The Safe Religion, Part 3 (1 of 3)

The Safe Religion · Part 3 (1 of 3)

p. 186QUERY. Whether the Infallible Judgement of the Romane Pope, or his Clergy muſt be the Ground of our Belief of the Chriſtian Doctrine, or of our Receiving the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God? N.

HAving already enquired whether the Romaniſts or the Reformed Churches are in the ſafe way to Salvation; we ſhall now more particularly enquire whether their faith or ours be built on the ſurer grounds. Our Belief is thus reſolved: we believe the Chriſtian Doctrine to be True, becauſe the True God is the Author of it. We diſcern that God is the Author of it, both by his Intrinſicke and Extrinſicke Seals or atteſtations of it: in that it beareth his image and ſuperſcription, and is confirmed by his undoubted uncontroled Miracles, p. 187and other effects which lead us to the cauſe. The revealing containing ſigns or characters are the the holy Scriptures. That theſe Books were written by the Prophets, Apoſtles and Evangeliſts, and were confirmed by Miracles, and are uncorrupted in the main, we are infallibly aſſured of, by the evident certainty of the hiſtorical atteſtation and Tradition: For we depend not barely on the credit of a deceivable or deceitful man (ſuch as is the Pope of Rome) or of any fallible ſociety of men; but on ſuch Hiſtory as we can prove by plain reaſon to be infallible, containing in it, beſides the Teſtimony of the Pope and all his party, the ſame Teſtimony alſo of all the reſt of the Chriſtians in the world, yea and of the very Hereticks who were enemies to much of the truth; and enough alſo even from the mouths of Infidels to confirm us: ſo that by this infallible hiſtory, and univerſal Tradition, we have a fuller diſcovery that theſe Books are the ſame that were written by the Apoſtles, &c. then we have that the Statutes of Parliaments in the Reign of King James or Queen Elizabeth, are the ſame that they pretend to be: And to a man that heareth not God himſelf or the Lord Jeſus or the Apoſtles, and hath not their immediate inſpirations, we know not how the Laws of heaven ſhould be more fitly delivered in an ordinary rational way, nor what ſurer other means ſuch as we can expect, who live at ſuch a diſtance from the firſt receivers of it: unleſs we would have God to ſpeak to every man as he did to Moſes, or have Chriſt or Apoſtles ſtill among us, or unleſs God muſt make us all Prophets by his extraordinary inſpirations. And laſtly, the true meaning of this word we underſtand as we do the meaning of p. 188other Laws or writings having moreover the aſſiſtance of the ſpirit, which is neceſſary becauſe of the ſublimity and ſpirituality of the matter, and the neceſſity of the great effects upon our hearts: Our Teachers by Tranſlation and further inſtructions are our helpers (as they muſt be in other things that we would learn) and by the help of them without and of the ſpirit within, we are able to underſtand the meaning of the words (eſpecially comparing text with text) and ſo receive the ſanctifying impreſs upon our hearts. And thus is the Faith of the Reformed Catholike Reſolved. He receiveth the Bible from the hands or mouth of his Teachers (and perhaps firſt believeth them fide humana, that it is Gods Word:) He knoweth that this Book was written in Hebrew and Greeke by the Prophets and Apoſtles, by Infallible Hyſtory or Univerſal Tradition. He knoweth that they did it by Inſpiration of the Holy Ghoſt, by the Image of God which he findeth on it, and by the uncontroled Miracles by which they ſealed it. He believeth it to be True, becauſe it thus proceeded from the Holy Ghoſt, and ſo is the Word of God who is moſt True.

Of the Reſolution of our Faith according to the Proteſtant Doctrine. See L. du Pleſſis of the Church. cap. 4. Tranſlat. pag. 121.122, 123. and Conradus Bergius Prax. Cathol. Can. p. 208.209, 210. Diſp. 2. §. 125, 126. To this ſame ſence. Vid. & Sibrand. Lubbert. Princip. Chriſt. Dogm. li. 1. pag. 20 &c.

p. 189What the Reſolution of the Romane faith is, the Queſtion which we are now to diſcuſs doth intimate in part, for it cannot be laid down in one propoſition, becauſe they are of ſo many minds themſelves. Indeed we may ſee in this their foundation that Popery is a very maze and dungeon; for the builders of this Babel are all in confuſion at the laying of their firſt ſtone. Yet this much they ſeem to be moſtly agreed in: aaBellar. de Verbo Dei li. 1. cap. 2.That the Scripture is the word of God, and part of the Rule of faith and duty, bbBellar. ibid. l. 4. cap. 3.but not the whole Rule, nor the whole Word of God, but that unwritten Traditions are the other part, ccBellar. ib. l. 3. c. 10. Gretſ…r. de Agnoſc. Script. cap. 7. Col. 1908. Valent. Tom. 3. Diſp. 1. qu. 1. punct. 7. §. 23. But ſay plainly that the judgement of the preſent Church is Gods word. vid. Melcb. Ganum. li. 5. c. 5. q. 3. Turnebull. in Tetragoniſ. cap. 7. & 8.and the judgement of the preſent Church is Gods Word after a ſort (as they ſpeak) That the Scripture hath its Authority in it ſelf from God the prime truth, but quoad nos, as to us, it hath its Authority from the Church: That it is the act of Tradition or the unwritten part of Gods word to tell us that the Scriptures are the word of God, or a Divine Revelation. ddVid. Malderum 22 aequ. 1. Art. 1. Sect. 6. Stanlet. princip. d…ct. li. 8. c. 21. & li. 9. c. 3. reſponſ. ad arg. 5. Et in controv. rel. Contr. 4. q. 3. are. 2. & Denfenſ. author. Eccleſ. l. 3. c. 16. §. 4. & Turnebull. Tetragoniſm. c. 6. § 2.3. & … 8. §. 3. Bellarm. de Verbo Dei l. 4. c. 4. Gretſer Defenſ. iſtius capi…is col. 1575, 1576, & Defenſ. c. 10. de Verbo Col. 1451. ſed è contra nelius ſcribentem leg. Peter. de Alliaco inſent. 1. qu. 1. art. 3. litera E E. & Lyranum Prolog. in Biblia.Sir 50:3And that it is the Office of the Church to judge both of this Tradition and the Scripture; as alſo to decide all p. 190controverſies in Religion, and to judge which is the true ſence of Scripture: and that this Church muſt be one only, viſible, infallible, authorized thus to judge by Chriſt; and this is onelyonly the Romane Church.

Thus far the moſt of them ſeem to be agreed. But when theſe myſteries of iniquity come to be opened, they fall all to pieces. For 1. Sometimes they ſay that the judgement of the Church is Gods word after a ſort: ſometime that it is ſome middle thing between a Teſtimony Divine and Humane. eeVid Turnebull. Totragen. c. 2. a § 5. ad ſinem. ſuarez. Diſput. 3. de fide ſect. 2. §▪ 5 & Diſput. 2 ſect. 4 § 5. & Diſput. 3. ſect. 12. § 4. Bellarm. li 3. de Verbo Dei c. 10. ad arg …3. & 15. Et Lib. de libero Arbitr. c. 3. § At Catholici. Gretſer… in Defenſ. c. 10. li. 3. de Verbo col. 1437. eſtius in ſent. 3. diſt. 23. § 4. Malde…. in 22 ae Thom. q. 1. a 1. ſec. 3.2. And what the formal object of faith is, they are not all of a mind: whether it be only the Prime Truth, or whether the Revelation of the Material object be any part of the formal: (But I confeſs this controverſie is more verbal then real.) 3. ffLege Riveti noſtri Iſagog. ſac. ſcript. cap. 20. ſuarez Diſp. de fide 5. ſect. 7. § …1.And what place here to aſſign to the Teſtimony of the Church, they are not agreed neither. ggVid. valent. Tom. 3. Diſp. 1. qu. 1. punct. 7. § 12. Bellarm. l. 2. de Sacram. in Genere cap. 25. ſuarez Diſput. 5. de fide ſect. 5. §. 5. ſed contra Melius Waldenfis li. 2. Doctrin. fid. ant. c. 19. operum. Tom. 1. &c. 27. ſic Alphonſ. a Caſt. adu. haereſ. li. 1. c. 2. Melch. Can lib. c. 3. & li. 2. c. 1. …etr. Trigoſ. in ſummam Bonaven. qu. 1. ar. 3. ſuarez (contra ſcipſum) de fide. Diſp. 5. §. 3. Bellarm. (contra ſcipſum) generalia controv. fine. vid. & Durand. in 3. ſent. diſt. 24. qu. 1. & …erſon. de vita ſpirit. an. lect. 2. Coroll. 7. & è contr F…ann. Driedon. li. 1. de Eccl. Script. & dogmat. cap. 1. & Waldenſ. li. 2. doctr. fid. antiq. cap. 19. & 20. Melch. Canum Loc. Theol. l. 2. c. 8. p. 26, 27. &c.4. Eſpecially p. 191they are divided in the main, viz. what this Church is which is the infallible Judge, and into whoſe judgement their faith is reſolved, whether it be the preſent Church or the former Church? Whether it be the Pope only (at leaſt in caſe of difference between him and his Council) or whether it be a General Council though the Pope agree not (as the French and Venetians ſay?) hhVid. Mel. Canum. ib. pag. 27. 28, &c. contra. Th. Waldenſem.Yea whether it be the Clergy only, or the Laity alſo that are this Church? Nay ſome of them plead Univerſal Tradition (as Holden, White, Vane, and divers other Engliſhmen of late) as if that were the ſame with the Romane Tradition, or as if it were the point in controverſie between us and them. And ordinarily they uſe to tell us of [All the Church] and [All the Chriſtian world] and to mouth it in ſuch ſwelling words, that the ſimple hearer would little think that by [All the Church] they meant but one man, or at the utmoſt, him and his factious Clergy? So alſo they are diſagreed among themſelves whether iiMelc. Canus Loc. com. l. 5. c. 5. fol. 162.163.the Biſhops in a General Council are Judges with the Pope or onelyonly the Popes Counſellors? Yea or what a General Council is? Though they all agree that it is not neceſſary that it be out of all the Chriſtian world, much leſs the Biſhops of all Churches, but onelyonly ſome of thoſe that adhere to the Pope of Rome, yet they agree not whether it muſt be freely elected by all the Biſhops of the Romiſh faction, or onelyonly ſo many and of ſuch Countries as the Pope ſhall chooſe? and whether the major part of the Council muſt concur with the Pope, or the Pope and the Minor part may not p. 192ſerve turn kkMel. Canus l. 5. c. 5. fol. 164.5. So alſo they are exceedingly diſagreed about the nature and extent or pretended infallibility of the Church of the Pope in judging. llStaplet. relect. contr. 4. qu. 2. in …xpl. art. …otab. 2.3.4. Valen…a Tom. 3. Diſput. 1. punct. 1. §. 5.Some ſay that the Church judgeth de mediis diſcurſive, ſed de concluſione per doctrinam propheticam & Divinam: And ſo theſe men may affirm (agreeably to this principle) that the Popes Definitions are part of the holy Canonical Scripture, as Melchior Canus affirmeth he heard a moſt excellent Divine confeſs, and citeth Gratian and Innocent alſo as of the ſame mind. mmCanus l. 5. c. 5. fol. 164, 165.And thus all the moſt wicked Popes are made Prophets, and ſpeak by inſpiration of the Holy Ghoſt. But others of them nnMel. Canu… ubi ſup. & l. 2. c. 7. f 27. Bellarm. de Concil l. 2. c. 2. ſuarez T…ſput 8. de fide ſect. 5. §. 4. Alphonſ. a Caſtro adv haereſ l. 1. c. 8 Waldenſis doctr. fid. l. 2. c. 22. & 23. Becanus Tra…. … fide c. 2. qu. 5. §. 4.do deny this: Though yet they know not how it is that the Pope is infallible, without declaring themſelves Enthuſiaſts. Alſo (though ſaith Bellarm. l. 4. de Pontif. c. 2. all yield that the Pope may perſonally erre through Ignorance, yet) they are diſagreed among themſelves whether he may be a Hereticke. Some ooPighius li. 4. Hier. Eccleſ. c. 8. Bellarm. li. 4. de Pont. c. 6.Eccl 8ſay he may not, and others that its moſt pious and probable to think he may not: Others reject that as falſe ppStaplet. contr. 3. qu. 4. concl. 2. Canus li. 6. c. 8.and ſay he may: And one would think it ſhould have been out of queſtion by long experience before this time? And Bellarmine confeſſeth that three General Councils did believe that the Pope might be a Hereticke p. 193(ubi ſup. c. 11.) ſome ſay qqSt…plet. Contr. 3. qu. 4 Concl. 2. Rhimenſin Luc. 22.31. Hart. in Conf. with Reignolds c. 7. ſect. 3.Luke 22:31that when the Pope is conſulted and giveth his judgement in matters of faith, he cannot err (though in matters of fact he may) and that he is Infallible in his Courts and Councils, though not as a private Doctor. Others rrBellarm. l. 4. de Pontif c. 3. § …. ſuarez de fide Diſp. 5. ſect. 8. § 4. Valent. Tom. 3. Diſp. 1. qu. 1. p 7. § 40.ſay that he cannot err when he intendeth to binde the whole Church to receive his ſentence, or when he teacheth the whole Church. ſſTurrecremat. li. 2. ſumm. de Eccleſ. c. 12. & li. 4 part. 2. c. 16. Valent. ubi ſup. c…l. 233Eccl 12Others ſay that the Pope may err even defining in Council; but not in errors manifeſt to the Church but onelyonly in new or not manifeſt points. ttVid Alphon. a Caſtro li. 1 adv. haereſ. c. 4.Others come yet neerer the matter, and tell us merrily, that the Pope cannot ſo err in judgement about matter of Faith, becauſe when he firſt erreth thus, he ceaſeth to be Pope: but this is a hard concluſion in the eyes of their brethren.

