which all this Babel is built that our Saviour did confer any Preeminence of Power and Authority upon Peter above the rest of the Apostles because 1. These words Upon this Rock will I build my Church cannot without blasphemy be affirmed of the Person of Peter who himself was built upon the Rock Christ and was not the Foundation but only a Workman at the Building Indeed in the Figurative Description of New Jerusalem Rev. 21.14 which John makes in his Vision he compares it to a City which had twelve Foundations upon which were written the Names of the twelve Apostles Rev. 21. So that if the Papists will needs call Peter a Foundation I hope they will take in the rest of the Apostles to be sharers with him in that Title But since the whole Description in John City and all is only Figurative and Metaphoricall the Foundation there mentioned must be like the City i. e. so called not in a Reall but only Metaphoricall Acception For to speak properly as Paul doth No other Foundation can any man lay 1 Cor. 3.11 than what is already laid and that is Eph. 2. that Jesus is the Christ And therefore when we are said to be built upon the Foundation of the Prophets and Apostles the meaning is not that we are built upon their Persons but upon their Doctrine the summe of which is contained in Peter's confession upon which Rock our Saviour hath so built his Church that the Gates or Powers of Hell however they may rage and strive to ruine it yet they shall never be able finally to prevail against it but Christ will have a Church in some place or other unto the end of the world 2. If Peter was the Rock so as all Christians even the Apostles themselves were to depend upon his guidance what a wretched and tottering condition would the Church have been in when this Rock so soon after was shaken and almost removed out of his place For within some few minutes he is rebuked by our Saviour in no milder language than this Get thee behind me Satan The Story of his denying and that with Oaths his Master is too notorious to be palliated and too sad to be insisted on Even after our Saviours Resurrection when they pretend this promise of Infallibility was inseparably annexed to him Act. 10. we find him unresolved in that part of his Commission which concerned his preaching the Gospel unto the Gentiles and therefore had the assistance of a particular Visiton more fully to inform him of it and afterwards at Antioch we read that he was of so inconstant and unequall a carriage in that great point of Christian Liberty complying herein more than he ought Gal. 2. with the Jewish rigour and austerity that Paul was forced openly to reprove him for it and so prevent the contagion of his ill example So that if he who in the Court of Rome's stile is called Prince of the Apostles in matters of so great moment was thus subject to Errour and Fallibility I wonder with what face the Pope upon the account of being Peter's Suceessour can plead any exemption 3. These words I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven do not denote any peculiar power that Peter had over the rest of the Apostles for then how came it to pass afterwards that there were so many and so fierce contentions amongst them Who should be greatest Which our Saviour at two severall times silences not by commanding them to obey Peter as their Chief but by utter prohibiting any desire of Soveraignty If they answer us as Bellarmine doth that the Apostles did not clearly understand that Peter was to be Supream Head till after our Saviour's Resurrection which by the way is nothing else but a bold playing with sacred Scripture Then I demand farther when there was a new Apostle to be chosen into the room of Judas why did not Peter by his sole Authority Act. 1. design him or at least when the multitude of Disciples for so we read that all of them were concerned in the choice had appointed two why did they not present them both unto Peter that he might choose one rather than suffer the matter to be decided by Lot sure had Peter had any paramount and extraordinary Power and withall a peculiar infallible spirit he could not have better exerted it than in that emergency For the Head of the Church in so concerning a business first to permit all the multitude to have a voice in choosing an Apostle for if our modern Arguments are good he might justly fear that they being for the greatest part unlearned would choose one like themselves and so prejudice the reputation of Apostolicall Authority and afterwards to leave the matter unto the uncertain casualty of a Lot whereas the choice seemed properly to belong to Peter's Jurisdiction this argues either that his Power or his care of the Church was very little of which last I hope the Papists do not doubt and therefore must needs deny the former For what is it else but to tempt God to have recourse unto casting of Lots when a way of choice more prudent and Infallible by referring the business to Peter's single Decision was opened for them But it seemes the Apostles