Inquiry into Grounds for the Infallibility of the Pope and Church of Rome, Text

Inquiry into Grounds for the Infallibility of the Pope and Church of Rome · Text

p. 1THE GREAT QUESTION ABOUT The Infallibility of the Pope AND Church of Rome.

Queſt.

Whether there be any ſufficient Ground from Scripture or Reaſon, to believe the Pope and Church of Rome to be Infallible?

FOr the better underſtanding, and clearer ſtating of this Great Queſtion, I will premiſe theſe three things;

1. By the Pope, I mean the Biſhop of Rome, not in his Perſonall capacity, as he is a Man (for ſo, the prodigious and monſtrous Lives of many of their Popes, which are p. 2obvious in Story, Multi Pontifices fuerunt minu… probi. Bell. Prafat.cannot but force them to acknowledge, that he is liable to Errour) but in his Politicall, or, which is all one, his Eccleſiaſticall capacity; as he is the pretended Head of the Church; and veſted with all thoſe Immunities and Priviledges, which his Favourers ſuppoſe to be due unto the Univerſall Biſhop.

2. By the Church of Rome, I mean, not the diffuſed and ſcattered Body of the Papiſts, but, according to their own Senſe, how Abſurd and Inſignificant ſoever, the Biſhops and Doctours of their Church, aſſembled together in a Councell; where, they may be ſuppoſed to meet, with the greateſt Advantage and Opportunity, for the Diſquiſition and Search of Truth.

3. By Infallible, I mean, to have a certain, fixed, and unerring Judgement in Religious matters; which things alone do properly belong to the determination and cognizance of a Church, as it is a Church. And, in this ſenſe of the Queſtion, thus explained, in as great a Latitude as any Papiſt can poſſibly underſtand it in, I deny the Pope, whether conſidered as apart from, or conjoyned with, as a part of, a Councell, to be Infallible.

For the proof of which Aſſertion, though I might find out great variety of Arguments, from the expreſs and direct contradictions which have been among the Popes themſelves, ſome reverſing that which others have ratified; and others eſtabliſhing that, which their Predeceſſors under the ſevereſt Penalties have forbid. Yet ſince the proper and direct way of Arguing, lyes in ſhewing the weakneſs and inſufficiency of thoſe Arguments, which are brought in defence of the Popes Infallibility, that is the Method which I purpoſe altogether to inſiſt on. For ſince this great and ſo much admired Diana of the Papiſts, is no foreign, i. e. a thing to be diſcerned by its own p. 3Light, and to be credited meerly for it ſelf; as the teſtimony of the Spirit is, when it bears witneſs unto the truth of Scripture; and beſides, it being generally denied by all the Proteſtants, who make the Errours of the Church of Rome, the ground of their ſeparation from them, hence it cannot be expected, that we ſhould tamely give up out Aſſent to believe this Infallibility, unleſs there be ſome evident and concluding Reaſons to enforce it from us. If therefore it ſhall appear, that whatever Bellarmine (and when I mention him, I mean the ſtrength of the whole Popiſh Party) hath ſaid, is altogether impertinent and unconcluding, indeed nothing elſe but a plain begging the thing in Queſtion; my Deduction from thence will be Infallible, viz. that we have as yet no Reaſon to believe the Popes Infallibility.

To clear up this, the beſt way will be to take a ſhort view, of thoſe Arguments which Bellarmine alleadgeth, in his Books De Pontifice Romano; and they are briefly theſe three.

1. Some Texts of Scripture in the New Teſtament.

2. Some Analogicall Inferences out of the Old.

3. Some Abſurdities and Inconveniences which would follow in the Church of God, ſhould we not allow the Pope and Church of Rome to be Infallible.

1. The Texts of Scripture which Bellarmine, and all Writers ſince him, do urge to prove the Popes Infallibility by; are theſe three, Mat. 16.18, 19. Luk. 22.31, 32. Job. 21.15, 17. From which they draw theſe three Concluſions. 1. That in thoſe fore-mentioned places, our Saviour did confer upon Peter ſome ſpeciall Priviledges, above and beyond the reſt of the Apoſtles; and they were 1. Supremacy, in Matthew. 2. Infallibility in Luke. 3. Univerſall Epiſcopacy in John. 2. They Aſſume, p. 4that whatever was beſtowed upon Peter, was not confined unto his Perſon, but was promiſed likewiſe unto his Succeſſours: ſince what was granted unto Peter, was given for the good of the Church, and therefore ought not to die with him. 3. They take for granted, that the Pope was Peter's Succeſſour, both in the Biſhoprick of Rome, and alſo in all his other Priviledges; and for the laſt, they alleadge nothing but the credit of that, which they call, Apoſtolicall Tradition.

Whether or no theſe Deductions are cleare in the Texts, or violently haled and wreſted from them; with ſo much impudent and ſhameleſſe Sophiſtry, as a wiſe and diſintereſſed Perſon, would bluſh to be guilty of, will beſt appeare by examining the places themſelves; and if, when they are put upon the Racke, they can be forced to confeſſe ſo much, as Bellarmine, and the Popes Paraſites conclude from them; I ſhall then conſent to dethrone Scripture from its plainneſſe and Perſpicuity; but till then I muſt take leave to thinke, that that Church doth very wiſely, which makes Ignorance and Implicite Faith, the Mother of Devotion: for nothing leſſe then an over-awed and Religious ſtupidity, would make any man ſubmit unto ſuch Impoſſible and farre fetched interpretations.

1. The place in Mat. 16.18, 19. runs thus, And Jeſus anſwered and ſaid unto him, i. e. to Peter, Bleſſed art thou Simon Barjona, for fleſh and bloud hath not revealed this to thee, but my Father which is in Heaven: And I ſay alſo unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church; and the gates of Hell ſhall not prevail againſt it: And I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven; and, whatſoever thou ſhalt bind on earth, ſhall be bound in Heaven; and whatſoever thou ſhalt looſe on earth ſhall be looſed in Heaven. Which place they thus interpret; p. 51. By the Rock, upon which Chriſt ſaith he will build his Church, is meant the Perſon of Peter; and the Churche's being built upon him, ſignifies, ſay they, that the care and government of it was committed to him; and thus they underſtand likewiſe his Having of the Keyes. 2. By the power of Binding and Looſing; they underſtand, the power of commanding and puniſhing; of making and repealing Laws; with all ſuch things as belong to a Soveraign and Legiſlative Power. 3. They tell us, that whatever Peter had here, was likewiſe granted to the Pope, who is his Succeſſour; and therefore he being the Rock, and the Foundation of the Church, cannot be toſſed about with every wind of Doctrine, and therefore is Infallible. But I anſwer,

1. Upon ſuppoſition that Peter here was conſtituted, as they call him, Head and Prince of the Apoſtles; yet, how would this Perſonall Priviledge, any more belong to the Biſhop of Rome (if he were Peter's Succeſſour) than what our Saviour elſewhere ſaith to Peter, Why didſt thou doubt, O thou of little faith! doth note the Pope's uncertainty and inſtability in Believing? Or, Mat. 14.31.Matt 14:31what our Saviour preſently after ſpeaks, Get thee behind me Satan! doth ſignifie, that every Pope is an Incarnate Devil; or, to take the mildeſt Interpretation, an Adverſary to Chriſt, and to the good of mankind? For what Reaſon can be aſſigned, why the Pope may not as well ſucceed in Peter's Perſonall Defects, as into his Priviledges? ſince the Scripture is utterly ſilent, either that he had, or that he was to have a Succeſſour in either? But