The like diſagreements there are among them about the Infallibility of a General Council: ſome will make it the proper ſeat of Infallibility, and ſay that the Pope cannot err if he be guided by the Council; elſe he may: Others uuBellarm. de Concil. li. 2. cap. 2. Valent. Tom. 3. Diſp. 1. qu 1. p…ct. 7. § 45. Col. 274 ſuarez. Tract. de fide Diſp. 7. ſect. 7. §. 10. Bellarm. de Concil. li. 2. cap. 1….ſay that a Generall Council may err, if it be not confirmed by the Pope, yea though the Popes Legates did conſent: or if they do not follow the Popes inſtructions; But that they cannot erre if they follow p. 194them, or be confirmed by him. So Bellarmine, Canus and the late champions. And if the Pope and Council differ (as they have ſhrewdly done, when Councils have depoſed Popes for hereſie and wickedneſs) ſome xxTurrecrem. ſumm. li. 2. c. 64. Andrad. defenſ. fid. Trident. li. 1. pag. 86.ſay, that we may more ſafely follow the Council then the Pope. But others yyVid. Bellarm. de Pontif. li. 4. cap. 3. Staplet. Con. 6. qu. 3. art. 5. Valentia. Tom. 3. Diſp. 1. qu. 1. punct. 7. §. 45. So Canus and others.ſay the clean contrary, and place the Infallibility in the Pope onelyonly, and make it his work to reclaim the Council.

Though they are thus all in pieces among themſelves even about theſe their fundamentals, yet is it the cuſtome of their deceitful Writers, to make the ſimple people believe that they are all agreed, and to tell them that they have the [Conſent of the Univerſal Church, and of all the Chriſtian world, and they have Univerſal Tradition] &c. that by the noiſe of theſe big words, they may do that which they cannot do by argument. Thus Doctor Vane their late proſelite, and divers others do in their writings overlooking all their own diſagreements, and paſſing on as confidently in their boaſts of the [Univerſal Conſent] as if they were either ſuch Novices as underſtand not their own Religion, or ſuch hardened ſeducers, as are not willing that others ſhould underſtand it.

Here are in this our Queſtion contained three of the greateſt controverſies between us and the Papiſts. 1. Whether it belong to the Pope or Romane Church, p. 195to be the Judge of Faith and Scriptures to all the world? 2. Whether the Pope or his Clergy be in…llible in judging of matters of Faith? 3. Whether our Faith muſt be reſolved into this infallible judgement of theirs? Our intent in this preſent Diſpute is to deal moſt with the ſecond, yet ſo as it is connexed with the other two; and therefore ſhall take them in on the by, but ſay leſs to them diſtinctly; and the rather becauſe there is ſo much ſaid already by our Divines, as all the Papiſts on earth will never be able ſolidly to anſwer: To let paſs all thoſe beyond Sea that have effectually confounded them, we have Brittans enough to hold them perpetual work: as Jewell, Reignolds, Whitaker, White, Field, Ʋſher, Camero, Baronius, Davenant, Chillingworth (to whom they have lately loſt their cauſe, by ſhewing in a vain and frivolous Reply, how little they have to ſay againſt him) with many more, who will either remain unanſwered, or the anſwers will be worſe to the adverſaries cauſe, then ſilence it ſelf; which we have ſufficient ground already to foretell.

As to the firſt of theſe controverſies (to diſpatch it in ſhort) as we diſtinguiſh between Judicium Deſcretionis, Directionis, & Deciſionis, a Judgement of Diſcretion, of Direction, and of Deciſion, ſo we kn…w that it is onelyonly the later that properly denominateth a Judge in the publike and ordinary ſence. Take our doctrine in theſe few Propoſitions.

1. We ſay that every Chriſtian hath a judgement of Diſcretion, to know that the Chriſtian Faith is true, and Scripture is the word of God: Or elſe he were no Chriſtian, or faith were not an act of judgement, or Reaſon, but a bruitiſh thing. This therefore p. 196we confeſs the Pope either hath or ought to have.

2. Every Paſtor of the Church hath a judgement of direction; that is, it belongeth to him by office to be a Director of the people, and to teach thoſe the Chriſtian Faith, that yet receive it not, and to confirm thoſe in it that have received it: And they ought to have abilities for the work of this office. If therefore the Pope were a true Paſtor, Biſhop, or Preacher, this power we ſhould confeſs to be in him, as in others.

3. It belongeth to theſe Teachers alſo, to be ſpecially careful to preſerve the ſacred Scriptures from corruption, and to deliver them down to poſterity in the purity as they receive them, and to tranſlate them into known tongues, that the people may underſtand them. Though others alſo have a part in this work, yet the Paſtors of the Church have by Office the chiefeſt part.

4. It belongeth to them alſo to be witneſſes and informers of the people, how themſelves did receive the Faith and Scripture from their Anceſtors, and to ſhew them how it came down to our hands by certaine Infallible Tradition from Age to Age.

5. The Church guides they are both Preſervers of the Scripture, Witneſſes of the Tradition, and Te…chers of the truth, and have ſuch a power of judging a… belongeth to all theſe three.

6. In theſe acts of their office they ought to be Believed, and that on a threefold account. 1. Becauſe of the evidence which they ſhew to prove the truth of their Aſſertions: Though ſtrictly this is rather to be called Learning, and ſo Knowing, then Believing: p. 197and is common to Teachers with any others that ſhew the ſame proofs; Yet it being ſuppoſed that ordinarily they have much more Knowledge in the things which they teach then other men have, therefore we may well ſay that it more belongeth to them to convince, and more efficacy is in their Teaching becauſe of their proofs, and better entertainment is due to their Teaching. 2. Such a Belief alſo is due to them as all men ſhould have in their own proſeſſion, wherein they have long ſtudyed and laid out their time and labor, and wherein they are commonly known to excell other men. Every man that is leſs ſtudyed in Law, Phyſicke, or any other Science or Art is bound in reaſon to give ſome credit to Lawyers, Phyſicians and others that Study and Practice thoſe Arts. This is but a humane Faith. 3. Beſides this credit before mentioned which Infidells themſelves may give to the Miniſters of the Goſpel (according to their capacities) there is a further credit due to them from profeſſed believers, and that is, as they are officers authorized by Chriſt, and have a promiſe of his aſſiſtance to the end of the world: which though it make them not infallible in all matters of Faith, yet doth it aſſure them of a more than common help of Chriſt, if they are his ſervants indeed.

7. There is more of this kind of Belief due to many Paſtors (caeteris paribus) than to one, and to the whole Church than to any part.

p. 1988. The credit of the Church or any Paſtors in witneſſing to the faith, dependeth on their competency for ſuch a Teſtimony; which conſiſteth in their ſufficency or Ability, and their fidelity, which they are rationally to manifeſt that it may gaine credit with others.

9. In things which God hath left undetermined in Scriptures and committed to the Governors of the Church to determine of, they have a Deciſive Power. 1. For the Time or Place, or the like circumſtances of Gods worſhip they are neceſſary in General (viz. there muſt be ſome Time, Place, &c.) but not in ſpecie (ſuch a Time, ſuch a Place is not neceſſary, unleſs it be ſome that God hath already made choice of) Here the Church guides muſt Authoritatively Determine, whereupon the people are obliged to obey; unleſs in ſome extraordinary caſes, where the Determination is ſo perverſe and contrary to the General Rules which Scripture hath given for it, that it would overthrow the ſubſtance of the duty it ſelf. 2. And in caſe of Church cenſures, when any man is accuſed to deſerve Excommunication; the Church Governors have a Judicial Deciſive Power, as to thoſe ends, though not to make a man guilty that is Innocent, yet to oblige the people to avoid Communion with the perſon whom they Excommunicate; except in ſuch palpable mal-adminiſtration and evident contradiction of the word of God, which may nullifie their ſentence (for even here their Power is not unlimited.)

10. No man or company of men (much leſs the Pope) hath a proper Deciſive Judicial Power in matter of Chriſtian faith, or whether the Scripture, or any part of it; be the word of God or not?

p. 199For the opening of this, underſtand what we mean by a Deciſive Judicial Power: to wit, ſuch as a Judge hath in a controverted cauſe, where the Plaintiff and Defendant muſt ſtand to his Judgement, be it right or wrong: ſo that though the ſentence be not juſt, yet muſt it be Deciſive and obligatory: ſo that he hath Power to Judge in utramque partem, on either ſide, and the judgement muſt be valid. Such a Deciſive power no creature hath in theſe caſes that we have now in hand.

