A true Coppy of the Letter men­tioned in the Epistle which I sent to my Adversary.

I Must confess, such hath been my incom­parable detestable wickedness towards you, as hath most justly kindled an vn­quenchable fire of fury in your breast against me vile wretch, most justly causing me to feel the truth of that saying, Prov. 6. 34. For jealousie is the rage of a man; there­fore he will not spare in the day of ven­geance: So I must needs say, most just is the Lord, in bringing to open view these by my hidden works of darkness. Sir, I must needs out of the shame and bitterness of my un­worthy heart confess, that that injury done by me to you is of so notorious a nature, as it is not in the least repairable by me; nay if I should leave Ages as your slave, and all that time do for you the worst of slavery, it would not be of weight sufficient to counterpoise with that unparalel'd injury done by me to you; how much less am I (who have not left me (except the meer mercy of some Cre­ditors) not the worth of a penny, nor wherewithal to get a penny) able in the least in that case to treat with you: But being through mercy made to behold the [Page 44] greatness of my iniquity against God, and injury done to you, as made astonished, a­shamed, and confounded in my self, at the beholding of the riches of the love of God, which Paul well said, passeth understand­ing, if it had not, I had ere this been consumed; and God himself gives the alone reason, saying, I am God and change not, therefore you sons of Jacob are not con­sumed; and knowing it my duty so far as it lies in my power to satisfie all wrongs by me done to or committed against any, to the utmost of my ability, therefore endeavouring (if possible) to be at peace with all men; I am imboldened to tender you the largest satisfaction, that either you or any else can out of my labours, above the maintaining of my poor Wife and Family, whom in the first place the laws both of God and nature teach me to provide for; And how much more in this case I am bound to have re­spect to my poor wife, who with you in this case (and that in an unspeakable manner) hath so deeply already suffered, I leave to you to judge. And Sir, I must humbly de­sire you to be pleased to consider, that your keeping me in Prison, doth not only make me uncapable of giving you the least satisfacti­on; and if I alone who merited it, did suffer, I should be so far from having a thought of [Page 45] reaping any mercy from you, as I should ra­ther yield up my self a sacrifice, to be con­sumed on the altar, you will, by the fire of your fury most justly by me kindled: But O! when I behold other suffering for my abominations, it enforceth me to cry out, (as secretly to God) so to you now to look being an instrument in his hand scourging those for my iniquities who were not sha­rers in them with me) though not upon me, yet upon them, with an eye of compassion; and I beseech you, lest the consideration that you destroy the just (in this case) with the unjust, (if you go on) stay your hand; O spare but them, and command what you will of me to the utmost extremity, I shall be willing not only to the utmost of what at present I am able; but for ever think the utmost I can do, too little, in recompence of your mercy in this particular towards my poor Wife and Family, much less to sa­tisfie that injury which in vilest nature I have done you. O Sir, I beseech you, con­sider God, who delights in shewing mercy; and doth afflict, not that he might utterly destroy, but that thereby he might make us the fitter to receive and prize his mercies; and how honourable a thing it is to be an imitator of so heavenly a pattern, in at last saving those by your mercy, who else are [Page 46] likely to be destroyed by your fury. So (Sir) only giving you to understand, that herein I have written nothing but the plain truth, and sincere desire of my heart, humbly de­siring you seriously to read it; and upon mature consideration, as between God and your own soul: and if you shall please to send me an answer, it will oblige him who is,

A Letter of Advice, &c.

I Know the law of Custom has made it not only an usual favour, but an expected duty, to complement at least, if not flatter, such Women as Men write to, especially the Great Ladies, who think none write well, that do not praise them much, and those write best, who extol them most: high Praises be­ing like good Poetry, Musick in words, the sound of which may be agreable, but truly to deserve them, re­quires such a Gygantick size of merit, as is very unpro­portionable to the slender-wasted Vertues of most La­dies, who are over-eager to receive Praises, and over­careless in meriting any: and the grand reason is, be­cause they know they usually have them without it; and that Custome must give it, though Reason cannot. So obliging is the common courtesie of England to Ladies, that it allows them to pretend to all praises as their due, though few deserve any as their right. In a word, our English Ladies must have their Characters writ, just as the Dutch Madams will have their Pictures drawn, that is, very handsom, though they themselves be never so ugly.

But, Madam, for your part, I know your perfections so abundantly, and my own heart so truly, as I must beg the Law of Custome pardon here; it being beyond my pow­er to flatter or complement, since I can neither over­praise your high merit, or outspeak the real love, and true esteem, I have both for you and them; so that knowing all manner of praises to be justly due to your merits, I find I cannot here make you a present of any, without doing you an injury, by intitling you to those praises by gift, which all know are your own by right.

For truly, Madam, the whole progress of your actions have still been so highly vertuous, and religiously strict, and ever believed and proclaimed such, that though your Beauty might make bad Men wish you ill, yet your Vertues hinder the worst from daring to think you so: [Page 4] for if they did, their own hearts must at the same time condemn their own thoughts, and declare your innocen­cy; like Pilate, who with the same breath he condem­ned our Saviour, said, he found no fault in him.