2. I deny the Suppoſition, upon which all this Babel is built; that our Saviour did confer any Preeminence of Power and Authority upon Peter, above the reſt of the Apoſtles; becauſe

p. 61. Theſe words, Upon this Rock will I build my Church, cannot without blaſphemy, be affirmed of the Perſon of Peter; who himſelf was built upon the Rock, Christ; and was not the Foundation, but only a Workman at the Building. Indeed in the Figurative Deſcription of New Jeruſalem, Rev. 21.14.Rev 21:14which John makes in his Viſion, he compares it to a City, which had twelve Foundations, upon which were written the Names of the twelve Apoſtles. Rev. 21.Rev 21So that if the Papiſts will needs call Peter a Foundation, I hope they will take in the reſt of the Apoſtles, to be ſharers with him in that Title. But ſince the whole Deſcription in John, City and all, is only Figurative and Metaphoricall, the Foundation there mentioned, muſt be like the City; i. e. ſo called, not in a Reall, but only Metaphoricall Acception. For to ſpeak properly, as Paul doth, No other Foundation can any man lay, 1 Cor. 3.11.1 Cor 3:11than what is already laid, and that is, Eph. 2.Eph 2that Jeſus is the Chriſt. And therefore when we are ſaid to be built upon the Foundation of the Prophets and Apoſtles; the meaning is not, that we are built upon their Perſons, but upon their Doctrine; the ſumme of which, is contained in Peter's confeſſion; upon which Rock, our Saviour hath ſo built his Church, that the Gates or Powers of Hell, however they may rage, and ſtrive to ruine it; yet they ſhall never be able finally to prevail againſt it; but Chriſt will have a Church, in ſome place or other, unto the end of the world.

2. If Peter was the Rock, ſo as all Chriſtians, even the Apoſtles themſelves, were to depend upon his guidance; what a wretched and tottering condition would the Church have been in, when this Rock, ſo ſoon after was ſhaken, and almoſt removed out of his place? For within ſome few minutes, he is rebuked by our Saviour, in no milder language than this, Get thee behind me Satan! The Story p. 7of his denying, and that with Oaths, his Maſter, is too notorious to be palliated, and too ſad to be inſiſted on: Even after our Saviours Reſurrection, when they pretend this promiſe of Infallibility was inſeparably annexed to him, Act. 10.Acts 10we find him unreſolved in that part of his Commiſſion, which concerned his preaching the Goſpel unto the Gentiles; and therefore had the aſſiſtance of a particular Viſiton, more fully to inform him of it; and afterwards at Antioch, we read that he was of ſo inconſtant and unequall a carriage, in that great point of Chriſtian Liberty, complying herein more than he ought, Gal. 2.Gal 2with the Jewiſh rigour and auſterity, that Paul was forced openly to reprove him for it, and ſo prevent the contagion of his ill example. So that if he, who in the Court of Rome's ſtile, is called Prince of the Apoſtles, in matters of ſo great moment, was thus ſubject to Errour and Fallibility, I wonder with what face, the Pope, upon the account of being Peter's Suceeſſour, can plead any exemption.

3. Theſe words, I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven, do not denote any peculiar power, that Peter had over the reſt of the Apoſtles; for then, how came it to paſs afterwards, that there were ſo many, and ſo fierce contentions amongſt them, Who ſhould be greateſt? Which our Saviour, at two ſeverall times, ſilences, not, by commanding them to obey Peter, as their Chief; but by utter prohibiting any deſire of Soveraignty? If they anſwer us, as Bellarmine doth, that the Apoſtles did not clearly underſtand, that Peter was to be Supream Head, till after our Saviour's Reſurrection, (which by the way, is nothing elſe but a bold playing with ſacred Scripture) Then I demand farther, when there was a new Apoſtle to be choſen into the room of Judas, why did not Peter, by his ſole Authority, Act. 1.Acts 1deſign p. 8him? or at leaſt when the multitude of Diſciples (for ſo we read that all of them were concerned in the choice) had appointed two, why did they not preſent them both unto Peter, that he might chooſe one, rather than ſuffer the matter to be decided by Lot: ſure had Peter had any paramount and extraordinary Power, and withall a peculiar infallible ſpirit, he could not have better exerted it, than in that emergency. For the Head of the Church, in ſo concerning a buſineſs, firſt to permit all the multitude, to have a voice in chooſing an Apoſtle, (for if our modern Arguments are good, he might juſtly fear, that they being for the greateſt part unlearned, would chooſe one like themſelves, and ſo prejudice the reputation of Apoſtolicall Authority) and afterwards to leave the matter unto the uncertain caſualty of a Lot, whereas the choice ſeemed properly to belong to Peter's Juriſdiction; this argues either that his Power, or his care of the Church, was very little; of which laſt, I hope the Papiſts do not doubt; and therefore muſt needs deny the former. For what is it elſe but to tempt God, to have recourſe unto caſting of Lots, when a way of choice, more prudent and Infallible, by referring the buſineſs to Peter's ſingle Deciſion, was opened for them. But it ſeemes the Apoſtles underſtood nothing of Peter's Supremacy, either then, or afterwards, when they went to chooſe Deacons, which by all the Apoſtles, Peter not being ſo much as particularly mentioned, was committed to the Mulitude; and after the choice, Impoſition of hands was performed, not by Peter alone, but as the Text expreſſely ſaies, by all the Apoſtles. Will they tell us, that this was a thing below him; Act. 6.Acts 6and that it did not become Peter's Authority, to intereſſe himſelf in a matter of ſo petty concernment? This plea is taken from them, becauſe we read that the Twelve, and among them ſure Peter was p. 9one, did not think it below them: and beſides, it will appeare, a ſtrange kind of conceated and uſeleſſe Authority, which they aſcribe to Peter; which in maters, neither of the greateſt, ſuch as was the choice of an Apoſtle; nor of the leaſt moment, ſuch as was the choice of a Deacon, would ever ſo particularly exert it ſelf, that we might once take notice of his Prerogative. But what kind of Equality Peter ſtood in to the reſt of the Apoſtles, he ſhewed, Act. 8.Acts 8in ſubmitting to be ſent with John, unto Samaria; to finiſh that worke of the Goſpell, which Philip had begun there; for ſure our Saviours Argument is Infallible, Joh 15.John 15that He who is ſent, is not greater then he who ſends him. And it would have been a ſtrange boldneſſe (I believe the Pope would call it by a worſe name in his Cardinalls) ſhould the Apoſtles, have thus preſumed to ſend their Prince, had he indeed been ſo conſtituted over them. Yet further, when there was a Queſtion ſtarted about the uſe of Jewiſh Ceremonies, and a Synod convened about it, Act. 15.Acts 15why did not Peter then Preſide as chiefe? Why did he ſuffer the buſineſſe to be diſputed, after he had declared his own Judgment? Why doth James, who ſpoke after him, give him no more Honourable ſtile, then plaine Simeon? and ſeemes himſelf, in ſaying My ſentence is, to give the whole ſolution of the Query, as alſo the Forme of the Future Decree, without taking any notice of Peter's deciſion? Whence comes it, that after a ſtrict Debate, the reſult was in the Councell, It pleaſed the Apoſtles, and Elders with the whole Church; and the ſuperſcription of the Letter runs, The Apoſtles and Elders and Brethren; and the decree, It ſeemed good to the Holy Ghoſt, and to us; without any mention of Peter at all, whoſe Supremacy and Infallibility, ought not to have been thus ſilently paſſed over, that the Churches afterwards, might know whether to p. 10to have recourſe for ſatisfaction of their ſcruples. How comes it to paſſe, that we hear no Newes of Peter after, but the ſtory is continued wholy about Paul as if the Primacy had been transferred to him? ſure the Holy Penman, who mentions ſo many of Paul's travells, that were of farre leſſe moment, would not have omitted Peter's Journey to Rome, his ſitting Biſhop there for eighteen yeares, and fixing the Succeſſion, and Infallibility to boot, upon that See, had he underſtood any thing of it. Afterwards when Paul meets Peter at Antioch, Gal. 2.Gal 2Why did he not vaile to him, but Irreverently ſtand upon his Termes, and Openly reprove him? Laſtly, For Inſtances are infinite in this kind, why doth that bleſſed Apoſtle Peter himſelf, 1 Pet. 5.1 Pet 5diſclaime any ſuch kind of Juriſdiction, ſtiling himſelf foreign, a Fellow-Elder, and utterly forbiding any pretentions of Lordſhip and Soveraignty even over the Flocks they fed, much more over their Fellow Miniſters. Certainly none of theſe things, can conſiſt with that grant, which Bellarmine fondly ſuppoſeth, was here made to Peter, and therefore we may juſtly conclude, that the words have another Interpretation, which is plainly this: Our Saviour asking his Diſciples, what men thought of him, and whom they took him to be; after he had heard the various opinions of others, he continues to aske them theirs; whereupon Peter, in the name of the reſt, replies thou art the Chriſt the Son of God; which being the Article, that then was oppugned, our Saviour pronounces him Bleſſed for it, not, as if other Believers were not equally bleſſed, and did not obtain this Faith by Revelation too (for ſo the Apoſtle Paul ſaith expreſſely, 1 Cor. 12.1 Cor 12that none can call Jeſus Lord i. e. Chriſt, but by the Holy Spirit) but thoſe words are ſpoken excluſively, as to any outward meanes, whereby p. 11he might attain that knowledge. For that no leſſe power, than the Imediate action of the Spirit of God, can make a man to Believe on Chriſt, is not onelyonly evident from the nature of the thing, which exceeds all created ability; but likewiſe from thoſe perpetuall contradictions and doubtings, which Beleivers themſelves have, before the Spirit of God hath explained and ſolved them. The promiſe therefore which our Saviour makes to Peter, of giving him the Keyes; &c. concerned all the Apoſtles, ſince they were Believers and Diſciples as well as he; and ſo our Saviour enlarges it after his Reſurrection, in that generall Commiſſion, Whoſe ſins ſoever you retain they are retained i. e. By your Preaching, whom you doe declare to be under the power of ſin, if they Repent not and Believe the Goſpell, their ſins are retained. i. e. Bound and tied faſt to them, for God will never pardon ſuch; but others that embrace the Goſpell, are remitted i. e. looſed and abſolved. So that the reſult of all is this: From this place, cannot be inferred either. 1. That Peter is that Rocke, upon which Chriſt will build his Church; but rather, Chriſt himſelf confeſſed by Peter. Or 2. That Peter here had any Preeminence of Power, Authority and Infallibility, above the reſt of the Apoſtles; he receiving this Promiſe onelyonly, as a Prolocutor of the Apoſtles, in whoſe names he ſpoke, and they being afterwards joyned all equally in the ſame Commiſſion. Much leſſe can it be deduced, 3. That the Pope, who is not once mentioned, was Peter's Suceſſour, or hath the leaſt pretenſion to claime any thing from him, unleſſe it be his Errors and Fallibility.

