further we are to consider that there is not the same reasons for the Churches absolute infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures for if the Church falls into an error it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rules of the Apostles Doctrine in Scripture but if the Apostles have err'd in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity in Scripture then the Roman Church cannot be infallible for Apostles Prophets and Canonical Writers are the foundation of the Church as St. Paul sayes 't is built upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets And now to conclude this part of my discourse in very few words let the Papists answer if they can but these five words All Scripture is Divinely inspired Let them shew us so much for the Roman Church and shew us if they can where 't is written in Scripture that all the decrees of the Popish Church are Divinely inspired and all our Controversies will be at an end but I believe they can ever do that without another Transubstantiation miracle of words The Papists desire us to shew them an exact Catalogue of our fundamentals to which we answer That God may be sufficiently known to one and not sufficiently declared to an ether and consequently that may be fundamental and necessary to one which is not to another which variety of circumstances tenders it impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of fundamentals for God requires more of them to whom he gives more and less of those to whom he gives less more of a Commander of a Kingdom than a poor simple Turn spit 'T is a plain revelation of God to us Protestants that the Sacrament the Eucharist should be administred in both kinds 1 Cor. 11 c. 28 v. And that the publick Hymns and Prayers of the Church should be in such a Language as is most for Edification 1 Cor. 14 and 15 16. yet the Church of Rome not seeing this by reason of the vail would be very angry if we told them 't would prejudice their supposed infallibility We read in St. Matthew that the Gospel was to be preacht to all Nations and this was a truth revealed before our Saviours Ascention yet if the Church had been asked before the conversion of Cornelius they would have certainly told you it had not been necessary to teach all Nations for 't is most apparent out of the 11th of the Acts they all believed so until St. Peter was better informed by a vision from Heaven and the conversion of Cornelius and then they turn'd quite of a differing belief and esteemed it necessary to teach all Nations and yet were still a Church The Papists are pleased to say the Protestants differ in Fundamentals which indeed appears to us very irrational for if they say We Protestants differ in Fundamentals how then can they say We are members of the same Church one with another more than they are with ours or ours with theirs and why do they object our difference more with one another than with themselves and if we do not differ in Fundamentals why do they upbraid us with Fundamental differences amongst our selves We believe the Catholick Church cannot perish yet we believe she may and did err as I prov'd just before but thus much we Protestants declare in general that we esteem it sufficient for any mans salvation to believe Gods Word the Scripture and that it contains all things necessary to our salvation and that we do our utmost endeavours to find believe and follow the true sense of it and being we are sure that all that is any way necessary is there believing all that is there we are sure we believe all that is necessary And therefore 't is but reasonable to say that any private person who truly believes the Scriptures and heartily endeavours to know the Will of God and to do it is as secure nay securer from the danger of erring in Fundamentals than the Roman Church for 't is impossible any man so qualified should fall into an errour that can prove damnable to him for God requires no more of any man to his salvation but onely his true and best endeavours to be saved And for the Papists Sacrament of Confession which they hold is so absolute and necessary and so much upbraid us for the want of it we answer We know no such absolute necessity of it but yet we hold we must not onely confess our sins but forsake them or we shall not find mercy And we Protesants farther believe that they that confess their sins shall find mercy though they onely confess them to God and not to man And more that they who confess them both to God and man and do not in time forsake them shall not find mercy And so for the Papists Sacrament of Repentance for Remission of sins though we Protestants know no such yet we allow and observe the same Duty but publick before the Church which was the constant practice of the primitive Church and Rhemanus himself though so great a Champion for the Papists writes That the confession then used was before the Church and that Auricular confession was not hen in the World The Papists will tell you that our Bishops have not the true power of Ordination but that has been so clearly answered and so truly proved at large by so many already as I shall not need here so much as to name it onely let me in a word remember the Papists that they cannot well deny but that the Donatists themselves whom the Papists esteemed as bad as us as being Hereticks and Schismaticks yet St. Austin and Optatus Bishop of Rome did both acknowledge that they had the same Baptism Creed and Sacrament and that these Donatist Fathers though Schismaticks and Hereticks gave true Ordination or else some of these were not then esteemed Sacraments therefore let them take which they please there must be error of one side The Papists pretend they have an unanswerable objection against Protestants which is That we have discords in matters of Faith without any means of agreement to which we answer that the Scripture does not let us want solid means of agreement in matters necessary to salvation and for our agreement in all controversies of Religion either they must say we have means to agree about them or we have not if they say we have why did they before deny it if they say we have no means why are they so unjust to find fault with us for not agreeing when they themselves say we have no means to agree But for a Plaister to this soar they are so extraordinary civil as to tell us we may come to their Church and they agree in matters of faith but the plain truth of it is that they define all matters of faith to be those wherein they agree so that to say the Roman Church does agree in matters of Faith is but to say they agree in those things they do agree in and sure they cannot deny but we
