The Safe Religion, Part 3 (2 of 3)

The Safe Religion · Part 3 (2 of 3)

p. 244Obj. Senſe is infallible (ſuppoſe the right temper of the Organs, object, Medium) till God tell us the contrary, but then it is fallible: But in the point of Tranſubſtantiation God hath told us the contrary to what common ſenſe apprehendeth: Therefore here ſence is deceived.

Anſw. 1. Senſe muſt in order be firſt known to be infallible, before you can tell any thing that God hath ſaid or wrote, of its fallibility or infallibility: or elſe you cannot tell but your eyes in reading, or your ears in hearing thoſe words of his, did deceive you. 2. Senſe and Reaſon are the judging faculties which God hath given to mankind for the diſcerning of their objects. It is not therefore to be imagined that God doth turn the great Deceiver of the world, and by ſupernatural light contradict the Light of Nature, even the apprehenſions of the ſound and p. 245general ſenſe of the world: Gods ſupernatural Revalations preſuppoſes his Natural ones, and are additions thereto, but do not contradict them: for then God ſhould contradict himſelf when both are his Revelations. God cannot lye, ſaith the Apoſtle: And what were it for God to lye or ſay truth, but onelyonly to make a deceitful or not deceitful diſcovery of his mind and will or the effects to us? Indeed, there may through our imperfection be a deceit of the ſenſes, when the Organs are diſtempered, and the medium, or object are not conveniently diſpoſed: and every ſuch diſtance, impediment, or other ill diſpoſure, is not as Gods voice to tell us the thing as what to our imperfect ſenſe it ſeems: But if the common ſenſes of men, that are ſound and not hindred by any ſuch impediments ſhall yet be all deceived meerly by a contradicting ordinance of God, then it would ſeem that God gave man contradictory lights and guides. And their objection ſeems to be as bad, as if they ſhould ſay ſo of Gods word [That it is alway true, except where God tells us the contrary] but if it might be falſe at any time, how can you tell that that very word is true which you pretend doth tell you of the falſhood of another word: ſo ſay I here. If ſenſe be not alwayes infallible (where it hath its requiſite aſſiſtance) then how can you tell that your ſenſes are infallible when you are reading [Hoc eſt corpus meum, This is my body] which you think contradicteth the infallibility of ſenſe? For 2. Is the infallibility of ſenſe a thing that is known by nature, or by ſupernatural Light? Not by ſupernatural Light (unleſs conſequentially) where doth Scripture or your Tradition ſay, that ſenſe is ſometime infallibe, and ſometime fallible (ſuppoſit is requiſitis)? p. 246And nature tells you no more of the infallibility of any other acts of ſence (or Receptions) then of thoſe ſame which you pronounce to be fallible.

3. We challenge you and all the world, to prove that ever God hath revealed in Scripture, that the common ſences of men, are deceived about their proper objects, the requiſites in Nature ſuppoſed; Or that ever he made any ordinances for the deluding or contradicting the ſences of his Church? Or ever ſaid any ſuch thing; Cannot Chriſt ſay [Hoc eſt corpus meum: This is my Body] but he muſt needs proclaim a deluſion of the ſences of all men that take it to be Bread? Then when God ſaith [Hoc eſt faedus meum: This is my Covenant] Gen. 17.10. He muſt proclaim all mens ſences deceived; becauſe ſence faith it was but Circumciſion, and Bellarmine will confeſs it was but the ſign of a Covenant. Then when Paul ſaith [This Rock was Chriſt] it muſt proclaim that all the Iſraelites ſences were deceived, that thought it to be a true Rock: when a Papiſt will confeſs that the meaning is [This Rock repreſented or ſignified Chriſt] As if among many Images, you ſhould ſay, This is Peter, and this John, and this Paul, this were plainly to ſay, This ſignifieth Peter or repreſenteth him, &c. and doth not proclaim that deceit of ſence. Bellarmine cannot deny but that it is called in 1 Cor. 10. & 11. Bread and the Cup ſix times over, as after the conſecration; and here his ſhifting anſwer is, that things are ſaid to be in Scripture what they ſeem to be, as the brazen Serpent is called a Serpent, and ſo here he pleadeth a Trope. Good ſtill! The Scripture calls it [Bread] ſix times neer together, after the conſecration, and p. 247it calls it [Chriſts Body] once (when his living body ſate by) Now the Queſtion is which of theſe ſpeeches are Tropical. And we muſt believe Bellarmine that the text which calls it ſix times Bread, muſt needs be Tropical, and that which calls it once [Chriſts Body] muſt needs be underſtood without a Trope. And this is all the evidence they can bring that God hath proclaimed mens ſences to be fallible. Nay all that we need for our cauſe is but to take [eſt] for [ſignificat] which is ſo common that one would think there ſhould not ſuch unnatural abſurdities be admitted to avoid it, as overthrow our humanity.

When we plead that Chriſt had a true body, and that a true body may be ſeen and felt, becauſe Chriſt bids them, Luk. 24. See and feel, for a ſpirit hath not fleſh and bones, &c. Bellarmine anſwereth that Sence is infallible in poſitives, and therefore thence we may ſay [This is a body becauſe I ſee it ſelf, but not in Negatives; and therefore we cannot ſay [This is not a body becauſe I ſee it not.] And what need we more then that which is here granted? By his own confeſſion then we may conclude that [This is Bread and Wine, becauſe we ſee, feel, ſmell, taſte it.] Yet no doubt, we may alſo argue that it is not a natural body, becauſe it is not viſible or ſenſible.

So much for this ſecond Argument, which I may thus with full advantage enforce: If ſence be either fallible or infallible, the Pope is fallible: But ſence is either fallible or infallible: Therefore.

If ſenſe be fallible the Pope is fallible, and all his Church for their ſences, and the Apoſtles and their followers were fallible.☜ If ſence be infallible, the Pope and his Council are fallible; becauſe p. 248the common ſences of all ſound men take that for Bread and Wine which they expreſly ſay (as de fide to be believed) is not either Bread or Wine.

Argu. 3. If the Pope and his pretended General Councils have erred already, then are they not infallible: But the Pope and his pretended General Councils have erred already: Therefore they are not infallible.

As the firſt Argument was taken from the no proof of his infallibility, and the ſecond from the common ſenſes of mankind, ſo the third is taken from certain experience; which is a medium ſo evident that their vain words and ſubtil evaſions, have the leſs force to elude or obſcure it. Of the validity of the conſequence there is no queſtion can be made. He that hath erred, is not infallible. All the doubt therefore is of the Antecedent, which hath by unqueſtionable evidence of Hiſtory been put out of doubt by our Writers long ago. I ſhall produce ſome few inſtances of many.

Bellarm. de Pontif. li. 4. cap. 8.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.There are no leſs than fourty Popes whom Bellarmine himſelf takes notice of as charged with error or hereſie, for whom he frameth ſuch poor excuſes, that I ſhould think any impartial Reader might receive ſatisfaction enough from Bellarmine that the Pope is too fallible. Yea that even judicially and in fundamentals he may err.

Did not Pope Liberius aaVid. Binnium Tom. 1. Conc. part. 1. p. 478 notis in 7. Epiſt. Liberii & p. 480. & p. 422. Item Baron. …o 357. § 9.344. § 3.4.5. & 359. § 4 10 & Bellar. de Pontif. l. 4 c. 9.erre judicially when he ſubſcribed to p. 249the Arrians confeſſion in the Council of Sirmium [Libenti animo ſuſcepi in nullo contradicens] which the Fathers condemn of Hereſie? and to the Councils condemnation of Athanaſius, as Athanaſius himſelf and many more witneſs. Did not Pope Vigilius err judicially when he condemned the Decree of the General Council (for condemning dead Hereticks)? And when Pope Pelagius and Gregory the firſt, and Adrian the firſt did all approve of the ſame? Sure one party of theſe Popes erred, unleſs contradictoryes may be true? Yea when Pope Vigilius did afterward revoke his own conſtitution bbVid. Binnium net in Concil. 5. Occumenis.ſure he erred either in making or revoking it? And ſo did Pope Paſchalis when they gave God thanks in open Council that they heard the Pope with his own mouth revok thoſe grants which (ſaid they) contained Hereſie, which he himſelf had before made to the Emperor ccKraulzius Saxon li. 5. cap. 38.. Though Cajetans excuſe be true that it was no Hereſie, yet either the making or revoking was an error. What will they invent at laſt to hide the nakedneſs of Pope Honorius who in two ſeveral General Councils was condemned for a Monothelite Heretick? which he judicially perſwaded Sergius to, when he ſought his judgement. Stapleton and many more of them confeſs the full certainty of the Councils condemning him of Hereſie; but forſooth they ſay the Council did miſtake the caſe ddVid. Bin…m Tom. 3. part. 1 p. 143. & Staplet. Cons. 3. qu. 4. ad arg. 7.. It ſeems then either a Pope may be a Heretick, or a General Council err.

Moreover will any Papiſts deny that Pope Stephen ſix, and p. 250Sergius erred when eeVid. Sigebert in Chron p. 74. Anno. 902. & Martin. Polon. ſupput. p 158.they judicially decreed that thoſe ſhould be ordained again that were ordained by Pope Form…ſus? And of Pope Celeſtines error Alphonſus a Caſtro faith ffAlphonſ. …dv. Hereſes li. 1. c. 4.that he himſelf ſaw it in the ancient Decretals as his Definition, and therefore that it cannot be ſaid that he erred as a private man, and not as Pope. What can they ſay of Pope John twenty two who denyed the immortality of the ſoul, and was admoniſhed of his hereſie by the Doctors of Paris, as not onelyonly Pope Adrian the ſixth, Joh. Gerſon, Alphonſ. a Caſtro, and others witneſs, but Bellarmine himſelf confeſſeth alſo. But he excuſeth him, becauſe that opinion was not there defined againſt, and therefore was no hereſie: See here 1. Whether the Papiſts do not make themſelves a new Faith and Religion when they pleaſe, and that is a point of Faith with them one year that was none the year before: ſo that the novelty and the mutability of their Religion is thus by themſelves confeſſed. 2. See here that a point declared in Scripture, and held by the former Church is no point of Faith with them, unleſs it be declared by a Pope or General Council. 3. See here what men Bellarmine would make all the former Popes to have been, that had determined, whether the ſoul were immortal or not. 4. Chamier truely noteth that Bellarmine himſelf, forgetfully contradicteth himſelf, and tells us elſwhere that Innocent the third (the ninteeneth Pope before John twenty two) had taught the contrary in expreſs words.