But, Madam, tho your vertuous life is so transpa­rantly excellent, yet for all that, you ought to look on your unsoil'd Reputation as no small blessing of preser­vation in these scandalous times, where so few handsom Ladies escape censure, and so many deserve it: for now the extravagancies of Romance-Amours are not only daily read, but almost hourly practised; and Women act more than Romances can write; whilst the sober Rules of Vertue, and pious Duties of Religion, are seldom thought on, and most ralely practised; our Youth being gene­rally grown such fond friends of Mr. Hobbes his Books, as they are become meer strangers to our Saviour's Gos­pel; they living as if they were all bodies, and had no souls, or had them but to lose, turning Religion into Rail­lery, and Gospel into Romances: for thus in short they mangle Scripture, that part which is chiefly Historical, that is their meer Gospel-part; and that which is the Gospel-part, is their meer Historical-part; and because they cannot bring the Gospel to prove their Atheistical reasons, pretend to prove by Reason, that there is no Go­spel: and if some of them now and then look over a Chap­ter, they only pass through it, as a Spie doth an Enemies Country, with a mischievous design; and if they can but find in Scripture a seeming Contradiction, that they pre­sently bring on the Stage, as they do Fools in Plays, to railly with, and make sport at: so great a Jest our Young Sparks now make of their Salvation, as to be pleas'd in the meer displeasing God; without considering, 'tis not onely Atheistical madness, but Devillish folly, to make that their Jest, which they may be damn'd for in earnest.

Thus our Youth throw away their Souls; and for their Time, they care not how they spend it, (always provided it be not religiously) and therefore they wast it most in the company of vain Women; and are so eager and zea­lous in their pursuit, and so constant in their service, as if they fancied God was mistaken, and intended creating [Page 5] man for the woman, rather than the woman for the man. But though all know God made the Woman for the Man, yet what Critick can tell us whether our New Mode has made the Gallant for the Mistress, or the Mistress for the Gallant? But of this we are all sure, They are so plenti­fully made for one another, that the Eastern Country-Laws allow not with more freedom plurality of Wives, than our new English Customs admit plurality of Mis­tresses. Nay, I may yet venture to say more, That the Liberty of our men exceeds theirs: for they are permitted no more Wives than they can well keep, but ours allow themselves as many Mistresses as they can any way get.

For indeed, the Names of Tom and Bess are hardly more familiar here, than those of Gallant and Mistress; and are so far from being esteemed Names of discredit, that many of our Mode-Ladies look on their Gallants as Beauty-marks, rather than stains of Reputation. And for all they cannot but know, that the infection of Gallants is as bad an Enemy to Credit, as the Small-pox to Beauty, a common ruiner of it: And though Womens Gallants are in plain English no better than the publick Execution­ers of their reputations; and indeed no woman will allow them, but such as are willingly condem'd to suffer (and wo­men that slight reputation are seldom fond of Chastity) Yet these abusers of love, and murderers of fame, by their fair words and base arts, have so insinuated themselves into their favour, as the women now forsooth, call their Gallants their Friends; and if common report may be credited▪ they are indeed their bosom-ones; (and such women as value little what others say, seldom care much what they themselves do:) Custom having brought ma­ny of our women to that pass, as they now glory in the number of their Gallants, esteeming them rather so many Vouchers of their Beauty, than so many Robbers of their Honour; the so usual practice of this scandal, having taken away womens sense, that like blackness amongst the Aethiopians, its Commonness has removed its defor­mity: And there is now such a forward Love-spring in the Nurseries of our Young Ladies, as the very little-ones learn to spell Amour with their Fescue, and will pretend [Page 6] to entertain their Young Gallants, in the dark walks of Love, and in the Labyrinth of its Intrigues, before they well know what the thing Love is, or the name of Gal­lant means; and would have Servants come to them, before they come to the Teens, (the ripeness of their minds outrunning that of their bodies) and fancy men so mad as to believe, 'tis expectation makes a Blessing dear. But that dull Presbyterian way of Love, is now quite out of Fashion, and the loves of our Young Gallants are grown as fickle, and meer skin-deep, as their Mistresses Fancies and Beauties; and Love-wounds that are but skin-deep, can never hurt the heart; and therefore though every day we hear of Hundreds of Gallants that are dying for Love in their Mistresses company, yet we cannot read of one these many Ages that dyed for love in the Weekly-Bills of Mortality; the obliging carriage of the Ladies of the times having made our Young Men so healthfully wise, so forwardly bold, or at least so impatiently hasty, as they expect now a-days to take Young Women, as great Armies do weak Towns, only by Summons, or Assaults; as not esteeming them worthy the time and trouble of a Love-siege, though their Mistresses were as yielding as Rome it self, which Writers say, was never besieged without being taken: that is, in short, they hold hand­some Women worth enjoying, but not wooing. And that makes our Young Men so eager and inconstant in their Amours, as really tis a very hard measuring-cast to tell whether your Young Gallants use now more art, or speed, in the getting or forgetting of their Mistresses.