understood nothing of Peter's Supremacy either then or afterwards when they went to choose Deacons which by all the Apostles Peter not being so much as particularly mentioned was committed to the Mulitude and after the choice Imposition of hands was performed not by Peter alone but as the Text expressely saies by all the Apostles Will they tell us that this was a thing below him Act. 6. and that it did not become Peter's Authority to interesse himself in a matter of so petty concernment This plea is taken from them because we read that the Twelve and among them sure Peter was one did not think it below them and besides it will appeare a strange kind of conceated and uselesse Authority which they ascribe to Peter which in maters neither of the greatest such as was the choice of an Apostle nor of the least moment such as was the choice of a Deacon would ever so particularly exert it self that we might once take notice of his Prerogative But what kind of Equality Peter stood in to the rest of the Apostles he shewed Act. 8. in submitting to be sent with John unto Samaria to finish that worke of the Gospell which Philip had begun there for sure our Saviours Argument is Infallible Joh 15. that He who is sent is not greater then he who sends him And it would have been a strange boldnesse I believe the Pope would call it by a worse name in his Cardinalls should the Apostles have thus presumed to send their Prince had he indeed been so constituted over them Yet further when there was a Question started about the use of Jewish Ceremonies and a Synod convened about
most insisted on though to as little or if possible lesse purpose than either of the former is Joh. 21.15 17. Where our Saviour repeats no lesse then three times Peter feed my Lambes and feed my sheepe Bellarmines Comment upon these words is very admirable 1. By Feed which in the Scripture dialect signifies only to Teach and compassionatly to care for he understands to Rule and Governe as Prince because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes so rendered 2. By Lambes and Sheepe he sayes are understood Christians of all sorts and sizes Lambes signifying the weak in Faith and Sheep the Apostles and Teachers which are to other Christians as Sheep are to their Lambes i. e. the bringers of them forth in the Faith of Christ over whom Peter is here constituted Universall Bishop and none who belong to Christ as one of his sheep but must by virtue of this Commission be obedient unto Peters Rule and Direction Had Bellarmine stopped here and streined this Scripture no farther he might have had some commendation for his Wit though very little for his Honesty but when he goes on and Infers 3. That whatever here is granted to Peter was entended likewise for his Successour and 4. That the Bishop af Rome did succeed him I cannot but observe how ill an Interpreter of Scripture Prejudice and Prepossession is for who that reads this place without looking upon it through the Spectacles of the Popes Infallibility can make any other sense of it than this that Peter having denyed our Saviour thrice is here thrice minded of his Duty to humble him under the sense of his former miscarriage and to direct him that he could not better demonstrate his Love to Christ then by showing a care over his little ones which our Saviour had before enjoyned him when he said Thou being converted confirme thy Brethren which is all one with what is here commanded him Feed my Lambs and Sheep i. e. Teach Instruct Reprove exhort them and therein performe all the Acts of a Faithfull Minister as Paul to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus bids them to Feed the Church of God Act. 20.28 and Peter to the Elders of the Believing Jewes in that very place where he forbids them all manner of Soveraignty and Coercive Jurisdiction commands them to Feed the Flock of God which was among them 1 Pet. 5..2 And what the word Feed signifies God himself hath already explained when he promises by his Prophet that he would give unto his People Pastours according to his own heart who should Feed his people Jer. 3.13 with knowledge and with understanding So that the word cannot be rendred to Rule and Governe with Force and Authority and making all men submit unto his Infallible Dictates for this is that which God condemnes in the Shepheards of Israel who ruled over them with severity Ezek. 33.4 and with Rigour and Cruelty but with all gentlenesse and condescension to accommodate themselves unto the weak and infirme state of their Flockes 〈◊〉 40.11 as God describes himself He shall Feed his Flocke like a Shepheard he shall gather the Lambes with his Arme and shall gently lead those that are with Young Ezek. 34.15.16 And again I will Feed my Flock and cause them to lye down I will seek that which was lost and bring again that which was driven away and will bind up that which was broken and will strengthen that which was sicke This is the part of a good Shepheard and this is the summe of what here is enjoyned