Where let it be ſtill remembred, that it is not the name, but the Thing that we contend about. If they will call that a Deciſive Judicial Power, which is ſo limited to one part, or ſide, that it ſhall not be valid or obligatory to the ſubject if it erre, or go on the other ſide, concerning which all men have a judgement of Diſcerning granted them by God (ſo far as they are able to Diſcerne, they have leave and authority) then we eaſily grant, that every Paſtor of the Church is thus far the Judge of Faith and Scripture: That is, if any man doubt whether the Scripture be the Word of God, and ask a Preacher or Biſhop, he hath Power to ſay, Yea: but not to ſay No: But this is no Judicial Power: but a Teaching and Witneſſing act: For the people are bound to diſobey them, if they erre, and therefore bound to …ry whether they erre or not; and not to follow their judgement further then it is right and ſound: therefore they have no deciding Judicial Power: which I prove thus.

Arg. 1. If the Pope or any other had ſuch a Judicial Deciſive Power, then might they oblige us to Believe that there is no God, that Chriſt is not the Redeemer, that Scripture is not the word of God, p. 200and ſo they might caſt Faith and Scripture out of the Church: But this is falſe and abominable; therefore the Pope hath no ſuch Power.

For the conſequence, it is manifeſt, ſuppoſing that the Pope ſhould give judgement againſt God, Chriſt, or Scripture, then men muſt (by this Doctrine) be bound to obey it, and forſake God, Chriſt, and Scripture for the Pope.

Whereunto add a ſecond Argument from a further abſurdity: Then either ſuch as renounce God, Chriſt, and Scripture may be ſaved, or elſe God bindeth men (by the Pope) to renounce him and the faith to their own damnation. But both theſe conſequents are falſe and abominable: Therefore.

I know they will here reply, that we muſt not ſuppoſe that the Pope can err in his judgement, and therefore being infallible, he will certainly make no ſuch falſe Deciſion. To which I ſay, 1. Why then ſhould it be ſaid that God hath given Authority to decide in utramque partem, on either ſide? Doth God give a man Authority to do that, which he hath promiſed him and all others that he ſhal never do: But he will keep him from? This is to make Gods Commiſſions to be impious, and his Grace to the Pope onelyonly to hinder the execution of them in an impious way. Who dare ſay openly that [God hath given authority to the Pope to judge deciſively and obligatorily that there is no God, Chriſt or Scripture, though he will graciouſly hinder him from ſo doing] If the Papiſts ſay that they do not ſay ſo, I would know then what their judicial power in theſe matters is? Is it onelyonly this, that the Pope hath Power to judge, that there is a God, a Chriſt, a word of p. 201God? &c. Why ſo have others as well he? If they ſhall dare to ſay, that matters of faith are not ſuch to us (that is, we be not obliged to believe them) till the Pope have determined them: I anſwer, What! is no Heathen or Infidel bound to Believe that there is a God, a Chriſt, a Scripture, till the Pope tell him ſo? Shall all Infidels be excuſed in judgement, that had the Goſpel preached to them by any other Chriſtians except the Pope or others in his name? Is no man on earth bound to believe in Chriſt that knows not the Popes mind in the matter? And muſt men believe in the Pope before they believe in Chriſt? And muſt they believe in Chriſt onelyonly becauſe the Pope bids them, or becauſe they firſt believe in the Pope? I do not think that either the eares of Good Chriſtians, or rational Infidels will reliſh ſuch doctrine. And what is this Believing in the Pope that muſt go firſt? Is it not to take him to be Saint Peters ſucceſſor, and that Saint Peter was Chriſts Diſciple, who had a promiſe of infallibility, which is now devolved to the Pope: And muſt this be believed before men believe in Chriſt? We muſt believe what he promiſed, and who were his ſervants, before we believe in himſelf? This is a ground too like the Popiſh ſuperſtructure.

But perhaps, they may in time grow moderate, and tell us, that it is not in all points of faith, but ſome onelyonly that the Pope is made Judge: He may not judge about Chriſt himſelf▪ whether he be the Meſſiah, but about his Doctrines?

p. 202Anſw. 1. By what warrant will they diſtinguiſh, and claim power in one, which they have not in the other? 2. Is it all, or ſome of Chriſts Doctrines that the Pope is Judge of? If all, then it ſeems he muſt judge whether he that Believeth ſhall be ſaved, or not? Whether we ſhould love God or hate him? Whether we ſhould ſeek firſt Gods Kingdom, or worldly vanities? And whether a man ſhould commit Murder, Adultery, Theft, &c. or not? May he decide theſe on either part? or on one only, as others may do? May he judge that there is no Judgement, Reſurrection, or life Everlaſting? I know they dare not ſay it: If it be but ſome of Chriſts Doctrines that the Pope is made Judge of, then let them tell us which it is, and give us their proofs, and they ſhall hear more from us. Let it be the ſmalleſt point they will imagine; Hath God given power to the Pope to contradict him and give him the Lye? If God ſaith, It is ſo: May the Pope ſay, It is not ſo? What if the Pope ſay that the Goſpel of Mathew or Luke or John is no part of Gods word? Muſt we believe him? What if he tell as that the world was made in five days and not in ſix? Muſt we believe him? 2. If they yet flye to his infallibility, I ſhall ſpeak more to that anon (though the former anſwer may well ſuffice them) But to another.

Arg. 3. The Scripture is Gods Law. The Pope is not the Judge of Gods Law: therefore he is not the Judge of Scripture.

The Major I hope no Chriſtian will deny. The Minor is evident from the nature and uſe of Laws and Judgements: The Law is Norma judicis in judicando: the Judges Rule: He is not to Judge the Law, but the cauſe of particular perſons by that Law. Indeed p. 203as to the right guidance of his own act of Deciſive Judging the cauſe of the perſon, he hath a Judgement of diſcretion concerning the ſence of the Law; but, as if he Judge upon a falſe expoſition of the Law, the party may appeal from him, ſo (which concerneth our preſent caſe) he hath no power to Judge the Law it ſelf: As he cannot make a plaine text to bear a falſe ſence, or oblige the ſubject to believe a falſe ſence: ſo in a doubtful caſe it belongeth to the Law-givers onelyonly to interpret their own Laws. OnelyOnly a ſentence of a lawful Judge grounded upon a falſe expoſition, may ſometime be executed among men where juſtice cannot be had: but no man is bound to Believe that it is true and juſt: James tells men what it is to pretend to be a Judge of the Law, in ſtead of doing it, and leaving that to the one Law-giver, Jam. 4, 11, 12. And if the Pope be made Judge of every controverted difficulty in Scripture, then why is he ſo unfaithful that he hath not hitherto written us an infallible Commentary on it? and why doth he not determine all the controverſies about it, that among his own followers remain yet undetermined? (of which more anon.)

Arg. 4. If the Pope be made the Deciding Judge of Faith and Scripture, then either of the plain points, or onelyonly of the controverted difficulties, or of both: But not of the plain points: For 1. That which is evident and not under controverſie, needs no Judge: To the ignorant there may be need of an interpreter and teacher, but not of a Judge: 2. Such texts of Scripture do oblige us whether the Pope Judge of them or not: Therefore there is no need of his judgement that they may oblige us. Who dare think that a man is not bound by the word of God, p. 204to love God above all, to believe the Reſurrection of Chriſt, and of us, to love Chriſts diſciples, &c. unleſs he know the judgement of the Pope. Do not all Laws of the Land oblige the ſubject upon the bare legiſlation and promulgation, before the Judge meddle with them? If they did not firſt oblige us to duty, there were no place for the Judge to ſentence us to puniſhment for diſobedience. It is the Legiſlator that oblige…h to duty by his Law, proclaimed or any way publiſhed in his name▪ But judgement interveneth to oblige men to puniſhment, and bring it to execution, and to help them to that which by the Law is their right. If therefore it be evident in the very nature of Laws and judgement, that we are obliged by Gods Laws to Believe and obey them in the ſeveral particulars before any judgement of the Popes; it is then but dotage to talk of a Judicial Deciſive power in the Pope to oblige men to Believe thoſe ſame doctrines, and obey thoſe ſame precepts of the word. And for the dark and controverted texts. 1. Thoſe are not of that moment, as that mens ſalvation muſt lye upon the expoſition of them. The points abſolutely neceſſary to ſalvation are plainly delivered. 2. Obſcurity ſhews the need of a Teacher, but not of a Judge. At leaſt its plain, that when any Teacher ſhall remove the obſcurity, thoſe texts oblige us as well as the plaineſt. 3. As I ſaid, If the Pope be Judge of all difficult controverted texts, he is an unfaithful Judge that will not expound them to us, and decide ſo many controverſies as yet depend. What good will it be to the Church to have ſuch a Judge of difficult controverted texts of Scripture, as in the conſciouſneſs of his ignorance dare not give us his judgement? but hath left them p. 205undecided theſe fifteen hundred years? This dumbe Oracle that hath eyes and ſees not, and a mouth but ſpeaks not, is not a fit foundation for the Churches Faith. 5. Where God calleth men to Office and Power, he accompliſheth or fitteth them in ſome meaſure for the performance of it: but God hath not fitted all Popes, no nor any, to Jugde Deciſively of all controverted difficultyes in Scripture, and Religion: Therefore he hath not made them Judges of them. The Minor ſhall be further proved anon: Many Popes have been ignorant, and unlearned; many Heretickes, unfit to decide all ſuch controverſies; and they have ſhewed their unfitneſſe by their non performance or ill performance.

The great Objection of the Papiſts is this.

Obj. 1. What! Shall every one be the Judge of Scripture? and take it in what ſence he pleaſe? ſhall every unlearned man or woman expound it according to their own fancies? then we ſhall have variety of expoſitions. Whether is it fitter for the Church or every ſimple fellow to be Judge?

Anſw. 1. Neither? Hath God made ſubjects to be Judges of his Lawes by which they muſt live, and by which they muſt be judged? Neither they nor your Pope, muſt be Judges of the Lawes, in a proper ſence, but obeyers of it.

