<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2015-01-12</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Kate Allen</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Checklist: x *Add TEMPHEAD, change DATE, validate x*Review over structure: FRONT,BODY, BACK, DIV or rarely GROUP x*Add DIV TYPEs, make sure that types makes sense as a navigational aide, and work in the context of the whole text, validate x*Survey book for troublesome formats of all kinds, including lists, illustrations, tables, music, math, end-notes, quasi-tabular arrangments, and marginalia. x*Proof title page(s) x*Examine marginalia. Is it all best tagged as NOTE? x*Observe divtop and divbottom material marking beginnings and ends of divisions, check that they are correctly tagged as HEAD, HEADNOTE, CLOSER, OPENER, ARGUMENT, EPIGRAPH, SIGNED, DATELINE, BYLINE, TRAILER, etc. x*Check for GAPs x*Check PB placement and completeness, ensure sequence of N="" x*Check ^, oe, abq, italic I / J, _Initals, space between &amp;c., --, # x*Check for illustrations and correct usage of FIGURE. Add FIGDESCs if necessary. x*Check q, startq, endq, Q
*Correct excusable and inexcusable errors x*If appropriate, check for yoghs. x*If appropriate, check for Latin problems, e.g. oe and ae digraphs x*If appropriate, check for abbreviation and brevigraph problems. x*If appropriate, check for units of measure, symbols (alchemical, astronomical, etc.) and the like. x*Correct illegibles from proofsheet x*Check illegible page, para, line, span, word, dollar signs
*Final validate Corrected [ ] illegible groups out of [ ]. Converted [ ] illegible groups to GAP DESC="illegible". DONE</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="B25874">
<STC T="W">L1567</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">[ocm]11634400</BIBNO>
<VID>199118</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1">
<P>A LETTER OF ADVICE To A <HI>Young Lady,</HI> BEING <HI>Motives</HI> and <HI>Directions</HI> To E&s;tabli&s;h Her In the Prote&s;tant Religion.</P>
<P>WRITTEN <HI>By a Per&s;on of Honour,</HI> AND <HI>Made Publick for the &V;&s;e of that Sex.</HI></P>
<P><HI>LONDON,</HI> Printed, and are to be Sold by <HI>Ri|chard Baldwin,</HI> 1688.</P>
<P>Price Three Pence.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="license">
<PB REF="2">
<P>Licen&s;ed,</P>
<CLOSER><DATELINE><DATE><HI>May</HI> the 7th. 1688.</DATE></DATELINE></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="letter">
<PB N="3" REF="2">
<HEAD><HI>A Letter of Advice,</HI> &amp;c.</HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>MADAM,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>I Know the law of Cu&s;tom has made it not only an <HI>u&s;ual favour,</HI> but an <HI>expected duty,</HI> to complement at lea&s;t, if not flatter, &s;uch Women as Men write to, e&s;pecially the Great Ladies, who think none <HI>write well,</HI> that do not <HI>prai&s;e them much,</HI> and tho&s;e <HI>write be&s;t,</HI> who <HI>extol them mo&s;t:</HI> high Prai&s;es be|ing like good Poetry, Mu&s;ick in words, the &s;ound of which may be <HI>agreable,</HI> but truly to <HI>de&s;erve</HI> them, re|quires &s;uch a <HI>Gygantick</HI> &s;ize of <HI>merit,</HI> as is very unpro|portionable to the &s;lender-wa&s;ted <HI>Vertues</HI> of mo&s;t La|dies, who are over-eager to <HI>receive</HI> Prai&s;es, and over|carele&s;s in <HI>meriting</HI> any: and the grand rea&s;on is, be|cau&s;e they know they u&s;ually have them without it; and that <HI>Cu&s;tome</HI> mu&s;t give it, though <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> cannot. So obliging is the common courte&s;ie of <HI>England</HI> to Ladies, that it allows them to pretend to all <HI>prai&s;es</HI> as their <HI>due,</HI> though few de&s;erve any as their <HI>right.</HI> In a word, our <HI>Engli&s;h</HI> Ladies mu&s;t have their <HI>Characters</HI> writ, ju&s;t as the <HI>Dutch</HI> Madams will have their Pictures drawn, that is, very hand&s;om, though they them&s;elves be never &s;o ugly.</P>
<P>But, <HI>Madam,</HI> for your part, I know your <HI>perfections</HI> &s;o abundantly, and my own <HI>heart</HI> &s;o truly, as I mu&s;t beg the Law of <HI>Cu&s;tome</HI> pardon here; it being beyond my pow|er to flatter or complement, &s;ince I can neither over|prai&s;e your high <HI>merit,</HI> or out&s;peak the real love, and true e&s;teem, I have both for you and them; &s;o that knowing all manner of <HI>prai&s;es</HI> to be ju&s;tly due to your <HI>merits,</HI> I find I cannot here make you a pre&s;ent of any, without doing you an injury, by intitling you to tho&s;e prai&s;es by <HI>gift,</HI> which all know are your own by <HI>right.</HI></P>
<P>For truly, <HI>Madam,</HI> the whole progre&s;s of your actions have &s;till been &s;o highly <HI>vertuous,</HI> and religiou&s;ly &s;trict, and ever believed and proclaimed &s;uch, that though your <HI>Beauty</HI> might make bad Men <HI>wi&s;h</HI> you ill, yet your <HI>Vertues</HI> hinder the wor&s;t from daring to <HI>think</HI> you &s;o:
<PB N="4" REF="3"> for if they did, their own hearts mu&s;t at the &s;ame time condemn their own thoughts, and declare your innocen|cy; like <HI>Pilate,</HI> who with the &s;ame breath he condem|ned our Saviour, &s;aid, <HI>he found no fault in him.</HI></P>
<P>But, <HI>Madam,</HI> tho your vertuous life is &s;o tran&s;pa|rantly excellent, yet for all that, you ought to look on your un&s;oil'd Reputation as no &s;mall ble&s;&s;ing of pre&s;er|vation in the&s;e &s;candalous times, where &s;o few hand&s;om Ladies e&s;cape cen&s;ure, and &s;o many de&s;erve it: for now the extravagancies of <HI>Romance-Amours</HI> are not only daily <HI>read,</HI> but almo&s;t hourly <HI>practi&s;ed;</HI> and <HI>Women act</HI> more than <HI>Romances can write;</HI> whil&s;t the &s;ober Rules of <HI>Vertue,</HI> and pious Duties of <HI>Religion,</HI> are &s;eldom thought on, and mo&s;t ralely practi&s;ed; our Youth being gene|rally grown &s;uch fond friends of Mr. <HI>Hobbes</HI> his Books, as they are become meer <HI>&s;trangers</HI> to our <HI>Saviour</HI>'s <HI>Go&s;|pel;</HI> they living as if they were <HI>all bodies,</HI> and had <HI>no &s;ouls,</HI> or had them but to <HI>lo&s;e,</HI> turning <HI>Religion</HI> into <HI>Rail|lery,</HI> and <HI>Go&s;pel</HI> into <HI>Romances:</HI> for thus in &s;hort they mangle <HI>Scripture,</HI> that part which is chiefly <HI>Historical,</HI> that is their meer <HI>Go&s;pel</HI>-part; and that which is the <HI>Go&s;pel</HI>-part, is their meer <HI>Hi&s;torical</HI>-part; and becau&s;e they cannot <HI>bring the Go&s;pel</HI> to prove their <HI>Athei&s;tical rea&s;ons,</HI> pretend to prove by <HI>Rea&s;on,</HI> that there is <HI>no Go|&s;pel:</HI> and if &s;ome of them now and then look over a Chap|ter, they only <HI>pa&s;s through</HI> it, as a Spie doth an <HI>Enemies Country,</HI> with a <HI>mi&s;chievous de&s;ign;</HI> and if they can but find in Scripture a <HI>&s;eeming Contradiction,</HI> that they pre|&s;ently bring on the Stage, as they do <HI>Fools</HI> in <HI>Plays,</HI> to <HI>railly</HI> with, and make <HI>&s;port</HI> at: &s;o great a <HI>Je&s;t</HI> our <HI>Young Sparks</HI> now make of their <HI>Salvation,</HI> as to be <HI>pleas'd</HI> in the meer <HI>di&s;plea&s;ing God;</HI> without con&s;idering, 'tis not onely <HI>Athei&s;tical madne&s;s,</HI> but <HI>Devilli&s;h folly,</HI> to make that their <HI>Je&s;t,</HI> which they may be <HI>damn'd for in earne&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>Thus our Youth throw away their <HI>Souls;</HI> and for their <HI>Time,</HI> they care not how they &s;pend it, <HI>(always provided it be not religiou&s;ly)</HI> and therefore they wa&s;t it mo&s;t in the company of <HI>vain Women;</HI> and are &s;o eager and zea|lous in their <HI>pur&s;uit,</HI> and &s;o con&s;tant in their <HI>&s;ervice,</HI> as if they fancied God was <HI>mi&s;taken,</HI> and intended creating
<PB N="5" REF="3"> <HI>man for the woman,</HI> rather than <HI>the woman for the man.</HI> But though all know God made the <HI>Woman for the Man,</HI> yet what Critick can tell us whether our <HI>New Mode</HI> has made the <HI>Gallant for the Mi&s;tre&s;s,</HI> or the <HI>Mi&s;tre&s;s for the Gallant?</HI> But of this we are all &s;ure, They are &s;o plenti|fully made for <HI>one another,</HI> that the Ea&s;tern Country-Laws allow not with more freedom <HI>plurality of Wives,</HI> than our new Engli&s;h Cu&s;toms admit <HI>plurality of Mi&s;|tre&s;&s;es.</HI> Nay, I may yet venture to &s;ay more, That the <HI>Liberty</HI> of our men <HI>exceeds</HI> theirs: for they are permitted no more <HI>Wives</HI> than they can well <HI>keep,</HI> but ours allow them&s;elves as many <HI>Mi&s;tre&s;&s;es</HI> as they can any way <HI>get.</HI></P>
<P>For indeed, the Names of <HI>Tom and Be&s;s</HI> are hardly more familiar here, than tho&s;e of <HI>Gallant and Mi&s;tre&s;s;</HI> and are &s;o far from being e&s;teemed Names of <HI>di&s;credit,</HI> that many of our <HI>Mode-Ladies</HI> look on their <HI>Gallants</HI> as <HI>Beauty-marks,</HI> rather than <HI>&s;tains</HI> of Reputation. And for all they cannot but know, that the <HI>infection of Gallants</HI> is as bad an Enemy to <HI>Credit,</HI> as the <HI>Small-pox</HI> to <HI>Beauty,</HI> a common <HI>ruiner</HI> of it: And though <HI>Womens Gallants</HI> are in plain <HI>Engli&s;h</HI> no better than the <HI>publick Execution|ers</HI> of their <HI>reputations;</HI> and indeed no <HI>woman</HI> will allow them, but &s;uch as are <HI>willingly condem'd to &s;uffer</HI> (and <HI>wo|men</HI> that &s;light <HI>reputation</HI> are &s;eldom fond of <HI>Cha&s;tity</HI>) Yet the&s;e <HI>abu&s;ers of love,</HI> and <HI>murderers of fame,</HI> by their <HI>fair words</HI> and <HI>ba&s;e arts,</HI> have &s;o in&s;inuated them&s;elves into their favour, as the <HI>women</HI> now for&s;ooth, call their <HI>Gallants</HI> their <HI>Friends;</HI> and if common report may be credited they are indeed their <HI>bo&s;om-ones;</HI> (and &s;uch <HI>women</HI> as value little what <HI>others &s;ay,</HI> &s;eldom care much what they <HI>them&s;elves do:</HI>) Cu&s;tom having brought ma|ny of our <HI>women</HI> to that pa&s;s, as they now glory in the <HI>number</HI> of their <HI>Gallants,</HI> e&s;teeming them rather &s;o many <HI>Vouchers</HI> of their <HI>Beauty,</HI> than &s;o many <HI>Robbers</HI> of their <HI>Honour;</HI> the &s;o u&s;ual practice of this <HI>&s;candal,</HI> having taken away <HI>womens &s;en&s;e,</HI> that like blackne&s;s among&s;t the <HI>Aethiopians,</HI> its <HI>Commonne&s;s</HI> has removed its <HI>defor|mity:</HI> And there is now &s;uch a forward <HI>Love-&s;pring</HI> in the Nur&s;eries of our Young Ladies, as the very <HI>little-ones</HI> learn to &s;pell <HI>Amour</HI> with their <HI>Fe&s;cue,</HI> and will pretend
<PB N="6" REF="4"> to <HI>entertain</HI> their <HI>Young Gallants,</HI> in the dark walks of <HI>Love,</HI> and in the Labyrinth of its <HI>Intrigues,</HI> before they well know what the thing <HI>Love</HI> is, or the name of <HI>Gal|lant</HI> means; and would have <HI>Servants</HI> come to them, before they come to the <HI>Teens,</HI> (the <HI>ripene&s;s</HI> of their <HI>minds</HI> outrunning that of their <HI>bodies</HI>) and fancy <HI>men</HI> &s;o mad as to believe, 'tis <HI>expectation</HI> makes a <HI>Ble&s;&s;ing dear.</HI> But that dull <HI>Presbyterian way</HI> of <HI>Love,</HI> is now quite out of Fa&s;hion, and the loves of our <HI>Young Gallants</HI> are grown as <HI>fickle,</HI> and meer <HI>skin-deep,</HI> as their Mi&s;tre&s;&s;es <HI>Fancies</HI> and <HI>Beauties;</HI> and <HI>Love-wounds</HI> that are but <HI>skin-deep,</HI> can never hurt the <HI>heart;</HI> and therefore though every day we hear of Hundreds of <HI>Gallants</HI> that are <HI>dying for Love</HI> in their <HI>Mi&s;tre&s;&s;es company,</HI> yet we cannot read of one the&s;e many <HI>Ages</HI> that <HI>dyed for love</HI> in the <HI>Weekly-Bills</HI> of Mortality; the <HI>obliging carriage</HI> of the Ladies of the times having made our <HI>Young Men</HI> &s;o <HI>healthfully wi&s;e,</HI> &s;o <HI>forwardly bold,</HI> or at lea&s;t &s;o <HI>impatiently ha&s;ty,</HI> as they expect now a-days to take <HI>Young Women,</HI> as great Armies do <HI>weak Towns,</HI> only by <HI>Summons,</HI> or <HI>A&s;&s;aults;</HI> as not e&s;teeming them <HI>worthy</HI> the time and trouble of a <HI>Love-&s;iege,</HI> though their Mi&s;tre&s;&s;es were as yielding as <HI>Rome</HI> it &s;elf, which Writers &s;ay, was <HI>never be&s;ieged without being taken:</HI> that is, in &s;hort, they hold hand|&s;ome Women worth <HI>enjoying,</HI> but not <HI>wooing.</HI> And that makes our <HI>Young Men</HI> &s;o eager and incon&s;tant in their <HI>Amours,</HI> as really tis a very hard mea&s;uring-ca&s;t to tell whether your <HI>Young Gallants</HI> u&s;e now more art, or &s;peed, in the <HI>getting</HI> or <HI>forgetting</HI> of their <HI>Mi&s;tre&s;&s;es.</HI></P>
<P>But the be&s;t of it is, that the <HI>incon&s;tancy</HI> of <HI>both Sexes</HI> are now &s;o equally match'd, that I cannot write more of their <HI>Gallants</HI> incon&s;tancies, than their <HI>Mi&s;tre&s;&s;es</HI> make good of their own: For they deal with their <HI>Gallants,</HI> as their <HI>Fa&s;hions;</HI> that which comes <HI>late&s;t,</HI> is &s;till <HI>lik'd be&s;t,</HI> and <HI>us'd mo&s;t.</HI> In a word, the con&s;tancy and incon&s;tancy of Young Men and Women, are ju&s;t like <HI>water</HI> and <HI>ice,</HI> where one &s;till <HI>makes</HI> the other; and their <HI>loves</HI> (Ice-like) never <HI>la&s;t long;</HI> and as &s;oon as 'tis <HI>di&s;&s;olv'd,</HI> turns immediately <HI>to the &s;ame</HI> it was before, without any <HI>al|teration</HI> or <HI>prejudice:</HI> Nor can <HI>water</HI> be more apt and
<PB N="7" REF="4"> ready by the coming of <HI>Fro&s;t</HI> to turn to <HI>Ice,</HI> than our Young Men and Womens hearts are apt and enclin'd to <HI>return to love,</HI> at the approach of <HI>fre&s;h-fancied Beauty.</HI> And truly the incon&s;tancy of our Young Men cannot be <HI>&s;o great,</HI> nor their inclinations <HI>&s;o ill,</HI> but the <HI>tongues</HI> of many of our Young Women are grown <HI>as bad:</HI> For now if a Young Maid be but cry'd up for <HI>hand&s;om,</HI> and re|&s;olves to continue <HI>vertuous,</HI> and therefore will not turn <HI>vain,</HI> and de&s;erve <HI>cen&s;ure,</HI> as much as the re&s;t, they will be &s;ure to &s;peak her as <HI>bad</HI> as the <HI>wor&s;t;</HI> and if they cannot with <HI>ju&s;tice</HI> wound her <HI>Vertue,</HI> they will attempt by ill <HI>arts</HI> to <HI>murder</HI> her <HI>Reputation, (Envy</HI> being the pa|rent of <HI>wicked invention</HI>) it being now a <HI>Mode-principle</HI> among&s;t mo&s;t of our <HI>hand&s;om Women,</HI> that no Woman that enjoys a large proportion of <HI>Beauty,</HI> but mu&s;t, a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> an unavoidable appurtenance, carry with it a load of &s;candalous <HI>cen&s;ures</HI> (a fal&s;e Character of <HI>&s;ome,</HI> though too true a one of mo&s;t) which occa&s;ions their not caring how unju&s;tly they increa&s;e anothers <HI>burthen,</HI> in hope to le&s;&s;en their own <HI>load;</HI> and by <HI>over&s;tretching</HI> the mi&s;car|riages of others greater than they &s;hould be, hope to <HI>&s;hrink</HI> theirs le&s;s than really they are; vainly fancying, that <HI>&s;pattering</HI> with dirt and reproach other Womens <HI>reputations,</HI> were a kind of <HI>wiping clean</HI> their own; which &s;uits not at all with the mild and moderate rules of <HI>Vertue,</HI> which only allows Women to correct each others <HI>faults,</HI> by their <HI>good Examples,</HI> but not to in|crea&s;e them by their <HI>bad cen&s;ures.</HI> For, <HI>&s;candalous cen|&s;ures,</HI> like <HI>Mu&s;hooms,</HI> grow <HI>without any root;</HI> &s;o tender and mutable a thing is a <HI>hand&s;om Womans good Name:</HI> there's no taking its <HI>true Elevation</HI> by any certain out|ward <HI>Rules</HI> and <HI>mea&s;ures,</HI> &s;ince it depends more on her Neighbours good or bad <HI>report,</HI> than on her vertuous or ill <HI>actions;</HI> and more on what <HI>they &s;ay,</HI> than what <HI>&s;he does.</HI> And really &s;uch <HI>reports</HI> are u&s;ually &s;o &s;ophi&s;ticated with <HI>&s;elf-concerns,</HI> and &s;o &s;trongly bya&s;s'd by <HI>aver&s;ion</HI> or <HI>incli|nation,</HI> as you may daily hear in common Di&s;cour&s;e, both Men and Women turn <HI>Vertue into Vice,</HI> and <HI>Vice into Vertue;</HI> and &s;o characterize <HI>Good</HI> Women to be <HI>bad,</HI> and <HI>bad</HI> Women to be <HI>good;</HI> &s;peaking not as Women <HI>de|&s;erve,</HI>