I ſhall forbear to reckon up any more, becauſe the p. 251Reader may find it done ſo fully already in ſo many, and the excuſes of Bellarmine by Chamier and many others ſo fully anſwered: and becauſe it is a thing ſo far out of queſtion,Vid. J…well Defenſ. part 1. c. 8. Diviſ. 1. & part. 2. c. 3. diviſ. 2 & part. 4. c. 18. Diviſ. 1. that nothing but groſs ignorance or impudency can deny it. It is ſo common a thing for Popes to contradict and repeal one anothers Decrees, that their Platina in vita Stephani ſaith [Following Popes do alway either infringe or wholly abrogate the Decrees of the former Popes] Eraſmus Annot. in 1 Cor. 7.See Doctor John Whites way. Dig…eſſ. 28. p. 104. ſaith [Pope John the 22. and Pope Nicolas are contrary one to another in their whole degrees, and that in things that ſeem to belong to the buſineſs of Faith] Lyra (in Mat. 16.) ſaith that Some Popes have Apoſtatized. Occham ſhews that many things in the Docretals do ſavor of Hereſie. One Pope teacheth Emanuel King of Portugal to marry two ſiſters. **Oſ…r. de geſtis Emanuel l. 2.Another teacheth our King Henry 8 to marry his brothers wife: And even Pope Paul 4. with his Council of Trent decree, that it ſhould be lawful for him to allow thoſe degrees to marry together, which God in Leviticus had forbidden and to forbid thoſe which God had allowed: which was a judicial error of the Pope and his Council, as many more in that Council were.

But I will add another Argument like the laſt▪ which is as followeth.

Argu. 4. If the Pope be infallible, then all the p. 252writings of all Popes are of infallible verity: But all the writings of all Popes are not of infallible verity: Therefore the Pope is not infallible.

The conſequence of the Major Propoſition will be denyed by Bellarmine, unleſs it be limited to ſuch writings by which the Pope doth teach the Church in matters of faith: Though indeed they will never prove him infallible in Teaching the Church while they confeſs him fallible in his own judgement, yet let us for diſputation ſake grant them this: But then (for the proof alſo of the Minor) I proceed thus: All the Theological writings of Leo, Gregory, Gelaſius, Nicolus 1. Adrian 6. and other Popes are not infallible: But all theſe writings were to teach the Church in matters of faith: Therefore all the Popes writings which are to teach the Church in matter of Faith, are not infallible. I think no …ober Papiſt will maintain that all theſe writings are infallible. And that they are written about matters neceſſary to be believed or done for our ſalvation, is evident to any man that readeth them. And if they were not written to teach the Church to what end were they written? Do Popes publiſh writings about matters of Religion, and not to teach the Church by them? If they ſay, it is but to teach part of the Church: I anſwer. 1. What part is it? and where is the limitation expreſſed: for example, of Gregories Dialogues, Morals, de officio Paſtoris, &c. 2. The Pope in a Provincial Council may teach but part of the Church, and yet Bellarmine ſaith that he is there infallible.

Moreover if all the Popes writings be infallible, from his gift of infallibility, then they are equal to the Scriptures; nay what are they but Gods word, p. 253and all Popes are Apoſtles or Prophets, that is, inſpired men (of which more anon:) but thats falſe: Therefore.

Obj. Theſe writings come not from the Pope as Pope, but as a private Doctor, and ſo he may err.

Anſw. Can the Pope lay by his relation when he is teaching the Church, & do it as a meer private Doctor, when he is not a meer private Doctor? It is a hard ſtrait that the Papiſts are in to tell us, and themſelves, when the Pope teacheth as a private Doctor, and when as Pope? They are never likely to be agreed about this among them. And all that we have for it, is but the private word of Bellarmine and ſome ſuch diſputers; but we have no Scripture, Canon, or Decretal, to tell us how we ſhall know one from the other. If therefore we have no infallible means to know when the Pope teacheth as a Pope, and when as private Doctor, then we have no infallible means to know when he teacheth infallibly: But the former is moſt certain, therefore ſo is the later: And ſo if the Pope were infallible, it would do us no good. If they draw forth rational probabilities, and make every private man judge of them, they may as well warrant men by ſuch means, to judge of the ſence of Scripture, which they ſo much abhor.

Argu. 5. If General Councils be infallible, or to be credited, then the Pope is fallible: But according to one party of the Papiſts, a General Council is infallible: therefore the Pope is fallible.

The conſequence of the Major is eaſily proved 1. Becauſe General Councils have differed from the p. 254Pope. 2. Yea they have depoſed divers Popes, and that for hereſie: charging divers Articles againſt them, as alſo for wickedneſs of life. The Council at Piſa depoſed two Popes at once, Gregory the 12. and Benedict the 13. and in the tenor of their deprivation call them [Notorious ſchiſmaticks, hereticks departed from the faith, ſcandalizing the whole Church, cut off from the Church, unworthy the Papacy] aaTheodor. Nicen. de ſchiſmate. l. 3. c. 44. p. 91. Antonin. ſumm hiſt. part. 3. tit. 22. c. 5. §. 3.The Council of Conſtance bbAntonin. ibid c. 6. § 2. concil. conſt. ſeſs. 37.depoſed the ſame Pope Benedict again, commanding all men to eſteem him as an heretick and ſchiſmatick. The ſame Council depoſed alſo John 23. accuſed for holding ccBim. p. 1584. Conc. Conſt.and defending as his judgement that there is no eternal life, nor immortality of the ſoul, nor reſurrection of the dead, and ſo was a ſtark infidel. Concerning this Pope I would deſire the impartial Reader to obſerve what a miſerable anſwer Bellarmine is put to give? and whether it do not plainly give up their whole cauſe? His words are theſe (de Pontif. li. 4. c. 14.) [Reſponde… Johannem 23. non fuiſſe Pontificem omnino certum & indubitatum, proinde non neceſſario eſſe defendendum: erant enim eo tempore tres qui Pontifices haberi volebant: Gregorius 12. Benedictus 13. & Johannes 23. nec poterat facile judicari quis corum verus ac legitimus eſſet Pontifex cum non deeſſent ſingulis doctiſſimi patroni.] That is [I anſwer that John the 23. was not a Pope altogether certain and undoubted: and therefore it is not neceſſary that he be defended: for at that time there were three that would be taken for Popes, Gregory p. 255the 12. Benedict. the 13. and John 23. and it could not eaſily be judged which of them was true and lawful Pope, ſeeing there were not wanting to each of them moſt learned Patrons] So far Bellarmine.

Where obſerve 1. That even learned men, yea General Councils, and the Church may be uncertain which is the true Pope. Its worth the enquiring then, whether they be not uncertain that the Romane ſucceſſion is interrupted; and uncertain at that time whether God had any word? or what was the ſence of it? and whether it was certain to them that the Church failed not, when they had no certainty of the head? and whether their head and ſo their Church were then viſible or inviſible, when they could ſo hardly be known? And note, that Bellarmine doth diſclaim the Com-popes with this John 23. and ſaith elſewhere, that it was moſt likely that this was the true Pope. They have brought their glorious head, Church and infallibility to a fair paſs!

Beſides this, the General Council at Baſill did ſhortly after depoſe Pope Eugenius the forth, declaring him to be [A rebel againſt the holy Canons, a notorious diſturber and ſcandalizer of the peace and unity of the Church, a Simoniſt, and a perjured wretch, incorrigible, a ſchiſmatick and an obſtinate heretick] **Vid. Aenaeu Sylvi. geſt. Concil. Baſil. li. 2. And note that this Eugenius by force kept the Popedome after a General Council had depoſed him for theſe crimes: How then can the ſucceing Popes have a juſt title, and Rome pretend to an interrupted ſucceſſion, or any other Biſhops or Presbyters from them?To this Bellarmine p. 256hath not a word to ſay, but onelyonly that the Council did him wrong, and at Lanſanna undid their acts. And thus he is content to grant that 1. A General Council may erre (which he maintaineth) 2. And that a Pope may be a heretick and to be depoſed in the judgement of a General Council? And are the Papiſts forced to yield us thus much? I would fain know then from Bellarmine or any Papiſts ſurviving him, whether that General Councils do erre in faith, and be Hereticks or not, for that their judgement? If they do ſo err, then where is the viſibility of their Church with the reſt of its privileges which they ſo boaſt of, when its Repreſentative body, a General Council are Hereticks, as thinking the Pope to be fallible? But if they erred not de fide, or were no hereticks. 1. Then its ſeems the Popes infallibility is no fundamental. 2. Then it ſeems we are no hereticks neither, for denying that which General Councils of Papiſts (pretended by them to be General) have denyed. 3 Nay why ſhould they be angry with men for erring ſuch an error (as they account it) which their own general Councils may one after another erre.

Argu. 6. From the Papiſts own open known confeſſion: If the Papiſts themſelves do confeſs both Pope and Council to be fallible, they have little reaſon to blame us for affirming the ſamewhich they confeſs: But the Papiſts themſelves do confeſs both Pope and General Council to be fallible: Therefore, &c.

I do not mean that all the Papiſts confeſs it of both, but one part of them confeſs it of one and the other p. 257of the other of them. Bellarmine and his fellow Jeſuites with the Italian party do confeſs that a General Council may erre in matters of Faith: The French and Venetian Papiſts, with all the Doctors of their party affirm that the Pope may erre and be a heretick, and teach hereſie: ſo that by the confeſſion of one half of them a Council may erre and by the confeſſion of the other half the Pope may erre.

If any imagine that though both may erre diſ-junctly, yet not conjunctly, I ſhall onelyonly now ſay, that the conceſſion that each of them diſ-junctly may err, deſtroyeth the force of all thoſe Arguments which are brought for their infallibility; and therefore will prove it of them alſo conjunctly. But we have yet further proof.

Argu. 7. If the very ſubſtance of Popery be nothing but a fardell of errors brought in by the Pope and his Council to corrupt the Chriſtian Religion among them, then certainly the Pope and his Council may erre: But the Antecedent is true: Therefore ſo is the conſequent.

