Invocating Saints and Angels in denying the Lay-men the Communion in both kinds as was commanded by our blessed Saviour in celebrating their Church-Service in an unknown Tongue which was condemned by St. Paul in adoring the Sacrament and in all these a rational Papist cannot deny but he is on the more dangerous side as to the committing of sin and the Protestant in the more secure way as to the avoiding it For in all these things if Protestants say true the Papists do that which is impious but on the other side if the Papists were in the right yet the Protestants might be secure enough too for their fault would be only this that they should only not do some things which the Papists themselves confess is not altogether necessary to be done And truly the Protestants are so Charitably civil as only to say of Papists as St. Austin did of the Donatists That Catholicks approved the Doctrine of the Donatists but abhorred their Heresie of Rebaptization So Protestants approve the Fundamental and necessary Truths which the Papists retain by which many good Souls among them may be saved but abhor the many superstitions they use in their Religion And supposing these Errors of the Popish Church were in themselves not damnable to them that believe as they profess yet for us Protestants to profess what we do not believe and esteem those as Divine Truths which we believe not to be either Divine or true would be doubtless damnable as to us for 't is certain Two men may do the same thing and it may be sinful to one and not to the other as suppose a married Woman gives herself out to be a Widow and one knowing her Husband to be alive marries her doubtless his injoyment of her was adulterous but a second man comes and after seeing her pretended Husband buried marries her and dies without the least information of her first Husbands being then alive his ignorance sure protected him from sin and the second Husbands knowledg of the sin he acted condemned him of Adultery tho his fault might be palliated with some excuses yet it can never be defended by any just Apoligy And so tho we read in Scripture that it was St. Paul's Judgment that meat offered to Idols might lawfully be eaten yet he says if any should eat it with a doubtful Conscience he should sin and be condemned for so doing And supposing we Protestants ought not to have forsook the Papists Church for sin and errours if she had not injoyn'd and imposed them on us yet since she does maintain them with such obstinacy and imposes them with such tyranny we ought certainly to say with St. Peter and St. John 'T is better to forsake men than God and leave the Popish Church-Communion rather than commit or profess known errors as Divine Truths for as the Prophet Ezekiel tells us that to say The Lord hath said so when the Lord hath not said so is a high presumption and great sin be the matter never so small and therefore when St. Paul spoke concerning Virgins abstaining from marriage he said He had no commandment of the Lord but I declare my own judgment of it Now if St. Paul had given this as God's command surely we might have justly contradicted him and made a distinction between Divine Revelation and Humane Judgment So that for a Protestant to abide in the Communion of the Roman Church is so far from securing him from errour as that if I or any Protestant should continue in it I am confident I could not be saved by it and the reason is because the Papists will not admit of my Communion without professing the entire Popish Doctrine to be true and profess this I cannot but I must perpetually exulcerate my Conscience tho the errours of the Roman Church were not in themselves damnable yet for me to resist known Truths and to continue in the Profession of known errours and falshoods is certainly a capital sin and of great affinity with the sin which shall never be forgiven In short if the errours of the Roman Church did not warrant our departure yet the tyrannous imposition of them would be our sufficient justification for they force us either to forsake the Papists Communion or profess as Gospel-truths what our Conscience assures us is very little akin to them so that the Protestants were oblig'd to forsake those errours of the Popish Church and not the Church but the errours and we Protestants did and do still continue members of the Church having only left what appeared most plain to us to be superstitious and impious And we separate no more from the Popish Church thant she has separated from the Ancient Church and indeed to speak properly our difference is more against the Court than Church of Rome which has introduced so many new ceremonies and practises in the Popish Church as was never heard nor practised in the Primitive Times as for one instance of a Thousand I might give you Their denying the Cup to the Laity which was never practised in the Church a Thousand years after our Saviour But because the Papists brag so much of and depend so entirely on the Infallibility of their Church I shall pass by their Out-works and search a little into this their Grand Fort the Infallibility of their Church for except they prove that they prove nothing but in proving that they prove all and if the Papists could satisfie me either by Scripture or Reason that their Church is infallible I should not only be of their Church to morrow but repent I was not sooner but really by all that I ever heard or read for their making it good I find cause only to admire their confidence but not at all to esteem their reasons The cheif method they take and degrees they use to prove the Infallibility of their Church are by whole-sale these First that St. Peter was head and cheif amongst the Apostles and there was given to him and his Successors by our Saviour Universal Authority over his Militent Church That the Pope or Bishop of Rome is St. Peter's Successor and has his Authority of Vniversal Bishop and consequently the Roman Church being built upon this Rock is infallible all which I doubt not but to prove to be inconsistent with and contradictory both to Scripture and Reason As to the first point of St. Peter's being Head of the Apostles which the Papists all stile him and say he was called from thence Cephas which is derived from the Greek word Head it is a most gross mistake for Cephas is a Syriack word that signifies Stone but this is only by the by Now we Protestants say tho we allow St. Peter might have primacy of Order yet we cannot grant he had supremacy of power over the other Apostles for sure it cannot stand with the least reason that St. Peter should have authority over all the Apostles and yet never act the least authority over