<PB N="8" REF="5"> but as they <HI>fancy;</HI> and therefore it often happens, that many Women <HI>&s;ave their reputations,</HI> even by a &s;peedy <HI>lo&s;ing their cha&s;tity,</HI> whil&s;t other Women <HI>lo&s;e their repu|tation</HI> in their very <HI>defence of it;</HI> that is, in &s;hort, more Women lo&s;e their <HI>reputation</HI> in admitting to be <HI>much courted</HI> (though that be all) than by being <HI>ill injoyn'd:</HI> And the rea&s;on is plain, Becau&s;e the <HI>Court&s;hip</HI> is <HI>pub|lick</HI> to all, but the <HI>injoyment</HI> is only <HI>private</HI> to them|&s;elves; and 'tis more rational two <HI>concerned per&s;ons</HI> &s;hould keep their own coun&s;el, than many <HI>unconcern'd</HI> &s;hould keep it for them; &s;o that it cannot nece&s;&s;arily follow, that the <HI>roported reputation</HI> or di&s;reputation of hand&s;om Women mu&s;t needs be the <HI>true i&s;&s;ue</HI> of their <HI>merits,</HI> but often the <HI>by-blow</HI> of <HI>chance;</HI> and therefore <HI>common report</HI> can be no <HI>right rule</HI> to mea&s;ure Womens <HI>reputations</HI> by: For many reports have much of the <HI>De|vils nature</HI> in them, who is <HI>a lyar from the beginning.</HI> And indeed, if we but truly con&s;ider, we &s;hall find Women general cen&s;ure <HI>one another,</HI> not as they are <HI>really</HI> faulty, but as they <HI>appear,</HI> and are <HI>e&s;teemed hand&s;om;</HI> and therefore <HI>ugly Women</HI> have the priviledge of <HI>Popes,</HI> who <HI>cannot err,</HI> but may do <HI>what they will,</HI> and take what <HI>li|berty</HI> they plea&s;e; and <HI>hand&s;om Women</HI> will be as far from cen&s;uring their <HI>actions,</HI> as <HI>Young Men</HI> from prai&s;ing their <HI>per&s;ons:</HI> So that really in effect, we find mo&s;t Wo|mens <HI>cen&s;ures</HI> are not proportionable to the <HI>ill</HI> others <HI>act,</HI> but rather &s;uitable to the <HI>Beauty</HI> they <HI>po&s;&s;e&s;s;</HI> which by their leave is a way of <HI>judging,</HI> that's both <HI>iriational</HI> and <HI>uncharitable;</HI> &s;ince I am &s;ure none can <HI>deny,</HI> but there are &s;ome <HI>unhand&s;om Women uncha&s;t;</HI> and &s;ome <HI>cha&s;t Women hand&s;om:</HI> For <HI>Vertue</HI> and <HI>Beauty</HI> are not &s;o declar'd enemies, but they &s;ometimes meet; though I cannot deny, but that <HI>Vertue</HI> which in former Ages was e&s;teemed one of the greate&s;t <HI>adornments</HI> of the <HI>&s;oul,</HI> is now &s;o <HI>Eclip&s;ed</HI> by the outward <HI>Beauty</HI> of the Body, as <HI>Vertue</HI> and <HI>Piety</HI> (the true <HI>inward Beauty</HI>) cannot &s;hine out: A <HI>good Soul</HI> being nothing now in compari&s;on of a <HI>good face; Beauty</HI> being now the <HI>Great Empre&s;s</HI> that commands the whole World, and makes the Supreme&s;t of men become &s;ubjects to Her. And yet this &s;o <HI>ador'd
<PB N="9" REF="5"> Beauty,</HI> (which all Women are &s;o <HI>ambitious of,</HI> and all Men &s;o <HI>court</HI>) has at be&s;t no <HI>intrin&s;ick</HI> value in it, but ju&s;t like <HI>riches,</HI> they <HI>enjoy mo&s;t,</HI> that are contented <HI>with lea&s;t;</HI> &s;ince 'tis not <HI>much,</HI> but <HI>enough,</HI> that's the <HI>true mea|&s;ure</HI> of &s;atisfaction. But <HI>Madam,</HI> 'tis now more than time to beg your pardon; for I find I am &s;tray'd both beyond the <HI>time,</HI> and be&s;ide the <HI>road</HI> of my de&s;ign'd Di&s;cour&s;e, which is not to pre&s;ent you a <HI>Character,</HI> or <HI>List</HI> of the <HI>fine Ladies,</HI> and <HI>Mode-vices</HI> of the times; they will require a much <HI>wittier Pen</HI> than I pretend to be Ma&s;ter of, and a <HI>larger Volume</HI> than I de&s;ign to trou|ble you with: but this <HI>Character</HI> which indeed merits <HI>Volumes of Prai&s;es,</HI> I am &s;ure I can give <HI>you,</HI> without needing <HI>wit,</HI> or abu&s;ing of <HI>time;</HI> and if I could here ca&s;t up the &s;um total of all the <HI>vices</HI> that <HI>your Sex</HI> are eitheir <HI>guilty of,</HI> or <HI>&s;candaliz'd with,</HI> (which I'le a&s;&s;ure you are <HI>more than a few</HI>) their number might be <HI>tedious to read,</HI> but need not be <HI>di&s;agreeable for you to bear,</HI> &s;ince by nam|ing all tho&s;e faults they are <HI>infected with,</HI> I &s;hould but tell all tho&s;e you are <HI>free from.</HI></P>
<P>But, <HI>Madam,</HI> my de&s;ign is now to remove my Bat|tery, and change my Scene of Writing, as you have your place of Living; and to level my Di&s;cour&s;e, not at the <HI>vices</HI> and <HI>plea&s;ures</HI> of <HI>London,</HI> nor the <HI>pa&s;times</HI> of the <HI>Court,</HI> but at your Country-Neighbours, the Woods and Mountains of <HI>Macroome,</HI> which renders it a place much fitter to exerci&s;e <HI>your</HI> pa&s;t-time, than &s;atisfie your delight, were <HI>you</HI> of the humour of mo&s;t <HI>Ladies;</HI> but all know <HI>you</HI> are not only an <HI>excellent Woman,</HI> but an <HI>extra|ordinary wife,</HI> I mean in <HI>Goodne&s;s,</HI> (for 'tis rare now to meet a <HI>wife</HI> that's not <HI>extraordinary</HI>) for <HI>you</HI> take as much &s;ati&s;|faction in the cares of well managing and improving <HI>your</HI> E&s;tate, as mo&s;t other <HI>Ladies</HI> delight, in the lavi&s;hing <HI>theirs;</HI> &s;o that I can truly &s;ay, <HI>you</HI> have not only brought <HI>your Lord</HI> a large &s;um of <HI>money</HI> for <HI>your Portion,</HI> but a continued increa&s;e of <HI>Rent</HI> by <HI>your</HI> Indu&s;try.</P>
<P>And I am &s;ure, <HI>Madam,</HI> if you were now askt as the <HI>Philo&s;opher</HI> was, <HI>Where was his home?</HI> you would an&s;wer now, as he did then, <HI>My home is &s;till where my chief bu&s;ine&s;s is.</HI> So that now your chief Concerns and
<PB N="10" REF="6"> Family, (which is &s;till the <HI>good Wives Trea&s;ure</HI> (being at <HI>Macroome,</HI> I mu&s;t conclude <HI>your heart</HI> is there al&s;o.</P>
<P>A place, where in lieu of <HI>London,</HI> crowds of good Company, and &s;warms of diverti&s;ements, you mu&s;t pre|pare to meet with, and do Penance to your &s;elf, <HI>among the Flocks of Prie&s;ts and Fryars, again&s;t who&s;e Popi&s;h in&s;i|nuations, and infectious per&s;wa&s;ions,</HI> I here pre&s;ent you a &s;mall, but nece&s;&s;ary <HI>Collection</HI> of Arguments to carry about you, as a <HI>Pre&s;ervatitive</HI> in your own <HI>Religion,</HI> and an <HI>Antitode</HI> again&s;t <HI>theirs;</HI> and though I cannot pretend this <HI>pocket-Pi&s;tol</HI> is a &s;ufficient <HI>Battering-piece,</HI> to beat down their <HI>infallible Church,</HI> yet I doubt not but it will at lea&s;t be a &s;ufficient <HI>Life-guard</HI> to defend you and your <HI>Chamber</HI> again&s;t their <HI>a&s;&s;aults.</HI></P>
<P>They are mo&s;t of them <HI>argumentative rea&s;onings</HI> I pickt out of Mr. <HI>Chillingworth,</HI> as one that <HI>rea&s;ons be&s;t, and &s;atisfies me mo&s;t,</HI> of any I ever read; and knowing you want a Collection of choice Flowers, <HI>I heartily wi&s;h</HI> that the&s;e I have gathered out of his <HI>Garden,</HI> and here &s;orted and made up to pre&s;ent you in a <HI>No&s;egay,</HI> may &s;erve you again&s;t the <HI>unplea&s;ing &s;avour</HI> of <HI>Popi&s;h Doctrine:</HI> And I wi&s;h they may not altogether degenerate from common <HI>nature</HI> of Flowers, which the Naturali&s;t tells us, grow <HI>larger</HI> and <HI>better</HI> by being <HI>tran&s;planted;</HI> &s;o that I hope you will not find them the wor&s;e, nor like them the le&s;s, for being <HI>tran&s;planted,</HI> but receive the&s;e Argu|ments ju&s;t as you do your Rents, without caring whe|ther your <HI>Tenants</HI> have the Money out of their own <HI>bags,</HI> or borrow it, &s;o you have it to &s;upply your occa&s;ions.</P>
<P>Truly, <HI>Madam,</HI> I have taken &s;ome pains, and &s;pent much time in reading the Di&s;cour&s;es of <HI>Papi&s;ts again&s;t our Religion;</HI> and though I have con&s;ider'd their Argu|ments without the lea&s;t <HI>Byas,</HI> or <HI>antedated prejudice;</HI> yet I can give no better <HI>a character</HI> of them, than I do of ill Dealers, <HI>The more I have to do with them, the wor&s;e</HI> I <HI>like them:</HI> They &s;avour much of Self-intere&s;t, teach|ing <HI>Church-Government,</HI> before <HI>Go&s;pel-Obedience;</HI> wit|ne&s;s their holding <HI>Marriage</HI> a greater crime in a Prie&s;t, than <HI>Fornication:</HI> The one is but forbid by their <HI>Churches Law,</HI> which they all know is di&s;putable, the latter by
<PB N="11" REF="6"> the Law of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> which they cannot but know, ought to be pa&s;t all di&s;pute.</P>
<P>And truly, <HI>Madam,</HI> if you plea&s;e to admit <HI>your rea|&s;on</HI> to make but a &s;hort progre&s;s <HI>into the Popi&s;h Religion,</HI> you &s;hall find much to create <HI>your wonder,</HI> but little to <HI>&s;atisfie your rea&s;on or belief;</HI> for the Go&s;pel of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> is the Go&s;pel of Truth, and therefore ought &s;till to be pictur'd naked as <HI>Truth,</HI> without any Art of <HI>Roman</HI> Dre&s;&s;es, which are only ob&s;cure &s;hadings of the true light of <HI>Scripture,</HI> by making dark <HI>Paraphra&s;es</HI> on the plaine&s;t <HI>Go&s;pel-Commands,</HI> which in all rea&s;on ought to be plain enough for the meane&s;t <HI>capacity:</HI> For <HI>God</HI> forbid it &s;hould be otherwi&s;e; for the meane&s;t <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> mu&s;t be <HI>&s;aved</HI> or <HI>damned,</HI> for keeping or not keeping them; and &s;ure <HI>God's</HI> Ju&s;tice will never &s;end per&s;ons t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> Hell, for not do|ing what they could not under&s;tand was his Will they &s;hould do; that were &s;uch a cruelty, as if a man &s;hould torment his Servant for not doing his Errant, when he knew he did not under&s;tand his Me&s;&s;age; yet the <HI>Papi&s;t</HI> mu&s;t not take the&s;e plain <HI>Go&s;pel-Commands</HI> as &s;uch, but as they are di&s;till'd in the my&s;terious <HI>politick Lymbeck</HI> of the <HI>Popi&s;h intere&s;t:</HI> Indeed <HI>My&s;tery</HI> and <HI>Obedience</HI> is &s;o in|terwoven in that Religion, that <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> mu&s;t take what their Prie&s;t tells them, as Men do Wives, for better, for wor&s;e, and mu&s;t marry their <HI>Faith</HI> to their Churches <HI>infallibility,</HI> which allows that only to be <HI>Go&s;pel,</HI> which their Church &s;ays &s;hall be, not what the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> write is &s;o; for the Papi&s;ts mu&s;t obey the Pope, though no where commanded in the Go&s;pel; but mu&s;t not read the Go&s;pel, though they are commanded there to do it.</P>
<P>Nay, when once the Papi&s;t can but touch the &s;mall Needle of any ones rea&s;on with the great Load&s;tone of the Harmonious Doctrine of <HI>a nece&s;&s;ary Obedience</HI> to their infallible Church, then they make &s;uch follow it, to eve|ry point of the Compa&s;s, be it good, bad, or indifferent; and &s;o they &s;ail all their life, in a Trade-wind of <HI>ignorance and &s;uper&s;tition,</HI> and mu&s;t believe their Prie&s;ts words before their own &s;en&s;es, in the plaine&s;t objects of them; as in the Miracle of <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation,</HI> where you mu&s;t have eyes and &s;ee not, and hands and feel not, but mu&s;t
<PB N="12" REF="7"> believe in a moment <HI>real Bread and Wine</HI> to be turned into <HI>perfect Fle&s;h and Blood,</HI> though you cannot &s;ee the lea&s;t <HI>change</HI> what&s;oever: yet they are bound to believe their <HI>Prie&s;t,</HI> before their <HI>eyes, &s;mell, ta&s;t;</HI> nor dare their Prie&s;t &s;ay, that the <HI>Con&s;ecrated Bread</HI> (which they e&s;teem the real Body of Chri&s;t) will be le&s;s <HI>mouldy,</HI> or more uncertain of <HI>corruption</HI> after <HI>Con&s;ecration</HI> than before; and the je&s;t of it is, that at the &s;ame time the Papi&s;ts believe that Miracle, they al&s;o believe this Scripture, <HI>That God will not &s;uffer his Holy One to &s;ee corruption.</HI> And tho for the&s;e and many other rea&s;ons, I cannot believe this <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation-Miracle;</HI> yet I cannot but ad|mire this <HI>Miracle</HI> that belongs to <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation,</HI> which is, how the Pope can bring &s;o many, that have &s;en&s;e and rea&s;on to believe it.</P>
<P>But I &s;hall pa&s;s by their <HI>adoring</HI> this <HI>Sacrament,</HI> their <HI>praying</HI> to <HI>Saints,</HI> and a multitude of their <HI>&s;uper&s;titious ob&s;ervances</HI> never u&s;ed in the <HI>Primative Church;</HI> &amp; &s;hall only de&s;ire you, <HI>Madam,</HI> to ob&s;erve in general, that the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> follow the Go&s;pel, ju&s;t as they read <HI>Hebrew,</HI> that's back ward; for God plainly commands, that <HI>all &s;hould &s;earch the Scripture.</HI> And our Ble&s;&s;ed Saviour ordered the <HI>Sacrament</HI> to be admini&s;tred in <HI>both kinds,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.28. And St. <HI>Paul</HI> forbids publick Prayers in an <HI>unknown Lan|guage,</HI> but that which is mo&s;t for <HI>Edification,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.15, 16. But the&s;e plain po&s;itive commands do not hin|der the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> from declaring, <HI>that unlearned men &s;hall not read and &s;earch the Scriptures;</HI> but if we believe St. <HI>Paul</HI> before the <HI>Pope,</HI> we may read in the 17th of the <HI>Acts,</HI> 11. how he commended the noble <HI>Be|reans</HI> for &s;earching the Scriptures; and therefore if <HI>&s;ear|ching the Scriptures</HI> had not been not only lawful, but a commendable act, certainly St. <HI>Paul</HI> would never have commended them for &s;o doing. So that the <HI>Popi&s;h Cler|gy</HI> forbids the reading the Scriptures, under pretence that their Laity might not truly under&s;tand them. Next, the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> allows only their Clergy (except free Princes, for they are excepters of Per&s;ons, though God is not) to receive the Communion but in <HI>one kind,</HI> tho our Saviour commands, <HI>that all drink of the Cup;</HI> and
<PB N="13" REF="7"> the Papi&s;ts cannot deny, but that the Communion was taken in <HI>both kinds</HI> in all Chri&s;tian Churches for a|bove a Thou&s;and Years after Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>And la&s;tly, for the poor vulgar &s;ort, they &s;hall only hear their publick Prayers in an <HI>unknown Tongue,</HI> viz. <HI>La|tine,</HI> which a Tenth part of them do not under&s;tand; and therefore how that can be mo&s;t for Edification, let the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> tell if they can; I am &s;ure we cannot, nor do we believe they can, without the help of another <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation-Miracle,</HI> and making an <HI>unknown Language</HI> to mo&s;t to be chang'd at the &s;ame time into a common <HI>known Language</HI> to all.</P>
<P>And now, <HI>Madam,</HI> I &s;hall humbly de&s;ire you to con|&s;ider in general, that tho the <HI>Papi&s;ts do out-noi&s;e us</HI> (as &s;hallow Rivers do &s;till the deepe&s;t) with the high and mighty <HI>Rodomontades</HI> of their <HI>Churches Infallibility;</HI> yet &s;uch high Rants, without true proof, are but like School|boys paper-Kites, which &s;oar high and lofty, but have nothing el&s;e worth taking notice of. They will have the confidence to tell you, that their Popi&s;h Church is the <HI>Roman</HI> Catholick, and only true Chri&s;tian Church in the whole World: But the <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> An&s;wer to this their boa&s;ting, is, that all the Chri&s;tian Churches in the whole World (be&s;ides the Popi&s;h Churches, tho more in number than they) declare quite contrary. They will ask you, <HI>where your Prote&s;tant Church was be|fore</HI> Luther; which was wittily an&s;wered by one; <HI>(where the Papi&s;t Church never was)</HI> in the Bible.</P>
<P>The Papi&s;ts do divert them&s;elves very much at our &s;tiling our King, <HI>Head of the Church,</HI> as we do, for their doing &s;o: for we e&s;teem our King Head only in his own Dominions, without the Popes title of infallible; and &s;ure 'tis more rational that tho&s;e of a Kingdom &s;hould allow their King to be <HI>Head of the Church</HI> in his own Kingdoms, than that a few Cardinals &s;hould make the <HI>Head of the Church</HI> over all Kingdoms. And for all their jea&s;ting, I am &s;ure we can &s;hew (in &s;ober ear|ne&s;t) Scripture-pre&s;idents for Kings being Heads of Churches in their own Dominions, which is more than the Papi&s;ts can &s;hew for their Pope, or his Churches
<PB N="14" REF="8"> <HI>infallibility:</HI> For &s;ure they cannot object again&s;t it as new Doctrine (though Doctrine that's new is their greate&s;t Trade) that the Kings of <HI>Judah,</HI> and the fir&s;t Chri&s;tian Emperors were Heads of the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Churches, and in their own Dominions: And <HI>Solomon</HI> tells us, <HI>That a Divine Sentence is in the lips of the King, and his mouth tran&s;gre&s;&s;eth not in Judgment:</HI> (which I am &s;ure Popes have not, witne&s;s <HI>Liberius</HI>) and <HI>Solomon</HI> gives the rea|&s;on, becau&s;e the Heart of the King is in the Hand of the Lord. If the Papi&s;ts will pretend &s;o much Scripture for their Pope, I &s;hall only an&s;wer, 'Tis more than ever Prote&s;tants read, or the Apo&s;tles writ.</P>
<P>The Papi&s;ts will tell you with a great deal of confi|dence, though we &s;ay the Bible is the Religion of Pro|te&s;tants, yet there is no Prote&s;tant Religion, or Church, mentioned in the whole Creed, which are the Articles of the Chri&s;tian Faith: And they will tell you, that their Church is the Catholick Church; and to believe the Ca|tholick Church, was an Article of the Chri&s;tian Faith from the <HI>very infancy</HI> of the Church in the beginning of the Apo&s;tles time. Now let the Papi&s;ts tell us, if they bring this as an Argument again&s;t the Prote&s;tant Reli|gion in the Bible, or not; if not, what cau&s;e have they to name it, or what need have we to an&s;wer it? but if it be one, we make this reply; <HI>That the Roman Church is no more named in the Apo&s;tles Creed, than the Prote&s;tant Church is; for the Apo&s;tles Creed was made before the Roman Church was a Church;</HI> and this I am &s;ure they cannot deny; &s;o that &s;ince the Catholick Church wa<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> then in being, and the <HI>Roman</HI> Church <HI>not</HI> in being, it mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily follow, that the <HI>Roman</HI> Church cannot be the <HI>Catholick</HI> Church mentioned in the <HI>Apo&s;tles Creed</HI> and con&s;equently is not the <HI>Mother-Church,</HI> as the Papi&s;t<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> would have her to be: Thus the Papi&s;ts have &s;o over|charg'd this Argument to &s;hoot at us, as it recoils and flyes in their <HI>own faces.</HI></P>
