A Protestant Antidote Against POPERY: With A Brief DISCOURSE of the great Atheisticalness and vain AMOURS now in Fashion.  
Written in a LETTER to a Young Lady.  
By a Person of Honour.  
DUBLIN, Printed; And are to be sold by Joseph Wild, Bookseller in Castle-street. 1673.   

MADAM,  
I Know the Law of Custom has made it not only an usual favour, but an expected Duty, to compliment at least, if not flatter, such women as men writ to, especially the Great Ladies, who think none write well, that do not praise them much, and those writ best, who extol them most: High praises being like good Poetry, Music in words, the sound of which may be agreeable, but truly to deserve them, requires such a Gygantick size of merit, as is very unproportionable to the slender-wasted Virtues of most Ladies, who are over-eager to receive praises, and over-careless in meriting any, and the grand reason is, because they know they usually have them without it, and that custom must give it, though reason cannot, so obliging is the common courtesy 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 handsome, 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 Custom pardon here, it being beyond my power to flatter, or compliment, since I can neither overpraise your high merit, or out-speak 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 intituling 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 virtuous, and religiously strict, and ever believed, and proclaimed such, that though your Beauty might make bad men wish you ill, yet your Virtues hinder the worst from daring to think you so; for if they did, their own hearts must at the same time condemn their own thoughts, and declare your innocence; like Pilate, who with the same breath he condemned our Saviour, said, He found no fault in him.  
But, Madam, though your virtuous life is so transparently excellent, yet for all that, you ought to look on your unsoiled reputation as no small blessing of preservation in these scandalous times, where so few Handsome Lady's 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 Virtue, and pious duties of Religion, are seldom thought on, and most rarely practised, our Youth being generally grown, such fond friends of Mr. Hobbs his Books, as they are become mere 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 Gospet into Romance; for thus in short they mangle Scripture, that part which is chief Historical, that is their mere Gospel-part; and that which is the Gospel-part, is their mere 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 Spy doth an Enemy's 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 raillie with, and make sport at; so great a Jest our Young Sparks now make of their salvation, as to be pleased in the mere displeasing God, without considering 'tis not only Atheistical madness, but Devilish folly, to make that their Jest which they may be damned for in Earnest.  
Thus our Youth throw away way 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 man for the woman, rather than the woman for the man; but though all know God made the woman for the man: Yet what Critic 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 are allowed 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 women's Gallants are in plain English no better than the public Executioners of their reputations, and indeed no women will allow them, but such as are willingly condemned to suffer (and women that slight reputation are seldom fond of Chastity) Yet these abusers of love, & 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 port 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 women's 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 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, & the loves of our Young Gallants are grown as fickle and mere skin deep, as their Mistress' 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 Mistress' company▪ yet we cannot read of one these many Ages that died 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 itself, 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 our 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 matched, 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 liked best, and used most In a word, the constancy and inconstancy of our 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 dissolved, turns immediately to the same it was before, without any alteration or prejudice: Nor can water be more apt and ready by the coming of Frost to turn to ice, than our Young men and women's hearts are apt & inclined 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 cried up for handsome, and resolves to continue virtuous, 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 virtue, 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 handsome women, that no woman that enjoys a large proportion of Beauty, but must as 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 another's burden, 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 by spattering with dirt and reproach other women's reputations, were a kind of wiping clean their own, which suits not at all with the mild and moderate rules of Virtue, 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 Mushrooms grow without any root, so tender, and mutable a thing, is a handsome woman's 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 own virtuous, or ill actions; & more on what they say, than what she does; & really such reports are usually so sophisticated with self concerns, and so strongly biased by aversion or inclination, as you may daily hear in common Discourse, both men and women turn virtue into vice, and vice into virtue; and so  Good women to be bad, and bad women to be good, speaking not as women deserve, 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 in enjoyed, and the reason is plain, because the courtship is public to all, but the enjoyment is only private to themselves, and 'tis more rational Two concerned persons should keep their own council, than many unconcerned should keep it for them; so that it cannot necessarily follow, that the reported reputation or disreputation of handsome women must needs be the true issue of their merits, but often the byblow of chance, and therefore common report can be no right rule to measure women's reputations by, for many reports have much of the Devil's nature in them, who is a liar from the beginning. And indeed if we but truly consider, we shall find women generally censure one another, not as they are really faulty, but as they appear, and are esteemed handsome; and therefore ugly women have the privilege of Popes, who cannot err, but may do what they will, and take what liberty they please, and handsome women will be as far from censuring their actions, as young men from praising their persons, so that really in effect, we find most women's 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 irrational and uncharitable; since I am sure none can deny, but that there are some unhandsome women, unchaste; and some chaste women handsome, for virtue and beauty are not so declared enemies, but they sometimes meet; though I cannot deny, but that virtue 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 virtue 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 very Kings to un-King themselves and become subjects to her. And yet this so adored beauty, (which all women are so ambitious of, and all men so court) has at best no intrinsic 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 strayed both beyond the time, and beside the road of my designed 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 Matter 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 either guilty of, or scandalised with, (which I'll 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 levelly 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 fit to exercise your patience, than satisfy 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 Lady's 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 asked 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 Family, (which is still the good Wife's Treasure) being at Macroome, I must conclude your heart is there also.  
A place where in lieu of London, crowds of good Company, & swarms of divertisements; you must prepare to meet with, and do penance to yourself, among the Flocks of Priests and Friars, against whose Popish insinuations, and infectious persuasions, I here present you a small, but necessary Collection of Arguments to carry about you, as a preservative in your own Religion, and an Antidote 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 Lifeguard to defend you and your Chamber against their assaults.  
