witnesâ—… Pope against Pope Councils against Councils some of their Fathers against others and rather then fail some against themselves new Traditions inrolled and old ones Cashiered in a word one Church against another and if â—…hat be not enough the Church of one Age against the Church of another whereas the Scripture being true and â—…nalterable and containing all things necessary to our Salvation I am secure that by believing nothing else I shall â—…elieve no falshood in matter of Faith and if I mistake the â—…rue sense of Scripture and so fall into error yet I am secured â—…rom any dangerous error because whilst I am truly endeaâ—…ouring to find the true ground of Scripture I cannot but â—…old my error without obstinacy and be ready to forsake â—…t when more probable and true sense shall appear unto me and then being assur'd that all necessary truths are plainly â—…et down in Scripture I am certain by believing the Scripture â—…o believe all necessary truth and he that does so if his life be â—…nswerable to his Faith how is it possible he should fail of Salvation And tho the Roman Church pretend to be a perfect guide of Faith and teacher of all Divine Truths yet sure that â—…itle might much better and more justly be given to the â—…cirptures as their Teacher and Master The Roman Church brags how ancient their Church is but doubtless they cannot deny but the Scripture is more ancient â—…f they will but allow the Mother to be older than the Child The Papists say their Church is a means of keeping Chriâ—…tians at unity so are also the Scriptures to those that be â—…ieve them in unity of belief in matters necessary The Papists say their Church is Catholick certainly 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 only are the true Church and all other Christians tho 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 dong 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 tho the Scripture be true may be false nay more must be false if the Scripture be true because the Scipture is against it Following the Papists Church I must be a servant to my Saviour and a subject to my King only at the pleasure of the Pope and renounce my Allegiance when the 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 Apocripha which hath not past for Canonical but of late years in the Papistâ—… Church who interpret Scripture according to their Doctrine but will not judge their Doctrine according to Scripture for none like to weigh light Mony in true scales In short the Pope adds and lessen 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 tho the Papists say his Holiness cannot err yet let not the Papists forget what God says in the Scripture if not only the Pope but if 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 Papish Church infallible we have no Scripture-command at all much less an express one Following the Popish Church we must believe many things not only above reason but against reason witness Transubstantiation whereas following the Scripture we shall believe Many mysteries 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 what is not there evidently contained cannot be necessary to be believed and our reason is just and clear Because nothing can challenge our Belief as to salvation but what hath descended to us from our Blessed Saviour Christ Jesus by original and universal Tradition Now nothing but Scripture hath thus descended to us therefore nothing but Scripture can challenge our Belief Now the grand difference between the Papists and us concerning the Scripture is this We hold the Scripture to be the only perfect rule whereby to judge of controversies The Papists say That they acknowledge the Scuriptures to be a perfect rule only they deny that it excludes unwritten Tradition which in effect is this they say 'T is as perfect a Rule as a Writing can be only they deny it to be as perfect a Rule as a Writing may be Either they must revoke their 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 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
shall not need here so much as to name it only let me in a word remember the Papists that they cannot well deny but that the Donatists themselves whom the Papists esteemed as bad as us as being 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 tho 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 nessary 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 Saor 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 do agree in those things they do agree in and sure they cannot deny but we 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 Jesuits and Franciscans and other Orders differ to this day I am sure needs no memorandum and the best Jest of all is the Papists have not so much as yet agreed in their very pretended means of agreement and yet have the confidency to pretended an Vnity more than the Protestants for 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 of the Decrees of Councils by the Universal Church is the only way to decide Controversies which others deny by denying their Church to be infallible and yet every part