PRIMS Full-text transcription (HTML)

THE Church of ENGLAND Vindicated againſt Her Chief Adverſaries OF THE Church of Rome: WHEREIN The moſt Material POINTS are fairly DEBATED, and Briefly and Fully ANSWERED.

By a Learned DIVINE.

LONDON, Printed for C. Wilkinſon, T. Dring, and C. Harper, and are to be Sold at their Shops in Fleetstreet. 1680.

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE ARTHUR Earl of Angleſey, Lord Privy Seal, and one of his Majeſtys moſt Honou­rable Privy Council.

My Lord,

THough learned Pens in moſt countries of Europe, have travelled ſucceſsfully theſe many years, in diſcovering the impoſtures of Rome, ſo as it might ſeem ſufficient to let the world enjoy the tractates al­ready extant on that ſubject; Yet the ſedulity of the miniſters of that Church, in propoſing Sophiſms, often, and long ago confuted, in a new dreſs, as if they were new topicks, yea unheard of demonſtrations, thereby to enſnare unwary Readers, doth impoſe a neceſſity up­on ſincere Lovers of Truth, for undeceiving the ſimple, to reſume old Grounds from Scripture, Antiquity, and reaſon formerly improved by our renouned Heroe's. This had the ſtronger influence upon me to write theſe curſo­ry animadverſions upon a Popiſh Pamphlet, otherwiſe of ſmall ſignificancy; becauſe ſome through a lazy humour, will not, others being immerſed in worldly entanglements, hardly can peruſe the large volumns of Chamier, Whit­taker, Calvin, Zanchius, Jewel, Uſher, Junius, Chem­nitius, Gerard and other Champions for the Truth; yea ſome are ſmitten with ſuch a fancy of Novelty, tha nothing doth reliſh with them, unleſs it come ſmoaking from the Preſs.

I ſhall not deny, but I was likewiſe moved with a juſt indignation, againſt the diſputing party among Romaniſts, many of whom, being by aſſed with inte­reſt, ſeem to violent their own conſciences in obtrud­ing impoſtures on the World. Can it be ſuppoſed, that men of ſuch raiſed parts, and eminent learning, who can­not but be ſenſible from their own failours, of the weak­neſſes attending humane intellects, ſhould believe the infallibility of the Papal chair in Dogmatical deciſi­ons, ſeeing thoſe who often ſit therein are known, neither to be men of greateſt learning and Piety, nor ever did God ſince the foundation of the World, entail infallibili­ty upon an elective ſucceſſion of perſons, chiefly when ſe­cular intereſts, and intrigues of Policy have the chief ſtroke in the election? Can they believe an univerſal Mo­narchy over all Princes and Churches to be ſetled by a di­vine denation on the Biſhop of Rome, ſeeing Scripture hath no veſtige of that fifth Monarchy, unleſs it be in the Apocalyptick predictions, and the Fathers of the ancient Church have not ſpared to contradict the Popes of Rome in their Dogmatical definitions? Can they believe the lawful­neſs of Image-worſhip, (whatever Metaphyſical diſtincti­ons they have coyned to put a fair gloſs on the matter) it being ſo expreſly prohibited in the decalogue, and no pra­ctice there of occurring in the Chatholick Church, for three Ages and upwards after Chriſt, whereof thoſe great An­tiguaries cannot be igno ant? Can theſe great maſters of reaſon, believe the prodigius figment of tranſubſtantiati­on, which may vye with any of the Fables of Apuleius, Ovid, or Aeſop, and is ſo lueulently repugnant to the com­mon ſenſe and reaſon of all mankind, that a great man a­mong themſelves, going to Maſs, is reported to have been ſo ingenuous, as to ſay, Eamus ad communem errorem? Can they juſtifie the Lawfulneſs of half Communions, without fighting with their own conſciences, theſe being confeſſedly oppoſite to the primitive inſtitution, and to the known practice, not onely of the Catholick Church, but alſo of the Roman, for many Ages? who would not be mov­ed with indignation, that men ſhould upon deſigne, abuſe their parts and wit to cheat the World? I know not how to reconcile theſe men to themſelves, unleſs it be ſuppoſed, that becauſe they received not the Truth in love, they are given up to ſtrong deluſion, and〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I grant Bellarmine, Barronius, Perron and others of that Cabal have ſaid much for an ill cauſe. They have indeed ſhew­ed themſelves to be men of great parts, but of very evil conſciences. They who devote their endowments to the pa­trociny of hereſie, would remember that errors in religion are ſuch creaſy and burdenſome ſuperſtructures, that the ſtrongeſt ſhoulders muſt needs ſhrink under them

My bowels in the mean time do yern toward the ſequaci­ous multitude in the Roman Communion, who in the Sim­plicity of their hearts ſurrender themſelves, to the conduct of ſuch teachers, How grateful is it to theſe who love eaſie methods of Religion among whom are not only thoſe of the meaner ſort of people, but alſo many of greater quality) to bered from ſerious inquiries after divine truths, by an im­plicite ſubmiſſion to infallible guides? and having once in­truſted their faith to thoſe teachers, how ſecure do they judg themſelves, being taught by no meaner Caſuiſt, then Cardi­nal Tolet that its not onely ſafe, but alſo meritorius, to be­lieve the doctrines taught by their teachers though falſe on the matter, untill they know that the Roman Church tea­ches otherwiſe. Thus the leaders of theſe deluded people cauſe them to err. Nor will the pretended infallibility of their teachers, be ſufficient apology for them at the great day. This rather will be their condemnation, that upon ſuch a pellucide and improbable pretence they ſhould have made ſmall account of the truely infallible Canon of holy Scrip­ture, which God hath charged thoſe to ſearch who would find eternal Life, Joh. 5. 34. From this ſearch, nothing doth more deterr people, then the thorny and litigious debates, raiſed by School-men and Controverſists, as if men be­hoved turn Scepticks in religion, if they did not implicit­ly intruſt the conduct of their Faith, to a Romiſh infalli­ble guide. But, bleſſed be our God, its not a matter of ſuch inſuperable difficulty, to find out the truth of Religion, in the holy Scripture, as they who deſign the inſlaving peo­ples conſciences, do pretend; If prejudices once being laid aſide, men would apply themſelves ſincerely to the uſe of appointed means. For the wiſdome of God hath, with a perſpicuity accommodated to the weakeſt capacities, re­vealed theſe things which are neceſſary to Salvation: ac­cording to that of Hilary, In abſoluto & facili eſt Aeter­nitas, Non per difficiles queſtiones nos ad vitam Aeter­nam vocat Deus, and a greater then Hilary, the A­postle of the Gentiles, 2 Cor. 4. 3. If our goſpel be hid, it is hid to them that are loſt; and a greater then both, our Saviour Chriſt, Joh. 7. 17. If any do the will of God, he ſhall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God. One thing I am ſure, its much more eaſie to find out the true re­ligion in Scripture, then by any means whatſoever to at­tain a rational evidence of Papal or Council infallibili­ty, which yet ought to be preſuppoſed, before an implicite ſubmiſſion to Pope or Council.

Among the many evils of this generation, nothing ſhould more awake the friends of Truth, zealouſly to appear for her interests, then the indifferent neutrality as to this or the other Religion, which ſeemes to be poſſeſſing the minds of many. This I conceive to be a woeful effect, partly of mens irreligious practices, and partly of the Sceptical Queries of Romanists concerning the divine Original of the Scriptures; as if they would rather ſhake men out of all Religion, then that they ſhould not give up themſelves to their implicite ſuperstition. Theſe and ſuch like accounts induced me to draw theſe lines, yet with a real indifferency whether they ſhould be publiſhed or not; as not doubting but the ſame things had been, and would be treated of by others of greater abilities, and to more advantage.

Only, It may ſeem strange, how I of another Nation, and living at ſo remote a distance, ſhould adventure upon this addreſs to your Lordſhip: I must therefore humbly crave leave to give an account of this my preſumption. Theſe Papers having been carried by the hand of a friend into England; and without either my knowledge or deſign, hav­ing the good fortune to arrive at your Lord-ſhips hands; I was told that your Lordſhip was pleaſed not only to caſt a glance of your Noble eye upon them, but alſo, out of your affection to the Truths therein aſſerted, to entertain ſome thoúghts of cauſing print them. Ʋpon notice hereof, I reflected on the ſaying of that learn'd and excellent Gentleman, Sir Charles Wolſely in his dedication to your Lordſhip of his judicious tract ate of the Reaſonableneſs of Scripture belief, That the hazard, whereto his Papers were expoſed by your firſt view, would ſufficiently in­ure them to all future dangers. Leſt therefore, My Lord, I ſhould incur the hateful ſtain of ingratitude, I can­not but deeply reſent that this ſmall Treatiſe, hath been ho­noured with ſo Noble, judicious and impartial a Cenſor. The deference alſo I have to your Lordſhips profound judgment, hath animated me not a little, to conſent with more freedome, to the expoſing of it to the verdicts of a Critical World. The Reader cannot expect from me new dogm's; for though the Virtuoſi deſerve honour, who en­rich the World, with new Phyloſophical inventions; yet new opinions in divinity ſound harſhly, and as Tertul­lian noted long ago, Quod primum, veriſſimum. Yea hardly can either new argument or new notion be now expected on the Popiſh controverſies, ſeeing they have been agitated upwards of 150 years, by the moſt learned heads in Europe. My whole deſign was to ſhew that the old grounds of our Divines did abundantly confute the new gaudy flouriſhes of Romiſh emiſſaries: Wherein, if in any tolerable meaſure I have anſwered my undertaking, I hope your Lordſhip will not be offended to have your name ſuperſcribed thereto. So confiding that your Generoſity will excuſe this boldneſs of a ſtranger, I ſhall not ceaſe to pray that grace, mercy and peace may be multiplyed on your noble family, and that all the Nobility in his Majeſties dominions, may account it their honour to be zealous for the reformed Religion (which, however it be miſ-repreſented by Romaniſts, is the truely Catholick faith) and Exemplary in the practiſe of Godlineſs. I ſay no more, but ſubſcribe my ſelf.

My Lord,
Your Lordſhips, Humbly devoted Servant. J. M.

ROMES Moſt Specious CHEATS Laid Open


HAD the Romiſh Miſſionaries, who undertook the defence of Jeſuit Demſter, been Maſters of their own paſſions, they would not have covered ſo many pages in the entry of their Pamphlet, with a flood of ſcurrilous revilings, beſides the rivu­lets of the ſame ſtrain, which run a long through the whole Diſcourſe, Who can expect much ſolidity in the argu­ings, which are uſhered in by ſuch a deſtempered Prologue? All the influence this hath on me, is to exerciſe my patience a little, and to move my compaſſion the more towards the ſouls, who ſuf­fer themſelves to be deluded by, and mancipated to theſe fiery zealots, the genuine brood of Ignatius Loyola, whoſe name is ob­ſerved by thoſe of his own tribe, to be correſpondent to his geni­us, quaſi ab igne natus.

I have not been Solicitous to enquire after the Author of that anonimous Treatiſe: I am little concerned, whether as ſome ſay, it were Jeſuit Con, who would Honour himſelf with the name of Sinclar, as the Pope called, Os Porci, would be named Sergius 2. as Platina writes in his life, and Pol. Virg. de invent. rerum lib. 4. cap. 10. or whether, as others ſup­poſe, it be the whole Cabal of our traficking Miſſionaries, cal­ling in like wiſe forraign ſupplies for their aſſiſtance, I ſay I am lit­tle concerned in this. For all the Roman Legions cannot con­quer one divine truth. Onely ſome may think ſtrange why they vail their names, ſeeing they vapour openly in our ſtreets, as if they did contend with the vaineſt Gallants of the time. Is it to ſecure themſelves, from bluſhing, when the fallacies of their ſophiſms is diſcovered? Or to protect them from recriminati­ons, when they load a known adverſary with reproaches? Or as Bell. in append. ad controv. de Pontif. in Reſp. ad lib. anon. Cap. 2. objected to the anonimous Author of an invective againſt the Pope, becauſe he that does evil hates the light? I will uſe no ex­orciſms to conjure this Ghoſt to declare his name, his reviling language diſcovers he is not deſcended from the heavenly manſi­ons. If he be come from Purgatory, what affinity there is be­twixt the dialect of that Country, and of thoſe who inhabit the loweſt regions of hell, they who peruſe his book may judge.