divertisements of Stage-playes or Hunting or any earthly delights which cannot last but for a season and decay in our very injoying them and must soon leave us or we them but Heavenly thoughts the more and longer we practice them the better we shall like them Heavenly joyes so far exceeding all we can here leave as they are all we can ever aspire to have this we all know but few of us practice and we all love God but few love to keep his Commandments I shall therefore now Madam tell you as the Prologue to my insuing discourse that the grand Plot and whole design of it moves chiefly on these two hinges first in confirming you that the foundation of the Protestant Religion is built on God's holy Word the Scriptures which we Protestants esteem to be a perfect Rule of Faith and guide to our actions and the true Touch-stone to try all matters by that relate to the good of our Souls as certainly containing in it all things necessary to our salvation The second thing I chiefly design to prove is that neither the Pope or the Popish Church are infallible and these two shall make up the principal stories in the little Model of this small building The pretended infallibility of the Church of Rome is the grand perswasive Argument and lure to invite men to it and the strongest commanding Garrison in all the Popes power and all other Arguments and Perswasions are but like the small open Villages about this Garrison which must be servants to them that are masters of it and if a Papist can be but once convinc'd that neither the Pope nor the Popish Church are infallible they will soon be brought to reason and our remaining differences will not be very considerable I shall therefore onely lightly discourse on them and shall no further trouble you Madam then briefly to answer them in my own defence I meet them or as they follow me and shall onely do as the Wolf do's when pursued snap and bite in his own defence against all opposers without altering his pace or changing his Road I shall neither meddle with the Papists but as I meet them in the way or towards making of my way to my two designed points which are as I said before to prove the Scripture to be a perfect Rule of Faith and guide to our actions and to answer as I go the Papists main Arguments and objections against it Next that 't is against all Scripture and reason that either the Pope or the Popish Church should be infallible which is the main design of this discourse and if I can by God's assistance make but the Papists believe reason when against their own Church I doubt not but by this little Pigmie discourse as very dwarfish as 't is not onely to hinder many tottering Protestants from turning Papists but to bring some stubborn Papists to turn Protestants or at least not to have such an infallible good opinion of their Church and so damnable a bad one of ours And now Madam 't is requisite that this my discourse should be ended as soon as your Patience therefore all that I shall add either to the excusing my self or justifying Mr. Chilingworth is that thus far of this discourse being my own writing I confess deserves onely my Apology and scarce your perusal but the following discourse being extracted out of Mr. Chillingworth deserves your reading but needs not any Apology And because I find the word Protestant is so badly and over-largely interpreted I shall first acquaint you that we are not to understand by the word Protestant the Doctrine of Luther or Calvin or Geneva or onely the Articles of the Church of England but that wherein they all agree with perfect Harmony that the Bible is a perfect Rule of our Faith and guide to our Actions and this after having made the most diligent and impartial search of the true way to Eternal happiness I fully believe and that we can never find any convincing satisfaction but on this Rock of Gods word the Bible which I conceive to be the onely true Religion of Protestants If the Pope were indeed what he unjustly sayes he is the Papists unreasonably believe him to be an infallible guide then there needed no Bible but if the Bible be then there needs no Pope for if I were to go a journey and had a guide that could not err what need I be taught the way and having such a guide what need I apply my self to another So that in a word let us inform our selves the best we can and consider as much as we please the more consideration we take the more confirmation we shall find that there is no other foundation for a considering Christian to build an assured dependency on than the Scriptures for I am fully assur'd that God do's not and therefore man ought not to require of any man more than this to believe the Scripture to be the word of God to use our best indeavours to find the true sense of it and to live to our utmost according to it This I am sure in reason we ought to believe a wiser choice Then if I should guide my self by the Roman Churches authority and infallibility when really they have nothing of certainty but their uncertainty