put up by Christ for one of them that he tells us,he doth not pray for. 7ob. 17.9. I pray not for the world, i e. of reprobates (and fuch many Popes are confeffed to have been Jor how can this prayer for perfeverance in the faith be offered up by Chrift for fuch as never had any true faith (as is acknowledged of many Popes) or how dare they say Chrift prayed thus for the faith of all fuc ceeding Popes, when they confeffe the faith of feveral Popes bath failed? It is true they have a miferable fhift they tell us a Pope may erre as a private perfon, though not as a Pope, he may erre perfonally, though not judicially, not in Cathedra: it is no doubt among us (faith Cofterus) (a) That the Pope as a private perfon may erre and fall into Herely. If this be granted, the Pope is not concerned in this prayer and promife of infallibility. For if this prayer for Peter reacheth to his Succeffors, then the fame priviledge for which Chrift here prayes for Peter, for the fame he prayeth for his Succeffors: Bnt the fame priviledge,which according to their fuppofition is here prayed for on Peters behalfe, is not prayed for on the behalfe of bis Succeffors, themselves being Judges. For Christs prayer they confeffe fecured Peter from falling into errour,even as a private perfon, which yon fee they do not pretend for the Pope. But here is the benefit of the Popes referving the key of interpretations in his own breft, for now he can order it as he pleaseth,and proportion the meanings of any Text as need requires, and fo this Text (if you please to believe them) it procures 1. That Peter cannot erre,neither perfonally, nor judicially. 2. That the Pope may erre perfonally, but not (a) Dico nullum apud nos dubium effe, Romanum Pontificem, ut bominem privatum, ecrare ac in bærefin labi poffe. in Apologia cap. 2. judicially judicially. 3. That the whole Church of Rome can noterre perfonally: But it is all the reafon in the world that the first inventers and Authors of Infallibility fhould have the difpofing of it in their own hands. §. 12. A fourth place vehemently urged on the behalfe of the Popes Infallibility is, Deut. 17. 11.12. where the fewes are commanded under pain of death to ft and to the judgment of the High-Prieft, and to do according to the fentence which the Prieftfbould few them. Therefore (fay they) the High-Prieft was infallible (elfe the people had been bound to reft in a falfe decifion)& confequently the Pope who fucceeds in the High-Priefts place is infallible. To which Anfwer, 1. If a man should pur them to prove the confequence, bow wofully would they be gravelled? If thefe Romanists would lay afide their Dictatourship and condescend to the proof of their Affertions, how would they prove one of these things: 1.That the high Prieft of the Jewes hath a vifible Succeffour upon earth among Chriftians 2. That the Pope alone is this Succeffor. 3. That this fuppofed fucceffor must be invefted with all the priviledges which the High-Prieft bad. But I fhall paffe by all there and the horrible impertinency of the inilance &the feeblenets of the confequence,& fhall affault them on the ftrongeft fide by denying the Antecedent, viz. that any infallibility is here afcribed or promised to the High. Prieft,for proof hereof I offer thefe Arguments. 1. No more infallibility is here afcribed to the HighPrieft then to the Judge and to the inferiour Priests But the Judge and inferiour Priefts were not infalliblę: Ergo. This place doth not prove the High-Prietts Infallibility. The Major is evident from the reading of the Words the Judge or Civill Magiftrate is joyned in the fame commiffion with the Prieft, and the people are commanded to acquiefce indifferently in the determinations,both of the one and of the other: and therefore ei ther ther both are infallible, or neither : Again it is not the High Prieft alone, who is bere meant, but others alfo, fo the words run in the plurall number, the Priests, the Levites,v.9. And they hal fhew thee, they fhal inform thee. For the Minor it is acknowledged by the Papifts Erga. 2 If this text proves the High-Prielts Infallibility, it proves it in the matter here fpoken of: But this place doth not prove the High-Priefts infallibility, in the matters here spoken of: for those are matters of fact,between blood and blood, plea and plea, ftrcke and stroke: queftions which were decided by teftimonies,and in fuch they confeffe the Pope may erre: fo then their Argument runs thus: The High-Prieft was infallible, in matters of fact. Therefore the Pope is not infallible in matters of fact, buc he is infallible in matters of Faith: but our comfort is, as it is a dangerous Argument, fo themselves furnith us with an Antidote; for they deny both propofitions.. 1, They deny the confequent, from matters of fact, to mat ters of faith. 