it is clear they cannot yet that any of Peter's personall Priviledges should be communicated to another who will needs usurp his Name and stile himself his Successour can as little be maintained as that his power of Miracles his gift of Tongues c. should be continued which the Pope as yet doth not pretend to I conclude therefore that Bellarmine's first Plea from Scripture is so far from Demonstration that it is scarce tolerable Sophistry and so much in Answer to his first Argument Secondly Arg. 2 The second Argument in defence of the Popes Infallibility Bellar. de sâ—â—mo Pontif. l. 4 1 is taken from the Analogy and Resemblance that ought to be between the Jewish and the Christian Church For in the Jewish Church saith Bella mine there was an High Priest which was Infallible unto whom they were commanded to have recourse in all difficult Causes and to abide by his Determination as appears Deut. 17.8 14. And therefore in the Christian Church there being the same if not greater necessity because of the extent of it it follows that there must likewise be some visible Infallible Judge for the ending of Controversies which will daily arise among Christians and this can be no other than the Bishop of Rome To this Argument from Analogy I answer 1. That the similitude and resemblance between the Jewish and the Christian Church doth not consist in having the same outward Oeconomy and Forms of Administration as in a visible High-Priest with other Rites and Ordinances answerable to such a Visibility but in the spirituall and inward performance of what heretofore was materially and outwardly represented He 's 9.10 So that the Jewish Sacrifices did not import that they should alwayes be continued but as the Apostle tells us they were to last only untill that great Sacrifice was offered of which all the others were only faint and weak Preludiums The like is declared concerning their meats and drinks their washings and bodily purifications Heb. 7.18 with other carnall and on side Ordinances which were only imposed untill the time of Reformation and after that were not that we read of to be continued with new names and under another form but utterly to be abolished Heb. 7.18 because of their weakness and unprofitableness The like the Apostle observes concerning the High Priest into whose room our Saviour succeeded who is called a Priest for ever after another order than that of Aaron even after the order of Melchisedeck who can supply all defects of his Church without appointing a visible Head in his place by his own immediate Energy since he lives for ever Heb. 7.25 to make intercession for them So that if any upon earth now will pretend to bear the same place in the Christian Church that Aaron did in the Jewish he must be able to shew the same divine warrant for as the Apostle observes Heb. 5.4 5. No man takes this honour to himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron so also Christ did not glorify himself to be an High Prist but he that said to him thou art my Son this day I have begotten thee Let then the Pope of Rome but deale above-board and show us some such plaine place of Scripture which doth Authorize his plea and then let them be Anathema that will not submit unto his Dictates but since this is not so much as once offered we cannot be faithfull to the Honour and Prerogative of out Great and only High Priest if we doe not looke upon this pretended Vicar of his as a bold and unwarrantable Intruder But 2. It doth not appear that the High Priest among the Jews was at all Infallible nor doth the place alleadged evince so much Deut. 17.11 for there Moses speaks not of Religious but of civil causes and commands that the Parties litigant should do according to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee so that the High Priests were not to pronounce according to Tradition or private fancy but according to the Law of God which whoso consulted might speak Infallibly not as if the High Priest meerly by vertue of his Office and Place was more priviledged from Errour than the common Jew but because God did give his Law for an Infallible Rule and in all parts that concerned his own Worship had made it so plain and particulat that unless they would they could not mistake it But for want of taking heed to it we find that in David's time both himself and all the Priests did Erre in conceiving that the Arke might be carried upon a Cart which was expressely commanded to be carried upon the Priests shoulders whereupon when God smote Uzzah Numb 4. David acknowledged that a breach was made upon them 2 Chron 15.13 because they sought him not in the due order Besides in the generall Apostacy of the people which the Prophets so sadly complain of and so much enveigh against we have no reason to imagine 2 Reg 16.10 that the High Priest continued stedfast in Religion since in all probability Uriah the Priest whom Ahaz employed in building an Idolatrous Altar was the Chief Priest at that time and not only a partaker in but a promoter of that wicked King's abominations We read likewise that none were more fierce against Jeremy and other of Gods Prophets than the Priests and to put the matter out of Dispute we have it plainly told us that there was for many ages none in that Church that could Infallibly guid them so the Psalmist Psal 74.9 We see not our Signs there is no more any Prophets neither is among us any that knoweth how long And in Ezra we find that the Tirshatha or Governour as some think Nebemiah Ezra 2.63 commanded that they should not eat of the most holy things till there stood up a Priest with Urim and Thummim who was to enquire of the Lord in difficult cases according to the command given to Joshua Numb 25.21 that he should consult with Eleazar the Priest who was to ask counsell for him according to the judgement of Urim which in Ezra's time was utterly ceased and we do not read that ever it revived again Just as much Infallibility therefore as the High Priest and Sanhedrim had in our Saviours time when they put him to death I am content to allow unto the Pope and a Councell of his calling and more than that this Argument from Analogy will not amount to For if they were so fatally deceived in so important and evident a truth who had as Bellarmine supposeth a clear promise of being Infallibly assisted how much more liable to Errour is the Bishop of Rome who hath no promise nor pretence of Plea but only an usurped and unjust possession Since then 1. the High Priest of the Jewes was only a Type of Christ and did not figure any other person in the Christian Church who was to bear a Resemblance to