witness Pope against Pope Councils against Councils some of their Fathers against others and rather then fail some against themselves new Traditions inrolled and old ones Cashiered in a word one Church against another and if that be not enough the Church of one age against the Church of another Whereas the Scripture being true and unalterable and containing all things necessary to our Salvation I am secure that by believing nothing else I shall believe no falshood in matter of Faith if I mistake the true sense of Scripture and so fall into error yet I am secured from any dangerous error because whilst I am truly indeavouring to find the true ground of Scripture I cannot but hold my error without obstinacy and be ready to forsake it when a more probable and true sense shall appear unto me and then being assur'd that all necessary truths are plainly set down in Scripture I am certain by believing the Scripture to believe all necessary truth and he that do's so if his life be answerable to his Faith how is it possible he should fail of Salvation And though the Roman Church pretend to be a perfect guide of Faith and teacher of all Divine Truths yet sure that Title might much better and more justly be given to the Scriptures as their Teacher and Master The Roman Church brags how ancient their Church is but doubtless they cannot deny but the Scripture is more ancient if they will but allow the Mother to be older than the Child The Papists say their Church is a means of keeping Christians at unity so are also the Scriptures to those that believe them in unity of belief in matters necessary The
Papists say their Church is Catholick cetainly the Scripture is more Catholick for all true Christians in the universal world do now and ever did believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God so much at least as to contain all things necessary to salvation whereas the Papists say They onely are the true Church and all other Christians though more than they give them the lye for saying so By following the Scriptures I follow that whereby the Papists prove their Churches Infallibility for were it not for Scripture what pretence could the Papists have for it or what true Notion could they receive of it so that by so doing the Papists must plainly confess That they themselves are surer of the Truth of Scripture than of their Churches Authority for we must be surer of the proof than of the thing proved or else 't is no proof so that following Scripture I follow that which must be true if the Papists Church be true for their Church allows it's truth whereas if I follow the Roman Church I must follow that which though the Scripture be true may be false nay more must be false if the Scripture be true because the Scripture is against it Following the Papists Church I must be a servant to my Saviour and a subject to my King onely at the pleasure of the Pope and renounce my Allegiance when the Popes will is to declare him an Heretick nay I must believe vertue vice and vice vertue if he pleases for he both makes and unmakes Scripture as he thinks convenient witness the Apocrypha which hath not past for Canonical but of late years in the Papists Church who interpret Scripture according to their Doctrine but will not judge their Doctrine according to Scripture for none like to weigh light Money in true scales In short the Pope adds and lessens and interprets Divine Laws as he pleases and they must stand for Laws and be obeyed as such so that in effect he rules his people by his own Laws and his own Laws by his own Lawyers his Clergy who dare not speak nor uphold them other than just such as the Pope would have them and indeed Cardinal Richelieu gave the reason why more hold the Pope above the Councils than the Councils above the Pope because the Pope gave Archbishopricks and Bishopricks but the Councils had none to give and though the Papists say his Holiness cannot err yet let not the Papists forget what God sayes in the Scripture if not onely the Pope but if an Angel from Heaven shall preach any thing against the Gospel of Christ let him be accursed In following the Scripture we have God's express command and no colour of any prohibition but to believe the Popish Church infallible we have no Scripture-command at all much less an express one Following the Popish Church we must believe many things not onely above reason but against reason witness Transubstantiation whereas following the Scripture we shall believe many miseries but no impossibilities many things above our reason but nothing against it Nay we need not believe any thing which reason will not convince us we ought to believe for reason will convince any sober Christian that the Scripture is the Word of God and there 's no reason can be greater than this that God says it therefore it must be true In a word we Protestants believe that all things necessary to our salvation are evidently contain'd in Scripture and what is not there evidently contained cannot be necessary to be believed and our reason is just and clear because nothing can challenge our 〈◊〉 as to salvation but what hath descended to us from our Blessed Saviour Christ Jesus by original and universal Tradition now nothing but Scripture hath thus descended to us therefore nothing but Scripture can challenge our Belief Now the grand difference between the Papists and us concerning the Scripture is this We hold the Scripture to be the onely perfect Rule whereby to judge of Controversies The Papists say That they acknowledge the Scriptures to be a perfect Rule onely they deny that it excluded unwritten Tradition which in effect is this they say 'T is as perfect a Rule as a Writing can be onely they deny it to be as perfect a Rule as a Writing may be either they must revoke their acknowledgment or retract their contradiction