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 fay Chrift prayed thus for the faith of all fuc ceeding Popes, when they confeffe the faith of several Popes bath failed? It is true they have a miferable fhift they tell us a Pope may erre as a private person, though not as a Pope, he may erre perfonally, though not judicially, not in Cathedra: it is no doubt among us (faich 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 Chrifts 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 pleafeth,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, errare ac in bærefin labi poffe. in Apologia cap. 2.

judicially

thors that have exemplified this in feveral Inftances. (4). Once more, The Scripture (they fay) is corrupted and falfified in feveral places, and fo unfit to be a rule: And have the Fathers works feen no corruption? Yes, we have it under the hands of Peffvinus, Sixtus Sinenfis, Bellarmine, & others, who conteffe their hard hap in this particular, and how wofully they are corrupted in multitudes of places, and needs muft the Fathers fare worfe then the Scriptures herein, because they were never preferved with that care and confcience which was exercifed about the Holy Scriptures; Therefore, either they muft quit their Arguments against the Scriptures Authority,or elle renounce the Authority of the Fathers which is obnoxious to the fame inconveniences.

$42. That the Fathers whofe writings are extant (for of them this propofition treats) are not infallible, may be undeniably evinced from the Hypothesis of our Adverfaries,and the fuppofed fubject of that Infallibility which is pretended. Infallibility is the proper and peculiar priviledge of the Church, fay all the Papifts: The onely queftion is,What this Church is? Some make it the Pope, others a Councel, others the whole body of the faithful, but they generally agree that it must be some one or all ofthofe: But the Fathers I am here difcourfing of are not one,nor all of these, and therefore they cannnot pretend to the fuppofed infallibility; nor can the Papifts by their own principles afcribe it to them: to which may be added, That if the Pope himselfe, notwithstanding his pretended gift of Infallibility,may err asa private Doctor, either in fpeaking,or writing(which all the Papifts grant) how can either any, or moft of them, who have no other capacity but that of a private Doctor be exempt from a poffibility of erring? And confequently the Fathers are not infallible,nor a folid foundation of a Papifts faith.

(a) Whitaker, Gerrard, Daille.

ther both are infallible, or neither : Again it is not the High Prieft alone, who is here meant, but others alfo, fo the words run in the plurall number, the Priests, the Levites,v.9. And they fhal fhew thee, they fhal inform thee.

For the Minor it is acknowledged by the Papists 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, ftreke and stroke questions which were decided by teftimonies,and in fuch they confelse 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 furnish us with an Antidote; for they deny both propofitions.. 1, They deny the confequent, from matters of fact, to matters of faith. 2. They deny the antecedent,for they do not afcribe to the Pope, and confequently not to the HighPrieft, infallibility in matters of fact. You fee what shifts 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, be 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 controversies of Religion. I think they have fufficiently improved the flock the high Prieft left them.

3. Those words(however they may seem to a careleffe reader at first view) do not affert the infallibility of the Prieft or Priests, nor the obligation of the people to an ab 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 clofe 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 ball 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. It'is Gods fpeech to Joshua, 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 should 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 such an affertion without borrour; 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 Popish 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: Alt. 2. & 3, & 4, 5. The Minor, (about which alone the doubt lies)I fhall eafily prove: which I am more willingto do, that all Chriftians may observe the juft Judgment of God, and the fearfull Apoftacy of thefe men, that rather then recant their errours will, (in effect) renounce Chri

Rtianity

it is to her alone the fuppofed promife of Infallibility was made) in what Scripture, or Father, or Lexicon, do five Fathers make up the whole Church? True it is, the Pope ith a peculiar priviledge in this point, and is by the Jefuites invefted with the name of the Church --The Church Virtuall. And it must be acknowledged there is fome colour for the Title: for having fwallowed up all the rights and priviledges of the Church, he ought to have the Name into the bargain: But fetting afide that prodigious avansoaλaiwas; I would know why I might not as well fay, that five of the Romish Doctors,viz.Salmeron, Canus, Cofterus,Stapleton, and Bellarmine, are the Church of Rome,or that five of our English Doctors are the Church of England, nay all the Proteftant World, as that five of the Fathers made up the whole Church of their Age? Yet againe,forafmuch as they afcribe infallibility, not onely to all, but also the major part of the Fathers of thefe five then, two may erre by their own confeffion. And that all the particular Fathers have their errors is generally acknowledged by the Papifts, and often urged by them to defend them felves from the force of many convincing allegations from the Fathers against their opinions. Well then, to keep to this particular inftance: It is granted that Dionyfius may erre, and fo may Ignatius, then the Infallibility is preferved in Clemens, and Polycarpus, and Hermes: But they alfo, or any two of them may erre in other things, and then the Infallibility is preferved in Dionyfius, and Ignatius,and Hermes. Thus (it feems) Infallibility is banded between the Fathers like a Tennis-ball, from one to another, and they have it by turnes. Such monsters must be in the Conclufion,if Infallibility be in the premises. That is enough for the fecond Argument.

S.5. The third Argument is this: The Fathers profefs they are not infallible: either they fay true or false;