Upon ſundry accounts I have been the leſs moved with the canina eloquentia, the barking Rhetorick of this Romiſh Pam­phlet. As firſt becauſe it droped from the Pen of Jeſuites, who are ſufficiently known to be skilled Architects of lyes and Ca­lumnies. Ask Alphonſus de Vargas, Watſon the ſecular Prieſt, and Montalt, all Romaniſts, if it be not ſo? Do not Gaſpar Hurtado, Dieaſtillus, and many more Jeſuites maintain this as one of their famous Caſuiſtick Doctrines, that he ſins not mortally who calum­niates another to defend his own honour? Did not Albius the Jeſuit affirm that he judged it lawful, licitum exiſtimavi, to calum­niate Putean the Capucian, becauſe he apprehended that a writing of Puteans did reflect upon the order of Jeſuits? Hereupon Mon­talt in epiſt. 15. peremptorily charges the Fathers of that ſociety nullus jam tergiverſandi locus, Patres, prorſus recuſare non poteſtis quin manifeſti calumniatores audiatis, nullum vobis ſupereſt perfugi­um, niſi ut calumniam criminum numero ſubducatis, that is, The Fathers of the ſociety were ſo manifeſt calumniators, that there re­mained no way of Apologizing for them, but to ſtretch their wits to defend, that to calumniate is no ſin. To whom, I pray, does the Character which Hierome gave to Ruffin, Apol. 3. contra Ruffinum, maledicere omnibus bonae conſcientiae ſignum ar­bitraris; better agree then to Jeſuites. Yet if any ſhould dare to defame them, his life muſt pay for it, if their power can reach him, and this alſo without ſin. So myſterious is the di­vinity of Jeſuits and Jeſuited perſons, Molina, Tanner, Layman,3 Reginald and Leſſius, cited alſo by Montalt, Epiſt. 7. I am there­fore ſo far from being troubled with Jeſuitical invectives, that ſhould I hear well from theſe men, I ſhould be apt to ſay, as one in a like caſe, Quid malefeci.

Secondly, Becauſe I have noble Fellow-ſufferers, on whom the unſavoury breath of Jeſuits hath blown. Have they not honour­ed Luther, Calvin, Beza, and other eminent Heroes with the like Elogies? How hath this ſcolding Pamphleter puſhed at Holy Mr. Fox the induſtrious Compiler of the Book of Martyrs, acute Chillingworth, learned Reynolds, Whitaker, Featly, and Prideaux? Was not renowned Doctor Robert Barron (of whom this Pam­phleter ſeems to ſpeak with ſome reſpect, though like a Jeſuit with terms of diminution) while alive, entertained with ſuch ci­vility, as his Brethren, by Jeſuit Turnbul in his Sententia Juris? is not that modeſt Soul termed by the Jeſuit cap. 1. pag. 10. Infamis calumniator, and pag. 8. a man immodeſti ſpiritus nay pag 5. he ſpares not to charge him with Cinica rabies and mordendi libido, cap. 2. p. 14. with vanitas, mendaeium, ſtultiloquium; doth he not entitle his cap. 3. de manifeſtis ejus mendaciis, cap. 4, de obviis ali­quot ejus mendaciis; cap. 5. de obviis aliquot ejus ineptiis, &c. Though the profound learning of the Doctor be admired by the world, yet the detracting Jeſuit ſets him incomparably below other Prote­ſtants, pag. 6. Caeteros, ut Lutherum, Petrum Martyrem alioſqueTe ſine comparatione doctiores, ingenioſiores, aeutiores, &c. The reverence I have for the memory of that worthy Perſon (in whoſe chair I have the honor to ſit) ſuffers me not to engliſh theſe ſuperfetations of the Jeſuits choler. So impatient is the Jeſuitical Order of any diſcovery of their impieties; that when the learned Iſaac Caſanbon had given an account of the acceſſion of Jeſuit Garnet, and his Complices to the Powder Plot, they endeavoured by their lyes and ſlanders, to render not only the famed Caſanbon odious to the world, but alſo his Father and whole Family (except his Son John, who unhappi­ly turned Romaniſt) nay ſo indiſcreetly zealous were they againſt him, that they declared him no Scholar, a fellow of no judgment, that he could not write Latine, or ſcarce underſtood it, (ſee Hen­ry Foulis Hiſtory of Romiſh Treaſons, lib, 10, cap. 2. pag. 699.) which was enough to teſtifie the truth of all the reſt, After that reverend Doctor Creighton, in his Preface to Sylveſter Sguropulus his Hiſtory of the Council of Florence, had given an account of the ſpiteful invectives of Severinus Binnius, Cardinal Barronius, and4 Jeſuit Raderus againſt Photius the renowned Patriarch of Conſtan­tinople, he ſubjoyns, Haeroſae, hi Narciſſi Jeſuitici! So well known are the Noſe-gayes, wherewith Perſons of that principle do pro­pine good men. But as it were too little for a Jeſuit to ſpit in the faces of the ſervants of God, is it not a great part of the work of this Pamphleter, to diſgrace the Holy Scriptures as corrupt, both in Originals and Tranſlations? He cannot ſo much as mention pag. 7. that word of the Arch Angel Jude. 9. increpet te Dominus without this blaſphemous reflection, that the word increpet is changed for imperet in our corrupt Bible. I doubt if an Arch Demon would have charged the Bible as corrupt, becauſe〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉is ren­dred by increpo. This angry Pamphleter might have learned from Jeſuit Lorinus in loc. that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ſignifies increpo, or which is much to the ſame purpoſe, additis minis impero, the like is obſer­ved by a Lapide in Mat. 8.26. and by Maldonat in Mat. 8.26. and in Mat. 17. 18. Doth not Eſtheus in Jude v. 9. confeſs that accor­ding to the Greek it ought to be rendered increpet, and thatſome Latine Copies have it ſo? Yea, he is of opinion, that the Author of the vulgar latine, firſt rendred it, increpettibi Dominus, and that ſome afterward, to avoid the ſoleciſm of Grammar (for the Au­thor of that Verſion had no infallible aſſiſtance) turned increpet to imperet, and ſo indeed Hierom. Apol. 2. eontra Rufinum, cites it thus, increpet tibi Dominus. What need I more, is not the He­brew word, Zach. 3.2. (to which the Arch Angel here alludes) 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Seventy renders〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the vulgar increpet from the root〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Pagnin in Epit. Theſauri ſayes, being conſtrued withſignifies increpare, to rebuke? Do not Jeſuites by ſuch practiſes, confirm the character that Montalt gives of them, nuſquam a veſtris calumniis intacti ſunt boni, hardly can a good perſon eſcape the laſh of Jeſuites unruly tongues. Now who would not account himſelf honoured to be a Fellow ſufferer with ſuch Worthies?

But Thirdly, and finally, I am infinitely ſolaced, when I conſi­der that the real ground of all this obloquy, what ever Adverſa­ries may pretend, is, that unworthy I, have been honoured to bear ſome teſtimony againſt the errours of Popery, and the Perni­cious Cabal of Jeſuites. Who would regard their ſpiteful inve­ctives, hearing that beatitude from the mouth of God, 1 Pet. 4.4. If ye be reproached for the name of Chriſt, bappy are ye, for the Spirit of Glory reſteth on you. Excellently Cyprian Epiſt. 55. nec movere5 nos dehent convitia perditorum hominum, quo minus a via recta & a certa regula non recedamus. Hierom wrote to Auſtine Epiſt. 8. when he had vindicated the truth agaiſt the Pelagians, quod ſignum ma­joris gloriae eſt, omnes Heretici te deteſtantur, Its a badge of Honour, ſaid the Father, to be hated by Hereticks; Why not then by Je­ſuites? I ſhould perhaps have leſs trouble, ſhould I do as Vibius Criſpus.

qui nunquam direxit brachia contra.

But as that learned Gentlemen, Sir William Morice, on the Lords Supper, ſect. 9. p. 146. obſerves, he ſhould have had more Honour and Conſcience had he been

Civis qui libera poſſet
Verba animi proferre & vitam impendere vero.

It were here eaſie, to repell all the calumnious Criminations thrown upon me by the Cabal of Jeſuites, and to repay them with a volume of too too juſt recriminations, making all their Booffon­ries rebound on themſelves. Is not the World ringing with the impious Morals of the Jeſuites? who ever take a latitude to ri­vile: If, I miſtake not, it were the Jeſuites intereſts to forbear, they having ſo many ſores upon which their Adverſaries may grate, un­leſs they think they have no reputation to loſe. But as I was not the Aggreſſour in this debate, ſo neither did I undertake it for any perſonal intereſt, I have therefore judged fit to invert a little of the Jeſuits method, he places his invectives in the front of his Book, as it ſeems, that the Patience of the Reader might be out wearied with that nauſeating ſtuffe, before he came to examine the weak­neſs of the argumentative part; but my deſign being to give a teſtimony to the truth, and to contribute my poor endeavours for eſtabliſhing Souls therein, and if it may pleaſe God to recover thoſe that are gone aſtray. I will firſt canvaſe the Controverſies of Re­ligion, and then take his ſpleeniſh invectives to conſideration, in the mean while I only ſay, didicit ille maledicere & ego contemnere.



A brief Survey of the Pamphleters empty and unfaithful Apologies for Jeſuit Demſter.

THe title of Papiſmus Lucifugus, is of hard concoction with the Pamphleter, yet he is not altogether unhap­py in his conjecture concerning it. He ſays, Pag. 8. I gave a ſtrong Thief a ſtrange Name, I do indeed look on trafficking Jeſuits as pernicious Thieves, they rob men of their deareſt intereſts; of their Religion, and conſequently of their Souls and Salvation. Perhaps this may be one reaſon why Romiſh Ba­bylon, Revel. 18.13. Is ſaid to make merchandice of the Souls of men. The conſumptive eſtates of many families in which theſe men do neſt, are a ſhrewd preſumption, they pick purſes as well as conſciences. The Epithet Lucifugus had not appear­ed ſo ſtrange, had he conſidered that Tertul. lib. de reſur. Carnis cap. 47. Long ago branded Hereticks as Lucifugas Scripturarum, and it may ſeem ſuitable enough to Jeſuit Dempſters tergiverſing humour.

The Pamphleter, pag. 9. takes the boldneſs, to ſay, That Jeſuit Dempſter deolined not the trial of religion, by Scripture and antiquity. What will not an effronted Jeſuit affirm? I remit him for his conviction to (one place in ſtead of many) Mr. Dempſters Paper. 5. pag. 60.61. Why I pray you did he never anſwer to any teſti­mony either of Scripture or Antiquity brought againſt him? What means the Rapſody of citations in this Pamphlet, but to make a ſeeming ſupplement of M. Dempſters defects? Why contend Romaniſts ſo eagerly for the neceſſity of an infallible viſible judge, but becauſe they dare not adventure to have the controverſies be­twixt them and us dicided, either by Scripture or Antiquity? This Pamphleter thinks to ſalve the matter with a knack of Je­ſuitical equivocation, we decline not Scripture and Antiquity, ſaith he ibid. as carried by Popes, Biſhops, and Prieſts in communion, with him; that is, they can be judged by Scripture and Antiquity provided they be taken in no other ſenſe then the Pope and Court of Rome are pleaſed. As if a company of robbers would ſubmit to a jury, but with this Proviſo, that their Ring leader7 were Chancellour of the Aſſize, and had a negative upon the reſt. Is not this a goodly Apology, that Romaniſts are not Lu­cifugi?

To help all, he adds, That the Queſtion betwixt Mr. Dempſter, and me, was onely of the grounds of the Proteſtant Religion, and not at all of the grounds of Popery. Grant it had been ſo, yet had he not been a Lucifugus, would he not have examined the inſtances of Scripture and Antiquity, which were brought to con­firm the Doctrine of Proteſtants? But it would be remembred that Mr. Dempſter's Syllogiſm gave occaſion for an enquiry of a greater Latitude, viz. What the reciprocal grounds of the true Religion are, and what the Religion is to which alone theſe grounds do agree; whether Popery, or the Religion of Prote­ſtants, I pitched on Scripture and Antiquity, as the peculiar grounds of the true Religion, which do exactly quadrate with the Reformed Religion, and not at all with Popiſh ſuperſtition. But Jeſuit Dempſter could never be induced either to give a ground of the true Religion, or to confute that aſſigned by me. If this be not a Lucifugus, who ever was? Whether I in giving this Ti­tle to theſe Papers, or the Pamphleter in quarrelling at it, do ſtumble at the threſhold, others may judge. I am not diſpoſed to quarrel at the Title of his Book, Scolding no Scholarſhip. I ſup­poſe all will give him this teſtimony (neither do I envy it) that he hath behaved himſelf as an abler Scold than a Scholar.

