« PreviousContinue »
put up by Christ for one of them that he tells us, he doch not pray for. 7oh. 17.9. I pray not for the world, ic. of reprobates (and such many Popes are confessed to have been Jor how can this prayer for perseverance in the faith be offered up by Christ for such as never had any true faich (as is acknowledged of many Popes) or how dare chey say Christ prayed thus for the faith of all suc ceeding Popes, when they confesse the faith of several Popes bath failed? It is true they have a miserable shife they tell us a Pope may erre as a private person, thugh not as a Pope, he may erre personally, though not judicially, not in Cathedra: it is no doubt among us (saith Cofterus) (a)That the Pope as a private person may erre and fall into Herely. Ifthis be granted, the Pope is not concerned in this prayer and promise of infallibility. For if this prayer for Peter reachech to his Successors, then the same priviledge for wbich Christ here prayes for Peter, for the same he prayech for his Successors: Bnc the same priviledge,which according to their suppofition is here prayed for on Peters behalfe, is not prayed for on the behalfe of bis Successors, themselves being Judges. For Christs prayer they confesse secured Peter from falling into errour,even as a private person, which yon see they do not precend for the Pope. But here is che benefit of the Popes reserving the key of interprecacions in his own breit, for now he can order it as he pleaseth,and proportion the meanings of any Text as need requires, and so this Text (if you please co believe them) it procures 1. Thar Peter cannot erre,neicher personally, nor judicially. 2. That the Pope may erre personally, but not
(2) Dico nullum apud nos dubium effe , Romanum Pontificem, ut bominem privatum , errare ag ir bærefin labi poffe. iw Apologia cap. 2.
judicially. 3. That the whole Church of Rome can noc erre personally : Buc it is all the reason in the world cbac the first inventers and Author's of Infallibility should have the dispofing of it in their own hands.
6. 12: A fourth place vehemently urged on the be halie of the Popes Infallibility is, Deut.17. 11.12. where the fewes are commanded under pain of dearb.tost and so the judgment of the High-Priest, and to do according to the sentence which the Priest should sem them. --Therefore (say they) the High-Priest was infallible (else the people had been bound to rest in a false decifion)& consequently the Pope who succeeds in the High-Priests place is infallible.
To which I Answer, 1. If a man thould put them to prove che consequence, bow wofully would they be gravelled ? If these Romanists would lay aside their Dictacourship and condescend to the proof of their Assertions, how would they prove one of these things: 1. That the high Priest of the Jewes hath a visible Succeffour upon earth among Christians 2. That the Pope alone is this Succef. sor,
That this supposed successor must be invested with all the priviledges which the High-Priest bad. But I shall passe by all there and the horrible impertinency of the inItance &tle feeblenets of the consequence,&ithall assaule them on the strongest lide by denying the Antecedent, viz. that any infallibility is here ascribed or promised to the High, Priest, for proof hereof I offer these Arguments,
1. No more infallibility is here ascribed to clie HighPriest chen to the Judge and to the inferiour Pricits ; Buc the Judge and inseriour Priests were not infallible: Ergo. This place doib not prove the High-Prielts løfallibility. The Major is evident from the reading of the Words : the Judge or Civill Magistrate is joyned in the fame commission with the Priest, and the people are commanded to acquiesce indifferently in the determinations, both of the one and of the other : and therefore ei
ther both are infallible, or neither :' Again it is not the High Prielt alone, who is bere meant, buc others alto, focbe words run in the plurall number , the Priests, the Levites, v.9. And they shal phew thee, they fhal inform thee. For che Minor ic is acknowledged by the Papiits Erge.
2 If this text proves the High-Priests Infallibility, it proves it in the matter bere spoken of: But this place doth not prove the High-Priests infallibility, in the matters here spoken of: jor those are matters of tact, between blood and blood, plea and plea, strike and strike: questions which were decided by testimonies and in such they confesse che Pope may erre': so then their Argument runs thus : The High-Priest was infallible, in matters of factTherefore the Pope is not infallible in matcers of fact, buc be is infallible in matters of Faith : but our comfort is, as it is a dangerous Argument, so themselves furnith us with an Antidote; forschey deny boch propositions ...), They deny the consequent, from matcers of fact, co mars çers of faith. 2. They deny che antecedenc, for they do noc ascribe to the Pope, and consequently not to the HighPriest, infallibilicy in maccers of fact. You see what shifts they are pui to, to supporo cheir cause with such rocten posts: to argue froin ihe Autbority of the priests, co end particular controversies between man and man, bes tween blood and blood, plea and plea, stroke and stroke, (which is all chat place speakes of,) co the infallibility of the Pope, in all the matters of God, and deciding all the controversies of Religion. I think they have sufficiently improved the stock the bigh Priest left them.