Peter After this plain and clear vindication of these Scriptures had I a mind to make my self and my Reader sport I could not find a better Subject than by enlarging and descanting upon those excellent Arguments that Bellarmine alleadges to prove 1. That Peter was Bishop of Rome and 2. That the Pope did succeed him not only into that Bishoprick but likewise into all his other more than Apostolicall Priviledges The first he proves from the dignity of that See which sayes he could no otherwise arise but because Peter was Primate there but who doth not see that the dignity of it might easily arise from other causes as particularly from this because it was the chief seat of the Roman Empire which is the Reason assigned why the Bishop of Constantinaple was to have the second place Concil Constantinop Can. 5. because he was Bishop of New-Rome 2. He proves it because Peter died and was buried there as saith he is apparent from his Sepulchre yet to be seen As if it was not as easie for the Popes to make specious Tombs for men who never died in Rome as to Canonize and make prayers to Saints who it is to be feared have no place in Heaven His Reasons to defend the Pope's succession unto Peter are of the same nature as 1. Because Peter ought to have a Successour there being saith he as much reason for an Universall Bishop now as then Which I easily grant and return it thus But there was no Reason for an Universall Bishop then for then sure the holy men whose business it was to write all things absolutely necessary unto faith and godliness would not have omitted a matter so very important unto the peace and unity of Christians and therefore we may safely conclude there was no such Universall Bishop but admitting it were so how will it appear that the Bishop of Rome more than any other Bishop was to be his Successour Yes saith Bellarmine 2. None ever did yet pretend to be Peter 's Successour but only the Bishop of Rome and therefore undoubtedly he was the man Which is all one as if an Usurper who had gained a Crown by force and destroyed all the lawfull Heirs should say none doth now pretend to the Crown but my self and therefore undoubtedly I have a true Title I believe this is the first case wherein a confident and peremptory claim was ever thought to give a rightfull possession But I will no longer fight with a shadow or pursue an Enemy who hath a Bog for his retreat for so I account all Arguments taken from unwritten Tradition which is Bellarmine's last refuge for what can be more unreasonable than to alleadge old Stories which serve only to the advantage of the teller and therefore may justly be suspected to be forged by him and to use them as Motives to perswade us unto the belief of that which in Reason is ridiculous and in Scripture the most authentick and allowed Tradition is not so much as once mentioned The summe thereof of what I have to say is this 1. It doth not appear in any of the fore-mentioned places that Peter had any peculiar Priviledge of Infallibility or Authority granted to him above the rest of the Apostles 2. It doth much less appear that ever he was at Rome or sate as Bishop there 3. Upon supposition that the two first could be as clearly proved as
minu◠probi Bell. Prafat cannot but force them to acknowledge that he is liable to Errour but in his Politicall or which is all one his Ecclesiasticall capacity as he is the pretended Head of the Church and vested with all those Immunities and Priviledges which his Favourers suppose to be due unto the Universall Bishop 2. By the Church of Rome I mean not the diffused and scattered Body of the Papists but according to their own Sense how Absurd and Insignificant soever the Bishops and Doctours of their Church assembled together in a Councell where they may be supposed to meet with the greatest Advantage and Opportunity for the Disquisition and Search of Truth 3. By Infallible I mean to have a certain fixed and unerring Judgement in Religious matters which things alone do properly belong to the determination and cognizance of a Church as it is a Church And in this sense of the Question thus explained in as great a Latitude as any Papist can possibly understand it in I deny the Pope whether considered as apart from or conjoyned with as a part of a Councell to be Infallible For the proof of which Assertion though I might find out great variety of Arguments from the express and direct contradictions which have been among the Popes themselves some reversing that which others have ratified and others establishing that which their Predecessors under the severest Penalties have forbid Yet since the proper and direct way of Arguing lyes in shewing the weakness and insufficiency of those Arguments which are brought in defence of the Popes Infallibility that is the Method which I purpose altogether to insist on For since this great and so much admired Diana of the Papists is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. a thing to be discerned by its own Light and to be