They are most of them argumentative reasonings I picked out of Mr. Chilling-worth, as one that reasons best, and satisfies me most, of any I ever read; and knowing you want a Collection of choice flowers, I hearty 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 the 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 the Papists against our Religion, and though I have considered their Arguments without the least Bias, 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 forbidden by their Church's Law, which they all know is disputable, the later by the Law of Christ, which they cannot but know, aught 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 satisfy your reason or belief; for the Gospel of Christ; is the Gospel of Truth, and therefore ought still to be pictured naked as Truth, without any Art of Roman Dresses, which are only obscure shading 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 forbidden 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 Errand, 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 distilled in the mysterious politic 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 Church's infallibility, which allows that only to be Gospel which their Church says shall be, not what the Apostles writ is so; for the Papists must obey the Pope, though not 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 one's reason with the Great Loadstone of the Harmonious Doctrine of a necessary Obedience to their infallible Church, than they make such follow it, to every point of the Compass, be it good, bad, or indifferent; and so they sail all their life, in a Trade-wind of ignorance and superstition, and must belive 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, hands and feel not, but must 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 belive their Priest, before their eyes, smell, or taste, 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 though 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 primitive Church; and 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 administered in both kinds, 1 Cor. 11. Chap. 28. v. And St. Paul forbids public prayers in an unknown Language, but that which is most for Edification, 1 Cor. 14 c. 15, 16. v. But these plain positive commands do not hinder the Church of Rome from declaring, that unlearned men shall not read and search the Scriptures; but if we believe St. Paul before the Pope, we may read in the 17. of the Acts, 11. v. how he commended the Noble Bereans for searching the Scriputes, and therefore if searching the Scriptures had not been not 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 a 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, though our Saviour commands, that all drink of the Cup; and the Papists cannot deny, but that the Communion was taken in both kinds in all Christian Churches for above a Thousand years after Christ.  
And Lastly, for the poor vulgar sort, they shall only hear their public prayers in an unknown Tongue, viz. Latin, which a Tenth part of them do not understand; and therefore how that can be most for Edification, let the Papists tell if they can, I am sure we cannot, nor do we believe they can; without the help of another Transubstantiation-Miracle, and make an unknown Language to most, to be changed at the same time into a common known Language to all.  
And now, Madam, I shall humbly desire you to consider in general, that though the Papists do out-noise us: (as shallow rivers do still the the deepest) with the high and mighty Rodomontades of their Church's infallibility; yet such high Rants, without true proof, are but like Schoolboys 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 is the Roman Catholic, and only true Christian Church in the whole world: But the Protestants Answer to this their boasting, is, that all the Christian Churches in the whole world (besides, the Popish Churches) though more in number than they) declare quite contrary. They will ask you, where your Protestant Church was before Luther, which was wittily answered by one; (where the Papist Church never was) in the Bible.  
The Papists do divert themselves very much at our styling 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 Pope's 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 show (in sober earnest) Scripture-presidents for Kings being Heads of Churches in their own Dominions, which is more than the papists can show for their Pope, or his Church's 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 Judgement (which I am sure Popes have not, witness Liberius) and Solomon gives the reason, because the Heart of the King is in the Hand of the Lord. If the Papists will pretend so much Scripture for their Pope, I shall only answer, 'Tis more than ever Protestants read, or the Apostles writ.  
The Papists will tell you with a great deal of confidence, that though we say the Bible is the Religion of Protestants, yet there is no Protestant Religion, or Church, mentioned in the whole Creed, which are the Articles of the Christian Faith: and they will tell you, that their Church is the Catholic Church, and to believe the Catholic 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 if it be one, we make this reply, That the Roman Church is no more named in the Apostles Creed, than the Protestant Church is; f●r the Apostles Creed was made before the Roman Church was a Church, and this I am sure they cannot deny; so that since the Catholic Church was then in being, and the Roman Church not in being, it must necessarily follow, that the Roman Church cannot be the Catholic Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed, and consequently is not the Mother-Church, as the Papists would have her to be: thus the Papists have so overcharged this Argument to shoot at us, as it recoils and flies in their own faces.  
And of kin to this, is their grand Battering piece of all, which so thunders in the ears of all Papists, and makes the Pope's power so absolute, and the poor credulous Papist so obedient, and that is the power given by our Saviour to St. Peter, in the 16th of St. Matthew, beginning the 18th verse. Thou art Peter, and on this Rock I will build my Church, and give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and whomsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven; and whomsoever thou shalt lose on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven; and these words the Papists understand literally, that St. Peter's person is the Rock that Christ builds his Church on, which cannot possibly be, by the verses just following; for there when our Saviour tells his Disciples of his going to Jerusalem, where he must suffer many things, and be killed, and raised again the Third day; Peter took him, and began to rebuke him; be it far from thee, Lord, this shall not be unto thee: But our Saviour turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence to me, for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. By which words 'tis most clear and evident, that our Saviour did not mean Peter's 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 'twere 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 will but please to read the words of our Saviour carefully, you shall find they are most plain, for verse 13th. When Jesus came into the Coast of Caesarea, He asked 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 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 denied 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 S Peter; of the Keys of Heaven; that was given as much to the Eleven Disciples, as to him, as you may read in the 18th of St. Matthew, & in the 20th of St. John's Gospel, and the 23, 24. verses; As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you, and when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained. So that you see this power is general, to the Disciples, and not in particular to St. Peter, more than to any of the rest, as the Papists mis-believe.  
The Papists have many such Questions, which I am sure, Madam, you have neither the patience to read, nor I the time to write, but those that are most material of them you will find, I have here presented you, truly answered, 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 grey 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 faith of salvation on the pretended infallibility of their Church (which is denied by most Christians) than on the Holy Scriptures, which is granted by all, to be the Will and Word of God; and the very Foundation of their Church's 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 join with us in this centre of Faith, that the Scriptures contain all things necessary to our salvation; which being a general granted Truth, I confess, I admire, how any Papist can make the least scruple, which is the safest Heavenly Guide, the Pope or the Gospel: If there be any rational man so extravagant as to put them in the same balance, 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 show 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 satisfy any, except such, who will believe a crooked Rule is better, to draw a strait 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 Chilingworth. Before I begin the discourse itself; I know in writing a play, to have Ranked 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 chief to please the senses, they ought to be compounded and mixed with hopes and fears, certainties, and uncertainties, Expectations, and de●ays of the event of the plot; which being all so interwoven together, creates the agreeableness of the play; for when once the whole plot is discovered, the pleasure of the play is ended; like Hare-Hunting, the sport lies not in presently taking the Hare, but in following him, in all his Rings and Doubles, and those that love plays, and such Hunt, resemble jealous men, who eagerly pursue what they apprehend to overtake, or as old age, which we all pray to attain, but fear to approach.  