<P>And of kin to this, is their grand <HI>Battering-piece</HI> of all, which &s;o <HI>thunders</HI> in the ears of all <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> and makes the <HI>Popes power</HI> &s;o ab&s;olute, and the <HI>poor credu|lous Papi&s;t</HI> &s;o obedient, and that is the power given by
<PB N="15" REF="8"> our Saviour to St. <HI>Peter,</HI> in the 16th of St. <HI>Matthew,</HI> be|ginning the 18th Ver&s;e, <HI>Thou art</HI> Peter, <HI>and on this Rock I will build my Church, and give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and whom&s;oever thou &s;halt bind on Earth, &s;hall be bound in Heaven; and whom&s;oever thou &s;halt loo&s;e on Earth, &s;hall be loo&s;ed in Heaven;</HI> and the&s;e words the Papi&s;ts under&s;tand literally, that St. <HI>Peter</HI>'s per&s;on is the Rock that <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> builds his Church on; which cannot po&s;&s;ibly be, by the <HI>ver&s;es</HI> ju&s;t following: For there when our Saviour tells his Di&s;ciples <HI>of his going to</HI> Jeru&s;alem, <HI>where he mu&s;t &s;uffer many things, and be killed, and rai&s;ed again the Third day;</HI> Peter <HI>took him, and rebuke him, Be it far from thee, Lord, this &s;hall not be unto thee:</HI> But our Saviour turned, and &s;aid unto <HI>Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence to me, for thou &s;avoure&s;t not the things that he of God, but tho&s;e that be of men.</HI> By which words 'tis mo&s;t clear and evident, that our Saviour did not mean <HI>Peters</HI> per|&s;on could be the Rock of the Chri&s;tian Church: For if <HI>Peter</HI>'s per&s;on had been that Rock meant, &s;ure our Sa|viour would never have removed it behind him; and it would be not only irrational, but impious, to believe that Chri&s;t would build his Church on Satan, for &s;o he calls St. <HI>Peter</HI>'s per&s;on; and it were as unrea&s;onable to believe that the Rock of Chri&s;t's Church could be an offence to him, as St. <HI>Peter's</HI> per&s;on was; and as im|probable again as all this, that Chri&s;t's Church, the Foundation of all Chri&s;tianity, &s;hould &s;avour, not of the things that be of God, but tho&s;e that are of Men, as <HI>Peter</HI>'s per&s;on did.</P>
<P>Therefore if you but plea&s;e to read the words of our Saviour carefully, you &s;hall find they are mo&s;t plain: for Ver&s;e 13th. <HI>When Je&s;us came into the Coa&s;t of</HI> Cae&s;a|rea, <HI>He ask'd his Di&s;ciples, Whom do men &s;ay that I am? and they &s;aid, Some &s;ay that thou art</HI> John <HI>the Bapti&s;t, &s;ome</HI> Elias, <HI>and others</HI> Jeremias, <HI>or one of the Prophets: but whom &s;ay ye that I am? and</HI> Simon Peter <HI>an&s;wered and &s;aid, Thou art Chri&s;t-the Son of the Living God: And I &s;ay al&s;o unto thee, that thou art</HI> Peter, <HI>and upon this Rock,</HI> (not this per&s;on) <HI>I will build my Church; that is</HI> (up|on
<PB N="16" REF="9"> this Rock of Faith) <HI>that I am Chri&s;t the Son of the Living God, I build my Church, and the Gates of Hell &s;hall not prevail again&s;t it.</HI> Now this mu&s;t <HI>nece&s;&s;a|rily</HI> relate to his <HI>faith,</HI> not his <HI>per&s;on;</HI> for the <HI>gates of Hell,</HI> that's the <HI>power of evil,</HI> did prevail again&s;t <HI>Peter</HI>'s per&s;on, or he had not <HI>deny'd</HI> and <HI>for&s;worn</HI> his Lord and Ma&s;ter again and again; and been afterwards proved <HI>blame-worthy</HI> by St. <HI>Paul</HI> to his <HI>face,</HI> and indeed as <HI>blame-worthy</HI> as any of his <HI>Di&s;ciples.</HI> So that 'tis mo&s;t plain, that <HI>Chri&s;t</HI>'s words (of making him the <HI>Rock</HI> of the <HI>Chri&s;tian Church</HI>) related not to his <HI>per&s;on,</HI> but his <HI>faith</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI>'s being the <HI>Son of the Living God.</HI></P>
<P>And for the other part; whereas the Papi&s;ts believe a particular <HI>favour</HI> and <HI>power,</HI> given by our Saviour to St. <HI>Peter;</HI> of the Keys of Heaven; that was given as much to the Eleven Di&s;ciples, as to him, as you may read in the 18th of St. <HI>Matthew,</HI> and in the 20th of St. <HI>John</HI>'s Go&s;pel, Ver&s;. 23, 24. <HI>As my Father hath &s;ent me, even &s;o &s;end I you: and when he had &s;aid this, he breathed on them, and &s;aith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Gho&s;t: who&s;e&s;oever &s;ins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and who&s;e&s;oever &s;ins ye retain, they are retained.</HI> So that you &s;ee this power is general to the Di&s;ciples, and not in particular to St. <HI>Peter,</HI> more than to <HI>any</HI> of the re&s;t, as the Papi&s;ts misbelieve.</P>
<P>The Papi&s;ts have many &s;uch Que&s;tions, which I am &s;ure, <HI>Madam,</HI> you have neither the patience to read, nor I the time to write; but tho&s;e that are mo&s;t <HI>material</HI> of them, <HI>you</HI> will find I have here pre&s;ented <HI>you,</HI> truly an&s;wer'd, by pure <HI>Scripture,</HI> clear <HI>rea&s;ons,</HI> plain <HI>arguments,</HI> and all in few words, fit for the weake&s;t memory, or &s;mall|e&s;t pocket, to carry about them: For true <HI>rea&s;on</HI> doth not con&s;i&s;t in large <HI>Volumes,</HI> long <HI>Gowns,</HI> or gray <HI>Beards;</HI> for many live to One and twenty, without attaining to years of di&s;cretion; the degrees of Age being not &s;till the mea&s;ures of Wi&s;dom: For the World will never be without old Fools and young Philo&s;ophers.</P>
<P>And truly, <HI>Madam,</HI> for my part, I cannot &s;o much as think of the Papi&s;ts Religion without wonder, that &s;o many rational men of them &s;hould rather fa&s;ten their
<PB N="17" REF="9"> faith of <HI>&s;alvation</HI> on the pretended <HI>infallibility</HI> of their Church (which is deny'd by mo&s;t Chri&s;tians) than on the <HI>Holy Scripture,</HI> which is granted by all, to be the <HI>will</HI> and <HI>word</HI> of <HI>God,</HI> and the <HI>very</HI> Foundation of their Churches Foundation, as containing in it all things ne|ce&s;&s;ary to our &s;alvation. And we Prote&s;tants have at lea&s;t this &s;atisfaction and advantage, that not only the Papi&s;ts, but all &s;orts of Chri&s;tians that are in the circum|ference of the whole World, meet and joyn with us in this center of Faith, <HI>That the Scriptures contain all things nece&s;&s;ary to our &s;alvation;</HI> which being a general grant|ed Truth, I confe&s;s I admire how any Papi&s;t can make the lea&s;t &s;cruple, which is the &s;afe&s;t Heavenly Guide, the <HI>Pope,</HI> or the <HI>Go&s;pel.</HI> If there be any rational man &s;o <HI>ex|travagant</HI> as to put them in the &s;ame <HI>ballance,</HI> and to commit a <HI>rape</HI> upon his <HI>Rea&s;on,</HI> I &s;hall only de&s;ire him to con&s;ider this plain Que&s;tion. If he were to go a Jour|ney in an unknown way, would he not think it more rational and &s;afe to follow a certain true Guide, that all the Chri&s;tians in the World declare is certainly able and ready to &s;hew him the right way, than to follow a pre|tended Guide, which the greate&s;t part of the Chri&s;tians in the World a&s;&s;ures him will lead him out of it. And this being the real difference between the Papi&s;t and Prote&s;tant in gro&s;s, concerning the Heavenly Guide, the Bible, and the Pope, I think I need now &s;ay no more, becau&s;e &s;o many have already &s;aid &s;o much, and I am &s;ure enough to &s;atisfie any, except &s;uch, who will believe a crooked Rule is better to draw a &s;traight line by, than a right one.</P>
<P>And now, <HI>Madam,</HI> I &s;hall only beg &s;o much of your patience, as to let me tell you, that the plot and Heads of this following di&s;cour&s;e, I have Extracted out of the worthy <HI>Collingworth.</HI> Before I begin the di&s;cour&s;e it &s;elf, I know, in writing a Play, to have Rank'd the plot in the Front of it, and to make the whole de&s;ign of the Prologue to be the Key to uncipher the plot of the Play, (though anciently in u&s;e) had been now, not only out of fa&s;hion, but be&s;ide rea&s;on: For the de&s;ign of Plays aiming chiefly to plea&s;e the &s;en&s;es, they ought
<PB N="18" REF="10"> to be compounded and mixt with hopes and fears, cer|tainties and uncertainties, expectations and delays of the event of the plot; which being all &s;o interwoven together, creates the agreeablene&s;s of the Play; for when once the whole plot is di&s;covered, the plea&s;ure of the Play is ended; like Hare-Hunting, the &s;port lies not in pre&s;ently taking the Hare, but in following him, in all his Rings and Doubles. And tho&s;e that love Plays, and &s;uch Huntings, re&s;emble jealous men, who eagerly pur&s;ue what they apprehend to overtake; or as old Age, which we all pray to attain, but fear to approach.</P>
<P>But now I come to &s;oar my di&s;cour&s;e to a much higher pitch, and a more Elevated Subject, and to treat of the mo&s;t noble part of man, the Soul; and of true Religion the only way to Heavenly felicity: For <HI>without Holi|ne&s;s, no man &s;hall &s;ee the Lord.</HI> We mu&s;t therefore now, <HI>Madam,</HI> change the Scene of &s;en&s;e for a &s;piritual 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 di&s;covering our plot of attain|ing Heaven, will but better the play; and the more &s;peed, the better &s;ucce&s;s: For the joys of Heaven are everla&s;ting, and admit of no increa&s;e or diminution: not like the diverti&s;ements of Stage-plays, or Hunting, or any earthly delights, which cannot la&s;t but for a &s;ea|&s;on, and decay in our very injoying them, and mu&s;t &s;oon leave us, or we them: But Heavenly thoughts, the more and longer we practice them, the better we &s;hall like them; Heavenly joys &s;o far exceeding all we can here leave, as they are all we can ever a&s;pire to have: This we all know, but few of us practice; and we all love God, but few love to keep his Commandments.</P>
<P>I &s;hall therefore now, <HI>Madam,</HI> tell you, as the Pro|logue to my in&s;uing di&s;cour&s;e, that the grand Plot, and whole de&s;ign of it, moves chiefly on the&s;e two hinges. Fir&s;t, in confirming you, that the foundation of the Prote&s;tant Religion is built on <HI>God</HI>'s holy Word, the Scriptures; which we Prote&s;tants e&s;teem to be a per|fect Rule of Faith, and guide to our actions, and true Touch-&s;tone to try all matters by, that relate to the
<PB N="19" REF="10"> good of our Souls; as certainly containing in it all <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">hings nece&s;&s;ary to our &s;alvation. The &s;econd thing I chiefly de&s;ign to prove, is, that neither the Pope or the Popi&s;h Church are infallible: and the&s;e two &s;hall make up the principle &s;tories, in the little Model of this &s;mall <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">uilding. The pretended infallibility of the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> is the grand per&s;wa&s;ive Argument and lure to in|<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">ite men to it, and the &s;tronge&s;t commanding Garri&s;on <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">n all the Popes power; and all other Arguments and Per&s;wa&s;ions, are but like the &s;mall open Villages about <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">his Garri&s;on, which mu&s;t be &s;ervants to them, that are ma&s;ters of it; and if a Papi&s;t can be but once convinc'd, <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">hat neither the Pope, nor the Popi&s;h Church are in|<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">allible, they will &s;oon be brought to rea&s;on, and our re|maining differences will not be very con&s;iderable: I <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">hall therefore only lightly di&s;cour&s;e on them, and &s;hall <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">o further trouble you, <HI>Madam,</HI> than briefly to an&s;wer <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">hem in my own defence, as I meet them, or as they <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">ollow me; and &s;hall only do as the <HI>Wolf</HI> does when <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">ur&s;ued, &s;nap and bite in his own defence, again&s;t all <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">ppo&s;ers, without altering his pace, or changing his <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">oad: I &s;hall neither meddle with the Papi&s;ts, but as <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> meet them in the way, or towards making of my way <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">o my two de&s;igned points, which are (as I &s;aid before) <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">o prove the <HI>Scripture</HI> to be a perfect Rule of <HI>Faith,</HI> and <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">uide</HI> to our <HI>actions;</HI> and to an&s;wer, as I go, the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> main Arguments and Objections again&s;t it.</P>
<P>Next, that 'tis again&s;t all <HI>Scripture,</HI> and <HI>Rea&s;on,</HI> that ei|<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">her the Pope, or the Popi&s;h Church &s;hould be <HI>infallible;</HI> which is the main de&s;ign of this di&s;cour&s;e: and if I can by <HI>God</HI>'s a&s;&s;i&s;tance make but the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> believe <HI>rea&s;on,</HI> (when <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">gain&s;t their own <HI>Church,</HI>) I doubt not but by this little Pigmie-di&s;cour&s;e (as very dwarfi&s;h as 'tis,) not only to hinder many tottering <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> from turning <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">ut to bring &s;ome &s;tubborn <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> to turn <HI>Prote&s;tants,</HI> or <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">t lea&s;t not to have &s;uch an <HI>infallible good</HI> opinion of their Church, and &s;o <HI>damnable a bad</HI> one of ours.</P>
<P>And now, <HI>Madam,</HI> 'tis requi&s;ite that this my di&s;cour&s;e <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">hould be ended, as &s;oon as your Patience; and therefore <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">ll that I &s;hall add, either to the excu&s;ing my &s;elf, or ju&s;ti|fying
<PB N="20" REF="11"> Mr. <HI>Chillingworth,</HI> is, that thus far of this di&s;cour&s;e being my own writing, I confe&s;s, de&s;erves only my Apo|logy, and &s;carce your <HI>peru&s;al;</HI> but the following di&s;|cour&s;e being extracted out of Mr. <HI>Chillingworth,</HI> de|&s;erves your reading, but needs not any Apology.</P>
<P>And becau&s;e I find the word <HI>Prote&s;tant</HI> is &s;o badly and over-largely <HI>interpreted;</HI> I &s;hall fir&s;t acquaint you, that w<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> are not to under&s;tand by the word <HI>Prote&s;tant,</HI> the Doctrin<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> of <HI>Luther,</HI> or <HI>Calvin,</HI> or <HI>Geneva,</HI> or only the Articles o<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> the Church of <HI>England,</HI> but that wherein they all agre<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> with perfect Harmony, That the <HI>Bible</HI> is a perfect Rul<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> of our Faith, and guide to our Actions; and this (afte<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> having made the mo&s;t diligent and impartial &s;earch of th<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> true way to Eternal happine&s;s) I fully believe, and tha<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> we can never find any convincing &s;atisfaction, but on thi<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> Rock of <HI>God</HI>'s word, the <HI>Bible,</HI> which I conceive to b<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> the only true Religion of Prote&s;tants.</P>
<P>If the <HI>Pope</HI> were indeed (what he unju&s;tly &s;ays he is and the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> unrea&s;onably believe him to be,) an infal|lible guide, then there needed no <HI>Bible;</HI> but if the <HI>Bible</HI> be then there needs no <HI>Pope:</HI> For if I were to go a Journey, an<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> had a guide that could not err, what need I be taught th<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> way? and having &s;uch a guide, what need I apply m<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> &s;elf to another? So that, in a word, let us inform ou<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> &s;elves the be&s;t we can, and con&s;ider as much as we plea&s;e the more con&s;ideration we take, the more confirmati|on we &s;hall find, that there is no other foundation fo<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> a con&s;idering Chri&s;tian to build an a&s;&s;ured dependency on<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> than the <HI>Scriptures:</HI> For I am fully a&s;&s;ur'd that <HI>God</HI> doe not (and therefore man ought not to) require of an<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> more than this, to believe the <HI>Scripture</HI> to be the <HI>word o<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> God,</HI> to u&s;e our be&s;t indeavours to find the true &s;en&s;e of it, and to live to our utmo&s;t according to it.</P>