credited meerly for it self as the testimony of the Spirit is when it bears witness unto the truth of Scripture and besides it being generally denied by all the Protestants who make the Errours of the Church of Rome the ground of their separation from them hence it cannot be expected that we should tamely give up out Assent to believe this Infallibility unless there be some evident and concluding Reasons to enforce it from us If therefore it shall appear that whatever Bellarmine and when I mention him I mean the strength of the whole Popish Party hath said is altogether impertinent and unconcluding indeed nothing else but a plain begging the thing in Question my Deduction from thence will be Infallible viz. that we have as yet no Reason to believe the Popes Infallibility To clear up this the best way will be to take a short view of those Arguments which Bellarmine alleadgeth in his Books De Pontifice Romano and they are briefly these three 1. Some Texts of Scripture in the New Testament 2. Some Analogicall Inferences out of the Old 3. Some Absurdities and Inconveniences which would follow in the Church of God should we not allow the Pope and Church of Rome to be Infallible 1. The Texts of Scripture which Bellarmine and all Writers since him do urge to prove the Popes Infallibility by are these three Mat. 16.18 19. Luk. 22.31 32. Job 21.15 17. From which they draw these three Conclusions 1. That in those fore-mentioned places our Saviour did confer upon Peter some speciall Priviledges above and beyond the rest of the Apostles and they were 1. Supremacy in Matthew 2. Infallibility in Luke 3. Universall Episcopacy in John 2. They Assume that whatever was bestowed upon Peter was not confined unto his Person but was promised likewise unto his Successours since what was granted unto Peter was given for the good of the Church and therefore ought not to die with him 3. They take for granted that the Pope was Peter's Successour both in the Bishoprick of Rome and also in all his other Priviledges and for the last they alleadge nothing but the credit of that which they call Apostolicall Tradition Whether or no these Deductions are cleare in the Texts or violently haled and wrested from them with so much impudent and shamelesse Sophistry as a wise and disinteressed Person would blush to be guilty of will best appeare by examining the places themselves and if when they are put upon the Racke they can be forced to confesse so much as Bellarmine and the Popes Parasites conclude from them I shall then consent to dethrone Scripture from its plainnesse and Perspicuity but till then I must take leave to thinke that that Church doth very wisely which makes Ignorance and Implicite Faith the Mother of Devotion for nothing lesse then an over-awed and Religious stupidity would make any man submit unto such Impossible and farre fetched interpretations 1. The place in Mat. 16.18 19. runs thus And Jesus answered and said unto him i. e. to Peter Blessed art thou Simon Barjona for flesh and bloud hath not revealed this to thee but my Father which is in Heaven And I say also unto thee that thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it And I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven Which place they thus interpret 1. By the Rock upon which Christ saith he will build his Church is meant the Person of Peter and the Churche's being built upon him signifies say they that the care and government of it was committed to him and thus they understand likewise his Having of the Keyes 2. By the power of Binding and Loosing they understand the power of commanding and punishing of making and repealing Laws with all such things as belong to a Soveraign and Legislative Power 3. They tell us that whatever Peter had here was likewise granted to the Pope who is his Successour and therefore he being the Rock and the Foundation of the Church cannot be tossed about with every wind of Doctrine and therefore is Infallible But I answer 1. Upon supposition that Peter here was constituted as they call him Head and Prince of the Apostles yet how would this Personall Priviledge any more belong to the Bishop of Rome if he were Peter's Successour than what our Saviour elsewhere saith to Peter Why didst thou doubt O thou of little faith doth note the Pope's uncertainty and instability in Believing Or Mat. 14.31 what our Saviour presently after speaks Get thee behind me Satan doth signifie that every Pope is an Incarnate Devil or to take the mildest Interpretation an Adversary to Christ and to the good of mankind For what Reason can be assigned why the Pope may not as well succeed in Peter's Personall Defects as into his Priviledges since the Scripture is utterly silent either that he had or that he was to have a Successour in either But 2. I deny the Supposition upon