But now I come to soar my discourse to a much higher pitch, & a more Elevated Subject, and to treat of the most noble part of man, the Soul, and of true Religion the 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 admits of no increase or diminution: not ●ike the divertisements of Stageplays, or Hunting, or any earthly delights, which cannot last, but for a season, and decay in our very enjoying them, and must soon leave us, or we them; but Heavenly thoughts the more and longer we practise 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 ensuing discourse, that the grand Plot, and whole design of it, moves chief on these two hinges, first in confirming you, that the foundation of the Protestant Religion is built on God's holy Word, the Scriptures; which we Protestants, esteem to be a perfect Rule of Faith, and guide to our actions, and the true Touchstone to try all matters by, that relate to the good of our Souls, as certainly containing in it, all things necessary to our salvation. The second thing I chief design to prove, is, that neither the Pope, or the Popish Church are infallible; and these two shall make up the principal stories, in the little Model of this small building. The pretended infallibility of the Church of Rome, is the grand persuasive Argument, and lure to invite men to it, and the strongest commanding Garrison in all the Pope's power; and all other Arguments, and Persuasions, are but like the small open Villages about this Garrison, which must be servants to them, that are masters of it; and if a Papist can be but once convinced, that neither the Pope, nor the Popish Church are infallible, they will soon be brought to reason, and our remaining differences, will not be very considerable: I shall therefore only lightly discourse on them, and shall no further trouble you Madam, then briefly, to answer them in my own defence, I meet them, or as they follow me, and shall only do as the Wolf does when pursued, snap, and by't in his own defence, against all opposers, without altering his pace, or changing his Road: I shall neither meddle with the Papists, but as I meet them in the way, or towards making of my way, to my two designed points, which are (as I said before,) to prove the Scripture to be a perfect Rule of Faith, and guide to our actions: and to answer, as I go, the Papists main Arguments and objections against it.  
Next, that 'tis against all Scripture, and reason, that either the Pope, or the Popish Church should be infallible; which is the main design of this discourse, and if I can by God's assistance make but the Papists believe reason, (when against their own Church,) I doubt not but by this little Pigmy discourse (as very dwarfish as 'tis,) not only to hinder many tottering Protestants from turning Papists, but to bring some stubborn Papists to turn Protestants, or at least not to have such an infallible good opinion of their Church, and so damnable a bad one of ours.  
And now Madam, 'tis requisite that this my discourse should be ended, as soon as your Patience; & therefore all that I shall add either to the excusing myself, or justifying Mr. Chilingworth, 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 we are not to understand by the word Protestant, the Doctrine of Luther, or Calvin, or Geneva or only the Articles of the Church of England, but that wherein they all agree with perfect Harmony; that the Bible is a perfect Rule of our Faith, and guide to our Actions; and this (after having made the most diligent, and impartial search of the true way to Eternal happiness.) I fully believe, and that we can never find any convincing satisfaction, but on this Rock of God's word, the Bible, which I conceive to be the only true Religion of Protestants.  
If the Pope were indeed (what he unjustly says he is, & the Papists unreasonably believe him to be,) an infallible guide, than there needed no Bible, but if the Bible be, than there needs no Pope; for if I were to go a journey, and had a guide that could not err, what need I be taught the way, and having such a guide, what need I apply myself to another: So that in a word let us inform ourselves the best we can, and consider as much as we please, the more consideration we take, the more confirmation we shall find, that there is no other foundation for a considering Christian to build an assured dependency on, than the Scriptures, for I am fully assured that God does not; (and therefore man ought not to) require of any man more than this, to believe the Scripture to be the word of God, to use our best endeavours to find the true sense of it, and to live, to our utmost according to it.  
This I am sure in reason we ought to believe a wiser choice; Then if I should guide myself by the Roman Churches authority, and infallibility; when really they have nothing of certainty, but their uncertainty; witness Pope against Pope, Councils against Councils, some of their Fathers against others, and rather than fail some against themselves, new Traditions enrolled, and old ones Cashiered, in a word one Church against another, and (if that be not enough) the Church of one age, against the Church of another; Whereas the Scripture being true and unalterable, and containing all things necessary to our Salvation; I am secure, that by believing nothing else, I shall believe no falsehood in matter of Faith, & if I mistake the true sense of Scripture, and so fall into error; yet I am secured from any dangerous error, because whilst I am truly endeavouring to find the true ground of Scripture, I cannot but hold my error without obstinacy, and be ready to forsake it, when a more probable and true sense shall appear unto me: and then being assured, that all necessary truths are plainly set down in Scripture; I am certain by believing the Scripture, to believe all necessary truth, and he that does so, if his life be answerable to his Faith, how is it possible he should fail of Salvation.  
And though the Roman Church pretend to be a perfect guide of Faith, and teacher of all Divine Truths; yet sure that Title might much better, and more justly be given to the Scriptures, as their Teacher and Master.  
The Roman Church brags how ancient their Church is, but doubtless they cannot deny, but the Scripture is more ancient, if they will but allow the Mother to be older than the Child.  
The Papists say their Church is a means of keeping Christians at unity, so are also the Scriptures, to those that believe them in unity of belief, in matters necessary.  
The Papists say their Church is Catholic, cetainly the Scripture is more Catholic; 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 (though more than they) give them the lie for saying so.  