Albeit Jeſuit Dempſter, at the time of our Encounter, was extol­led by Romaniſts as a Non-ſuch, yet his feebleneſs being diſcover­ed to the world, by the publiſhing of his inſignificant Papers. This Pamphleter, pag. 9.10. exerciſes his wit to deviſe ſome ly­ing ſhifts to Apologize both for him and the Popiſh Intereſt, as if 1. I had heen the Aggreſſor and Provoker. 2. He ſeems to take it ill, that the verbal conference with Mr. Dempſter, is ſaid to have been thfruit of Popiſh Conſultations 3. He ſayes, that Mr Dempſter was a man of confiſcate health (a noble Rhetorication forſooth) fit e­nough for a civil Conference, but moſt unable for a clamorous Di­ſpute. 4. That he was pitched upon onely as being next at hand. This bundle of forged lyes diſcovers the Pamphleter (to uſe his own phraſe) to be a perſon of confiſc ate honeſty. The true account of that affair I gave in the Dedicatory Epiſtle before Papiſmus Lucifu­gus, which could be atteſted by perſons of unqueſtionable credit Knows he not, that I can deſign by name the perſons of the Ro­miſh8 Profeſſion (though upon perſonal reſpect I have for them, I do forbear) who did ſolemnly provoke my Reverend Colleague M. G. M. and me to that Debate? Is it imaginable, that ſuch a ſo­lemn Challenge ſhould be given without previous conſultation? Are there ſo few Birds of that Feather about this place, that M. Dempſter was onely pitched upon as next at hand? Was he not brought from the Country upon deſign, from a Gentlemans houſe where he did ordinarily reſide? Was there not another ordinary Reſident in the Family where the Debate was? What M. Demſter's fitneſs was to manage a modeſt debate, may be judged by the peruſal of his Tautologizing Papers, a very anomolous motion in an Arguer, not a Steering to the ſame point, as this Pamphleter would excuſe it, pag. 15. but a toſſing in one place, very near of Kin to that treſpaſs of Arguing, which by Logicians is called Petitio principii. Had he been a perſon of ſuch eminent modeſty, and ſo a verſe from clamorous diſputes, would he in Anno 1658. as I take it, ſo arrogantly have appealed all the miniſtery of Scot­land to a Vocal Deſpute, boaſting, that if he did not convince them, he ſhould be hanged up preſently, demanding onely, if they loſt the Cauſe, that they ſhould be hanged up in effigie? Doth not ſuch a brawling Challenge bewray a petulent humour, and a compla­cency in clamorous Cavils? But what was the Aehilles wherewith this inſolent Thraſo thought to have conquered the whole Church of Scotland? That goodly Syllogiſm forſooth, in his firſt Paper againſt me, as appears by comparing it with his foreſaid Paper or Defiance: So that this has been a long ſtudied Leſſon, where­in our Romaniſts ſeems no leſs to have confided, than once in the Invincible Spaniſh Armado, for by it they thought not onely to conquer me, but the whole Church of Scotland, and as if it had become an ordinary pocket piſtol among them, the ſame firſt Cartel which M. Dempſter ſent to me, was ſent to another Mini­ſter in this Country, without change of one word: Yet the vain glorious Jeſuit, when he was put to it, could ſay nothing to confirm any Propoſition of that long-ſtudied Paralogiſm-Doth it not by this appear, that Jeſuits can raiſe Tragical Cla­mours upon a bable? Nevertheleſs, I muſt do M. Dempſter right, if tergiverſing be Modeſty, Learning; Gravity, he had all theſe Endowments, in Gradu Heroico. If this be their Fabius, and old Warriour, as pag. 2. he is called, who may not ſee that Romaniſts now days live in foee Rmuli.

9Jeſuit Demſter being laid by with this lying Apology, now ap­pears this Pamphleter on the Stage, to ſupply M. Demſter's de­fects, as if

Si Pergama poſſent
Defendi dextrâ, dextrâ hac defenſa fuiſſent.

But, if I miſtake not, he has as much need of an Apologiſt as M. Demſter: How comes it that he examines not the Objections againſt the five Baſtard Popiſh Sacraments, though that Con­troverſie was pitched upon by M. Demſter's own choice? How is it, that diſputing the great Queſtion, concerning their infallible viſible Judge, he over-leaps moſt of the Arguments moved by me againſt his Infallibility? How is it, that though he endea­vours to prove, that the Popiſh Religion is the Ancient Chriſtian Religion, yet he anſwers nothing to ſeven inſtances I gave in Paper 8. pag. 169. &c. of the repugnancy of the preſent Popiſh Religion to the Religion of the Ancient Church? How is it, that when this whole debate was occaſioned by a caſuiſtick Queſtion of Repentance, and thereupon I had given a Specimen of the impi­ous Morals of Jeſuits, yet he ſays nothing for the vindication of them? How is it, that he does not at leaſt clear their Old, Grave, Learned Man, from that egregious Jeſuitical Fallacy, wherewith I charged him, in the entry of his firſt Paper? Was he ſo afraid to ſtumble on the Threſhold, that he reſolved to leap over it? Do not theſe things, beſides many other that might be mentioned, demon­ſtrate, that this Hyperaſpiſt of Jeſuit Demſter's is ſmitten with the ſame tergiverſing diſeaſe? Is it not likely, that the Popiſh Party, to Apologize for their intereſt, ſhall the next day ſet M. Con, or whoever elſe had a hand in this Pamphlet, at as low a rate, as now they do M. Demſter I know not to what more fitly to compare the Pamphleters deſultorious reflections, upon my returns to M. Demſter, than to a Flea leaping too and fro.

Qui ceſſim fugit & fugit receſſim,
Et ſubſultibus hinc & hinc citatis,
Vibrat Cruſcula.

Yet theſe, and other his omiſſions, were more eaſily pardonable, had he behaved himſelf with ingenuity in what he has handled;10 but this enſuing Treatiſe will diſcover how deceitfully he has mi­ſtated Queſtions betwixt Romaniſts and us, how injuriouſly he miſrepreſents Proteſtants; how, in that Congeries of Teſtimonies which he has heaped up, he either miſ-cites them, or alledges them impertinently, or brings them from ſpurious writings, and how, through all, he plays the Plagiary, from Breerly, Bell. Gordon of Huntly, H. T. his Manual, &c. and with ſo little diſcretion, that he palpably diſcovers, he has never ſeen the Authors which he cites. He would ſeem to put on the Lyons Skin, but his Ears bewray what an Animal he is. Though all his Cavils have been often confuted by Proteſtants, yet that he diſſembles, as if his Ar­guments were unanſwerable Demonſtrations, and contained no little of his own invention: Nay, if it might not be looked upon, as the partial Verdict of an Adverſary, I could ſafely ſay, that hardly ſhall a Popiſh Pamphlet of the like quantity be found, wherein there are ſo many filthy prevarications, unbeſeeming both a Chriſtian and a Scholar. This Tractate, I hope, may exhi­bit a Specimen of the filth of that Augea's Stable. One advan­tage indeed he hath, that the Conſciences of their bigotted Pa­piſts are ſo debauched with their Implicit Faith, that as Dionyſi­us Flatterers are ſaid to have licked up his phlegm with Exclama­tions, as if it had been Nectar and Ambroſia, ſo Jeſuited Papiſts are ready to ſwallow down greedily the moſt excrementitious diſcourſe which drops from a Jeſuit. And to make all to paſs the more ſmoothly, this Pamphleter has plaiſtered over things with Drolleries, and affected Strains of Romantick Rhetorications.

Pag. 32. He upbraids me, as being at much pains to ſay no­thing; nullum, ſays he, vidi, qui magis operoſè nihil diceret. I thought he would have excepted Jeſuit Demſter, who ſo often tumbled over one informal Syllogiſm, at leaſt he might have ſpa­red to reflect on himſelf, as writing a Book to confute nothing.

Eſſe nihil dicis quicuid petis, improbe Cinna.
Si nihil Cinna petis, nil tibi Cinna nego.

Is it not a ſtrange Nothing, whereof ſo many Somethings, and theſe alſo touching the Cauſe, yet remain unanſwered? He muſt be at the pains of another Book, before he diſcuſs all theſe little Nothings. But purpoſely waving at the time his Criminations of this nature, I proceed to note his Reflections, upon the11 two Arguments which I propounded to M. Demſter in the Vo­cal Debate, and upon M Demſter's goodly Syllogiſm.

To my firſt Argument drawn from the impious Doctrine of Romiſh Caſuiſts, that when a man hath ſinned hainouſly, he is not bound to repent preſently, The Pamphleter after a falſe re­preſentation of the matter of Fact (whereof I gave a ſufficient account in the Epiſtle Dedicat. before Papiſmus Lucifugus; and of the Atheiſtical abſurdities to which M. Demſter was brought, by the confirmations of the major of that argument, which the Pamphleter, pag. 11. falſly ſays, that I did altogether paſs in ſi­lence.) I ſay the Pamphleter anſwers, pag. 12. That all hold the ſhorteſt delay of Repentance both ſureſt and beſt. Behold a Jeſui­tiſm, that is, a Cheat, to begin with; For this is not the queſti­on, whether ſpeedy Repentance be ſureſt, beſt, and moſt expedi­ent, but whether repentance be a preſent duty, and non-repent­ing a ſin? To this he anſwers nothing directly. How impious muſt the Doctrine of theſe Caſuiſts be, when a Jeſuit is aſhamed directly to own it? Yet if his words be narrowly obſerved, they bewray him: The ſhorteſt delay, ſays he, is ſureſt and beſt; which implies, that to delay repentance may be good and ſure, though not the ſureſt and beſt, bonum & tutum, though not optimum & tutiſſimum; and therefore, as if the Con were turned to a Fox, he ſlily inſinuates an Argument, to prove the Aſſertion which he was aſhamed openly to avouch, viz. that a ſinner is not bound pre­ſently to repent, from the maxim, that affirmative precepts bind ſemper, ſed non pro ſemper. To which I anſwer, that the Maxim includes a ſolution in its boſom: For though affirmative Pre­cepts bind not for all times, yet they bind for all convenient ſeaſons. Did not the affirmative Precept, of ſuccouring the af­flicted, bind the Prieſt and the Levite, when they paſſed by the wounded man, betwixt Jericho and Jeruſalem, Luke 10. 30, 31, 32. Did they not ſin by not ſuccouring him at that time? Yet Romiſh Caſuiſts deny that a ſinner is bound to repent, quumatâ occaſione commode poteſt, when he can do it conveniently, as E­ſcobar ſtates the queſtion, Tom. 2. Theol. Moral lib. 3. cap. 8. Prob. 28. no not when he ſeriouſly calls his ſin to remembrance, or when a grievous calamity is upon him, and his Country, or upon Holy and Feſtival days, as Vaſquein Part. 3. Tom. 4. q. 86. dub. 6 copiouſly declares. Yea, it's one of their probable Do­ctrines, which in practiſe may ſafely be followed, that there is12 no command at all for repentance. This alſo being avouched by a Grave Doctor, Franciſcus Victoria, as teſtifies Eſcobar, Cap. Cit. Prob. 24. But beſides, the Pamphleter takes for granted, that the Command enjoyning Repentance is adequately affirma­tive, which perhaps he may find to be of more difficult proba­tion than he is aware of. When poſitive duties are required to be done at ſuch ſeaſons, the Command does ſurely include a nega­tive the Command enjoyning Circumciſion on the eighth day, included a negative, prohibiting delay beyond the day preſcri­bed; when therefore God Commands now to repent, Act. 17.30. To day not to harden your hearts, Heb. 3. 7, 8. Now to return e­very one from his evil way, Jer. 18. 11. it includes a negative, prohibiting the delay of repentance.

He has another Cavil to the ſame purpoſe; Ibid. Proteſtants, ſays he, teach mens beſt actions to be ſinful, and therefore muſt either confeſs Repentance at no time to be commanded, or that God hath commanded us to ſin. A fooliſh and blaſphemous inference: For Proteſtants do not ſay, that mens actions, as to love God, repent, &c. are ſinful per ſe, or in themſelves, but only that, ex acci­denti, gradual defects cleave unto them, for who can love God ſo well as they ſhould? Read he never that of Auſtin, Epiſt. 29. Pleniſſima charitas eſt in nemine, illud autem, quod minus eſt quam eſſe debet, ex vitio eſt, ex quo vitio, non eſt juſtus in terra; that is, perfect love is in no man, and what is leſs than it ought to be, is ſtained with ſin. Hence it is, that there is no juſt or ſin­leſs man on earth: From this it only follows, that God commands the action, which in it ſelf is good, as love to God, and Repen­tance, though not the gradual defects which through our infirmi­ty cleaves to them. The contrary Doctrine of Papiſts and Qua­kers of a ſinleſs perfection in time, is repugnant to clear Scrip­ture, 1 Joh. 1. 8. 10. and is pure Pelagianiſm, as witneſſes Hie­rom in his Dialogue betwixt Atticus and Critobolus, lib. 1. and lib. 3. cont. Pelag. But of this more hereafter, cap. 7. Now only he cavils, that it's a jeering of Gods Commands, to ſay they are impoſſible. To this jeering Cavil, it's anſwered, that it were ab­ſurd indeed, to affirm the Command of God to be ſimply and ab­ſolutely impoſſible; but not to ſay, that there is an accidental im­poſſibility to keep the Law perfectly, through the pravity of our natures. So much the Scripture affirms, Rom. 3. 8. Joh. 12. 39. &c. Excellently ſaid Bernard, Serm. 50. in Cant. Deus mandan­do13 impoſſibilia, non praevaricatores fecit homines, ſed humiles.