All the Queſtion being of the Antecedent, and it being proved before in the former diſputation, and fully by our writers againſt them, I ſhall thither for brevity refer you. What impudency is it to introduce ſuch abundance of corruptions contrary to the expreſs word of God and after all this to ſay, they cannot erre when they have ſo plagued the Church with their errors? They teach men to ſerve God in an unknown tongue, and ſpeak and hear they know not what, to worſhip the Bread with divine Worſhip, to p. 258receive onelyonly the bread, when Chriſt ordained that they ſhould have the cup, and ſo do aboliſh one half of the Sacrament, they adore the Virgin Mary and other Saints, they plead for juſtification by the merit of their own works, as having a condignity of the reward; they make the Church a new thing by making a new head and center of unity and a new and daily mutable Religion, in a word they poiſon both Church policie, Worſhip and Doctrine by their errors; and when they have done they ſtand to it that they cannot erre. Like a Leper that ſhould maintain he cannot poſſibly be Leprous, when he is covered with it already: or like a ſwearing or drunken beaſt, that ſhould ſwear that he never did ſwear nor was drunk, nor ever can be, when he lyeth drunk in the dirt, and breaths out his oaths. What need any impartial diſeerning man any other proof that the Pope and the Church of Rome is not infallible, then actually to obſerve the ſwarm of their errors that have troubled the Church?

Argu. 8. If the Popes themſelves are to be believed, or if they are not to be believed, they are not infallible. But either they are to be believed or not: Therefore.

If they be not to be believed, what need there any more proof? If they are, what need there alſo any more proof, when they themſelves confeſs themſelves fallible? Not a Pope for above ſix hundred years after Chriſt did ever pretend to infallibility as can be proved: Pope Adrian the ſixth, one of the moſt Learned and beſt that ever they had this many hundred years, hath written his judgement that the p. 259Pope may erre. And I think he is liker to know himſelf, as to his infirmities, than any of his flatterers are. His words are theſe De Sacram. Confirm. art. 4. ad fin. [Dico, quod ſi per Eccleſiam Romanam intelligatur caput ejus, puta Pontifex, certum eſt quod poſſit errare, etiam in iis quae tangunt fidem; haere ſin per ſuam determinationem aut decretalem aſſerendo: plures enim fue…unt Pontifices Romani haeretici] That is [I ſay, that if by the Church of Rome be meant the Head of it, to wit, the Pope, it is certain that he may erre, even in thoſe things that touch the faith by aſſerting hereſie by his Determination or Decretal: for there have many Popes of Rome been hereticks.] Thus you hear what a Pope ſayes of himſelf.

Argu. 9. If the Pope be infallible, then either it is his mind in believing, or his tongue in ſpeaking, or his pen in writing, that is infallible. But it is neither his Mind, nor Tongue, nor Pen: Therefore he is not infallible.

1. That his mind is not infallible, in point of belief, is confeſt by the Papiſts themſelves. One part of them ſaying he may erre, and the other maintaining that he may be a hereticke, and that many have been ſo.

That his tongue and pen is not infallible when his underſtanding erreth is plain.

1. In that otherwiſe he ſhould be infallible in diſſembling, and God is feigned to promiſe a man to keep his tongue from error when he ſpeaks againſt his own heart; which cannot be proved, nor ſoundly imagined.

p. 2602. The infallible dictates of the Pope while he erreth in mind ſhould be all either unreaſonable acts▪ as being the words of one that knoweth not what he ſaith, or interpretatively lies. For when a man ſpeaks contrary to his judgement, if his words be true in themſelves yet they are interpretatively lys, becauſe he ſo takes them, and intendeth them as falſhoods to deceive others. For inſtance, If Pope John the 23. that was depoſed by a General Council upon Articles exhibited againſt him for denying the Reſurrection, and the Life to come, ſhould with his tongue have taught the Reſurrection and the Life to come; this had been as lying to him, though the thing it ſelf be moſt true. And we muſt have a promiſe that the Pope of Rome and his Clergy, among all the Lyars in the whole world, ſhall be the onelyonly infallible Lyars. A happy generation of Lyars ſure? But where is that promiſe?

3. It was for the error of the tongue as well as of the mind, that the Clergy deſpoſed Liberius & Felix, and that the Councils of Piſa, Conſtance, and Baſil depoſed the other Popes above mentioned. For 1. they could not know their minds but by their words. 2. They charged them with the errors of their tongues as well as mindes.

Argu. 10. If Popes be infallible in the matters which they underſtand not, then it muſt be by Enthuſiaſm or prophetical inſpiration. But all Popes are ignorant of many Divine Truths, and ſome more notoriouſly ignorant, and yet neither All nor Any of them (for ought is ever proved) were Prophets, or divinely inſpired: therefore they are not infallible.

For the Major its plain, that as no erring man muſt p. 261ſpeak againſt his own mind, if he be infallible, ſo an ignorant man (in thoſe points) muſt 1. either have his ignorance cured ſuddainly by prophetical inſpiration: or elſe 2. muſt ſpeak as in an extaſie, without or beſide his own mind: there being no other way imaginable.

And as for the Minor I prove both parts of it. 1. That Popes are ignorant of many Divine truths, I prove thus. 1. They that are ignorant of many truths revealed in the Scriptures, are ignorant of many Divine truths: For Scripture being Gods word, all that is therein revealed is Divine truth. But Popes have been ignorant of many things revealed in Scripture: therefore I need not ſure ſtand to prove the Minor, for they confeſs it themſelves. And if the Pope underſtood all the Scripture, he were ſure the moſt damnable ſinner in the world, for not revealing his knowledge to others. 2. Yea ſome of them have been ſo notoriouſly ignorant and unlearned that their own Alphonſus a Caſtro ſaith (adverſ. hareſ. li. 1. c. 4.) that [It is certain ſome Popes be ſo unlearned, that they do not underſtand the Grammar.] And ſure if they that underſtand not any Hebrew or Greek (which are the languages in which the Scripture is written) no nor the Latin Grammar ſhould underſtand all the Bible and erre in nothing, it muſt needs be by a Miracle, and by Prophetical inſpiration.

2. But that all Popes be not inſpired Prophets, nor illuminated by Miracles, I will leave to be judged by the Papiſts themſelves. Read Platina, Stella, yea or Baronius himſelf, or if they have any other that is a more notorious Paraſite to them, and let them be judges.

p. 262Argu. 11. If the Pope and his Council be infallible, then it is either in All things that God hath revealed in the Scripture or are neceſſary to be known, or but in ſome: If he be infallible in all things neceſſary to be known, believed, or decided, then will it follow,

1. That the Pope is the moſt cruelly wicked man on earth, and the greateſt enemy to the truth and Church that will ſuffer the Church to lye in ſo much ignorance and contention, and will not reveal the truth to reconcile and enlighten them. Why doth he not write an infallible commentary on all the Bible to perfect our knowledge and end all our quarrels? And why doth he not write an infallible ſummary of all his ſuperadded traditions? Hath not Chriſt told him that no man lighteth a candle to put it under a Buſhel, but where it may be ſeen of all?

2. Why doth not one Pope reveal that which they think fit to reveal; but leave it to ſucceſſors one after another to do it by degrees? Dare they ſay that there is any point of faith revealed in Scripture, and neceſſary to this age to know, which was not meet to be revealed by the Pope to the laſt or former age?

3. Why do ſo many of themſelves, yea their General Councils ſo much contradict their Popes in many things, if he be infallible in all things? And all of them confeſs that either a Pope, or a Council may erre?

But if it be but ſome things that the Pope is infallible in, then how ſhall we be ſure which be thoſe ſome? Can we know before he diſcloſeth them, or onelyonly p. 263after? I ſuppoſe they will ſay [It is in all thoſe things which he determineth or declareth] But if that be the rule to know the extent of his infallibility by; then I Every Pope beginneth to be infallible, when he beginneth to Determine or declare, and not before. 2. And then every Pope increaſeth in his infallibility, as he increaſeth his Decretals or Canons. 3. And then one Pope is much more infallible then others, who have made more decrees then others. 4. And then ſome Popes were never infallible, who never made any decrees or determinations or expoſitions at all, ſo that their cauſe is loſt, if their actual diſcoveries be the Rule of the extent of their infallibility. And yet I cannot imagine what elſe they can ſay that may have any appearance of conſiſting with their intereſt.

For it is either a Poſitive or a Negative infallibility which they mean and aſcribe to their Church. If a Poſitive, then 1. All the foreſaid abſurdities unavoidably follow; whether they ſay that they can infallibly teach us all things (and will not) or but ſome? But if it be a Negative infallibility which they maintain (viz. that the Church ſhall never teach any falſe doctrine; Or the Pope ſhall never deceive us by obtruding any error, though withall he may poſſibly teach us but part of the truth, yea the neceſſary truth, yea perhaps teach us none at all) I ſay, if this be their meaning, then every infant or bird or beaſt hath as glorious a priviledge as the Pope of Rome: For every infant and bruit is ſo infallible; that we are certain they will not deceive the Church by teaching any error.

Perhaps they'l ſay that the Pope is poſitively infallible as a ſufficient Teacher of the Church, in all p. 264things de fide at that time, or neceſſary to ſalvation; and negatively infallible in all the reſt, which are not de fide or neceſſary: To which I anſwer: 1. Either ſuch points are de fide and neceſſary before the Pope dedeclare them ſo, and he therefore declares them ſo becauſe they are ſo: or elſe he declares them de fide and neceſſary before they are ſo, that by declaring them ſo, he may make them ſo. If the firſt, 1. then the Papiſts have loſt their cauſe; for thats it which they deny, at leaſt quoad nos, though not in ſe, as they uſe to diſtinguiſh. 2. And then its plain that no Pope hath been poſitively infallible in neceſſariis, or all points de fide: for no one hath declared all, nor are they yet all (ſay they) declared by them, but every Pope may ſtill add more, and who knows when we ſhall have all. But if they take the later way, then 1. They ſuppoſe that Gods word how expreſs ſoever doth not make a point to be de fide and neceſſary, till the Pope declare it ſo (at leaſt quoad nos: and how it can be de fide and neceſſary, any other way then quoad nos, they ſhould do well to declare: For that which is credendum, eſt ab aliquo credendum (that which is to be believed, muſt be believed by ſome body) and that which is neceſſary is neceſſary to ſome one.) So that the Goſpel ſhall be no Goſpel with them, nor the Law of God any Law, though we read it and hear it a thouſand times, till the Pope tell us by parcels the meaning of its particular words and ſentences. 2. They make the Popes acts to go before their objects, which is againſt the nature of actions: while they make him to declare a point to be de fide that it may become de fide. For to declare that it is ſo, ſuppoſeth that it is ſo, and not onelyonly that it will or ſhall be ſo de futuro. 3. And p. 265ſo they make all the Popes infallible Declarations, Expoſitions, and Determinations de fide, to be Lyes: for if he Declare a thing to be neceſſary before it is neceſſary, or declare this or that to be the ſence of Scripture, before it is the ſence of Scripture, or to be de fide before it be ſo, what is this but plaine lying? But if they ſay that he declareth it to be de fide and neceſſary onelyonly for the future, and not to have been ſo before this Declaration, then the forementioned Abſurdities fall upon them. And alſo 1. The Pope is then a Goſpel-maker, and the Law giver of the Church, and that in ſpirituals and internals; and conſequently it is he that is the King of the Church (who hath the Legiſlative power, and without whom nothing that Chriſt hath ſaid ſhall bind us) 2. Then the Churches faith is mutable and in a continual change by new additions: For the Decrees or Expoſitions of every Pope do make more Articles of faith then were before. 3. Then the preſent Papiſts are not of the ſame Religion as their fore-fathers (or their fore-fathers not of the ſame with them) nor do they go to Heaven by the ſame way: For according to their own doctrine, if the preſent age of the Church did not believe as de fide many things more then the former ages were bound to believe, they cannot be ſaved. 4. And then it is evident unmercifulneſs in the Popes of Rome to make more Expoſitions, Decrees or Determinations! and ſo to make us of this Age, ſo much work to do before we can get to heaven and ſcape damnation, which our forefathers never had to do.

