primitive Times as for one instance of a Thousand I might give you Their denying the cup to the Laity which was never practised in the Church a Thousand years after our Saviour But because the Papists brag so much of and depend so entirely on the infallibility of their Church I shall pass by their Out-works and search a little into this their Grand Fort the infallibility of their Church for except they prove that they prove nothing but in proving that they prove all and if the Papists could satisfie me either by Scripture or Reason that their Church is infallible I should not onely be of their Church to morrow but repent I was not sooner but really by all that I ever heard or read for their making it good I find cause onely to admire their confidence but not at all to esteem their reasons The chief Method they take and degrees they use to prove the infallibility of their Church are by whole-sale these First that St. Peter was Head and chief amongst the Apostles and that there was given to him and his successors by our Saviour Universal Authority over his Militant Church That the Pope or Bishop of Rome is St. peter's Successor and has his Authority of Universal Bishop and consequently the Roman Church being built upon this Rock is infallible all which I doubt not but to prove to be inconsistent with and contradictory both to Scripture and Reason As to the first point of St. Peter's being Head of the Apostles which the Papists all stile him and say he was called from thence Cephas which is derived from the Greek word Head it is a most gross mistake for Cephas is a Syriack word that signifies Stone but this is onely by the by Now we Protestants say though we allow St. Peter might have primacy of Order yet we cannot grant he had supremacy of power over the other Apostles for sure it cannot stand with the least reason that St. Peter should have authority over all the Apostles and yet never act the least authority ever any one of them Nor is it reasonable to believe that St. Peter having authority over all the Apostles for about 25 years together should never shew the least power over any of them all that time nor so much as receive the least subjection from them sure any one must think this as strange and un reasonable as if a King of England for 25 years together should not do one Act of Regality among his subjects nor receive any one acknowledgment from them Nor sure is it less strange and unreasonable that the Papists should so many Ages after know this so certainly as they pretend they do and yet that the Apostles themselves after that these words were spoke in their hearing by vertue whereof St. Peter is pretended to be made their head should still be so ignorant of it as to question our Saviour which of them should be the greatest by which sure we may rationally conclude they did not then know for if they did their question had been needless and superfluous in desiring to be taught what they already knew And what yet appears more strange then all is that our Saviour should not have helped them out of their error by telling them St. Peter was the man but rather confirmed them in the contrary by saying the Kings of the Gentiles exercise Authority over them but it should not be so among them And again it is as strange and unreasonable that St. Paul should so farr forget both St. Peter and himself as in mentioning so often St. Peter he should still do it without ascribing him any title of honour Nor
as bad as none at all and yet after all this is it possible for a Philosophical or contemplative man nay for any man that has reason or common sense after all these suppositions to believe that none among these holy Writers of the New Testament should remember ad rei memoriam To set down plainly this most necessary Doctrine not so much as once that we were to believe the Roman Church infallible Again that none of the Evangelists should so much as once name this Popish necessary point of Faith if they had esteem'd it necessary for us to believe it when St. Paul says He kept not back any thing that was profitable for us and sure the Papists cannot deny but what is necessary to salvation must be very profitable And St Luke also plainly tells Christians his intent was to write all things necessary And sure it stands also with reason that when St. Paul wrote to the Remans he would have congratulated this their extraordinary priviledge if he had believ'd it belong'd to them And though the Romans bring it as a great Argument for them that St. Paul tells them Their Faith is spoken all the world over Yet pray let them moderate those thoughts with this consideration that St. Paul said the very same thing to the Thessalonians and let them further consider this that if the Roman Faith had been the Rule of Faith for all the world for ever as the Papists hold sure St. Paul would have forborne to put the Romans in fear of an impossibility for though raillery is much in Fashion now sure 't was not then that they also nay the whole Church of the Gentiles if they did not lock to their standing might fall into infidelity as the Jews had done 1 Eph. 11. And methinks it also stands with great reason that the Apostles writing so often of Hereticks and Antichrist should have given the Christian world this as Papists pretend onely sure Preservative from them to be guided by the infallible Church of Rome and not to separate from it upon the pain of damnation Methinks also St. Peter St. James and St. Jude in their Catholick Epistles would not have forgot giving Christians this Catholick direction of following the Roman Church and St. John in stead of saying He that believes that Jesus is the Christ and born of God might have said He that adheres to the Doctrine of the