As for his Squibs, abous Repentance, and recantation of Calum­nies, and other publick tranſgreſſions againſt Princes, I know none more concerned therein than Jeſuits. Of their calumniating Genius, ſome touch has been given in the Prologue. Of the trea­ſonable principles of Jeſuits, Mariana, Suarez, Bell. Santarell, &c. an account hereafter may be given. The Author of the Hiſt. of Cardinals, Part. 1. lib. 1. pag. 15. obſerves this to have been always the deſign of Jeſuits, to aggrandize the Pontifical Autho­rity with diminution of the Regal. Have not the impious prin­ciples and practiſes of Jeſuits againſt Princes given occaſion to that Character which paſſes on them?

Hi Regnorum proditores
Atque legum fraudatores
Reges volunt jugulare
Et ſic plebem ſubjugare.

My ſecond Argument was taken from the Doctrine of the Council of Florence, in Inſtruct. Armen. and of Trent Seſſ. 7. Can. 11. ſuſpending the Efficacy of Sacraments from the inten­tion of the Miniſter, from which I concluded, that all certainty of Faith, according to Popiſh principles, was over-turned; for all their Faith depends upon the Authority of Pope, and Coun­cils; but if the Efficacy of Sacraments depend on the intention of the Miniſter, they cannot certainly know who is Pope, or which is a lawful Council, who is Baptized, or who is Ordained, the Efficacy of Baptiſm and Ordination (which alſo with them is a Sacrament) depending on ſecret intentions, whereof they can have no infallible certainty. In this Argument, the Pamphleter ſays, I both argued and anſwered, whereas I only argued: But indeed Jeſuit Demſter could neither argue nor anſwer. Of the re­plies given to this Argument by this Scribler, pag. 12, 13. to ſup­ply M. Demſter's defects, I may ſay

Sunt tricae Apinoe, & ſi quid levius iſtis.

As firſt, he ſays, There is greater aſſurance of the Prieſts inten­tion, than that Miniſters uſe aright the Elements, and pronounce the words of Inſtitution. As if we could have more aſſurance of14 ſecret thoughts of a mans heart, than of words audibly pro­nounced, or of viſible actions performed before a whole Con­gregation.

Secondly, God, ſaith he, hath promiſed that nothing neceſſary ei­ther to Faith or Salvation, ſhall be wanting in his Church. What then? doth it therefore follow, that our Faith muſt be built up­on ſecret intentions, whereof we can have no infallible aſſu­rance? or doth he mean, that a Prieſt can never waver in his in­tentions in miniſtring Sacraments? Sure I am, he has neither Scripture, nor Canon of Council, nor ſuffrage of Antiquity to warrant ſuch a fancy. Nay, the Canons, which ſuſpend the Effi­cacy of Sacraments upon the intention of the Prieſt, ſuppoſe the Prieſt may have undue intentions, or perhaps he meant (for I am here left to Divine at the Pamphleters intentions) that no per­ſon uncapable of the Papacy can be choſen Pope. So indeed Je­ſuit Valentia ſaith, Tom. 3. Diſp. 1. q. 1. Punct. 7. Sect. 39. Col. 223. But this may be convicted of manifeſt falſhood from Hiſto­ry. Did not Bennet the Ninth, according to Onuphrius, in Chron. Pontif. ſit on the ſame Throne 22 years, whom yet Glaber in Spondan. ad Annum 1033. aſſerts to have attained it Symoniacal­ly, being about ten years of age? But I ſatisfie my ſelf at the time with the ruthful complaint of Platina in the Life of Sylveſter the Third, that ſuch was become the ſtate of the Papacy, that he carried the Chair who gave moſt for it. Certainly therefore theſe Romiſh Doctors, who by the forecited Valentia's acknow­ledgment, confeſs the Papal See not to have immunity from ille­gitimate Popes, are the more ingenuous.

The Pamphleter replies Thirdly, That the want of the Miniſters intentin may be ſupplied by the intention, deſires, and love of the re­ceiver. But 1. I know not what to make of this, if it be not a yielding of the Cauſe, and a manifeſt contradiction to the Do­ctrine of their Church. For if the intention of the receiver can ſupply that want, then it's falſly defined by the Council of Trent and Florence, that the Efficacy of Sacraments depend upon the intention of the Miniſter; it ſhould rather depend upon the in­tention of the receiver. 2. A man cannot be ſure of his own Graces. according to Romaniſts; conſequently the Efficacy of Sacraments, and ſo of all their Religion, muſt yet depend upon an uncertain condition: Yea, Beil. lib. 3. de Juſtificatione, cap. 8. concludes, that a man cannot be ſure that his ſins are forgiven15 him, becauſe he cannot be ſure of the intention of the Prieſt in giving Abſolution, were the matter ſufficiently ſupplied by the receivers intention, deſires, and love to God, how inconſequent were Bellarmine's argument. Whither, I pray, did Bell. or this Pamphleter underſtand Popiſh principles beſt? But 3. Suppoſe one adult perſon, receiving Baptiſm or Orders, had aſſurance of his own Graces, and of his own intentions and deſires, yet others could not: Conſequently, others could not certainly know, that he were either Baptized or Ordained. But 4. Though the defect of the Prieſts intention could be thus ſupplyed in adult perſons, yet there were no remedy for Infants, who are not capable of ſuch intentions; and therefore the Pamphleter himſelf reſtricts this evaſion to thoſe that are come to Age; and ſo there could be no certainty whether Pope Pius the Fourth, who confirmed the Council of Trent, or the preſent Clement the Tenth (whom I ſuppoſe to have been baptized in their Infancy) were really bap­tized; and conſequently, whether ever they were in a capacity to be Popes.

Fourthly, ſaith the Pamphleter, The conferring of a Sacrament is not only actio hominis, but humana, that is a deliberate action. Quid hoe ad Rhombum? The Queſtion betwixt us and Papiſts, is not, whether it be neceſſary that the Miniſter have a deliberate intention to go about the outward Sacramental action; that we freely grant, and that is ſufficiently known by the grave out­ward performance of the work, becauſe Ambroſius Catharinus required no more as ſimply neceſſary to the being of the Sacra­ment. Bell. lib. 1. de Sc. in Genere. cap. 27. profeſſed, he did not ſee wherein Catharinus Opinion differed from the Doctrine of Hereticks (ſo he deſigned Proteſtants) condemned by the Counil of Trent; therefore generally the Popiſh Doctors, as Bell. Snarez, Conink, Lugo, &c. require further, as neceſſary to the being of a Sacrament, that the Miniſter have an intention by theſe out­ward actions to conſtitute a Sacrament. Now ſure it is, that with­out a ſpecial Revelation, none can have infallible certainty, that a­nother has ſuch an intention, and this is a further intention than is requiſite, ut actio ſit humana.

But fifthly, ſaith the Pamphleter (for I ſee Con muſt have many holes to retire to) What if a Mad man be in a frolick, or a Comedian in a jeer ſhould pour out Water on any one, and pro­nounce the words, were it a Sacrament? Anſw. No verily. This16 brings to my mind how Cardinal de Lugo Tract. de Sacram. Diſp. 8. Sect. 2. Num. 14. groſly miſrepreſents Proteſtants in this mat­ter; for this he gives as the difference betwixt Catharinus (though him alſo he diſallows) and us, as if Catharinus did re­quire that the Miniſter did behave himſelf as if he dealt ſeriouſ­ly, but that Proteſtants maintained it to be enough, if the out­ward Sacramental actions were performed, though the Miniſter openly declared that all were done in deriſion. O the affronted impudency of Jeſuits! We abominate ſuch impious thoughts; never was any ſuch thing taught by the Reformed Churches. See Vſſius de Bapt. Diſp. 0. Theſ. 11. 12, 13. yea Bell. lib. 1. de Sac. in Gen. cap. 27. acknowledges the contrary to be taught by Chemnitius, in Exam. Concil. Trid Can. 11. Seſſ. 7. Yet Jeſuits who have made lyes their refuge, dare ſo fouly miſrepreſent us. Nay, on the contrary, weay a Miniſter ſins hainouſly, if he carry not both ſeriouſly and devoutly in going about theſe holy things. See Chamier lib. 1. de Sacram. in Gen. Cap. 19. Sect. 21. only we affirm, if a Miniſter ſhould behave himſelf ſeriouſly as to all outward appearance, whatever impious inten­tion he may harbour ſecretly in his own breaſt, that cannot pre­judge the devout receiver of the Sacrament, and ſo the Catho­lick Church did ever teach. Hence Auſtin, lib. 3. de Bapt. Cont. Don at. cap. 15. Si Evangelicis verbis in nomine Patris, filii & S. Sancti, Marcion Baptiſmum conſecravit, integrum erat Sacramen­tum, quamvis ejus fides, ſub eiſdem verbis aliud opinantis quam Catholica veritas docet, non eſſet integra ſed fabuloſis vanitatibus inquinata. Thus Romaniſts ſuſpending the Efficacy of Sacra­ments upon the ſecret intention of the Prieſt, differ not from us only, but alſo from the Ancient Catholick Church; they over­turn all certainty of Faith, and throw themſelves upon perpetu­al hazard of Idolatry: They cannot know, even according to their own principle, whether what they adore in the Maſs be Chriſt, or only a morſel of bread; neither are theſe meer Nice­ties. Doth not famous Authors record, how both Jews and Hea­thens in Spain and Italy have counterfeited Chriſtianity for baſe ends, and have aſſumed Orders, and gone about the external Sacramental Rites but with ſacrilegious intentions? Whoſe heart would not bleed to ſee the Mazes and Labyrinths in which Ro­maniſts do involve themſelves, and the irreconcileable debates they have among themſelves as to this thing, inſomuch that Je­ſuit17 Carleton Tom. 2. Theol. Scholaſt. Diſp. 63. Sect. 3. Num. 1. ſaith Mirum quot quamque varii ſunt in hac parte inter Scholaſti­cos dicendi mdi. I will not blot paper with them. I hope by this time it appears the Pamphleters quiblings have not looſed the Knot more than M. Demſter's ſilence.

After many abortive attempts of M. Demſter to reduce his Syllogiſm to ſome tolerable ſhape, this Pamphleter, pag. 28, 29. makes an Eſſay more. Though all the Propoſitions thereof be as negatively expreſſed, as Negatives uſe to be in the Engliſh Lan­guage, yet to vindicate his Fellow-Jeſuit from ſuch informality of arguing, he alledges the ſecnd Propoſition to be an Affirmative; and to add ſome colour thereto, he puts this Latin Gloſs upon it (for it ſeems he could not ſalve the buſineſs in Engliſh) Sed Re­ligio Proteſtantium eſt habens nullum peculiare fundamentum. Had Jeſuits ſo much ingenuity as to acknowledge an over reaching, I had ſhewed them from the beginning how to have rectified the form of their Syllogiſm without running to violent or infini­tant Gloſſes: But that Logical treſpaſs in the ſtructure of Jeſuit Dempſter's Syllogiſm was my leaſt Exception againſt it. The main thing I ever demanded was a probation of that minor, whether it be formally, or only objectively negative, and a Solution of the retorſion of that ſame Syllogiſm againſt the Popiſh Religi­on, but neither of thſe could ever M. Demſter be induced to un­dertake. Had this Pamphleter ſupplied M. Demſter's defects in theſe, he had done M. Demſter a better office, and given more ſa­tisfaction to his Reader. Yet ſeeing they will be making a buſineſs about the form of that Syllogiſm, the Pamphleter would conſi­der how he reconcile himſelf with M. Demſter, who in Paper 6. pag. 7. ſays, all the three Propoſitions of his Syllogiſm are affirma­tives; but this Pamphleter only ſays that the ſecond is affirmative; which of theſe ſhall I believe? May not a Bajon put ſuch infini­tant Gloſſes upon the reſt of the Propoſitions, as the Pamphle­ter hath put on the ſecond? Conſequently not the Minor only, but the Concluſion alſo ſhould be affirmative, viz. Ergo, the Proteſtant Religion cannot be the true Religion, which whether it be an affirmative or negative, I remit to the deciſion of the diſintereſted. It ſeems the Pamphleter muſt take a Journey down to the Infernal Regions (if the Author of Ignatius Conclave be not miſtaken concerning the receptacle of Jeſuits) to conſult with18 M. Demſter, whether only the ſecond Propoſition, or all were affirmatives; yet I have the kindneſs to premoniſh him that

Fecilis dſcenſus averni
Sed revocare gradum, ſuperaſque evadere ad auraes
Hoc opus hic labor eſt

Pag. 29, 30, 31. The Pamphleter endeavours to caſt a blind be­fore the eyes of his Reader, by a groſs repreſentation of the ſtate of the debae betwixt M. Demſter and me. To clear the truth herein it would be remembred, that M. Demſter Paper 1. pag. 2. aſſerted the Proteſtant Religion had no grounds to prove it ſelf a true Religion. To which it was anſwered in my Pap. 1 pag. 7. that it were as eaſie by way of retorſion to aſſert, that the Popiſh Religion had no grounds to prove it ſelf to be the true Religion; and therefore if he intended to ſatisfie Conſciences, he ought to pitch upon the reciprocal grounds of the true Religion, and to demonſtrate that theſe did agree to the Popiſh Religion, and not to ours. This Jeſuit Demſter altogether declined, only at length, Pap. 4. pag. 38. he undertook, if I would produce the grounds of our Religion, that he ſhould impugn them. Hereupon, in my Paper 4. I did produce two grounds, ſufficiently diſtinctive of the true and falſe Religion, viz. the perſpicuity of the Scrip­ture in all things neceſſary to Salvation, and conformity in all Fundamentals with the Ancient Chriſtian Church; and from theſe, in that Pap. 4. I did demonſtrate both the truth of our Religion, and the falſhood of the Romiſh Religion. But the ſcope of all M. Demſter's Papers thereafter, was to ſhun the Try­al of Religion by Scripture or Antiquity, yet could bring no reaſon why theſe aſſigned grounds ſhould not be admitted as di­ſtinctive Teſts of the true and falſe Religion. Nor did he once attempt to anſwer the Arguments, by which, from theſe grounds, I proved the truth of the Reformed, and falſhood of the Popiſh Religion. I appeal to the Papers themſelves, whereof the ipſa corpora are exhibited in Papiſmus Lucifugus, if this be not the true ſtate of the debate.

