Protestants do the same But we must desire the Papists to give us leave to tell them that they most grosly mistake if they say they agree in matters of Faith as for proof some of them hold it against Faith to take the Oath of Allegiance others 't is against Faith to refuse that Oath Some hold it of Faith that the Pope is head of the Church by Divine Law others the contrary some hold it of Faith that the blessed Virgin was free from actual sin others the contrary some that the Popes power over Princes in Temporalities is de fide others the contrary some that 't is universal Tradition that the Virgin Mary was conceived in actual sin others the contrary And how the Jesuites and Franciscans and other Orders differ to this day I am sure needs no memorandum and the best Jeast of all is the Papists have not so much as yet agreed in their very pretended means of agreement and yet have the confidence to pretend an Unity more than the Protestants sor some of them say the Pope with a Council may determine all Controversies others deny it Some hold That a general Council without a Pope may do so others deny this Others say Both in conjunction are infallible Determiners others deny this And some among the Papists hold The acceptation on of the Decrees of Councils by the Universal Church is the onely way to decide Controversies which others deny by denying their Church to be infallible and yet every part pretends to be part of the Church In a word can the Papists deny but that there has been Popes against Popes Councils against Councils Nay Councils confirmed by Popes against Popes confirmed by Councils And Lastly The Church of some Ages against the Church of other Ages and since every part of the Body is so out of order methinks they should not brag of so perfect a health as they do The Papists say and do but say it that their Doctrine is held Catholick and therefore they esteem it an insolent madness of us Protestants to dispute against the practice of the whole Church First That their Doctrine is Catholick we answer That the greatest number of Christians in the world deny it so that they cannot truly say we dispute against the practice of the whole Church And farther we say supposing we should in complement to them grant that their Church is Catholick and Universal yet we say That is no sufficient proof it came originally from the Apostles witness the Doctrine of the Milenaries and the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants which was generally taught by the Universal Church and believed as Apostolical Tradition but yet contradicted by the Universal Church afterwards This I am sure the Papists dare not deny so that we unavoidably cast the Papists upon this Rock that they must either conclude the Apostles were Fountains of contradictorie Doctrines or that the Universal Doctrine of the present Church is no sufficient proof that it came originally from the Apostles because from Church Universal of one time and the Church Universal of another time did differ Next for their saying 't is insolent madness to dispute against the practice of the whole Church First we are sure we can bring more Christian witnesses that deny they are the whole Church than they can bring to prove it but supposing we were as mad as they say we are and would have us to be to dispute against the whole practice of the Church yet I hope we may desire to know of the Papists if they can deny but that 't was the practice of the whole Church in St. Au'stine's time and esteemed then an Apostolical Tradition even by St. Au'stine himself that the Eucharist should be administred to Infants And then let them tell us Whether it be insolent madness to dispute against the practice of the whole Church or is it not if it be not why do they accuse us for it but if it be insolent madness how mad and insolent is the Papist Church not onely to dispute against this practice of the Universal Church of administring the Eucharist to Infants but utterly abolishing the practice of it So that the very worst the Papists can say of us allowing what they say to be true is that we but do what they themselves own already to have done And though the Papists are pleased to say that the Holy Scriptures and ancient Fathers assign separation from the visible Church as a mark of Heresie yet they cannot shew one plain Text of Scripture to confirm it And for the Papists braging of the Antiquity and universality of their Churches Doctrine though we allow it very ancient bating the primative times we answer first as to its Antiquity we desire to see what Antiquity they can shew for their giving the Communion but in one kind when they know that the Administring it in both kinds was the practice of the Church for a Thousand years after Christ what Antiquitie for the lawfulness and expediency of the Latine service for the present use of indulgences For the Popes power in Temporalities over Princes for the Picturing the Trinity For the lawfulness of worshipping Pictures and Images Fox their Beads For their whole worship of the blessed Virgin For their Oblations in the notion of Sacrifices to her and other Saints For their saying Pater Nosters and Creeds to the Honour of them and Ave Maries to the Virgin Mary For the infallibility of the Bishop or Church of Rome For their Doctrine of the blessed Virgins immunity from actual sin For the necessity of Auricular Confession For the necessity of the Priests intention to obtain benefit by any of their Sacraments And lastly for their licentious Doctrine in holding that though a man lives and dies without the practise of any Christian vertue and with the Habits of many damnable sins unmortified yet if at the last moment of his life he has any sorrow for his sins and joyn confession to it he shall certainly be saved This is a Doctrine may keep many souls out of Heaven but I doubt will scarce carry any one there So that the Papists Doctrine being ancient is nothing as long as 't is evident that they hold many dangerous errors as for instance the Milenaries and the Communicating Infants was more ancient than their Doctrine and 't is plain that antiquity unless it be absolute and primative is not a certain sign of true Doctrine And the very Apostles themselves assure us that in their dayes the mystery of Iniquity was working The Papists demand how comes it to pass that their Doctrine is so universal forgetting that weeds spread faster than good herbs And we ask them how the errors of the Milenaries and the Communicating Infants became so universal let them tell us this and we will tell them that for what is done in some may be done in others The Papists ask us where our Church was before Luther and tell us because t' was