2. The ſecond place of Scripture, which is brought for the Patronage of Peters firſt, and then of the Popes Infallibility; is that which if they had ſearched the whole Scripture, they could not have found one that doth more directly p. 12make againſt it: The place is Luc. 22.31, 32. Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath deſired to have you, that he may ſift you as Wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy Faith faile not; and when thou art converted ſtrengthen thy Brethren. Here, though by a moſt miſerable inſtance, we find how fraile and fallible Peter was; yet Bellarmine draws from hence two priviledges, that were conferred upon Peter. 1. That Peter might never fall from the Faith, how much ſoever he was tempted of the Divell. 2. That none of his Succeſſors ſhould ever teach any thing contrary to the truth. The Firſt of theſe I grant; and acknowledge that it was by virtue of this Prayer of our Saviours, that Peter recovered his ſtation again, after ſo great a ſhaking, but withall I adde, that this was no peculiar Priviledge to Peter, but in common to all the reſt, as is more cleare in Joh. 17. v. 9. and the Reaſon why Peter was particularly ſpoken to, was becauſe our Saviour foreſaw he ſhould more foully miſcarry: and therefore ſtood in need of this Cordiall to relieve him. But the ſecond, is ſo little to be gathered from the Text viz, that the Pope, as Peter's Succeſſor ſhould never teach falſe Doctrine, that it would be an extream vanity in me, to go about to confute it: OnelyOnly one fetch of Bellarmines is not to be omitted; when we object, that if this place be to be underſtood of Peter's Succeſſors, then it muſt preſuppoſe, that all the Popes (who will needs intrude into that Title) muſt firſt deny Chriſt, and after that be converted, before they can ſtrengthen their Brethren, or be confirmed in the Faith themſelves. To this Bellarmine replies, that foreign doth not ſignifie, Peters being turned from ſin; but his turning himſelf to the weak Brethren, to diſcourſe with them, which is a piece of ſo merry Sophiſtry, that it only ſerves to ſhow the wretched boldneſſe of Partiall p. 13and ſelf-deſigning men, when they make uſe of Scripture to ſhore up and to underprop their ill got greatneſſe; the plaineſt places then ſhall not eſcape their perverſe and irregular fancies; as this, wherein there is a gracious Promiſe made of Peters Recovery and Converſion, is made to ſignifie juſt nothing, but the Impiety of thoſe men, who dare thus abuſe it.

3. The Third and laſt place, which is urged in this Controverfie, and moſt inſiſted on, though to as little, or if poſſible, leſſe purpoſe, than either of the former; is Joh. 21.15, 17. Where our Saviour repeats no leſſe then three times. Peter feed my Lambes; and feed my ſheepe. Bellarmines Comment upon theſe words, is very admirable. 1. By Feed, which in the Scripture dialect ſignifies only to Teach, and compaſſionatly to care for; he underſtands to Rule and Governe, as Prince, becauſe the word foreign is ſometimes ſo rendered. 2. By Lambes and Sheepe, he ſayes are underſtood Chriſtians of all ſorts and ſizes. Lambes ſignifying the weak in Faith; and Sheep the Apoſtles and Teachers, which are to other Chriſtians, as Sheep are to their Lambes, i. e. the bringers of them forth in the Faith of Chriſt; over whom Peter is here conſtituted Univerſall Biſhop, and none who belong to Chriſt, as one of his ſheep, but muſt by virtue of this Commiſſion, be obedient unto Peters Rule and Direction. Had Bellarmine ſtopped here and ſtreined this Scripture no farther, he might have had ſome commendation for his Wit, though very little for his Honeſty, but when he goes on, and Infers, 3. That whatever here is granted to Peter, was entended likewiſe for his Succeſſour; and 4. That the Biſhop af Rome did ſucceed him: I cannot but obſerve how ill an Interpreter of Scripture, Prejudice and Prepoſſeſſion is; for who that reads this place without looking upon it, through p. 14the Spectacles of the Popes Infallibility, can make any other ſenſe of it, than this; that Peter having denyed our Saviour thrice, is here thrice minded of his Duty, to humble him under the ſenſe of his former miſcarriage, and to direct him, that he could not better demonſtrate his Love to Chriſt, then by ſhowing a care over his little ones; which our Saviour had before enjoyned him, when he ſaid Thou being converted, confirme thy Brethren; which is all one with what is here commanded him, Feed my Lambs and Sheep: i. e. Teach, Inſtruct, Reprove, exhort them, and therein performe all the Acts of a Faithfull Miniſter; as Paul to the Elders of the Church of Epheſus; bids them to Feed the Church of God; Act. 20.28.Acts 20:28and Peter to the Elders of the Believing Jewes, in that very place, where he forbids them all manner of Soveraignty and Coercive Juriſdiction, commands them to Feed the Flock of God, which was among them. 1 Pet. 5..21 Pet 5And what the word Feed ſignifies, God himſelf hath already explained, when he promiſes by his Prophet, that he would give unto his People, Paſtours according to his own heart, who ſhould Feed his people, Jer. 3.13.Jer 3:13with knowledge and with underſtanding. So that the word cannot be rendred to Rule and Governe with Force and Authority, and making all men ſubmit, unto his Infallible Dictates; for this is that which God condemnes in the Shepheards of Iſrael; who ruled over them with ſeverity, Ezek. 33.4.Ezek 33:4and with Rigour, and Cruelty; but with all gentleneſſe and condeſcenſion to accommodate themſelves unto the weak and infirme ſtate of their Flockes; …. 40.11.as God deſcribes himſelf. He ſhall Feed his Flocke like a Shepheard, he ſhall gather the Lambes with his Arme, and ſhall gently lead thoſe that are with Young. Ezek. 34.15.16Ezek 34:15Ezek 34:16And again I will Feed my Flock, and cauſe them to lye down; I will ſeek that which was loſt, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was broken, and will ſtrengthen p. 15that which was ſicke. This is the part of a good Shepheard, and this is the ſumme of what here is enjoyned Peter.