minu◠probi Bell. Prafat cannot but force them to acknowledge that he is liable to Errour but in his Politicall or which is all one his Ecclesiasticall capacity as he is the pretended Head of the Church and vested with all those Immunities and Priviledges which his Favourers suppose to be due unto the Universall Bishop 2. By the Church of Rome I mean not the diffused and scattered Body of the Papists but according to their own Sense how Absurd and Insignificant soever the Bishops and Doctours of their Church assembled together in a Councell where they may be supposed to meet with the greatest Advantage and Opportunity for the Disquisition and Search of Truth 3. By Infallible I mean to have a certain fixed and unerring Judgement in Religious matters which things alone do properly belong to the determination and cognizance of a Church as it is a Church And in this sense of the Question thus explained in as great a Latitude as any Papist can possibly understand it in I deny the Pope whether considered as apart from or conjoyned with as a part of a Councell to be Infallible For the proof of which Assertion though I might find out great variety of Arguments from the express and direct contradictions which have been among the Popes themselves some reversing that which others have ratified and others establishing that which their Predecessors under the severest Penalties have forbid Yet since the proper and direct way of Arguing lyes in shewing the weakness and insufficiency of those Arguments which are brought in defence of the Popes Infallibility that is the Method which I purpose altogether to insist on For since this great and so much admired Diana of the Papists is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. a thing to be discerned by its own Light and to be credited meerly for it self as the testimony of the Spirit is when it bears witness unto the truth of Scripture and besides it being generally denied by all the Protestants who make the Errours of the Church of Rome the ground of their separation from them hence it cannot be expected that we should tamely give up out Assent to believe this Infallibility unless there be some evident and concluding Reasons to enforce it from us If therefore it shall appear that whatever Bellarmine and when I mention him I mean the strength of the whole Popish Party hath said is altogether impertinent and unconcluding indeed nothing else but a plain begging the thing in Question my Deduction from thence will be Infallible viz. that we have as yet no Reason to believe the Popes Infallibility To clear up this the best way will be to take a short view of those Arguments which Bellarmine alleadgeth in his Books De Pontifice Romano and they are briefly these three 1. Some Texts of Scripture in the New Testament 2. Some Analogicall Inferences out of the Old 3. Some Absurdities and Inconveniences which would follow in the Church of God should we not allow the Pope and Church of Rome to be Infallible 1. The Texts of Scripture which Bellarmine and all Writers since him do urge to prove the Popes Infallibility by are these three Mat. 16.18 19. Luk. 22.31 32. Job 21.15 17. From which they draw these three Conclusions 1. That in those fore-mentioned places our Saviour did confer upon Peter some speciall Priviledges above and beyond the rest of the Apostles and they were 1. Supremacy in Matthew 2. Infallibility in Luke 3. Universall Episcopacy in John 2. They Assume that whatever was bestowed upon Peter was not confined unto his Person but was promised likewise unto his Successours since what was granted unto Peter was given for the good of the Church and therefore ought not to die with him 3. They take for granted that the Pope was Peter's Successour both in the Bishoprick of Rome and also in all his other Priviledges and for the last they alleadge nothing but the credit of that which they call Apostolicall Tradition Whether or no these Deductions are cleare in the Texts or violently haled and wrested from them with so much impudent and shamelesse Sophistry as a wise and disinteressed Person would blush to be guilty of will best appeare by examining the places themselves and if when they are put upon the Racke they can be forced to confesse so much as Bellarmine and the Popes Parasites conclude from them I shall then consent to dethrone Scripture from its plainnesse and Perspicuity but till then I must take leave to thinke that that Church doth very wisely which makes Ignorance and Implicite Faith the Mother of Devotion for nothing lesse then an over-awed and Religious stupidity would make any man submit unto such Impossible and farre fetched interpretations 1. The place in Mat. 16.18 19. runs thus And Jesus answered and said unto him i. e. to Peter Blessed art thou Simon Barjona for flesh and bloud hath not revealed this to thee but my Father which is in Heaven And I say also unto thee that thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it And I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven Which place they thus interpret 1. By the Rock upon which Christ saith he will build his Church is