of it for both cannot possibly stand together for if they will but stand to what they have granted that Scripture is as perfect a Rule of Faith as a Writing can be they must then grant it so compleat as it needs no addition and so evident that it needs no interpretation for both these properties are requisite to a perfect Rule and that a writing is capable of both these properties and perfections is most plain for he that denies it must say that something may be spoken which cannot be written for if such a compleat evident rule of Faith may be delivered by word of mouth as the Papists pretend may and is and whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth may also be written then such a compleat and evident rule of Faith may also be written for the Argument is most plain whatsoever may be spoken may be written a perfect rule of Faith has been spoken therefore a perfect rule of Faith may be written If the Papists cannot see this plain conclusion they had best desire more light to be added to the Sun The Papist pretend their Church to be the infallible Teacher of all Divine Truths and an infallible interpreter of all obscurities in the Faith but the Papists will I hope give us leave to admire how they can pretend to Teach them in all places without writing them down that is certainly beyond the reach of their power to do as well as our belief that 't is to be done And for the Papists saying there must be a living authority beside the Scripture or else controversies cannot be ended Protestants answer necessary controversies are and may be decided and if they be not 't is not the defect of the rule in Scripture but the default of men so that if necessary controversies be ended 't is no matter if the unnecessary be not for doubtless if God had required it he would also have provided some means to effect it but sure it does not stand with any reason it should be the Pope because he cannot be a Judge being a partie indeed in civil controversies a Judge without being a partie may end them but in controversies of Religion a Judge of necessity must be a concerned partie and I am sure the Pope to us is the chief and most concerned partie being really concerned as much as his Popedom is worth Now we Protestants make the Papists this plain answer that the means of agreeing differences must necessarily be either by the appointment of God or men men sure it cannot be for then rational wise Protestants may doe as well as Papists for let the
Papists shew us if they can where God hath appointed that the Pope alone or any confirm'd by the Pope or that Society of Christians which adhere to him shall be the infallible Judge of controversies we desire the Papists if they can to let us see any of those assertions plainly set down in Scripture as in all reason a thing of this nature ought to be or at least delivered with a full consent of Fathers nay let them so much as shew us where 't is in plain tearms taught by any one Father in Four hundred years after our blessed Saviour Christ and if the Papists cannot do this as we believe they cannot where I pray is their either Scripture or Reason that the Pope or his Councils should obtrude themselves as Judges over us Protestants Next we would desire to know from the Papists whether they do certainly know or not the sence of those Scriptures by which they are led to the knowledge of their Church for if they do not how come they to know their Church is infallible but if they do then sure they ought to give us leave to have the same means and ability to know other plain places in Scripture which they have to know theirs for if all Scriptures be obscure how come they to know the sense of those places but if some place of it be plain why pray may not Protestants understand them as well as Papists The Papists say That the Scriptures are in themselves true and infallible yet without the direction of the Church we have no certain means to know which Translations be faithful and Canonical or what is the true meaning of Scriptures and this is the common Argument and general Relief of all Papists To which the Protestants answer That yet all these things must first be known before we can know the directions of their Church to be infallible for the Papists cannot pretend any other proof of it but onely some Texts of Canonical Scripture truly interpreted therefore either they must be mistaken in thinking there is no other means to know these things but their Churches infallible direction or else we must be excluded from all means of knowing her directions to be infallible for the proof must be surer than the thing to be proved or 't is no proof And upon better consideration I am confident the Papists dare not deny but that 't is most certain Faith hath been given by other means than the Church for sure they will not say that Adam received Faith by the Church nor Abraham nor Job who received Faith by Revelation and also the Holy Apostles who received Faith by the miracles and preaching of our Blessed Saviour so that you see and they cannot deny but their general Doctrine is contradictory and to make it yet plainer I desire to know of the Papists if they should meet with a man that believed neither Scripture Church nor God but declares he is both ready and willing to believe them all if the Papist can shew him sufficient grounds to build his Faith upon will the Papist tell such a man there are no certain grounds how he may be converted to their Church or there are if the Papists say there are none they make Religion an uncertain thing but if they say there are then they must necessarily either argue woman-like that their Church is infallible because it is infallible or else shew there are other certain grounds besides saying the Church is infallible to prove its infallibility The Papists demand of the