But the best of it is, that the inconstancy of both Sexes are now so equally match'd, that I cannot write more of their Gallants inconstancies, than their Mistresses make good of their own: For they deal with their Gallants, as their Fashions; that which comes latest, is still lik'd best, and us'd most. In a word, the constancy and inconstancy of Young Men and Women, are just like water and ice, where one still makes the other; and their loves (Ice-like) never last long; and as soon as 'tis dissolv'd, turns immediately to the same it was before, without any al­teration or prejudice: Nor can water be more apt and [Page 7] ready by the coming of Frost to turn to Ice, than our Young Men and Womens hearts are apt and enclin'd to return to love, at the approach of fresh-fancied Beauty. And truly the inconstancy of our Young Men cannot be so great, nor their inclinations so ill, but the tongues of many of our Young Women are grown as bad: For now if a Young Maid be but cry'd up for handsom, and re­solves to continue vertuous, and therefore will not turn vain, and deserve censure, as much as the rest, they will be sure to speak her as bad as the worst; and if they cannot with justice wound her Vertue, they will attempt by ill arts to murder her Reputation, (Envy being the pa­rent of wicked invention) it being now a Mode-principle amongst most of our handsom Women, that no Woman that enjoys a large proportion of Beauty, but must, a [...] an unavoidable appurtenance, carry with it a load of scandalous censures (a false Character of some, though too true a one of most) which occasions their not caring how unjustly they increase anothers burthen, in hope to lessen their own load; and by overstretching the miscar­riages of others greater than they should be, hope to shrink theirs less than really they are; vainly fancying, that spattering with dirt and reproach other Womens reputations, were a kind of wiping clean their own; which suits not at all with the mild and moderate rules of Vertue, which only allows Women to correct each others faults, by their good Examples, but not to in­crease them by their bad censures. For, scandalous cen­sures, like Mushooms, grow without any root; so tender and mutable a thing is a handsom Womans good Name: there's no taking its true Elevation by any certain out­ward Rules and measures, since it depends more on her Neighbours good or bad report, than on her vertuous or ill actions; and more on what they say, than what she does. And really such reports are usually so sophisticated with self-concerns, and so strongly byass'd by aversion or incli­nation, as you may daily hear in common Discourse, both Men and Women turn Vertue into Vice, and Vice into Vertue; and so characterize Good Women to be bad, and bad Women to be good; speaking not as Women de­serve, [Page 8] but as they fancy; and therefore it often happens, that many Women save their reputations, even by a speedy losing their chastity, whilst other Women lose their repu­tation in their very defence of it; that is, in short, more Women lose their reputation in admitting to be much courted (though that be all) than by being ill injoyn'd: And the reason is plain, Because the Courtship is pub­lick to all, but the injoyment is only private to them­selves; and 'tis more rational two concerned persons should keep their own counsel, than many unconcern'd should keep it for them; so that it cannot necessarily follow, that the roported reputation or disreputation of handsom Women must needs be the true issue of their merits, but often the by-blow of chance; and therefore common report can be no right rule to measure Womens reputations by: For many reports have much of the De­vils nature in them, who is a lyar from the beginning. And indeed, if we but truly consider, we shall find Women general censure one another, not as they are really faulty, but as they appear, and are esteemed handsom; and therefore ugly Women have the priviledge of Popes, who cannot err, but may do what they will, and take what li­berty they please; and handsom Women will be as far from censuring their actions, as Young Men from praising their persons: So that really in effect, we find most Wo­mens censures are not proportionable to the ill others act, but rather suitable to the Beauty they possess; which by their leave is a way of judging, that's both iriational and uncharitable; since I am sure none can deny, but there are some unhandsom Women unchast; and some chast Women handsom: For Vertue and Beauty are not so declar'd enemies, but they sometimes meet; though I cannot deny, but that Vertue which in former Ages was esteemed one of the greatest adornments of the soul, is now so Eclipsed by the outward Beauty of the Body, as Vertue and Piety (the true inward Beauty) cannot shine out: A good Soul being nothing now in comparison of a good face; Beauty being now the Great Empress that commands the whole World, and makes the Supremest of men become subjects to Her. And yet this so ador'd [Page 9] Beauty, (which all Women are so ambitious of, and all Men so court) has at best no intrinsick value in it, but just like riches, they enjoy most, that are contented with least; since 'tis not much, but enough, that's the true mea­sure of satisfaction. But Madam, 'tis now more than time to beg your pardon; for I find I am stray'd both beyond the time, and beside the road of my design'd Discourse, which is not to present you a Character, or List of the fine Ladies, and Mode-vices of the times; they will require a much wittier Pen than I pretend to be Master of, and a larger Volume than I design to trou­ble you with: but this Character which indeed merits Volumes of Praises, I am sure I can give you, without needing wit, or abusing of time; and if I could here cast up the sum total of all the vices that your Sex are eitheir guilty of, or scandaliz'd with, (which I'le assure you are more than a few) their number might be tedious to read, but need not be disagreeable for you to hear, since by nam­ing all those faults they are infected with, I should but tell all those you are free from.

But, Madam, my design is now to remove my Bat­tery, and change my Scene of Writing, as you have your place of Living; and to level my Discourse, not at the vices and pleasures of London, nor the pastimes of the Court, but at your Country-Neighbours, the Woods and Mountains of Macroome, which renders it a place much fitter to exercise your past-time, than satisfie your delight, were you of the humour of most Ladies; but all know you are not only an excellent Woman, but an extra­ordinary wife, I mean in Goodness, (for 'tis rare now to meet a wife that's not extraordinary) for you take as much satis­faction in the cares of well managing and improving your Estate, as most other Ladies delight, in the lavishing theirs; so that I can truly say, you have not only brought your Lord a large sum of money for your Portion, but a continued increase of Rent by your Industry.

And I am sure, Madam, if you were now askt as the Philosopher was, Where was his home? you would answer now, as he did then, My home is still where my chief business is. So that now your chief Concerns and [Page 10] Family, (which is still the good Wives Treasure (being at Macroome, I must conclude your heart is there also.

A place, where in lieu of London, crowds of good Company, and swarms of divertisements, you must pre­pare to meet with, and do Penance to your self, among the Flocks of Priests and Fryars, against whose Popish insi­nuations, and infectious perswasions, I here present you a small, but necessary Collection of Arguments to carry about you, as a Preservatitive in your own Religion, and an Antitode against theirs; and though I cannot pretend this pocket-Pistol is a sufficient Battering-piece, to beat down their infallible Church, yet I doubt not but it will at least be a sufficient Life-guard to defend you and your Chamber against their assaults.