By following the Scriptures, I follow that whereby the Papists prove their Church's Infallibility; for were it not for Scripture, what pretence could the Papists have for it, or what true Notion could they receive of it; so that by so doing, the Papists must plainly confess, That they themselves are surer of the Truth of Scripture, than of their Church's Authority; for we must be surer of the proof, than of the thing proved, 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 its truth; whereas if I follow the Roman Church, I must follow that, which though the Scripture be true, may be false, nay more, must be false, if the Scripture be true; because the Scripture is against it. Following the Papists Church, I must be a servant to my Saviour, and a subject to my King, only at the pleasure of the Pope, and renounce my Allegiance, when the Pope's will is to declare him an Heretic; nay, I must believe virtue vice, and vice virtue, if he pleases; for he both makes and unmakes Scripture as he thinks convenient; witness the Apocrypha, which hath not passed for Canonical, but of late years, in the Papists Church, who interpret Scripture according to their Doctrine, but will not judge their Doctrine according to Scripture, for none like to weigh light Money in true scales. In short, the Pope adds, and lessens, and interprets Divine Laws as he pleases, and they must stand for Laws, and be obeyed as such; so that in effect he rules his people by his own Laws, and his own Laws by his own Lawyers, his Clergy, who dare not speak nor uphold them, other than just such as the Pope would have them; and indeed Cardinal Richelieu gave the reason why more hold the Pope above the Councils, than the Councils above the Pope, because the Pope gave Archbishoprics and Bishoprics, but the Councils had none to give: and though 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 an Angel from Heaven shall preach any thing against the Gospel of Christ, let him be accursed.  
In following the Scripture we have God's express command, and no colour of any prohibition, but to believe; the Popish Church infallible, we have no Scripture-command at all, much less an express one.  
Following the Popish Church, we must believe many things, not only above reason, but against reason, witness Transubstantiation, whereas following the Scripture, we shall believe many miseries, but no impossibilities; many things above our reason, but nothing against it; Nay, we need not believe any thing, which reason will not convince us we ought to believe; for reason will convince any sober Christian? that the Scripture is the Word of God, and there's no reason can be greater than this, that God says it, therefore it must be true.  
In a word, we Protestants believe, that all things necessary to our salvation, are evidently contained in Scripture, and what is not there evidently contained, cannot be necessary to be believed, and our reason is just and clear, because nothing can challenge our 〈◊〉 as to salvation, but what hath descended to us from our Blessed Saviour Christ Jesus, by original and universal Tradition; now nothing but Scripture hath thus descended to us, therefore nothing but Scripture can challenge our Belief.  
Now the grand difference between the Papists and us, concerning the Scripture, is this; We hold the Scripture to be the only perfect Rule whereby to judge of Controversies. The Papists say, That they acknowledge the Scriptures to be a perfect Rule, only they deny that it excluded 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 acknowledgement, 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 complete, 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 complete evident rule of Faith, may be delivered by word of mouth, as the Papists pretend may, and is, and whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth, may also be written; then such a complete and evident rule of Faith, may also be written, for the Argument is most plain, whatsoever may be spoken may be written; a perfect rule of Faith has been spoken, therefore a perfect rule of Faith may be written; If the Papists cannot see this plain conclusion, they had best desire more light to be added to the Sun:  
The Papist pretend their Church to be, the infallible Teacher of all Divine Truths, and an infallible interpreter of all obscurities in the Faith, but the Papists will, I hope, give us leave to admire, how they can pretend to Teach them in all places, without writing them down, that is certainly, beyond the reach of their power to do, as well as our belief that '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 is 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 show us if they can where God hath appointed that the Pope alone, or any confirmed 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 show 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 give us leave to have the same means and ability to know other plain places in Scripture, which they have to know theirs; for if all Scriptures be obscure, how come they to know the sense of those places; but if some place of it be plain, why pray may not Protestants understand them as well as Papists.  
The Papists say, That the Scriptures are in themselves true and infallible, yet without the direction of the Church, we have no certain means to know, which Translations be faithful and Canonical, or what is the true meaning of Scriptures; and this is the common Argument and general Relief of all Papists: To which the Protestants answer, That yet all these things must first be known, before we can know the directions of their Church to be infallible; for the Papists cannot pretend any other proof of it, but 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 show 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, than they must necessarily either argue woman-like, that their Church is infallible, because it is infallible, or else show 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 confirmed by them; and though a Clerk writes a Statute, and the King, Lords and Commons confirm it in Parliament; I believe they would esteem it very improper to call it the Statute of such a Clerk, though writ by him, but an Act of Parliament, because it was confirmed by all their consents, and so becomes their Act, not the Clerks.  
The Papist desires us to tell them in what Language the Scriptures remained uncorrupted, and we desire them, to satisfy us whether it be necessary to know it, or not necessary, if it be not, I hope we may do well without it, but if it be necessary we desire first, that they will please to tell us what became of their Church for One thousand five hundred years together, all which time they must confess, they had no certainty of Scripture; till the time that Pope Clement the Eighth, set forth their approved Edition of the vulgar Translation, and none sure can have the confidence to deny, but that there was great variety of Copies currant in divers parts of their Church, and read so, which Copies might be false in some things, but more than one sort of them could not possibly be true in all things. And Pope Sixtus Quintus his Bible differed 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 defined, what was Scripture, and what was not, but if the Papist say they had, than 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 condemned by Pope Clement, if that of Clement, 'twas condemned by that of Sixtus, so that error must necessarily be betwixt them, let them choose which side they please.  
And for the book of Maccabees, I hope they will allow it defined Canonical, before St. gregory'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 book 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 definition and authority, not to question them, and therefore erred 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 afterward been received by the Roman Church to be such, so that this argument reaches these, 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 reform by comparing it with the Rules of the Apostles Doctrine in Scripture, but if the Apostles have erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity in Scripture, than the Roman Church cannot be infallible, for Apostles, Prophets, and Canonical Writers, are 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 show us so much for the Roman Church, and show 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 ever do that, without another Transubstantiation miracle of words.  
The Papists desire us to show them an exact Catalogue of our fundamentals, to which we answer. That God may be sufficiently known to one, and not sufficiently declared to an either, and consequently that may be fundamental, and necessary to one, which is not to another; which variety of circumstances tenders it impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of fundamentals, for God requires more of them to whom he gives more, and less of those to whom he gives less, more of a Commander of a Kingdom, than a poor simple Turn spit. 'Tis a plain revelation of God to us Protestants, that the Sacrament the Eucharist should be administered in both kinds, 1 Cor. 11 c. 28 v. And that the public Hymns and Prayers of the Church, should be in such a Language as is most for Edification, 1 Cor. 14, and 15, 16. yet the Church of Rome, not seeing this, by reason of the vail, would be very angry, if we told them 'twould prejudice their supposed infallibility.  