pretends to be part of the Church In a word can the Papish 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 Vniversal yet we say That is no sufficient proof it came Originally from the Apostles witness the Doctrine of the Millenaries and the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants which was generally taught by the Vniversal Church believed as an Apostolical Tradition but yet contradicted by the Vniversal Church afterwards This I am sure the Papists dare not deny so that we unavoidably cast the Papists upon this Rock That they must either conclude the Apostles were Fountains of contradictory Doctrines or that the Universal Doctrine of the present Church is no sufficient proof that it came originally from the Apostles because the Church Vniversal of one time and the Church Vniversal 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. Austin's time and esteemed then an Apostolical Tradition even by St. Austin 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 Papists Church not only to dispute against this practice of the Vniversal 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 tho 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 bragging of the Antiquity and Vniversality of their Churches Doctrine tho we allow it very ancient bating the primitive 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 Antiquity 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 for 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 tho a man lives and dies without the practice 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 Millenaries 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 days the mystery of Iniquity was working The Papists demand how comes it to pass that their Doctrine is so Universal forgetting that weeds spread faster than good herbs And we ask them how the errours of the Millenaries 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 Ch. was before Luther and tell us because 't was no Ch. before him therefore it can be no true Church at all To which we answer That this cause is no cause for tho Luther had no being before Luther 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 Luther tho there was none for some Ages before him as since Columbus his time there have been Christians in America tho there were none for many Ages before For it does not follow that nothing but a Church can possibly get a Church nor that the present being of a true Church depends necessarily upon the perpetuity of a Church in all Ages For though I cannot deny the Churches perpetuity yet that 's not here necessary to rur difference but that a false Church by Gods providence over-ruling it may preserve a means of confuting their own Heresies and so reduce men to Truth and raise a true Church I mean the integrity of the Word of God with Men. Thus the Jews preserve means to make men Christians and Papists preserve means to make men Protestants and the Protestants false Church as the Romans call it preserves men Papists Nor does it appear that the perpetuity of the Church is the truth of the Papists Church for they speak as if they were the only Christians in the World before Luther when the whole World knows that this is but talk and that there were other Christians besides the Papists that might have perpetuated the Church tho there had not been then one Papist in being For sure there was a Catholick Church before the Roman one Next the Papists say To hold that the Visible Church is not perpetual is a Heresie so that Luther's Reformation being but particular and not universal nor but of late date it can have nothing to do with the visible and perpetual Church Which the Protestants answer thus To say the visible Church is not perpetual is properly a Heresie but the Papists cannot deny but that the Apostles who preach'd the Gospel in the beginning did believe the Church universal tho their preaching at the beginning was not so So Luther also might well believe the Vniversal Church though his Reformation was but particular the Church in the Apostles time being universal de jure of right but not de facto in fact Nor did Luther and his followers as the Papists are pleased to mis-call many Protestants forsake the whole Church but the corruptions of it in renouncing some of their corrupt practices and this the Protestants say they did without Schism because they had cause to do it and no man can have cause to be a Schismatick because he is only one who leaves the Church without a cause for 't is not only separation but a causeless separation from the Church that is Schismatical and I think 't will not be amiss before I go any farther to distinguish the difference between Heresie and Schism Heresie is an obstinate defence of any error against any necessary Article of the Christian Faith. Schism is a causeless separation of one part of the Church from another Now we Protestants say still That we never forsook the whole Church or the external Communion of it but only that part of it which is corrupted and is to be fear'd will still continue so viz. The Papists Church and forsook not but only reformed