<P>This I am &s;ure in rea&s;on we ought to believe; a wi|&s;er choice than if I &s;hould guide my &s;elf by the <HI>Roman Churches Authority,</HI> and <HI>Infallibility;</HI> when really they have nothing of certainty, but their uncertainty; witne&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> Pope again&s;t Pope, Councils again&s;t Councils, &s;ome of their Fathers again&s;t others; and rather then fail, &s;ome again&s;t them&s;elves&punc; new Traditions inrolled, and old ones
<PB N="21" REF="11"> Ca&s;hiered; in a word, one Church again&s;t another, and (if <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">hat be not enough) the Church of one Age, again&s;t the Church of another: whereas the <HI>Scripture</HI> being true and unalterable, and containing all things nece&s;&s;ary to our Sal|vation; I am &s;ecure, that by believing nothing el&s;e, I &s;hall believe no fal&s;hood in matter of Faith; and if I mi&s;take the <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">rue &s;en&s;e of <HI>Scripture,</HI> and &s;o fall into error; yet I am &s;ecured <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">rom any dangerous error, becau&s;e whil&s;t I am truly endea|<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">ouring to find the true ground of <HI>Scripture,</HI> I cannot but <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">old my error without ob&s;tinacy, and be ready to for&s;ake <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">t, when more probable and true &s;en&s;e &s;hall appear unto me: and then being a&s;&s;ur'd, that all nece&s;&s;ary truths are plainly <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">et down in <HI>Scripture,</HI> I am certain by believing the <HI>Scripture,</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">o believe all nece&s;&s;ary <HI>truth:</HI> and he that does &s;o, if his <HI>life</HI> be <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">n&s;werable to his <HI>Faith,</HI> how is it po&s;&s;ible he &s;hould fail of <HI>Salvation?</HI></P>
<P>And tho the <HI>Roman Church</HI> pretend to be a perfect guide of <HI>Faith,</HI> and teacher of all <HI>Divine Truths;</HI> yet &s;ure that <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">itle might much better, and more ju&s;tly be given to the <HI>Scirptures,</HI> as their Teacher and Ma&s;ter.</P>
<P>The <HI>Roman Church</HI> brags how ancient their Church is; but doubtle&s;s they cannot deny but the <HI>Scripture</HI> is more ancient, <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">f they will but allow the <HI>Mother</HI> to be older than the <HI>Child.</HI></P>
<P>The <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> &s;ay their Church is a means of keeping Chri|&s;tians at unity, &s;o are al&s;o the <HI>Scriptures,</HI> to tho&s;e that be+<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">ieve them in unity of belief, in matters nece&s;&s;ary.</P>
<P>The <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> &s;ay their Church is <HI>Catholick:</HI> certainly the <HI>Scripture</HI> is more <HI>Catholick;</HI> for all true Chri&s;tians in the uni|ver&s;al world do now, and ever did believe the <HI>Scriptures</HI> to be the Word of <HI>God,</HI> &s;o much at lea&s;t, as to contain all things nece&s;&s;ary to <HI>&s;alvation;</HI> whereas the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> &s;ay, They only are the true Church; and all other Chri&s;tians (tho more than they) give them the lye for &s;aying &s;o.</P>
<P>By following the <HI>Scriptures,</HI> I follow that whereby the <HI>Pa|pi&s;ts</HI> prove their Churches <HI>Infallibility:</HI> For were it not for <HI>Scripture,</HI> what pretence could the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> have for it, or what true Notion could they receive of it? So that by &s;o dong, the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> mu&s;t plainly confe&s;s, That they them&s;elves are &s;urer of the Truth of <HI>Scripture,</HI> than of their <HI>Churches Authority;</HI> for we mu&s;t be &s;urer of the proof, than of the thing proved,
<PB N="22" REF="12"> or el&s;e 'tis no proof. So that following <HI>Scripture,</HI> I fol|low that which mu&s;t be true, if the <HI>Papi&s;ts Church</HI> be true; for their Church allows it's truth: Where|as if I follow the <HI>Roman</HI> Church, I mu&s;t follow that, which tho the <HI>Scripture</HI> be true, may be fal&s;e, nay more, mu&s;t be fal&s;e, if the <HI>Scripture</HI> be true, becau&s;e the <HI>Scipture</HI> is again&s;t it. Fol|lowing the <HI>Papi&s;ts Church,</HI> I mu&s;t be a <HI>&s;ervant</HI> to <HI>my Saviour,</HI> and a <HI>&s;ubject</HI> to <HI>my King,</HI> only at the <HI>plea&s;ure</HI> of the <HI>Pope;</HI> and renounce <HI>my Allegiance,</HI> when the <HI>Popes</HI> will is to declare him an <HI>Heretick;</HI> nay, I mu&s;t believe <HI>Vertue Vice,</HI> and <HI>Vice Vertue,</HI> if he plea&s;es; for he both makes and unmakes <HI>Scrip|ture</HI> as he thinks <HI>convenient;</HI> witne&s;s the <HI>Apocripha,</HI> which hath not pa&s;t for <HI>Canonical,</HI> but of late years, in the <HI>Papi&s;t<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"></HI> Church, who interpret <HI>Scripture</HI> according to their <HI>Doctrine,</HI> but will not judge their <HI>Doctrine</HI> according to <HI>Scripture;</HI> for none like to weigh light <HI>Mony</HI> in true <HI>&s;cales.</HI> In &s;hort, the <HI>Pope</HI> adds, and le&s;&s;en, and interprets <HI>Divine Laws</HI> as he plea&s;es; and they mu&s;t &s;tand for <HI>Laws,</HI> and be obeyed as <HI>&s;uch;</HI> &s;o that in <HI>effect</HI> he rules his <HI>people</HI> by his own <HI>Laws,</HI> and his own <HI>Laws</HI> by his own <HI>Lawyers,</HI> his <HI>Clergy,</HI> who dare not &s;peak nor uphold <HI>them,</HI> other than ju&s;t &s;uch as the <HI>Pope</HI> would have <HI>them;</HI> and indeed Cardinal <HI>Riche|lieu</HI> gave the <HI>rea&s;on</HI> why more hold the <HI>Pope</HI> above the <HI>Councils,</HI> than the <HI>Councils</HI> above the <HI>Pope; Becau&s;e the</HI> Pope <HI>gave Archbi&s;hopricks and Bi&s;hopricks, but the</HI> Councils <HI>had none to give:</HI> And tho the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> &s;ay, his <HI>Holine&s;s</HI> cannot err, yet let not the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> forget what <HI>God</HI> &s;ays in the <HI>Scripture, if</HI> (not only the Pope, but if) <HI>angel from Heaven &s;hall preach any thing again&s;t the</HI> Go&s;pel of Chri&s;t, <HI>let him be accur&s;ed.</HI></P>
<P>In following the <HI>Scripture</HI> we have <HI>God's</HI> expre&s;s com|mand, and no colour of any prohibition: but to believe the <HI>Papi&s;h Church infallible,</HI> we have no <HI>Scripture-command</HI> at all, much le&s;s an expre&s;s one.</P>
<P>Following the <HI>Popi&s;h Church,</HI> we mu&s;t believe many <HI>things</HI> not only above <HI>rea&s;on,</HI> but again&s;t <HI>rea&s;on,</HI> witne&s;s <HI>Tran&s;ub|&s;tantiation;</HI> whereas following the <HI>Scripture,</HI> we &s;hall believe Many <HI>mysteries,</HI> but no <HI>impo&s;&s;ibilities;</HI> many things above our <HI>rea&s;on,</HI> but nothing again&s;t it. Nay, we need not be|lieve any thing, which <HI>rea&s;on</HI> will not convince us we ought to believe&punc; for <HI>rea&s;on</HI> will convince any &s;ober <HI>Chri&s;tian,</HI> that
<PB N="23" REF="12"> the <HI>Scripture</HI> is the Word of <HI>God;</HI> and there's no <HI>rea&s;on</HI> can be greater than this, <HI>That God &s;ays it, therefore it mu&s;t be true.</HI></P>
<P>In a word, we <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> believe that all things nece&s;&s;ary to our <HI>&s;alvation</HI> are evidently contain'd in <HI>Scripture,</HI> &amp; what is not there <HI>evidently</HI> contained, cannot be nece&s;&s;ary to be <HI>believed;</HI> and our <HI>rea&s;on</HI> is ju&s;t and clear, Becau&s;e nothing can challenge our <HI>Belief,</HI> as to <HI>&s;alvation,</HI> but what hath de&s;|cended to us from our Ble&s;&s;ed Saviour <HI>Chri&s;t Je&s;us,</HI> by ori|ginal and univer&s;al <HI>Tradition.</HI> Now nothing but <HI>Scripture</HI> hath thus de&s;cended to us, therefore nothing but <HI>Scripture</HI> can challenge our <HI>Belief.</HI></P>
<P>Now the grand difference between the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> and us, concerning the <HI>Scripture,</HI> is this: We hold the <HI>Scripture</HI> to be the only <HI>perfect rule</HI> whereby to judge of <HI>controver&s;ies.</HI> The <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> &s;ay, That they acknowledge the <HI>Scuriptures</HI> to be a <HI>perfect rule:</HI> only they deny that it excludes unwritten <HI>Tradition;</HI> which in effect is this: they &s;ay, <HI>'Tis as perfect a Rule, as a Writing can be,</HI> only they deny it to <HI>be as perfect a Rule as a Writing may be.</HI> Either they mu&s;t revoke their <HI>acknowledgment,</HI> or retract their <HI>contradiction</HI> of it, for both cannot po&s;&s;ibly &s;tand together: For if they will but &s;tand to what they have granted, <HI>That</HI> Scripture <HI>is as perfect a Rule of Faith as a Writing can be,</HI> they mu&s;t then grant it &s;o <HI>compleat,</HI> as it needs no <HI>addition;</HI> and &s;o <HI>evident</HI> that it needs no <HI>interpretation:</HI> for both the&s;e <HI>properties</HI> are requi&s;ite to a <HI>perfect Rule.</HI> And that a <HI>writing</HI> is capable of both the&s;e pro|perties and perfections, is mo&s;t plain: for he that denies it, mu&s;t &s;ay, <HI>that &s;omething may be &s;poken which cannot be writ|ten;</HI> for if &s;uch a compleat <HI>evident rule of Faith</HI> may be delivered by word of mouth, as the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> pretend may, &amp; is, <HI>and what&s;oever is delivered by word of mouth, may al&s;o be written;</HI> then &s;uch a compleat and evident <HI>rule of Faith,</HI> may al&s;o be written: For the <HI>Argument</HI> is mo&s;t plain, <HI>What&s;oever may be &s;poken may be written;</HI> a perfect <HI>rule of Faith</HI> has been &s;poken, therefore a perfect <HI>rule of Faith</HI> may be written. If the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> cannot &s;ee this plain Conclu|&s;ion, they had be&s;t de&s;ire more light to be added to the <HI>Sun.</HI></P>
<P>The <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> pretend their <HI>Church</HI> to be the <HI>infallible teach|er</HI> of all <HI>Divine Truths,</HI> and an <HI>infallible Interpreter</HI> of all <HI>ob&s;curities</HI> in the <HI>Faith:</HI> But the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> will, I hope give us
<PB N="24" REF="13"> 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 be|lief that 'tis to be done.</P>
<P>And for the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> &s;aying there mu&s;t be a living authority be&s;ide the <HI>Scripture,</HI> or el&s;e controver&s;ies cannot be ended; <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> an&s;wer: Nece&s;&s;ary controver&s;ies are and may be decided; and if they be not, 'tis not the defect of the rule in <HI>Scripture,</HI> but the default of men; &s;o that if nece&s;&s;ary contro|ver&s;ies be ended, 'tis no matter if the unnece&s;&s;ary be not: for doubtle&s;s if <HI>God</HI> had required it, he would al&s;o have provided &s;ome means to effect it; but &s;ure it does not &s;tand with any rea&s;on it &s;hould be the <HI>Pope,</HI> becau&s;e he cannot be a <HI>Judge,</HI> be|ing a <HI>party:</HI> indeed in civil controver&s;ies, a Judge without be|ing a party may end them; but in controver&s;ies of Religion, a Judge of nece&s;&s;ity mu&s;t be a concerned party; and I am &s;ure the <HI>Pope</HI> to us is the chief, and mo&s;t concerned party, be|ing really concerned as much as his Popedom is worth.</P>
<P>Now we <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> make the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> this plain an&s;wer, that the means of agreeing differences, mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily be, either by the appointment of God, or men: men &s;ure it cannot be, for then rational wi&s;e <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> may do as well as <HI>Papi&s;ts;</HI> for let the Papi&s;ts &s;hew us if they can, where <HI>God</HI> hath appointed that the Pope alone, or any confirm'd by the Pope, or that Society of Chri&s;tians which adhere to him, &s;hall be the <HI>infallible Judge</HI> of Controver&s;ies: we de&s;ire the Papi&s;ts, if they can, to let us &s;ee any of tho&s;e a&s;&s;ertions plain|ly &s;et down in <HI>Scripture,</HI> as in all rea&s;on a thing of this nature ought to be, or at lea&s;t delivered with a full con&s;ent of Fa|thers; nay let them &s;o much as &s;hew us where 'tis in plain terms taught by any one Father in Four hundred years after our ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Saviour Chri&s;t:</HI> and if the Papi&s;ts cannot do this, as we believe they cannot; where I pray is their either <HI>Scripture</HI> or <HI>Rea&s;on,</HI> that the Pope or his Councils &s;hould obtrude them&s;elves as Judges over us Prote&s;tants.</P>
<P>Next, we would de&s;ire to know from the Papi&s;ts, whe|ther they do certainly know, or not, the &s;en&s;e of tho&s;e <HI>Scrip|tures</HI> by which they are led to the knowledge of their Church; for if they do not, how come they to know their Church is <HI>infallible?</HI> but if they do, then &s;ure they ought to
<PB N="25" REF="13"> give us leave to have the &s;ame means and ability to know o|ther plain places in <HI>Scripture,</HI> which they have to know theirs: for if all <HI>Scriptures</HI> be ob&s;cure, how come they to know the &s;en&s;e of tho&s;e places? but if &s;ome place of it be plain, why pray may not Prote&s;tants under&s;tand them as well as Papi&s;ts?</P>
<P>The Papi&s;ts &s;ay, That the <HI>Scriptures</HI> are in them&s;elves true and infallible, yet without the direction of the Church we have no certain means to know which <HI>Tran&s;lations</HI> be faith|ful and Canonical, or what is the true meaning of <HI>Scriptures:</HI> and this is the common <HI>Argument</HI> and general <HI>Belief</HI> of all Papi&s;ts. To which the Prote&s;tants an&s;wer, That yet all the&s;e things mu&s;t fir&s;t be known, before we can know the directi|ons of their Church to be <HI>infallible:</HI> for the Papi&s;ts cannot pretend any other proof of it, but only &s;ome Texts of Cano|nical <HI>Scripture,</HI> truly interpreted; therefore either they mu&s;t be mi&s;taken in thinking there is no other means to know the&s;e things, but their Churches <HI>infallible</HI> direction; or el&s;e we mu&s;t be excluded from all means of knowing her dire|ctions to be <HI>infallible:</HI> for the proof mu&s;t be &s;urer than the thing to be proved, or 'tis no proof. And upon better con|&s;ideration, I am confident the Papi&s;ts dare not deny, but that 'tis mo&s;t certain, <HI>Faith</HI> hath been given by other means than the Church: for &s;ure they will not &s;ay, that <HI>Adam</HI> received Faith by the Church, nor <HI>Abraham,</HI> nor <HI>Job,</HI> who received Faith by Revelation; and al&s;o the Holy Apo&s;tles, who re|ceived Faith by the Miracles and Preaching of our Ble&s;&s;ed Saviour: So that you &s;ee, and they cannot deny, but their ge|neral Doctrine is contradictory. And to make it yet plainer, I de&s;ire to know of the Papi&s;ts, if they &s;hould meet with a man that believed neither <HI>Scripture, Church,</HI> nor <HI>God,</HI> but de|clares he is both ready and willing to believe them all, if the Papi&s;t can &s;hew him &s;ufficient <HI>grounds</HI> to build his <HI>Faith</HI> upon; will the Papi&s;t tell &s;uch a man, there are no certain <HI>grounds</HI> how he may be converted to their Church, or there are? if the Papi&s;ts &s;ay there are none, they make Religion an uncertain thing: but if they &s;ay there are, then they mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily either argue woman-like, that their Church is <HI>infallible,</HI> becau&s;e it is <HI>infallible;</HI> or el&s;e &s;hew there are other certain <HI>grounds</HI> be&s;ides &s;aying the Church is <HI>infalli|ble,</HI> to prove its <HI>Infallibility.</HI></P>
<PB N="26" REF="14">
<P>The <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> demand of the <HI>Prote&s;tants, If they believe the Apo&s;tles wrote all the Scriptures:</HI> for if they did not, how come we to call and believe them <HI>Apo&s;tolical,</HI> and not the <HI>Writings</HI> of tho&s;e that writ them? To which we an&s;wer; <HI>Though all the Scriptures were not written by the Apo&s;tles them&s;elves, yet they were all confirm'd by them; and tho a Clerk writes a Statute, and the King, Lords and Commons confirm it in Parliament; I believe they would e&s;teem it very impro|per to call it the Statute of &s;uch a Clerk, tho writ by him, but an Act of Parliament, becau&s;e it was confirm'd by all their cen&s;ents, and becomes their Act, not the Clerks.</HI></P>