We read in St. Matthew, that the Gospel was to be preached to all Nations, and this was a truth revealed before our Saviour's Ascension, 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 the 11th of the Acts, they all believed so, until St. Peter was better informed by a vision from Heaven, and the conversion of Cornelius, and then they turned 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 ourselves. We believe the Catholic Church cannot perish, yet we believe she may and did err, as I proved just before: but thus much we Protestants declare in general, that we esteem it sufficient for any man's 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 person, who truly believes the Scriptures, and hearty 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 necessary, and so much upbraid us for the want of it, we answer, We know no such absolute necessity of it; but yet we hold, we must not only confess our sins, but forsake them, or we shall not find mercy: And we Protesants farther believe, that they that confess their sins, shall find mercy, though they 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, though we Protestants know no such; yet we allow, and observe the same Duty, but public before the Church, which was the constant practice of the primitive Church; and Rhemanus himself, though so great a Champion for the Papists, writes, That the confession then used, was before the Church; and that Auricular confession was not hen in the World.  
The Papists will tell you that our Bishops have not the true power of Ordination, but that has been so clearly answered, and so truly proved at large by so many already, as I shall not need here so much as to name it: 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 Heretics, and Schismatics; yet St. Austin, and Optatus Bishop of Rome, did both acknowledge that they had the same Baptism, Creed, and Sacrament, and that these Donatist, Fathers, though Schismatics, and Heretics, gave true Ordination, or else some of these were not then esteemed Sacraments; therefore let them take which they please, there must be error of one side.  
The Papists pretend they have an unanswerable objection against Protestants, which is, That we have discords in matters of Faith, without, any means of agreement: to which we answer, that the Scripture does not let us want solid means of agreement in matters necessary to salvation, and for our agreement in all controversies of Religion, either they must say we have means to agree about them, or we have not; if they say we have; why did they before deny it, if they say we have no means, why are they so unjust to find fault with us for not agreeing; when they themselves, say we have no means to agree.  
But for a Plaster to this soar, they are so extraordinary civil, as to tell us, we may come to their Church: and they agree in matters of faith, but the plain truth of it is, that they define all matters of faith, to be those wherein they agree; so that to say the Roman Church does agree in matters of Faith, is but to say, they agree in those things, they do agree in, and sure they cannot deny, but we Protestant's do the same.  
But we must desire the Papists to give us leave to tell them, that they most grossly 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 Pope's power over Princes in Temporalities is the 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 confidence to pretend an Unity more than the Protestants; sore some of them say, the Pope with a Council may determine all Controversies, others deny it: Some hold, That a general Council, without a Pope, may do so, others deny this: Others say, Both in conjunction are infallible Determiners, others deny this: And some among the Papists hold, The acceptation on of the Decrees of Councils by the Universal Church, is the 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 Papists deny, but that there has been Popes, against Popes, Councils against Councils; Nay, Councils confirmed by Popes, against Popes confirmed by Councils. And Lastly, The Church of some Ages, against the Church of other Ages; and since every part of the Body is so out of order, methinks they should not brag of so perfect a health as they do.  
The Papists say (and do but say it) that their Doctrine is held Catholic; 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 Catholic, 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 compliment to them grant, that their Church is Catholic and Universal; yet we say, That is no sufficient proof, it came originally from the Apostles, witness the Doctrine of the Milenaries, and the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants, which was generally taught by the Universal Church, and believed as Apostolical Tradition, but yet contradicted by the Universal Church afterwards: This, I am sure, the Papists dare not deny; so that we unavoidably cast the Papists upon this Rock, that they must either conclude the Apostles were Fountains of contradictory Doctrines; or that the Universal Doctrine of the present Church is no sufficient proof, that it came originally from the Apostles, because from Church Universal of one time, and the Church Universal of another time did differ.  
Next for their saying, '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. Au'stine's time, and esteemed then an Apostolical Tradition even by St. Au'stine himself, that the Eucharist should be administered to Infants; And then let them tell us, Whether it be insolent madness to dispute against the practice of the whole Church, or is it not; if it be not, why do they accuse us for it; but if it be insolent madness, how mad and insolent is the Papist Church, not only to dispute against this practice of the Universal Church, of administering the Eucharist to Infants, but utterly abolishing the practice of it.  
So that the very worst the Papists can say of us, allowing what they say to be true, is that we but do, what they themselves own already to have done.  
And though the Papists are pleased to say that the Holy Scriptures, and ancient Fathers, assign separation from the visible Church, as a mark of Heresy, yet they cannot show one plain Text of Scripture to confirm it.  
And for the Papists bragging of the Antiquity and universality of their Church's Doctrine, (though we allow it very ancient, (bating the primative times) we answer first as to its Antiquity, we desire to see what Antiquity they can show for their giving the Communion but in one kind, when they know that the Administering 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 Latin service, for the present use of indulgences; For the Pope's power in Temporalities over Princes; for the Picturing the Trinity; For the lawfulness of worshipping Pictures and Images; Fox their Beads; For their whole worship of the blessed Virgin; For their Oblations, in the notion of Sacrifices to her, and other Saints; For their saying Pater Nosters and Creeds to the Honour of them, and Ave Maries to the Virgin Mary; For the infallibility of the Bishop, or Church of Rome; For their Doctrine of the blessed Virgin's immunity from actual sin; For the necessity of Auricular Confession; For the necessity of the Priest's intention to obtain benefit by any of their Sacraments. And lastly for their licentious Doctrine in holding, that though a man lives and dies without the practice of any Christian virtue, 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 join 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 Milenaries, and the Communicating Infants was more ancient, than their Doctrine, and 'tis plain that antiquity, unless it be absolute and primative, is not a certain sign of true Doctrine: And the very Apostles themselves, assure us that in their 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 errors of the Milenaries, and the Communicating Infants became so universal, let them tell us this, and we will tell them that, for what is done in some, may be done in others.  