p. 266I know **Anſwer to the Lord Falkland.one of them replyeth to this, that theſe Additions are no cruelty, becauſe they make not ſalvation more difficult, but facilitate that which was neceſſary before (or to that ſence) But 1. It ſeems then that ſomewhat was neceſſary and de fide before the Pope defined, determined or declared them ſo: By that time we are plainly told which thoſe points be, the Papiſt that undertakes and performeth it, will finde himſelf at a ſad loſs. 2. But is this man ſerious? Doth he think indeed that it is not eaſier to believe the Apoſtles Creed, than to believe all that is in the Councils of Trent, Baſil, Conſtance, Laterane, with all the reſt, and all the Decretals (both the Popes and Iſidore Meccator's alias Peccator.) For inſtance, before the Pope determined the other day for the Moliniſts againſt ſome part of the Dominican, Janſenian doctrine, both parties might have gone to heaven: But now the poor Dominicans, muſt change part of their doctrine, or go to hell fire. I demand now whether the Popes determination have not made ſalvation harder to many then before? I appeal to all the Thomiſts▪ Dominicans, Janſenians, whether the Pope hath facilitated their ſalvation by this determination? I appeal to Tho. Whites friendly combate with Franciſc. Macedo; & to the late Animadverſions of the French Doctors on the Popes determinations.

Further I adde that if all the Popes infallibility Poſitive be onelyonly in points of abſolute neceſſity to ſalvation, then many a private Doctor, nay every Chriſtian man or woman, is at preſent, as infallible as the Pope: for it implyes a contradiction to be a true Chriſtian, and not to believe all that is eſſential to p. 267Chriſtianity, or abſolutely neceſſary to ſalvation. And if it be not de praeſenti & in ſenſu compoſito, but de futuro & in ſenſu diviſo that they mean it, that is, that another man may fall from the faith, but the Pope cannot, 1. Clean contrary, we maintain, and the Papiſts confeſs, that no elect perſon ſhall fall quite from the faith. 2. But a reprobate Pope may: witneſs John 23. and many another. So much for that Argument.

Argu. 12. If every Pope be infallible (Poſitively in all matters of faith, or in expounding all Scripture) then all Popes are of equal underſtanding and fidelity in matters of faith, and Scriptures. For the moſt learned, wiſe and pious can go no higher, but to be able infallibly to interpret all Scripture, and declare all Gods will concerning our faith and duty. But ſure all Popes are not equal. None of thoſe children or dunces that Alphonſus a Caſtro ſaith underſtood not the Grammar, are equal to Pius 2. or Adrian the 6.

Argu. 13. If every Pope be infallible, then ſtudy, learning, conſultations, yea and Councils are needleſs: for the moſt unlearned Pope is as infallible as the moſt learned; and after all the ſtudy in the world, conſultation and advice of General Councils, he can he but infallible; and ſo, ſay they he was before. If they ſay ſtill, that, before he was but negatively infallible; I ſay again, ſo is a block, an infant or an ideot. But that ſtudies, learning, conſultations and Councils are not needleſs, I ſuppoſe all Papiſts will grant: therefore they muſt grant that all Popes are not infallible.

p. 268Argu. 14. Notorious ungodly men that live in murder, fornication, inceſt, Sodomy, blaſphemy, &c. have no promiſe from God, nor any other aſſurance of infallibility: but ſuch were many Popes, Therefore, &c.

The Major I prove from many Scriptures, 2 Theſſ. 2.10, 11. Becauſe they received not the love of the truth that they might be ſaved, and for this cauſe God ſhall ſend them ſtrong deluſion that they ſhould believe a lye.] They that receive not the love of the truth that they may be ſaved, are threatened to be given up to deluſions; and therefore have no certainty of being infallible. They that chooſe their own wayes, God will chooſe their deluſions, Iſa. 64.4. There is no communion between light and darkneſs, Chriſt and Belial: therefore no infallibility with the children of Belial. Of all men naturally till Chriſt illuminate them by ſpecial grace, it is ſaid in Scripture that they are blind, deceived, lyars, of no underſtanding, receiving not the things of the ſpirit of God, for they are fooliſhneſs to him, neither can he know them, becauſe they are ſpiritually diſcerned. 1 Cor. 2.14. Prov. 28.5. Rom 3.11. Prov. 6.32. & 9.4.10. & 15.21. & 7.7. & 12.11. 2 Pet. 1.9. 2 Tim. 3.13. Tit. 3.3. It is onelyonly the elect that cannot be deceived even in the foundation, Mat. 24.24. None of the wicked ſhall underſtand but the wiſe ſhall underſtand, Dan. 12.10. They are threatned to be given over to blindneſs, that they may not underſtand, Iſa. 6.9.10. Act. 28.26, 27 Mar. 4.12. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wiſdom, Pſal. 111.10. God promiſeth to teach the humble Pſal. 25. but the proud he ſtill reſiſt, when he giveth to the humble his grace, 1 Pet. 5.5. Jam. 4.6.

p. 269And not onelyonly the minds of the wicked, but their tongues are deceitful, even when they know the truth, ſo that a wicked Pope may lye and deceive. Pſal. 36.3. Prov. 12.5. Mar. 7.22. Rom. 3.13. I confeſs that a wicked man may have ſome kind of ſuperficial knowledge of all thoſe doctrines (diſ-junctly at leaſt) which are known to true Believers; but as he hath no ſolid knowledge of them, ſo he hath no promiſe or aſſurance of infallibility in that which he is capable of knowing: Nor is it ſo like that a blind deceitful man ſhould be univerſally orthodox.

And for the Minor, that many Popes have been notoriouſly wicked, I need not prove it, while their own Hiſtorians and diſputers too, do ſo commonly confeſs it. Its well known what wickedneſs the Councils that depoſed them charged upon ſome, and what poiſoning, and other murders, Simony, conjuration, inceſt, common adulteries and other wickedneſs, is by the writers of their lives and other Hiſtorians charged on ſo many more, that I ſhould but trouble the weary Reader to no purpoſe to cite them. Read the lives of Pope Sylveſter (the Witch) the 2. Alexander the 3. and the 6. John 13. and the 22. and the 23. Gregory the 7. Ʋrbane the 7. &c. in Platina, Luitprandus, Faſciculus temporum, Martinus Polonus, &c. Ticinus hiſt. li. 6. of **Vid. Naucler. an. 956. figon. reg. Ita. l. 7. anno. 963. Anton. Chron. pa 2 tit. 16. c. 1. § 16. Bar. an. 964. n. 17John 13. ſhews that his ſins were proved in Council that he raviſhed and committed filthineſs with maids, widows and wives at the Apoſtolick doors; committed many murders; drunk to the Devil; and at Dice ask't help of Jupiter and Venus: and at laſt was p. 270ſlain in the act of adultery. See of Sylveſter 2. Faſcic. temp. an. 1004. Martin. Polonus Anno. 1007. Platin. in ejus vita. Of Boniface the 7. See Baronius himſelf anno 985. n. 1. Of Alexander the 6. ſee Guicciardine hiſt. li. 1. and Onuphrius vit. Alex. 6. But I will name no more.

Argu. 15. Other Biſhops and Churches who have as good a pretence to plead for their infallibility as the Biſhop and Church of Rome, are yet generally acknowledged fallible, even by themſelves and by the papiſts: Therefore the Pope and Church of Rome alſo are fallible.

All thats doubtful is whether any other Churches or Biſhops have as fair a plea for infallibility as the Romane? which I prove thus.

1. The Plea of the Romaniſts is that their Biſhop is the ſucceſſor of an Apoſtle who was infallible, and ſo the Promiſes belonging to him, do belong alſo to his ſucceſſors. And the ſucceſſors of the reſt of the Apoſtles may have the ſame plea: For all the Apoſtles, after the Holy Ghoſt fell on them, were infallible, as well as Peter: And therefore their ſucceſſors have as fair a plea as Peters ſucceſſors.

Obj. But there was not the like promiſe made to the reſt for their ſucceſſors ſtability as was to Peter. Anſw. 1. There can no greater a promiſe to Peters ſucceſſors be ſhewed, then was made Mat. 28.29. to them all [Lo I am with you alwayes even to the end of the world] 2. The Papiſts (according to their new fundamentals) muſt not plead Scripture promiſes for their infallibility; for they ſay, their infallibility is in order firſt known, evidenced and to be proved, p. 271before it be known that Scripture is Gods word.