Papists shew us if they can where God hath appointed that the Pope alone or any confirm'd by the Pope or that Society of Christians which adhere to him shall be the infallible Judge of controversies we desire the Papists if they can to let us see any of those assertions plainly set down in Scripture as in all reason a thing of this nature ought to be or at least delivered with a full consent of Fathers nay let them so much as shew us where 't is in plain tearms taught by any one Father in Four hundred years after our blessed Saviour Christ and if the Papists cannot do this as we believe they cannot where I pray is their either Scripture or Reason that the Pope or his Councils should obtrude themselves as Judges over us Protestants Next we would desire to know from the Papists whether they do certainly know or not the sence of those Scriptures by which they are led to the knowledge of their Church for if they do not how come they to know their Church is infallible but if they do then sure they ought to give us leave to have the same means and ability to know other plain places in Scripture which they have to know theirs for if all Scriptures be obscure how come they to know the sense of those places but if some place of it be plain why pray may not Protestants understand them as well as Papists The Papists say That the Scriptures are in themselves true and infallible yet without the direction of the Church we have no certain means to know which Translations be faithful and Canonical or what is the true meaning of Scriptures and this is the common Argument and general Relief of all Papists To which the Protestants answer That yet all these things must first be known before we can know the directions of their Church to be infallible for the Papists cannot pretend any other proof of it but onely some Texts of Canonical Scripture truly interpreted therefore either they must be mistaken in thinking there is no other means to know these things but their Churches infallible direction or else we must be excluded from all means of knowing her directions to be infallible for the proof must be surer than the thing to be proved or 't is no proof And upon better consideration I am confident the Papists dare not deny but that 't is most certain Faith hath been given by other means than the Church for sure they will not say that Adam received Faith by the Church nor Abraham nor Job who received Faith by Revelation and also the Holy Apostles who received Faith by the miracles and preaching of our Blessed Saviour so that you see and they cannot deny but their general Doctrine is contradictory and to make it yet plainer I desire to know of the Papists if they should meet with a man that believed neither Scripture Church nor God but declares he is both ready and willing to believe them all if the Papist can shew him sufficient grounds to build his Faith upon will the Papist tell such a man there are no certain grounds how he may be converted to their Church or there are if the Papists say there are none they make Religion an uncertain thing but if they say there are then they must necessarily either argue woman-like that their Church is infallible because it is infallible or else shew there are other certain grounds besides saying the Church is infallible to prove its infallibility The Papists demand of the Protestants if they believe the Apostles wrote all the Scriptures for if they did not how come we to call and believe them Apostolical and not the Writings of those that writ them To which we answer Though all the Scriptures were not written by the Apostles themselves yet they were all confirm'd by them and though a Clerk writes a Statute and the King Lords and Commons confirm it in Parliament I believe they would esteem it very improper to call it the Statute of such a Clerk though writ by him but an Act of Parliament because it was confirm'd by all their consents and so becomes their Act not the Clerks The Papist desires us to tell them in what Language the Scriptures remained uncorrupted and we desire them to satisfie us whether it be necessary to know it or not necessary if it be not I hope we may do well without it but if it be necessary we desire first that they will please to tell us what became of their Church for One thousand five hundred years together all which time they must confess they had no certainty of Scripture till the time that Pope Clement the Eighth set forth their approved Edition of the vulgar Translation and none sure can have the confidence to deny but that there was great variety of Copies currant in divers parts of their Church and read so which Copies might be false in some things but more than one sort of them could not possibly be true in all things And Pope Sixtus Quintus his Bible differ'd from Pope Clement his Bible in a multitude of places which makes us desire to be satisfied of the Papists whether before Pope Sixtus Quintus his time their Church had any defined Canon of Scriptures or not for if they had not then '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 Papist 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 onely for the Edification of the Church We further desire to be satisfied of the Papists if the book of Ecclesiasticus and Wisedom and the Epistle to St. James were by the holy Apostles approved Canonical or not if they were approved by the Apostles Canonical sure the Papists cannot deny but they had a sufficient definition and authority not to question them and therefore 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 alwayes known to be Canonical but have afterward been received by the Roman Church to be such so that this argument reaches these as wel 