Papists say their Church is Catholick cetainly the Scripture is more Catholick for all true Christians in the universal world do now and ever did believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God so much at least as to contain all things necessary to salvation whereas the Papists say They onely are the true Church and all other Christians though more than they give them the lye for saying so By following the Scriptures I follow that whereby the Papists prove their Churches Infallibility for were it not for Scripture what pretence could the Papists have for it or what true Notion could they receive of it so that by so doing the Papists must plainly confess That they themselves are surer of the Truth of Scripture than of their Churches Authority for we must be surer of the proof than of the thing proved or else 't is no proof so that following Scripture I follow that which must be true if the Papists Church be true for their Church allows it's truth whereas if I follow the Roman Church I must follow that which though the Scripture be true may be false nay more must be false if the Scripture be true because the Scripture is against it Following the Papists Church I must be a servant to my Saviour and a subject to my King onely at the pleasure of the Pope and renounce my Allegiance when the Popes will is to declare him an Heretick nay I must believe vertue vice and vice vertue if he pleases for he both makes and unmakes Scripture as he thinks convenient witness the Apocrypha which hath not past for Canonical but of late years in the Papists Church who interpret Scripture according to their Doctrine but will not judge their Doctrine according to Scripture for none like to weigh light Money in true scales In short the Pope adds and lessens and interprets Divine Laws as he pleases and they must stand for Laws and be obeyed as such so that in effect he rules his people by his own Laws and his own Laws by his own Lawyers his Clergy who dare not speak nor uphold them other than just such as the Pope would have them and indeed Cardinal Richelieu gave the reason why more hold the Pope above the Councils than the Councils above the Pope because the Pope gave Archbishopricks and Bishopricks but the Councils had none to give and though the Papists say his Holiness cannot err yet let not the Papists forget what God sayes in the Scripture if not onely the Pope but if an Angel from Heaven shall preach any thing against the Gospel of Christ let him be accursed In following the Scripture we have God's express command and no colour of any prohibition but to believe the Popish Church infallible we have no Scripture-command at all much less an express one Following the Popish Church we must believe many things not onely above reason but against reason witness Transubstantiation whereas following the Scripture we shall believe many miseries but no impossibilities many things above our reason but nothing against it Nay we need not believe any thing which reason will not convince us we ought to believe for reason will convince any sober Christian that the Scripture is the Word of God and there 's no reason can be greater than this that God says it therefore it must be true In a word we Protestants believe that all things necessary to our salvation are evidently contain'd in Scripture and what is not there evidently contained cannot be necessary to be believed and our reason is just and clear because nothing can challenge our 〈◊〉 as to salvation but what hath descended to us from our Blessed Saviour Christ Jesus by original and universal Tradition now nothing but Scripture hath thus descended to us therefore nothing but Scripture can challenge our Belief Now the grand difference between the Papists and us concerning the Scripture is this We hold the Scripture to be the onely perfect Rule whereby to judge of Controversies The Papists say That they acknowledge the Scriptures to be a perfect Rule onely they deny that it excluded unwritten Tradition which in effect is this they say 'T is as perfect a Rule as a Writing can be onely they deny it to be as perfect a Rule as a Writing may be either they must revoke their acknowledgment or retract their contradiction of it for both cannot possibly stand together for if they will but stand to what they have granted that Scripture is as perfect a Rule of Faith as a Writing can be they must then grant it so compleat as it needs no addition and so evident that it needs no interpretation for both these properties are requisite to a perfect Rule and that a writing is capable of both these properties and perfections is most plain for he that denies it must say that something may be spoken which cannot be written for if such a compleat evident rule of Faith may be delivered by word of mouth as the Papists pretend may and is and whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth may also be written then such a compleat and evident rule of Faith may also be written for the Argument is most plain whatsoever may be spoken may be written a perfect rule of Faith has been spoken therefore a perfect rule of Faith may be written If the Papists cannot see this plain conclusion they had best desire more light to be added to the Sun The Papist pretend their Church to be the infallible Teacher of all Divine Truths and an infallible interpreter of all obscurities in the Faith but the Papists will I hope give us leave to admire how they can pretend to Teach them in all places without writing them down that is certainly beyond the reach of their power to do as well as our belief that 't is to be done And for the Papists saying there must be a living authority beside the Scripture or else controversies cannot be ended Protestants answer necessary controversies are and may be decided and if they be not 't is not the defect of the rule in Scripture but the default of men so that if necessary controversies be ended 't is no matter if the unnecessary be not for doubtless if God had required it he would also have provided some means to effect it but sure it does not stand with any reason it should be the Pope because he cannot be a Judge being a partie indeed in civil controversies a Judge without being a partie may end them but in controversies of Religion a Judge of necessity must be a concerned partie and I am sure the Pope to us is the chief and most concerned partie being really concerned as much as his Popedom is worth Now we Protestants make the Papists this plain answer that the means of agreeing differences must necessarily be either by the appointment of God or men men sure it cannot be for then rational wise Protestants may doe as well as Papists for let the