Roman Church and lives according to it is a good Christian and by this mark you shall know him In a word can there be any thing more irrational than to believe that none of these holy men who were so desirous of mens salvation should so much as once remember to write that we were to obey the Roman Church but leave it to be collected from uncertain principles and by more uncertain consequences So that upon the whole I cannot without much wonder look on the Pope's confidence and the Papists credulity in esteeming the Pope or his Councils to be an infallible Guide sure either they never read what they ought to believe or else they will not believe what they read though it be never so known a Truth and worthy of belief for if they did they could never believe the infallibility of the Popish Church for indeed if they would read the Popish story or as I may well call it the Civil Wars of the Popes you shall find as I said before Pope against Pope Councils against Councils some Fathers against others nay some against themselves new Traditions brought in and old ones turn'd out one Church against another nay the Church of one Age against the Church of another In a word the Papists say their Church is infallible and all other Christians besides themselves though more in number than they absolutely deny it and yet we must for all that believe the Popish Church infallible And to speak the plain Truth and in a word to unravel the real cause of the Grandeur of the Church of Rome above all other Churches is onely this Rome was the Imperial Town of the Empire and its Greatness was given by men and not God and when afterwards Constantinople was the Imperial City they Decreed that the Church of Constantinople should have equal Priviledges and Dignities with that of Rome And now to end this Discourse I desire you will please to consider this Conclusion which is that after all that the Papists have said be it never so much and mighty to shew the infallibility of their Church I am verily perswaded they cannot shew more if so much out of the Scriptures for their Church as the simallest society of Christians met together in prayer can for themselves that when two or three are met together in my name I will be amongst then sayes the Lord. And now I have just done this small discourse and the Sun is just upon finishing this dayes visit I can very readily follow that holy advice of not letting it go down in my anger which I thank God I have to none living and therefore am in so much Charity with the Papists as to wish that neither they nor Protestants might wast their pretious time in meer speculative controversies about words and ceremonies which of themselves will never carry us to Heaven but that we may spend our time like wise Christians in the wayes and fear of God which is the onely beginning of wisedom and not consume it in studying and maintaining of Disputes and factions but if we must still differ let Protestants and Papists differ in opinions but as Aristotle and Cicero did who though they were of differing Judgments touching the natures of Souls yet both of them agreed in the main that all men had Souls and souls of the same nature And as Phisitians though they dispute whether the Brain or the Heart be the principle part of man yet that all men have Brains and Heart they sufficiently agree in So though Protestants esteem one part of the Church doctrine and Papists set a higher value on another part yet the Soul of the Church may be in both of them and though the Papists account that a necessary truth which the Protestants account neither necessary nor perhaps true yet in truth truly necessary they both agree viz. The Apostles Creed and that Faith Hope and Charity are necessary to Salvation And lastly though Papists hold they may be justified by their works and Protestants hold none can be justified barely by them in regard of the imperfections of their works yet on the other side we so much agree with the Papists as to esteem none can be justified without them for without Repentance and Charity none can be good they being both like Health to our bodies the want of which is sufficient to disturb all other pleasures Therefore when we read St. Pauls Treatise of justification by Faith without the works of the Law Let us at the same time read what he writes to the Corinthians concerning the absolute necessity of that Excellent vertue of Charity and they will reconcile one another and I wish that we were all so reconciled in the unity of the Spirit and in the bond of peace And that you Madam may be the sooner reconcil'd to me for this tediousness I shall now make a conclusion which after such an overgrown letter must needs be the best complement that can be made by Madam yours c. London the 24. of Feb. 1673
Protestants do the same But we must desire the Papists to give us leave to tell them that they most grosly mistake if they say they agree in matters of Faith as for proof some of them hold it against Faith to take the Oath of Allegiance others 't is against Faith to refuse that Oath Some hold it of Faith that the Pope is head of the Church by Divine Law others the contrary some hold it of Faith that the blessed Virgin was free from actual sin others the contrary some that the Popes power over Princes in Temporalities is de fide others the contrary some that 't is universal Tradition that the Virgin Mary was conceived in actual sin others the contrary And how the Jesuites and Franciscans and other Orders differ to this day I am sure needs no memorandum and the best Jeast of all is the Papists have not so much as yet agreed in their very pretended means of agreement and yet have the confidence to pretend an Unity more than the Protestants sor some of them