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 are the foundation of the Church as St. Paul sayes 't is built upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets And now to conclude this part of my discourse in very few words let the Papists answer if they can but these five words All Scripture is Divinely inspired Let them shew us so much for the Roman Church and shew us if they can where 't is written in Scripture that all the decrees of the Popish Church are Divinely inspired and all our Controversies will be at an end but I believe they can ever do that without another Transubstantiation miracle of words The Papists desire us to shew them an exact Catalogue of our fundamentals to which we answer That God may be sufficiently known to one and not sufficiently declared to an ether and consequently that may be fundamental and necessary to one which is not to another which variety of circumstances tenders it impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of fundamentals for God requires more of them to whom he gives more and less of those to whom he gives less more of a Commander of a Kingdom than a poor simple Turn spit 'T is a plain revelation of God to us Protestants that the Sacrament the Eucharist should be administred in both kinds 1 Cor. 11 c. 28 v. And that the publick Hymns and Prayers of the Church should be in such a Language as is most for Edification 1 Cor. 14 and 15 16. yet the Church of Rome not seeing this by reason of the vail would be very angry if we told them 't would prejudice their supposed infallibility We read in St. Matthew that the Gospel was to be preacht to all Nations and this was a truth revealed before our Saviours Ascention yet if the Church had been asked before the conversion of Cornelius they would have certainly told you it had not been necessary to teach all Nations for 't is most apparent out of the 11th of the Acts they all believed so until St. Peter was better informed by a vision from Heaven and the conversion of Cornelius and then they turn'd quite of a differing belief and esteemed it necessary to teach all Nations and yet were still a Church The Papists are pleased to say the Protestants differ in Fundamentals which indeed appears to us very irrational for if they say We Protestants differ in Fundamentals how then can they say We are members of the same Church one with another more than they are with ours or ours with theirs and why do they object our difference more with one another than with themselves and if we do not differ in Fundamentals why do they upbraid us with Fundamental differences amongst our selves We believe the Catholick Church cannot perish yet we believe she may and did err as I prov'd just before but thus much we Protestants declare in general that we esteem it sufficient for any mans salvation to believe Gods Word the Scripture and that it contains all things necessary to our salvation and that we do our utmost endeavours to find believe and follow the true sense of it and being we are sure that all that is any way necessary is there believing all that is there we are sure we believe all that is necessary And therefore 't is but reasonable to say that any private person who truly believes the Scriptures and heartily endeavours to know the Will of God and to do it is as secure nay securer from the danger of erring in Fundamentals than the Roman Church for 't is impossible any man so qualified should fall into an errour that can prove damnable to him for God requires no more of any man to his salvation but onely his true and best endeavours to be saved And for the Papists Sacrament of Confession which they hold is so absolute and necessary and so much upbraid us for the want of it we answer We know no such absolute necessity of it but yet we hold we must not onely confess our sins but forsake them or we shall not find mercy And we Protesants farther believe that they that confess their sins shall find mercy though they onely confess them to God and not to man And more that they who confess them both to God and man and do not in time forsake them shall not find mercy And so for the Papists Sacrament of Repentance for Remission of sins though we Protestants know no such yet we allow and observe the same Duty but publick before the Church which was the constant practice of the primitive Church and Rhemanus himself though so great a Champion for the Papists writes That the confession then used was before the Church and that Auricular confession was not hen in the World The Papists will tell you that our Bishops have not the true power of Ordination but that has been so clearly answered and so truly proved at large by so many already as I shall not need here so much as to name it onely let me in a word remember the Papists that they cannot well deny but that the Donatists themselves whom the Papists esteemed as bad as us as being Hereticks and Schismaticks yet St. Austin and Optatus Bishop of Rome did both acknowledge that they had the same Baptism Creed and Sacrament and that these Donatist Fathers though Schismaticks and Hereticks gave true Ordination or else some of these were not then esteemed Sacraments therefore let them take which they please there must be error of one side The Papists pretend they have an unanswerable objection against Protestants which is That we have discords in matters of Faith without any means of agreement to which we answer that the Scripture does not let us want solid means of agreement in matters necessary to salvation and for our agreement in all controversies of Religion either they must say we have means to agree about them or we have not if they say we have why did they before deny it if they say we have no means why are they so unjust to find fault with us for not agreeing when they themselves say we have no means to agree But for a Plaister to this soar they are so extraordinary civil as to tell us we may come to their Church and they agree in matters of faith but the plain truth of it is that they define all matters of faith to be those wherein they agree so that to say the Roman Church does agree in matters of Faith is but to say they agree in those things they do agree in and sure they cannot deny but we