They are most of them argumentative reasonings I pickt out of Mr. Chillingworth, as one that reasons best, and satisfies me most, of any I ever read; and knowing you want a Collection of choice Flowers, I heartily wish that these I have gathered out of his Garden, and here sorted and made up to present you in a Nosegay, may serve you against the unpleasing savour of Popish Doctrine: And I wish they may not altogether degenerate from common nature of Flowers, which the Naturalist tells us, grow larger and better by being transplanted; so that I hope you will not find them the worse, nor like them the less, for being transplanted, but receive these Argu­ments just as you do your Rents, without caring whe­ther your Tenants have the Money out of their own bags, or borrow it, so you have it to supply your occasions.

Truly, Madam, I have taken some pains, and spent much time in reading the Discourses of Papists against our Religion; and though I have consider'd their Argu­ments without the least Byas, or antedated prejudice; yet I can give no better a character of them, than I do of ill Dealers, The more I have to do with them, the worse I like them: They savour much of Self-interest, teach­ing Church-Government, before Gospel-Obedience; wit­ness their holding Marriage a greater crime in a Priest, than Fornication: The one is but forbid by their Churches Law, which they all know is disputable, the latter by [Page 11] the Law of Christ, which they cannot but know, ought to be past all dispute.

And truly, Madam, if you please to admit your rea­son to make but a short progress into the Popish Religion, you shall find much to create your wonder, but little to satisfie your reason or belief; for the Gospel of Christ is the Gospel of Truth, and therefore ought still to be pictur'd naked as Truth, without any Art of Roman Dresses, which are only obscure shadings of the true light of Scripture, by making dark Paraphrases on the plainest Gospel-Commands, which in all reason ought to be plain enough for the meanest capacity: For God forbid it should be otherwise; for the meanest Christian must be saved or damned, for keeping or not keeping them; and sure God's Justice will never send persons to Hell, for not do­ing what they could not understand was his Will they should do; that were such a cruelty, as if a man should torment his Servant for not doing his Errant, when he knew he did not understand his Message; yet the Papist must not take these plain Gospel-Commands as such, but as they are distill'd in the mysterious politick Lymbeck of the Popish interest: Indeed Mystery and Obedience is so in­terwoven in that Religion, that Papists must take what their Priest tells them, as Men do Wives, for better, for worse, and must marry their Faith to their Churches infallibility, which allows that only to be Gospel, which their Church says shall be, not what the Apostles write is so; for the Papists must obey the Pope, though no where commanded in the Gospel; but must not read the Gospel, though they are commanded there to do it.

Nay, when once the Papist can but touch the small Needle of any ones reason with the great Loadstone of the Harmonious Doctrine of a necessary Obedience to their infallible Church, then they make such follow it, to eve­ry point of the Compass, be it good, bad, or indifferent; and so they fail all their life, in a Trade-wind of ignorance and superstition, and must believe their Priests words before their own senses, in the plainest objects of them; as in the Miracle of Transubstantiation, where you must have eyes and see not, and hands and feel not, but must [Page 12] believe in a moment real Bread and Wine to be turned into perfect Flesh and Blood, though you cannot see the least change whatsoever: yet they are bound to believe their Priest, before their eyes, smell, tast; nor dare their Priest say, that the Consecrated Bread (which they esteem the real Body of Christ) will be less mouldy, or more uncertain of corruption after Consecration than before; and the jest of it is, that at the same time the Papists believe that Miracle, they also believe this Scripture, That God will not suffer his Holy One to see corruption. And tho for these and many other reasons, I cannot believe this Transubstantiation-Miracle; yet I cannot but ad­mire this Miracle that belongs to Transubstantiation, which is, how the Pope can 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 Primative Church; & shall only 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. 28. And St. Paul forbids publick Prayers in an unknown Lan­guage, but that which is most for Edification, 1 Cor. 14. 15, 16. 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 17th of the Acts, 11. how he commended the noble Be­reans for searching the Scriptures; and therefore if sear­ching the Scriptures had not been not only 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 pretence that their Laity might not truly understand them. Next, the Church of Rome allows only their Clergy (except free Princes, for they are excepters of Persons, though God is not) to receive the Communion but in one kind, tho our Saviour commands, that all drink of the Cup; and [Page 13] 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 only 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 making 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 tho the Papists do out-noise us (as shallow Rivers do still the deepest) with the high and mighty Rodomontades of their Churches Infallibility; yet such high Rants, without true proof, are but like School-boys paper-Kites, which soar high and lofty, but have nothing else worth taking notice of. They will have the confidence to tell you, that their Popish Church [...]s the Roman Catholick, and only true Christian Church [...]n 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, tho 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 only in his own Dominions, without the Popes title of infallible; and sure 'tis 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 [Page 14] infallibility: 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 Judgment: (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 only answer, 'Tis more than ever Protestants read, or the Apostles writ.

The Papists will tell you with a great deal of confi­dence, 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 infancy 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 i [...] it be one, we make this reply; That the Roman Church i [...] no more named in the Apostles Creed, than the Protestan [...] Church is; for the Apostles Creed was made before th [...] Roman Church was a Church; and this I am sure they cannot deny; so that since the Catholick Church wa [...] then in being, and the Roman Church not in being, i [...] must necessarily follow, that the Roman Church canno [...] be the Catholick Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed▪ and consequently is not the Mother-Church, as the Papist [...] would have her to be: Thus the Papists have so over­charg'd this Argument to shoot at us, as it recoils an [...] flyes in their own faces.