Protestants if they believe the Apostles wrote all the Scriptures for if they did not how come we to call and believe them Apostolical and not the Writings of those that writ them To which we answer Though all the Scriptures were not written by the Apostles themselves yet they were all confirm'd by them and though a Clerk writes a Statute and the King Lords and Commons confirm it in Parliament I believe they would esteem it very improper to call it the Statute of such a Clerk though writ by him but an Act of Parliament because it was confirm'd by all their consents and so becomes their Act not the Clerks The Papist desires us to tell them in what Language the Scriptures remained uncorrupted and we desire them to satisfie us whether it be necessary to know it or not necessary if it be not I hope we may do well without it but if it be necessary we desire first that they will please to tell us what became of their Church for One thousand five hundred years together all which time they must confess they had no certainty of Scripture till the time that Pope Clement the Eighth set forth their approved Edition of the vulgar Translation and none sure can have the confidence to deny but that there was great variety of Copies currant in divers parts of their Church and read so which Copies might be false in some things but more than one sort of them could not possibly be true in all things And Pope Sixtus Quintus his Bible differ'd from Pope Clement his Bible in a multitude of places which makes us desire to be satisfied of the Papists whether before Pope Sixtus Quintus his time their Church had any defined Canon of Scriptures or not for if they had not then 't is most evident that their Church was a most excellent keeper of Scripture for fifteen hundred years together that had not all that time defin'd what was Scripture and what was not but if the Papist say they had then we demand was that set forth by Pope Sixtus Quintus or was it set forth by Pope Clement or if by a third different from them both why do they not name him if it were that set forth by Pope Sixtus then 't is now condemn'd by Pope Clement if that of Clement 't was condemned by that of Sixtus so that error must necessarily be betwixt them let them chuse which side they please And for the book of Maccabees I hope they will allow it defin'd Canonical before St. Gregorie's time though he would not allow it Canonical but onely for the Edification of the Church We further desire to be satisfied of the Papists if the book of Ecclesiasticus and Wisedom and the Epistle to St. James were by the holy Apostles approved Canonical or not if they were approved by the Apostles Canonical sure the Papists cannot deny but they had a sufficient definition and authority not to question them and therefore err'd in doing so And if they were not approved Canonical by the Apostles with what impudence dare the Roman Church now approve them as Canonical and yet pretend that all their Doctrine is Apostolical and if they say these books were not questioned they should do well to tell which books they mean which were not alwayes known to be Canonical but have afterward been received by the Roman Church to be such so that this argument reaches these as wel as these And
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
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
Rock meant sure our Saviour would never have removed it behind him and it would be not onely irrational but impious to believe that Christ would build his Church on Satan for so he calls St. Peter's person and 't were as unreasonable to believe that the Rock of Christs Church could be an offence to him as St. Peter's person was and as improbable again as all this that Christs Church the Foundation of all Christianity should savour not of the things that be of God but those that are of men as Peter's person did Therefore if you will but please to read the words of our Saviour carefully you shall find they are most plain for verse 13th When Jesus came into the Coast of Caesarea He ask'd his Disciples Whom do men say that I am and they said Some say that thou art John the Baptist some Elias and others Jeremias or one of the Prophets but whom say ye that I am and Simon Peter answered and said Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God And I say also unto thee that thou art Peter and vpon this Rock not this person I will build my Church that is upon this Rock of Faith that I am Christ the Son of the Living God I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Now this must necessarily relate to his faith not his person for the gates of Hell that 's the power of evil did prevail against Peter's person or he had not deny'd and forsworn his Lord and Master again and again and been afterwards proved blame-worthy by St. Paul to his face and indeed as blame-worthy as any of his Disciples so that 't is most plain that Christs words of making him the Rock of the Christian Church related not to his person but his faith of Christs being the Son of the Living God And for the other part whereas the Papists believe a particular favour and power given by our Saviour to S Peter of the Keys of Heaven that was given as much to the Eleven Disciples as to him as you may read in the 18th of St. Matthew in the 20th of St. John's Gospel and the 23 24. verses As my Father hath sent me even so send I you and when he had said this he breathed on them and saith unto them Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained So that you see this power is general to the Disciples and not in particular to St. Peter more than to any of the rest as the Papists mis-believe The Papists have many such Questions which I am sure Madam you have neither the patience to read nor I the time to write but those that are most material of them you will find