it Act. 15. why did not Peter then Preside as chiefe Why did he suffer the businesse to be disputed after he had declared his own Judgment Why doth James who spoke after him give him no more Honourable stile then plaine Simeon and seemes himself in saying My sentence is to give the whole solution of the Query as also the Forme of the Future Decree without taking any notice of Peter's decision Whence comes it that after a strict Debate the result was in the Councell It pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church and the superscription of the Letter runs The Apostles and Elders and Brethren and the decree It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us without any mention of Peter at all whose Supremacy and Infallibility ought not to have been thus silently passed over that the Churches afterwards might know whether to to have recourse for satisfaction of their scruples How comes it to passe that we hear no Newes of Peter after but the story is continued wholy about Paul as if the Primacy had been transferred to him sure the Holy Penman who mentions so many of Paul's travells that were of farre lesse moment would not have omitted Peter's Journey to Rome his sitting Bishop there for eighteen yeares and fixing the Succession and Infallibility to boot upon that See had he understood any thing of it Afterwards when Paul meets Peter at Antioch Gal. 2. Why did he not vaile to him but Irreverently stand upon his Termes and Openly reprove him Lastly For Instances are infinite in this kind why doth that blessed Apostle Peter himself 1 Pet. 5. disclaime any such kind of Jurisdiction stiling himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Fellow-Elder and utterly forbiding any pretentions of Lordship and Soveraignty even over the Flocks they fed much more over their Fellow Ministers Certainly none of these things can consist with that grant which Bellarmine fondly supposeth was here made to Peter and therefore we may justly conclude that the words have another Interpretation which is plainly this Our Saviour asking his Disciples what men thought of him and whom they took him to be after he had heard the various opinions of others he continues to aske them theirs whereupon Peter in the name of the rest replies thou art the Christ the Son of God which being the Article that then was oppugned our Saviour pronounces him Blessed for it not as if other Believers were not equally blessed and did not obtain this Faith by Revelation too for so the Apostle Paul saith expressely 1 Cor. 12. that none can call Jesus Lord i. e. Christ but by the Holy Spirit but those words are spoken exclusively as to any outward meanes whereby he might attain that knowledge For that no lesse power than the Imediate action of the Spirit of God can make a man to Believe on Christ is not onely evident from the nature of the thing which exceeds all created ability but likewise from those perpetuall contradictions and doubtings which Beleivers themselves have before the Spirit of God hath explained and solved them The promise therefore which our Saviour makes to Peter of giving him the Keyes c. concerned all the Apostles since they were Believers and Disciples as well as he and so our Saviour enlarges it after his Resurrection in that generall Commission Whose sins soever you retain they are retained i. e. By your Preaching whom you doe declare to be under the power of sin if they Repent not and Believe the Gospell their sins are retained i. e. Bound and tied fast to them for God will never pardon such but others that embrace the Gospell are remitted i. e. loosed and absolved So that the result of all is this From this place cannot be inferred either 1. That Peter is that Rocke upon which Christ will build his Church but rather Christ himself confessed by Peter Or 2. That Peter here had any Preeminence of Power Authority and Infallibility above the rest of the Apostles he receiving this Promise onely as a Prolocutor of the Apostles in whose names he spoke and they being afterwards joyned all equally in the same Commission Much lesse can it be deduced 3. That the Pope who is not once mentioned was Peter's Sucessour or hath the least pretension to claime any thing from him unlesse it be his Errors and Fallibility 2. The second place of Scripture which is brought for the Patronage of Peters first and then of the Popes Infallibility is that which if they had searched the whole Scripture they could not have found one that doth more directly make against it The place is Luc. 22.31 32. Simon Simon behold Satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as Wheat But I have prayed for thee that thy Faith faile not and when thou art converted strengthen thy Brethren Here though by a most miserable instance we find how fraile and fallible Peter was yet Bellarmine draws from hence two priviledges that were conferred upon Peter 1. That Peter might never fall from the Faith how much soever he was tempted of the Divell 2. That none of his Successors should ever teach any thing contrary to the truth The First of these I grant and acknowledge that it was by virtue of this Prayer of our Saviours that Peter recovered his station again