The Papists ask us where our Church was before Luther, and tell us, because 'twas no Church before him, therefore it can be no true Church at all. To which we answer, that this cause is no cause; For though Luther had no being before Luther, yet none can deny, but that he was, when he was, though he could not be before he was; So there may be a true Church after Luther, though there was none for some ages before him: as since Columbus his time there have been Christians in America, though there were none for many Ages before: for it does not follow, that nothing but a Church can possibly get a Church, nor that the present being of a true Church depends necessarily upon the perpetuity of a Church in all Ages; for though I cannot deny the Church's perpetuity, yet that's not here necessary to our difference; but that a false Church (by God's 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, though there had not been then one Papist in being: for sure there was a Catholic Church before the Roman one. Next the Papist say, to hold that the visible Church is not perpetual, is a Heresy, 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 Heresy, but the Papists cannot deny, but that the Apostles who preached the Gospel in the beginning, did believe the Church universal, though their preaching at the beginning was not so: So Luther also might well believe the universal Church, though his Reformation was but particular, the Church in the Apostles time being universal de jure of right, but not the facto in fact.  
Nor did Luther and his followers (as the Papist are pleased to miscall 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 Schismatic, 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 Heresy, and Schism. Heresy is anobstinate defence of any error against any necessary Article of the Christian Faith. Schism is a causeless separation of one part of the Church from another. Now we Protestants say still, that we never forsook the whole Church, or the external Communion of it, but only that part of it which is corrupted, and is to be feared will still continue so; viz. The Papist Church; and forsook not, but only reform an other part, which part they themselves were: and sure the Papists will not say, the Protestants forsook themselves, nor their own Communion: and therefore the Papists argument must be a very weak in urging, that the Protestants joined themselves to no other part of the Church, therefore they must separate from the whole Church; which the Protestants say is a false conclusion, in as much as they themselves were part of it, and still continue so; and therefore the Protestants could no more separate from the whole, then from themselves.  
So that by the Rule of Reason, if Protestants be Schismatics, 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 Schismatics, for the Jesuits are Schismatics from the Dominicans, and the Dominicans from the Jesuits, and the Jesuits from the Canonists: the Fransciscans from the Dominicans, and the Dominicans from the Fransciscans; for all these (as the World 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 justify what they declare as truth, that every error against a revealed truth is a Heresy, 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 Heresy; 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 virtue: 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 Schismatics 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 Laymen 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 Catholics approved the Doctrine of the Donatists, but abhorred their Heresy 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 enjoyment 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 Husband's knowledge of the sin he acted, condemned him of Adultery; and though his fault might be palliated with some excuses, yet it can never be defended by any just Apology: And so though we read in Scripture, that it was St. Paul's Judgement, that meat offered to Idols might lawfully be eaten; yet he says, it any should eat it with a doubtful conscience, he should sin, and be condemned for so doing.  
And supposing we Protestant's ought not to have forsaken the Papists Church, for sin, and errors, if she had not enjoined 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 judgement of it. Now if St. Paul had given this as God's command, surely we might have justly contradicted him, and made a distinction between divine Revelation, and humane Judgement.  
So that for a Protestant to abide in the Communion of the Roman Church, is so far from securing him from error, as that if I, or any Protestant should continue in it, I am confident I could not be saved by it, and the reason is, because the Papists will not admit of my communion, without professing the entire Popish Doctrine to be true; and profess this I cannot, but I must perpetually exulcerate my conscience: and though the errors of the Roman Church were not in themselves damnable, yet for me to resist known Truths, and to continue in the profession of known Errors and Falsehoods, is certainly a capital sin, and of great affinity with the sin which shall never be forgiven.  
In short, if the errors of the Roman Church did not warrant our departure, yet the tyrannous imposition of them would be our sufficient justification; for they force us either to forsake the Papists Communion, or profess as Gospel truths, what our conscience assures us is very little a kin to them: so that the Protestants were obliged to forsake those errors of the Popish Church, and not the Church, but the errors, and we Protestant's 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, than she has separated from the Ancient Church; and indeed; to speak properly, our difference is more against the Court, than Church of Rome, which has introduced so many new ceremonies and practices in the Popish Church, as was never heard, nor practised in the primitive Times; as for one instance of a Thousand, I might give you; Their denying the cup to the Laity, which was never practised in the Church a Thousand years after our Saviour.  
But because the Papists brag so much of, and depend so entirely on, the infallibility of their Church, I shall pass by their Outworks, and search a little into this their Grand Fort, the infallibility of their Church; for except they prove that, they prove nothing; but in proving that they prove all; and if the Papists could satisfy 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 chief Method they take, and degrees they use, to prove the infallibility of their Church, are by wholesale these. First, that St. Peter was Head and chief amongst the Apostles, and that there was given to him and his successors by our Saviour, Universal Authority over his Militant Church; That the Pope or Bishop of Rome is St. peter's Successor, and has his Authority of Universal Bishop, and consequently the Roman Church being built upon this Rock, is infallible, all which I doubt not, but to prove, to be inconsistent with, and contradictory both to Scripture and Reason.  
As to the first point of St. Peter's being Head of the Apostles, which the Papists all style 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, though we allow St. Peter might have primacy of Order; yet we cannot grant he had supremacy of power over the other Apostles; for sure it cannot stand with the least reason, that St. Peter should have authority over all the Apostles, and yet never act the least authority ever any one of them.  
Nor is it reasonable to believe, that St. Peter having authority over all the Apostles for about 25 years together, should never show the least power over any of them all that time, nor so much as receive the least subjection from them; sure any one must think this as strange, and un reasonable, as if a King of England for 25 years together should not do one Act of Regality among his subjects, nor receive any one acknowledgement from them.  
Nor sure is it less strange and unreasonable, that the Papists should so many Ages after, know this so certainly, as they pretend they do, and yet that the Apostles themselves, after that these words were spoke in their hearing by virtue whereof St. Peter is pretended to be made their head, should still be so ignorant of it, as to question our Saviour, which of them should be the greatest, by which sure we may rationally conclude, they did not then know; for if they did, their question had been needless, and superfluous, in desiring to be taught, what they already knew.  