I have here presented you truly answer'd by pure Scripture clear reasons plain arguments and all in few words fit for the weakest memory or smallest pocket to carry about them for true reason doth not consist in large Volumes long Gowns or gray Beards for many live to One and Twenty without attaining to years of discretion the degrees of Age being not still the measures of wisedom for the world will never be without old Fools and young Philosophers And truly Madam for my part I cannot so much as think of the Papists Religion without wonder that so many rational men of them should rather fasten their faith of salvation on the pretended infallibility of their Church which is deny'd by most Christians than on the Holy Scriptures which is granted by all to be the Will and Word of God and the very Foundation of their Churches Foundation as containing in it all things necessary to our salvation And we Protestants have at least this satisfaction and advantage that not onely the Papists but all sorts of Christians that are in the circumference of the whole world meet and joyn with us in this centre of Faith that the Scriptures contain all things necessary to our salvation which being a general granted Truth I confess I admire how any Papist can make the least scruple which is the safest Heavenly Guide the Pope or the Gospel If there be any rational man so extravagant as to put them in the same ballance and to commit a rape upon his reason I shall onely desire him to consider this plain Question If â—he were to go a Journey in an unknown way would he not think it more rational and safe to follow a certain true Guide that all the Christians in the world declare is certainly able and ready to shew him the right way than to follow a pretended Guide which the greatest part of the Christians in the world assures him will lead him out of it And this being the real difference between the Papist and Protestant in Gross concerning the Heavenly Guide the Bible and the Pope I think I need now say no more because so many have already said so much and I am sure enough to satisfie any except such who will believe a crooked Rule is better to draw a straight line by than a right one And now Madam I shall onely beg so much of your patience as to let me tell you that the plot and Heads of this following discourse I have Extracted out of the worthy Chilingworth Before I begin the discourse it self I know in writing a play to have Rank'd the plot in the Front of it and to make the whole design of the Prologue to be the Key to uncipher the plot of the play though anciently in use had been now not onely out of fashion but beside reason For the design of plays aiming chiefly to please the senses they ought to be compounded and mixt with hopes and fears certainties and uncertainties Expectations and deâ—ays of the event of the plot which being all so interwoven together creates the agreeableness of the play for when once the whole plot is discovered the pleasure of the play is ended like Hare-Hunting the sport lies not in presently taking the Hare but in following him in all his Rings and Doubles and those that love plays and such Huntings resemble jealous men who eagerly pursue what they apprehend to overtake or as old age which we all pray to attain but fear to approach But now I come to soar my discourse to a much higher pitch a more Elevated Subject and to treat of the most noble part of man the Soul and of true Religion the onely way to Heavenly felicity for without Holiness no man shall see the Lord We must therefore now Madam change the Scene of sense for a spiritual one and climb where earthly nature can never follow us to the pure and high Region of Heaven which will inform us that the earlier discovering our plot of attaining Heaven will but better the play and the more speed the better success for the joyes of Heaven are everlasting and admits of no increase or diminution not â—ike the
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
does it stand with reason that St. Paul speaking of the several degrees of men in the Church should omit giving St. Peter the highest if it had been his due but place him in the same rank and Equipage with the rest of the Apostles for St. Paul sayes God hath appointed not first St. Peter then the rest of the Apostles but first Apostles secondly Prophets now certainly if Apostles were all first that is all equal how could one be in greater power than the other But besides all this though we should grant against all these probabilities and many more that Optatus Bishop of Rome meant that St. Peter was head of the Apostles yet sure the Papists are still very farr from proving the Bishop of Rome was to be so at all much less by divine right successor to St. Peter in his headship and Authority For what incongruity is there if we say that Optatus might succeed St. Peter as his heir and successor in that part of his Government of that particular Church of Rome as sure he did even whilst St. Peter was living and yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed him in his Apostleship nor in the Government of the Church universal as though a Bishop should leave his Son heir to all he dyed possessed of I hope you will not conclude therefore he must necessarily succeed him in the Bishoprick he dyed seized of The Apostles were men all called and divinely inspired by the Holy Ghost which was the immediate gift of God and therefore could not be left as a Legacy by man for though it be in any mans power to leave his Estate yet 't is in no mans power to leave to his Son his acquir'd parts at his death 'T is further worth your observing and special notice that St. Peter himself and the rest of the Apostles by laying the foundation of the Church were to be themselves the foundation of it and are accordingly so called in