after so great a shaking but withall I adde that this was no peculiar Priviledge to Peter but in common to all the rest as is more cleare in Joh. 17. v. 9. and the Reason why Peter was particularly spoken to was because our Saviour foresaw he should more foully miscarry and therefore stood in need of this Cordiall to relieve him But the second is so little to be gathered from the Text viz that the Pope as Peter's Successor should never teach false Doctrine that it would be an extream vanity in me to go about to confute it Onely one fetch of Bellarmines is not to be omitted when we object that if this place be to be understood of Peter's Successors then it must presuppose that all the Popes who will needs intrude into that Title must first deny Christ and after that be converted before they can strengthen their Brethren or be confirmed in the Faith themselves To this Bellarmine replies that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie Peters being turned from sin but his turning himself to the weak Brethren to discourse with them which is a piece of so merry Sophistry that it only serves to show the wretched boldnesse of Partiall and self-designing men when they make use of Scripture to shore up and to underprop their ill got greatnesse the plainest places then shall not escape their perverse and irregular fancies as this wherein there is a gracious Promise made of Peters Recovery and Conversion is made to signifie just nothing but the Impiety of those men who dare thus abuse it 3. The Third and last place which is urged in this Controverfie and
believe they were I must affirme that this Doctrine is so farre from being owned by any of them for many Centuries that we have upon Record many pregnant Instances which doe evince that they did not so much as Dreame of it To draw up which I shall select onely two or three famous Cases which Bellarmine is pleased to take no Notice of 1. Euseb l b. 5. c. 23 24 25. The first Instance shall be from that doughty dispute which was raised about the yeare 160. concerning the day when Easter was to be kept the Churches of Asia kept Easter-day precisely upon the 14th of March at which time the Jewes did solemnize their Passeover but the Westerne Churches after many meetings to settle this weighty Controversie did agree that the day of our Saviours Resurrection should be celebrated onely upon the Lords Day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Asian Bishops notwithstanding this Decree did persist in their former custome in which they were defended by Polycrates who alleaged that Philip the Evangelist John the Apostle and many others did transmit that Traditionall Observance to them Upon this Victor the Bishop of Rome in great heat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat lib. 6. saith my Author did take upon him to excommunicate all the Churches of Asia but being sharply writ against for it and stâ—ffely opposed in it he was forced to revoke his sentence Which story might afford us very many Observations as 1. That Superstition and Needlesse Observation of Dayes 2. That Imposition and Abridging of Christian Liberty in things Indifferent 3. That the Bishop of Rome's Usurpation and exceeding the Bounds of his proper Jurisdiction did begin to worke very early But I wave these and onely note that had the Churches of Afia then thought the Bishop of Rome to be Infallible they would not so peremptorily in so small a thing as the Retaining of an Old Custome have refused to submit unto his Judgment 2. My second Instance shall be from that Controversie which for many yeares was very eagerly managed viz. Whether such as had received Baptisme from Heretickes upon their Returne to the Church Cyprian Epis 92. Edit Fam. should be Baptized again or not Cyprian and all the African Bishops maintained the Necessiry of Re-baptizing and in their Letter to Stephen the Bishop of Rome after they had at large given the Reasons of their Opinion they conclude So much Dearest Brother have we enformed you of not doubting because of the Truth of your Religion but such things will please you which are both Religious and True But yet we know that some are very unwilling to lay down any Opinion which they have once tooke up but preserving that mutuall agreement which ought to be amongst Brethren they retain the Customes which they have once been used to In which matter we neither Force nor give a Law to any since in the ordering of the Church Prapositus every Governour hath absolute power of his own will as being to give unto God alone a Reason of his Actings From which passage written by Cyprian and all the Bishops of Africh who mer together in a Councell for that purpose it sufficiently appeares 1. That they did not understand any thing of the Bishop of Rome's Infallibility since they profess to retain their own Judgement without subscribing to his 2. That in the outward Regimen and Government of the Church every Bishop hath equall Power and ought not Authoritatively to prescribe and