say the Pope with a Council may determine all Controversies others deny it Some hold That a general Council without a Pope may do so others deny this Others say Both in conjunction are infallible Determiners others deny this And some among the Papists hold The acceptation on of the Decrees of Councils by the Universal Church is the onely way to decide Controversies which others deny by denying their Church to be infallible and yet every part pretends to be part of the Church In a word can the Papists deny but that there has been Popes against Popes Councils against Councils Nay Councils confirmed by Popes against Popes confirmed by Councils And Lastly The Church of some Ages against the Church of other Ages and since every part of the Body is so out of order methinks they should not brag of so perfect a health as they do The Papists say and do but say it that their Doctrine is held Catholick and therefore they esteem it an insolent madness of us Protestants to dispute against the practice of the whole Church First That their Doctrine is Catholick we answer That the greatest number of Christians in the world deny it so that they cannot truly say we dispute against the practice of the whole Church And farther we say supposing we should in complement to them grant that their Church is Catholick and Universal yet we say That is no sufficient proof it came originally from the Apostles witness the Doctrine of the Milenaries and the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants which was generally taught by the Universal Church and believed as Apostolical Tradition but yet contradicted by the Universal Church afterwards This I am sure the Papists dare not deny so that we unavoidably cast the Papists upon this Rock that they must either conclude the Apostles were Fountains of contradictorie Doctrines or that the Universal Doctrine of the present Church is no sufficient proof that it came originally from the Apostles because from Church Universal of one time and the Church Universal of another time did differ Next for their saying 't is insolent madness to dispute against the practice of the whole Church First we are sure we can bring more Christian witnesses that deny they are the whole Church than they can bring to prove it but supposing we were as mad as they say we are and would have us to be to dispute against the whole practice of the Church yet I hope we may desire to know of the Papists if they can deny but that 't was the practice of the whole Church in St. Au'stine's time and esteemed then an Apostolical Tradition even by St. Au'stine himself that the Eucharist should be administred to Infants And then let them tell us Whether it be insolent madness to dispute against the practice of the whole Church or is it not if it be not why do they accuse us for it but if it be insolent madness how mad and insolent is the Papist Church not onely to dispute against this practice of the Universal Church of administring the Eucharist to Infants but utterly abolishing the practice of it So that the very worst the Papists can say of us allowing what they say to be true is that we but do what they themselves own already to have done And though the Papists are pleased to say that the Holy Scriptures and ancient Fathers assign separation from the visible Church as a mark of Heresie yet they cannot shew one plain Text of Scripture to confirm it And for the Papists braging of the Antiquity and universality of their Churches Doctrine though we allow it very ancient bating the primative times we answer first as to its Antiquity we desire to see what Antiquity they can shew for their giving the Communion but in one kind when they know that the Administring it in both kinds was the practice of the Church for a Thousand years after Christ what Antiquitie for the lawfulness and expediency of the Latine service for the present use of indulgences For the Popes power in Temporalities over Princes for the Picturing the Trinity For the lawfulness of worshipping Pictures and Images Fox their Beads For their whole worship of the blessed Virgin For their Oblations in the notion of Sacrifices to her and other Saints For their saying Pater Nosters and Creeds to the Honour of them and Ave Maries to the Virgin Mary For the infallibility of the Bishop or Church of Rome For their Doctrine of the blessed Virgins immunity from actual sin For the necessity of Auricular Confession For the necessity of the Priests intention to obtain benefit by any of their Sacraments And lastly for their licentious Doctrine in holding that though a man lives and dies without the practise of any Christian vertue and with the Habits of many damnable sins unmortified yet if at the last moment of his life he has any sorrow for his sins and joyn confession to it he shall certainly be saved This is a Doctrine may keep many souls out of Heaven but I doubt will scarce carry any one there So that the Papists Doctrine being ancient is nothing as long as 't is evident that they hold many dangerous errors as for instance the Milenaries and the Communicating Infants was more ancient than their Doctrine and 't is plain that antiquity unless it be absolute and primative is not a certain sign of true Doctrine And the very Apostles themselves assure us that in their dayes the mystery of Iniquity was working The Papists demand how comes it to pass that their Doctrine is so universal forgetting that weeds spread faster than good herbs And we ask them how the errors of the Milenaries and the Communicating Infants became so universal let them tell us this and we will tell them that for what is done in some may be done in others The Papists ask us where our Church was before Luther and tell us because t' was