<P>The <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> de&s;ire us to tell them <HI>in what Language the Scriptures remained uncorrupted;</HI> and we de&s;ire them to &s;atisfie us <HI>whether it be nece&s;&s;ary to know it, or not nece&s;&s;ary:</HI> if it be not, I hope we may do well without it; but if it be nece&s;&s;ary, we de&s;ire fir&s;t that <HI>they</HI> will plea&s;e to tell us what became of their <HI>Church</HI> for One thou&s;and five hundred Years together, all which time they mu&s;t confe&s;s, they had no certainty of <HI>Scripture;</HI> till the time that Pope <HI>Clement</HI> the 8th. &s;et forth their approved Edition of the vulgar <HI>Tran&s;la|tion;</HI> and none &s;ure can have the <HI>confidence</HI> to deny, but that there was great <HI>variety</HI> of <HI>Copies</HI> currant in divers parts of their <HI>Church,</HI> and read &s;o; which Copies might be fal&s;e in &s;ome things, but more than one &s;ort of them could not po&s;&s;ibly be true in all things. And Pope <HI>Sixtus Quintus</HI> his <HI>Bible</HI> differ'd from Pope <HI>Clement</HI> his <HI>Bible,</HI> in a multitude of places; which makes us de|&s;ire to be &s;atisfied of the <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> whether before Pope <HI>Six|tus Quintus</HI> his time, their Church had any defined Canon of <HI>Scriptures</HI> or not: for if they had not, then 'tis mo&s;t <HI>evident</HI> that their Church was a mo&s;t <HI>excellent keeper</HI> of <HI>Scripture,</HI> for Fifteen hundred years together, that had not all that time defin'd what was <HI>Scripture,</HI> and what was not; but if the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> &s;ay they had, then we demand, Was that &s;et forth by Pope <HI>Sixtus Quintus,</HI> or was it &s;et forth by Pope <HI>Cle|ment?</HI> or if by a third <HI>different</HI> from them both, why do they not name him? if it were that &s;et forth by Pope <HI>Sixtus,</HI> then 'tis now condemn'd by Pope <HI>Clement;</HI> if that of <HI>Clement,</HI> 'twas condemned by that of <HI>Sixtus:</HI> So that error mu&s;t ne|ce&s;&s;arily be betwixt <HI>them,</HI> let <HI>them</HI> chu&s;e which <HI>&s;ide they plea&s;e.</HI></P>
<PB N="27" REF="14">
<P>And for the Book of <HI>Maccabees,</HI> I hope they will allow it <HI>defin'd Canonical</HI> before St. <HI>Gregorie</HI>'s time, though he would not allow it <HI>Canonical,</HI> but only for the <HI>Edification</HI> of the Church.</P>
<P>We further de&s;ire to be &s;atisfied of the <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> if the Books of <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;ticus,</HI> and <HI>Wi&s;dom,</HI> and the Epi&s;tle to St. <HI>James,</HI> were by the holy <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> approved Canonical, or not: if they were approved by the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> Canonical, &s;ure the <HI>Pa|pi&s;ts</HI> cannot deny, but they had a &s;ufficient <HI>difinition</HI> and <HI>authority,</HI> not to que&s;tion them, and therefore <HI>err'd</HI> in doing &s;o. And if they were not approved Canonical by the <HI>Apo|&s;tles,</HI> with what <HI>impudence</HI> dare the <HI>Roman</HI> Church now ap|prove them as <HI>Canonical,</HI> and yet pretend that all their Do|ctrine is <HI>Apo&s;tolical?</HI> And if they &s;ay the&s;e Books were not que&s;tioned, they &s;hould do well to tell which Books they mean, which were not always known to be <HI>Canonical,</HI> but have afterwards been receiveed by the <HI>Roman</HI> Church to be &s;uch: &s;o that this <HI>Argument</HI> reaches tho&s;e, as well as the&s;e.</P>
<P>And further we are to con&s;ider, that there is not the &s;ame <HI>rea&s;ons</HI> for the Churches <HI>ab&s;olute Infallibility,</HI> as for the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> and <HI>Scriptures:</HI> for if the Church falls into an error, it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rules of the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> Doctrine in <HI>Scripture;</HI> but if the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> have err'd in delivering the Doctrine of Chri&s;tianity in <HI>Scripture;</HI> then the <HI>Roman</HI> Church cannot be <HI>infallible:</HI> For <HI>Apo&s;tles, Prophets,</HI> and <HI>Canonical Writers,</HI> and the foundation of the Church, as St. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;ays 'tis built upon the foundation of <HI>A|po&s;tles</HI> and <HI>Prophets.</HI></P>
<P>And now to conclude this part of my di&s;cour&s;e in very few words, let the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> an&s;wer, if they can, but the&s;e five words. <HI>All Scripture is Divinely in&s;pired.</HI> Let them &s;hew us &s;o much for the <HI>Roman</HI> Church, and &s;hew us if they can, where 'tis written in <HI>Scripture,</HI> that all the decrees of the <HI>Po|pi&s;h Church</HI> are Divinely in&s;pired, and all our <HI>Controver&s;ies</HI> will be at an end: but I believe they can never do that with|out another <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation-Miracle</HI> of words.</P>
<P>The <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> de&s;ire us to &s;hew them an exact <HI>Catalogue</HI> of our <HI>fundamentals;</HI> to which we an&s;wer, That <HI>God</HI> may be &s;uf|ficiently known to one, and not &s;ufficiently declared to ano|ther, and con&s;equently, that may be fundamental and ne|ce&s;&s;ary
<PB N="28" REF="15"> to one, which is not to another; which variety of <HI>circum&s;tances</HI> renders it impo&s;&s;ible to &s;et down an exact <HI>Catalogue</HI> of <HI>Fundamentals:</HI> for God requires more of them to whom he gives more, and le&s;s of tho&s;e to whom he gives le&s;s; more of a <HI>commander</HI> of a <HI>Kingdom,</HI> than a poor &s;imple <HI>Turn&s;pit.</HI> 'Tis a plain revelation of <HI>God</HI> to us Prote|&s;tants, that the <HI>Sacrament of the Euchari&s;t</HI> &s;hould be admi|ni&s;tred in both kinds, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.28. &amp; that the publick <HI>Hymns</HI> and <HI>Prayers</HI> of the Church &s;hould be in &s;uch a <HI>Language</HI> as is mo&s;t for Edification, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.15, 16. yet the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> not &s;eeing this, by rea&s;on of the <HI>vail,</HI> would be <HI>very angry</HI> if we told <HI>them</HI> 'twould <HI>prejudice</HI> their <HI>&s;uppo&s;ed Infallibility.</HI></P>
<P>We read in St. <HI>Matthew,</HI> that the <HI>Go&s;pel</HI> was to be Preacht <HI>to all Nations;</HI> and this was a <HI>truth</HI> revealed before our <HI>Sa|viours</HI> A&s;cention: yet if the Church had been asked, before the conver&s;ion of <HI>Cornelius,</HI> they would have certainly told you, it had not been nece&s;&s;ary to <HI>teach all Nations;</HI> for 'tis mo&s;t apparent out of <HI>Acts</HI> 11. they all believed &s;o, until St. <HI>Pe|ter</HI> was better informed by a vi&s;ion from <HI>Heaven,</HI> and the conver&s;ion of <HI>Cornelius;</HI> and then they turn'd quite of a dif|fering belief, and e&s;teemed it nece&s;&s;ary to <HI>teach all Nations;</HI> and yet were &s;till a Church. The Papi&s;ts are plea&s;ed to &s;ay, the Prote&s;tants differ in <HI>Fundamentals;</HI> which indeed ap|pears to us very <HI>irrational:</HI> For if they &s;ay, We Prote&s;tants differ in <HI>Fundamentals,</HI> how then can they &s;ay, We are <HI>mem|bers</HI> of the &s;ame Church, one with another, more than they are with ours, or ours with theirs? and why do they <HI>object</HI> our <HI>difference</HI> more with one another, than with them&s;elves? and if we do not differ in <HI>Fundamentals,</HI> why do they up|braid us with <HI>Fundamental differences</HI> among&s;t our &s;elves? We believe the <HI>Catholick Church</HI> cannot peri&s;h, yet we be|lieve &s;he may and did <HI>err,</HI> as I prov'd ju&s;t before: but thus much we Prote&s;tants declare in general, That we e&s;teem it &s;ufficient for any mans <HI>&s;alvation,</HI> to believe <HI>God's</HI> Word, the <HI>Scripture,</HI> and that it contains all <HI>things nece&s;&s;ary to our &s;alva|tion;</HI> and that we do our utmo&s;t <HI>endeavours</HI> to find, believe, and follow the true &s;en&s;e of it; and being we are &s;ure that all that is any way nece&s;&s;ary is there, believing all that is there, we are &s;ure we believe all that is nece&s;&s;ary.</P>
<P>And therefore 'tis but rea&s;onable to &s;ay, that any private
<PB N="29" REF="15"> per&s;on, who truly believes the <HI>Scriptures,</HI> and heartily endea|vours to know the Will of <HI>God,</HI> and to do it, is as &s;ecure, nay <HI>&s;ecurer</HI> from the danger of <HI>erring in Fundamentals,</HI> than the <HI>Roman</HI> Church&punc; for 'tis impo&s;&s;ible any man &s;o <HI>qualified</HI> &s;hould fall into an <HI>error</HI> that can prove <HI>damnable</HI> to him; for <HI>God</HI> requires no more of any man to his <HI>&s;alvation,</HI> but only his true and be&s;t endeavours to be <HI>&s;aved.</HI> And for the Papi&s;ts <HI>Sacrament of Confe&s;&s;ion,</HI> which they hold is &s;o <HI>ab&s;olute</HI> and <HI>ne|ne&s;&s;ary,</HI> and &s;o much upbraid us for the want of it; we an|&s;wer: We know no &s;uch <HI>ab&s;olute nece&s;&s;ity of it;</HI> but yet we hold, we mu&s;t not only <HI>confe&s;s our &s;ins, but for&s;ake them,</HI> or we &s;hall not find <HI>mercy:</HI> And we Prote&s;tants farther believe, that they that <HI>confe&s;s their &s;ins, &s;hall find mercy,</HI> though they only confe&s;s them to <HI>God,</HI> and not to Man: And more, that they who confe&s;s them both to <HI>God</HI> and Man, and do not in time for&s;ake them, &s;hall not find <HI>mercy.</HI></P>
<P>And &s;o for the Papi&s;ts <HI>Sacrament of Repentance for Remi&s;&s;i|on of &s;ins;</HI> tho we Prote&s;tants know no &s;uch, yet we allow &amp; ob&s;erve the &s;ame Duty, but <HI>publick</HI> before the Church; which was the <HI>con&s;tant practice</HI> of the primitive Church; and <HI>Rhe|nanus</HI> him&s;elf, though &s;o great a Champion for the Papi&s;ts, writes, That the <HI>confe&s;&s;ion</HI> then u&s;ed, was before the Church; and that <HI>Auricular confe&s;&s;ion</HI> was not then in the World.</P>
<P>The Papi&s;ts will tell you that our <HI>Bi&s;hops</HI> have not the true power of <HI>Ordination:</HI> but <HI>that has</HI> been &s;o <HI>clearly an&s;wer|ed,</HI> and &s;o <HI>truly proved at large</HI> by &s;o many already, as I &s;hall not need here &s;o much as to name it: only let me in a word <HI>remember</HI> the Papi&s;ts, that they cannot well deny, but that the <HI>Donati&s;ts</HI> them&s;elves, whom the Papi&s;ts e&s;teemed as bad as us, as being <HI>Hereticks</HI> and <HI>Schi&s;maticks;</HI> yet St. <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> and <HI>Optatus</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> did both acknowledge that they had the &s;ame <HI>Bapti&s;m, Creed,</HI> and <HI>Sacrament;</HI> and that the&s;e <HI>Do|nati&s;t</HI> Fathers, tho <HI>Schi&s;maticks</HI> and <HI>Hereticks,</HI> gave true Or|dination, or el&s;e &s;ome of the&s;e were not then e&s;teemed <HI>Sa|craments;</HI> therefore let them take which they plea&s;e, there mu&s;t be error of one &s;ide.</P>
<P>The Papi&s;ts pretend they have an unan&s;werable <HI>Objection</HI> again&s;t Prote&s;tants, which is, <HI>That we have di&s;cords in mat|ters of Faith, without any means of agreement:</HI> To which we an&s;wer, <HI>That the Scripture does not let us want &s;olid means of
<PB N="30" REF="16"> agreement in matters ne&s;&s;ary to &s;alvation;</HI> and for our agree|ment in all controver&s;ies of <HI>Religion,</HI> either they mu&s;t &s;ay we have means to agree about them, or we have not: if they &s;ay we have, why did they before deny it? if they &s;ay we have no <HI>means,</HI> why are they &s;o unju&s;t to find <HI>fault</HI> with us for not <HI>agreeing,</HI> when <HI>they them&s;elves</HI> &s;ay we have no <HI>means</HI> to <HI>agree?</HI></P>
<P>But for a Plai&s;ter to this Saor, they are &s;o extraordinary civil, as to tell us, <HI>we may come to their Church;</HI> and they a|gree in <HI>matters of faith:</HI> But the plain truth of it is, that they define all <HI>matters of faith</HI> to be tho&s;e wherein they agree; &s;o that to &s;ay the <HI>Roman</HI> Church does agree in <HI>matters of faith,</HI> is but to &s;ay, they do agree in tho&s;e things they do agree in: and &s;ure they cannot deny, but we <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> do the &s;ame.</P>
<P>But we mu&s;t de&s;ire the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> to give us leave to tell them, that they mo&s;t gro&s;ly mi&s;take, if they &s;ay, they agree in <HI>matters of Faith:</HI> as for proof; &s;ome of them hold it a|gain&s;t Faith, to take the <HI>Oath of Allegiance,</HI> others 'tis again&s;t Faith to refu&s;e that Oath.</P>
<P>Some hold it of <HI>Faith,</HI> that the <HI>Pope</HI> is Head of the <HI>Church</HI> by <HI>Divine Law;</HI> others the contrary: &s;ome hold it of Faith that the <HI>ble&s;&s;ed Virgin</HI> was free from <HI>actual &s;in,</HI> others the con|trary; &s;ome that the <HI>Popes</HI> power over Princes in Tempo|ralities is <HI>de fide,</HI> others the contrary: &s;ome that 'tis univer|&s;al <HI>Tradition</HI> that the Virgin <HI>Mary</HI> was conceived in <HI>actual &s;in,</HI> others the contrary. And how the <HI>Je&s;uits</HI> and <HI>Franci&s;cans,</HI> and other Orders differ to this day, I am &s;ure needs no <HI>memorandum;</HI> and the be&s;t Je&s;t of all is, the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> have not &s;o much as yet agreed in their very pretended means of <HI>agreement,</HI> and yet have the <HI>confidency</HI> to pretended an <HI>&V;nity</HI> more than the <HI>Prote&s;tants;</HI> for &s;ome of them &s;ay, The <HI>Pope</HI> with a <HI>Council</HI> may determine all <HI>Controver&s;ies,</HI> others deny it: Some hold, That a general <HI>Council,</HI> without a <HI>Pope,</HI> may do &s;o; others deny this: Others &s;ay, Both in conjunction are <HI>infallible Determiners,</HI> others deny this: And &s;ome a|mong the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> hold, The acceptation of the Decrees of <HI>Councils</HI> by the Univer&s;al Church, is the only way to de|cide <HI>Controver&s;ies;</HI> which others deny, by denying their Church to be <HI>infallible;</HI> and yet every part pretends to be part of the Church.</P>
<P>In a word, can the <HI>Papi&s;h</HI> deny, but that there has been
<PB N="31" REF="16"> Popes again&s;t Popes, Councils again&s;t Councils; Nay, Councils confirmed by Popes, again&s;t Popes confirmed by Councils: And la&s;tly, the Church of &s;ome Ages, again&s;t the Church of other Ages? And &s;ince every part of the Body is &s;o out of order, methinks they &s;hould not brag of &s;o perfect a health as they do.</P>
<P>The <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> &s;ay (and do but &s;ay it) that their <HI>Doctrine</HI> is held <HI>Catholick;</HI> and therefore they e&s;teem it an <HI>in&s;olent mad|ne&s;s</HI> of us <HI>Prote&s;tants,</HI> to di&s;pute again&s;t the <HI>practice</HI> of the whole Church. Fir&s;t, <HI>That their Doctrine is Catholick;</HI> we an&s;wer, <HI>That the greate&s;t number of Chri&s;tians in the world deny it;</HI> &s;o that they cannot truly &s;ay, we di&s;pute again&s;t the <HI>practice</HI> of the whole Church. And farther we &s;ay, <HI>Sup|po&s;ing we &s;hould in Complement to them grant, that their Church is Catholick and &V;niver&s;al;</HI> yet we &s;ay, That is no &s;ufficient proof it came Originally from the <HI>Apo&s;tles;</HI> wit|ne&s;s the Doctrine of the <HI>Millenaries,</HI> and the nece&s;&s;ity of the <HI>Euchari&s;t</HI> for <HI>Infants;</HI> which was generally taught by the <HI>&V;niver&s;al Church,</HI> &amp; believed as an <HI>Apo&s;tolical Tradition,</HI> but yet contradicted by the <HI>&V;niver&s;al Church</HI> afterwards: This, I am &s;ure, the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> dare not deny; &s;o that we una|voidably ca&s;t the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> upon this <HI>Rock, That they mu&s;t either conclude the</HI> Apo&s;tles <HI>were Fountains of contradictory Doctrines, or that the</HI> Univer&s;al Doctrine <HI>of the pre&s;ent Church is no &s;ufficient proof that it came originally from the</HI> Apo&s;tles, <HI>becau&s;e the Church &V;niver&s;al of one time, and the Church &V;niver&s;al of another time did differ.</HI></P>
<P>Next, for their &s;aying, <HI>'tis in&s;olent madne&s;s to di&s;pute a|gain&s;t the practice of the whole Church;</HI> Fir&s;t, we are &s;ure, we can bring more Chri&s;tian witne&s;&s;es that deny they are the <HI>whole Church,</HI> than they can bring to prove it: but &s;uppo|&s;ing we were as mad as they &s;ay we are, and would have us to be, <HI>to di&s;pute again&s;t the whole practice of the Church;</HI> yet I hope we may de&s;ire to know of the <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> if they can de|ny but that 'twas the practice of the <HI>whole Church</HI> in St. <HI>Au|&s;tin</HI>'s time, and e&s;teemed then an <HI>Apo&s;tolical Tradition</HI> even by St. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> him&s;elf, that the <HI>Euchari&s;t</HI> &s;hould be admi|ni&s;tred to <HI>Infants?</HI> And then let them tell us, Whether it be <HI>in&s;olent madne&s;s to di&s;pute again&s;t the practice of the whole Church,</HI> or is it not? If it be not, why do they accu&s;e us for it? But if it be <HI>in&s;olent madne&s;s,</HI> how mad
<PB N="32" REF="17"> and <HI>in&s;olent</HI> is the Papi&s;ts Church, not only to <HI>di&s;pute</HI> again&s;t this <HI>practice</HI> of the <HI>&V;niver&s;al Church,</HI> of admini&s;tring the <HI>Eu|chari&s;t</HI> to <HI>Infants,</HI> but utterly aboli&s;hing the practice of it?</P>
<P>So that the very wor&s;t the Papi&s;ts can &s;ay of us, allowing what they &s;ay to be true, is, <HI>that we but do, what they them|&s;elves own already to have done.</HI></P>
<P>And tho the Papi&s;ts are plea&s;ed to &s;ay that the Holy <HI>Scrip|tures,</HI> and ancient <HI>Fathers,</HI> a&s;&s;ign <HI>&s;eparation</HI> from the vi&s;ible Church as a mark of <HI>Here&s;ie,</HI> yet they cannot &s;hew one plain Text of <HI>Scripture</HI> to confirm it.</P>