2. They deny the antecedent,for they do not afcribe to the Pope, and confequently not to the HighPriest, infallibility in matters of fact. You fee what fhifts they are put to, to fupport their caufe with fuch rotten pofts: to argue from the Authority of the priests, to end particular controverfies between man and man, bes tween blood and blood, plea and plea, ftroke and stroke, (which is all that place fpeakes of,) to the infallibility of the Pope, in all the matters of God, and deciding all the controverfies of Religion. I think they have fufficiently improved the stock the high Prieft left them.. 3. Those words(however they may feem to a careleffe reader at first view) do not affert the infallibility of the Priest or Priests,nor the obligation of the people to an abs folute fubmiffion,and blind obedience to all their dictates and expofitions, and that for two undeniable reasons. 1. Because other places of Scripture (with whom this, mast must be reconciled) command both Prince, and people to keep close to the word of God, and to that end, to read in the book of the law diligently, and to do according to all that is written therein, Deut. 5.32, 33. You fhall obferve to do as the Lord hath commanded you, you fhall not turn afide to the right hand, or to the left: You shall walke in all the wayes which the Lord commanded you. So Deut.6.6. &c. Itis Gods fpeech to fofhua, ch.1.8. This booke of the law fhall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou fhalt meditate therein day and night,that thou mayeft obferve to do according to all that is written therein And in cafe of doubt, it is the Prophets in junction to the people to have recourse to the Law,and to the Teftimony.Ifa 8.20 Now put cafe an high priest fhould fall into Idolatry(I may well fuppofe it, for it was done,) and fhould expound the law fo as to favour his opinion,& practice, I demand whether in this cafe,the people of the Jewes were bound to believe & obey him, or not, to worship an Idol, or not? Affirme it none will, but one of a Jefuitical h.e.a feared confcience nor can any Chriftian hear fuch an affertion without borTour; If they deny it,their argument from this place is loft. 2. That fence of Scripture which juftifies the Jewes in putting Chrift to death, is a falfe fence, and corrupt expofition: But the Popifh fence of this place, and their argument from it, doth juftifie the jewes in putting Chrift to death. Ergo it is a corrupt expofition, for the Major, he that denies it, deferves not the name of a Chriftian: And whatever his fucceffours will do at a pinch, I am fure St Peter did not justifie them, but feverely condemns them, and highly aggravates their fin in it: At. 2. & 3, & 4, 5. The Mino(about which alone the doubt lies)I fhall eafily prove: which I am more willing to do, that all Chriftians may obferve the juft Judgment of God, and the fearfull Apoftacy of thefe men, that rather then recant their errours will, (in effect) renounce Chri Rtianity ftianity, and juftifie the murderers of Christ, I prove it thus: If the Jewes,in that Act,did nothing, but what by vertue of this place, they were obliged to do, then they did not fin. But the Jewes did nothing in the murdering of Chrift, but what by vertue of this place(if the Popish fence be true) they were obliged to do. Ergo: The Major they do, and muft grant, for it cannot be a fin to obey Gods command. The Minor I prove, if this law did require abfolute obedience to their Priests, and was in force at that time, then the Jewes did nothing, buć what they were obliged to do: But this I aw did require fuch obedience(fay the Papists) & it was in force at that time (fay 1) Ergo: The confequence no man will deny, but he that doth not understand it. The Miner,I prove it in its two branches 1 This Law bound the Jewes to abfolute obedience to their Priefts: This is known to be their opinion. But because I have no great confidence in the ingenuity of these men, I will prove it out of 2, or 3 of their most eminent Authours. Becanus hath thefe words, the whole people in matt rs of religion were commanded to follow that which the High Priff enjoyned them, (a) What more plain? Thus Melchior Canus (one of great Authority with them) Mofes dith not command that they should believe the Priests if they judged according to law, but rather, that they should take that for Law, which the Priest taught them (b) Bellar: disputes against the affection of Brentius, That the people were to ftand to the judgement of the High-Prieft's only upon condition they judged according to law, and argues that they were abfo❤ utely bound to follow it. (c) And(that you may fee it is (a) Totus populus in negotio religionis jubebatur id fequi, quod Pontifex judicabat fequi oportere. In manuali de Judice controverfiarum lib. cap.5. nu. 62. (b) Non precipit Mofes ut facerdotbus credant, fi judicarent fecundum legem,fed potius,ut que facerdotes docuerint,ea pre lege habeantur in Oper, Cani,lib.6.p.5 10.(C) De verbi Dei interp.lib.3.c.4. |