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
him as Universal Bishop over the whole Catholick Church but his not doing so argued he esteemed him Bishop only of one Church And further St. Cyprian all know did resolutely oppose a Decree of the Roman Bishop and all that adhered â—…o him in that one point of Rebaptizing which the Popish Church at that time delivered as a necessary Tradition and Excommunicated the Bishops of Capadocia 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 Rebaptize those whom Hereticks had Baptized to be a damnable Heresie 'T is well worth asking the Papists 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. Cypriaâ—… a Professor of damnable Heresie and yet the Papists esteeâ—… 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 sufficienâ—… ground of Excommunication and separation which by theiâ—… own Tenents is Schismatical So let them chuse which sidâ—… they please the Pope was in an error And tho Victor Bishop of Rome obtruded the Roman Tradition touching the time of Easter upon the Asian Biships 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 reprehenâ—… his Excommunicating the Asian Bishops for their disagreeing with him which most plainly argues that the Western Bishops thought that not a sufficient ground of Excommunication which the Bishop of Rome did and therefore it must necessarily follow they did not esteem the Roman Bishop infallible nor the separation from the Church of Rome an Heresie And this I am sure is true and undeniable reason The Popish Story tells us That Optatus Bishop of Rome upbraided the Donatists as Schismaticks because they held no Communion with the Church of Rome by adding afterwards that they were Schismaticks for they held no Communion with the Seven Churches of Asia which occasions this Question of the Papists Whether a separation from these seven Apostolick Churches was a mark of Heresie or not If they say it was not how comes it that the Pope's Authority is a stronger Argument for the Popish Church than the Asian Authority for the Asian Churches And if the Papists say a separation from those seven Asian Churches was a mark of Heresie then they must confesâ—… their Church was for many years Heretical as separating many years from the Asian Churches And Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus and Metropolitan of Asia despised the Pope's Vniversal Supremacy and Authority and kept contrary to the Pope Easter-day the Fourteenth of March. And indeed tho the Papists do so much quote the authority of the Fathers yet I find they as little befriend their Churches Infallibility as the Asian Bishops themselves have done for tho the Papists say St. Hierome conceived it nenessary to conform in matters of Faith to the Church of Rome yet before the Papists brag of that let them answer us this How came it then to pass that St. Hierome chose to believe the Epistle to the Hebrews Canonical upon the authority of the Eastern Church and to reject it from the Canon of the Roman Churches Authority And how comes it also that he dissented from the Roman Church touching the Canon of the Old Testament Let the Papists take heed of losing their Fort by endeavouring to maintain their out-works And now to conclude this point and excuse the Papists mistake concerning their universal Bishop we read in Scripture of the Prophet Elias who thought there was none â—…eft beside himself in the whole Ringdom of Israel who had not revolted from God and yet God himself is pleased to assure us he was deceived And if a Prophet and one of the greatest err'd in his judgment touching his own time Country why may not the Papists subject to the same passions err in their opinion and judgment about the Popes being Vniversal Bishop when plain reason tells them as well as us that there were other Bishops as much Vniversal as the Pope I now come to examine this infallible Pope whether he cannot make his infallible Church more infallible than he has made himself and free the Popish Church from error tho he could not the Pope from Heresie Now towards the disproving the pretended Infallibility of the Roman Church I lay this as the foundation of my Discourse That the whole Roman Church can be no better than a Cengregation of Men whereof every particular not one excepted and consequently the generality is nothing but a collection of men and if every one be polluted as who dare say he is free from sin how can the whole but be defiled with error As reasonably may a man brag he is in perfect health and strength and yet at the same time confess he hath not one sound part about him And truly it very much creats my wonder but does not in the least satisfie my reason what the Papists can pretend by the Infallibility of their Church for if they will allow their Pope to be no better than St. Peter was their Church to bâ—… composed of no better men than the Holy Apostles were 〈…〉 shall desire no more and I am sure they can never provâ—… so much for they that pretend to it declare as great aâ—… ignorance as St. Peter did a sin in denying his Lord anâ—… Master and there are many other known circumstances which made St. Paul prove him blame-worthy to hiâ—… face And for the Apostles being in error we have not only the examples of the Apostles themselves who in the time of our Saviours Passion being scandalized lost their Faith in him and I believe the Papists will not say they could lose their faith in our blessed Saviour Christ without error and therefore our Saviour after his Resurrection upbraided them with their Incredulity and called Thomas incredulous for denying the Resurrection in the Twentieth oâ—… St. John. And further 't is most apparent that the very Apostleâ—… themselves even after the sending the Holy Ghost did through Inadvertency or Prejudice continue some time in an error contrary to a revealed Truth And if the Papists will not own to know this Truth they may be fully satisfied of it in the Story of the Acts of the Apostles where they may plainly read that notwithstanding our Saviours express warrant and injunction to the Apostles to go and preach to all Nations Yet notwithstanding till St. Peter was better informed by a Vision from Heaven and by the Conversion of Cornelius both St. Peter and the rest of the Church held it unlawful for them to go and Preach the Gospel to any but the Jews Now since we can prove that St. Peter did err
