married woman gives her self 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 knowledge of the sin he acted condemned him of Adultery and though his fault might be palliated with some excuses yet it can never be defended by any just Apology And so though we read in Scripture that it was St. Paul's Judgement that meat offered to Idols might lawfully be eaten yet he says it 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 enjoyn'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 errours 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 judgement 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 Judgement 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 and though 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 a kin 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 onely left what appear'd most plain to us to be superstitious and impious And we separate no more from the Popish Church than 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 practices 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 onely 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 onely to admire their confidence but not at all to esteem their reasons The chief 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 chief amongst the Apostles and that there was given to him and his successors by our Saviour Universal Authority over his Militant Church That the Pope or Bishop of Rome is St. peter's Successor and has his Authority of Universal 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 onely by the by Now we Protestants say though 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 ever any one of them Nor is it reasonable to believe that St. Peter having authority over all the Apostles for about 25 years together should never shew the least power over any of them all that time nor so much as receive the least subjection from them sure any one must think this as strange and un reasonable 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 and 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 spoke 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 then 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 farr 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 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
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