By this the unfaithful dealing of this Pamphleter may appear, who pag. 31. is bld to ſay, that ſtill I declined to bring any po­pſitive proof, that theſe grounds were peculiar to Proteſtants, and that19 M. Demſter was not bound to prove the contrary. Did I not Paper 4. pag. 46, 47, 53, 54, 55. prove from theſe grounds, both the truth of the Proteſtant Religion, and falſhood of the Romiſh? Did I not more particularly give a Specimen of the peculiar intereſt of Proteſtants in theſe grounds, Pap. 7. pag. 126, 127. by demonſtra­ting the conformity of our Doctrine with that Scripture, Hoc eſt corpus meum, and of the diſſonancy of the Romiſh Tranſubſtantia­tion; and Pap. 8. pag. 169. &c. gave ſeven inſtances of the con­formity of our Religion with Antiquity, and the diſagreement of theirs? Did I not offer to do the like in other points of difference betwixt us, would Jeſuit Demſter examine theſe? But their old Fa­bius durſt never come to an open Field; for M. Demſter's Obligation to impugne theſe grounds aſſigned by me: I need ſay no more, but that Paper 4. pag. 38. he undertook to do it, and acknowledged it was incumbent to him as the Opponent, unleſs it be ſaid, that Jeſuits are ſo nimble, that promiſes do not bind them. Is it not a Noble ſimile whereby the Pamphleter would put a face upon ſo foul a buſi­neſs, pag. 15. Tautologizing M. Demſter, as the Creditor frequently demands payment of his debt, and I, as Debtor, am ſaid to anſwer his demands only with ſtories of late Wars, and Forreign Leagues. I pray by what Law do reiterated demands of payment by a pretend­ed Creditor, make another to be his Debtor? Whom would not af­fronted Jeſuits make their Debtors, if by the importunity of their demands they could impoſe Obligations upon others? Are Roma­niſts no more concerned, when their Tranſubſtantiation, half Com­munions, Adoration ofmages, the Popes Infallibility, Supremacy over the Catholick Church, and Secular Princes, Purgatory, Apocry­phal Scriptures are confuted (for theſe, and ſuch like, were the points my Replies did run upon) then in Exotick ſtories? May not this Simile with more reaſon be inverted thus: When Jeſuit Dem­ſter alledged I was his Debtor, I not only told the Allegation was falſe, and therefore required him, as he would not be held a Cavil­ler, to prove the Debt, by Bond or otherwiſe, which he could ne­ver do, but alſo I charged him as being my Debtor, for which I produced ſuch Evidence as he could not control, only as if Je­ſuits had an Art of paying their Debt by bold Aſſertions, he had the confidence oft to ſay, I was owing him; and this procedure is juſtified by the Pamphleter. Now whether M. Demſter as Debtor, or the Pamphleter as Procutor, have diſcovered leaſt ſincerity, o­thers may judge.

20It is further to be noted, that the Pamphleter in that pag. 34. maintains, that without an Infallible Judge of Controverſies, we can­not be aſſured either of the incorrupt writings, or ſincere Doctrine of Fathers, or of the incorrupt Letter, or genuine ſenſe of Scripture; by which, with one daſh, he hath deſtroyed the whole Plagiary heap of Teſtimonies from Scripture and Antiquity, which are raked toge­ther in his Pamphlet, to which there can be no Faith given without the ſentence of his Infallible viſible Judge, that is of the Pope, for I know none elſe they have at preſent pretending to Infallibi­lity, there being no General Council at the time. And Greg. de Valentia lib. 8. de Annal. fid. cap. 7. puts the matter out of doubt. Eadem (ſaith he) eſt Authoritas Infallibilis quae Pontifici Romano & quae Eccleſiae ſive Conciliis tribuitur, nam illa ipſa Authoritas quae in uno Pontifice reſidet, Authoritas dicitur Eccleſiae & Conciliorum; that is, it is the ſame Infallible Authority which is aſcribed to the Pope, and to the Church or Councils; for the ſame Authority which reſides in the Pope alone, is ſaid to be the Authority of the Church, and of Councils. So that hither the ſtate of the Contro­verſie betwixt us and Romaniſts is reduced, whether the Popiſh Religion is to be believed to be the only true Religion, becauſe their Infallible Judge, that is the Pope ſays ſo? Is not this a goodly caſe to which Jeſuits would reduce Chriſtianity, to make all Religion hang at the ſleeve of an Uſurping Pope? Is not the Popiſh Cauſe deſperate, when they have no way to prove themſelves to be in the right, or us in the wrong, but becauſe their Pope, a Party and Head of their Faction ſays ſo? The Hinge then of all Controverſies be­twixt Romaniſts and us, at leaſt as managed by the Jeſuited Party, returns hither, whether by the Verdict of the Pope, as infallible viſible Judge, or by the holy Scriptures, and conformity with the Faith of the Ancient Church, we are to judge of the truth of Re­ligion? Proteſtants hold the latter, our Romiſh Miſſionaries the former; let Chriſtians through the world conſider, whether what they or we ſay be more rational.

I am challenged, pag. 24. as not having candour, for ſaying, that Quakeriſm is but Popery diſguized. But there is leſs candour in the Accuſer; for I only ſaid, if it were otherwiſe, Learned and Judi­cious men were miſtaken. His frivolous Apologies are like to con­firm theſe men in their Opinion, for many of the Quakers Noti­ons are undoubtedly Popiſh Doctrines; ſuch as, that the Scriptures are not the principal and compleat Rule of Faith, that a ſinleſs per­fection21 is attainable in time, that men are juſtified by a righteouſ­neſs wrought within them, that good works are meritorious, that Apocryphal Books are of equal dignity with other Scriptures, that the efficacy of Grace depends on mans free will, that real Saints may totally Apoſtatize, that in dwelling concupiſcence is not our ſin, until we conſent to the luſts thereof, &c. If Quakeriſm were Pu­ritaniſm in puris naturalibus, as this Scribler doth rant, how comes it that Quakers have ſo much indignation at theſe who go under the name of Puritans, and ſo much correſpondence with Roma­niſts, with whom before they could not converſe? Do not Non-Conformiſts abhor theſe fore-mentioned Quaker Tenets? The dif­ferences at which he hints, betwixt profeſſed Papiſts and Quakers, do at moſt prove that Quakeriſm is diſguized Popery: if there were no ſeeming difference, there would be no diſguize in the buſineſs. Cannot Romaniſts, chiefly Jeſuits, transform themſelves into all ſhapes for their own ends? Have not perſons gone under the cha­racter of Quakers in Britain, who have been known to be profeſ­ſed Prieſts, Monks, or Jeſuits in France and Italy? My ſelf did hear a chief Quaker confeſs before famous Witneſſes, that one giving himſelf out for a Quaker in Kinnebers Family near Montroſs, was diſcovered to be a Popiſh Prieſt; and ſome Romaniſts, in this place, have confeſſed the ſame to me. Yet the differences aſſigned by the Pamphleter betwixt Papiſts and Quakers, ſignifie not very much when they are narrowly examined, And firſt, as to Women Preach­ers, do not Papiſts hold Hildegardys, Katherine of Sens, and Brigit, &c. for Propheteſſes? Not to mention their Papeſs Joan, or how they allow Women to Baptize, as is defined in Concil. Florent. In­ſtruct Armen. As for their private Spirit, I pray, what other grounds hath the Romiſh infallible Judge to walk upon, but Enthuſiaſms and pretended inſpirations? For Fathers and Scriptures (according to them) have not Authority antecedently to his Sentenee. As for Reformation by private perſons, the whole work of Quakers is to break the Reformed Churches, which is a real deformation, and a promoting of the Popiſh Intereſt; and if there be ſecret Warrants from the Pope for that end, for which there want not preſumpti­ons, they have as great Authority as trafficking Popiſh Miſſionaries. Quakers do not ſay, as he alledges, that they build on the naked Word, if by the Word he mean the Scripture; nay, in this, as in many other things, they Romanize, by denying the Scripture to be the compleat and principal Rule of Faith. I am jealous both Papiſts22 and Quakers could wiſh there were not Scripture in the World. Though Quakers ſeem to make light of Fathers and Councils, yet they maintain theſe Tenets, which Papiſts ſay are Authorized by Fathers and Councils: At leaſt a knack of Jeſuitical equivocation will ſalve all. By this time it may appear, all he hath ſaid, doth not prove that Quakers are not carrying on a Popiſh deſign. But of theſe things enough; I now proceed to the more important Con­troverſies.


There is no neceſſity of an Infallible viſible Judge of Con­troverſies in the Church, and conſequently the Baſis of the Pamphleters whole Diſcourſe is overthrown.

IT is hard to ſay, whether in handling this Queſtion, the Pam­phleter in his Sect. 3. bewray more diſingenuity or ignorance: For pag 33, 34, 35, 36, 3. more lika Hiſtrionical declaimer, than a Diſputant: He breaths out a moſt calumnious invective againſt the Reformed Churches, as if they robbed the Catholick Church of all Judiciary Authority, and ſet up a Law without a Judge: Becauſe, forſooth, they cannot ſubſcribe to this erroneous Aſſertion, of the neceſſity of an Infallible viſible Judge, whereby the Jeſuited Party endeavour to juſtifie the Tyrannical Uſurpation of the Pope of Rome. Neither is this Aſſertion, for which he pleads, as the Do­ctrine of the whole Romiſh Church, approved by all Romaniſts: Nor do they, who ſeem to approve of it, agree among themſelves, who is that pretended Infallible Judge. Moreover, inſtead of bringing Arguments to confirm his Aſſertion, from pag. 37. to 43. he rifles out of late Pamphlets a Farrago of Teſtimonies to prove, that the Church cannot erre, which, as may anone alſo appear, is a different concluſion from that now under debate: And though none of theſe Teſtimonies, when rightly underſtood, do militate againſt the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, as Proteſtants have often demonſtrated, yet he does not examine what Proteſtants have re­plied concerning them. Laſtly, Whereas he ſhould have anſwered the Arguments propounded in the debate with M. Deniſter, againſt the neceſſity of this Infallible viſible Judge, he frames to himſelf,23 pag. 43, 44, 45, 46, 47. ſome other Objections, which he endea­vours to canvaſe: So that, I may ſay, he combats throughout that Sect. 3. with a man of Straw of his own making; and this is that imaginary Triumph, in which our Romiſh Miſſionaries, and their implicit Proſelites, have ſo vainly gloried.

For ſatisfaction therefore of the ingenuous lovers of Truth, I ſhall firſt premiſe ſome things, for unfolding the true ſtate of the Que­ſtion. 2. Diſprove by ſome Arguments (I hope convincing) the ne­ceſſity of this Infallible viſible Judge. 3. Examine the Cavils and Objections of the Adverſary.


The true ſtate of the Queſtion propounded.

FOr opening the true ſtate of the Controverſie, it is firſt to be noted, that this Queſtion is not entirely the ſame with that, Whether the Church can erre, for there be great Doctors in the Ro­man Church, who hold the Church cannot erre, and yet deny the neceſſity of an infallible viſible Judge. There are who make the ſubject of Infallibility to be the defenſive multitude of Believers, and not the Collective of Paſtors, far leſs any Repreſentative cloa­thed with a Judiciary Authority, and leaſt of all the Pope (whom ſome abuſively call the Church Virtual) as ſhall appear in Argu­ment 2. Conſequently, whatever teſtimonies do only prove that the Collective Body, either of Believers or Paſtors (neither of which do aſſemble in Councils Judicially to determine Controverſies of Religion) cannot erre, are impertinently alledged.

