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
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
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
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
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