<P>And for the Papi&s;ts bragging of the <HI>Antiquity</HI> and <HI>&V;ni|ver&s;ality</HI> of their Churches <HI>Doctrine,</HI> (tho we allow it very <HI>ancient,</HI> bating the <HI>primitive times</HI>) we an&s;wer fir&s;t as to its <HI>Antiquity,</HI> we de&s;ire to &s;ee what <HI>Antiquity</HI> they can &s;hew for their giving the Communion but in one kind, when they know that the <HI>admini&s;tring</HI> it in both kinds, was the <HI>practice</HI> of the Church for a Thou&s;and years after <HI>Chri&s;t;</HI> what An|tiquity for the lawfulne&s;s and expediency of the <HI>Latine Ser|vice;</HI> for the pre&s;ent u&s;e of <HI>Indulgences;</HI> for the Popes power in <HI>Temporalities over Princes;</HI> for the Picturing the <HI>Trinity;</HI> for the lawfulne&s;s of wor&s;hipping <HI>Pictures and Images;</HI> for their <HI>Beads;</HI> for their whole wor&s;hip of the <HI>ble&s;&s;ed Virgin;</HI> for their <HI>Oblations,</HI> in the notion of <HI>Sacrifices</HI> to her and other <HI>Saints;</HI> for their &s;aying <HI>Pater Nosters</HI> and <HI>Creeds</HI> to the Honour of them, and <HI>Ave Maries</HI> to the Virgin <HI>Mary;</HI> for the <HI>infallibility</HI> of the Bi&s;hop or Church of <HI>Rome;</HI> for their <HI>Doctrine</HI> of the ble&s;&s;ed Virgins Immunity from actual &s;in; for the nece&s;&s;ity of <HI>Auricular confe&s;&s;ion;</HI> for the nece&s;&s;i|ty of the Prie&s;ts <HI>intention</HI> to obtain <HI>benefit</HI> by any of their <HI>Sacraments;</HI> and la&s;tly, for their licentious Doctrine, in hold|ing, <HI>that tho a man lives and dies without the practice of any Chri&s;tian Vertue, and with the Habits of many damna|ble &s;ins unmortified; yet if at the la&s;t moment of his life he has any &s;orrow for his &s;ins, and joyn confe&s;&s;ion to it, he &s;hall cer|tainly be &s;aved:</HI> This is a Doctrine may keep many Souls out of Heaven, but I doubt will &s;carce carry any one there. So that the Papi&s;ts Doctrine being ancient, is nothing, as long as 'tis <HI>evident</HI> that they hold many <HI>dangerous errors:</HI> As for in&s;tance, the <HI>Millenaries,</HI> and the <HI>Communicating Infants</HI> was more <HI>ancient</HI> than their Doctrine; and 'tis plain that An|tiquity,
<PB N="33" REF="17"> unle&s;s it be <HI>ab&s;olute</HI> and <HI>primative,</HI> is not a certain &s;ign of true Doctrine, and the very Apo&s;tles them&s;elves, a&s;&s;ure us, that in their days the my&s;tery of Iniquity was working.</P>
<P>The <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> demand how comes it to pa&s;s that their Doc|trine is &s;o Univer&s;al, (forgetting that weeds &s;pread fa&s;ter than good herbs:) And we ask them how the <HI>errours</HI> of the <HI>Millenaries,</HI> and the <HI>Communicating Infants</HI> became &s;o univer&s;al? let them tell us this, and we will tell them that: for what is done in &s;ome, may be done in others.</P>
<P>The <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> ask us where our Ch. was before <HI>Luther;</HI> and tell us, becau&s;e 'twas no Ch. before him, therefore it can be no true Church at all. To which we an&s;wer, That this cau&s;e is no cau&s;e: for tho <HI>Luther</HI> had no being before <HI>Luther,</HI> yet none can deny, but that he was when he was, tho he could not be before he was. So there may be a true Church after <HI>Luther,</HI> tho there was none for &s;ome Ages before him: as &s;ince <HI>Columbus</HI> his time there have been Chri&s;tians in <HI>A|merica,</HI> tho there were none for many Ages before. For it does not follow, that nothing but a Church can po&s;&s;ibly get a Church, nor that the pre&s;ent being of a true Church depends nece&s;&s;arily upon the perpetuity of a Church in all Ages. For though I cannot deny the Churches perpetui|ty, yet that's not here nece&s;&s;ary to rur difference: but that a fal&s;e Church (by Gods providence over-ruling it) may pre&s;erve a means of confuting their own Here&s;ies, and &s;o reduce men to Truth, and rai&s;e a true Church, (I mean the integrity of the Word of God with Men.) Thus the <HI>Jews</HI> pre&s;erve means to make men <HI>Chri&s;tians,</HI> and <HI>Pa|pi&s;ts</HI> pre&s;erve means to make men <HI>Prote&s;tants,</HI> and the <HI>Pro|te&s;tants</HI> fal&s;e Church (as the <HI>Romans</HI> call it) pre&s;erves men <HI>Papi&s;ts.</HI> Nor does it appear that the perpetuity of the <HI>Church</HI> is the truth of the <HI>Papi&s;ts Church:</HI> for they &s;peak as if they were the only Chri&s;tians in the World before <HI>Luther;</HI> when the whole World knows, that this is but talk, and that there were other Chri&s;tians be&s;ides the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> that might have perpetuated the <HI>Church,</HI> tho there had not been then one <HI>Papi&s;t</HI> in being. For &s;ure there was a Catholick Church before the <HI>Roman</HI> one.</P>
<P>Next, the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> &s;ay, To hold that the Vi&s;ible
<PB N="34" REF="18"> <HI>Church is not perpetual, is a Here&s;ie;</HI> &s;o that <HI>Luther</HI>'s Re|formation being but particular, and not univer&s;al, nor but of late date; it can have nothing to do with the vi&s;ible and perpetual Church. Which the <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> an&s;wer thus. <HI>To &s;ay the vi&s;ible Church is not perpetual, is properly a Here&s;ie;</HI> but the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> cannot deny, but that the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> who preach'd the <HI>Go&s;pel</HI> in the beginning, did believe the <HI>Church univer&s;al,</HI> tho their preaching at the beginning was not &s;o. So <HI>Luther</HI> al&s;o might well believe the <HI>&V;niver&s;al Church,</HI> though his <HI>Reformation</HI> was but particular; the Church in the Apo&s;tles time being univer&s;al <HI>de jure</HI> of right, but not <HI>de facto</HI> in fact.</P>
<P>Nor did <HI>Luther</HI> and his followers (as the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> are plea&s;ed to mi&s;-call many <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI>) for&s;ake the whole Church, but the <HI>corruptions</HI> of it, in renouncing &s;ome of their corrupt practices; and this the <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> &s;ay they did without <HI>Schi&s;m,</HI> becau&s;e they had cau&s;e to do it; and no man can have cau&s;e to be a <HI>Schi&s;matick,</HI> becau&s;e he is only one who leaves the Church without a cau&s;e: for 'tis not only <HI>&s;eparation,</HI> but a <HI>cau&s;ele&s;s &s;eparation</HI> from the Church, that is <HI>Schi&s;matical:</HI> and I think 'twill not be ami&s;s, before I go any farther, to di&s;tingui&s;h the difference between <HI>Here&s;ie</HI> and <HI>Schi&s;m. Here&s;ie is an ob&s;tinate defence of any error a|gain&s;t any nece&s;&s;ary Article of the Chri&s;tian Faith. Schi&s;m is a cau&s;ele&s;s &s;eparation of one part of the Church from another.</HI> Now we <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> &s;ay &s;till, That we never for&s;ook the whole Church, or the external Communion of it, but only that part of it which is corrupted, and is to be fear'd will &s;till continue &s;o, <HI>viz. The Papi&s;ts Church;</HI> and for&s;ook not, but only reformed another part, which part they them|&s;elves were. And &s;ure the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> will not &s;ay, the <HI>Prote|&s;tants</HI> for&s;ook them&s;elves, nor their own Communion: and therefore the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> Argument mu&s;t be very weak, in urging that the <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> joyned them&s;elves to no other part of the Church, therefore they mu&s;t &s;eparate from the whole Church; which the <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> &s;ay is a fal&s;e conclu|&s;ion, in as much as they them&s;elves were part of it, and &s;till continue &s;o; and therefore the <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> could no more &s;eparate from the whole, than from them&s;elves.</P>
<P>So that by the rule of <HI>Rea&s;on,</HI> if <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> be <HI>Schi&s;ma|ticks,</HI>
<PB N="35" REF="18"> becau&s;e they differ from one part of the <HI>vi&s;ible Church;</HI> by the &s;ame rea&s;on the <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> may &s;ay that the <HI>Roman Church</HI> is in a manner made up of <HI>Schi&s;maticks:</HI> for the <HI>Je&s;uits</HI> are Schi&s;maticks from the <HI>Dominicans,</HI> and the <HI>Do|minicans</HI> from the <HI>Je&s;uits,</HI> and the <HI>Je&s;uits</HI> from the <HI>Canoni&s;ts;</HI> the <HI>Franci&s;cans</HI> from the <HI>Dominicans,</HI> and the <HI>Dominicans</HI> from the <HI>Franci&s;cans:</HI> for all the&s;e (as the world knows) differ in point of <HI>Doctrine,</HI> and betwixt them there is an <HI>ir|reconcilable contradiction;</HI> and therefore one part mu&s;t be in error. And if the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> will but &s;tand to ju&s;tifie what they declare as truth, <HI>That every error again&s;t a revealed Truth is a Here&s;ie;</HI> they holding for certain as a revealed Truth, the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin <HI>Mary,</HI> then con&s;equently the <HI>Dominicans</HI> that hold and declare it an error in Doctrine, mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily hold a Here&s;ie. Now it may be a fault to be in error, becau&s;e it many times pro|ceeds from a fault; but &s;ure <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> for&s;aking error, it cannot be a &s;in, unle&s;s to be in error, be a Vertue: So hardly do <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> deal with us <HI>Prote&s;tants,</HI> as they will either damn us in making us follow their fal&s;e opinions, or el&s;e brand us as <HI>Schi&s;maticks</HI> for leaving them.</P>
<P>And yet the rational &s;ort of <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> can hardly deny, but the <HI>Prote&s;tant Religion</HI> mu&s;t be a &s;afer <HI>Religion</HI> than theirs, in <HI>wor&s;hipping Pictures,</HI> in <HI>Invocating Saints</HI> and <HI>Angels;</HI> in <HI>denying the Lay-men</HI> the <HI>Communion in both kinds,</HI> as was commanded by our <HI>ble&s;&s;ed Saviour; in celebrating</HI> their <HI>Church-Service in an unknown Tongue,</HI> which was condem|ned by St. <HI>Paul;</HI> in <HI>adoring the Sacrament:</HI> and in <HI>all the&s;e</HI> a rational <HI>Papi&s;t</HI> cannot deny, but he is on the more danger|ous &s;ide, as to the committing of &s;in; and the <HI>Prote&s;tant</HI> in the more &s;ecure way, as to the avoiding it.</P>
<P>For in all the&s;e things, if <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> &s;ay true, the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> do that which is impious; but on the other &s;ide, if the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> were in the right, yet the <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> might be &s;ecure enough too: for their fault would be only this, that they &s;hould only not do &s;ome things which the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> them&s;elves confe&s;s is not altogether nece&s;&s;ary to be done.</P>
<P>And truly the <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> are &s;o Charitably civil, as only to &s;ay of <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> as St. <HI>Austin</HI> did of the <HI>Donatists, That
<PB N="36" REF="19"> Catholicks approved the Doctrine of the</HI> Donati&s;ts, <HI>but abhor|red their Here&s;ie of Rebaptization. So Prote&s;tants</HI> approve the <HI>Fundamental</HI> and <HI>nece&s;&s;ary Truths</HI> which the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> re|tain, by which many good Souls among them may be &s;aved; but abhor the many <HI>&s;uper&s;titions</HI> they u&s;e in their <HI>Religion.</HI> And &s;uppo&s;ing the&s;e <HI>Errors</HI> of the <HI>Popi&s;h Church</HI> were in them&s;elves not damnable, to them that believe as they pro|fe&s;s; yet for us <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> to profe&s;s what we do not be|lieve, and e&s;teem tho&s;e as Divine Truths, which we believe not to be either Divine or true; would be doubtle&s;s dam|nable as to us: for 'tis certain, Two men may do the &s;ame thing, and it may be &s;inful to one, and not to the other: as &s;uppo&s;e a married Woman gives her&s;elf out to be a Wi|dow, and one knowing her Husband to be alive, marries her, doubtle&s;s his injoyment of her was adulterous: but a &s;econd man comes, and after &s;eeing her pretended Husband buried, marries her, and dies without the lea&s;t informati|on of her fir&s;t Husbands being then alive; his ignorance &s;ure protected him from &s;in, and the &s;econd Husbands know|ledg of the &s;in he acted, condemned him of Adultery; &amp; tho his fault might be palliated with &s;ome excu&s;es, yet it can never be defended by any ju&s;t Apoligy. And &s;o tho we read in Scripture, that it was St. <HI>Paul</HI>'s Judgment, that meat offered to Idols might lawfully be eaten; yet he &s;ays; <HI>if any &s;hould eat it with a doubtful Con&s;cience, he &s;hould &s;in, and be condemned for &s;o doing.</HI></P>
<P>And &s;uppo&s;ing we <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> ought not to have for&s;ook the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> Church, for &s;in, and errours, if &s;he had not in|joyn'd and impo&s;ed them on us; yet &s;ince &s;he does main|tain them with &s;uch ob&s;tinacy, and impo&s;es them with &s;uch tyranny, we ought certainly to &s;ay with St. <HI>Peter,</HI> and St. <HI>John, 'Tis better to for&s;ake men than God;</HI> and leave the <HI>Popi&s;h Church-Communion,</HI> rather than commit or profe&s;s <HI>known errors</HI> as <HI>Divine Truths;</HI> for as the Prophet <HI>Ezekiel</HI> tells us, that to &s;ay <HI>The Lord hath &s;aid &s;o, when the Lord hath not &s;aid &s;o,</HI> is a high pre&s;umption, and great &s;in, be the matter never &s;o &s;mall; and therefore when St. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;poke concerning Virgins ab&s;taining from <HI>marriage,</HI> he &s;aid, <HI>He had no commandment of the Lord, but I declare my own judgment of it.</HI> Now if St. <HI>Paul</HI> had given this as God's
<PB N="37" REF="19"> command, &s;urely we might have ju&s;tly contradicted him, and made a di&s;tinction between <HI>Divine Revelation,</HI> and <HI>Humane Judgment.</HI></P>
<P>So that for a <HI>Prote&s;tant</HI> to abide in the <HI>Communion</HI> of the <HI>Roman Church,</HI> is &s;o far from &s;ecuring him from <HI>errour,</HI> as that if I or any <HI>Prote&s;tant</HI> &s;hould continue in it, I am confident I could not be &s;aved by it: and the rea&s;on is, be|cau&s;e the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> will not admit of my Communion, with|out profe&s;&s;ing the entire Popi&s;h Doctrine to be true: and profe&s;s this I cannot, but I mu&s;t perpetually exulce|rate my Con&s;cience: &amp; tho the <HI>errours</HI> of the <HI>Roman Church</HI> were not in them&s;elves damnable, yet for me to re&s;i&s;t <HI>known Truths,</HI> and to continue in the <HI>Profe&s;&s;ion of known er|rours and fal&s;hoods,</HI> is certainly a capital &s;in, and of great affinity with the &s;in which &s;hall never be forgiven.</P>
<P>In &s;hort, if the <HI>errours</HI> of the <HI>Roman Church</HI> did not warrant our departure, yet the tyrannous impo&s;ition of them would be our &s;ufficient ju&s;tification; for they force us either to for&s;ake the <HI>Papi&s;ts Communion,</HI> or profe&s;s as <HI>Go&s;pel-truths</HI> what our <HI>Con&s;cience</HI> a&s;&s;ures us is very little a|kin to them: &s;o that the <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> were oblig'd to for|&s;ake tho&s;e <HI>errours</HI> of the <HI>Popi&s;h Church,</HI> and not the <HI>Church,</HI> but the <HI>errours;</HI> and we <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> did, and do &s;till conti|nue <HI>members</HI> of the <HI>Church;</HI> having only left what appea|red mo&s;t plain to us to be <HI>&s;uper&s;titious</HI> and <HI>impious.</HI> And we &s;eparate no more from the <HI>Popi&s;h Church,</HI> thant &s;he has &s;eparated from the <HI>Ancient Church:</HI> and indeed, to &s;peak properly, our difference is more again&s;t the <HI>Court,</HI> than <HI>Church of Rome;</HI> which has introduced &s;o many new ceremonies and practi&s;es in the <HI>Popi&s;h Church,</HI> as was never heard nor practi&s;ed in the <HI>Primitive Times:</HI> as for one in|&s;tance of a Thou&s;and, I might give you <HI>Their deny<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">ng the Cup to the Laity,</HI> which was never practi&s;ed in the Church a Thou&s;and years after our <HI>Saviour.</HI></P>
<P>But becau&s;e the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> brag &s;o much of, and depend &s;o entirely on the <HI>Infallibility</HI> of their Church, I &s;hall pa&s;s by their Out-works, and &s;earch a little into this their Grand Fo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">t, the <HI>Infallibility of their Church:</HI> for except they prove that, they prove nothing; but in proving that
<PB N="38" REF="20"> they prove all: and if the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> could &s;atisfie me either by <HI>Scripture</HI> or <HI>Rea&s;on,</HI> that their <HI>Church</HI> is <HI>infallible,</HI> I &s;hould not only be of their Church to morrow, but repent I was not &s;ooner: but really by all that I ever heard or read for their making it good, I find cau&s;e only to admire their <HI>confidence,</HI> but not at all to e&s;teem their <HI>rea&s;ons.</HI></P>