2. The plea of the Romaniſts for their Popes infallibility is, that he is the ſucceſſor of Peter. But the Biſhop of Antioch might as well pretend to be the ſucceſſor of Peter, and yet he pretendeth not to infallibility: Therefore, &c. That Hiſtory which telleth us that Peter was Biſhop of Rome, doth tell us that he was Biſhop of Antioch alſo; yea and that he was Biſhop of Antioch before he was Biſhop of Rome, ſo that Antioch is undoubtedly the ancienter Church. What reaſon then can the Papiſts give why the Biſhop of Antioch might not as well plead that he is Peters ſucceſſor, as the Biſhop of Rome? Unleſs they could prove that Peter did by his laſt Will and Teſtament bequeath the honor of ſucceſſion, and the priviledges of infallibility to Rome onelyonly; which they have not yet (that I can find) been ſo bold as to go about to prove. Otherwiſe, if one muſt needs be preferred, why ſhould not the eldeſt, unleſs they be diſinherited, and the younger hath the bleſſing, which muſt be proved. Whence is it but from the honor of their Antiquity that Antioch, Hieruſalem, Alexandria, and Rome ſhould be preferred as Patriarchates before all other Churches? And if Antiquity be a good reaſon for that, then why ſhould not Jeruſalem and Antioch on the ſame account be preferred before Rome, ſeeing its beyond all doubt that they were both the more ancient Churches, and Antioch the more ancient ſeat of Peter, in the judgement of them that make him Biſhop of either. So that its clear that other Churches have as much or more to ſay for infallibility then Rome, who yet make no prentence to it.

p. 272Argu. 16. The Apoſtles themſelves were not infallible till the holy Ghoſt fell on them, nor by any other help without the extraordinary inſpiration of the Holy Ghoſt (for before, they underſtood not that Chriſt muſt dye, riſe and aſcend, till it was done: but Peter Mat. 16.20. diſſwadeth him from ſuffering) therefore the Pope if he might plead ſucceſſion from Peter, cannot expect more then Peter himſelf had; and therefore cannot expect his infallibility without his ſpirit and inſpiration: And therefore thoſe Popes that have not the Holy Ghoſt, and that inſpiration as Peter had, cannot pretend to be infallible, as his ſucceſſors: For they muſt ſucceed him in the cauſe, if they will ſucceed him in the effects.

Argu. 17. If the Catholike Church be infallible, then the Pope and the Church of Rome are not infallible: But the Papiſts ſay the Catholike Church is infallible; therefore according to their own doctrine it muſt follow that the Pope and Church of Rome are not infallible.

The argument being ad hominem and the Antecedent their own, all the doubt is of the conſequence: which I prove thus, either it is the real or repreſentative body which they muſt call the Catholike Church: But both theſe are againſt the Popes infallibility: Therefore.

1. For the real, no man can poſſibly know all their minds, nor ever expect that they ſhould in this life be all of a minde: therefore it is the Major part that we muſt have reſpect to, as its uſual in all ſuch p. 273Bodies, or Aſſemblies. Now the greater part of the Catholike Church on earth, is and hath been againſt the Popes infallibility. That it is ſo now, is well known, ſeeing all the Greeks, Abaſſin, Armenian, Reformed and other Churches are far more then the Papiſts. 2. And that it hath been ſo formerly the Papiſts themſelves confeſs. I will note at this time but one of the moſt learned and ſober of them, Melch. Canus Loc. Theol. li. 6. cap. 7. fol. (mihi) 201. [Pugnatum eſt ſiquidem vehementer, non a Graecis ſolum, ſed ab aliis pleriſque totius orbis apiſcopis ut Roman… Eccleſiae privilegium labefactaretur. Atque habebant pro ſe illi quidem, & Imperatorum arma, & Majorem Eccleſiarum numerum: nunquam tamen efficere potuerunt, ut unius Romani Pontificis poteſtatem abrogarent—] That is [Not only the Greeks,☜ but almoſt all the reſt of the Biſhops of the whole world, have vehemently fought to deſtroy the priviledge of the Church of Rome: And indeed they had on their ſide both the Armes of Emperors and the Greater number of Churches: and yet they could never prevail to abrogate the Power of one Pope of Rome] Mark here that it is only ſucceſs that he pleadeth, but confeſſeth that most of the Biſhops of the whole world, and the greater number of Churches, beſides the Arms of Emperors, were againſt the Romane priviledges, as they call them, & the Popes power. So that by this you may ſee the conſcience and modeſty of theſe men, that not onelyonly call themſelves the whole Church, as if all other beſides them were ſome inconſiderable parcels, but alſo would make the ſimple people believe that before Luthers time, there were ſcarce any that denyed their pretended power: we may ſee from themſelves then p. 274where our Chruch was before Luther, ſo far as Chriſtians oppoſing the Romiſh uſurpations, are our Church, even moſt of the Churches and Biſhops of the whole world by the Papiſts own confeſſion. And therefore this may ſtop their mouthes that uſe to call out to us for a catalogue of their names? would they have the names of Moſt of the Biſhops and Churches in the whole world?

2. And then for the Repreſentative Church if there be ſuch a thing it muſt be a General Council. And I have ſhewed before, that many ſuch as themſelves call General Councils have contradicted the Pope, depoſed, and condemned him. This Bellarmine, Canus and the reſt of them do confeſs, and therefore I need not ſay more to prove it.

Argu. 18. That General Councils may erre, is proved fully,Vid. Baron. tom. 9. anne 794. n. 1. Bellarm. Append. de Imagin. c. 3. both by the errors that they have committed, and by their contradicting one another. Its too well known that the Arrians had as General Councils as moſt ever the Orthodoxe have had, Bellarmine and Canus give more inſtances of erring Councils then can be anſwered by the contrary minded.Vid. Bellar. li. 2. de Concil. c. 17. Pope Adrian and the ſecond Council of Nice by him confirmed, decree for adoration of Images: And the Council of Frankford determined the contrary, againſt the ſaid Council of Nice, though the Popes Legates contradicted them. So did the Council of Paris anno 825.Leg. Jewell. Defenſ. Apol. part 6. c. 17 Diviſ. 1. & part. 1. c. …. Diviſ. 1. & part. 2. c. 3. div. 2. & part. 4. c. 1…. Diviſ. 1. who examined, p. 275judged and reprehended the Council of Nice, and and Pope Adrians confirmation and defence of it; and therefore Bellarmine ſaith [They judged the judge of the whole world] Their words are recited by Bellarmine Append. de Imag. c. 3. Baronius anno 825. n. 5. Its commonly known, how Nazianzene complained that [He never yet ſaw a Council have a good end, but things were made worſe by it and not better.] And Hierom (in Epiſt. ad Galat.) ſaith [That is the doctrine of the Holy Ghoſt which is delivered in the Canonical Scriptures, againſt which if Councils determine any thing I account it wicked] Inſtances of the errors of Councils we have too many.Leg. Joban. Raynoldi theſ. 2. pag. 60.61. ad 68. Lutheru… de Co…cil…is pag. 87 88, 89, 90, &c. The Council of Neoceſarea, confirmed by Leo the fourth and by the firſt of Nice (as ſaith the Council of Florence ſeſs. 7.) condemned ſecond marriages, contrary to Scripture, 1 Cor. 7. Though Bellarmine vainely excuſeth them by plaine forcing their words.

The fourth Council at Carthage, forbad Biſhops to read the Gentiles Books, which yet the Apoſtle makes uſe of, and the Church hath ever ſince allowed.

The Council of Toletane. 1. Ordain that he wh… inſtead of a wife hath a Concubine, ſhall not be kept from the Communion: which Bellarmine alſo falſly excuſeth.

The ſixth General Council at Conſtantinople hath many errors, which Bellarmine confeſſeth, and layeth the cauſe on this that they had not the Popes authority: Whereas Pope Adrian approved p. 276them **D…ſt. 16. c ſextam ſynodum &c. babeo liborum., and the ſeventh Council judged them genuine: Adrian ſaith [Se ſextam ſynodum cum omnibus canonibus recipere; he receiveth the ſixt Synod with all its Canons and confeſſeth it to be Divine] The Council at Conſtance decreed that a General Council is above the Pope: and the Council at the Laterane under Julius 2. and Leo 10. decree that the Pope is above a General Council Seſs. 11. The Council of Calcedone abrogated the Acts of the ſecond Council of Epheſus, and decreed the contrary. The Council of Trent, is notoriouſly erroneous, and contradicteth the Council of Laodicea and Carthag. 3. about the Canon of Scripture. The number of their contradictions and errors is too great for me here to recite. Many of our writers againſt the Papiſts give you large Catalogues and full proof of them. See Doctor Sutline. li. 2. de Concil. cap. 1. What Gregor. Nazianz. And …ierome ſay of them, I toucht before: Hilary li. de Synodis exclaimeth againſt the errors and blaſphemies of the Councils of Syrmium and Ancyra: Auguſtine ſaith li. 3 cont. Maximni. c. 14. [Nec ego Nicenum, nec tu debes. Ariminenſe, ta… quam praejudicaturus profere concilium, nec ego hujus authoritate, nec tu illius, detinenis] He ſaith alſo lib. 2. de Baptiſ. [Concilia plenaria priora, a poſterioribus emendari] That is [Former Councils that were full have been mended by later] Bellarmines deceitful ſhifting anſwers to theſe teſtimonies, are not worth the repeating. Iſidore ſaith **G. Domino. Ariſt. 50. …ex Andradius Confeſſions of this …o…t. …bemni…. lib. 1.Quotieſcunque in geſtis Conciliorum diſcors ſt… tentia p. 277invenitur, illius concilii ſententia magis tenentur, cujus antiquior & p…tior eſt authoritas] That is [As oft as we find in the acts of Councils diſagreeing judgements, let us hold the judgement of that Council which hath the more Ancient and the greater authority.] But the confeſſion of the adverſaries here may ſpare us more labour, who acknowledge that a General Council though rightly Congregated, and though the Popes Legates concur, may yet erre in the faith, if ſo be that the Pope doth not approve or confirme their Decrees. So that when they ſay that [All the Church cannot err] and therefore a General Council cannot erre; their own meaning is, that one man cannot erre; but All the Church (viz. a General Council) without him may erre.

Argu. 19. The infallibility of the Pope or Romane Church, was never acknowledged by the Ancient Churches, or Fathers, for ſix hundred years after Chriſt: Therefore it is not now to be received.

The Antecedent is ſo fully proved by our Writers, and ſo eaſily diſcernable by thoſe that read the writtings of thoſe times, that there needs not any more to be ſaid. That which I ſhall produce to this pupoſe, ſhall be anon to prove the following point and this together. In the mean time I refer them to Biſhop Jewell, Cham…er, Biſhop Ʋſher, Doctor White, who with many more have fully proved this.

p. 278Argu. 20. If the Pope be not the Authorized judge of Scripture, nor our faith to be reſolved into his judgement (or the judgement of his Church) then is he not the Infallible judge of Scripture, and of controverſies about matters of faith. For he that is no judge can be no infallible judge: nor doth he need infallibility to qualifie him for a work which he was never called to, nor doth at all belong to him. It is not the Pope as a private Doctor, or as the Biſhop of a particular Church, which is made by them the ſubject of infallibility, but the Pope as the ſuppoſed head of the Catholike Church authorized to interpret Scripture, and to judge of all controverſies of faith, into whoſe judgement (at leaſt with his Clergy) our faith, they think muſt be reſolved. If therefore we can prove the nullity of the ſubject we do thereby prove the nullity of the Adjunct. And this leads us up to the third Queſtion, which we have now to deal with.