And what yet appears more strange 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 universal: as though 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 Bishopric 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 Legacy by man; for though it be in any man's power to leave his Estate, yet 'tis in no man's power to leave to his Son, his acquired 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 Reality then to the particular Sea of Rome; for thus goes their main argument. St. Peter was first Bishop of Rome, and the Apostles, did not then attribute to themselves, each one his particular Chair (understand in that City of Rome, for in other place, others had Chairs besides St. Peter) and therefore says the Papist, he is a Schismatic who against that one single Chair erects another: (understand still in the same place) and this is the ground & the Authority the Papists say, the Pope has to be Successor to St. Peter, and to exercise Authority over the Universal Church.  
But sure the Protestants urge more rationally in arguing thus, That St. Peter wrote Two Catholic Epistles, in which he mentions his own departure, and writes to preserve the Christians in the faith: but yet in neither of these Two Epistles does he commend the Christians to the guidance and authority of his pretended Successor the Bishop of Rome; which sure if St. Peter had intended, he would never have forgot to have named it.  
And since the Papists so reverence and adore the Pope's power, let us Protestants also admire his way and means of attaining this power; for though the Papists say, that assoon as he is made Pope, he has his authority immediately from Christ; yet at the very same time the Papists all know, that he cannot be made Pope, but by Authority and Election of the Cardinals; so that I am sure by the very same reason, any man that is chosen a Magistrate in any Town under the Pope's Territories, may claim his Authority as immediately received from Christ, as well as the Pope. And further, that the proving his being made Pope, does not render him infallible, I could give a hundred instances out of the History of Popes, but that will not suit well with my designed brevity; but let's ask the Papist, if Liberius Bishop of Rome, after Two years' Banishment, did not by the solicitation of Fortunatianus Bishop of Acquileia, subscribe to Heresy, and consequently could not be infallible. And though the Papists rely so much on the Authority of the Fathers, to support and justify 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 Catholic 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 Schismatics had set up another Bishop: Now though the Papists say reasonably, that 'tis a mark of the Universal 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 believed and owned, 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 Catholic 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 to him in that one point of Rebaptising, which the Popish Church at that time delivered as a necessary Tradition, and Excommunicated the Bishop of Cappadocia, Galatia, and all that were against that Tradition, and would not so much as allow them lodging or entertainment in Rome.  
Now since the Papists affirm, that not to re-baptize those, whom Heretics had baptised, to be a damnable Heresy. 'Tis well worth ask the Papist, when this begun to be so; for if they say, from the beginning it was so, than they must maintain a contradiction; for than was St. Cyprian a Professor of damnable Heresy, and yet the Papists esteem him a Saint and Martyr.  
And on the other side, if 'twere not so from the beginning, than did the Pope wrongfully excommunicate those other Churches of Cappadocia and Galatia, without sufficient ground of Excommunication, and separation, which by their own Tenants, is schismatical; so let them choose which side they please, the Pope was in an error.  
And though Victor Bishop of Rome obtruded the Roman Tradition touching the time of Easter, upon the Asian Bishops, under the pain of Excommunication, and Damnation; yet we read that Irenaeus, and all the other Western Bishops, though they did agree with the Bishop of Rome in his observation of Easter, yet they did sharply reprehend his excommunicating the Asian Bishops, for their disagreeing with him; which most plainly argues, that the Western Bishops thought that not a sufficient ground of Excommunication, which the Bishop of Rome did; and therefore it must necessarily follow, they did not esteem the Roman Bishop infallible, nor the separation from the Church of Rome an Heresy. And this I am sure is true and undeniable reason.  
The Popish Story tells us, That Optatus Bishop of Rome upbraided the Donatists as Schismatics, because they held no Communion with the Church of Rome, by adding afterwards that they were Schismatics, for they held no Communion with the seven Churches of Asiae, which occasions this Question of the Papist, Whether a separation from these seven Apostolic Churches, was a mark of Heresy, 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 Heresy, than they must confess their Church was for many years Heretical as separating many years from the Asian Churches.  
And Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus and Metropolitan of Asia despised the Pope's universal Supremacy and Authority, and kept contrary to the Pope Easter-day, the Fourteenth of March.  
And indeed though the Papists do so much quote the authority of the Fathers, yet I find they as little befriend their Church's infallibility, as the Asian Bishops themselúes have done, for though the Papist say St. Hierome conceived it necessary to conform in matters of Faith, to the Church of Rome; yet before the Papist brag of that, let them answer us this, how came it then to pass, that St. Hierome chose to believe the Epistle to the Hebrews Canonical upon the authority of the Eastern Church, and to reject it from the Canon of the Roman Churches Authority. And how comes it also that he dissented from the Roman Church touching the Canon of the old Testament, let the Papist take heed of losing their Fort, by endeavouring to maintain their outworks.  
And now to conclude this point, and excuse the Papists mistake concerning their universal Bishop, we read in Scripture of the Prophet Elias, who thought there was none left beside himself in the whole Kingdom of Israel, who had not revolted from God; and yet God himself is pleased to assure us he was deceived; And if a Prophet, and one of the greatest erred in his judgement, touching his own time and Country, why may not the Papists (subject to the same passions) err in their opinion, and judgement about the Pope's being universal Bishop, when plain reason tells them, as well as us, that there were other Bishops as much universal as the. Pope.  
I now come to examine this infallible Pope, whether he, cannot make his infallible I Church more infallible than he has made himself, and free the Popish Church from error, though he could not the Pope from Heresy.  
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 Congregation of men, whereof every particular, not one excepted, and consequently the generality, is nothing but a collection of men, and if every one be polluted, (as who dare say he is free from sin) how can the whole but be defiled with error; as reasonably may a man brag he is in perfect health and strength, and yet at the same time confess he hath not one sound part about him. And truly it very much creates my wonder, but does not in the least satisfy my reason, what the Papists can pretend by the infallibility of their church, for if they will allow their Pope to be no better than St. Peter was; their Church to be composed of no better men than the Holy Apostles were; I shall desire no more, and I am sure they can never prove so much, for they that pretend to it, declare as great an ignorance, as St. Peter did a sin, in denying his Lord and Master: and there are many other known circumstances, which made St. Paul prove him blame-worthy to his face.  