After this plain and clear vindication of theſe Scriptures, had I a mind to make my ſelf, and my Reader ſport; I could not find a better Subject, than by enlarging and deſcanting upon thoſe excellent Arguments, that Bellarmine alleadges to prove. 1. That Peter was Biſhop of Rome; and 2. That the Pope did ſucceed him, not only into that Biſhoprick, but likewiſe into all his other more than Apoſtolicall Priviledges. The firſt he proves, from the dignity of that See, which, ſayes he, could no otherwiſe ariſe, but becauſe Peter was Primate there: but who doth not ſee, that the dignity of it, might eaſily ariſe from other cauſes, as particularly from this, becauſe it was the chief ſeat of the Roman Empire; which is the Reaſon aſſigned, why the Biſhop of Conſtantinaple was to have the ſecond place, Concil. Constantinop. Can. 5.becauſe he was Biſhop of New-Rome. 2. He proves it, becauſe Peter died and was buried there, as, ſaith he, is apparent from his Sepulchre, yet to be ſeen. As if it was not as eaſie for the Popes to make ſpecious Tombs, for men who never died in Rome, as to Canonize, and make prayers to Saints, who, it is to be feared, have no place in Heaven. His Reaſons to defend the Pope's ſucceſſion unto Peter, are of the ſame nature; as 1. Becauſe Peter ought to have a Succeſſour; there being, ſaith he, as much reaſon for an Univerſall Biſhop, now, as then. Which I eaſily grant, and return it thus, But there was no Reaſon for an Univerſall Biſhop then; for then ſure the holy men, whoſe buſineſs it was to write all things abſolutely neceſſary unto faith, and godlineſs, would not have omitted a matter ſo very important, unto the peace and unity of Chriſtians; and therefore we may ſafely conclude, there was no ſuch Univerſall Biſhop; but p. 16admitting it were ſo, how will it appear, that the Biſhop of Rome, more than any other Biſhop, was to be his Succeſſour? Yes, ſaith Bellarmine. 2. None ever did yet pretend to be Peter's Succeſſour, but only the Biſhop of Rome, and therefore undoubtedly he was the man; Which is all one, as if an Uſurper, who had gained a Crown by force, and deſtroyed all the lawfull Heirs, ſhould ſay, none doth now pretend to the Crown, but my ſelf, and therefore undoubtedly I have a true Title. I believe this is the firſt caſe, wherein a confident and peremptory claim, was ever thought to give a rightfull poſſeſſion.

But I will no longer fight with a ſhadow, or purſue an Enemy, who hath a Bog for his retreat; for ſo I account all Arguments taken from unwritten Tradition; which is Bellarmine's laſt refuge: for what can be more unreaſonable, than to alleadge old Stories, (which ſerve only to the advantage of the teller, and therefore may juſtly be ſuſpected to be forged by him) and to uſe them as Motives, to perſwade us unto the belief of that, which in Reaſon is ridiculous; and in Scripture, the moſt authentick and allowed Tradition, is not ſo much as once mentioned. The ſumme thereof of what I have to ſay is this; 1. It doth not appear, in any of the fore-mentioned places, that Peter had any peculiar Priviledge of Infallibility, or Authority granted to him, above the reſt of the Apoſtles. 2. It doth much leſs appear that ever he was at Rome, or ſate as Biſhop there. 3. Upon ſuppoſition that the two firſt could be as clearly proved, as it is clear they cannot, yet that any of Peter's perſonall Priviledges, ſhould be communicated to another, who will needs uſurp his Name, and ſtile himſelf his Succeſſour, can as little be maintained, as that his power of Miracles, his gift of Tongues, &c. ſhould be continued, which the Pope as p. 17yet doth not pretend to. I conclude therefore, that Bellarmine's firſt Plea from Scripture, is ſo far from Demonſtration, that it is ſcarce tolerable Sophiſtry, and ſo much in Anſwer to his firſt Argument.

Secondly, Arg. 2 The ſecond Argument in defence of the Popes Infallibility, Bellar. de ſ… mo Pontif. l. 4, 1is taken from the Analogy and Reſemblance, that ought to be between the Jewiſh and the Chriſtian Church. For in the Jewiſh Church, ſaith Bella, mine, there was an High Prieſt, which was Infallible; unto whom they were commanded to have recourſe, in all difficult Cauſes, and to abide by his Determination; as appears Deut. 17.8, 14. And therefore in the Chriſtian Church, there being the ſame, if not greater neceſſity, becauſe of the extent of it, it follows that there muſt likewiſe be ſome viſible Infallible Judge, for the ending of Controverſies, which will daily ariſe among Chriſtians, and this can be no other than the Biſhop of Rome.

To this Argument from Analogy I anſwer;

1. That the ſimilitude and reſemblance between the Jewiſh and the Chriſtian Church, doth not conſiſt in having the ſame outward Oeconomy, and Forms of Adminiſtration; as in a viſible High-Prieſt, with other Rites and Ordinances anſwerable to ſuch a Viſibility; but in the ſpirituall and inward performance, of what heretofore was materially and outwardly repreſented. He's 9.10.So that the Jewiſh Sacrifices did not import, that they ſhould alwayes be continued, but, as the Apoſtle tells us, they were to laſt only, untill that great Sacrifice was offered, of which all the others were only faint and weak Preludiums. The like is declared concerning their meats and drinks, their waſhings, and bodily purifications, Heb. 7.18.Heb 7:18with other carnall and on ſide Ordinances, which were only impoſed, untill the time of Reformation, and after that, were not, that we read of, p. 18to be continued with new names, and under another form, but utterly to be aboliſhed, Heb. 7.18.Heb 7:18becauſe of their weakneſs and unprofitableneſs. The like the Apoſtle obſerves concerning the High Prieſt, into whoſe room our Saviour ſucceeded, who is called a Prieſt for ever, after another order than that of Aaron, even after the order of Melchiſedeck; who can ſupply all defects of his Church, without appointing a viſible Head in his place, by his own immediate Energy, ſince he lives for ever, Heb. 7.25.Heb 7:25to make interceſſion for them. So that if any upon earth now, will pretend to bear the ſame place in the Chriſtian Church, that Aaron did in the Jewiſh, he muſt be able to ſhew the ſame divine warrant; for as the Apoſtle obſerves, Heb. 5.4, 5.Heb 5:4Heb 5:5No man takes this honour to himſelf, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron; ſo alſo Chriſt did not glorify himſelf, to be an High Priſt, but he that ſaid to him thou art my Son this day I have begotten thee. Let then the Pope of Rome, but deale above-board, and ſhow us ſome ſuch plaine place of Scripture, which doth Authorize his plea, and then let them be Anathema that will not ſubmit unto his Dictates; but ſince this is not ſo much as once offered, we cannot be faithfull to the Honour and Prerogative of out Great and only High Prieſt, if we doe not looke upon this pretended Vicar of his, as a bold and unwarrantable Intruder. But