impose Laws upon another Ibid. Ep. 73. As the same Cyprian in another Letter These things saith he according to my weak Ability have I writ not Imposing upon or Pre-judging any as if it was not lawfull for every Bishop to do as he thinks fit since he hath free Power of his own Will And afterwards when Stephen had declared his Judgement that he would have none baptized again whatever Herefie they came from but that the ancient Custome should be preserved whereby such Converts were admitted into Church Communion meerly by laying on of Hands Ibid. Ep. 74. Inter catera vel superba vel ad rem non pertinentia vel sibi ipsi contraria quae improvidè atque imperitè scripsit Cyprian in stead of yeelding to his Determination doth taxe his Letter of Pride Folly and Impertinence and in Answer to those words of his wherein Stephen commanded that nothing should be varied from the accustomed Tradition Whence saith he was that Tradition Did it descend from the Authority of our Lord and his Gospel Did it come from the Commands and Epistles of the Apostles For God testifies in his Commands both to Joshua and others that those things only should be done which were written And our Lord Christ when he sent his Apostles into the World commands them to Baptize and to Teach all Nations that they might observe and do all things which he had Commanded If therefore any such Custome meaning that of Stephen's be contained either in the Gospels or in the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles then let sach an Holy and Divine Tradition be observed But what Obstinacy what Presumption is it to prefer Humane Tradition before a Divine Appointment What Folly is it not to consider that God is angry as often as Humane Tradition doth lessen and discountenance Divine Precepts as he testifies by the Prophet Isay And our Saviour likewise in his Gospel rebuking and chiding the Pharisees Ye reject the Commands of God that ye may keep your own Tradition Of which words the Apostle Paul being mindfull he likewise adviseth and instructeth us saying If any man teach otherwise and reste not in the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and in his Doctrine he is puffed up knowing nothing from such turn aside Neither ought Custome which hath privily crept in amongst some to hinder Truth from prevailing For Custome without Truth Consuetudo sine veritate vetustas Erroris est is nothing else but the Antiquity of Errour And it ariseth only from Pride and Presumption that one is apt to defend his own Practices how False and erroneous soever rather than consent to that which is True and Right in another For which reason the Apostle Paul writing to Timothy Docibilem Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adviseth a Bishop not to be Contentious but Meek and Apt to Teach But he is Apt to Teach who is Gentle and endued with Patience to Learn for a Bishop ought not only to Teach but to Learn since he Teacheth best who continually grows and profits by Learning Which the Apostle Paul likewise declares when he admonisheth That if any thing be revealed to another which sits by the First should hold his Peace Religious and sincere Minds are alwayes prepared to lay aside Errour and to search for Truth for if we return unto the Head and Originall of Divine Tradition Hamane Errour ceaseth and when the Reason of the Heavenly Appointments is once throughly discerned whatever
it is clear they cannot yet that any of Peter's personall Priviledges should be communicated to another who will needs usurp his Name and stile himself his Successour can as little be maintained as that his power of Miracles his gift of Tongues c. should be continued which the Pope as yet doth not pretend to I conclude therefore that Bellarmine's first Plea from Scripture is so far from Demonstration that it is scarce tolerable Sophistry and so much in Answer to his first Argument Secondly Arg. 2 The second Argument in defence of the Popes Infallibility Bellar. de sâ—â—mo Pontif. l. 4 1 is taken from the Analogy and Resemblance that ought to be between the Jewish and the Christian Church For in the Jewish Church saith Bella mine there was an High Priest which was Infallible unto whom they were commanded to have recourse in all difficult Causes and to abide by his Determination as appears Deut. 17.8 14. And therefore in the Christian Church there being the same if not greater necessity because of the extent of it it follows that there must likewise be some visible Infallible Judge for the ending of Controversies which will daily arise among Christians and this can be no other than the Bishop of Rome To this Argument from Analogy I answer 1. That the similitude and resemblance between the Jewish and the Christian Church doth not consist in having the same outward Oeconomy and Forms of Administration as in a visible High-Priest with other Rites and Ordinances answerable to such a Visibility but in the spirituall and inward performance of what heretofore was materially and outwardly