2. We ſay not that the people ſhould expound the Scriptures as Teachers of others (unleſs in their own callings, as to the children ſervants, &c. when they are able) This we reſerve to the Officers of the Church.

p. 2063. Nor do we ſay that any people muſt expound Scripture according to their own fancies or miſ-guided conceits, but according to the true meaning of them. 4. Nor ſhould they in difficult caſes which are paſt their underſtandings, preſume of their own wit to know the right meaning; but have recourſe to the Teachers that God hath ſet over them, that ſo by their help they may learn the meaning of that word which they underſtood not. 5. And if their Teachers be ſingular, or give them juſt cauſe to ſuſpect their skill or fidelity, they have more reaſon to regard the Judgement of the Judicious, then of the ignorant, and of the whole Church then of any one or few; ſo far as the credit or authority of men, muſt ſupport a learner while he is a learning. 6. But what! Is it indeed ſuch a monſtrous heretical conceit in the eyes of a Papiſt, that every Chriſtian ſhould have a Judicium diſcretionis, a Judgement of diſcerning to perceive and diſcern which is truth and which is falſhood? Good Lord, whether will the heat of contention carry men? Why if they muſt not have this diſcerning judgement. 1. Then God doth bind them all to be fools, and ignorant. 2. And then Religion and the Chriſtian Faith, are the endowments of bruits that know not what they hold or do, and not of Reaſonable men. 3. Or elſe they that will be Chriſtians muſt have no Faith or Knowledge; which is a contradiction. Is not Faith an act of diſcretion? Muſt not he that believeth the Reſurrection, and Everlaſting Life, believe them with his own underſtanding? And doth he not in believing them, Judge them to be True, and Judge the contrary doctrine to be falſe? 4. Why will you read, or preach Scripture to the people, if you would p. 207not have them receive it, by a judgment of diſcerning? would you not have their judgment diſcern the Truth of what God hath written, or the Prieſt ſhal preach to them? 5. Doubtleſs you will allow them a judgement of Diſcretion, about the Popes Decrees and Canons, and your own Determinations. How can they believe you, if they do not by judgement diſcern the things you ſay to be true? And why will you not allow them the like towards God and his Word? Will you ſay, It is their duty to believe the Pope, and their ſin to believe God? Or its their duty to underſtand the Popes Laws, and their ſin to underſtand Gods Laws? Why? what do you ſay leſs when you yield them a judgement of diſcretion as to the Pope or Church, and deny it in Reſpect to the Word of God? If you ſay that they will miſunderſtand the Scripture▪ I anſ. 1. So will the Pope and the beſt and wiſeſt man on earth in ſome part: becauſe while we are here, we know but in part. 2. Their error is their ſin: But doth it follow that they may not ſee at all, for fear of miſſing their way? Muſt they put out their eyes, and be led by the Pope, for fear of erring? Muſt they not know or labor to know, for fear of miſtaking? Will any Maſter take this well of his ſervant, to put out his eyes, or do nothing, for fear of doing his work amiſs? Or refuſe to go his journey, leſt he miſs the way? Then we muſt not judge of the Popes Laws neither, and conſequently, not judge them to be true, for fear of erring in our judgement. When you prove that the Church of Rome is the true Church, would you not have the people judge of your proof for fear of erring? This is even to make beaſts of Chriſtians. 3. What are Teachers for, but to guide them, and p. 208help them to underſtand. If you are afraid leſt they ſhould erre, be the more diligent in inſtructing them. But this is the difference between the work of a Popiſh Teacher and ours. They make it their work to put out mens eyes that they may have the loading of them, becauſe they are troubled with an imperfection in their ſight, and therefore will erre if thoſe imperfect eyes be left in their heads: we make it our work, by all means we can uſe, to cure their eye ſight that they may be able to ſee themſelves, in the mean time adviſing them, while their eyes are under cure, not wholly to truſt to them, but to uſe the helpe of others, to ſhew them the way, and to tell them of dangers. The Proteſtant will ſet his Childe to School that he may learn to know, that which through childiſhneſs he knows not: But according to the Popiſh way, we ſhould forbid them all books or learning, leſt they miſunderſtand them; and let them never know any thing leſt they know amiſs. The next ſtep, is to ſend them to Bedlam. The Apoſtle would have men have their ſenſes exerciſed to diſcern Good and Evill, Heb. 5.14. The Papiſts would not have the people to have a judgement of Diſcerning: If they muſt not Diſcern, they muſt be ignorant: When God ſo much requireth and extolleth knowledge.

But I'le leave this Queſtion, and paſs to the next.

Qu. 2. Whether the Pope be Infallible, in this Deciſive judgement which he pretendeth to? Which we deny.

But before I come to give the reaſons of our denyal, p. 209I ſhall further declare our judgement about the whole matter of the Churches Infallibility, that the true ſtate of the controverſie may appear.

And 1. We eaſily grant that as there is an Objective certainty in all points of the Chriſtian Faith, and in the very truth, ſo the Pope is infallible while he believeth and declareth nothing but the truth. He and every man elſe that ſpeaks according to Gods word, is ſo far infallible, becauſe that word is infallible. They need not thank us for this conceſſion.

2. We grant that neither the Church of Rome (if a true Church) nor any other particular true Church can erre in fundamentals, or in points of abſolute neceſſity to ſalvation, in ſenſu compoſito; that is, while they remain a true Church, they never deny the eſſentials of a true Church: For if they once deny the eſſentials, they do eo nomine ceaſe to be a true Church.

3. We grant that Chriſts univerſal Church ſhall never deny any one point of Faith eſſential to Chriſtianity, or abſolutely neceſſary to Salvation: For then Chriſt ſhould have no true Church on earth (when the whole ſhould thus Apoſtatize or turn Hereticks) and all the then preſent world ſhould be damned.

4. The Church as Reaſonable ſenſible men are infallible in many matters of fact, of which they may give us unerring reports: as that, This Bible was delivered as the word of God by their Anceſtors, as they might teſtifie it was delivered to them: and that this Creed or ſum of Faith alſo was thus delivered in the words now in uſe, &c.

p. 2105. There is an infallible certainty in the evidence which the former Church hath left, and the preſent Church poſſeſſet… to prove that this ſame Scripture was written by the Apoſtles and Evangeliſts, and was delivered to the firſt Churches, and from them, down to us: and that multitudes of miracles were wrought for the confirmation of the Doctrine contained in them.

6. An illiterate perſon may have an infallible certainty that all points neceſſary to ſalvation are expreſſed in certain tranſlations of Scripture, and that ſo far, and much further, they are truely tranſlated, and that ſuch things there are in that Book as the Readers affirm there to be, though himſelf cannot read them. For all this is infallibly diſcovered by common conſent, and eſpecially of adverſaries: When all men that are certainly able to judge, and are honeſt and impartial, affirm it without doubt, and thoſe that would gladly contradict it, as being by their intereſts carryed thereto, yet cannot do it, or at leaſt not with any conſiderable pretence: This gives men as infallible a proof, as the common teſtimony of men doth, that there is ſuch a City as Rome or Paris which we never ſaw.

7. And we further grant, all that Teaching and Witneſſing power to the Church officers, which was expreſſed under the laſt Queſtion; and all that dueneſs of Belief and obedience to them, which was there aſſerted. So much for our Conceſſions.

But we deny, 1. That either the Pope of Rome, or a General Council are naturally or ſupernaturally priviledged from all error in matters of Gods revealed will, or that they are priviledged from the danger or poſſibility of teaching theſe their errors to p. 211others, even to the Church. 2. We deny that the Pope or the Romane Clergy are ſecured from the danger of Apoſtaſie or Hereſie: They may fall ſo far as to deny the Fundamentals or Eſſentials of Chriſtianity: though the Univerſal Church ſhall never ſo fall away.

We ſhall firſt ſpeak of the Popes Infallibility, and afterward of a General Council, that we may ſpeak to the ſeveral parties among the divided Papiſts herein.

And againſt the Popes Infallibility we thus argue.

Argu. 1, They that lay claim to this Infallibility, do give us no proof of their claim: Therefore they cannot expect that we ſhould believe them. The proof lyeth on the pretenders, who give us no proof.

If they can prove it, it muſt be either by his natural perfection, or ſome ſupernatural endowment, by which the Pope muſt be more Infallible then other men: The former they pretend not to (and no wonder) The later they do pretend to: But, if God ſupernaturally have aſcertained all Popes of an Infallibility in matters of Faith, then he hath done this either by his written Word, or by unwritten Tradition, or both: by which it muſt to us be proved: But he hath done it neither by his written Word, nor by unwritten Tradition. For Tradition they muſt ſhew it us, either in certain monuments of the Church which are in ſtead of writing (but that they cannot do) or elſe in the mindes of all the members of the Church. For that which concerneth all their p. 212Salvation, muſt be delivered to all: But this they cannot ſhew: Nay we ſhew them the contrary: that is, the greateſt part of the preſent Church on earth denying any ſuch Tradition: and the moſt approved Writers of the former Ages, telling us the contrary, and all taking the Pope as fallible, ſo that they cannot give us one line of any one Father or Council for many hundred years after Chriſt, that ever had ſuch a conceit as theirs. And if they will pretend to a private Tradition which none but themſelves have received and are entruſted with, and ſo make themſelves the abſolute Judges of their own cauſe, and give us no proof but their own words, we will believe them as faſt as we can, but we muſt deſire them not to be too haſty with us.

And for the written Word they cannot thence prove a grant of their infallibility. 1. Becauſe they tell us that we cannot know the Scripture to be the Word of God, but by their infallible judgement: Therefore we muſt know their judgement to be infallible firſt; and therefore it is firſt to be known ſome other way, and not by Scripture. Indeed here they have long tired themſelves in their Circle, which ſome of them would hide by vain words if they could, but Holden and others of them are forced to confeſs it, and that they have no way out but by retiring to the univerſal teſtimony or tradition as an infallible evidence, in ſtead of the Authoritative judgement, or infallibility, or private Tradition of the Church of Rome. They tell us that we cannot know the Scripture to be the Word of God, but by the infallible judgement of their Church (And that is in the Iſſue of the Pope) And when we call for p. 213the proof of that infallibility, they refer us to the Scripture. So that this is plainly to ſay that neither Scripture nor Papal infallibility can be proved; and ſo to forſake both Popery and Chriſtianity: Then it ſeems, no man can know the Popes infallibility but upon the authority of Gods word, which cannot it ſelf be known till that infallibility be known. It muſt be Gods Grant, written or unwritten that muſt prove their infallibility: But that word or Grant, written or unwritten, cannot be known to be of God, till we firſt know their Authority to judge, and infallibility in judging: It evidently follows therefore according to them, that neither one nor the other can be known, becauſe no one of them can be known till the other be firſt known.

But 2 If we could know the Scripture to be Gods Word, before we know their infallibility in judging, yet we cannot know the true ſence of that Scripture (as they confidently tell us) firſt: Well then, I am one that doubt of the Popes infallibility, and demand his proof: Bellarmine turns me to Luk. 22. I have prayed that thy faith fail not. I muſt know how I ſhall be ſure that this is the meaning of that Scripture (which is ſo little apparent to an ordinary eye) He hath nothing to tell me, but that the Church ſaith ſo: And how ſhall I know that the Church is in the right? Why becauſe it cannot erre. And how ſhall I know that? Why by this Text. And ſo they are amazed in another Circle, paſt recovery. For they expreſly and frequently tell us, that the Scripture is no good evidence but when it is rightly expounded: and that no expoſition is right but that which is given by the infallible judgement of the Church; and ſo the Popes infallibility cannot be p. 214known till the true meaning of Texts be known that prove it; and the true meaning of thoſe Texts cannot be known, till their infallible judgement be firſt known: What follows therefore, but that neither of them can be known? The true product of Popery. This is the uſual ſucceſs of falſe arguing for a good cauſe; to overthrow both the cauſe and argument: ſo do the Papiſts as much as in them lyes overthrow both Chriſts Doctrine and their own.

3. But let us examine the particular proofs from Scripture that they bring His firſt proof (lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 3.) is from Luk. 22. [Simon, Simon, Satan hath deſired, &c. but I have prayed for thee that thy faith faile not, and when thou art converted, ſtrengthen thy brethren.] Doth this Text ſay that the Pope of Rome is infallible? Yes, if you will take Bellarmines word. And firſt he tells us that (among themſelves) there are three ſeveral expoſitions given of this Text; and it is but one of the three that will ſerve their turn: Good ſtill! And how ſhall we know that this one which Bellarmine hit on, is the right? Let any impartial man peruſe his reaſons, and make his beſt of them: For indeed there is no reaſon in them. But on the contrary I ſhall preſume to tell them, why I ſuppoſe that this Text doth not talk of the Popes infallibility. 1. Becauſe here is never a word either of the Pope, or of Rome, or of Infallibility. 2. Becauſe the thing here promiſed is expreſly reſtrained to one individual perſon, Simon. 3. The thing here promiſed was about Peters perſonal Faith, and not about infallibility in judging. For 1. In that reſpect that Satan deſired to ſift Peter, in that reſpect Chriſt promiſed the not failing of his Faith. But it was in p. 215reſpect of his perſonal Faith, and not his Cathedral judgement that Satan is here ſaid to deſire to ſift him: Therefore, &c. 2. It is expreſly ſaid to be [his Faith] that ſhould not fail: But his Faith, is not his tongue or Cathedral ſentence: words be not Faith.