2. It doth not appear, that the High Prieſt among the Jews, was at all Infallible, nor doth the place alleadged evince ſo much; Deut. 17.11.Deut 17:11for there Moſes ſpeaks not of Religious, but of civil cauſes; and commands that the Parties litigant, ſhould do according to the ſentence of the Law, which they ſhall teach thee; ſo that the High Prieſts were not to pronounce according to Tradition, or private fancy, but according to the Law of God, which whoſo conſulted, might ſpeak Infallibly; not as if the High Prieſt, meerly by p. 19vertue of his Office and Place, was more priviledged from Errour, than the common Jew, but becauſe God did give his Law for an Infallible Rule, and in all parts that concerned his own Worſhip, had made it ſo plain and particulat, that unleſs they would, they could not miſtake it. But for want of taking heed to it, we find that in David's time, both himſelf and all the Prieſts did Erre, in conceiving that the Arke might be carried upon a Cart, which was expreſſely commanded to be carried upon the Prieſts ſhoulders; whereupon when God ſmote Uzzah, Numb. 4.Num 4David acknowledged that a breach was made upon them, 2 Chron 15.132 Chr 15:13becauſe they ſought him not in the due order. Beſides in the generall Apoſtacy of the people, which the Prophets ſo ſadly complain of, and ſo much enveigh againſt, we have no reaſon to imagine, 2 Reg 16.10.2 Kgs 16:10that the High Prieſt continued ſtedfaſt in Religion; ſince in all probability, Uriah the Prieſt, whom Ahaz employed in building an Idolatrous Altar, was the Chief Priest at that time, and not only a partaker in, but a promoter of that wicked King's abominations. We read likewiſe, that none were more fierce againſt Jeremy, and other of Gods Prophets, than the Prieſts; and to put the matter out of Diſpute, we have it plainly told us, that there was for many ages, none in that Church that could Infallibly guid them; ſo the Pſalmiſt, Pſal: 74.9.We ſee not our Signs, there is no more any Prophets, neither is among us any that knoweth how long. And in Ezra we find, that the Tirſhatha, or Governour, as ſome think Nebemiah, Ezra 2.63.Ezra 2:63commanded that they ſhould not eat of the moſt holy things, till there ſtood up a Prieſt with Urim and Thummim; who was to enquire of the Lord in difficult caſes, according to the command given to Joſhua, Numb. 25.21.Num 25:21that he ſhould conſult with Eleazar the Prieſt, who was to ask counſell for him, according to the judgement of Urim: which in Ezra's time, p. 20was utterly ceaſed, and we do not read that ever it revived again. Juſt as much Infallibility therefore, as the High Prieſt and Sanhedrim had, in our Saviours time, when they put him to death; I am content to allow unto the Pope, and a Councell of his calling; and more than that, this Argument from Analogy will not amount to. For if they were ſo fatally deceived, in ſo important and evident a truth, who had, as Bellarmine ſuppoſeth, a clear promiſe of being Infallibly aſſiſted; how much more liable to Errour is the Biſhop of Rome, who hath no promiſe nor pretence of Plea, but only an uſurped and unjuſt poſſeſſion. Since then, 1. the High Prieſt of the Jewes, was only a Type of Chriſt, and did not figure any other perſon in the Chriſtian Church, who was to bear a Reſemblance to him: And 2. ſince he was not Infallible, but in the moſt concerning buſineſs that ever happened, and that was the acknowledgement of the Meſſiah, moſt miſerably miſtaken: And laſtly, ſince the whole Argument doth no more concern the Infallibility of the Biſhop of Rome, than of any other Biſhop whatever; nothing can be concluded from hence, but that the Propheſie of the Apoſtle, that God would give ſome up unto ſtrong deluſions, that they ſhould believe a lie, 2 Theſ. 2 10.2 Thess 2:10by mens taking pains to urge ſuch kind of empty and frivolous Reaſonings as theſe, is abundantly fulfilled. And ſo much in Anſwer to the ſecond Argument.

The third and laſt Argument, to prove the Pope's Infallibility, is taken from thoſe Inconveniences, which would follow in the Church of Chriſt, were there not ſome unerring Judge appointed, to determine Controverſies. For ſince our Saviour foretold, that there would be falſe Chriſts and falſe Prophets; ſince the Apoſtles tell us, that Hereſies and Errours would be vented; it would argue that our Saviour p. 21had ſmall care of his Church, ſhould be have left it without a Guide, unto whom all might have recourſe: As if a Maſter of a Ship, ſhould be at pains to rigge up a Veſſell, and put it to Sea, if he did not appoint a Pilot that might ſteer it through the Waves, and ſecure it from the Rocks, he might juſtly be taxed as very improvident. So ſaith Bellarmine, it will lay a great Imputation upon our Saviours Wiſedome, if, amongſt ſo many prodigious Errours, which, like Waves, are ready to overwhelm the Truth, he ſhould not have provided ſome ſuch known and viſible Pilot, who can guide the Ship of the Church, through all ſtorms, and preſerve it ſafe, from thoſe Rocks and Shelves, by ſtriking upon which, it is otherwiſe liable to miſcarry. Some one therefore is requiſite to be the Judge of Controverſies, which by Confeſſion of all Ages, is no other but the Biſhop of Rome.

I have enlarged this Argument, and put ſome kind of ſtouriſh upon it, becauſe this is indeed the Papiſts Achilleum; and upon all turns, the ſuppoſed Inconveniences, which will follow, if we admit not of their groundleſs conceits, are alleadged to authorize their Unſcripturall Inſtitutions. Therefore I anſwer,

1. That Arguments drawn from Inconveniences, are ſo liable to miſtake and Errour, and, for the moſt part, do ſo much ſavour of Paſſion and Intereſt, as well as ſhortſightedneſs, in the Arguer; that, in all Diſputes, concerning the Truth of any thing, they are of very little weight. It is no hard matter, to faſten ſome ſeeming Abſurdities, upon the moſt plain and clearly revealed Truth, as we know the Socinians do upon the Doctrine of the Trinity. The Jewes heretofore conceived our Saviour to be a Blaſphemer, and thought it would be very prejudiciall to their ſtate, to ſuffer him to live; and afterwards both Jewes and Romanes did agree, in ſtriving to p. 22ſuppreſs his Doctrine, becauſe of ſome Politicall Inconveniences, which they imagined would follow the ſpreading of it. Yet all the while, our Saviour was really the Son of God, and his Doctrine, the Power of God unto Salvation for all Believers. So that unleſs the Papiſts can clear to us, by ſome better Motives, than any they have yet produced, that their Biſhop is Infallible, the Inconveniences, which they ſuppoſe will follow our denying it, ought not to ſway with us.

2. Among Perſons, who own the Scriptures to be the Word of God, certainly it is much more rationall to argue, ſuch a thing, (as for example the Popes Infallibility) is not once mentioned there, and therefore undoubtedly was never divinely appointed; than to ſay it is divinely appointed, becauſe otherwiſe it would be very Inconvenient. It would have been much more convenient, it all Mankind had been as Infallible, as the Pope is preſumed to be; if we had all retained our Innocence, and been exempted from Poſſibility of offending; one would think, this might have made more for the Honour of God, and the Peace of Mankind, than our preſent erring and ſinning Condition. But we muſt not meaſure Gods Appointments, or the Reall Being of things, by our own Rules of Convenience; nor affirm a Thing to be ſo, becauſe we conceive it would be very Convenient, if it were ſo. It is therefore but loſt labour, for the Popiſh Writers, in a great deal of Plauſible Language, to declare and ſet out the great Convenience of Infallibility, when they ſhould firſt prove to us the Truth and the Exiſtence of it. We may eaſily fancy, many things to be very Advantageous and Uſefull to the World, which yet never, either were, or will be: And amongſt theſe goodly Chimera's, wherewith fond perſons pleaſe themſelves; for ought I yet p. 23ſee, this Dream of Infallibility may claime a Chiefe place.