And of kin to this, is their grand Battering-piece o [...] 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 [Page 15] 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 Keys 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 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 he 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 only irrational, but impious, to believe that Christ would build his Church on Satan, for so he calls St. Peter's person; and it were as unreasonable to believe that the Rock of Christ's Church could be an offence to him, as St. Peter's person was; and as im­probable again as all this, that Christ's 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 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 upon this Rock, (not this person) I will build my Church; that is (up­on [Page 16] 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 'tis most plain, that Christ's words (of making him the Rock of the Christian Church) related not to his person, but his faith of Christ's 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 St. 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, and in the 20th of St. John's Gospel, Vers. 23, 24. 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: whosesoever 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 misbelieve.

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 Wisdom. 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 [Page 17] faith of salvation on the pretended infallibility of their Church (which is deny'd by most Christians) than on the Holy Scripture, 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 only the Papists, but all sorts of Christians that are in the circum­ference of the whole World, meet and joyn with us in this center 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 only desire him to consider this plain Question. If 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 only 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 Collingworth. 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 only out of fashion, but beside reason: For the design of Plays aiming chiefly to please the senses, they ought [Page 18] to be compounded and mixt with hopes and fears, cer­tainties and uncertainties, expectations and delays 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, and a more Elevated Subject, and to treat of the most noble part of man, the Soul; and of true Religion the only 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 joys of Heaven are everlasting, and admit of no increase or diminution: not like the divertisements of Stage-plays, 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 joys 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 true Touch-stone to try all matters by, that relate to the [Page 19] good of our Souls; as certainly containing in it all [...]hings necessary to our salvation. The second thing I [...]hiefly design to prove, is, that neither the Pope or the Popish Church are infallible: and these two shall make [...]p the principle stories, in the little Model of this small [...]uilding. The pretended infallibility of the Church of Rome, is the grand perswasive Argument and lure to in­ [...]ite men to it, and the strongest commanding Garrison [...] all the Popes power; and all other Arguments and [...]erswasions, are but like the small open Villages about [...]his Garrison, which must be servants to them, that are [...]asters of it; and if a Papist can be but once convinc'd, [...]hat neither the Pope, nor the Popish Church are in­ [...]llible, they will soon be brought to reason, and our re­ [...]aining differences will not be very considerable: I [...]hall therefore only lightly discourse on them, and shall [...]o further trouble you, Madam, than briefly to answer [...]hem in my own defence, as I meet them, or as they [...]ollow me; and shall only do as the Wolf does when [...]ursued, snap and bite in his own defence, against all [...]pposers, without altering his pace, or changing his [...]oad: I shall neither meddle with the Papists, but as [...] meet them in the way, or towards making of my way [...]o my two designed points, which are (as I said before) [...]o prove the Scripture to be a perfect Rule of Faith, and [...]uide to our actions; and to answer, as I go, the Papists [...]ain Arguments and Objections against it.

Next, that 'tis against all Scripture, and Reason, that ei­ [...]her 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 [...]gainst their own Church,) I doubt not but by this little Pigmie-discourse (as very dwarfish as 'tis,) not only to [...]inder many tottering Protestants from turning Papists, [...]ut to bring some stubborn Papists to turn Protestants, or [...]t least not to have such an infallible good opinion of their Church, and so damnable a bad one of ours.

And now, Madam, 'tis requisite that this my discourse [...]hould be ended, as soon as your Patience; and therefore [...]ll that I shall add, either to the excusing my self, or justi­fying [Page 20] Mr. Chillingworth, is, that thus far of this discourse being my own writing, I confess, deserves only 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 w [...] are not to understand by the word Protestant, the Doctrin [...] of Luther, or Calvin, or Geneva, or only the Articles o [...] the Church of England, but that wherein they all agre [...] with perfect Harmony, That the Bible is a perfect Rul [...] of our Faith, and guide to our Actions; and this (afte [...] having made the most diligent and impartial search of th [...] true way to Eternal happiness) I fully believe, and tha [...] we can never find any convincing satisfaction, but on thi [...] Rock of God's word, the Bible, which I conceive to b [...] the only true Religion of Protestants.

If the Pope were indeed (what he unjustly says he is and 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, an [...] had a guide that could not err, what need I be taught th [...] way? and having such a guide, what need I apply m [...] self to another? So that, in a word, let us inform ou [...] 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 fo [...] a considering Christian to build an assured dependency on [...] than the Scriptures: For I am fully assur'd that God doe [...] not (and therefore man ought not to) require of an [...] more than this, to believe the Scripture to be the word [...] God, to use our best indeavours to find the true sens [...] of it, and to live to our utmost according to it.

This I am sure in reason we ought to believe; a wi­ser choice than if I should guide my self by the Roma [...] Churches Authority, and Infallibility; when really they have nothing of certainty, but their uncertainty; witnes [...] 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 [Page] Cashiered; in a word, one Church against another, and (if [...]hat be not enough) the Church of one Age, against the Church of another: whereas the Scripture being true and [...]nalterable, and containing all things necessary to our Sal­vation; I am secure, that by believing nothing else, I shall [...]elieve no falshood in matter of Faith; and if I mistake the [...]rue sense of Scripture, and so fall into error; yet I am secured [...]rom any dangerous error, because whilst I am truly endea­ [...]ouring to find the true ground of Scripture, I cannot but [...]old my error without obstinacy, and be ready to forsake [...]t, when more probable and true sense shall appear unto me: and then being assur'd, that all necessary truths are plainly [...]et down in Scripture, I am certain by believing the Scripture, [...]o believe all necessary truth: and he that does so, if his life be [...]nswerable to his Faith, how is it possible he should fail of Salvation?