any one of them Nor is it reasonable to believe that St. Peter having authority over all the Apostles for above 25 years together should never shew the least power over any of them all that time nor so much as receive the lest subjection from them sure any one must think this as strange unreasonable as if a King of England for 25 years together should not do one act of Regality among his Subjects nor receive any one acknowledgment from them Nor sure is it less strange unreasonable that the Papists should so many Ages after know this so certainly as they pretend they do and yet that the Apostles themselves after that these words were spoak in their hearing by vertue whereof St. Peter is pretended to be made their head should still be so ignorant of it as to question our Saviour which of them should be the greatest By which sure we may rationally conclude they did not then know for if they did their question had been needless and superfluous in desiring to be taught what they already knew And what yet appears more strange than all is that our Saviour should not have helped them out of their error by telling them St. Peter was the man but rather confirmed them in the contrary by saying The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Authority over them but it should not be so among them And again it is as strange and unreasonable that St. Paul should so far forget both St. Peter and himself as in mentioning so often St. Peter he should still do it without ascribing him any title of Honour Nor does it stand with reason that St. Paul speaking of the several degrees of men in the Church should omit giving St. Peter the highest if it had been his due but place him in the same rank and equipage with the rest of the Apostles for St. Paul says God hath appointed not first St. Peter then the rest of the Apostles but first Apostles secondly Prophets now certainly if Apostles were all first that is all equal how could one be in greater power than the other But besides all this though we should grant against all these probabilities and many more that Optatus Bishop of Rome meant that St. Peter was Head of the Apostles yet sure the Papists are still very far from proving the Bishop of Rome was to be so at all much less by Divine right Successor to St. Peter in his Headship and Authority For what incongruity is there if we say that Optatus might succeed St. Peter as his Heir and Successor in that part of his Government of that particular Church of Rome as sure he did even whilst St. Peter was living and yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed him in his Apostleship nor in the Government of the Church Vniversal as tho a Bishop should leave his Son Heir to all he died possessed of I hope you will not conclude therefore he must necessarily succeed him in the Bishoprick he died seized of The Apostles were men all called and Divinely inspired by the Holy Ghost which was the immediate gift of God and therefore could not be left as a Legary by man for though it be in any mans power to leave his Estate yet 't is in no mans power to leave to his Son his acquir'd parts at his death 'T is further worth your observing and special notice that St. Peter himself and the rest of the Apostles by laying the Foundation of the Church were to be themselves the Foundation of it and are accordingly so called in Scripture And therefore as in a building 't is incongruous that foundations should succeed foundations so it may be in the Church that Apostles should succeed Apostles the Church being built upon Apostles and Prophets Nor indeed does the grand argument of the Papists for their Pope extend any further in reallity then the particular See of Rome for thus goes their main argument St. Peter was first Bishop of Rome and the Apostles did not then attribute to themselves each one his particular Chair understand in that City of Rome for in other places others had Chairs besides St. Peter and therefore says the Papists he is a Schismatick who against that one single Chair erects another understand still in the same place and this this the Ground and the Authority the Papists say the Pope has to be Successor to St. Peter and to exercise Authority over the Universal Church But sure the Protestants urge more rationally in arguing thus That St. Peter wrote Two Catholick Epistles in which he mentions his own departure and writes to preserve the Christians in the Faith but yet in neither of these Two Epistles does he commend the Christians to the guidance authority to his pretended Successor the Bishop of Rome which sure if St. Peter had intended he would never have forgot to have named it And since the Papists so reverence and adore the Popes power let us Protestants also admire his way and means of attaining this power For though the Papists say that as soon as he is made Pope he has his authority immediately from Christ yet at the very same time the Papists all know that he cannot be made Pope but by authority and Election of the Cardinals so that I am sure by the very same reason any man that is chosen a Magistrate in any Town under the Pope's Territories may claim his Authority as immediately received from Christ as well as the Pope And further that the proving his being made Pope does not render him infallible I could give a hundred instances out of the History of Popes but that will not suit well with my designed brevity but let 's ask the Papists if Liberius Bishop of Rome after Two years Banishment did not by the sollicitation of Fortunatianus Bishop of Aquileia subscribe to Heresie and consequently could not be infallible And though the Papists rely so much on the Authority of the Fathers to support and justifie the Infallibility of their Church yet upon true Examination we shall find they make no more for their Universal Bishop than St. Peter's Two Catholick Epistles do And for their arguing out of St. Cyprian's 55 Epistles that sure makes rather against than for them for there St. Cyprian writes to Cornelius Bishop of Rome but writes not so much to him as of himself who was Bishop of Carthage against whom a Faction of Schismaticks had set up another Bishop Now though the Papists say reasonably that 't is a mark of the Vniversal Bishop that other Bishops should make their Addresses unto the Bishop of Rome yet sure 't were better Reasoning to conclude thus If the Bishop of Rome had been acknowledged Universal Bishop and his Authority and Supremacy had been believ'd and own'd sure St. Cyprian had not been satisfied with only barely writing him his sad story for he did no more but doubtless would have made his complaint to him and desired and expected redress from