It would ſecondly be obſerved, that Infallibility and Judiciary Authority are things different, and ſeparable Princes have Judiciary Authority over their Subjects, and Provincial Synods within their reſpective bounds, yet neither do pretend to Infallibility. Is it not too groſs ignorance in a Jeſuit, to take a Judge, and an Infalli­ble Judge, for terms reciprocal.

Thirdly, It is one thing to aſſert that perſons or Judges have an aſſiſtance of the Holy Ghoſt, guiding them infallibly, hic & nunc, into the way of truth, and a quite other thing to ſay, that there is a Judge to whom a perpetual and infallible aſſiſtance is entailed, ſo as the knowledge of his infallible aſſiſtance is a neceſſary prerequiſite be­fore an aſſent of Faith-can be given to any Divine Truth. The firſt24 Proteſtants grant to Councils, whether greater or leſſer, defining Divine Truths: The latter is that which M. Demſter aſſerted often, and this his Fidus Achates ought to have proved. He Arguments therefore not inferring this concluſion, they all treſpaſs ab ignora­tione elenchi.

Fourthly, It is granted on all hands, that particular Churches, and their Repreſentatives may erre. Now the Roman Church is but one particular Patriarchate, and in her greateſt Latitude, of which the Pamphleter talks, pag. 46. as comprehending all theſe who live in communion with the Biſhp of Rome, acknowledging his Headſhip and Supremacy; She is but a part, yea and the eſſer part of Chriſtendom. Whatever Infallibility therefore may be claimed by the Catholick Church, yet the Roman Church in whatſoever ca­pacity, whether defenſive or repreſentative, can have no juſt Title thereunto. Was there any Roman Church known in the Apoſtles days, but that to which the Apoſtle Paul wrote? But he writes to Her as one ſubject to Errour, yea, and to total Apoſtacy Rom. 11. 20, 21. Be not high minded, but fear; for if God ſpared not the natu­ral branches, take heed leſt he alſo ſpare not thee. Behold therefore the goodneſs and ſeverity of God, on them which fell, ſeverity but towards thee, goodneſs, if thou continue in his goodneſs, otherwiſe thou alſo ſhalt be cut off. Would the Apoſtle have written at this rate to the Infallible Chair?

Fifthly, Proteſtants freely grant, that the truly Catholick Church hath immunity from Errours oppoſite to Fundamental Articles, or to theſe Truths, the misbelief whereof is abſolutely, and in all ca­ſes, inconſiſtent with Salvation, were it otherwiſe, the Catholick Church ſhould totally periſh from the earth, which cannot be, as Proteſtants firmly believe, according to the Scriptures. But Roma­niſts not ſatisfied with this, plead for an abſolute Infallibility to their pretended Catholick Judge, or an immunity from all Doctrinal Errours in Religion, greater and leſſer. Whatſoever Arguments therefore prove not an abſolute immunity of this Judge from the leaſt Doctrinal Errour, fall ſhort of the mark. Of this diſtinction of Truths Fundamental and Non Fundamental, and conſequently of the Errours oppoſite to theſe Truths, that there is not ſuch abſo­lute neceſſity, in order to Salvation, of immunity from the one, as from the other, there will be occaſion to ſpeak at more length, Cap. 4.

Sixthly, Therefore to wrap up all. In the Romaniſts Aſſertion of25 the neceſſity of an Infallible viſible Judge, theſe five things are in­cluded. 1. That this ſuppoſed Judge hath an Univerſal Supremacy, or a Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church, to bind the Conſciences of all Chriſtians with his Sentences, elſe he would not ſerve the neceſſity of the whole Catholick Church. 2. That the priviledge wherewith this Catholick Judge is cloathed, is abſolute Infallibility, or immunity from all Errour, greater or leſſer, in all his Doctrinal deciſions. 3. That the knowledge of the Infallibility of this Judge, is neceſſarily pre-required to every aſſent of Divine Faith. For this cauſe do they contend ſo hard for this priviledge, that all Chriſtian Faith may hang at the Girdle of their Infallible Judge. 4. That this Judge is viſible, that is, a preſent Member of the viſible Church actually exiſting upon Earth. There is no queſti­on but the Lord Chriſt is Infallible Judge of all Controverſies of Religion, and that he is viſible in his Humane Nature, but he is not now viſible upon Earth, as a preſent Member of the Church Militant; therefore it is another Judge, actually exiſting upon Earth, for which they plead. 5. That there is a neceſſity of the ex­iſtence of this infallible viſible Judge upon earth. It is beyond doubt, that there was an infallible viſible Judge in the Church Militant, when Chriſt and his Apoſtles did converſe on earth. Now the Jeſui­ted party affirms it muſt be always ſo.

From all theſe the ſtate of the Queſtion emerges clearly, viz. Whether in the Militant viſible Church there be always a neceſſity of a perſon or perſons endued with a Juridical Authority over the whole Catholick Church, and with infallible aſſiſtance, for deciding all Doctrinal Controverſies of Religion, of whoſe Catholick Juriſ­diction and Infallibility every one muſt be perſwaded, before he can give an aſſent of Faith to any Divine Truth; Jeſuited Romaniſts maintain the affirmative, we the negative: Where it's to be noted, that their affirmative being a copulative, conſiſting of many bran­ches, if any one of them fail, their whole Cauſe is gone. The proof of this affirmative, in all its branches, was that which the Adverſary ſhould have hammered out, had he really intended to ſa­tisfie Conſciences: But any intelligent Reader, upon a ſlender review of his Sect. 3. will ſee that this he never once endeavours, but only with ſome frothy flouriſhes to abuſe unwary Souls.



Arguments proving that there is no neceſſity of an Infallible viſible Judge in the Church.

I Might perhaps ſufficiently acquit my ſelf againſt my Adverſary, by diſcovering the emptineſs of his Objections: yet the ſuppo­ſed neceſſity of this infallible viſible Judge, being the Baſis of his whole diſcourſe, and our Jeſuited Romaniſts laying the whole ſtreſs of their Religion on this Hypotheſis, I judged fit, for the ſatisfa­ction of thoſe who are not in love with Errour, by a few convin­eing Arguments, to overthrow this Pillar of the Romiſh Faith; viz. the pretended neceſſity of an infallible viſible Judge.

Nam collapſa raunt ſub ductis tecta columnis.

Arg. 1. There can be no ground brought to prove this pretended Infallibility, as in the ſtate of the Queſtion it hath been deſcribed; Ergo, it ought not to be believed. The ſequel is evident, eſpecially ſeeing I hope it will not be pretended that the Aſſertion of the Ad­verſary is, propoſitio per ſe nota, or carries with it an intrinſick E­vidence. Nay, Faith being an aſſent founded upon Divine Authori­ty, where no Divine Authority is interpoſed, there can be no aſſent of Faith. The antecedent ſhall be proved ſolutione objectionum. Is not the teſtimony of an infallible viſible Judge the ground of all Divine Faith, according to this Pamphleter: If therefore he would have us give an aſſent of Faith to this Article of the neceſſity of an infallible viſible Judge, ought he not to have confirmed it by the te­ſtimony of an infallible viſible Judge? But no ſuch teſtimony doth he alledge in all his Sect. 3. where he undertakes to diſpute this Controverſie, but only ſome miſapplied ſhreds of Scripture and Fa­thers, none of which does he hold as teſtimonies of an infallible viſible Judge: The infallible viſible Judge being a living member of the preſent viſible and Militant Church, would it not then ap­pear, that either this is no Article of Faith for which he contends, or that Articles of Faith are not neceſſarily to be proved by the te­ſtimony of an infallible viſible Judge.

Though this Argument need no further confirmation, till I come to canvaſe his objections, yet, for his conviction, I will uſe this In­duction. If the neceſſity of an infallible viſible Judge can be pro­ved, then either by Scripture, or by Reaſon, or by Fathers, or by27 Tradition, or by Miracle, or by Enthuſiaſm, or we muſt believe this Infallibility of their viſible Judge upon his own word, but by none of theſe can it be proved, ergo not at all. If my enumeration be de­fective, let him, or any for him, ſupply it; for confirming the Aſ­ſumption, I ſhortly run through the particulars. 1. Not by Scrip­ture; for, according to him, I can neither know the Divine Origi­nal, nor ſenſe of Scripture, but by the teſtimony of this infallible viſible Judge: Doth he not then diſcover that he knows not what he does, when he alledges Scripture to prove that there is an infallible viſible Judge? is not this to prove ignotum per ignotius? Nor 2. By Reaſon, this pretended Infallibility being only from ſupernatural aſ­ſiſtance of the Holy Ghoſt; and ſeeing the neceſſity of the Church may be provided for by an infallible Rule, as ſhall appear Cap. 3. Natural Reaſon can neither be expected, nor is it alledged by him to prove it. Nor 3. By Fathers, ought not the infallibility of the Fa­thers to be firſt proved, before the neceſſity of this infallible viſible Judg be believed for their teſtimony? And how ſhall this be done, ſeeing Fathers confeſs themſelves to be fallible, as ſhall appear Argument 8. Are there not many ſpurious writings paſſing under the names of Fa­thers? Are not the writings of Fathers often ambiguous, dark, and obnoxious to various conſtructions? Are there not in them not only ſeeming, but real contradictions? Is it not beyond controverſie, that in many places the writings of Fathers are vitiated and adulterated? If then there be need of the teſtimony of an infallible Judge to know true uncorrupted Scripture, and the genuine ſenſe thereof, how much more to know the true and uncorrupt writings of Fathers, and their genuine ſenſe? conſequently, the proof of the being of that Judge cannot depend on the teſtimony of the Fathers: Should the neceſſity of this infallible Judge never be believed until it be atteſted by the unanimous ſuffrage of Fathers, then none of the multitude ſhould ever believe it. Are they able in ſuch a thorny queſtion, to find out the unanimous ſuffrage of Fathers? Surely either the neceſſity of this infallible Judge cannot be proved by Fathers, or this Pamphleter is moſt unhappy; for in all his Farrago of teſtimonies from Fathers, there is not one aſſerting this thing, as ſhall appear when I come to conſider the objections. Nor 4. By Tradition; for, beſides that I ſhall be addebted to any who will prove to me the Theſis here de­bated by Univerſal Tradition; are there not as great debates con­cerning genuine Traditions, and the ſenſe of them as concerning Scriptures? Is there not need of an infallible viſible Judge, to diſcri­minate28 genuine Traditions from ſpurious? How was the Church im­poſed upon by pretended Tradition, concerning the Millennium, and concerning the Quarto-decimam Controverſie, &c. If Tradition it ſelf muſt be Authorized by the infallible teſtimony of this Judge, then the infallibility of the Judge cannot be proved by Tradition; or if this Poſition can receive ſufficient evidence from Traditions, why may not other Articles of Faith alſo, and ſo there ſhould be no need of an infallible viſible Judge. Hence the great Sticklers for the Tra­ditionary way are known to be but ſmall friends to the infallibility of a viſible Judge. Perhaps then 5. He run to Miracles: If there be a gift of Miracles among Romaniſts, are they not very uncharitable, who will ſend no Thaumaturgick Miſſionaries to Scotland? Do they judge us ſo credulous, as to be ſhaken with the fabulous Legends of Miracles, pretended to be wrought in the Indies, or in Ʋtopia? I ſincerely profeſs, one real Miracle ſhould have more weight with me, than a million of their Pamphlets. Of Miracles, I hope to ſpeak more, Cap. 8. Now only I have two Queries. 1. When ever was there a true Miracle wrought to confirm this point of Controverſie, that there is a neceſſity of an infallible viſible Judge? or that the Pope or his Council is this Judge? inſtance who can. 2. How is a true Miracle to be diſcerned from a falſe? I the rather enquire this, becauſe Bell. lib. de not. Eccleſ. cap. 14. poſitively affirms, that ge­nuine Miracles muſt be known by the teſtimony of the Church; un­doubtedly he means, this infallible viſible Judge: Then ſure the in­fallibility of this Judge is not to be proved by Miracles: But Circles and Labyrinths are fitteſt Engines to ſupport this myſtery of iniqui­ty. Muſt we then 6. Believe this Judge to be infallible, becauſe him­ſelf ſays ſo; Behold to what a pinch theſe men reduce Chriſtianity! Ye can have no ground, according to them, to believe Scripture, or Chriſt, or any Article of Religion, but upon the teſtimony of their infallible viſible Judge; that is, ſaith the Jeſuited party, the Pope of Rome. But how ſhall ye be aſſured that he is infallible? Ye muſt, forſooth, take this upon his own word. Is not this to make Chri­ſtianity ridiculous? Why ſhall I not as well believe a Quaker on his own word, who will affirm his Dreams with as great confidence as any Pope of Rome? is not this prodigious impiety? The Teſtimo­ny of God ſpeaking in the Scriptures ſhall not be believed for it ſelf, albeit it have ſo ſtrong a confirmation from extrinſick motives of credibility, which the infallibility of Pope or Council never had, but the teſtimony of a Pope ſhall be believed infallible on his bare29 word. Is not this to verifie that ſaying of our Saviour, Joh. 5. 43. I am come in my Fathers Name, and me ye receive not; if another come in his own name, him ye will receive? Muſt not theſe men have either Vaenal Conſciences, or elſe be great Maſters of their Reaſon, that can lay the ſtreſs of their Salvation upon ſo crazy a Foundation? Now 7. I know nothing that remains, except with the Quaker, they run to Enthuſiaſtical Revelations, for this their pretended infallibi­lity. And he may remember, how in a like caſe, I minded M. Dem­ſter of a diſcourſe of Cloppenburg, the Title whereof is, Papiſtarum & Enthuſiaſtarum diſcordia concors. Only both Romaniſt and Quaker muſt give us Proteſtants leave, to deſire a ſight of their Credentials, elſe we cannot take them for divinely inſpired Prophets This one negative Argument is ſufficient to prove our negative Hypotheſis, and to diſcover the fallacy of this ground of the Romiſh Religion. Per­haps my Adverſary will ſay as another ſcribling Jeſuit E W. in his vain diſcourſe, entituled, Proteſtancy without Principles, againſt two eminently Learned Perſons, D. Stillingfleet, and M. Poole, That we muſt poſitively prove that there is no infallible viſible Judge; but I muſt advertiſe him, to diſtinguiſh betwixt our Faith, and the reje­ction of their Errours, as no part of our Faith. It ſuffices a Prote­ſtant not to believe the neceſſity of any infallible viſible Judge, and to declare that to be no part of our Faith; and this is abundantly warranted by this one negative Argument. Let the Pamphleter try how he can diſprove it without Sophiſtry.