And tho the Roman Church pretend to be a perfect guide of Faith, and teacher of all Divine Truths; yet sure that [...]itle might much better, and more justly be given to the [...]cirptures, 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, [...]f they will but allow the Mother to be older than the Child.

The Papists say their Church is a means of keeping Chri­ [...]tians at unity, so are also the Scriptures, to those that be [...]ieve them in unity of belief, in matters necessary.

The Papists say their Church is Catholick: certainly 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 only are the true Church; and all other Christians (tho 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 dong, 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, [Page 22] or else 'tis 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 tho the Scripture be true, may be false, nay more, must be false, if the Scripture be true, because the Scipture is against it. Fol­lowing the Papists Church, I must be a servant to my Saviour, and a subject to my King, only 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 Apocripha, which hath not past for Canonical, but of late years, in the Papist [...] Church, who interpret Scripture according to their Doctrine▪ but will not judge their Doctrine according to Scripture; for none like to weigh light Mony in true scales. In short, the Pope adds, and lessen, 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 tho the Papists say, his Holiness cannot err, yet let not the Papists forget what God says in the Scripture, if (not only the Pope, but if) 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 Papish Church infallible, we have no Scripture-command at all, much less an express one.

Following the Popish Church, we must believe many things not only above reason, but against reason, witness Transub­stantiation; whereas following the Scripture, we shall believe Many mysteries, 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 [Page 23] 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, & what is not there evidently contained, cannot be necessary to be believed; and our reason is just and clear, Because nothing can challenge our Belief, 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 only perfect rule whereby to judge of controversies. The Papists say, That they acknowledge the Scuriptures to be a perfect rule: only they deny that it excludes unwritten Tradition; which in effect is this: they say, 'Tis as perfect a Rule, as a Writing can be, only 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, & 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 Papists 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 [Page 24] 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 'tis 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, 'tis not the defect of the rule in Scripture, but the default of men; so that if necessary contro­versies be ended, 'tis 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 party: indeed in civil controversies, a Judge without be­ing a party may end them; but in controversies of Religion, a Judge of necessity must be a concerned party; and I am sure the Pope to us i [...] the chief, and most concerned party, 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 do 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 'tis in plain terms 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 sense 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 [Page 25] 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 Belief 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 only 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 'tis no proof. And upon better con­sideration, I am confident the Papists dare not deny, but that 'tis 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 tho 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, tho writ by him, but an Act of Parliament, because it was confirm'd by all their censents, and becomes their Act, not the Clerks.

The Papists desire us to tell them in what Language the Scriptures remained incorrupted; 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 8th. 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 'tis 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 Papists 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 'tis now condemn'd by Pope Clement; if that of Clement, 'twas 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 only for the Edification of the Church.

We further desire to be satisfied of the Papists, if the Books of Ecclesiasticus, and Wisdom, 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 difinition 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 always known to be Canonical, but have afterwards been receiveed by the Roman Church to be such: so that this Argument reaches those, as well as these.

And 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, and the foundation of the Church, as St. Paul says 'tis 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 'tis 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 never 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 ano­ther, and consequently, that may be fundamental and ne­cessary [Page 28] to one, which is not to another; which variety of circumstances renders 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 Turnspit. 'Tis a plain revelation of God to us Prote­stants, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist should be admi­nistred in both kinds, 1 Cor. 11. 28. & that the publick Hymns and Prayers of the Church should be in such a Language as is most for Edification, 1 Cor. 14. 15, 16. yet the Church of Rome, not seeing this, by reason of the vail, would be very angry if we told them 'twould 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 'tis most apparent out of Acts 11. 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 God's 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 'tis but reasonable to say, that any private [Page 29] 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 'tis impossible any man so qualified should fall into an error that can prove damnable to him; for God requires no more of any man to his salvation, but only his true and best endeavours to be saved. And for the Papists Sacrament of Confession, which they hold is so absolute and ne­nessary, 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 only confess our sins, but forsake them, or we shall not find mercy: And we Protestants farther believe, that they that confess their sins, shall find mercy, though they only 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; tho we Protestants know no such, yet we allow & observe the same Duty, but publick before the Church; which was the constant practice of the primitive Church; and Rhe­nanus 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 then 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: only 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, tho 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 [Page 30] agreement in matters nessary 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 Saor, 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 do agree in those things they do agree in: and sure they cannot deny, but we 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 'tis 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 'tis univer­sal Tradition that the Virgin Mary was conceived in actual sin, others the contrary. And how the Jesuits and Franciscans, and other Orders differ to this day, I am sure needs no memorandum; and the best Jest of all is, the Papists have not so much as yet agreed in their very pretended means of agreement, and yet have the confidency to pretended an Ʋnity more than the Protestants; for 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 of the Decrees of Councils by the Universal Church, is the only 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 Papish deny, but that there has been [Page 31] 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 Ʋniversal; yet we say, That is no sufficient proof it came Originally from the Apostles; wit­ness the Doctrine of the Millenaries, and the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants; which was generally taught by the Ʋniversal Church, & believed as an Apostolical Tradition, but yet contradicted by the Ʋniversal 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 contradictory Doctrines, or that the Universal Doctrine of the present Church is no sufficient proof that it came originally from the Apostles, because the Church Ʋniversal of one time, and the Church Ʋniversal of another time did differ.