then 't is most evident that their Church was a most excellent keeper of Scripture for Fifteen hundred years together that had not all that time defin'd what was Scripture and what was not but if the Papists say they had then we demand Was that set forth by Pope Sixtus Quintus or was it set forth by Pope Clement or if by a third different from them both why do they not name him if it were that set forth by Pope Sixtus then 't is now condemn'd by Pope Clement if that of Clement 't was condemned by that of Sixtus So that error must necessarily be betwixt them let them chuse which side they please And for the Book of Maccabees I hope they will allow it defin'd Canonical before St. Gregorie's time though he would not allow it Canonical but only for the Edification of the Church We further desire to be satisfied of the Papists if the Books of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom and the Epistle to St. James were by the holy Apostles approved Canonical or not if they were approved by the Apostles Canonical sure the Papists cannot deny but they had a sufficient difinition and authority not to question them and therefore err'd in doing so And if they were not approved Canonical by the Apostles with what impudence dare the Roman Church now approve them as Canonical and yet pretend that all their Doctrine is Apostolical And if they say these Books were not questioned they should do well to tell which Books they mean which were not always known to be Canonical but have afterwards been receiveed by the Roman Church to be such so that this Argument reaches those as well as these And further we are to consider that there is not the same reasons for the Churches absolute Infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures for if the Church falls into an error it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rules of the Apostles Doctrine in Scripture but if the Apostles have err'd in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity in Scripture then the Roman Church cannot be infallible For Apostles Prophets and Canonical Writers and the foundation of the Church as St. Paul says 't is built upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets And now to conclude this part of my discourse in very few words let the Papists answer if they can but these five words All Scripture is Divinely inspired Let them shew us so much for the Roman Church and shew us if they can where 't is written in Scripture that all the decrees of the Popish Church are Divinely inspired and all our Controversies will be at an end but I believe they can never do that without another Transubstantiation-Miracle of words The Papists desire us to shew them an exact Catalogue of our fundamentals to which we answer That God may be sufficiently known to one and not sufficiently declared to another and consequently that may be fundamental and necessary to one which is not to another which variety of circumstances renders it impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of Fundamentals for God requires more of them to whom he gives more and less of those to whom he gives less more of a commander of a Kingdom than a poor simple Turnspit 'T is a plain revelation of God to us Protestants that the Sacrament of the Eucharist should be administred in both kinds 1 Cor. 11. 28. that the publick Hymns and Prayers of the Church should be in such a Language as is most for Edification 1 Cor. 14. 15 16. yet the Church of Rome not seeing this by reason of the vail would be very angry if we told them 't would prejudice their supposed Infallibility We read in St. Matthew that the Gospel was to be Preacht to all Nations and this was a truth revealed before our Saviours Ascention yet if the Church had been asked before the conversion of Cornelius they would have certainly told you it had not been necessary to teach all Nations for 't is most apparent out of Acts 11. they all believed so until St. Peter was better informed by a vision from Heaven and the conversion of Cornelius and then they turn'd quite of a differing belief and esteemed it necessary to teach all Nations and yet were still a Church The Papists are pleased to say the Protestants differ in Fundamentals which indeed appears to us very irrational For if they say We Protestants differ in Fundamentals how then can they say We are members of the same Church one with another more than they are with ours or ours with theirs and why do they object our difference more with one another than with themselves and if we do not differ in Fundamentals why do they upbraid us with Fundamental differences amongst our selves We believe the Catholick Church cannot perish yet we believe she may and did err as I prov'd just before but thus much we Protestants declare in general That we esteem it sufficient for any mans salvation to believe God's Word the Scripture and that it contains all things necessary to our salvation and that we do our utmost endeavours to find believe and follow the true sense of it and being we are sure that all that is any way necessary is there believing all that is there we are sure we believe all that is necessary And therefore 't is but reasonable to say that any private person who truly believes the Scriptures and heartily endeavours to know the Will of God and to do it is as secure nay securer from the danger of erring in Fundamentals than the Roman Church for 't is impossible any man so qualified should fall into an error that can prove damnable to him for God requires no more of any man to his salvation but only his true and best endeavours to be saved And for the Papists Sacrament of Confession which they hold is so absolute and nenessary and so much upbraid us for the want of it we answer We know no such absolute necessity of it but yet we hold we must not only confess our sins but forsake them or we shall not find mercy And we Protestants farther believe that they that confess their sins shall find mercy though they only confess them to God and not to Man And more that they who confess them both to God and Man and do not in time forsake them shall not find mercy And so for the Papists Sacrament of Repentance for Remission of sins tho we Protestants know no such yet we allow observe the same Duty but publick before the Church which was the constant practice of the primitive Church and Rhenanus himself though so great a Champion for the Papists writes That the confession then used was before the Church and that Auricular confession was not then in the World. The Papists will tell you that our Bishops have not the true power of Ordination but that has been so clearly answered and so truly proved at large by so many already as I