Argument 2. The Seat of this Infallibility, or this infallible viſi­ble Judge, is not aſſignable; therefore this infallible viſible Judge is but a Chymera: The ſequel I prove, Had God appointed an infalli­ble viſible Judge, upon whoſe teſtimony the Faith of all the Chri­ſtian world ſhould be reſolved, he would ſurely have determined who this infallible Judge was, elſe, as M. Poole ſays well in his Ap­pendix againſt Everard, pag. 16 God ſhould deal with the World, as Alexander the Great, who when he was asked, to which of his Captains he left his Empire, anſwered, the beſt; but not defining who was beſt, this became a Seminary of contention, or, as ano­ther makes the compariſon, like the dying Father, who having two Sons, Leon, and Pantaleon, and being enquired to whom he would leave his Eſtate, anſwered〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; whereupon the two Bre­thren fell by the ears, the one alledging that he lett〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉all,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉to Leon; the other, that all was left〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to Pantaleon. Were it not Blaſphemy to ſay, that God hath dealt ſo with his30 Church, aſſuring us that there is an infallible viſible Judge, but not revealing who he is? if it be not known who he is, people can no more reſolve their Faith upon his Authority, than if he were not: if therefore God had intended ſuch a way, ſurely he would have determined who he is. It remains therefore only that I prove the Antecedent, for which I need no more, but give an account of the diviſions of Romaniſts concerning this thing: if ſuch an infallible viſible Judge were aſſignable, could not Romaniſts, at leaſt, who talk ſo much of him, agree upon him? But who is ſuch a ſtranger in the world, as not to know their irreconcileable debates about this point? The Jeſuited party make the Pope alone the ſubject of this infallibility: So Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 3. Valent. Tom. 3. Diſp. 1. q. 1. punct. 7. Sect. 45. Gretſer Tom. 1. Defenſ cap. 10. lib. 3. Bell. de verb. Dei Col. 1450. with whom joyns Stapleton, Cont. 6. q. 3. art. 5. who affirms that infallibility is, poteſtas & gratia perſo­nalis, a perſonal power and grace given by Chriſt, perſonae Petri & ſucceſſorum ejus, to the perſon of Peter, and his Succeſſors, and that it is ſo peculiar to the perſon of the Pope, that it cannot be ſo much as repreſentatively in the Council; and that it is not only falſe, but Heretical, to ſay that the Pope can err in judicio Fidei, in defining an Article of Faith. Yea, the Jeſuits of the Colledge of Clermont (as witneſſes Hen. Foulis in his Preface to the Hiſtory of Ro­miſh Treaſons) emitted Theſes, Anno 1661. affirming that the Pope is infllible Judge of Controverſies, not only extra Concilium without a Council, but alſo that he is infallible in matters of Fact, as well as of Faith, which is more than Bell. durſt aver, as ſhall ap­pear Argument 6. But there be on the other hand no leſs conſider­able Doctors, Qui non in Pontifice ſed in Concilio Generali conſtituunt infallibilitatem judicii de rebus Fidei, ſays Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 2. who place this infallibility not at all in the Pope, but in the General Council only; and for this he cites the Pariſian Doctors, Gerſon, Al­maynus, Alphonſus à Caſtro, yea and Pope Adrian the Sixth. Loe here contradictory Opinions touching this thing among Romaniſts, and yet Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 2. hath the confidence to ſay, that all Romaniſts agree in this, that the Pope and the Council cannot err. But this is both falſe on the matter, and a perfect Cheat. Firſt, I ſay falſe on the matter, for there be yet a third ſort of great Au­thors among Romaniſts, who do affirm, that both Pope and Gene­ral Council may err in matters of Faith, and that the ſubject of infallibility, is multitudo fidelium, the diffuſive Body of Believers. 31Of this Opinion were Occam, Panormitan, Petrus de Alliaco, Wal­denſis, Antoninus, Cardinal Cuſan, Nicolaus de Clemanges: The pla­ces ye will find cited by Learned D. Barron, in Apodixi Catholica, Tract. 5. cap. 19. 21. and by H. H. in his Review of the Apology for the Church of Romes infallibility, Cap. 1. Sect. 7. I will on­ly cite one ſhort ſentence of famous Occam, Part. 1. Dialog. lib. 5. cap. 29. & 31. where he lays down this concluſion, and maintains it; Tota multitudo clericorum poteſt contra fidem Catholi­cam errare & per conſequens totus clerus non eſt illa Eccleſia quae contra fidem errare non poteſt. That is the whole multitude of the Clergy may err againſt the Catholick Faith, and conſequently the whole Clergy is not that Church, which cannot err in matters of Faith. But ſecondly, thoſe Romaniſts who ſay they do agree in this, that the Pope and the Council cannot err, do put a Cheat upon the world, as is ſolidly demonſtrated by the Learned D. Barron, Apo­dixi Catholica, tract. 5. cap. 20. for they do not mean that this infal­libility is partly ſeated in the Pope, and partly in the Councils, nor are they at all agreed concerning the ſeat of this infallibility; for the one half of them, namely the Jeſuited party, hold the Pope only to be the ſubject of this infallibiity, and not the Council at all. Hence Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 3. ſaith expreſly, Totam firmitatem Conci­liorum legitimorum eſſe à Pontifice, non partim à Pontifice, partim à Concilio. The other half are as peremptory by Bellarmine his own confeſſion, that the infallibility is ſeated in the Council only, and not at all in the Pope. So that the Jeſuited party might as well ſay, that the Pope and M. Con are infallible, as that the Pope and the Council are infallible; and the other party might as well ſay, that the Council and M. Con were infallible, as the Council and the Pope. Yea, Jeſuits might ſay with as much candour, as D. Barron obſerves, cap. 20. Sect. 4. that they were agreed with Mahumetans, that the Pope and the Alcoran were infallible. By this alſo, I hope, it will appear how vainly they boaſt, as if by their infallible Judge they had an eaſie way to terminate Controverſies, and a ſure ground of Union amongſt themſelves; whereas the infallible Judge cannot agree them concerning this Fundamental of their Religion, nor terminate this controverſie among them, whether there be an infal­lible viſible Judge, or who he is. Neither can the Pamphleter make his eſcape by the tergiverſing evaſion he uſes, pag. 44. That the que­ſtion is not, who this infallible Judge is, but whether there be one: I ſay, thus he cannot eſcape, for I argue from the one to the other. 32It cannot be ſhewed who is this infallible Judge, therefore there is none; both antecedent and ſequel I have proved. Ought not the Pamphleter in this caſe, for reſolving the an ſit, whether there be ſuch a Judge, define thee quis ſit, who he is? it's the deſperate­neſs of the Cauſe that makes him ſometimes tergiverſe, and ſhun to declare who is the infallible Judge. But I doubt other times he be guilty of a greater treſpaſs, he ſeems to be of the Jeſuited party, and ſo of that Opinion, that the Pope alone is the ſeat of this infalli­bility: Yet often in this Pamphlet he gives out, as if he held Pope and Council conjunctly to be the infallible Judge. Muſt a Jeſuit have liberty to equivocate, becauſe it is his Principle? However I ſhut up this argument with a Dilemma. Either there is certainty of Faith, who is this infallible Judge, or not if there be, I ask who he is, is it the Pope alone, then the Pariſian Doctors, together with a ve­ry conſiderable Body of Romaniſts, muſt be Hereticks, who oppoſe that Article of Faith; if the Council alone, then the Jeſuits and Je­ſuited party are damnable Hereticks for oppugning that Article of Faith; if both Pope and Council conjunctly, then (beſide the diffi­culty of terminating Controverſies when Pope and Council are di­vided, and that this deſtroys the Tenet of the neceſſity of an infalli­ble viſible Judge, for Councils ſeldom are) both the Pariſian Do­ctors, and their party, and the Jeſuits with their party, are Heretical, for they both place this infallibility either in the one or the other, but not in both conjunctly: if then they confeſs that there is no certain­ty of Faith, who is this infallible viſible, ſeeing they cannot pitch upon him without charging the half of their own Church with He­reſie: Then ſurely God hath not appointed an infallible viſible Judge, in whoſe teſtimony our Faith is ultimately to be reſolved. Had our gracious Lord appointed ſuch a Judge, ſurely he would have told who he were, but not having defined who he is, certain­ly there is none:〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Argument 3. Both Popes and Councils have erred groſly in mat­ters of Faith; Ergo, both are infallibly fallible, and conſequently there is no infallible viſible Judge in the Church, none elſe pretend­ing thereto. In confirmation of the antecedent, a whole Volumn might be written of the errours of Popes and Councils, I will only glean up a few, that it may appear what kind of infallible Judges theſe are, upon whoſe teſtimony Romaniſts would have all Chriſti­anity to hang.

And firſt for Popes; doth not Gratian in the Canon Law, Diſt. 40.33 cap. Si Papa, ſay the Pope may be judged when he is devius à fide, that is, Heretical? Did not Tertull. lib. contra Praxe am cap. 1. cha­racterize Pope Zepherin, or as other will have it, Pope Eleutherius, as a Montamiſt: Where alſo Beatus Rhenanus writes on the Margin of Tertullian, Epiſcopus Romanus Montanizat. Is it not acknow­ledged by Platina in Vita Marcellini, and recorded in the Ancient Martyrologies, yea in the Roman alſo, as is confeſſed by Jeſuit A­zorius, Part. 2. Moral. lib. 5. cap. 5. that Pope Marcelline facrificed to Jupiter? Doth not Athanaſius in Epiſt. ad ſolit. vit. agentes, and Hierom in Catal. virorum illuſtrium in Fortunationo, ſay, that Pope Liberius ſubſcribed to the Arrian Hereſie, and to the damnation of Athanaſius? Is not Felix, who poſſeſſed the Papal Chair, Liberius being expulſed, charged with the ſame Hereſie by Hierom in Catal. in Acatio? Was not Pope Anaſtaſius the Second a Neſtorian, if we may credit Alphonſus à Caſtro lib. 1. contra Haereſ. cap. 4. Is it not e­vident that Pope Vigilius was Anathematized by the fifth General Council? Are not the Cavils of Baronius, Binnius, and others, to vin­dicate Vigilius from Hereſie, ſolidly diſproved by Crahanthorp in a large Volumn concerning this fifth General Council; yea that Learn­ed Author, Cap. 4. Sect. 20. ſpares not to infer, that not only Pope Vigilius, out alſo Baronius, Bell. Gretſer, Pighius, Valentia, and all Aſſer­ters of the Papal infallibility, are involved under the Anathema's pro­nounced in the fifth General Council. Was not Pope Honorius a Monothelite? Did he not teach his Hereſie ex Cathedrâ, being con­ſulted, as to that matter, by Sergius Patriarch of Conſtantinople; and therefore was Anathematized by the ſixth General Council, and his Heretical Epiſtles ordained to be burned, Act. 13. This blot of Honorius ſo nettles the Jeſuited party, that they have forged a world of Subterfuges, but none of theſe Fig-tree leafs will cover the ſore; as beſide others, our Learned Country-man Doctor John Forbes of Corſe hath demonſtrated, lib. 5. inſtruct. Hiſt. Theol. à cap. 10. ad 31. What ſhould I mention the ſhameful work that was betwixt Pope Formoſus, Romanus, Theodorus Secundus, John 9. upon the one hand, and Stephanus the ſixth, and Sergius the third, on the other; of whom ſaith Platina, in vita Romani, nihil aliud bi cogitabant quam & nomen & dignitatem majorum ſuorum extinguere. Neither were they only Controverſies of Fact which were agitated betwixt them, as Bell. alledges, for Stephanus and Sergius pronounced Formoſus no Pope, and his Acts and his Ordinations null, and all that were or­dained by him to be reordained. Is the queſtion of Reordination,34 whether Ordinations made by Formoſus were valid, whether all the time of Formoſus there was any Pope, and conſequently whether there were any infallible Judge, meer queſtions of fact? Are they not at leaſt ſuch queſtions of fact, that on them depend queſtions of Faith and Manners? Nay, this Papal rage ſwelled ſo high, that For­moſus is raiſed by Sergius out of his Grave, diſmembred, and thrown into Tiber. What ſhall I ſay of that Brand of Hell, Gre­gory the ſeventh, of whom Cardinal Benno gives this character, in lib. de vita Greg. 7. that he was an Murtherer, an Adulterer, a Ne­cromancer, a Schiſmatick, a Heretick, and the worſt of Mortals. There be black characters ſet upon him by many other Hiſtorians: Yet I wonder not to ſee Bellarmine, and the Jeſuited party, to plead ſo hardly for him, for their Treaſonable and Heretical Principles of the Popes Juriſdiction above Princes, diſcover them to be diſpoſed to trace the footſteps of that perfidious Pope. Was not he the man that ſtirred up Rodolph of Sucvia againſt his Maſter Henry the Fourth, and wrote upon the Imperial Crown which he ſent to him.