4. It is not all degree of infallibility or not failing that Chriſt prayeth for to Simon: but he onelyonly prayeth that his Faith may not be overcome, foreſeeing that it would ſhake, and that he would deny him: So that this is no promiſe of perfect Infallibility to Peter himſelf as appeared by the iſſue.

5. Peter himſelf was to be converted from ſome failing: Therefore he was not exempted from it: And the caſe here in hand is ſuch as that converſion had reſpect to. Therefore it was not, that he ſhould not fail in Cathedral Determinations; for he was not converted from ſuch. Bellarmine here moſt immodeſtly would intimate that the text ſpeaks not of Peters converſion from any ſin, but of his turning to his brethren to ſpeak to them; as if it were [When thou turneſt thee to ſpeak to thy Brethren, ſtrengthen them] Nothing but the Popes infallibility, or the groſs fallibility of common reaſon, could make a learned man think that this is the ſence of the Text.

6. The Papiſts pretend that here is ſomewhat promiſed to Peter which the reſt of the Apoſtles were not partakers of: But that is not ſo: For, if it were (as it was) that he ſhould not Apoſtatize: the ſame was given to them all (except Judas) If it had been that he ſhould be infallible in teaching the Church, ſo were the reſt too as well as he. The reaſon therefore p. 216of mentioning Peter in particular, was becauſe Chriſt foreſaw the temptations and lamentable fall of Peter in denying Chriſt with curſing and oathes: from which he had need of a ſpecial converſion, that God might not forſake him and give him up to a totall failing of his Faith.

7. Two things, ſaith Bellarmine, are here obtained for Peter: See Bannes in 2.2. q. 1. a. 10. p. 149. reſtraining the text to Peter alone.The one is that he himſelf ſhould never loſe the faith, nor fall as to his faith. The ſecond is, that he as Pope ſhould never teach any thing contrary to faith, or that none ſhould ever be found in his ſeat that ſhould ſo do: Of which priviledges (ſaith he) perhaps the firſt did not deſcend to his ſucceſſors, but doubtleſs the laſt did.

But note here what a paſs this learned Cardinal hath brought his great cauſe to. 1. The text ſpeaks but of one thing and not of two: Faith is one thing, and Cathedral determination is another. Doth Chriſt mean both, when he names but one? Expreſly it is onelyonly the firſt priviledge that he promiſeth Peter, and ſaith not a word of the later: It was his Heart, and not his tongue that was the ſeat of faith, and that Chriſt eſtabliſheth: which is alſo evident by the iſſue: for ſure his tongue failed by ſpeaking againſt the faith, when he curſt and ſwore that he knew not the man. 2. Bellarmine confeſſeth that this priviledge [that his own faith ſhould not fail] extendeth not perhaps to the Popes: ſo that for all this their faith may fail: If ſo 1. Then the onelyonly priviledge mentioned in the Text extendeth not to them: For it ſpeaks of no more: The text promiſeth them nothing to the Pope, but what it never promiſed p. 217to Peter. 2. And if it did promiſe both priviledges to Peter (that neither Faith nor tongue ſhould fail) how can Bellarmine prove that one part belongeth to the Pope, when he confeſſeth the other doth not? The Text ſpeaks but to the ſame perſon, and not in one half to one, and in the other half to others. I may well argue therefore in this manner: To whomſoever Chriſt here promiſeth that his faith ſhall not fail, to him onelyonly doth he ſpeak in this text: But he promiſeth onelyonly to Peter here that his faith ſhould not fail, therefore it is onelyonly Peter and not the Popes that he ſpeaks of. The Major is clear according to the intelligible ſence of the words (and Bellarmine hath not yet proved a myſtical ſence) The Minor is confeſſed by himſelf.

Laſtly Bellarmine ſaith (de verbo dei li. 3. c. 3.) that [OnelyOnly out of the litteral ſence of Scripture, effectual arguments are to be fetched] But this great argument of his for the Popes infallibility is not fetcht out of the literal ſence of Scripture: therefore by his own confeſſion it is uneffectual and unjuſt.

The ſecond Text which he cites to this uſe, is Mat. 16. [On this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell ſhall not prevail againſt it] A double argument he would fetch from hence. One from the Name Rocke, the other from the nature of a Foundation, which both imply firmeneſs. Anſ. 1. Note that here is in the Text not one word of the Pope, of the Church of Rome more then any other, or of infallibility. 2. How doth he prove, that by the Rocke is not meant Peters Faith, or that Doctrine which he confeſſed but Peter himſelf? 3 If he had proved it, are not all the Prophets and Apoſtles as p. 218well as Peter called the foundation? Eph. 2.20. So that here is no more promiſed to him, then what was elſwhere promiſed and given to the reſt: OnelyOnly his preſent confeſſion, occaſioned the promiſe to be made expreſly and particular at that time to him. 4. As the reſt of the Apoſtles were the Foundation on which we are built, and yet their ſucceſſors are not ſo: So though Peter were the Foundation, it followeth not that all or any of his ſucceſſors are ſo.

The third text which Bellarmine citeth is Joh. laſt [Feed my Sheep.] Where note again, 1. That here is not a word of the Pope, or Rome, or infallibility. 2. Did not Chriſt bid the reſt of the Apoſtles Feed as well as Peter? Sure Mat. 28. He bid them all, Go teach all Nations, baptizing them, and teaching them to obſerve all things whatever he commanded them. And what could Peter do more in Feeding? Yea thirdly, Are not all Paſtors, though inferior to Apoſtles bound to Feed the Sheep of Chriſt? and yet it follows not thence that they are infallible.

4. Bellarmine would next prove this from [The High Prieſts wearing the Urim and Thummim, Exod. 28.] When he firſt confeſſeth that it is not agreed among Jews or Chriſtians what theſe are: And yet it will ſerve him for a proof. 2. The Prieſts were not infallible for all their Urim and Thummim: therefore no more is the Pope. They judged Chriſt not to be the Meſſiah, and therefore crucified him. They lived and died Infidels, and hardened the people in the ſame Infidelity, for which they were broken off and unchurched.

p. 2193. And whereas he argueth that the High Prieſt was infallible becauſe the people were to go to him for reſolution of difficulties, and obey them, Deut. 17. I muſt ſay that Bellarmine had ſome fault in his eyes that cauſed him to overlook the Judge, and name onelyonly the High Prieſt. God ſendeth them to the Judge, who was the chief Magiſtrate in thoſe dayes, as well as to the High Prieſt; as any man that will read the text may ſee. If therefore the one of them be infallible, becauſe of this, why is not the other ſo too? But perhaps they will make the Pope to be the ſucceſſor both of the Magiſtrate and Prieſt, and ſo to be the univerſal Emperor as well as the univerſal Biſhop; and uſe both his ſwords, that ſo this promiſe may belong onelyonly to him: For he will hardly grant every King or Judge to be infallible.

4. By this rule the reſt of the Prieſts alſo ſhould be infallible: For the people were alſo to receive the Law at their mouthes.

5. When was there ever one Prieſt in any age ſo impudent at Bellarmine and his faction are, to plead for or pretend an infallibility in themſelves? Let them name one Prieſt or perſon if they can, that ever had ſuch a conceit of themſelves, except it were Gods Prophets in the matters of their Prophecy.

6. What if the Jews High Prieſt had been infallible? Whats that to the Pope of Rome any more then to another man? Hath he indeed yet proved himſelf ſucceſſor of the Jews High Prieſt? Except as a corrupter of the Law, and a perſecutor of the Church of Chriſt.

p. 220Well! you have heard all the Scripture arguments that Bellarmine had to bring (for he brings no more) to prove the pretended infallibility of the Pope. May I not well ſay that it is no marvaile that they are ſuch ill friends to Scripture, who have no more Scripture (that is, none at all) to befriend the very foundation of their cauſe? And may I not juſtly recite again Bellarmines own concluſion lib. 3. de verbo Dei c. 3. and from thence ſhew them that their cauſe is built upon confeſſed fraud and vanity [It is agreed b…tween us (ſaith Bellarmine) that onelyonly out of the literal ſence of Scripture effectual Arguments are fetcht:] But Bellarmine bringeth no one Argument for the Popes infallibility out of the literal ſence of Scripture: therefore he bringeth no one effectual Argument from Scripture.

But yet one other Argument he hath, though not from Scripture, and no more: and that is from a double pretended experience: And his firſt experience is [That in all the other Patriarchal ſeats there have been Hereticks, but not in that of Rome.] But here 1. Bellarmine muſt be judge, or the Pope who is a party, before all the Patriarchs can be thus condemned. 2. And what if that were true? Can he ſay the like of all the Biſhops, as well as Patriarchs? If not, they may as well hence prove themſelves infallible, as the Pope can do. 3. Whether ever there were in the chair at Rome either Pope Liberius an Arrian, Pope Honorius a Monothel…te, Pope John denying the immortality of the ſoul, with abundance more ſuch like, we ſhall have fitter opportunity to open anon, to the ſhame of this experinemt of Bellarmines.

p. 221His ſecond experiment is that [The Pope without a Council hath condemned many Hereſies, which upon that very account have been taken for true Hereſies by the whole Church of Chriſt] Anſ. But you muſt firſt unchurch the greateſt part of the Catholike Church, and damne moſt of the Chriſtians on earth, the Greeks, Armenians, Abaſſines, &c. and make your own faction, to be the whole Church of Chriſt, before you will ever give us the leaſt proof of this. All the Church doth not do that which your flatterers do. Nor did the ancient Church do any ſuch thing. As other Biſhops condemned Hereſies as well as the Pope, ſo many a Hereſie was judged ſuch by the faithful, without any more interpoſition of the Pope then another Biſhop.

Having ſeen thus how little their great Champion hath to ſay for the Popes infallibility, I could willingly have look't about me into ſome of the reſt of them, to ſee if they can ſay any more; but that its known that moſt of them tread the ſame path Only I may not over paſs the new way that ſome of them have taken up of late, to prove their infallibility, and to avoid their common Circle. And this you may ſee in the Jeſuites late ſuperficial anſwer to Chilling worth. Forſooth, they tell us, that when they prove the infallibility of their Church from Scripture, it is but for our ſakes becauſe we confeſs the Authority of Scripture, but not of their Church. But when they go according to the true nature and order of the matter, then they ſet the Church before the Scripture, and independantly of it.] The reaſon of this Jeſuite (ſuppoſed to be Knot) is this [Becauſe the Church is before the Scripture, and becauſe the p. 222Miracles wrought by the Apoſtles did firſt prove their own infallibility, and from thence ſecondarily the infallibility of their Doctrine. And when we are in high expectations of the proofs of the Romane infallibility by his Arguments which are Independent of Scripture, and before the belief of it, he tells …s that it is by the like Aaguments as the Apoſtles proved their infallibility, which he thus enumerateth So the Church of God by the like ſtill continued Arguments and Notes, of many great and manifeſt Miracles, Sanctity, Sufferings Victory over all ſorts of enemies, converſion of Infidels, all which Notes are daily more and more, conſpicuous and convincing, and ſhall be encreaſing the longer the world ſhall laſt] And withall he tells us, that [Theſe Miracles, &c. prove them to be infallible in All things, and not onelyonly in ſome, or elſe we cannot know which thoſe ſome be, and what to believe and what not.]