represented He 's 9.10 So that the Jewish Sacrifices did not import that they should alwayes be continued but as the Apostle tells us they were to last only untill that great Sacrifice was offered of which all the others were only faint and weak Preludiums The like is declared concerning their meats and drinks their washings and bodily purifications Heb. 7.18 with other carnall and on side Ordinances which were only imposed untill the time of Reformation and after that were not that we read of to be continued with new names and under another form but utterly to be abolished Heb. 7.18 because of their weakness and unprofitableness The like the Apostle observes concerning the High Priest into whose room our Saviour succeeded who is called a Priest for ever after another order than that of Aaron even after the order of Melchisedeck who can supply all defects of his Church without appointing a visible Head in his place by his own immediate Energy since he lives for ever Heb. 7.25 to make intercession for them So that if any upon earth now will pretend to bear the same place in the Christian Church that Aaron did in the Jewish he must be able to shew the same divine warrant for as the Apostle observes Heb. 5.4 5. No man takes this honour to himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron so also Christ did not glorify himself to be an High Prist but he that said to him thou art my Son this day I have begotten thee Let then the Pope of Rome but deale above-board and show us some such plaine place of Scripture which doth Authorize his plea and then let them be Anathema that will not submit unto his Dictates but since this is not so much as once offered we cannot be faithfull to the Honour and Prerogative of out Great and only High Priest if we doe not looke upon this pretended Vicar of his as a bold and unwarrantable Intruder But 2. It doth not appear that the High Priest among the Jews was at all Infallible nor doth the place alleadged evince so much Deut. 17.11 for there Moses speaks not of Religious but of civil causes and commands that the Parties litigant should do according to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee so that the High Priests were not to pronounce according to Tradition or private fancy but according to the Law of God which whoso consulted might speak Infallibly not as if the High Priest meerly by vertue of his Office and Place was more priviledged from Errour than the common Jew but because God did give his Law for an Infallible Rule and in all parts that concerned his own Worship had made it so plain and particulat that unless they would they could not mistake it But for want of taking heed to it we find that in David's time both himself and all the Priests did Erre in conceiving that the Arke might be carried upon a Cart which was expressely commanded to be carried upon the Priests shoulders whereupon when God smote Uzzah Numb 4. David acknowledged that a breach was made upon them 2 Chron 15.13 because they sought him not in the due order Besides in the generall Apostacy of the people which the Prophets so sadly complain of and so much enveigh against we have no reason to imagine 2 Reg 16.10 that the High Priest continued stedfast in Religion since in all probability Uriah the Priest whom Ahaz employed in building an Idolatrous Altar was the Chief Priest at that time and not only a partaker in but a promoter of that wicked King's abominations We read likewise that none were more fierce against Jeremy and other of Gods Prophets than the Priests and to put the matter out of Dispute we have it plainly told us that there was for many ages none in that Church that could Infallibly guid them so the Psalmist Psal 74.9 We see not our Signs there is no more any Prophets neither is among us any that knoweth how long And in Ezra we find that the Tirshatha or Governour as some think Nebemiah Ezra 2.63 commanded that they should not eat of the most holy things till there stood up a Priest with Urim and Thummim who was to enquire of the Lord in difficult cases according to the command given to Joshua Numb 25.21 that he should consult with Eleazar the Priest who was to ask counsell for him according to the judgement of Urim which in Ezra's time was utterly ceased and we do not read that ever it revived again Just as much Infallibility therefore as the High Priest and Sanhedrim had in our Saviours time when they put him to death I am content to allow unto the Pope and a Councell of his calling and more than that this Argument from Analogy will not amount to For if they were so fatally deceived in so important and evident a truth who had as Bellarmine supposeth a clear promise of being Infallibly assisted how much more liable to Errour is the Bishop of Rome who hath no promise nor pretence of Plea but only an usurped and unjust possession Since then 1. the High Priest of the Jewes was only a Type of Christ and did not figure any other person in the Christian Church who was to bear a Resemblance to