Queſt. 3. Whether our faith muſt be reſolved into the infallibility of the Romane (pretended) Authoritative judgement? Or whether the Popes Authority and infallibility be the thing firſt to be known, and thence the truth of Scripture or Chriſtian Religion to be received as upon his judgement?

But becauſe this is not the principal point intended in this diſpute, and becauſe there is enough ſaid to it in the beginning on the by, and becauſe I have ſaid yet more for explication of the whole matter in the Preface to the later Editions of The Saints Reſt, I p. 279ſhall therefore ſay but little to it now, reſerving a fuller handling it (if neceſſary) to a fitter ſeaſon. Only I ſhall here adde a few more Reaſons to prove that the Pope or Romane Church have no ſuch Authority to be judge of Scripture or controverſies to all the reſt of the Churches on earth▪ and then I ſhall adde a few words to prove that we muſt believe in Chriſt and receive his doctrine before we believe in the Pope and receive his pretended authority and judgement, that is, without it.

Arg. 1. If the Pope (or his conſiſtory) muſt be the univerſal Governor and Judge to all the Chrian world, then muſt the greateſt part of the Chriſtiſtian world be ungoverned and have no recourſe to their Judge. But the conſequent will be denyed by themſelves: therefore we have reaſon to deny the Antecedent.

The proof of the conſequence is moſt obvious and certain from the Popes natural incapacity and inſufficiency for ſuch a work (and ſo of his conſiſtory) It is naturally impoſſible that the Pope ſhould perform the works of this Government to all the Chriſtian world: therefore the conſequence is good. He cannot make known his determinations to all: If all men through the Chriſtian world that have ſuch doubts to be reſolved as his Holineſs ſuppoſeth belong to him properly to reſolve, ſhould have recourſe to him for reſolution, O how much would the wayes to Rome be beaten and frequented? What a concurſe would be about his Holineſs doors? What time would he have to reſolve thoſe millions of men: If any differences or difficulties ariſe in Aethiopia, or at the p. 280Antipodes, before they go or ſend to Rome for Reſolution, and receive an anſwer, the perſons are like to be in another world where they will have a more infallible reſolution. And if they live to ſee the return of their meſſengers, they muſt take it on the truſt of their words, that this is indeed his Holineſſes reſolution. Hence it is that de facto there is ſo few people on earth, even of the Papiſts themſelves that are really goverened or reſolved by the Pope himſelf, nor know what he is, or what is his minde: but all is done by his Miſſionaryes or Delegates; And if the Pope can delegate his power to others, and make ſo many others alſo infallible, then infallibility is not proper to himſelf: and then why may not the reſt of the Biſhops of the Church be as infallible, who are ſent by Chriſt, as theſe are that are ſent by him.

Argu. 2. If the Pope be ſuch an univerſal Governor and Judge, then all Popes muſt needs be damned for utter neglect of the works of their office. For ſure when the wel-fare of the whole Church doth ſo much depend on the office of the head, it cannot but be damnable in him to be a neglecter of the works of that office to the far greateſt part of the Church on earth. But he muſt unavoidably neglect (I mean omit) that work which it i… impoſſible for him to perform▪ Therefore.

What I have further to ſay againſt the reſolving of our faith into his judgement ſhall be contained in theſe few Queſtions following.

p. 281Queſt. 1. Doth he not contradict the very definition of a Pope, that tells us that we muſt firſt believe him to be an infallible Pope, before we can believe the Doctrine of Chriſt? For a Romane Pope is ſuppoſed to be the Vicar of Chriſt, the ſucceſſor of Saint Peter, the head of the Church: And can he be thus known by a man that knoweth not or believeth not that there is a Chriſt, who is the Saviour and principal head, and who is ſuppoſed to ſend him.

Queſt. 2. And doth it not contradict the definition of a Church, to ſay that we muſt believe the Church before we can believe the doctrine of Chriſt? For what is a Church but a ſociety of Chriſtians, that is, men profeſſing the Chriſtian Faith? And how can they know that ſuch men are Chriſtians, or profeſs that faith, before they know what that faith is? And how can they know that they are to be credited as Chriſtians, before they believe that Chriſtianity it ſelf is of credit?

Q 3. Is there any man breathing that can bring ſufficient Arguments to prove. 1. That there is a Church of Chriſt. 2. And that this Church is infallible. 3. And that the Pope and Papiſts are this Church, before their hearers have received or believed the word of God? If they can, why have they not faln cloſer to work in this neceſſary point, when they know how much it would do to the determination of the whole? If they pretend ſuch Antecedent proof by miracles, as the Apoſtles proved the Doctrine by, I have ſhewed the vanity of this pretence (againſt Knot) before: and we muſt ſtill deſire them, if it be miracles that is their firſt witneſs, to let us ſee, or have certaine proofe of thoſe Miracles. We proteſt to all the world that we are heartily p. 282willing to ſee them and know of them if they be true, but though we have lived in the midſt of Papiſts all our lives, yet could we never to this day ſee any ſuch matter from them, nor hear ſo much as of any probable proofs of any. And would they have us in a matter of ſalvation to believe every pr…ting boaſter that will tell us of Miracles and ſhew us no ſuch thing, nor any proof of them?

Queſt. 4. Whether thoſe that do not go this moſt abſurd way (of proving their Church infallible to an infidel that yet believeth not Gods word, and ſo by means antecedent to the belief of Scripture) muſt not unavoidably confeſs that Gods word muſt be firſt believed before the Popes or Churches infallibility or authority (and conſequently our faith dependeth not in them, nor is reſolved into them) or elſe they are inextricably inſnared in the Popiſh circle, and contradictingly do make two primo credenda, the Church or Pope, the firſt to be believed, and yet the word of God is firſt to be believed? And do not Holden, Vane, Knot, and others of them ſee this, who therefore ſhun the circle, and uſe not the old ſhifts of Becanus and others to blind the eyes of thoſe that ſee them in it?

Whether I wrong them H. Holden himſelf (an Engliſhman, and Doctor of Paris, ſhall be judge, who thus commendeth his own new deviſed Foundation or reſolution of the faith in his Divini fid. analyſ. li. 1. c. 9 pag. 180. [Ex quibus patet ha… Christianae fidei analyſim haud in…idore in labyrinthum vulgarem & circulare perfugium, quo ſolent Theologi paſſim involvi, qui fidei Reſolutionem juxta communem & parum attente examinatam opini… conferuunt as effingunt. Quarenti namque und… p. 283noverint ſcripturam eſſe revelatum Dei verbum? Reſpondent; ex univerſae conſentientis Eccleſiae aſſertione. Quibus ſi iterum fiet interrogatis, unde ſciverint unanimeus hanc Eccleſiae Catholicae aſſertionem eſſe ab errore liberam ſeu infallibilem? Reſpondent, ex revelat… Dei verbo. Adeo ut non audentes fidem Divinam in certitudine & evidentia naturali fundare, in circulum hunc inevitabiliter illabuntur, & in orbem turpiſſime ſaltantes, fidem, quam ipſa prima ratio format & efficit, rationis experem reddunt; voluntque homines rationales, mentis ac judicii partioipes, in fidei aſſenſu certiores eſſe, quam vel ratio poſtulat, vel approbat, Haſitant quippe Theologi quidam aſſeverare & agnoſcere quod omnia argumenta, etiam firmiſſima, omneſque rationes, item evidentiſſimae, quibus univerſam fidei Divinae & Catholicae traditionem ſolidam erroris immunem & infallibilem eſſe demonſtramus, adeo veritatem hanc evincant, ut nulla prorſue ſubſit aberrationis facultas? Ideoque …pinantu… Chriſtianorum a…imos adhuc ita vacillantes & fluctuantes derelictos eſſe, ut privatum aliquem & ſingularem inſtinctum perneceſſarium autument quo omni fidei Chriſtianae aſſenſui certitudo & infallibilitas divina (at ajunt) attribuatur. Nos antem levibu… hiſce & voluntariis opinationibus fidei divinae & Religionis Chriſtianae certitudinem & ſoliditatem, inniti aut fundari, nequaquam judicamus.

That is in Engliſh [From hence its evident that this reſolution of the Chriſtian faith, doth not fall into the common Labyrinth and circular ſhift in which Divines are commonly wont to be involved, who do frame and faſhion the reſolution of faith according to the common and unheedfully examined p. 284opinion. For when they are asked, how they know then Scripture to be the revealed word of God? they anſwer, By the aſſertion of the univerſal conſenting Church? And if they be again asked, how they know that this unanimous aſſertion of the Catholike Church is free from error or infallible? They anſwer, By the revealed word of God, ſo that not daring to found divine faith in natural certaintainty and evidence, they unavidably ſlide into this circle, moſt filthily dancing in a ring (or round) the faith, which the firſt reaſon formeth and effecteth, they make void of Reaſon, and would have reaſonable men who have underſtanding and judgment, to be more certain in the aſſent of faith, then reaſon doth either require or allow. For ſome Divines, &c.—] Here you ſee a Learned Papiſt confeſſing that the Papiſts are commonly entangled in this circle, and filthily dance in a round, and would make our faith an unreaſonable thing. Let Knot note this that would make Chillingworth a Socinian and an Infidel for making faith a reaſanable act. And let the common ſort of Papiſts note this that deny faith to have any evidence. And let it be conſidered according to this mans judgement, on what foundation the generality of Papiſts do build their faith, and what a faith it is that hath ſuch a foundation. Yea and let it be conſidered whether the wiſer ſort of Papiſts begin not to change the very foundation of their Faith? And how neer they begin to draw to the Reformed Churches in the Reſolution of their Faith? For this ſame Doctor doth well diſprove the infallibility of the Pope, pag. 179. Saying [Owne quidem Epiſcopi Apoſtolorum ſucceſſores ſunt, Apoſtolos vere ade… p. 285confirmatos in gratia fuiſſe, ut infallibiles omnino, ſeu in doctrina Chriſtiana tradenda ab omni erroris periculo immunes fuerint, agnoſcit univerſa Eccleſia. Nunquid ergo omnes Epiſcopi ab errore liberi? Omnibus quidem Apoſtolis revelata fuiſſe ſecreta Caeleſtia, iisſque, ut nec decipi nec hallucinari poſſent; divina & extraordinaria via donatum eſſe certiſſime tenemus. Nun… quid ergo vel ſummo Pontifici vel caeteris Epiſcopis haec ſunt divinitus conceſſa privilegia?] That is [All Biſhops are the Apoſtles ſucceſſors: And that the Apoſtles were ſo confirmed in grace, that they were altogether infallible, or free from all danger of error in delivering the Chriſtian doctrine, this the univerſal Church acknowledgeth. But are all Biſhops therefore free from error? We certainly hold that to all the Apoſtles the heavenly ſecrets were revealed, and that by a Divine and extraordinary way it was given to them, that they could not be deceived or erre. But are theſe priviledges therefore granted to the Pope, or to other Biſhops?]