Thus you have the ſum of the new Fundamentals of the Romiſh faith, and of the famous confutation of Chillingworth. But all theſe Knots are eaſily loſed without cutting; yea ſhake them onelyonly, and they fall looſe like Juglers Knots.

1. We eaſily grant that Chriſt the head of the Church was before the Doctrine by himſelf delivered in the fleſh, as it containeth many things ſuperadded to the old Teſtament and the doctrine of John, Baptiſt.

2. Its evident that Chriſt himſelf gathered his firſt Goſpel-Church by preaching his Doctrine, that is, he drew them to be his Diſciples, by convincing them that he was the Meſſiah, the Lamb of God that takes away the ſins of the world; ſo that this his Doctrine was before this his Church.

p. 2233. We grant that the Apoſtles were Apoſtles before themſelves did preach the Goſpel as Apoſtles: But it was the Goſpel, and preacht by Chriſt, before they preach't it.

4. We eaſily grant that both Apoſtles and Goſpel were long before the writing of this Goſpel, which we call the holy Scriptures.

5. We grant that the Apoſtles Miraculous works did ſufficiently prove, not ſome onelyonly, but all the Doctrine which they delivered to the Church or any part of it, in the name of Chriſt and as his: For though they confirmed onelyonly thoſe Doctrines which were delivered in execution of their Commiſſion, yet ſeeing God would not have ſet to this ſeal, if they had gone beyond and againſt their Commiſſion, therefore it alſo aſſureth us that they kept cloſe to it. But this proved them not infallible before they received that Commiſſion, nor afterward in any point which they ſhould deliver as their private opinion, which they fathered, not on the Inſpiration of the Spirit. The Apoſtles were not infallible about Chriſts Death, Reſurrection, and Aſcenſion, when they underſtood them not: The Diſciples were not infallible about the Acceptableneſs of Infants to Chriſt, when they forbad them to be brought. Thomas was not infallible about Chriſts Reſurrection when he believed it not. Peter was not infallible when he gave Chriſt that Satanical councel, for which he was …antum non (almoſt) excommunicated, Mat 16.22, 23. Even preſently after the great promiſe to him; Nor when he denyed that he knew Chriſt, with curſes and oathes; nor when he diſſembled and Barnabas with him, Gal. 2.

6. We maintain that the Apoſtles Doctrine thus p. 224ſealed by Miracles, and Delivered in Writing to the Churches, doth carry with it an Atteſtation from God of its infallibility, if there be never more Miracle wrought in the world. For the proof of this I refer the Reader to my Determination in a Book Intitled, The Ʋnreaſonableneſs of Infidelity.

7. It is this ſealed Doctrine contained in Scripture, and preached by Miniſters, which converteth men to Chriſt, and maketh them Chriſtians, and therefore it is in order before the preſent Church and the cauſe of it.

8. We deny and confidently deny that God hath Commiſſioned the Pope to do the work which he Commiſſioned the Apoſtles to do, and gave them the power of Miracles to confirme, that is, to Atteſt the Works, Sufferings, Reſurrection, and words of Chriſt as eye or ear witneſſes of them from himſelf: and to be the firſt promulgators of ſome of his Laws to the univerſal Church, and to deliver down an infallible ſealed Scripture, to all ſucceeding Ages, and by the ordinary working of Miracles to convince the unbelieving world. Let him ſhew his Commiſſion for this Apoſtleſhip if he would be believed.

9. We as confidently deny that the Pope is a Prophet, or is inſpired by the Holy Ghoſt, as the Prophets and Apoſtles were, that ſo they might infallibly deliver us Chriſts doctrine.

10. And they cannot expect that we ſhould believe till we have ſome proof of it, that the Pope, or the Church of Rome hath the Power of working Miracles, or are endowed with a ſpirit of Miracles, or that they can convince thoſe that deny the Scriptures by their own Miracles that they are the true Church, p. 225or that ever they confirmed thoſe points by Miracles, which is, now called Popery.

Thus much to let the Jeſuite know where we differ from him: And now to the point. We call for his proofs, which he here mentioneth to us in general names Non eſſe & non apparere; are to us all one. Give us ſufficient proof of your ſealing the Doctrine of Popery by Miracles, or the Popes Infallibility by Miracles, as the Apoſtles did the Scriptures, and their preaching, and then you ſhall carry the cauſe, and we profeſs that we will rejoycingly paſs into your Tents, and proclaim you Prophets or Apoſtles of Chriſt: But when we live among you, and ſo did our Fathers before us, and hear you prate and boaſt of Miracles, when we cannot ſee that ever you did ſo much as make a dead flea alive again, nor cannot ſee the leaſt Miracle from you, if we would ride or go as far as our horſe or legs can carry us, to ſee it, what can we take you for but the moſt ſhameleſs ſort of cheaters?

If you could accuſe us of negligence, as if we might ſee your Miracles if we would but travail for it, or of unbelief, as if we denyed that which we have evidence of, we might bear the blame: but there's no ſuch thing. I profeſs as weak as I am, I would go many a hundred miles to ſee ſuch Miracles as you boaſt of, if I had ſufficient ground of expectation that I might not loſe my labor. And I would read over any Volumes that I were able to find ſuciffient Teſtimony of them. But where is this teſtimony? Knot refers us to Brierly, and others to ſuch like reciters of their Fables. And when all is done, there are three ſorts of Miracles that they p. 226ſpeak of. 1. The Miracles of the Apoſtles and firſt Churches mention in Scripture, and theſe are againſt Popery; ſo that we may well ſay that the doctrine which contradicteth Popery is confirmed by Miracles in that the Scripture is ſo confirmed. 2. The Miracles of the following Churches till ſix hundred. Theſe were comparatively few, and leſs certain, and fabulous mixtures in many of the reports of them. But whatever they were, they were no confirmation of the Popes Infallibility, or univerſal Epiſcopacy or Juriſdiction, which neither the Inſtruments of thoſe Miracles, nor any man elſe on earth, as far as can be proved did then believe. And whereas there were ſome Ceremonious fopperies that were then uſed, which the Papiſts do yet uſe, and would perſwade us that theſe Miracles were confirmations of them, we deny it, and profeſs the nullity of their pretended proofs. They ſay, [If they be not infallible in all things, how can we believe them in any thing?] I anſw. Becauſe that 1. Their Miracles are expreſſed Atteſtations to ſome thing, that is, to Chriſtianity, but not to all things that they may think! Nor could they ever work a Miracle to confirm ſuch private opinions. 2. And the ſubſtance of Chriſtianity which their Miracles do atteſt, were more unqueſtionable before atteſted by Scripture and former Miracles; whereas the errors which they introduced are contradicted by Scripture and the Miracles that atteſted it.

And whereas they would make the Apoſtles caſe to be like that of the Fathers: It is very much different. For though the Apoſtles Miracles were atteſtations to all their doctrine, as well as to ſome part; that was becauſe they were Officers Commiſſioned by p. 227Chriſt to that work, to deliver his doctrine firſt to the world, as inſpired infallible men, and to ſeal it to poſterity for future certainty: But the Fathers had no ſuch work in Commiſſion; but onelyonly to preach the doctrine thus ſealed and delivered them by the Apoſtles, and therefore their Miracles were to another more private, and reſtrained uſe, according to their Commiſſions and work; that is, to convert thoſe perſons to the faith that knew of them, by a ſubſervient atteſtation, ſo that it could oblige none to believe them in other things, much leſs in their miſtakes.

3. The third ſort of Miracles are thoſe of later times contained in their Legends. And ſeriouſly, would the Jeſuites perſwade us that theſe are of equal authority with the Miracles mentioned in Scripture? or any whit like them? I have given you a taſte of ſome of them in the former Diſputation: more you may ſee of their ridiculous vanity in Doctor Franc. Whites Defence of his Brother, pag. 147.148. [We muſt believe aaBaron. an. 1028. c. 5.Baronius that Saint Fulbeck ſuck't our Ladyes breſts: And Antonine bbAntonin. ſum. hiſt. p. 3. tit. 23. c. 4. § 6. &c. 7. § 8. &c. 1. § 4. Math. Paris hiſt. Angl. in Henric. 2. pa. 92.that Saint Dominick walk't in the rain and was not wet; and his Books lying all night in the river, were taken out dry and without hurt: That the ſame Fryer ſpyed the Devil ſitting in the Church like a Sparrow, and calling him to him, deplumed him, and ſo put him to a great reproach: And that he made the Divel hold him the candle in his bare fingers till they were burnt: that a leacherous Prieſt by kiſſing his hand, was cured of incontinency. That Saint Bernard by bleſſing their Ale, and giving it ſome p. 228lewd perſons to drink, cauſed Gods Grace to enter into them; That he made an old Grandame of above fourſcore years old to give ſuck to the Infant, when the mother was dead: That he killed Flyes by Excommunication: and excommunicated the Divel, and thereby diſabled him from lying with women: ccVita Bern. prafixa cj… qaribu… ▪ Surius & Bonavent & Antonin. & Legend baec recitantThat Saint Francis turned a Capon into a Fiſh, and water into wine: made the Rock ſend forth water, and Anchors to ſwimme; Preacheth to Birds and Beaſts, to praiſe God, till they were ſo attentive to his doctrine, that they would let him touch them, and would not depart till he gave them leave, and had bleſſed them with the ſign of the Croſs: converted a cade Lamb by preaching to him, ſo that he would frequent the Church of his own accord, and kneel before the Altar of our Lady at the Elevation of the Hoſt: By which example, Surius calleth on the Hereticks to learn to worſhip the Bleſſed Virgin, and to adore the Sacrament. Alſo, that he cauſed Swallows, Graſhoppers and a wild Falcon to joyn with him in the Praiſes of God.] Abundance more of the like, more foppiſh, and too many to be here meddled with, their Legends are full of; And theſe are their proofs of their true Church and infallibility by which they may be known by them that believe not the Scripture, I think indeed that theſe proofs are well ſaid to be Independent of Scripture; for the leſs a man believes the Scripture, the more he is like to believe theſe

But by what certain or probable Teſtimony ſhall we know that ever ſuch things were done? What! muſt we needs believe every doting Fryer that gives p. 229us but his bare word, and that many a year (if not age) after theſe Miracles are ſuppoſed to be wrought: Muſt we believe them that ſo ſhamefully contradict one another? Math. Paris ddHiſt. Ang Henr 3 p. 329ſaith that Saint Francis was branded with his five wounds fifteen dayes before he dyed: But Bonaventure, Vincentius and Surius ſay he had them two years before he dyed.

Nay muſt we belive as the very foundation of our Faith, that which the Papiſts themſelves believe not? How commonly do they among themſelves deride theſe ſtories, as pious fraudes, and ſome of them ſoundly chide the Authors, I will at this time cite but the words of one, and that is no Babe, even Melch. Canus, whom Bellarmine referreth us to ſo oft.