3. Thoſe Terrible ſtories and Tragicall outcries, about the danger of Heriſies, for the ſuppreſſion of which, this expedient, of having ſome one Viſible Unerring Judge, muſt be found out; they are, for the moſt part, as Mr. Hales well obſerves, but ſo many Theologicall Scarecrowes, ſet up to fright us from the Diſquiſition and ſearch of Truth. I know very well, that to teach Hereſie i. e. any Falſe and Unchriſtian Doctrine, is a very great ſin; but yet, to prevent this, we muſt not in all haſte run into a greater: Supremum in Terris Numen & Dominus Deus noſter Papa.For to ſet up a viſible God upon Earth (according to the Court of Romes ſtile) to cry up a man, that is like our ſelves, to be Infallible; and then to fall down and worſhip him; to bring him for an offering, not thoſe worthleſſe Creatures, as Sheep and Oxen (which onelyonly were required of Old) but to Sacrifice our ſoules, to bind over our Reaſons and Underſtandings unto his Oracular Dictates; this is ſo dull, ſo ſtupid an Idolatry, that we may wonder, any learned man would ever goe about to defend it, had not the God of this world blinded their eyes; and did they not by this Craft, as that Ancient Father Demetrius the Silver-Smith ſubtilty argued, get their Livings; and divide the ſpoiles of the deluded world, by this groſſe and Palpable Cozenage.

Laſtly, In anſwer to all their Allegations from Fathers and Authority, I need ſay no more than this, that as, though all the world did conſent to believe a Lie (as that the Sun was really no bigger then it ſeemes to be, which was the opinion of Epicurus) yet this Conſpiracy would never make a Lie to be Truth; ſo, upon ſuppoſition, that all Antiquity did acknowledge this prerogative of the Biſhop of Rome, yet could we not from thence p. 24inferre the Juſtice and the Legallity of it; becauſe the moſt that ſuch Teſtimonies amount to, is meerly this, to ſhow us, not what really was, but what they conceived to be True: I need not therefore be much concerned in examining Bellarmine's Quotations. But yet that I may doe Juſtice to the Chriſtians of former Ages, and vindicate them from being ſo Unwiſe, as the Pope's Champions would make us believe they were; I muſt affirme, that this Doctrine, is ſo farre from being owned by any of them, for many Centuries, that we have upon Record, many pregnant Inſtances, which doe evince that they did not ſo much as Dreame of it. To draw up which, I ſhall ſelect onelyonly two or three famous Caſes, which Bellarmine is pleaſed to take no Notice of.

1. Euſeb. l b. 5. c. 23, 24, 25.The firſt Inſtance ſhall be from that doughty diſpute which was raiſed about the yeare 160. concerning the day when Eaſter was to be kept, the Churches of Aſia kept Eaſter-day preciſely upon the 14^th of March; at which time the Jewes did ſolemnize their Paſſeover; but the Weſterne Churches. after many meetings to ſettle this weighty Controverſie, did agree that the day of our Saviours Reſurrection, ſhould be celebrated onelyonly upon the Lords Day. foreign.The Aſian Biſhops, notwithſtanding this Decree, did perſiſt in their former cuſtome, in which they were defended by Polycrates, who alleaged that Philip the Evangelist, John the Apoſtle and many others, did tranſmit that Traditionall Obſervance to them. Upon this, Victor the Biſhop of Rome, in great heat (foreign, Socrat lib. 6.ſaith my Author) did take upon him to excommunicate all the Churches of Aſia, but being ſharply writ againſt for it, and ſt…ffely oppoſed in it, he was forced to revoke his ſentence. Which ſtory might afford p. 25us very many Obſervations, as 1. That Superſtition and Needleſſe Obſervation of Dayes. 2. That Impoſition and Abridging of Chriſtian Liberty in things Indifferent. 3. That the Biſhop of Rome's Uſurpation and exceeding the Bounds of his proper Juriſdiction, did begin to worke very early. But I wave theſe, and onelyonly note, that had the Churches of Afia then thought the Biſhop of Rome to be Infallible, they would not ſo peremptorily, in ſo ſmall a thing as the Retaining of an Old Cuſtome, have refuſed to ſubmit unto his Judgment.