Scripture And therefore as in a building 't is incongruous that foundations should succeed foundations so it may be in the Church that Apostles should succeed Apostles the Church being built upon Apostles and Prophets Nor indeed does the grand argument of the Papists for their Pope extend any further in Reallity then to the particular Sea of Rome for thus goes their main argument St. Peter was first Bishop of Rome and the Apostles did not then attribute to themselves each one his particular Chair understand in that City of Rome for in other place others had Chairs besides St. Peter and therefore sayes the Papist he is a Schismatick who against that one single Chair erects another understand still in the same place and this is the ground the Authority the Papists say the Pope has to be Successor to St. Peter and to exercise Authority over the Universal Church But sure the Protestants urge more rationally in arguing thus That St. Peter wrote Two Catholick Epistles in which he mentions his own departure and writes to preserve the Christians in the faith but yet in neither of these Two Epistles does he commend the Christians to the guidance and authority of his pretended Successor the Bishop of Rome which sure if St. Peter had intended he would never have forgot to have named it And since the Papists so reverence and adore the Popes power let us Protestants also admire his way and means of attaining this power for though the Papists say that assoon as he is made Pope he has his authority immediately from Christ yet at the very same time the Papists all know that he cannot be made Pope but by Authority and Election of the Cardinals so that I am sure by the very same reason any man that is chosen a Magistrate in any Town under the Pope's Territories may claim his Authority as immediately received from Christ as well as the Pope And further that the proving his being made Pope does not render him infallible I could give a hundred instances out of the History of Popes but that will not suit well with my designed brevity but let 's ask the Papist if Liberius Bishop of Rome after Two years Banishment did not by the sollicitation of Fortunatianus Bishop of Acquileia subscribe to Heresie and consequently could not be infallible And though the Papists rely so much on the Authority of the Fathers to support and justifie the infallibility of their Church yet upon true Examination we shall find they make no more for their Universal Bishop than St Peter's Two Catholick Epistles do And for their arguing out of St. Cyprian's 55 Epistles that sure makes rather against than for them for there St. Cyprian writes to Cornelius Bishop of Rome but writes not so much to him as of himself who was Bishop of Carthage against whom a Faction of Schismaticks had set up another Bishop Now though the Papists say reasonably that 't is a mark of the Universal Bishop that other Bishops should make their Addresses unto the Bishop of Rome yet sure 't were better Reasoning to conclude thus If the Bishop of Rome had been acknowledged Universal Bishop and his Authority and Supremacy had been believ'd and own'd sure St. Cyprian had not been satisfied with onely barely writing him his sad story for he did no more but doubtless would have made his complaint to him and desired and expected redress from him as Universal Bishop over the whole Catholick Church but his not doing so argued he esteemed him Bishop onely of one Church And further St. Cyprian all know did resolutely oppose a Decree of the Roman Bishop and all that adhered to him in that one point of Rebaptizing which the Popish Church at that time delivered as a necessary Tradition and Excommunicated the Bishop of Cappadocia Galatia and all that were against that Tradition and would not so much as allow them lodging or entertainment in Rome Now since the Papists affirm that not to re-baptize those whom Hereticks had baptized to be a damnable Heresie 'T is well worth asking the Papist when this begun to be so for if they say from the beginning it was so then they must maintain a contradiction for then was St. Cyprian a Professor of damnable Heresie and yet the Papists esteem him a Saint and Martyr And on the other side if 't were not so from the beginning then did the Pope wrongfully excommunicate those other Churches of Cappadocia and Galatia without sufficient ground of Excommunication and separation which by their own Tenents is schismatical so let them chuse which side they please the Pope was in an errour And though Victor Bishop of Rome obtruded the Roman Tradition touching the time of Easter upon the Asian Bishops under the pain of Excommunication and Damnation yet we read that Irenaeus and all the other Western Bishops though they did agree with the Bishop of Rome in his observation of Easter yet they did sharply reprehend his excommunicating the Asian Bishops for their
disagreeing with him which most plainly argues that the Western Bishops thought that not a sufficient ground of Excommunication which the Bishop of Rome did and therefore it must necessarily follow they did not esteem the Roman Bishop infallible nor the separation from the Church of Rome an Heresie And this I am sure is true and undeniable reason The Popish Story tells us That Optatus Bishop of Rome upbraided the Donatists as Schismaticks because they held no Communion with the Church of Rome by adding afterwards that they were Schismaticks for they held no Communion with the seven Churches of Asiae which occasions this Question of the Papist Whether a separation from these seven Apostolick Churches was a mark of Heresie or not if they say it was not how comes it that the Pope's Authority is a stronger Argument for the Popish Church than the Asian Authority for the Asian Churches And if the Papists say a separation from those seven Asian