[Lib. 11. cap. 6. pag. (mihi) 33.34. Quidam enim corum aut veritatis amore inducti, aut ingenu… pudoris, &c. That is, Some of them (the Heathen Hiſtorians) either induced with the love of Truth, or in ingenuous modeſty, did ſo far abhor a lye, that perhaps we ſhould be now aſhamed, that ſome heathen Hiſtorians were truer then ours. I ſpeak rather with grief then in reproach; the Lives of the Philoſophers are much more ſeverely (that is, truely) written by Laertius, than the Lives of the Saints are by Chriſtians: and Suetonius did far more incorruptly and more entirely ſet forth the affairs of the (Romane) Caeſars, then Catholikes have ſet forth, I ſay not the affairs of Emperors, but of Martyrs, Virgins and confeſſors. For they — But ours do for the moſt part either follow their own affections, or elſe of ſet purpoſe p. 230forge ſo many things, that indeed I am not onelyonly aſhamed of them, but alſo aweary of them. For I know that theſe have brought to the Church of Chriſt ſmall profit, but much diſprofit: I ſpare (mens) names becauſe — It is certain that they who write Church Hiſtory feignedly and deceitfully, cannot be good and ſincere men; and that their whole Narration is invented, either for lucre, or for error, whereof one is filthy, and the other pernicious. The complaint of Ludovicus is moſt juſt of ſome feigned Hiſtories in the Church. He doth indeed prudently and gravely reprove them that take it to be a matter of piety to forge lyes for Religion. A thing that is very pernicious and no whit neceſſary. For we are wont not to believe a Lyar, even when he tells truth. They therefore who by falſe and lying writings would ſtir up the minds of mortal men to worſhip the Saints, theſe ſeem to me to have done nothing elſe, then to make men deny belief to truths, becauſe of falſhoods — To what purpoſe is it to pretend the name of Hiſtory to fictions and fables? As if the holy men of God did need our Lyes — But while ſome do too much indulge their own affections, and write thoſe things which the writers mind, and not the Truth doth dictate▪ they make us ſuch Saints, ſometime, as the Saints themſelves would not be, if they could: Can any man believe that Saint Francis was uſed to take the Lice on him again which he had ſhak't off him? The Writer thought this was part of the mans holineſs, but ſo do not I, who know that the holy man was pleaſed with poverty, but not with filthyneſs. And how ridiculous is this, that the Divel p. 231raging on a time againſt our father Dominicke was conſtrained by this Saint to hold the candle ſo long in his hands, till it did not onelyonly trouble him, but incredibly pain him. Such examples cannot be numbred: but in theſe few moſt of the reſt may be underſtood, which have darkened the hiſtories of the moſt famous Saints — They do therefore exceedingly wrong the Church of Chriſt, who think they do not well ſet forth the excellent deeds of the Saints, unleſs they adorn them with feigned Revelations and Miracles Wherein the impudency of men hath neither ſpared the Holy Virgin, nor the Lord Chriſt — Of late years when I was at the Council of Trent, I heard by ſome that Aloyſius Lippomannus was healing this diſeaſe, by writing a hiſtory of the Lives of the Saints in a conſtant and grave ſpeech: But I could never yet ſee this, nor any other which I could allow, of all thoſe that have come into my hands.☜ So far for Melch. Canus.

And do their own moſt Learned and Judicious Writers cry out of Lyes, and Hiſtories ſo much more falſe then the Heathens, and impudent forgeries, and ſay that, they never ſaw any of theſe Hiſtories which they could allow of; and yet muſt we needs make theſe the Foundation of our Faith, inſtead of the ſealed Word of God? What a Religion have the Papiſts that is built on ſuch a foundation!

Yea of the reports of ſome of the late Writers that were next before Popery, I will add a few more words of Canus, ib. li. 11. pag. 337. [Cicero thought Demoſthenes nodded ſomtime; and Horace thought ſo of Homer himſelf. For though p. 232they were excellent, yet but men: And the ſame perhaps may I ſay juſtly and truly of Beda and Gregory. One of them in his Hiſtory of the Engliſh, the other in his Dialogues, do write certain Miracles, talk't of and believed by the vulgar, which the criticks of this age will judge to be uncertain. I ſhould have more approved thoſe Hiſtories, if their authors had according to the aforeſaid rule, to ſeverity of judgement, joyned more care in their choice —] And how he lets fly at the lyes of Antonius and Valvacen: The next page ſhews: And page 338.339. how he cenſures Euſebius himſelf. But I muſt forbear more ſuch citations leſt I weary the Reader.

It is now long ſince Doctor John White told them of their aaOpuſcul. de …oncep. Virg. c. 1.Cajetans words, who ſaith [It cannot be known infallibly that the Miracles upon which the Church groundeth the Canonization of Saints, are true] And their bb…art. 1. t…t. 8 c. c.Antoninus Florent ſaith of the viſions of Bernard and Brigit about the Virgin Maries conception [They are fantaſtick viſions and mens dreams] And their Claudius Eſpeucaeus cc2 Tim. 4 Digr. 21.2 Tim 4ſaith [No ſtable is ſo full of dung, as the Legends are full of fables — Yea very fictions are in their porteſſes] And Gerſon ddPart. 1.[All theſe the Church receives, and permiteth them to be read, not as certainly true, but more attending to what might be in pious recogitation, then to what indeed was done] And Doctor White then made a challenge to them, that we will admit of all thoſe Miracles, which are reported by ſuch men, as ſome p. 233of their own Writers do openly Note for Lyars. eeWhites Works fol. pag. 158.Which challenge the Popiſh Replyer had no mind it ſeems to take up.

But though it belong to the Romaniſts to prove their Miracles (which prove their Infallibility without Scripture) and not to us to prove the Negative, yet I ſhall try to ſhame their confidence by a few pertinent Queſtions, when it ſhall appear how little they have to ſay in anſwer to them.

Q. 1. And firſt I deſire to know of them whether the Miracles that prove their infallibility without Scripture are wrought by the Preſent Church, or by the Church of former ages onelyonly? If by the preſent, why cannot we ſee them? Why are we ſtill ſent to Saint Brigit, or Saint Francis, or Saint Somebody that is long ago dead and gone? We thought once we had had one neer us here, I mean, the Boy of Bilſon, who did wondrous things in favor of the Papiſts; but in the Iſſue, by the induſtry of Biſhop Morton he was proved to be a counterfeit, and confeſſed himſelf trained up by the Papiſts for the cheat. But if it onelyonly the Generations that are dead and gone that wrought Miracles, then I would further aske. 1. Doth it not ſeem then that your Church is Apoſtate, in that it hath loſt the gift of Miracles, which you ſuppoſe ſo neceſſary? And how will the Gifts of your predeceſſors prove your preſent infallibility, any more then the Gifts of the predeceſſors of the Greek Biſhops will prove their infallibility that now are? 2. If paſt Miracles may ſerve without preſent, then what need any more than the old Miracles of the Apoſtles? And then why are not p. 234all the Apoſtles ſucceſſors infallible as well as the Pope? Seeing all the Apoſtles had the gift of Miracles (and many thouſand more) Therefore thoſe paſt Miracles ſhould prove all Biſhops infallible that ſucceeded them.

2. Queſt. I deſire alſo to know whether it be your Pope himſelf that Works theſe Miracles, or ſome other perſons? And if others, whether it be onelyonly ſome of your Church, or all? If it be the Pope himſelf, why then have we more murthers then Miracles charged on your Popes by your own hiſtorians? and why will not his holineſs do ſome Miracles in charity to poor Hereticks? Why do you boaſt no more of you Popes Miracles? One I confeſs we read of in the Golden Legend, that Pope Leo the firſt by the means of a woman kiſſing his hand was ſo vehemently tempted with luſt, that he was fain to cut his hand off: but the Virgin Mary having compaſſion on him, joyned his hand to his body again. But this is no foundation of our faith.

But its plain that it is Saint Becket, and Saint Brigit and Saint Katharine that you ſend us to for Miracles, and not to the Pope: And then I would further know whether one mans Miracles will prove another man infallible unleſs they were wrought in confirmation of the aſſertion of that other mans infallibility? It ſhould rather prove Saint Brigit and Saint Katharine infallible that are ſaid to have the Revelations and Miracles, then the Pope, that had none. Would it prove the Patriarch of Constantinople infallible, if any one that is under his Government ſhould work a Miracle?? Or are you ſure that there is no Miracle wrought among the Grecians, Abaſſines or Armenians?

p. 235Moreover, if you are All Miracle Workers, why can we never ſee one, nor have certain proof of one? But if it be but ſome very few of you (as good as none) how will that prove the infallibility of your whole Church? When the Apoſtles wrought Miracles, that proved their own infallibility: but that proved not the infallibility of all in the Church nor of every teacher in it, nor of the greater number of them

3. Queſt. If your Pope and Church be proved infallible, by ſuch Miracles as the Apoſtles were doth it not follow then that all your Popes are inſpired perſons or Prophets as the Apoſtles were by which the gift of infallibility was conveyed to them?

4. Queſt. Yea will it not follow that all your Church are inſpired Prophets, if all your Church be thus infallible: But you cannot expect that we ſhould too eaſily believe theſe. If you have Apoſtolick infallibility grounded on the like Miracles, then muſt you not be each one diſ-junctly infallible, as the Apoſtles were; and not onelyonly altogether?

5. Queſt. And is it not plain then that all your dictates are Gods word, if you have the ſame ſeal and inſpiration as the Apoſtles had? And ſo your Pope, at leaſt, if not each one of you muſt make us new Revelations, or new Scripture: And is not this hainous arrogancy, thus to equal your ſelves with Prophets and Apoſtles, when you are none? They could but be infallible, and ſo you ſay is the Pope, They could but ſeal their doctrine by Miracles, and ſo you ſay doth your Church.

6. Queſt. Will you grant that we are all infallible here in England, if we can prove any Miracles done among us and by us?

7. Queſt. Is it not abſolutely neceſſary to the p. 236validity of the Teſtimony of a Miracle, that it be not controled by ſome greater Miracle or evidence? Otherwiſe the Magicians in Egypt, and …imon Magus might have gone away with better reputation. But your pretended Miracles are con…rolled by far greater and ſurer, and therefore of no force: For yours are to confirm a doctrine contrary to the Scripture, which was confirmed by many ſurer Miracles. This we are ſtill ready to prove, though here we take it for certain: but you uſe to decline that t…yal.

8. Queſt Is not every Prieſt infallible, and every Church that hath the Euchariſt, according to your doctrine? For ſure Tranſubſtantiation is a Miracle: I do not think you will deny it. And a Prieſt, even in deadly ſin, may be an inſtrument of this Miracle, if your Church be infallible. Is, there then no Euchariſt among the Abaſſines, Greeks, or any that ſubject not to you? Or are they all infallible? And if Miracles be as common as Tranſubſtantiation, the priviledge proved by them muſt be as common. So much to Maſter Knots firſt proof of his Infallibility without Scripture.

His ſecond Independent proof, is [Sanctity] But Sir 1. Are all Saints infallible? Sure you dare not ſay ſo?