2. My ſecond Inſtance ſhall be from that Controverſie, which for many yeares was very eagerly managed; viz. Whether ſuch as had received Baptiſme from Heretickes, upon their Returne to the Church, Cyprian. Epiſ. 92. Edit. Fam.ſhould be Baptized again or not? Cyprian and all the African Biſhops maintained the Neceſſiry of Re-baptizing; and in their Letter to Stephen the Biſhop of Rome, after they had at large given the Reaſons of their Opinion, they conclude, So much Dearest Brother, have we enformed you of, not doubting becauſe of the Truth of your Religion, but ſuch things will pleaſe you, which are both Religious and True. But yet we know, that ſome are very unwilling to lay down any Opinion, which they have once tooke up; but preſerving that mutuall agreement which ought to be amongſt Brethren, they retain the Cuſtomes which they have once been uſed to. In which matter, we neither Force nor give a Law to any; ſince in the ordering of the Church; Prapoſitus.every Governour hath abſolute power of his own will, as being to give unto God alone a Reaſon of his Actings. From which paſſage written by Cyprian and all the Biſhops of Africh (who mer together in a Councell for that purpoſe) it ſufficiently appeares. 1. That they did not underſtand any thing of p. 26the Biſhop of Rome's Infallibility, ſince they profeſs to retain their own Judgement, without ſubſcribing to his. 2. That in the outward Regimen and Government of the Church, every Biſhop hath equall Power, and ought not Authoritatively, to preſcribe and impoſe Laws upon another. Ibid. Ep. 73.As the ſame Cyprian, in another Letter; Theſe things, ſaith he, according to my weak Ability, have I writ, not Impoſing upon or Pre-judging any; as if it was not lawfull for every Biſhop to do as he thinks fit, ſince he hath free Power of his own Will. And afterwards, when Stephen had declared his Judgement, that he would have none baptized again, whatever Herefie they came from; but that the ancient Cuſtome ſhould be preſerved, whereby ſuch Converts were admitted into Church Communion, meerly by laying on of Hands. Ibid. Ep. 74. Inter catera vel ſuperba, vel ad rem non pertinentia, vel ſibi ipſi contraria, quae improvidè at que imperitè ſcripſit.Cyprian, in ſtead of yeelding to his Determination, doth taxe his Letter of Pride, Folly, and Impertinence; and, in Anſwer to thoſe words of his, wherein Stephen commanded that nothing ſhould be varied, from the accuſtomed Tradition; Whence, ſaith he, was that Tradition? Did it deſcend from the Authority of our Lord and his Goſpel? Did it come from the Commands and Epiſtles of the Apoſtles? For God teſtifies in his Commands, both to Joſhua and others, that thoſe things only ſhould be done which were written. And our Lord Chriſt, when he ſent his Apoſtles into the World, commands them to Baptize, and to Teach all Nations, that they might obſerve and do all things, which he had Commanded. If therefore any ſuch Cuſtome, (meaning that of Stephen's) be contained, either in the Goſpels, or in the Epiſtles and Acts of the Apoſtles, then let ſach an Holy and Divine Tradition be obſerved. But what Obſtinacy, what Preſumption is it, to prefer Humane Tradition, before a Divine Appointment? What Folly is it not to conſider, that God is angry, p. 27as often as Humane Tradition doth leſſen and diſcountenance Divine Precepts; as he teſtifies by the Prophet Iſay? And our Saviour likewiſe, in his Goſpel, rebuking and chiding the Phariſees, Ye reject the Commands of God, that ye may keep your own Tradition. Of which words, the Apoſtle Paul being mindfull, he likewiſe adviſeth and inſtructeth us, ſaying, If any man teach otherwiſe, and reſte not in the ſound words of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and in his Doctrine; he is puffed up, knowing nothing; from ſuch turn aſide. Neither ought Cuſtome, which hath privily crept in amongst ſome, to hinder Truth from prevailing. For Cuſtome, without Truth; Conſuetudo ſine veritate vetuſtas Erroris eſt.is nothing elſe but the Antiquity of Errour. And it ariſeth only from Pride and Preſumption, that one is apt to defend his own Practices, how Falſe and erroneous ſoever, rather than conſent to that, which is True and Right in another. For which reaſon, the Apoſtle Paul writing to Timothy, Docibilem Gr. foreign.adviſeth a Biſhop not to be Contentious, but Meek and Apt to Teach. But he is Apt to Teach, who is Gentle, and endued with Patience to Learn: for a Biſhop ought not only to Teach, but to Learn; ſince he Teacheth beſt, who continually grows and profits by Learning. Which the Apoſtle Paul likewiſe declares, when he admoniſheth, That if any thing be revealed to another which ſits by, the Firſt ſhould hold his Peace. Religious and ſincere Minds are alwayes prepared to lay aſide Errour, and to ſearch for Truth; for if we return unto the Head and Originall of Divine Tradition, Hamane Errour ceaſeth; and when the Reaſon of the Heavenly Appointments, is once throughly diſcerned, whatever lay hid in Obſcurity, is cleared up, and brought to Light. As if a Pipe, that formerly conveyed a great Quantity of Water, ſhould ſuddenly fail; we would the a have recourſe unto the Fountain, to learn the true Conſe of ſuch a Stop and Interciſion, that if the fault p. 28was in the Pipe, it might be repaited, and fitted to receive the Streams of Water, in the ſame Abundance and Purity, that they iſſue from the Fountain: ſo likewiſe ought all the Miniſters of God, in their Obſervance of Divine Commands, to do: that if the Truth ſeems wavering and uncertain in any Point, Ad Originem Dominicam, & Evangelicam, & Apoſtolicam Traditionem.we may have recourſe unto the Originall, to wit, the Tradition of our Lord, in his Goſpel, and by his Apoſtles: that ſo the Ground of our Acting may proceed thence, whence the Order and Originall of it did firſt ariſe. I have at large quoted theſe words out of Cyprian, both to ſhew how little the Biſhop of Rome's Authority was then valued; and likewiſe to manifeſt, what that Holy and Learned Man thought to be the only way, whereby all Controverſies in Religion ought to be decided: not to depend upon Uncertain Traditions, which at the beſt are but the Inventions of Men; but to have Immediate recourſe unto the Scriptures, and to go no further in any part of Divine Worſhip, than as their Rule doth guid us. And this Teſtimony of his, the Papiſts cannot in Juſtice refuſe, ſince Cyprian is a Saint in their Calender, and yet died without ever retracting his Judgement.

3. My Third and Laſt Inſtance ſhall be, that notable Speech of Pope Gregory, about ſix hundred years after our Saviours time; who having had great conteſts for Superiority, with John the Patriarch of Conſtantinople; when at ſaſt, John, having the Emperour on his ſide, did endeavour to gain the Title of Univerſall Biſhop, Greg. lib. 4. Ep. 32, 33.Gregory did fiercely oppoſe him in it, and in many of his Epiſtles, affirms that whoever ſhould Aſſume that Stile, he was the Forerunner of Antichriſt, a Child of the Devil, an Apostate from the Faith; with many other ſharp, but true, ſayings to the ſame Purpoſe. It pleaſed God that within few years after, An. 606, Pope Boniface, little minding the p. 29Predictions of his Predeceſſour, did not only claim, but likewiſe actually take to himſelf that Name, which, as a Badge of Antichriſt, and an Infallible Mark to know him by, he hath ever ſince tranſmitted to his Succeſſours. Now I ask, whether Pope Gregory, was Infallible in that Opinion of his, which he doth ſo often, and ſo earneſtly inſiſt upon? If they tell me he was, then we need not diſpute any farther, Whether the Pope be Antichriſt, for we have Gregorie's own Confeſſion, that whoever would arrogate to himſelf, the Name of Univerſall Biſhop, was undoubtedly ſo; but, if they ſay, he was not, then their Conceit of Infallibility vaniſheth, as amounting to no more than this, that the Pope is Infallible, when he Speaks and Acts, for the Advantage of his See; but very Fallible when he ſpeaks any thing, though never ſo deliberately, which in after Ages may make againſt it.

I have forebore to Urge, that many of the Popes have actually fallen into Hereſie, as Honorius, by Name, who by the ſixth Synod, was condemned for an Heretick, and his Epiſtles commanded to be burnt; and the very expreſs words of ſome of their Canons are, That the Pope cannot be judged by any, unleſs he be found to have crred from the Faith; which doth ſuppoſe, even in the Judgement of his own Canoniſts, that there is a Poſſibility of his Erring. Neither do I inſiſt upon the Decrees of the Councels of Baſil and Conſtance, which were both aſſembled, for the depoſing of two Popes that were unduely Choſen; and in them it was Enacted, that A Councell was above the Pope, which they ſtrictly command all to believe as an Article of Faith: Which Inſtances, though they ſtrike ſufficiently at the Pope's Infallibility, and Paramount Authority, yet becauſe the Anſwer of ſome of the moſt Moderate and Ingenuous Papiſts, is, that Though the p. 30Pope be not Infallible in himſelf, yet in and with a Councell, he is. I ſhall therefore ſpeak a little to this Conceit; and then conclude.

I demand therefore of thoſe, who maintain the Infallibility of the Pope, and a Councell conjunctim; what Divine Warrant have they for ſuch an Opinion? and where hath God promiſed Infallible Aſſiſtance, unto a Councell of the Pope's Calling? For thoſe Texts, that are commonly made uſe of, as Hear the Church; and, The Spirit ſhall lead you into all Truth; and, It ſeemed good unto the Holy Ghoſt, and to us; with ſome few others to the ſame ſenſe, are as impertinently alleadged in behalf of a Councell, as thoſe fore-mentioned, are in behalf of the Pope. For