Next, for their saying, 'tis 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 'twas the practice of the whole Church in St. Au­stin's time, and esteemed then an Apostolical Tradition even by St. Austin 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 [Page 32] and insolent is the Papists Church, not only to dispute against this practice of the Ʋniversal 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 tho 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 bragging of the Antiquity and Ʋni­versality of their Churches Doctrine, (tho we allow it very ancient, bating the primitive 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 An­tiquity 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; for 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 tho a man lives and dies without the practice 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 'tis evident that they hold many dangerous errors: As for instance, the Millenaries, and the Communicating Infants was more ancient than their Doctrine; and 'tis plain that An­tiquity, [Page 33] unless it be absolute and primative, is not a certain sign of true Doctrine, and the very Apostles themselves, assure us, that in their days 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 errours of the Millenaries, 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 Ch. was before Luther; and tell us, because 'twas no Ch. before him, therefore it can be no true Church at all. To which we answer, That this cause is no cause: for tho Luther had no being before Luther, yet none can deny, but that he was when he was, tho he could not be before he was. So there may be a true Church after Luther, tho there was none for some Ages before him: as since Columbus his time there have been Christians in A­merica, tho 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 rur 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 Jews 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 only Christians in the World before Luther; when the whole World knows, that this is but talk, and that there were other Christians besides the Papists that might have perpetuated the Church, tho there had not been then one Papist in being. For sure there was a Catholick Church before the Roman one.

Next, the Papists say, To hold that the Visible [Page 34] Church is not perpetual, is a Heresie; so that Luther's 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, tho their preaching at the beginning was not so. So Luther also might well believe the Ʋniversal 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 Papists are pleased to mis-call 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 only one who leaves the Church without a cause: for 'tis not only separation, but a causeless separation from the Church, that is Schismatical: and I think 'twill not be amiss, before I go any farther, to distinguish the difference between Heresie and Schism. Heresie is an obstinate 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 only that part of it which is corrupted, and is to be fear'd will still continue so, viz. The Papists Church; and forsook not, but only reformed another 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 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, than from themselves.

So that by the rule of Reason, if Protestants be Schisma­ticks, [Page 35] 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 Franciscans from the Dominicans, and the Dominicans from the Franciscans: for all these (as the world knows) differ in point of Doctrine, and betwixt them there is an ir­reconcilable 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 only this, that they should only 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. Austin did of the Donatists, That [Page 36] 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 Errors 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 'tis 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 herself 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 know­ledg of the sin he acted, condemned him of Adultery; & tho his fault might be palliated with some excuses, yet it can never be defended by any just Apoligy. And so tho we read in Scripture, that it was St. Paul's Judgment, that meat offered to Idols might lawfully be eaten; yet he says; if 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 in­joyn'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, 'Tis better to forsake men than God; and leave the Popish Church-Communion, rather than commit or profess known errors 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 judgment of it. Now if St. Paul had given this as God's [Page 37] command, surely we might have justly contradicted him, and made a distinction between Divine Revelation, and Humane Judgment.

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: & tho 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 a­kin 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 only left what appea­red most plain to us to be superstitious and impious. And we separate no more from the Popish Church, thant 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 practises 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 [Page 38] they prove all: and if the Papists could satisfie me either by Scripture or Reason, that their Church is infallible, I should not only 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 only to admire their confidence, but not at all to esteem their reasons.

The cheif 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 cheif amongst the Apostles; and there was given to him and his Successors by our Saviour, Universal Authority over his Militent Church; That the Pope or Bishop of Rome is St. Peter's Successor, and has his Authority of Ʋniversal 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 only by the by. Now we Protestants say, tho 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 over any one of them.

Nor is it reasonable to believe, that St. Peter having au­thority over all the Apostles for above 25 years together, should never shew the least power over any of them all that time, nor so much as receive the lest subjection from them: sure any one must think this as strange, & unreason­able, 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 & 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 spoak in their hearing by ver­tue whereof St. Peter is pretended to be made their head, [Page 39] 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 than 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 far 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 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 says 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 far 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 Ʋniversal? as tho a Bishop should leave his Son Heir to all he died possessed of; I hope you will not conclude, therefore he must necessarily suc­ceed him in the Bishoprick he died 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 Legary by man; for though it be [Page 40] in any mans power to leave his Estate, yet 'tis in no mans power to leave to his Son his acquir'd parts at his death. 'Tis 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 'tis 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 the parti­cular See 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 places, others had Chairs besides St. Peter) and therefore, says the Pa­pists, he is a Schismatick who against that one single Chair erects another: (understand still in the same place) and this this the Ground and 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 & authority to 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 as soon 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. [Page 41] 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 Papists, if Liberius Bishop of Rome, after Two years Banishment, did not by the sollicitation of Fortunatianus Bishop of Aquileia, 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 'tis a mark of the Ʋniversal Bishop, that other Bishops should make their Addresses unto the Bishop of Rome; yet sure 'twere 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 only 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 only of one Church.

And further, St. Cyprian, all know, did resolutely op­pose a Decree of the Roman Bishop, and all that adhered [...]o him in that one point of Rebaptizing; which the Popish Church at that time, delivered as a necessary Tradition, and Excommunicated the Bishops of Capadocia, 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 Rebaptize those, whom Hereticks had Baptized, to be a damnable Heresie; 'Tis well worth asking the Papists, when this begun to be so? for if they say, from the beginning it was so, then [Page 42] they must maintain a contradiction; for then was St. Cypria [...] a Professor of damnable Heresie; and yet the Papists estee [...] him a Saint and Martyr.