3. Those words(however they may seem to a carelesse reader at first view) do nor affert the infallibilicy of the Priest or Priests, nor the obligation of the people to an ab, solute submission, and blind obedience to all cheir dictates and exposicions, and that for two undeniable reasons.
1. Because other places of Scripture(with whom this,
'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. Yox fall observe to do as the Lord harh commanded you , Juufhall not turn aside to the right hand, or to the teft: You shall walke in all the wayes which th: Lord commanded you. So Deut.6.6.&c. lcis Gods speech to fofhua, ch.1.8. This booke of the lara shall not depart out of thy mouth, but there fhalt meditate therein day and night that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein And in case of doubt, it is the Prophers in jundion to the people to have recourse to the Law,and to cheTestimony.Ila 8.20 Now put case an high priest should fallinto Idolatry(I may well Joppose it, for it was done,) and should expound the law so as to favour bis opinion,& practice, I demand whether in this case, 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 b.e.a seared conscience nor can any Christian hear such an assertion without horrour; If they deny it, their argument from this place is lost.
2. That sence of Scripture which justifies the Jewes in putting Christ to death, is a false fence, and corrupt exposition: But the Popish sence of this place, and their argument from it, doth justifie the Jewes in putting Christ to death. Ergo it is a corrupt expofition, for the Major, he that denies it deserves not the name of a Chriftian: And whatever his successours will do at a pinch, I am sure St Peter did not justifie chem, but feverely condemns them, and highly aggravates their sin in it: At. 2,63,6 4,6 5. The Mino" (about which alone che doubt lies)I shall easily prove:which I am more willingto do, that all Christians may
observe the just Judgment of God, and the fearfull A postacy of these men, that racher then recant cheir errours will, (in effe&t) renounce Cbri
ftianity, and justifie the murderers of Christ, I prove ic thus : If the Jewes,in that Act,did nothing, buc what by vertue of this place, they were obliged to do, then chey did not iin. But the Jewes did nothing in the murdering of Christ, but what by vertue of this place if the Popish sence be true ) they were obliged to do. Ergo: The Major they do, and must grant, for it cannot be a fin co obey Gods command. The Minor 1 prove, if chis law did require absoluce obedience to cbeir Priests, and was in force at that time, then the Jewes did nothing, buc whac they were obliged to do: But this I aw did require such obedience(say the Papists) & it was in force at thac time (say I) Ergo : The consequence no man will deny, but he that doch not understand it. The Minor, I prove it in its two branches i This Law bound the Jewes to absolute obedience co cheir Priests: This is known to be their opinion. But because I have no great confidence in the ingenuicy of these men, I will prove it out of 2, or 3 of their most eminent Authours. Bicanus hach these words , the whole people in mart rs of religion were commanded to follow that which the High-Pri. ft enjoynedthem, (a) What more plain? Thus Melchior Canus (one of great Authority with them) Moses dieb net command that they should biliive the Priests if they judged according so law, but rather, that they should take that for Law, which the Priest taught them (b) Bellar: disputes against the assercion of Brentius, T hat the people were to stand to the judgement of the High-Priest's only upon condition they judged aocording to law, and argues that they were abló purely bound to follow it. (c) And(that you may see it is (a) Totus populus in negotio religionis jubebatur id fequi, qaod Pontifex judicabat seqiri oportere. In manuali de Judice controversiarum lib.. cap.s. nu. 62. (b) Nox precipit Mofes ut facerdotbus credans, ili judicarent secundum legem, sed potius,wi que sacerdotes docuerint,ea fra lcge habeantur is OperCrisizlib.6.p:510.(5) De zerbi Dei intcrp.lib.3.C.4.