Petra dedit Petro, Petrus Diadema Rodolpho.

Did not Pope Celeſtine 3. Heretically aſſert, that Hereſie deſtroys the Band of Matrimony, as teſtifies Alphonſus à Caſtro, lib. 1. cap. 4. Did not Pope John the 22. deny that Souls of Saints are admitted to the Beatifical Viſion before the Day of Judgment? Yea, and im­poſed it upon the Univerſity of Paris, that they ſhould graduate none in Theology, except they did ſwear to maintain that Hereſie all the days of their life, as Alphonſus à Caſtro lib. 3. de Haereſ. tit. Beatitudo Haereſ. 6. brings in Adrian the ſixth witneſſing. How piteous an evaſion makes Bell. for him, as if this might have been taught by him without Hereſie before the Council of Florence. Can the Church make that to be Heretical, which was not Heretical; that de fide, which was not de fide? If ſhe may not, then Bellar­min's Apology for Pope John 22. is null: if ſhe may, then beſides, that they who affirm this, ought by ſolid reaſons to inſtruct ſuch a Power, ſhe rather does hurt than good, for by her definitions, ſhe makes that Sin which was not Sin, and that Hereſie which was not Hereſie. But there was a more grievous Monſter of that name, John 23. who is ſaid to have affirmed that the Souls of men are Mor­tal, and periſh like the Souls of Bruits. The words of the Council of Conſtance, Seſſ. 11. concerning him are, Dixit & pertinaciter cre­didit animam hominis cum corpore humano mori & extingui, adinſtar35 animarum brutorum Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 14. to wipe off ſo foul a ſtain from the Papacy queſtions, if he were a lawful Pope. But Platina tells he was choſen at Bononia omnium conſenſu. It's more ſpeciouwhich the Cardinal adds, that though his Infidelity was Libelled againſt him, yet not proved. To ſhew that I love to do right to the worſt of Popes, I do acknowledge, that in the Proceſs I find not particular mention of the probation of this Article: Yet I muſt add, that the Council would never have ſuſtained this, as a Relevant Indictment to be Libelled againſt a Pope, if they had not ſuppoſed that a Pope could be guilty thereof. And beſides, he was really convicted by the Council of moſt A trocious Crimes, inſomuch that he was commonly called a Devil Incarnate. Who will ſay that ſuch a man had immunity from Hereſie or Infidelity, let be from all Errour. It's irkſome to me to rake further in this Dunghill: Have not ſome Popes been groſs Ignorants, adeo illiterati ut Grammaticam neſcirent, ſaid à Caſtro in the firſt Editions of his Work, de Haereſ. lib. 1. cap. 4. though in the ſubſequent impreſſions, as Whittaker obſerves, Controv. 4. q. 6. cap. 3. he ſuffered a Caſtration. Some Chil­dren, as Bennet the 9. a Boy of ten years of Age, if Glaber may be credited, a Writer of that time, to whom Bell. de Script. Eccleſ. gives this character that, Scripſit ſatis acuratè. Yet ſuch flattering Sycophants are Jeſuits, that Bell. is not aſhamed to ſay, lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 5. If the Pope ſhould command vices, and prohibit vertues, all men were bound to believe vice to be good, and vertue to be evil.

Who deſire a more full Catalogue of Erronious and Heretical Popes, and a confutation of the Apologies which Jeſuited Roma­niſts have deviſed for them with more ingeniouſneſs than ingenuity, may conſult our Learned Controverſiſts. Albertus Pighius, notwith­ſtanding theſe, and many ſuch like luculent inſtances of erring Popes, yet is not aſhamed to mention, that the Pope cannot err in matters of Faith, no not ſo much as a private perſon: But for this he is juſtly chaſtiſed by his own Fellows, Melchior Canus loc. com. lib. 6. cap. ult. and Jeſuit Azorius, Part. 2. Moral. lib. 5. cap. 5. q. 2. Others, as is teſtified by Azorius, cap. cit. q. 3. have the confidence to ſay, that the Pope cannot err, at leaſt in his publick definitions concerning Faith, or Manners, Etſi abſque ullo conſilio & diligentia rem fidei aut mo­rum definiat; that is, though he take no counſel, nor uſe any means to find out the truth. With theſe Greg. de Valentia ſeems to go a­long lib. 8. de Annal. fid. cap. 10. but this alſo is judiciouſly confu­ted by Melchior Canus loc. com. lib. 5. cap. 5. who affirms they might36 as rationally expect a plenteous Harveſt, though there were neither Ti••ing nor Sowing. Nor is their ordinary evaſion leſs ludibrious, that though the Pope may err as a private perſon, yet not as a Pope, de­fining ex Cathedrâ. Well, did Whittaker cont. 4. de Pontific q. 6. cap. 3. redargue that evaſion with the ſaying of Aeſchines againſt Cteſiphon, Qui privatim improbus eſt nunquam poteſt publice probus eſſe, & qui dmi nequam eſt, ille ne in Macedonia quidem honeſtus & bonus fuit. If the Pope be an Heretick in his Cloſet, how ſhall he be Orthodox in his Chair? Doth the Spirit of God prompt him to define in Ca­thedrâ, contrary to his private judgment? or hath he a promiſe of Illumination how ſoon he ſteps up to his Chair? What needed then a Judicial Proceſs againſt John the 23. for Hereſie? Had there not been a more eaſie way to reduce him to an Orthodox mind, by ſet­ting him to define ex Cathedrâ? Can Romaniſts agree among them­ſelves, when he ſpeaks ex Cathedrâ? Doth not Learned D. Barron in Apodex. Cathol. tract. 5. cap. 10. rehearſe a multitude of their ſtag­gering conjectures as to that thing? Is there not need of an infalli­ble Oracle to tell us when he ſpeaks ex Cathedrâ, that we may know when he ſpeaks infallibly, and when heretically? Would it not ap­pear that Honorius defined ex Cathedra for the Monothelite Hereſie, when he was conſulted by the Patriarck of Conſtantinople concerning that Controverſie? Did not Pope Vigilius define ex Caihedrâ, when he declared ex Authoritate ſedis Apoſtolicae, in his Conſtitutum which was exhibited to Juſtin. the Emperor and to the fifth General Council, the Epiſtle written by Ibas Biſhop of Edeſſa againſt Cyril, and againſt the Epheſine Council, to be Orthodox, which was found by the fifth Gen. Council to contain moſt impious, heretical, and Neſtorian Principles? Is it not a ludibrious evaſion of others to ſay, The Pope as Pope can­not be a Heretick, becauſe how ſoon he turns Heretick be ceaſes to be Pope. Alphonſus à Caſtro, ſays they who anſwer thus, Joeantur in re ſeria; and in effect attribute no more infallibility to the Pope, than to the meaneſt believing Colliar; every Believer in this ſenſe is in­fallible, namely in ſenſu compoſito, for how ſoon he turns Heretick, he ceaſes to be a true Believer; if every private Hereſie degrade a Pope, how then ſhall we know who is Pope, or graced with infal­lible aſſiſtance, ſeeing we cannot be certain but he entertains ſome private Hereſie? Among all the Subterſuges of Romaniſts, I know none more ludibrious than that of Greg. de Val. Tom. 3. Diſp. 1. q. 1. punct. 7. col. 233. (wherein yet they chiefly confide) viz that the Pope may be ſmitten with a manifeſt errour, or with an errour againſt37 which the Church hath given a prior definition, and may endeavour to obtrude it upon others by his definitive Sentence, but that he cannot give Sentence for an errour not manifeſt, or for an errour againſt which the Church hath paſſed no former definition. I am ſure there is no Veſtige either in Scripture or Antiquity for ſuch a diſtinction, nor yet is it agreeable to ſound Reaſon, it being much more eaſie to fall in­to an errour not manifeſt, than into a manifeſt errour, there being more means to preſerve from manifeſt, than from not manifeſt er­rours; if therefore the Popes infallibility doth not ſecure him a­gainſt manifeſt errours, much leſs againſt not manifeſt errours: if the Scriptures alledged for infallibility prove not his immunity from manifeſt errours, how ſhall his immunity from not manifeſt errours from them to be concluded. The Pope, as a private perſon, may be ſmitten with a not manifeſt errour by the confeſſion of Valentia; if then the exigence of the Church require a deciſion of that Contro­verſie, muſt not the Pope diſcern according to his private errour? It's a piteous off come of the Jeſuit, that God will take away the Pope by death, leſt he ſhould paſs ſentence for ſuch an errour. A goodly paſs indeed to which his Infallibility is brought; M. Dem­ſter, and this Pamphleter, ſpake of Infallibility as a ſpecial aſſiſtance of the Holy Ghoſt guiding their Judge unto all truth, but now it's turned to an act of ſeverity in killing the Pope, leſt he ſhould give out an erronious ſentence. But ſeeing God in the depth of his Judg­ment hath ſpared Popes to confirm manifeſt errours by their ſen­tences, who ſhall aſſure us that he will not permit them alſo to con­firm not manifeſt errours? To this it's anſwered, That there is more hazard to the Church by a not manifeſt errour, than by a manifeſt one; for when the Pope defines contrary to a prior definition, then he is known to be a Wolf, and not a Paſtor; but when he defines a not manifeſt er­rour, then there is no mean left to know him to-be an Impoſtor, and ſo the Church were bound to aſſent to his erronious Sentence. But this Reply takes for granted two manifeſt untruths. Firſt, that there is no ground by which to diſcern Truth from Errour, but the defini­tion of the Church, whereas, when the Church is firſt to define a Truth, ſhe muſt have ſome ſure ground why ſhe gives Sentence for this rather than for the contradictory thereof, conſequently there muſt be a ground by which to diſcern Truth from Errour antecedent to the Churches Sentence. Secondly, that the Church is bound to aſſent to the erronious Sentence of a Pope: But where ever did God ſo far inflave the Conſciences of his people to erronious Teach­ers? 38Moreover, the hazard to the Romiſh Church appears to be much the ſame, whether the Errour for which the Pope defines be mani­feſt or not, for by his definition it becomes not manifeſt to them, he having a multitude of Paraſites to deviſe diſtinctions and gloſſes to elude prior definitions, as either not being definitions of the Church, or not contrary to this. As fell out when Leo the 10. paſſed his Sentence in the Lateran Council for the Popes Supremacy, contrary to the definitions of the Church in the Councils of Conſtance, and Baſil, how many Advocates were ſet on work to maintain that theſe definitions of Conſtance, and Baſil were no definitions of the Church, or of Oecumenick Councils? In a word, ſo manifeſt it is that Popes may err in Cathedrâ concerning matters of Faith, that the ſame is aſſerted by eminent Romiſh Doctors, as Gerſon, Almaynus, Pope A­drian 6. Alphonſus à Caſtro, &c. cited by Melchior Canus lib. 6. loc. com. cap. 1. and by Azorius, Part. 2. Moral. lib. 5. cap. 4. Yea the Jeſuited Doctrine of Papal Infallibility is pronounced by Thomas, Ab Albiis in Sono Buccinae, tract 2. Sect. 22. not only Haeretica, but Archihaeretica & mater ſpurciſſimorum errorum, that is ſuperlatively Heretical, and the ſource of peſtilent errours: What need I more? Doth not Pope Innocent the 3. confeſs the fallibility of Popes, Serm. 2. de Conſec. propter ſolum peccatum quod in fide committitur, poſſum ab Eccleſia Judicari: if Pope Innocent truly aſſert the fallibility of Popes, then ſurely they are fallible, and if falſly by his falſe Aſſer­tion he