And on the other side, if 'twere not so from the begin­ning, then did the Pope wrongfully Excommunicate those other Churches of Cappadocia and Galatia, without sufficien [...] ground of Excommunication and separation, which by thei [...] own Tenents is Schismatical: So let them chuse which sid [...] they please, the Pope was in an error.

And tho Victor, Bishop of Rome, obtruded the Roman Tradition touching the time of Easter upon the Asian Bi­ships, 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 reprehen [...] 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 Asia; which occa­sions this Question of the Papists, 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 confes [...] 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 Pope's Ʋniversal Supremacy and Autho­rity, and kept contrary to the Pope, Easter-day the Four­teenth of March.

And indeed tho 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 themselves have done: for tho the Papists say St. Hierome conceived it ne­nessary to conform in matters of Faith, to the Church of Rome; yet before the Papists 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 Papists 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 [...]eft beside himself in the whole Ringdom 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 & Country; why may not the Papists (subject to the same passions) err in their opinion and judgment about the Popes being Ʋniversal Bishop, when plain reason tells them, as well as us, that there were other Bishops as much Ʋniver­sal as the Pope.

I now come to examine this infallible Pope, whether he cannot make his infallible Church more infallible than he has made himself; and free the Popish Church from error, tho 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 than a Cengregation 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 creats my wonder, but does not in the [Page 44] 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 b [...] composed of no better men than the Holy Apostles were; [...] shall desire no more, and I am sure they can never prov [...] so much: for they that pretend to it, declare as great a [...] ignorance, as St. Peter did a sin, in denying his Lord an [...] Master: and there are many other known circumstances▪ which made St. Paul prove him blame-worthy to hi [...] face.

And for the Apostles being in error, we have not only 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 lose 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 o [...] St. John.

And further, 'tis most apparent that the very Apostle [...] themselves, even after the sending the Holy Ghost, did through Inadvertency, or Prejudice, continue some time 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 Jews. 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 [Page 45] [...]reed, than this short Creed; I believe the Roman Church [...]fallible? and that would have been more effectual to [...]eep the Believers of it from Heresie, and in the true Faith, [...]an this Apostolical Creed we now have.

And sure the Papists cannot but believe with us, that [...]ose Holy Men that wrote the New Testament, were not [...]nly Good Men, but also Men that were desirous to direct [...]s in the plainest and surest way to Heaven. And the Pa­ [...]ists cannot also but believe with us, that they were likewise [...]en very sufficiently instructed by the Spirit of God, in all [...]e necessary points of the Christian Faith: Therefore cer­ [...]inly 'tis most rational to believe, they could not be ig­ [...]orant of this unum necessarium, that all Faith is no Faith, [...]cept we believe the Church of Rome was design'd by God [...] be the Guide of Faith, as the Church of Rome believes, [...]d would have us believe so too.

We also further believe, and that with great reason too, [...]at the Writers of the New Testament were Wise Men, espe­ [...]ally being they were assisted by the Spirit of Wisdom; and [...]ch that must know, that an uncertain Guide was as bad as [...]ne at all; and yet after all this, is it possible for a Philoso­ [...]ical or Contemplative man, nay, for any man that has rea­ [...]n or common sense, after all these suppositions, to believe [...]at none among these holy Writers of the New Testament [...]ould remember (ad rei memoriam) to set down plainly [...]is most necessary Doctrine, not so much as once, That [...]e were to believe the Roman Church infallible?

Again, that none of the Evangelists should so much as [...]ce name this Popish necessary point of Faith, if they had [...]teem'd it necessary for us to believe it, when St. Paul says, [...]e kept not back any thing that was profitable for us; and sure [...]e Papists cannot deny, but was is necessary to salvation, [...]ust be very profitable: And St. Luke also plainly tells [...]hristians, his intent was to write all things necessary. And [...]re it stands also with reason, that when St. Paul wrote to [...]e Romans, he would have congratulated this their ex­ [...]aordinary priviledge, if he had believ'd it belong'd to [...]em.

And though the Romans bring it as a great Argument [...]or them, that St. Paul tells them, Their Faith is spoken all [Page] the world over; Yet pray let them moderate those thought [...] 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 o [...] Faith for all the World for ever, as the Papists hold; sur [...] St. Paul would have forborn to put the Romans in fear o [...] a possibility, (for though Raillery is much in fashion now [...] sure 'twas not then) that they also, nay the whole Churc [...] of the Gentiles, if they did not look to their standing might fall into Infidelity, as the Jews had done, 1 Ephe­sians 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) only sure Preservative from them, To be guided b [...] 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 Christian [...] this Catholick Direction of following the Roman Church; and St. John instead of saying, He that believes that Jesus [...] the Christ, is 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, Popes against Popes, Councils [Page] 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, tho 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 Grandure of the Church of Rome above all other Churches, is only 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 smallest 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 them, says the Lord: And now I have just done this small Discourse, and the Sun is just upon finishing this days 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 waist their precious 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 ways and fear of God, which is the only beginning of wisdom; 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, tho 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 Physicians, though they dispute, whether the Brain or the Heart be the principal part of a 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 ture; 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 tha [...] you, Madam, may be the sooner reconcil'd to me, for thi [...] tediousness; I shall now make a Conclusion, which afte [...] such an overgrown Letter, must needs be the best Comple­ment that can be made by,