another part which part they themselves were And sure the Papists will not say the Protestants forsook themselves nor their own Communion and therefore the Papists Argument must be very weak in urging that the Protestants joyned themselves to no other part of the Church therefore they must separate from the whole Church which the Protestants say is a false conclusion in as much as they themselves were part of it and still continue so and therefore the Protestants could no more separate from the whole than from themselves So that by the rule of Reason if Protestants be Schismaticks because they differ from one part of the visible Church by the same reason the Protestants may say that the Roman Church is in a manner made up of Schismaticks for the Jesuits are Schismaticks from the Dominicans and the Dominicans from the Jesuits and the Jesuits from the Canonists the Franciscans from the Dominicans and the Dominicans from the Franciscans for all these as the world knows differ in point of Doctrine and betwixt them there is an irreconcilable contradiction and therefore one part must be in error And if the Papists will but stand to justifie what they declare as truth That every error against a revealed Truth is a Heresie they holding for certain as a revealed Truth the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary then consequently the Dominicans that hold and declare it an error in Doctrine must necessarily hold a Heresie Now it may be a fault to be in error because it many times proceeds from a fault but sure Protestants forsaking error it cannot be a sin unless to be in error be a Vertue So hardly do Papists deal with us Protestants as they will either damn us in making us follow their false opinions or else brand us as Schismaticks for leaving them And yet the rational sort of Papists can hardly deny but the Protestant Religion must be a safer Religion than theirs in worshipping Pictures in
is the only beginning of wisdom and not consume it in studying and maintaining of Disputes and Factions but if we must still differ let Protestants and Papists differ in Opinions but as Aristotle and Cicero did who tho they were of differing Judgments touching the natures of Souls yet both of them agreed in the main that all men had Souls and Souls of the same nature And as Physicians though they dispute whether the Brain or the Heart be the principal part of a man yet that all Men have Brains and Heart they sufficiently agree in So though Protestants esteem one part of the Church-Doctrine and Papists set a higher value on another part yet the Soul of the Church may be in both of them and though the Papists account that a necessary truth which the Protestants account neither necessary nor perhaps ture yet in truth truly necessary they both agree viz. The Apostles Creed and that Faith Hope and Charity are necessary to salvation And lastly though Papists hold they may be justified by their Works and Protestants hold none can be justified barely by them in regard of the Imperfections of their Works yet on the other side we so much agree with the Papists as to esteem none can be justified without them for without Repentance and Charity none can be good they being both like Health to our Bodies the want of which is sufficient to disturb all other pleasures Therefore when we read St. Pauls Treatise of Justification by Faith without the works of the Law let us at the same time read what he writes to the Corinthians concerning the absolute necessity of that Excellent Vertue of Charity and they will reconcile one another And I wish that we were all so reconciled in the unity of the Spirit and in the bond of peace And thaâ—… you Madam may be the sooner reconcil'd to me for thiâ—… tediousness I shall now make a Conclusion which afteâ—… such an overgrown Letter must needs be the best Complement that can be made by Madam Yours c. FINIS Errata Page 9. line 27. for past-time read patience The Tryal of Philip Standsfield Son to Sir James Stansfield of New-Milns for the Murther of his Father And other Crimes Libell'd againg him Feb. 7. 1688. For which he had Judgment c. price 1 s. An Historical Relation of several Great and Learned Romanists who did Imbrace the Protestant Religion with their Reasons for their Change deliver'd in their own words 6 d. A Seasonable Collection of plain Text of Scripture for the Use of English Protestants price 2 d. ROME'S RARITIES OR THE Pope's Cabinet UNLOCK'D And Expos'd to View BEING A true and Faithful Account of the Blasphemy Treason Massacres Murders Lechery Whoredom Buggery Sodomy Debauchery Pious Frauds c. of the Romish Church from the Pope himself to the Priest or inferiour Clergy TO THE Triple-Crown'd Prelate OF ROME HOLY SIR I Do here with all imaginable Deference and Humility present you I will not be so unmannerly as to say with a Pig of your own Sow but with a Rich Cabinet and good reason too because your own for 't is unjust that you should be the Proprietor and another the Usufructuary A Cabinet wherein are display'd all the commendable Qualifications and inimitable Perfections of some of your Famous