2. Will the Sanctity of one man, as Saint Francis or Saint Dominicke, prove the infallibility of the Pope that hath no Sanctity? By what means? Rather if Saints be infallible, a Murdering, Simoniacal, Drunken, Fornicating Pope (as yours confeſs many of them were) are not like to be infallible; eſpecially Saint Brigit cannot make the Pope infallible by that Sanctity, that would not make or prove her ſelf infallible.

p. 2373. Who muſt be judge of your Sanctity and ours? Your ſelves no doubt. For my part, if my ſalvation lay wholly upon the paſſing of a righteous cenſure between us in this point, I muſt needs profeſs, that even in England, where the Papiſts ſhould be of their beſt ſort, becauſe it is not the common way of the Nation, but a diſcountenanc't way, and where they are but few, yet I have known ſo few of them that have not been common Swearers, Curſers, Drunkards, Whoremongers, or the like, and yet fewer that ever manifeſted any ſerious minding of God and the life to come, or any experience of the work of Sanctification on their hearts; and who ſhewed any more holineſs than what ſay in certain ceremonies, words, geſtures or other formalities; and on the contrary I know ſo many Proteſtants of heavenly hearts (as far as I can judge) and obedient lives; that there is no compariſon, in my moſt impartial judgement between Papiſts and Proteſtants in matter of holineſs. If this therefore be the proof of infallibility, ſure God will excuſe me, if I take England to be as infallible as Rome, becauſe he requires me not to put out my eyes, nor to ſay the Swan is black, and the Crow white, becauſe the Pope ſhall ſay ſo before me. And yet we ſtill diſclaim all pretences to ſuch infallibility.

The third mark that Knot brings, is their [Sufferings.]

But 1. Sure the Pope ſuffers but little (in this life: but in the next, let him look to himſelf) How then do other mens ſufferings prove him infallible?

2. Do not the poor Greek Churches and other Chriſtians under the Turks, ſuffer more then the Romaniſts?

p. 2383. Do they not make us ſuffer incomparably more then they? Is it not impudence almoſt inhumane after the murder of ſo many thouſands of the Albigenſes, Waldenſes, Bohemians, after the Maſſacres in France, Savoy, Ireland, the burnings in England, the Powder-Plot, after their bloody inquiſition of ſo long continuance, and the reſt of this kind, to tell the remnant of their ſurviving neighbors, that their ſufferings prove them infallible, while our ſufferings prove us Heretical?

4. Is it not ambition and deſire of Rule that is the very cauſe which they contend for? Whats the unreconcileable quarrel ſo much as that all the world will not be ſubject to them? And yet the ſufferings of theſe men prove them infallible? If one Butcher Henry the third of France, and another Henry the fourth, and others would blow up the Engliſh Parliament with Gunpowder, is the Pope infallible if ſome of theſe be hanged? Or what if ſome of them have ſuffered from infidels? Are not others as ready ſo to ſuffer as they? and have ſuffered as much as they?

The next mark that he layes down is [Victory over all ſorts of enemies] But is it over their minds, or over their bodies that they mean? If the firſt, who muſt be judge of their victories, but themſelves? I never heard any of them plead their cauſe but in my judgement they had the worſt. There i… no party but may turn divers others to their opinions. Mahomet hath got far more followers in the world then Chriſt; and Heatheniſm than either. If Papiſts can turn all theſe, why do they ſuffer themſelves ſtill to be confined to ſo ſmall a part of the world? And if it be victory over mens bodies that p. 239they mean, I ſay the like. Have not the Turkes a larger Dominion than the Pope? Have they conquered the Great Turk, the Great Mogol, the Grand Cham of Tartary, &c? Are we not as infallible as they on this account, when we conquer them? It ſeems then, when Papiſts are ſo induſtrious to enlarge their Dominions, to deſtroy their enemies by Poyſoning or ſtabbing Kings, or other means, it is that they may have a further Teſtimony of their infallibility.

The laſt mark which the Jeſuite mentioneth, is [the converſion of Infidels.]

But 1 If that be a ſure Mark, we are infallible as well as they: For we have been means of converting Infidels. And ſo have the Greek Churches, and others that diſown the Popes infallibility.

2. If that Argument be good, then it was not only the Apoſtles, but all that converted Infidels at the firſt (or after) preaching of the Goſpel, that were infallible: which ſure they never pretended to.

3. If it will prove any body infallible, its liker to prove them ſo that did convert any Infidels, then the Pope that onelyonly gives them leave or order to do it.

4. Let them not boaſt too much of their converſions, till we have a better character of their new made Chriſtians, and a better report of their means of converſion, then Acoſta and other of their own Jeſuites give us, who have been eye witneſſes of the caſe. To cut men off by thouſands or millions, and force the reſt to Baptiſm, as cattle to watering, when they have nothing of a Chriſtian but the name and that ſign, and ſome forget the name it ſelf; this is p. 240not a converſion much to be boaſted of. Nor muſt they think that all are Chriſtians that the King of Spain conquereth for love of their Gold and Silver Mines. The Apoſtles did not convert Infidels by an Army, but by the word and miracles; but it is the King of Spaines ſouldiers that have been the effectual preachers to work the converſions that you have moſt to glory in. If the Jeſuit had put his proofs into well formed Arguments, what ſtuff ſhould we have had?

So much for the Anſwer to Chilling worth, and the new Fundamentals of the Romiſh faith, by which they can prove their Pope infallible without being beholden to Scripture for its help (And I marvaile not at their contempt of Scripture-Teſtimony to them, unleſs there were more, or more appearance for them then there is.)

Having conſidered the Papiſts proof of their infallibility, I ſhall next (though it be more then the cauſe obligeth me to) ſay ſomewhat to prove the Negative, and ſo proceed to my ſecond Argument againſt them.

Argu. 2. If the common ſenſes of ſound men (or their ſenſible apprehenſions) be infallible, then the Pope with his pretended General Council is fallible: But the common ſenſes of ſound men are infallible: Therefore, &c.

I know not how we ſhould come neerer hand with a Papiſt, nor to plainer dealing, then to argue from common ſenſe. And as to the Antecedent, Either ſenſe is infallible, or it is not: If it be, I have that I ſeek. If not, then mark what follows.

p. 2411. Then no man can be ſure that the Chriſtian Religion is true: For the proofs of it all vaniſh, if ſenſe be not infallible. If you plead the Miracles of Chriſt and his Diſciples, no man was ſure that he ſaw them. If you plead the death and Reſurrection and Aſcenſion of Chriſt, no man was ſure he ſaw them, and therefore could give no aſſurance of it to another. All the Diſciples ſenſes, and the worlds ſenſes were (or might be, for ought we know) deceived. Nor are you ſure that any writings or traditions came down to us from the Apoſtles: For the eyes of the Readers and the ears of the hearers might be deceived. 2. And then moſt certainly the Pope himſelf and all his Clergy are fallible: For they cannot be ſure of that which the Apoſtles and following Church were not ſure of: Nor can they be ſure that in reading and hearing, their eyes deceive them not. And I take it for granted that the Pope and his Clergy do uſe their ſenſes, and by them receive theſe matters into their intellect. Nay if ſenſe be fallible, no man in the Church of Rome can tell whether there be any ſuch place as Rome, or any ſuch perſon as the Pope at all, or ever was. Nay what elſe can any man be ſure of?

I ſuppoſe you will marvail why I beſtow ſo many words on ſuch a point: But you ſee what men we have to deal with: When all the quarrel between us muſt be iſſued by this point, whether common ſenſe be infallible? For if it be, we infallibly carry the cauſe: Yea whether it be or be not, as ſhall appear.

I come next therefore to prove the conſequence▪ and that I do thus.

p. 242The judgement of the Pope and his pretended General Council is directly contradictory to the apprehenſion or judgement of common ſenſe: therefore if common ſenſe be infallible, the Pope and his Council are fallible.

The conſequent is unqueſtionable; the Antecedent I prove by this known Inſtance.

Common ſenſe takes it to be bread and Wine that remaineth after the words of conſecration: The Pope and his Council ſay, it is not Bread nor Wine that remains after the words of conſecration: therefore the judgement of the Pope and his Council is directly contradictory to the apprehenſion of common ſenſe.

For the firſt, I appeal to the ſenſes of all men that ever received the Euchariſt. Whether ſeeing, feeling, ſmelling, and taſting, do not as plainly take it to be Bread and Wine, as they do any other Bread or Wine at their own tables? and whether they can ſee or taſte, or ſmell, or feel, any difference to give them the leaſt cauſe of doubting? I am ſure I have the judgement of thouſands and millions on my ſide, which in a matter of ſenſe among ſound men, is certainly enough. And if the Papiſts are ſo mad as to tell me, that it is otherwiſe with their ſenſes; and will ſeriouſly profeſs that their eyes, and taſte, &c. do not take theſe for Bread and Wine, but perceive that they are not, I will take them for ſhameleſs lyars, or madmen; and I ſuppoſe no man in his ſenſes will blame me for ſo doing. Well I its pa… doubt that all our ſenſes tell us its Bread and Wine, as confidently as they tell us any thing is ſuch. And it is certain that the Pope and his Council tell us it is not Bread and Wine: If our eyes be infallible that p. 243read it, and our ears that hear it from their own mouthes; then this is ſure enough and too ſure; I know they will not deny it: I would they would, we ſhould then be ſomewhat neerer a reconciliation. What now can be ſaid to avoid the concluſion, is paſt my underſtanding; ſave onelyonly that it is poſſible that ſome of them may come in with ſome alluding diſtinction to ſee if they can blind mens ſenſe and reaſon; and ſo perhaps they'l tell them that 1. ſenſe is infallible, on ſuppoſition of the right conſtitution of the medium, but elſe not: or 2. that ſenſe judgeth but of accidents, and not of ſubſtances, and the accidents of Bread and Wine are here; or 3. that ſenſe is infallible in common caſes, where ſubſtances and accidents are not ſeparated, as here they be. To which (if ſuch ſtuff deſerve an anſwer) I reply, 1. What medium is here queſtionable or queſtioned by you, but the accidents themſelves, which you ſay are the objects. Sure the aire is clear and perſpicuous: the diſtance is not too neer or too far off; our eyes and taſte are ſound. 2. I think ſenſes judge of ſubſtances with their accidents: The eye ſees ſubſtantiam coloratam, and the hand feeleth the ſubſtantiam qualem & quantam, and not onelyonly qualitatem & quantitatem ſubſtantiae. But let that controverſie go how it will, I am ſure the ſubſtance is objectum ſ…nſus per accidens, though not per ſe, or that the intellect infallibly judgeth of ſubſtance, by the help of the ſenſes apprehenſion. Otherwiſe all the forementioned abſurdities will follow, and ſtill the Pope and Church will be fallible: For then the Apoſtles and others that ſaw Chriſts Miracles could be ſure onelyonly of the accidents, and not of the ſubſtance. p. 244Then no man is certain whether it was Chriſt himſelf that lived on earth that was crucified, and roſe again, or onelyonly the accidents of Chriſt: And then no man knows whether there be a Pope at Rome, or onelyonly the accidents of a Pope: and ſo of the reſt. 3. And to the third part of the anſwer I reply, That if ſenſe be infallible when ſubſtances and accidents are inſeparable, then it is alwayes infallible: For the accident ſeparated from the ſubject doth periſh. Moreover how ſhall we know whether ſubſtances and accidents are ſeparated or not? If we be ſure of that by ſenſe, then ſenſe is ſtill infallible ſo far: if not, then ſenſe is fallible, becauſe it knows not when it apprehendeth any more then naked accidents. But indeed its a contradiction to talk of accidents that are not ſubjecti alicujus accidentia.