Churches was a mark of Heresie then they must confess their Church was for many years Heretical as separating many years from the Asian Churches And Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus and Metropolitan of Asia despised the Popes universal Supremacy and Authority and kept contrary to the Pope Easter-day the Fourteenth of March. And indeed though the Papists do so much quote the authority of the Fathers yet I find they as little befriend their Churches infallibility as the Asian Bishops themselúes have done for though the Papist say St. Hierome conceived it necessary to conform in matters of Faith to the Church of Rome yet before the Papist brag of that let them answer us this how came it then to pass that St. Hierome chose to believe the Epistle to the Hebrews Canonical upon the authority of the Eastern Church and to reject it from the Canon of the Roman Churches Authority And how comes it also that he dissented from the Roman Church touching the Canon of the old Testament let the Papist take heed of losing their Fort by endeavouring to maintain their out-works And now to conclude this point and excuse the Papists mistake concerning their universal Bishop we read in Scripture of the Prophet Elias who thought there was none left beside himself in the whole Kingdom of Israel who had not revolted from God and yet God himself is pleased to assure us he was deceived And if a Prophet and one of the greatest err'd in his judgment touching his own time and Country why may not the Papists subject to the same passions err in their opinion and judgment about the Popes being universal Bishop when plain reason tells them as well as us that there were other Bishops as much universal as the. Pope I now come to examine this infallible Pope whether he cannot make his infallible I Church more infallible than he has made himself and free the Popish Church from error though he could not the Pope from Heresie Now towards the disproving the pretended infallibility of the Roman Church I lay this as the foundation of my discourse that the whole Roman Church can be no better then a Congregation of men whereof every particular not one excepted and consequently the generality is nothing but a collection of men and if every one be polluted as who dare say he is free from sin how can the whole but be defiled with error as reasonably may a man brag he is in perfect health and strength and yet at the same time confess he hath not one sound part about him And truly it very much creates my wonder but does not in the least satisfie my reason what the Papists can pretend by the infallibility of their church for if they will allow their Pope to be no better than St. Peter was their Church to be composed of no better men than the Holy Apostles were I shall desire no more and I am sure they can never prove so much for they that pretend to it declare as great an ignorance as St. Peter did a sin in denying his Lord and Master and there are many other known circumstances which made St. Paul prove him blame-worthy to his face And for the Apostles being in error we have not onely the examples of the Apostles themselves who in the time of our Saviours Passion being scandalized lost their faith in him and I believe the Papists will not say they could lost their faith in our blessed Saviour Christ without error and therefore our Saviour after his Resurrection upbraided them with their incredulity and called Thomas incredulous for denying the Resurrection in the Twentieth of St. John And further 't is mod apparent that the very Apostles themselves even after the sending the Holy Ghost did through inadvertency or prejudice continue sometime in an error contrary to a revealed truth And if the Papists will not own to know this truth they may be fully satisfied of it in the story of the Acts of the Apostles where they may plainly read that notwithstanding our Saviours express warrant and injunction to the Apostles to go and preach to all Nations Yet notwithstanding till St. Peter was better informed by a vision from Heaven and by the conversion of Cornelius both St. Peter and the rest of the Church held it unlawful for them to go and Preach the Gospel to any but the Jewes Now since we can prove that St. Peter did err and that the Church composed partly of the Holy Apostles themselves who were blessed with and inspired by the Holy Ghost could mistake and that there is no man free from sin and yet that the Body of men that make up the popish Church should be infallible is I confess beside my Faith to believe or reason to comprehend For sure if the Roman Church had been esteem'd by the Apostles infallible what needed the Apostles any other Creed than this short Creed I believe the Roman Church infallible and that would have been more effectual to keep the believers of it from Heresie and in the true Faith then this Apostolical Creed we now have And sure the Papists cannot but believe with us that those holy men that wrote the New Testament were not onely good men but also men that were desirous to direct us in the plainest and surest way to Heaven And the Papists cannot also but believe with us that they were likewise men very sufficiently instructed by the Spirit of God in all the necessary points of the Christian Faith Therefore certainly 't is most rational to believe they could not be ignorant of this unum necessarium that all Faith is no Faith except we believe the Church of Rome was design'd by God to be the Guide of Faith as the Church of Roome believes and would have us believe so too We also further believe and that with great reason too that the Writers of the New Testament were wise men especially being they were assisted by the Spirit of wisedom and such that must know that an uncertain Guide was
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