<P>The cheif <HI>method</HI> they take, and <HI>degrees</HI> they u&s;e, to prove the <HI>Infallibility</HI> of their <HI>Church,</HI> are by <HI>whole-&s;ale</HI> the&s;e, Fir&s;t, that St. <HI>Peter</HI> was <HI>head</HI> and <HI>cheif</HI> among&s;t the <HI>Apo&s;tles;</HI> and there was given to him and his Succe&s;&s;ors by our <HI>Saviour,</HI> Univer&s;al Authority over his Militent <HI>Church;</HI> That the <HI>Pope</HI> or <HI>Bi&s;hop</HI> of <HI>Rome</HI> is St. <HI>Peter</HI>'s Succe&s;&s;or, and has his <HI>Authority of &V;niver&s;al Bi&s;hop;</HI> and con&s;equent|ly the <HI>Roman Church</HI> being built upon this <HI>Rock</HI> is <HI>infallible&punc;</HI> all which I doubt not but to prove to be incon&s;i&s;tent with, and contradictory both to <HI>Scripture</HI> and <HI>Rea&s;on.</HI></P>
<P>As to the fir&s;t point of St. <HI>Peter</HI>'s being Head of the <HI>A|po&s;tles,</HI> which the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> all &s;tile him, and &s;ay he was called from thence <HI>Cephas,</HI> which is derived from the <HI>Greek</HI> word <HI>Head:</HI> it is a mo&s;t gro&s;s mi&s;take; for <HI>Cephas</HI> is a <HI>Syriack</HI> word that &s;ignifies <HI>Stone;</HI> but this is only by the by. Now we <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> &s;ay, tho we allow St. <HI>Peter</HI> might have <HI>primacy of Order,</HI> yet we cannot grant he had <HI>&s;upremacy of power</HI> over the other <HI>Apo&s;tles;</HI> for &s;ure it cannot &s;tand with the lea&s;t rea&s;on, that St. <HI>Peter</HI> &s;hould have <HI>authority</HI> over all the <HI>Apo&s;tles,</HI> and yet never act the lea&s;t <HI>authority</HI> over any one of them.</P>
<P>Nor is it rea&s;onable to believe, that St. <HI>Peter</HI> having <HI>au|thority</HI> over all the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> for above 25 years together, &s;hould never &s;hew the lea&s;t power over any of them all that time, nor &s;o much as receive the le&s;t &s;ubjection from them: &s;ure any one mu&s;t think this as &s;trange, &amp; unrea&s;on|able, as if a King of <HI>England</HI> for 25 years together &s;hould not do one act of Regality among his Subjects, nor receive any one acknowledgment from them.</P>
<P>Nor &s;ure is it le&s;s &s;trange &amp; unrea&s;onable, that the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> &s;hould &s;o many Ages after, know this &s;o certainly as they pretend they do, and yet that the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> them&s;elves, after that the&s;e words were &s;poak in their hearing by ver|tue whereof St. <HI>Peter</HI> is pretended to be made their <HI>head,</HI>
<PB N="39" REF="20"> &s;hould &s;till be &s;o ignorant of it, as to que&s;tion our <HI>Saviour, which of them &s;hould be the greate&s;t?</HI> By which &s;ure we may rationally conclude, they did not then know; for if they did, their que&s;tion had been needle&s;s, and &s;uperfluous, in de&s;iring to be taught, what they already knew.</P>
<P>And what yet appears more <HI>&s;trange</HI> than all, is, that our <HI>Sa|viour</HI> &s;hould not have helped them out of their <HI>error,</HI> by tel|ling them St. <HI>Peter</HI> was the man; but rather confirmed them in the contrary, by &s;aying, <HI>The Kings of the Gentiles exerci&s;e Authority over them, but it &s;hould not be &s;o among them.</HI></P>
<P>And again, it is as <HI>&s;trange</HI> and <HI>unrea&s;onable,</HI> that St. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;hould &s;o far forget both St. <HI>Peter,</HI> and him&s;elf, as in men|tioning &s;o often St. <HI>Peter,</HI> he &s;hould &s;till do it without a&s;|cribing him any title of Honour: Nor does it &s;tand with <HI>rea&s;on,</HI> that St. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;peaking of the &s;everal <HI>degrees</HI> of men in the <HI>Church,</HI> &s;hould omit giving St. <HI>Peter</HI> the highe&s;t, if it had been his due, but place him in the &s;ame <HI>rank</HI> and <HI>equipage</HI> with the re&s;t of the <HI>Apo&s;tles:</HI> for St. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;ays <HI>God hath appointed</HI> (not fir&s;t St. <HI>Peter,</HI> then the re&s;t of the A|po&s;tles) but <HI>first Apo&s;tles, &s;econdly Prophets;</HI> now certain|ly if <HI>Apostles</HI> were all fir&s;t, that is, all equal, how could one be in greater power than the other?</P>
<P>But be&s;ides all this, though we &s;hould grant again&s;t all the&s;e probabilities, and many more, that <HI>Optatus</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> meant that St. <HI>Peter</HI> was Head of the <HI>Apo&s;tles;</HI> yet &s;ure the <HI>Papists</HI> are &s;till very far from proving, the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> was to be &s;o at all, much le&s;s by <HI>Divine right,</HI> Suc|ce&s;&s;or to St. <HI>Peter</HI> in his Head&s;hip and Authority. For what incongruity is there, if we &s;ay that <HI>Optatus</HI> might &s;uc|ceed St. <HI>Peter</HI> as his Heir and Succe&s;&s;or, in that part of his Government of that particular Church of <HI>Rome;</HI> (as &s;ure he did even whil&s;t St. <HI>Peter</HI> was living) and yet that neither he, nor any man was to &s;ucceed him in his <HI>Apostle&s;hip,</HI> nor in the <HI>Government of the Church &V;niver&s;al?</HI> as tho a Bi&s;hop &s;hould leave his Son Heir to all he died po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed of; I hope you will not conclude, therefore he mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily &s;uc|ceed him in the Bi&s;hoprick he died &s;eized of. The <HI>Apostles</HI> were men all called, and Divinely in&s;pired by the <HI>Holy Ghost;</HI> which was the immediate gift of <HI>God,</HI> and there|fore could not be left as a Legary by man; for though it be
<PB N="40" REF="21"> in any mans power to leave his E&s;tate, yet 'tis in no mans power to leave to his Son his acquir'd parts at his death. 'Tis further worth your ob&s;erving, and &s;pecial notice, that <HI>St. Peter</HI> him&s;elf and the re&s;t of the Apo&s;tles, by laying the Foundation of the <HI>Church,</HI> were to be them&s;elves the Foun|dation of it; and are accordingly &s;o called in <HI>Scripture.</HI> And therefore as in a building 'tis incongruous that foun|dations &s;hould &s;ucceed foundations, &s;o it may be in the <HI>Church,</HI> that Apo&s;tles &s;hould &s;ucceed Apo&s;tles, the <HI>Church</HI> being built upon Apo&s;tles and Prophets.</P>
<P>Nor indeed does the grand argument of the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> for their <HI>Pope,</HI> extend any further in reallity then the parti|cular <HI>See</HI> of <HI>Rome:</HI> for thus goes their main argument: St. <HI>Peter</HI> was fir&s;t Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> and the Apo&s;tles did not <HI>then</HI> attribute to them&s;elves each one his particular <HI>Chair</HI> (under&s;tand in that City of <HI>Rome&punc;</HI> for in other places, others had Chairs be&s;ides <HI>St. Peter</HI>) and therefore, &s;ays the <HI>Pa|pi&s;ts,</HI> he is a <HI>Schi&s;matick</HI> who again&s;t that one &s;ingle <HI>Chair</HI> erects another: (under&s;tand &s;till in the &s;ame place) and this this the Ground and the Authority the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> &s;ay the <HI>Pope</HI> has to be Succe&s;&s;or to St. <HI>Peter,</HI> and to exerci&s;e Au|thority over the Univer&s;al <HI>Church.</HI></P>
<P>But &s;ure the <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> urge more rationally, in arguing thus: That St. <HI>Peter</HI> wrote <HI>Two Catholick Epi&s;tles,</HI> in which he mentions his own departure; and writes to pre&s;erve the <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> in the <HI>Faith:</HI> but yet in neither of the&s;e <HI>Two Epi&s;tles</HI> does he commend the <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> to the guidance &amp; authority to his pretended <HI>Succe&s;&s;or</HI> the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome;</HI> which &s;ure if St. <HI>Peter</HI> had intended, he would never have forgot to have named it.</P>
<P>And &s;ince the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> &s;o reverence and adore the <HI>Popes</HI> power, let us <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> al&s;o admire his way and means of attaining this power: For though the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> &s;ay, that as &s;oon as he is made <HI>Pope,</HI> he has his authority immediately from <HI>Chri&s;t;</HI> yet at the very &s;ame time the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> all know, that he cannot be made <HI>Pope,</HI> but by authority and E|lection of the <HI>Cardinals;</HI> &s;o that I am &s;ure by the very &s;ame rea&s;on, any man that is cho&s;en a Magi&s;trate in any Town under the <HI>Pope</HI>'s Territories, may claim his Authority as immediately received from <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> as well as the <HI>Pope.</HI>
<PB N="41" REF="21"> And further, that the proving his being made <HI>Pope,</HI> does not render him <HI>infallible,</HI> I could give a hundred in&s;tances out of the Hi&s;tory of <HI>Popes,</HI> but that will not &s;uit well with my de&s;igned brevity, but let's ask the <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> if <HI>Liberius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> after Two years Bani&s;hment, did not by the &s;ollicitation of <HI>Fortunatianus</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Aquileia,</HI> &s;ub|&s;cribe to <HI>Here&s;ie,</HI> and con&s;equently could not be <HI>infallible.</HI> And though the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> rely &s;o much on the Authority of the Fathers, to &s;upport and ju&s;tifie the <HI>Infallibility</HI> of their <HI>Church;</HI> yet upon true Examination we &s;hall find, they make no more for their Univer&s;al Bi&s;hop, than St. <HI>Peter</HI>'s <HI>Two Catholick Epi&s;tles</HI> do.</P>
<P>And for their arguing out of St. <HI>Cyprian</HI>'s 55 <HI>Epi&s;tles,</HI> that &s;ure makes rather again&s;t, than for them; for there St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> writes to <HI>Cornelius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> but writes not &s;o much to him, as of him&s;elf, who was Bi&s;hop of <HI>Carthage,</HI> again&s;t whom a Faction of <HI>Schi&s;maticks</HI> had &s;et up another Bi&s;hop. Now though the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> &s;ay rea&s;on|ably, <HI>that 'tis a mark of the &V;niver&s;al Bi&s;hop, that other Bi&s;hops &s;hould make their Addre&s;&s;es unto the Bi&s;hop of</HI> Rome; yet &s;ure 'twere better Rea&s;oning to conclude thus: If the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> had been acknowledged Univer&s;al Bi&s;hop, and his Authority and Supremacy had been believ'd and own'd, &s;ure St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> had not been &s;atisfied with only barely writing him his &s;ad &s;tory, (for he did no more,) but doubtle&s;s would have made his complaint to him, and de&s;ired and expected redre&s;s from him, as Univer&s;al Bi&s;hop over the whole <HI>Catholick Church;</HI> but his not doing &s;o, argued he e&s;teemed him Bi&s;hop only of one <HI>Church.</HI></P>
<P>And further, <HI>St. Cyprian,</HI> all know, did re&s;olutely op|po&s;e a Decree of the <HI>Roman</HI> Bi&s;hop, and all that adhered to him in that one point of <HI>Rebaptizing;</HI> which the Popi&s;h Church <HI>at that time,</HI> delivered as a nece&s;&s;ary <HI>Tradition,</HI> and Excommunicated the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Capadocia, Galatia,</HI> and all that were again&s;t <HI>that Tradition,</HI> and would not &s;o much as allow them <HI>lodging</HI> or <HI>entertainment</HI> in <HI>Rome.</HI></P>
<P>Now &s;ince the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> affirm, that not to Rebaptize tho&s;e, whom <HI>Hereticks</HI> had Baptized, to be a damnable <HI>Here&s;ie;</HI> 'Tis well worth asking the Papi&s;ts, when this begun to be &s;o? for if they &s;ay, from the beginning it was &s;o, then
<PB N="42" REF="22"> they mu&s;t maintain a <HI>contradiction;</HI> for then was St. <HI>Cypria<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"></HI> a Profe&s;&s;or of damnable Here&s;ie; and yet the <HI>Papists</HI> e&s;teem him a Saint and Martyr.</P>
<P>And on the other &s;ide, if 'twere not &s;o from the begin|ning, then did the <HI>Pope</HI> wrongfully Excommunicate tho&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> other <HI>Churches</HI> of <HI>Cappadocia</HI> and <HI>Galatia,</HI> without &s;ufficien<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> ground of Excommunication and &s;eparation, which by thei<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> own Tenents is <HI>Schi&s;matical:</HI> So let them chu&s;e which &s;id<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> they plea&s;e, the <HI>Pope</HI> was in an error.</P>
<P>And tho <HI>Victor,</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> obtruded the <HI>Roma<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> Tradition</HI> touching the time of <HI>Ea&s;ter</HI> upon the <HI>A&s;ian</HI> Bi|&s;hips, under the pain of Excommunication and Damna|tion; yet we read that <HI>Irenaeus,</HI> and all the other We&s;ter<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> Bi&s;hops, though they did agree with the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> in his Ob&s;ervation of <HI>Ea&s;ter,</HI> yet they did &s;harply reprehend his Excommunicating the <HI>A&s;ian</HI> Bi&s;hops for their di&s;agree|ing with him; which mo&s;t plainly argues, that the We&s;tern Bi&s;hops thought that not a &s;ufficient ground of Excom|munication, which the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> did; and therefore i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily follow, they did not e&s;teem the <HI>Roman</HI> Bi|&s;hop <HI>infallible,</HI> nor the &s;eparation from the <HI>Church</HI> of <HI>Rome</HI> an <HI>Here&s;ie.</HI> And this I am &s;ure is true and undeniable rea&s;on&punc;</P>
<P>The <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> Story tells us, That <HI>Optatus</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rom<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"></HI> upbraided the <HI>Donati&s;ts</HI> as <HI>Schi&s;maticks,</HI> becau&s;e they held no Communion with the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> by adding af|terwards that they were <HI>Schi&s;maticks,</HI> for they held no Com|munion with the Seven Churches of <HI>A&s;ia;</HI> which occa|&s;ions this Que&s;tion of the <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> Whether a &s;eparation from the&s;e &s;even <HI>Apo&s;tolick Churches,</HI> was a mark of <HI>He|re&s;ie,</HI> or not? If they &s;ay it was not, how comes it that the <HI>Pope</HI>'s Authority is a &s;tronger Argument for the <HI>Popi&s;h Church,</HI> than the <HI>A&s;ian</HI> Authority for the <HI>A&s;ian Churches?</HI> And if the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> &s;ay, a &s;eparation from tho&s;e &s;even <HI>A&s;ian Churches,</HI> was a mark of <HI>Here&s;ie,</HI> then they mu&s;t confe&s;s their <HI>Church</HI> was for many years <HI>Heretical,</HI> as &s;eparating many years from the <HI>A&s;ian Churches.</HI></P>
<P>And <HI>Polycrates</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> and Metropolitan of <HI>A&s;ia,</HI> de&s;pi&s;ed the <HI>Pope</HI>'s <HI>&V;niver&s;al Supremacy and Autho|rity,</HI> and kept contrary to the Pope, <HI>Easter-day</HI> the Four|teenth of <HI>March.</HI></P>
<PB N="43" REF="22">
<P>And indeed tho the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> do &s;o much quote the <HI>autho|rity</HI> of the <HI>Fathers,</HI> yet I find they as little befriend their <HI>Churches Infallibility,</HI> as the <HI>A&s;ian Bi&s;hops</HI> them&s;elves have done: for tho the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> &s;ay St. <HI>Hierome</HI> conceived it ne|ne&s;&s;ary to <HI>conform in matters of Faith,</HI> to the <HI>Church of Rome;</HI> yet before the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> brag of that, let them an&s;wer us this, <HI>How came it then to pa&s;s&punc; that St.</HI> Hierome <HI>cho&s;e to believe the Epi&s;tle to the</HI> Hebrews Canonical <HI>upon the au|thority of the</HI> Ea&s;tern Church, <HI>and to reject it from the</HI> Canon <HI>of the</HI> Roman Churches <HI>Authority. And how comes it al&s;o that he di&s;&s;ented from the</HI> Roman Church <HI>touching the</HI> Ca|non <HI>of the Old Te&s;tament?</HI> Let the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> take heed of lo&s;ing their <HI>Fort,</HI> by endeavouring to maintain their <HI>out-works.</HI></P>
<P>And now to conclude this point, and excu&s;e the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> mi&s;take concerning their <HI>univer&s;al Bi&s;hop,</HI> we read in <HI>Scri|pture</HI> of the Prophet <HI>Elias,</HI> who thought there was none <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">eft be&s;ide him&s;elf in the whole Ringdom of <HI>I&s;rael,</HI> who had not revolted from God; and yet God him&s;elf is plea&s;ed to a&s;&s;ure us he was deceived. And if a <HI>Prophet,</HI> and one of the greate&s;t, err'd in his judgment touching his own time &amp; Country; why may not the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> (&s;ubject to the &s;ame pa&s;&s;ions) <HI>err</HI> in their <HI>opinion</HI> and <HI>judgment</HI> about the <HI>Popes</HI> being <HI>&V;niver&s;al Bi&s;hop,</HI> when plain rea&s;on tells them, as well as us, that there were other Bi&s;hops as much <HI>&V;niver|&s;al</HI> as the <HI>Pope.</HI></P>
<P>I now come to examine this <HI>infallible Pope,</HI> whether he cannot make his <HI>infallible Church</HI> more <HI>infallible</HI> than he has made him&s;elf; and free the <HI>Popi&s;h Church</HI> from <HI>error,</HI> tho he could not the <HI>Pope</HI> from <HI>Here&s;ie.</HI></P>