this Head of the Church stands affected he will soon guess at the foulness of the Stomach and give an account of the weak and crazy Constitution of the whole Body Ecclesiastick Do but observe the numerous and haughty Titles that he so magisterially assumes to himself as the Universal the Infallible Bishop of Rome the Head of the Catholick Church the Supreme Pastor the Holy one the Pope Christ's Vicegerent God's Vicar a Vice-god nay a God upon Earth and God knows how many more and then tell me truly whether in his Pride and number of Names he may not out-vye both Turk and Persian and at length prove as little a Christian as either of them who upon the bare Report of this usurped Authority have bestow'd on him two glorious Denominations the one calling him Rumbeg that is Prince or Lord of Rome the other Rumschah King of Rome First then to begin with the Blasphemies used by several Popes themselves which are so great that if Profaneness it self could it assume an humane Shape would not be guilty of and Lucian that Arch-Apostate were he now alive would if compar'd to them be accounted moderate Leo the Tenth Son to the Duke of Florence was a chuck-farthing-Boy Cardinal who was thought to deserve the Red Hat at the Age of Thirteen and 〈…〉 Pope at Twenty the unerring Bishop oâ—… Christendom in hanging Sleeves who before he could write Man or of Age waâ—… Father of all the Aged and truly hâ—… verified the old Proverb Soon ripe sooâ—… rotten for what a more putrid anâ—… blasphemous Expression could be belch'â—… forth by the Devil himself than that oâ—… his who when Cardinal Bembo quoteâ—… a place out of the New Testament replied Quantum nobis profuit haec Fabulâ—… de Christo What Wealth have we gain'â—… by this Fable of Christ Was not thiâ—… becoming Christ's Vicegerent And afteâ—… a Dispute de Anima 't was as good 〈…〉 Sentence of the Good Soul Et redit in nihilum quod fuit ante nihil Julius the Third a mere Epicure when he was at Table with several Grandees of Rome had a Peacock serv'd in at Dinner his beloved Dish and gave strict order it should be kept cold for his Supper but it seems some of his Servants through neglect dispos'd of it otherwise now when the time of his Evening Repast came and he found it wanting he fell into so great a Chafe and Rage for this Sin of Omission in his Servitor that his Holiness was guilty of a Sin of Commission insomuch that a more moderate Cardinal one of his Guests told him that it was ill done to be so passionate and fly out into so great a Fury for so small a Trifle but he fuddenly replied If God was so angry as to expel Adam Paradise for an Apple well might he who was his Vicar be offended for the Disappointment of his Peacock which was of greater value than any Apple could possibly be The same worthy Pope missing his Pork which was one of his standing Dishes for he was a great Lover of Pork and Peacock asked the Reason of it his Steward answer'd that his Physicians had given order there should be no Pork serv'd in because it was very injurious and destructive to his Health whereat he began to fly in the very face of him whose Vicar he boasts himself to be saying Porta mi quello mio Piatto al dispetto de Dio Fetch me my Pork my Dish of Meat in spight of God himself These Words savour of more than Lucianisme Paul the Third in a Procession at Romè where the Body of Christ as they term it was with great Solemnity and seeming Piety carried before him said That if the Company did not make more haste he would renounce Christ whereupon some Persons made up to them that were in the Front with all speed and caused them to mend their Pace Nay farther Pope Paul being in an open Consistory of Cardinals boldly told by one of them that he could not bestow Palma and Piacenza on his two Bastards unless he would inevitably purchase his own Damnation To this he answer'd If St. Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles had so tender an Affection for his Country-men whom he calls Brethren as to wish and desire himself to be separate from Christ so that they might obtain Salvation why may not I with as great Love and Affection to my Sons and Nephews study by all means possible to aggrandize them and make them honourable with the hazard of my own Salvation O the yearning Bowels and tender Compassion of this Holy Father to the living Monuments of his Infamy Poor cow-hearted Hugonot Where is there a Calvin Beza or Bishop among you all that dares or can show such strange and strong efforts of a noble and undaunted Spirit who for the Promotion and Welfare of his Children here dares damn his own Soul for ever hereafter Alas There 's no such Spirit among you What think you of Gregory the Seventh tho his proper name which Popes renounce at their Election was Hildebrand which signifies Fire-brand of Hell in the Tutonick Tongue as the Germans affirm and Chemnitius gives him the same Title calling him Titio Infernalis when he consulted the Oracle of his Breaden God threw it into the Fire before many Cardinals who could not withhold him because it gave him no answer as to the event of his War with the Emperour Henry the Benno Card. in the life of Hildebrand Fourth of France John Bishop of Port in a Sermon in S. Peters Church before a numerous Auditory being upon the profanation of the Blessed Sacrament said Hildebrand and we with him have done a Fact for which we Deserve to be Burnt alive meaning the forementioned Action Nay this Hostia was so Contemned and Slighted by him that he most wickedly caused Pope Victor the Second to be poisoned with the Consecrated Wine of the Holy Eucharist and yet Cardinal Bellarmine had the confidence to Justifie this Man as a Saint by Twenty seven Authors and another had the impudence to own him as a Canoniz'd Saint by two more which he throws into the Bargain to add to the former Number These are a pack of Saints of the Devils Canonizing undoubtedly What will you say of another of these Pious Arch Prelates who was the Person that caused the Emperour Henry the Seventh surnam'd of Luxemburg to be poisoned and that with the consecrated Bread given him by a Jacobine at Florence in the Eucarist And about the year 1154 his Name-sake Math. Paris P. 88. the Arch Bishop of York was poison'd in England with the Wine in the Sacrament What will the Friar's Devil do trow we if their God be so dangerous saith the learned Frenchman Stevens who composed this Huictain upon the very Subject Les Payens ne vouloyent mettre au nombre des Dieux Ceux qui an genre humain ètoyent pernicieux Si le Dieu de Paste est un Dieu qui