And for the Apostles being in error, we have not only the examples of the Apostles themselves, who in the time of our Saviour's Passion, being scandalised, lost their faith in him, and I believe the Papists will not say they could lost their faith in our blessed Saviour Christ without error; and therefore our Saviour after his Resurrection upbraided them with their incredulity, and called Thomas incredulous for denying the Resurrection in the Twentieth of St. John.  
And further 'tis mod: apparent that the very Apostles themselves, even after the sending the Holy Ghost, did through inadvertency, or prejudice, continue sometime in an error, contrary to a revealed truth; And if the Papists will not own to know this truth, they may be fully satisfied of it in the story of the Acts of the Apostles, where they may plainly read that notwithstanding our Saviour's 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 esteemed by the Apostles infallible, what needed the Apostles any other Creed, than this short Creed, I believe the Roman Church infallible, and that would have been more effectual to keep the believers of it, from Heresy, and in the true Faith, than this Apostolical Creed we now have.  
And sure the Papists cannot but believe with us, that those holy men that wrote the New Testament, were not only good men, but also men that were desirous to direct us in the plainest and surest way to Heaven. And the Papists cannot also but believe with us, that they were likewise men very sufficiently instructed by the Spirit of God, in all the necessary points of the Christian Faith: Therefore certainly 'tis most: rational to believe, they could not be ignorant of this unum necessarium, that all Faith is no Faith, except we believe the Church of Rome, was designed by God to be the Guide of Faith, as the Church of Room believes, and would have us believe so too.  
We also further believe, and that with great reason too, that the Writers of the New Testament were wise men, especially being they were assisted by the Spirit of wisdom; and such that must know, that an uncertain Guide was as bad as none at all; and yet after all this, is it possible for a Philosophical or contemplative man; nay, for any man that has reason or common sense, after all these suppositions, to believe that none among these holy Writers of the New Testament should remember, (ad rei memoriam,) To set down plainly this most necessary Doctrine, not so much as once, that we were to believe the Roman Church infallible.  
Again, that none of the Evangelists should so much as once name this Popish necessary point of Faith, if they had esteemed it necessary for us to believe it, when St. Paul says, He kept not back any thing that was profitable for us and sure the Papists cannot deny, but what is necessary to salvation, must be very profitable: And St; Luke also plainly tells Christians, his intent was to write all things necessary. And sure it stands also with reason, that when St. Paul wrote to the Remans', he would have congratulated this their extraordinary privilege, if he had believed it belonged to them.  
And though the Romans bring it as a great Argument for them that St. Paul tells them, Their Faith is spoken all the world over. Yet pray let them moderate those thoughts with this consideration, that St. Paul said the very same thing to the Thessalonians; and let them further consider this, that if the Roman Faith had been the Rule of Faith for all the world for ever, as the Papists hold, sure St. Paul would have forborn to put the Romans in fear of an impossibility (for though raillery is much in Fashion now, sure 'twas not then) that they also, nay the whole Church of the Gentiles, if they did not lock to their standing, might fall into infidelity, as the Jews had done, 1 Eph. 11.  
And methinks it also stands with great reason, that the Apostles writing so often of Heretics, and Antichrist, should have given the Christian world this (as Papists pretend) only sure Preservative from them, to be guided by the infallible Church of Rome, and not to separate from it, upon the pain of damnation.  
Methinks also St. Peter, St. James, and St. Judas, in their Catholic Epistles, would not have forgot giving Christians this Catholic direction of following the Roman Church; and St. John in stead of saying, He that believes that Jesus is the Christ, and born of God, might have said, He that adheres to the Doctrine of the Roman Church, and lives according to it, is a good Christian; and by this mark you shall know him. In a word, can there be any thing more irrational, than to believe, that none of these holy men, who were so desirous of men's salvation, should so much as once remember to write, that we were to obey the Roman Church, but leave it to be collected from uncertain principles, and by more uncertain consequences.  
So that upon the whole, I cannot without much wonder, look on the Pope's confidence, and the Papists credulity, in esteeming the Pope or his Councils to be an infallible Guide; sure either they never read what they ought to believe, or else they will not believe what they read, though it be never so known a Truth, and worthy of belief: for if they did, they could never believe the infallibility of the Popish Church for indeed if they would read the Popish story; or, as I may well call it, the Civil Wars of the Popes, you shall find, as I said before, Pope against Pope, Councils against Councils; some Fathers against others, nay, some against themselves; new Traditions brought in, and old ones turned out; one Church against another; nay, the Church of one Age against the Church of another. In a word, the Papists say, their Church is infallible, and all other Christians besides themselves, though more in number than they, absolutely deny it; and yet we must for all that believe the Popish Church infallible.  
And to speak the plain Truth, and in a word to unravel the real cause of the Grandeur of the Church of Rome, above all other Churches, is 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 Privileges 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 show the infallibility of their Church, I am verily persuaded they cannot show more, if so much, out of the Scriptures, for their Church, as the simallest society of Christians met together in prayer, can for themselves, that when two or three are met together in my name, I will be amongst then 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 waste their precious time in mere 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, though they were of differing Judgements 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 principle part of man, yet that all men have Brains, and Heart they sufficiently agree in; So though Protestants esteem one part of the Church doctrine, and Papists set a higher value on another part, yet the Soul of the Church may be in both of them, and though the Papists account that a necessary truth, which the Protestants account neither, necessary, nor perhaps true; yet in truth, truly necessary they both agree, viz. The Apostles Creed, and that Faith, Hope, and Charity, are necessary to Salvation; And lastly though Papists hold, they may be justified by their works, and Protestants hold none can be justified barely by them, (in regard of the imperfections of their works) yet on the other side, we so much agree with the Papists, as to esteem none can be justified without them, for without Repentance, and Charity, none can be good, they being both like Health to our bodies, the want of which is sufficient to disturb all other pleasures. Therefore when we read St. Paul's 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 virtue of Charity, and they will reconcile one another; and I wish, that we were all so reconciled in the unity of the Spirit, and in the bond of peace. And that you Madam may be the sooner reconciled to me, for this tediousness; I shall now make a conclusion, which after such an overgrown letter, must needs be the best compliment that can be made by,  
Madam yours etc. London the 24. of Feb. 1673