And what is the infallibility that this Doctor reſolveth his Faith into? Let it be obſerved whether it be neerer the Miracles of Knot, or to the univerſal Tradition of Chillingworth. Pag. 174, 175. He hath theſe words [Statuendum 20. juxta ſuperius ſtabilita principia, Eccleſia ſoliditatem in fide, ſeu in fidei divinae & Catholicae in haerendi certitudinem & infallibilitatem, non in privilegio aliquo aut ſedi Romanae, Deo authore, conceſſo, aut S. Petri ſucceſſori Pontifici Romano divinitus impartilo, &c. p. 286Sed univerſae & Catholicae traditioni Eccleſia ſpeciali Dei providentia, & Chriſti Domini promiſſis fulcitae, praecipue tribuendam eſſe] & poſtea [Deinde Catholicae & univerſae traditionis rationem omnibus ommino fidei divinae dogmatibus perneceſſariam eſſe. Traditioniis vero medium ſeu teſtimonium ade… publicum, univerſale, & apartum eſſe debere, ut ſenſibus ipſis externis fidelibus omnibus Chriſtianis oporteat conſtare.] That is, The Churches infallibility and certainty of faith [Is not in any privilege either granted by God as the Author to the See of of Rome, or beſtowed from God on the Pope of Rome as Saint Peters ſucceſſor; but its chiefly to be attributed to the tradition of the univerſal and Catholicke Church upheld by the ſpecial providence of God, and the promiſes of Chriſt— And the account of this Catholike and univerſal Tradition is moſt neceſſary to all points of divine faith. And the means or Teſtimony of this Tradition muſt be ſo publike, univerſal and open, that it muſt be manifeſt to all Chriſtians to their very outward ſenſes.

I confeſs this Doctor allows us pretty fair quarter in compariſon of many others of his party. If they will but give us ſuch Open publike univerſal certain Tradition, which muſt be known to the very outward ſenſes of every Chriſtian, we ſhall be very ready to comply with them in receiving ſuch a Teſtimony. But if all the Romiſh Traditions had been ſuch, they would be known to all Chriſtians as well as to the Pope, and not lock't up in his Cabinet, and our ſelves ſhould ſure have known them before now, if we be Chriſtians.

Queſt. 5. To proceed, I am very deſirous to p. 287know whether it be upon the credit of the preſent Church (Pope or Council) or of thoſe former that are dead and gone, that we muſt receive our faith and the Scriptures? Or upon both? If it be on the credit of any former Church, then would I know of which age? whether of the neereſt, or the middle, or of the firſt and remoteſt age, that is, from the Apoſtles and the Church in their dayes? If from the laſt age, then 1. How know we their Teſtimony? If it be by their writings, Canons or Decrees, why cannot other men who are much wiſer and better, underſtand theſe as well as the Pope? And why do they not refer us to thoſe writings, but to their own determinations? If it be by the Fathers telling the children what hath formerly been believed, then, why cannot I tell what my Father told me, without the Pope, and better then the Pope that never knew him? 2. And then it muſt be known upon whoſe credit the former ages did receive that faith and Scripture which they deliver down to us? Doubtleſs they will ſay, from their predeceſſors; and they again from their predeceſſors, and ſo up to the Apoſtles. And why then may not we take it immediately on the credit of the Apoſtles as well as the firſt ages did? ſuppoſing that we have the mediation of a ſure hand to deliver to us their writings, without meditation of the like inſpired prophetical perſons, or of any priviledged infallible judge of the faith; And if it be on this Teſtimony of former ages that we muſt receive the Scripture as the word of God, I ſhall then proceed further to demand.

Queſt. 6. Why may not the Greeks, Abaſſines, Proteſtants, &c. that acknowledge not the Popes authority or infallibility, receive the Scripture as the p. 288word of God, as well as the Papiſts? Do they think that none elſe in the world but they can tell what was the judgement of the former Church? What records or Tradition have they which all the reſt of the world is ignorant of? Or dare they ſay (if they have the face of Chriſtians) that none of all the Chriſtians on earth, but Papiſts onelyonly, have any ſufficient evidence that the Scripture was written by the Apoſtles, and delivered from them, and that this is it which is now in the Church? Can no man indeed but a Papiſts know the Scripture to be the word of God, upon juſtifiable grounds?

But if it be on the credit of the preſent Church (or both) that we muſt take the Scripture to be Gods word, then I ſhall further deſire to be informed.

Queſt. 7. What is it which they call the preſent Church: Is it 1. The whole number of the faithful. 2. Or a major vote, or part. 3. Or the Biſhops, or Presbyters in whole or part. 4. Or a Council choſen from among them, 5. Or the Pope? If the firſt,

Queſt. 8 Do they not then make all Chriſtians infallible as well as the Pope. And ſo they are in ſenſu compoſito in the eſſentials of Chriſtianity and the whole Church ſhall never deny thoſe eſſentials, but 1. whole particular Churches may, and 2. the whole Church may erre ſome ſmaller errors againſt the revealed will of God; the Apoſtle telleth us that we know but in part; and as in many things we offend all, ſo in many things we err all. And moreover if this be their ſenſe.

Queſt. 9. Will it not then follow, that the Pope cannot be proved infallible, becauſe it is moſt certain p. 289that All the Church doth not take him to be infallible: no nor the greateſt part of Chriſtians in the world. Yea if they will take none for Chriſtians but Papiſts, yet it will hence follow that there is no certainty that either Pope or Council are infallible. For the French take a Pope to be fallible, and the Italians and others take a General Council to be fallible: and therefore the whole Popiſh Church being not agreed of it, we cannot be ſure that either of them is infallible. And moreover on this ground I demand,

Queſt. 10. How ſhall we know (in very many caſes at leaſt) either which is the judgement of the whole Church or of the major part? What opportunity have we to take the account? Or can no poor Chriſtian believe the word of God, that cannot take an account of this through the world?

The ſame Queſtion alſo I would put, if they take all or moſt of the Paſtors for this Church.

Queſt. 11. But if they take a General Council for the Church, I would firſt know, How we ſhall be ſure that ever there hath, at leaſt, theſe thouſand years, been ever a true General Council in the world? The Popiſh Doctors (as Doctor Holden de Reſolut. fid. li. 1. cap. 9. pag. 156.) ſay that [It muſt ariſe to that degree of univerſality that there may not be any ſuſpicion of conſpiracies and combined factions, that ſo every prudent man may be able heartily to ſay that the Aſſemblies are truely General.] And is it ſo, when there are none but the ſworn obliged vaſſals of the Pope of Rome, and the Greeks, Ethiopians, Proteſtants, &c. and moſt of the Church are abſent? and when it is a known combination to promote their own eſpouſed cauſe?

Queſt. 12. And then is the whole foundation of p. 290Divine faith extinct and loſt, when there is no General Council? It may be we may have no General Council of a hundred or ſix hundred, or a thouſand years together? Have we no Church then? Or no certainty of Scripture or of the faith? If they ſay that we are certain by the determinations of former Councils, then they ſpeak of the Church that is paſt and gone, of which I moved the doubts before: And the Canons of theſe we can read and underſtand as well as the Pope: But when we appeal to former Councils and Ages, they would hold us to the preſent Church, and that muſt be their own: and ſo be ſure to be judges in their own cauſe.

Q. 13 I would know alſo whether it were by the judgment of a General Council that the firſt Churches believed the Scripture to be Gods word? Did not the Church of Rome believe the Epiſtle to the Romanes, and the Church of Corinth believe the Epiſtle to the Corinthians, and ſo the reſt, to be the word of God, as ſoon as they received them by an undoubted meſſenger from Paul? Or did they ſtay till they had the judgement of a General Council or of all the Churches? Indeed they made uſe of the intervening humane (but certain) teſtimony, of him that was the meſſenger or bearer of the Epiſtle, to know that it was the writing of Paul indeed: and ſo we ſtill maintain the neceſſity of a credible humane Teſtimony that theſe writings came from the Apoſtles hands: But Tychicus, or Trophimus, or Timothy, or Oneſ… mus, were not a General Council, nor the whole Church And doubtleſs thoſe Epiſtles that were written to each particular Church were received by all the reſt of the Churches upon the credit of that particular Church as having received it from an Apoſtle: p. 291and not that the particular received it from the univerſal. How did the univerſal Church know that thoſe Epiſtles were written by Paul to Titus, Timothy, Philemon, to the Epheſians, &c. but on the report of the perſons and Church to whom they were written? or elſe of thoſe particular perſons or Churches to whom the Apoſtle did communicate a copy of them.

Queſt. 14. And how did all the Church know the Scripture to be Gods word before the Council of Nice, when there had been no General Council to …etermine the buſineſs?

Queſt. 15. Dare a Papiſt undertake to juſtifie at Gods judgement all that part of the unbelieving world, for not taking the Scripture for the word of God, who have ſeen or heard it, and had all other …eſtimonies of it, but never knew of the Teſtimony of the Pope or a General Council? Shall none of …heſe periſh for this unbelief?