1. That Command, Tell the Church, doth not ſignifie an Appeal unto a Synod of Biſhops, …at. 18.(who are all of the Pope's Creation, and therefore muſt needs be Partiall for him) but Church there ſignifies, that particular Congregation, to which we relate as Members; neither do our Saviour's words concern Articles of Faith, and Matters of Opinion, but meerly Civil Injuries, as is plain from the Context; for our Saviour having commanded them to forgive one another, he then goes on to tell them, what courſe they ſhould take, in caſe a Brother ſhould offend them; firſt, to reprove him privately; and if that prevailed not, then to take two or three, as witneſſes of their proceedings: But if notwithſtanding this, the Injurious Perſon ſtill continued Obſtinate, then to tell it Caetui, or to the Congregation; 1 Cor. 5.1 Cor 5as the Apoſtle Paul adviſeth the Corinthians, that being all met together, they ſhould proceed to cenſure; 1 Tim. 5.20.1 Tim 5:20and to Timothy, Them that ſin, rebuke before all, i. e. all of that Church, or Congregation, to which they belong, that others alſo may fear. And this ſenſe, beſides p. 31that it is the proper meaning of the word foreign, or Church, (which often in Scripture ſignifies the Congregation, diſtinct from their Officers; but never the contrary) it likewiſe fully agrees with our Saviours Scope, who, as the Offence ariſeth, would have the Remedy to ariſe proportionably, and therefore he uſeth this Gradation, that firſt one ſhould reprove an Offending Brother, then two or three, then the Church, or more; according to what we find practiſed in the Church of Corinth, who it ſeems had agreed to cenſure the Inceſtuous Perſon, according as the Apoſtle had commanded them, 2 Cor. 2.9.2 Cor 2:9and therefore he tells them, Sufficient to ſuch a one is the Reprehenſion by many, i. e. even by all the Members of that Chriſtian Aſſembly, to which he did relate; and if the Offender would not hearken to them, then he was to be thrown out of Communion, and to be accounted as a Stranger to the Church; even as an Heathen, and a Publican. And ſuch Determinations of every particular Church, our Saviour ſaith, ſhould be ratified in Heaven; For, ſaith he, where two or three (not Biſhops, but Believers) are gathered together in my Name, there I will be in the midſt of them: i. e. When any Number of Believers, how ſmall ſoever, though but two or three, are met for thoſe Holy Ends of Diſcipline, and in thoſe Ways, which I by my Commands have warranted, I will be with them to Aſſiſt and to Guide their Councels, and to Execute their Sentence. Chap. 49.Accordingly we find in Tertullian's Apology, that in all Chriſtian Meetings upon the Lords-day, together with Prayer and Preaching, there was likewiſe Cenſura Divina; i. e. the Sentence of Excommunication, pronounced againſt all refractory and ſtubborn Sinners: according to this, our Saviours Inſtitution.

If any object, that if Chriſt will be with two or three, p. 32then in all probabily he will be with a Councell of many Hundreds, much more. I anſwer, No doubt he will, if they meet in his Name i. e. according to his Command and Inſtitution; for it is not the Aſſembly, though, of never ſo many Thouſands, but the End and Manner of Aſſembling, which hath the Promiſe of Aſſiſtance. And when I can ſee ſuch a Councell, which profeſſeth ſolely to follow Scripture, according to that ſenſe which (not the fancy of men, whether Fathers or Councells, but) the Spirit of God enlightning their underſtandings, doth give unto it; I ſhall then with all Reverence embrace their Decrees. For I know that ſuch a Councell cannot Erre, becauſe they will Command nothing, but what is already commanded by God; which every true Chriſtian ought to obey, without the Sanction of any other Authority. But ſuch a Councell as this, I am hopeleſſe of ever ſeeing under the Papecy; ſince all their meetings, for ſome hundreds of Yeares, have been deſigned, not to ſearch but, to ſmother Scripture; and to Empriſon that Light, which if looked into, would detect and manifeſt their Errors. So that they come together, not in Chriſts but; in the Pope's name; or rather in the name of that God of the world, who is Prince of the Power of Darkneſſe; and whoſe Kingdome is founded and upheld by the Artifice and cunning of their Teachers, and by the Ignorance and Implicite Faith of their Hearers. Fallere & Falli To deceive and to be deceived, is the beſt Motto which can be ſet upon all the Church-doores in the Papall Territories; but Heaven is a place of Light, and the True Church is full of Knowledge, becauſe … are all taught of God, not to obey or to Believe in …, but in him alone.

2. That Promiſe of our Saviour, I will ſend the Spirit, John. 14. &c. 16.John 14which ſhall lead you into all Truth, was ſpoken Perſonally to the Apoſtles: And thoſe words, Act. 15.Acts 15It ſeemeth good to the Holy Spirit and to Us, were ſpoken by them, after the accompliſhment of that Promiſe; ſo that without great preſumption, they cannot be wreſted to any other; nor ſuch wreſting, without great vanity, be confuted: ſince barely to deny ungrounded ſuppoſitions, is a ſufficient Confutation.

If any aske me, ſince neither the Pope nor a Councell is Infallible, as having no peculiar Promiſe for that purpoſe, then how ſhall the Church determine Controverſies, or, How ſhall Hereſies be ſuppreſſed? I anſwer, that if the word of God is clear, and the Hereſie be Notorious; than every Particular Church hath Power within it ſelf, to excommunicate all obſtinate Heretickes. But, where the Scripture, is either Dubious or Silent, Phil. 3.15.Phil 3:15there charitably to beare with diſſenters, and to wait till God ſhall reveale it to them, is the beſt way to winne them. And this was the onelyonly method, which the primitive Chriſtians did take for three hundred yeares together, to preſerve and maintaine the Truth of our Religion. Having no Communion with ſuch, as hold manifeſt and deſtructive Errors; and in things of leſſer moment, Forbearing one another in Love; Theſe will at laſt be found to be the ſafe wayes of God; whereas to pretend to Infallibility in determining, or to practiſe Tyranny in Impoſing, theſe are onelyonly the wayes of Ambitious and ſelf-ſeeking men, found out not ſo much to promote Truth (which ſtands not in need of ſuch Arts) as to Augment a party; which makes all Articles of Faith, to be meerly like the Civill Lawes of a Land, where moſt Voices doe carry the Cauſe. Such a kind of Univerſality as this, True p. 43Piety never had, and therefore we need not be ſorry, that Popery doth make its boaſt of it.

And thus I have, with as much Brevity and Plainneſſe, as the ſubject would beare, enquired into the Grounds, whereupon the Popes Infallibility is ſaid to be grounded, and after the moſt Impartiall ſearch, can pronounce of them all Mene Tekell that being weighed in the Balance of the Sanctuary, they are found too light. Neither have I diverted my ſelf, in confuting their worſhip of Images, their Blaſphemous Figment of Tranſſubſtantiation, their mingling of works in Juſtification, their Invocation of Angells, Col. 2.19.Col 2:19which the Apoſtle ſaith, is not to hold the Head, i. e. to Erre fundamentally. Their forbidding of Marriage and commanding to abſtain from meats. Which he who propheſied of them, 1 Tim. 4.1.1 Tim 4:1calls the Doctrine of Devils. I have omitted likwiſe their Furious and Bloody Tenets of Perſecuting and Killing all, who doe not worſhip the Image of that Beaſt which they have erected; Rev. 13.15.Rev 13:15for theſe things, how plainely ſoever the Scripture ſpeakes againſt them, will not much concerne them to anſwer, as long as they are fenced about with the Doctrine of Infallibility; whereby they are privileged to put what ſenſe upon Scripture they pleaſe: but if the Chriſtian Reader finds that conceit to be clearly diſproved, then I hope he will make uſe of the other Arguments, to ſatisfie himſelf, that we have but too much reaſon to ſuſpect the Pope to be that Antichriſt, that foreign or Lawleſſe one, who ſits in the Temple of God, and declares that he is God: For in the Church, which is the Temple or Houſe of God; for any man to make Lawes, which doe oblige the Conſcience; For a ſinfull man to ſtile himſelf the Head and Bridegroome of the Church, and above all, to affirme that he is Infallible, p. 35this is nothing elſe but to ſay that he is God; and therein to fulfill the moſt clear Prediction that can be, concerning The Man of ſin; whoſe way of Riſing was to be, by the Deceiveableneſſe of Unrighteouſneſſe, and his Dominion to be Eſtabliſhed by Miracles and Lying Wonders; Which no Church in the world doth more confidently boaſt of than the Roman. And therefore till her unhappy and much miſtaken Followers have cleared, that She is not Antichriſtian, we have little reaſon to believe that She is a True Church; much leſſe, to think that She is Infallible.

FINIS.

End of the text · Edward Bagshaw, Inquiry into Grounds for the Infallibility of the Pope and Church of Rome (1662)