<P>Now towards the di&s;proving the pretended <HI>Infallibility</HI> of the <HI>Roman Church,</HI> I lay this as the foundation of my Di&s;|cour&s;e; That the whole <HI>Roman Church</HI> can be no better than a Cengregation of Men, whereof every particular, not one excepted, and con&s;equently the generality, is no|thing but a collection of men: and if every one be pollu|ted, <HI>(as who dare &s;ay he is free from &s;in?)</HI> how can the whole but be defiled with <HI>error?</HI> As rea&s;onably may a man brag he is in perfect health and &s;trength, and yet at the &s;ame time confe&s;s he hath not one &s;ound part about him. And truly it very much creats my wonder, but does not in the
<PB N="44" REF="23"> lea&s;t &s;atisfie my rea&s;on, what the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> can pretend by the <HI>Infallibility</HI> of their <HI>Church:</HI> for if they will allow their Pope to be no better than St. <HI>Peter</HI> was, their <HI>Church</HI> to be compo&s;ed of no better men than the <HI>Holy Apostles</HI> were; I &s;hall de&s;ire no more, and I am &s;ure they can never prove &s;o much: for <HI>they that</HI> pretend to it, declare as great an <HI>ignorance,</HI> as St. <HI>Peter</HI> did <HI>a &s;in,</HI> in denying his Lord and Ma&s;ter: and there are many other known circum&s;tances which made St. <HI>Paul</HI> prove him blame-worthy to hi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> face.</P>
<P>And for the <HI>Apostles</HI> being in error, we have not only the examples of the <HI>Apostles</HI> them&s;elves, who in the time of our <HI>Saviours</HI> Pa&s;&s;ion, being <HI>&s;candalized,</HI> lo&s;t their Faith in him; and I believe the <HI>Papists</HI> will not &s;ay they could lo&s;e their <HI>faith</HI> in our ble&s;&s;ed <HI>Saviour Chri&s;t</HI> without error<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> and therefore our Saviour after his Re&s;urrection upbraided them with their Incredulity, and called <HI>Thomas</HI> incredu|lous for denying the Re&s;urrection, in the Twentieth o<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> St. <HI>John.</HI></P>
<P>And further, 'tis mo&s;t apparent that the very <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> them&s;elves, even after the &s;ending the <HI>Holy Ghost,</HI> did through Inadvertency, or Prejudice, continue &s;ome time in an error, <HI>contrary</HI> to a revealed Truth. And if the <HI>Pa|pists</HI> will not own to know this <HI>Truth,</HI> they may be fully &s;atisfied of it in the Story of the <HI>Acts</HI> of the <HI>Apo&s;tles,</HI> where they may plainly read, that notwith&s;tanding our <HI>Saviours</HI> expre&s;s warrant and injunction to the Apo&s;tles, <HI>to go and preach to all Nations;</HI> Yet notwith&s;tanding, till <HI>St. Peter</HI> was <HI>better</HI> informed by a Vi&s;ion from Heaven, and by the Conver&s;ion of <HI>Cornelius,</HI> both <HI>St. Peter</HI> and the re&s;t of the <HI>Church,</HI> held it unlawful for them to go and Preach the <HI>Go&s;pel</HI> to any but the <HI>Jews.</HI> Now &s;ince we can prove that <HI>St. Peter</HI> did err, and that the <HI>Church</HI> compo&s;ed partly of the Holy <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> them&s;elves, who were ble&s;&s;ed with, and in|&s;pired by the <HI>Holy Gho&s;t,</HI> could mi&s;take, and that <HI>there is no man free from &s;in;</HI> and yet that the Body of men that make up the <HI>Popi&s;h Church,</HI> &s;hould be <HI>infallible,</HI> is, I confe&s;s, be|&s;ide my <HI>faith</HI> to believe, or <HI>rea&s;on</HI> to comprehend.</P>
<P>For &s;ure if the <HI>Roman Church</HI> had been e&s;teem'd by the <HI>Apo&s;tles, infallible,</HI> what needed the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> any other
<PB N="45" REF="23"> Creed, than this &s;hort Creed; <HI>I believe the Roman Church <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">nfallible?</HI> and that would have been more effectual to <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">eep the Believers of it from <HI>Here&s;ie,</HI> and in the true <HI>Faith,</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">han this Apo&s;tolical Creed we now have.</P>
<P>And &s;ure the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> cannot but believe with us, that <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">o&s;e Holy Men that wrote the <HI>New Te&s;tament,</HI> were not <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">nly Good Men, but al&s;o Men that were de&s;irous to direct <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">s in the plaine&s;t and &s;ure&s;t way to Heaven. And the <HI>Pa|<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">i&s;ts</HI> cannot al&s;o but believe with us, <HI>that they</HI> were likewi&s;e <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">en very &s;ufficiently in&s;tructed by the Spirit of <HI>God,</HI> in all <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">he nece&s;&s;ary points of the Chri&s;tian Faith: Therefore cer|<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">inly 'tis mo&s;t rational to believe, they could not be ig|<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">orant of this <HI>unum nece&s;&s;arium,</HI> that all Faith is no Faith, <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">cept we believe the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> was de&s;ign'd by <HI>God</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">o be the <HI>Guide of Faith,</HI> as the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> believes, <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">nd would have us believe &s;o too.</P>
<P>We al&s;o further believe, and that with great rea&s;on too, <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">at the Writers of the <HI>New Te&s;tament</HI> were Wi&s;e Men, e&s;pe|<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">ally being they were a&s;&s;i&s;ted by the <HI>Spirit of Wi&s;dom;</HI> and <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">ch that mu&s;t know, <HI>that an uncertain Guide was as bad as <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">ne at all;</HI> and yet after all this, is it po&s;&s;ible for a <HI>Philo&s;o|<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">hical</HI> or <HI>Contemplative</HI> man, nay, for any man that has rea|<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">n or common &s;en&s;e, after all the&s;e &s;uppo&s;itions, to believe <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">at none among the&s;e holy Writers of the <HI>New Te&s;tament</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">ould remember <HI>(ad rei memoriam)</HI> to &s;et down plainly <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">is mo&s;t nece&s;&s;ary Doctrine, not &s;o much as once, That <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">e were to believe the <HI>Roman Church infallible?</HI></P>
<P>Again, that none of the <HI>Evangeli&s;ts</HI> &s;hould &s;o much as <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">nce name this <HI>Popi&s;h nece&s;&s;ary point of Faith, if they had <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">teem'd it nece&s;&s;ary for us to believe it,</HI> when <HI>St. Paul</HI> &s;ays, <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">e kept not back any thing that was profitable for us;</HI> and &s;ure <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">e <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> cannot deny, but was is nece&s;&s;ary to &s;alvation, <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">u&s;t be very profitable: And <HI>St. Luke</HI> al&s;o plainly tells <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">hri&s;tians, his intent was <HI>to write all things nece&s;&s;ary.</HI> And <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">re it &s;tands al&s;o with rea&s;on, that when <HI>St. Paul</HI> wrote to <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">he <HI>Romans,</HI> he would have congratulated this their ex|<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">aordinary priviledge, if he had believ'd it belong'd to <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">hem.</P>
<P>And though the <HI>Romans</HI> bring it as a great Argument <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters">or them, that <HI>St. Paul</HI> tells them, <HI>Their Faith is &s;poken al<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">
<PB REF="24"> the world over;</HI> Yet pray let them moderate tho&s;e thought<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> with this con&s;ideration, that St. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;aid the very &s;ame thing to the <HI>The&s;&s;alonians:</HI> And let them further con&s;i|der this, that if the <HI>Roman Faith</HI> had been the <HI>Rule o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> Faith</HI> for all the World for ever, as the <HI>Papists</HI> hold; &s;ure St. <HI>Paul</HI> would have forborn to put the <HI>Romans</HI> in fear o<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> a po&s;&s;ibility, (for though Raillery is much in fa&s;hion now<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> &s;ure 'twas not then) that they al&s;o, nay the whole <HI>Church</HI> of the <HI>Gentiles,</HI> if they did not look to their &s;tanding might fall into Infidelity, as the <HI>Jews</HI> had done, 1 <HI>Ephe|&s;ians</HI> 11.</P>
<P>And methinks it al&s;o &s;tands with great rea&s;on, that the <HI>Apostles</HI> writing &s;o often of <HI>Hereticks,</HI> and <HI>Antichrist</HI> &s;hould have given the Chri&s;tian World this (as <HI>Papists</HI> pre|tend) only &s;ure Pre&s;ervative from them, <HI>To be guided by the infallible Church of</HI> Rome; and not to &s;eparate from it upon the pain of damnation.</P>
<P>Methinks al&s;o St. <HI>Peter,</HI> St. <HI>James,</HI> and St. <HI>Jude,</HI> in their <HI>Catholick Epi&s;tles,</HI> would not have forgot giving Chri&s;tians this <HI>Catholick</HI> Direction of following the <HI>Roman Church;</HI> and St. <HI>John</HI> in&s;tead of &s;aying, <HI>He that believes that Je&s;us i<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1+ letters"> the Christ, is born of God,</HI> might have &s;aid, <HI>He that ad|heres to the Doctrine of the</HI> Roman <HI>Church, and lives accord|ing to it, is a good Christian, and by this mark you &s;hall know him.</HI> In a word, can there be any thing more irrational, than to believe, that none of the&s;e holy Men, who were &s;o de&s;irous of mens &s;alvation, &s;hould &s;o much as once remem|ber to write, that we were to obey the <HI>Roman Church,</HI> but leave it to be collected from uncertain Principles, and by more uncertain Con&s;equences.</P>
<P>So that upon the whole, I cannot without much wonder look on the <HI>Pope</HI>'s Confidence, and the <HI>Papists</HI> Credulity, in e&s;teeming the <HI>Pope</HI> or his <HI>Councils</HI> to be an <HI>infallible Guide:</HI> &s;ure either they never read what they ought to be|lieve, or el&s;e they will not believe what they read, though it be never &s;o known a Truth, and worthy of belief: for if they did, they could never believe the <HI>Infallibility</HI> of the <HI>Popi&s;h Church,</HI> For indeed, if they would read the <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> Story, or, as I may well call it, the Civil Wars of the <HI>Popes,</HI> you &s;hall find, as I &s;aid before, Popes again&s;t Popes, Councils
<PB REF="24"> again&s;t <HI>Councils;</HI> &s;ome <HI>Fathers</HI> again&s;t others, nay, &s;ome again&s;t <HI>them&s;elves; new Traditions</HI> brought in, and <HI>old ones</HI> turn'd out; one <HI>Church</HI> again&s;t another; nay, the <HI>Church</HI> of one Age again&s;t the <HI>Church</HI> of another. In a word, the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> &s;ay their <HI>Church</HI> is <HI>infallible;</HI> and all other Chri&s;ti|ans be&s;ides <HI>them&s;elves,</HI> tho more in number than they, ab|&s;olutely deny it; and yet we mu&s;t for all that believe the <HI>Popi&s;h Church infallible.</HI></P>
<P>And to &s;peak the plain <HI>Truth,</HI> and in a word to unravel the real cau&s;e of the <HI>Grandure</HI> of the <HI>Church of Rome</HI> above all other <HI>Churches,</HI> is only this: <HI>Rome</HI> was the Imperial Town of the Empire, and its greatne&s;s was given by Men, and not God; and when afterwards <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> was the Imperial City, they Decreed that the Church of <HI>Con&s;tanti|nople</HI> &s;hould have equal Priviledges and Dignities with that of <HI>Rome.</HI></P>
<P>And now to end this Di&s;cour&s;e, I de&s;ire you will plea&s;e to con&s;ider this <HI>Conclu&s;ion,</HI> which is, that after all that the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> have &s;aid, be it never &s;o much and mighty, <HI>to &s;hew the Infallibility of their Church;</HI> I am verily per&s;waded they cannot &s;hew more, if &s;o much, out of the <HI>Scriptures,</HI> for <HI>their Church,</HI> as the &s;malle&s;t Society of Chri&s;tians met to|gether in prayer, can for them&s;elves, <HI>that when two or three are met together in my name, I will be among&s;t them, &s;ays the Lord:</HI> And now I have ju&s;t done this &s;mall Di&s;cour&s;e, and the Sun is ju&s;t upon fini&s;hing this days vi&s;it; I can very readily follow that holy advice of not <HI>letting it go down in my anger:</HI> (which I thank God I have to none living) and therefore am in &s;o much <HI>Charity</HI> with the <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> as to wi&s;h that neither <HI>they,</HI> nor <HI>Prote&s;tants,</HI> might wai&s;t their precious time in meer &s;peculative controver&s;ies about words and ceremonies, which of them&s;elves will never carry us to Heaven; but that we may &s;pend our time like wi&s;e Chri&s;tians in the ways and fear of God, which is the only beginning of wi&s;dom; and not con&s;ume it in &s;tu|dying and maintaining of Di&s;putes and Factions; but if we mu&s;t &s;till differ, let <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> and <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> differ in O|pinions but as <HI>Ari&s;totle</HI> and <HI>Cicero</HI> did, who, tho they were of differing Judgments touching the natures of <HI>Souls,</HI> yet both of them agreed in the main, that all men had <HI>Souls,</HI> and Souls of the &s;ame nature.</P>
<PB N="48" REF="25">
<P>And as <HI>Phy&s;icians,</HI> though they di&s;pute, whether the <HI>Brain</HI> or the <HI>Heart</HI> be the principal part of a man, yet that all Men have <HI>Brains,</HI> and <HI>Heart,</HI> they &s;ufficiently agree in: So though <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> e&s;teem one part of the <HI>Church-Doctrine,</HI> and <HI>Pa|pi&s;ts</HI> &s;et a higher value on another part, yet the Soul of the <HI>Church</HI> may be in both of them: and though the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> account that a nece&s;&s;ary <HI>truth,</HI> which the <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> account neither <HI>nece&s;&s;ary,</HI> nor perhaps <HI>ture;</HI> yet in <HI>truth</HI> truly ne|ce&s;&s;ary they both agree, <HI>viz.</HI> The Apo&s;tles <HI>Creed,</HI> and that <HI>Faith, Hope,</HI> and <HI>Charity,</HI> are nece&s;&s;ary to &s;alvation. And la&s;tly, though <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> hold they may be ju&s;tified by their Works, and <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI> hold none can be ju&s;tified barely by them, (in regard of the Imperfections of their Works) yet on the other &s;ide, we &s;o much agree with the <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> as to e&s;teem none can be ju&s;tified without them: for with|out Repentance, and Charity, none can be good; they be|ing both like Health to our Bodies, the want of which is &s;ufficient to di&s;turb all other plea&s;ures. Therefore when we read St. <HI>Pauls Treati&s;e of Ju&s;tification by Faith without the works of the Law;</HI> let us at the &s;ame time read what he writes to the <HI>Corinthians</HI> concerning the ab&s;olute nece&s;&s;ity of that Excellent Vertue of <HI>Charity,</HI> and they will reconcile one another. And I wi&s;h, <HI>that we were all &s;o reconciled in the unity of the Spirit, and in the bond of peace.</HI> And that you, <HI>Madam,</HI> may be the &s;ooner reconcil'd to me, for this tediou&s;ne&s;s; I &s;hall now make a Conclu&s;ion, which after &s;uch an overgrown Letter, mu&s;t needs be the be&s;t Comple|ment that can be made by,</P>
<CLOSER><SALUTE>Madam,</SALUTE>
<SIGNED>Yours, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></SIGNED></CLOSER>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
<BACK>
<DIV1 TYPE="errata">
<P>Errata: <HI>Page</HI> 9. <HI>line</HI> 27. for <HI>pa&s;t-time,</HI> read <HI>patience.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="publisher's advertisement">
<P>The Tryal of <HI>Philip Standsfield,</HI> Son to Sir <HI>James Stans|field,</HI> of <HI>New-Milns,</HI> for the Murther of his Father. And other Crimes Libell'd againg him, <HI>Feb.</HI> 7. 1688. For which he had Judgment, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> price 1 <HI>s.</HI></P>
<P>An Hi&s;torical Relation of &s;everal Great and Learned <HI>Ro|mani&s;ts</HI> who did Imbrace the <HI>Prote&s;tant Religion,</HI> with their Rea&s;ons for their Change, deliver'd in their own words. 6 <HI>d.</HI></P>
<P>A Sea&s;onable Collection of plain Text of Scripture, for the U&s;e of <HI>Engli&s;h Prote&s;tants.</HI> price 2 <HI>d.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</BACK>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
