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
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
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 Asiae which occasions this Question of the Papist 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 confess 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 Popes universal Supremacy and Authority and kept contrary to the Pope Easter-day the Fourteenth of March. And indeed though 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 themselúes have done for though the Papist say St. Hierome conceived it necessary to conform in matters of Faith to the Church of Rome yet before the Papist 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 Papist 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 left beside himself in the whole Kingdom 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 and Country why may not the Papists subject to the same passions err in their opinion and judgment about the Popes being universal Bishop when plain reason tells them as well as us that there were other Bishops as much universal as the. Pope I now come to examine this infallible Pope whether he cannot make his infallible I Church more infallible than he has made himself and free the Popish Church from error though 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 then a Congregation 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 creates 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 be composed of no better men than the Holy Apostles were I shall desire no more and I am sure they can never prove so much for they that pretend to it declare as great an ignorance as St. Peter did a sin in denying his Lord and Master and there are many other known circumstances which made St. Paul prove him blame-worthy to his face And for the Apostles being in error we have not onely 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 lost 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 of St. John And further 't is mod apparent that the very Apostles themselves even after the sending the Holy Ghost did through inadvertency or prejudice continue sometime 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 Jewes Now since we can prove that St. Peter did err and that the Church composed partly of the Holy Apostles themselves who were blessed with and inspired by the Holy Ghost could mistake and that there is no man free from sin and yet that the Body of men that make up the popish Church should be infallible is I confess beside my Faith to believe or reason to comprehend For sure if the Roman Church had been esteem'd by the Apostles infallible what needed the Apostles any other Creed than this short Creed I believe the Roman Church infallible and that would have been more effectual to keep the believers of it from Heresie and in the true Faith then this Apostolical Creed we now have And sure the Papists cannot but believe with us that those holy men that wrote the New Testament were not onely good men but also men that were desirous to direct us in the plainest and surest way to Heaven And the Papists cannot also but believe with us that they were likewise men very sufficiently instructed by the Spirit of God in all the necessary points of the Christian Faith Therefore certainly 't is most rational to believe they could not be ignorant of this unum necessarium that all Faith is no Faith except we believe the Church of Rome was design'd by God to be the Guide of Faith as the Church of Roome believes and would have us believe so too We also further believe and that with great reason too that the Writers of the New Testament were wise men especially being they were assisted by the Spirit of wisedom and such that must know that an uncertain Guide was