Predecessors that have had the Honour to sit in St. Peter's Chair and in some particulars a weak Character or Adumbration of your Holiness's Endowments which no Pen can fully delineate Nor can you any way complain of foul play herein since this Tract contains no Quotations but what are collected from the most Authentic and rigid Romanists that ever espoused the Catholic Cause and Persuasion The Candid Reader by a serious perusal of this Treatise will I presume not onely receive satisfaction thereby but also make a Discovery of those rare Vertues which embellish the minds of St. Peter's Successors more to their renown and Glory than the resplendent Diamonds and Rubies that shine in and adorn the Triple Diadem and therefore I hope that your Sanctity will leave the Author out when you presume to Curse all Hereticks as you miscall them once a Year in the Bulla Coenae or otherwise you shall hear of him agen in a more Sarcastic Style and Satyrick Humour this being only at present Joco-serious If any thing herein clinch too close and offend let those of your own Party beg your pardon whose Duty it is that afforded the Materials which compiled together and collected make up this Epitome of your Memorable Acts and Monumental Transactions But withall I must needs confess that no Bigoted Protestant who moves in the highest Sphere of Ecclesiastical Dignity dares presume or pretend to arrive to the height of those Excellencies herein mentioned which are only peculiar to the Roman Miter If the subordinate Clergy storm at the Contents of this Book let them thank themselves for exposing to the Public their Cheats and Chicaneries so apparently that an inconsiderable Lay-Protestant could not possibly avoid taking notice of he being only the Amanuensis of their own Authors and hath taken the pains to transscribe out of them such Memorials as he thought convenient to reduce to the Method observ'd in this small System or Collection I bequeath this Aurea Legenda to your Holiness first and then to the rest of the Inferiour Clergy it being a Brat of their own Brain a Babe of their own Procreation and so bid you all farewel who subscribe my self Philanax Misopapas THE Pope's Cabinet UNLOCK'D APapa Principium Why not this as good an Invocation now-a-days as à Jove Principium in times of Yore for my part I know no reason to the contrary since the former is styled God by some and Vice-God by most Romanists the latter known by all to be no God at all or at best a false one Therefore to begin with Holiness must needs be commendable nay with His Holiness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that cannot prove successless Avaunt then fond Protestant and do not hit him so often in the teeth with the flurting Nick-name of the Man of Sin. No no he 's the Man of Sanctity there 's the Mistake nor with that frequent unmannerly Title of the Whore of Babylon for that is both incoherent with Sense and inconsistent with the Sex but be not too bold with that Argument whatever you do good Papist for fear some blunt Protestant round you in the Ear and that he is like enuf to do with the Story of Pope Joan and tell you to your face when you say you are abus'd herein that it is with a matter of truth and shew you good reason for it too iâ—… there be either Truth or reason in a great many of your own Popish Writers who allow the History to be authentick buâ—… of that more anon An ordinary Physician by the Indisposition of the Head can soon judge of the Temper of the Body and no doubt when the Reader understands how
general censure one another not as they are really faulty but as they appear and are esteemed handsom and therefore ugly Women have the priviledge of Popes who cannot err but may do what they will and take what liberty they please and handsom Women will be as far from censuring their actions as Young Men from praising their persons So that really in effect we find most Womens censures are not proportionable to the ill others act but rather suitable to the Beauty they possess which by their leave is a way of judging that 's both iriational and uncharitable since I am sure none can deny but there are some unhandsom Women unchast and some chast Women handsom For Vertue and Beauty are not so declar'd enemies but they sometimes meet though I cannot deny but that Vertue which in former Ages was esteemed one of the greatest adornments of the soul is now so Eclipsed by the outward Beauty of the Body as Vertue and Piety the true inward Beauty cannot shine out A good Soul being nothing now in comparison of a good face Beauty being now the Great Empress that commands the whole World and makes the Supremest of men become subjects to Her. And yet this so ador'd Beauty which all Women are so ambitious of and all Men so court has at best no intrinsick value in it but just like riches they enjoy most that are contented with least since 't is not much but enough that 's the true measure of satisfaction But Madam 't is now more than time to beg your pardon for I find I am stray'd both beyond the time and beside the road of my design'd Discourse which is