Queſt. 16. And if it be the Pope that they call …he Church, and take it to be this infallible judge, … then demand, How knows the Pope that the Scripture is Gods word, or that the Chriſtian Faith is …rue? The like alſo I ask of a Council: How doth that Council know it themſelves from whom we muſt know it? Either the Pope and Council muſt believe it becauſe they firſt believe themſelves, and ſo take it on their own words, or elſe on the words of ſome others. …f the former, then they Believe it becauſe they Believe …t: then they are the original of their own belief, and believe themſelves firſt, and then would have all the world to believe them. And this is not onelyonly to be …o arrogant as to be the God of themſelves, and the Church, but alſo ſo impudent and unreaſonable as p. 292to believe themſelves without reaſon, and to expect that all others ſhould do ſo too. But if it be not from themſelves that the Pope and Council believe the Scriptures, from whom then is it? not from any others of the preſent Church doubtleſs, therfore it muſt be from the former Church: And if ſo 1. Have not we the ſame means to know that the former Church believed the Scriptures as the Pope hath, and therefore may believe it without recourſe to him, and as infallibly as he? 2. And then it ſeems that acccording to their doctrine the Pope and his Council receive not their faith or the Scriptures on the ſame ground as all the reſt of the Church muſt do: ſo that the Church muſt have a twofold foundation of her faith, whereof one is neceſſary only to one part, and not to the other that is, All the reſt of the Church muſt believe the Scripture to be Gods word, becauſe the preſen… Pope or Council ſaith ſo (having firſt believed the infallibility) but the Pope and Council themſelve… need not any ſuch ground of their faith? And this diſtinction is not made between the Laity and the Clergy in general: But even the Clergy themſelves out of Council, or who never were of the Council (which ſure is more then a hundred for one) muſt thu… differ from the Pope and Council in the foundation of their Faith. This is another taſte of the famous Romane unity: Paul ſaith there is One Faith: b… if two divided Foundations, or Reaſons of Belie… do make two Beliefs, ſurely the Church of Rome hat… two.

Queſt 17. Do you believe that the Lord Jeſ… Chriſt underſtood the doctrine of your Papal Authority and infallibility, when he ſo chid his Apoſtles fo… p. 293ſtriving who ſhould be greateſt: and telleth them ſo expreſly, that the Kings of the Gentiles exerciſe Authority over them, and are called, Gracious Lords: but with you it ſhall not be ſo: And when he ſets before them a little child, and telleth them that he that will be greateſt among them, muſt be as that child: that is, that humility is the thing that they muſt ſtrive to be great or excell in, and ſo to ſerve one another in love. Alſo when he commandeth them to call no man on earth Father or Maſter, that is, of their Faith. Did ever Chriſt direct the world to go to the Church of Rome to know whether he be the Chriſt, or whether the Scripture be his word or not?

Queſt. 18. Where is the Faith of the Church when the Pope is dead, and when there are three or four at a time, and when there is an interruption by Schiſme thirty years together, as it is known there hath been: Hath not the Church then loſt her faith by loſing the foundation of it? Or whether then muſt poor Pagans have recourſe to know that Scripture is the Word of God? If Infallibility ſurvive in other Paſtors, then it ſeemes it is not the Pope onelyonly that is infallible, but others as well as he.

And was not the Churches Faith reſolved into the Infallibility of a Woman in Pope Joanes dayes? I know the ſhifts of Bellarmine and Onuphrius to make the world believe that the Story of Pope Joane is but a Fable: Florimondus Remondus is common on this ſubject.

But the caſe is out of queſtion thus farre, that we have neer fifty of their own Writers, p. 294eſpecially old Hiſtorians that give us the Hiſtory of this Pope Joane; as Platina in vit. Joh. 8. Sabellicus Enead. l. 1. Antoninus Archbiſhop of Florence part. 2. li. 16. Chalcondyla li. 6. Marianus Scotus, Martinus Polonus, Faſciculus Temporum, Nauclerus, Volaterane, Textor. Caryon, Sigebertus Gemblacenſis, Mat. Palmerius, Maſſaeus, &c.

And I marvaile why the Papiſts ſhould be ſo induſtrious in refelling it, as if their cauſe lay more on this then other things. If a Conjurer, a common Whoremonger, a Murderer, a Simoniſt, a Heretick, may be the infallible judge of the faith, why may not a woman? Hath Chriſt laid more on the Sex then on all theſe? ſpecially if ſhe had but kept her ſelf honeſt, I ſhould have thought Joane had been better then John the 22. or 23. and many another that yet was of the more worthy gender.

Queſt. 19. And further I would know, If the City of Rome were conſumed with fire, or the Pope-dome removed from that Sea (which Bellarmine confeſſeth, it is not impoſſile to be done) where then were the infallible head of the Church, and what were become of the Romiſh faith? If they ſay that this can never be, and that Chriſts promiſe implyeth the preſervation of the City of Rome. I anſwer, 1. It will be long before they will give us any proof of that. 2. Their own writers confeſs the contrary. 3. Let the end determine it. But if they ſay that infallibility is not tyed to the place, but to the Perſon, who ſhall be Peters ſucceſſor, I anſwer, we thought hitherto that to be Peters ſucceſſor, and to be the Biſhop of Rome, had been all one with them. If another man that is no Biſhop of Rome may be Peters ſucceſſor, then how ſhall we p. 295know who have ſucceeded him all this while? Why not the Biſhop of Alexandria, Hieruſalem, Epheſus, or other place as well as the Pope? ſpecially why not the Patriarch of Antioch, who is ſaid to be the eldeſt ſon of Saint Peter, as inheriting his firſt chaire I doubt, if Rome were extinct, and the Biſhop of Mentz, or Cullen, or Vienna, or Rhemes, or Paris or any other ſhould pretend to be the infallible head of the Church, not only the old Patriarchs but their neighbor Biſhops would much contradict it; and the world would be at a great loſs to find the Popiſh faith or infallible head.

Queſt. 20. Laſtly I will appeal to the conſcience of any Papiſt that hath any conſcience left, and hath read the Fathers or Hiſtory of the firſt Ages of the Church whether the reſt of the Biſhops and Curches in thoſe times did believe the Scripture upon the credit of the infallibility of the Pope or the Romane Church? Did the reſt of the Apoſtles receive the Goſpel on the credit of Peter, or were they ſent by him? or did they receive their authority from him? Do they find that ever the Apoſtles, or any following Biſhops of the Church did take ſuch a courſe to bring men to the faith, as firſt to teach them that the Romane Pope or Clergy were infallible, and therefore to perſwade them to believe the Scriptures or Chriſtian faith, becauſe they ſay its true. Is it poſſible that any learned Papiſts can ſeriouſly believe that this was the ancient way of believing? Do they think in good ſadneſs that the world was converted to Chriſtianity by this means? Sure it is ſcarce poſſible that they ſhould be ſo far diſtracted by their prejudice and faction? Do they read in Clemens Rom. or Alexandrin, in Ignatius, Juſtin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, p. 296Origen, Cyprian, or any other of thoſe times, that the preachers that went abroad the world to perſwade men to Chriſtianity, did ever uſe this Popiſh Medium, or go this way to work? Did they firſt preach the Pope and Romane Church before they preach't Chriſt or Scripture? Did they firſt preach men into a belief of the Romane infallibility, and then bring them to Chriſt or to believe the Scripture upon the credit of that? O that theſe men would but ſhew us in what hiſtory we may find the reports of this way of preaching? Or tell us what parts of the world were converted by this argument?

How many and large Orations, Apologies and other diſcourſes do we find in the Fathers writings for the Chriſtian Faith, to convince the unbelieving world? in Clem Alexand. Tertullian, Origen, Athenagoras, Tatianus, Minutius Faelix, Arnobius, Lactantius Greg Nazianz. Niſſen, Athanaſius, Baſil, Euſebius, Cyril Alexandr. Auguſtine, and many others? And can any man of brains imagin that if the infallibility, …ea or but the authority of the Romane Pope or Church muſt needs be known before we can believe the Scripture or the Chriſtian faith, and that it muſt be received upon the credit of that Church, that all theſe Fathers and others defenders and propagators of the Faith, would have quite forgotten and left out this great and neceſſary point? What! Would all the preachers and defenders of the faith, overlook and omit the very foundation into which all mens faith muſt be reſolved? Undoubtedly, if this had been then thought to be true which the Papiſts now teach, we ſhould have had the firſt part, and a great if not the greateſt part of all tho…e Apologies and diſcourſes, laid out in the proof of the Romane p. 297infallibility. What man will go to evince a whole ſyſteme of doctrines to be true, and quite forget that medium, by which onelyonly it is firſt to be proved? Would not this have found one place at leaſt if not the chief among Euſebius his Preparations or Demonſtrations? Where was there ever in all Antiquity found ſuch an Argument as this to convince an unbeliever? [Whatſoever the Pope and Church of Rome determineth is true: But they do determine that Scripture is the word of God, or that Chriſtianity is the right Religion: therefore this is true.]

Nay further conſider: If this kind of arguing had been then uſed, may not any man ſee that hath not renounced his wits, that the Heathens would have ſorely ſtuck at the Major propoſition? and that it would have met with ſo many objections and contradictions from them, that ſurely we ſhould have found ſome of them remembred to poſterity. Did Julian never ſtick at this very principle of the faith, the Romane infallibility? who ſtuck at ſo many things in the faith it ſelf? Or have Cyril Alexandr. and others quite forgot to mention theſe among the reſt of his contradictions? Did it never come into the mind of Celſus, Porphyry, or any other unbeliever that we read of to doubt of and object againſt this fundamental infallibility? O what an incredible thing is this?

Yea and yet the more incredible will it appear, if you conſider, that all the whole cauſe between the Chriſtians and the Infidels, according to the Popiſh conceit, muſt depend upon this one point of their infallibility. For what man will be ſo mad as to contradict the Church if he once believe that the Church p. 298is infallible. Can they think that all the learned Heathens were ſuch fools? It muſt needs be therefore that their firſt ſtop muſt be at the Major propoſition, even at this principle of the Churches infallibility▪ and therefore certainly their moſt objections would have been againſt it, and the moſt of the Chriſtian Doctors labor would have been in the defending of it: But that its certain they then believed no ſuch thing, and the Church was at that time utterly unacquainted with the foundation of the preſent Romiſh faith.

Moreover, if this Popiſh foundation had been then known, do you think that the Fathers would not have appealed to Rome, for a deciſion of all their perplexing controverſies? What readier way to have ſilenced all gain-ſayers, and ended all ſtrifes, and to have ſaved the labor of ſo many volumes, then to have beſtowed their pains with all diſſenters upon this one point alone [That Rome is infallible] and then have ſent them thither for ſatisfaction in all the reſt. Common reaſon muſt needs have told men of ſuch principles, that this was the way? But do we find that this way was taken? How come we then to have ſo many volumes of the Fathers controverſal writings, and not one Book, or Chapter, or leaf or line, to prove the Romane infallibility?

And becauſe the order of our diſcourſe hath brought us up to the judgement of the Fathers, I ſhall here give you a brief taſte of their judgement in this point, and ſo conclude this argumentation.