Papists shew us if they can where God hath appointed that the Pope alone or any confirm'd by the Pope or that Society of Christians which adhere to him shall be the infallible Judge of controversies we desire the Papists if they can to let us see any of those assertions plainly set down in Scripture as in all reason a thing of this nature ought to be or at least delivered with a full consent of Fathers nay let them so much as shew us where '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
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 sayes 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 farr from proving the Bishop of Rome was to be so at all much less by divine right successor to St. Peter in his headship and Authority For what incongruity is there if we say that Optatus might succeed St. Peter as his heir and successor in that part of his Government of that particular Church of Rome as sure he did even whilst St. Peter was living and yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed him in his Apostleship nor in the Government of the Church universal as though a Bishop should leave his Son heir to all he dyed possessed of I hope you will not conclude therefore he must necessarily succeed him in the Bishoprick he dyed seized of The Apostles were men all called and divinely inspired by the Holy Ghost which was the immediate gift of God and therefore could not be left as a Legacy by man for though it be in any 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 to the particular Sea of Rome for thus goes their main argument St. Peter was first Bishop of Rome and the Apostles did not then attribute to themselves each one his particular Chair understand in that City of Rome for in other place others had Chairs besides St. Peter and therefore sayes the Papist he is a Schismatick who against that one single Chair erects another understand still in the same place and this is the ground the Authority the Papists say the Pope has to be Successor to St. Peter and to exercise Authority over the Universal Church But sure the Protestants urge more rationally in arguing thus That St. Peter wrote Two 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 and authority of his pretended Successor the Bishop of Rome which sure if St. Peter had intended he would never have forgot to have named it And since the Papists so reverence and adore the Popes power let us Protestants also admire his way and means of attaining this power for though the Papists say that assoon as he is made Pope he has his authority immediately from Christ yet at the very same time the Papists all know that he cannot be made Pope but by Authority and Election of the Cardinals so that I am sure by the very same reason any man that is chosen a Magistrate in any Town under the Pope's Territories may claim his Authority as immediately received from Christ as well as the Pope And further that the proving his being made Pope does not render him infallible I could give a hundred instances out of the History of Popes but that will not suit well with my designed brevity but let 's ask the Papist if Liberius Bishop of Rome after Two years Banishment did not by the sollicitation of Fortunatianus Bishop of Acquileia 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 Universal 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 onely barely writing him his sad story for he did no more but doubtless would have made his complaint to him and desired and expected redress from him as Universal Bishop over the whole Catholick Church but his not doing so argued he esteemed him Bishop onely of one Church And further St. Cyprian all know did resolutely oppose a Decree of the Roman Bishop and all that adhered to him in that one point of Rebaptizing which the Popish Church at that time delivered as a necessary Tradition and Excommunicated the Bishop of Cappadocia Galatia and all that were against that Tradition and would not so much as allow them lodging or entertainment in Rome Now since the Papists affirm that not to re-baptize those whom Hereticks had baptized to be a damnable Heresie 'T is well worth asking the Papist when this begun to be so for if they say from the beginning it was so then they must maintain a contradiction for then was St. Cyprian a Professor of damnable Heresie and yet the Papists esteem him a Saint and Martyr And on the other side if 't were not so from the beginning then did the Pope wrongfully excommunicate those other Churches of Cappadocia and Galatia without sufficient ground of Excommunication and separation which by their own Tenents is schismatical so let them chuse which side they please the Pope was in an errour And though Victor Bishop of Rome obtruded the Roman Tradition touching the time of Easter upon the Asian Bishops under the pain of Excommunication and Damnation yet we read that Irenaeus and all the other Western Bishops though they did agree with the Bishop of Rome in his observation of Easter yet they did sharply reprehend his excommunicating the Asian Bishops for their