not to present you a Character or List of the fine Ladies and Mode-vices of the times they will require a much wittier Pen than I pretend to be Master of and a larger Volume than I design to trouble you with but this Character which indeed merits Volumes of Praises I am sure I can give you without needing wit or abusing of time and if I could here cast up the sum total of all the vices that your Sex are eitheir guilty of or scandaliz'd with which I 'le assure you are more than a few their number might be tedious to read but need not be disagreeable for you to hear since by naming all those faults they are infected with I should but tell all those you are free from But Madam my design is now to remove my Battery and change my Scene of Writing as you have your place of Living and to level my Discourse not at the vices and pleasures of London nor the pastimes of the Court but at your Country-Neighbours the Woods and Mountains of Macroome which renders it a place much fitter to exercise your past-time than satisfie your delight were you of the humour of most Ladies but all know you are not only an excellent Woman but an extraordinary wife I mean in Goodness for 't is rare now to meet a wife that 's not extraordinary for you take as much satisfaction in the cares of well managing and improving your Estate as most other Ladies delight in the lavishing theirs so that I can truly say you have not only brought your Lord a large sum of money for your Portion but a continued increase of Rent by your Industry And I am sure Madam if you were now askt as the Philosopher was Where was his home you would answer now as he did then My home is still where my chief business is So that now your chief Concerns and Family which is still the good Wives Treasure being at Macroome I must conclude your heart is there also A place where in lieu of London crowds of good Company and swarms of divertisements you must prepare to meet with and do Penance to your self among the Flocks of Priests and Fryars against whose Popish insinuations and infectious perswasions I here present you a small but necessary Collection of Arguments to carry about you as a Preservatitive in your own Religion and an Antitode against theirs and though I cannot pretend this pocket-Pistol is a sufficient Battering-piece to beat down their infallible Church yet I doubt not but it will at least be a sufficient Life-guard to defend you and your Chamber against their assaults They are most of them argumentative reasonings I pickt out of Mr. Chillingworth as one that reasons best and satisfies me most of any I ever read and knowing you want a Collection of choice Flowers I heartily wish that these I have gathered out of his Garden and here sorted and made up to present you in a Nosegay may serve you against the unpleasing savour of Popish Doctrine And I wish they may not altogether degenerate from common nature of Flowers which the Naturalist tells us grow larger and better by being transplanted so that I hope you will not find them the worse nor like them the less for being transplanted but receive these Arguments just as you do your Rents without caring whether your Tenants have the Money out of their own bags or borrow it so you have it to supply your occasions Truly Madam I have taken some pains and spent much time in reading the Discourses of Papists against our Religion and though I have consider'd their Arguments without the least Byas or antedated prejudice yet I can give no better a character of them than I do of ill Dealers The more I have to do with them the worse I like them They savour much of Self-interest teaching Church-Government before Gospel-Obedience witness their holding Marriage a greater crime in a Priest than Fornication The one is but forbid by their Churches Law which they all know is disputable the latter by the Law of Christ which they cannot but know ought to be past all dispute And truly Madam if you please to admit your reason to make but a short progress into the Popish Religion you shall find much to create your wonder but little to satisfie your reason or belief for the Gospel of Christ is the Gospel of Truth and therefore ought still to be pictur'd naked as Truth without any Art of Roman Dresses which are only obscure shadings of the true light of Scripture by making dark Paraphrases on the plainest Gospel-Commands which in all reason ought to be plain enough for the meanest capacity For God forbid it should be otherwise for the meanest Christian must be saved or damned for keeping or not keeping them and sure God's Justice will never send persons to Hell for not doing what they could not understand was his Will they should do that were such a cruelty as if a man should torment his Servant for not doing his Errant when he knew he did not understand his Message yet the Papist must not take these plain Gospel-Commands as such but as they are distill'd in the mysterious politick Lymbeck of the Popish interest Indeed Mystery and Obedience is so interwoven in that Religion that Papists must take what
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