meant the Person of Peter and the Churche's being built upon him signifies say they that the care and government of it was committed to him and thus they understand likewise his Having of the Keyes 2. By the power of Binding and Loosing they understand the power of commanding and punishing of making and repealing Laws with all such things as belong to a Soveraign and Legislative Power 3. They tell us that whatever Peter had here was likewise granted to the Pope who is his Successour and therefore he being the Rock and the Foundation of the Church cannot be tossed about with every wind of Doctrine and therefore is Infallible But I answer 1. Upon supposition that Peter here was constituted as they call him Head and Prince of the Apostles yet how would this Personall Priviledge any more belong to the Bishop of Rome if he were Peter's Successour than what our Saviour elsewhere saith to Peter Why didst thou doubt O thou of little faith doth note the Pope's uncertainty and instability in Believing Or Mat. 14.31 what our Saviour presently after speaks Get thee behind me Satan doth signifie that every Pope is an Incarnate Devil or to take the mildest Interpretation an Adversary to Christ and to the good of mankind For what Reason can be assigned why the Pope may not as well succeed in Peter's Personall Defects as into his Priviledges since the Scripture is utterly silent either that he had or that he was to have a Successour in either But 2. I deny the Supposition upon
which all this Babel is built that our Saviour did confer any Preeminence of Power and Authority upon Peter above the rest of the Apostles because 1. These words Upon this Rock will I build my Church cannot without blasphemy be affirmed of the Person of Peter who himself was built upon the Rock Christ and was not the Foundation but only a Workman at the Building Indeed in the Figurative Description of New Jerusalem Rev. 21.14 which John makes in his Vision he compares it to a City which had twelve Foundations upon which were written the Names of the twelve Apostles Rev. 21. So that if the Papists will needs call Peter a Foundation I hope they will take in the rest of the Apostles to be sharers with him in that Title But since the whole Description in John City and all is only Figurative and Metaphoricall the Foundation there mentioned must be like the City i. e. so called not in a Reall but only Metaphoricall Acception For to speak properly as Paul doth No other Foundation can any man lay 1 Cor. 3.11 than what is already laid and that is Eph. 2. that Jesus is the Christ And therefore when we are said to be built upon the Foundation of the Prophets and Apostles the meaning is not that we are built upon their Persons but upon their Doctrine the summe of which is contained in Peter's confession upon which Rock our Saviour hath so built his Church that the Gates or Powers of Hell however they may rage and strive to ruine it yet they shall never be able finally to prevail against it but Christ will have a Church in some place or other unto the end of the world 2. If Peter was the Rock so as all Christians even the Apostles themselves were to depend upon his guidance what a wretched and tottering condition would the Church have been in when this Rock so soon after was shaken and almost removed out of his place For within some few minutes he is rebuked by our Saviour in no milder language than this Get thee behind me Satan The Story of his denying and that with Oaths his Master is too notorious to be palliated and too sad to be insisted on Even after our Saviours Resurrection when they pretend this promise of Infallibility was inseparably annexed to him Act. 10. we find him unresolved in that part of his Commission which concerned his preaching the Gospel unto the Gentiles and therefore had the assistance of a particular Visiton more fully to inform him of it and afterwards at Antioch we read that he was of so inconstant and unequall a carriage in that great point of Christian Liberty complying herein more than he ought Gal. 2. with the Jewish rigour and austerity that Paul was forced openly to reprove him for it and so prevent the contagion of his ill example So that if he who in the Court of Rome's stile is called Prince of the Apostles in matters of so great moment was thus subject to Errour and Fallibility I wonder with what face the Pope upon the account of being Peter's Suceessour can plead any exemption 3. These words I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven do not denote any peculiar power that Peter had over the rest of the Apostles for then how came it to pass afterwards that there were so many and so fierce contentions amongst them Who should be greatest Which our Saviour at two severall times silences not by commanding them to obey Peter as their Chief but by utter prohibiting any desire of Soveraignty If they answer us as Bellarmine doth that the Apostles did not clearly understand that Peter was to be Supream Head till after our Saviour's Resurrection which by the way is nothing else but a bold playing with sacred Scripture Then I demand farther when there was a new Apostle to be chosen into the room of Judas why did not Peter by his sole Authority Act. 1. design him or at least when the multitude of Disciples for so we read that all of them were concerned in the choice had appointed two why did they not present them both unto Peter that he might choose one rather than suffer the matter to be decided by Lot sure had Peter had any paramount and extraordinary Power and withall a peculiar infallible spirit he could not have better exerted it than in that emergency For the Head of the Church in so concerning a business first to permit all the multitude to have a voice in choosing an Apostle for if our modern Arguments are good he might justly fear that they being for the greatest part unlearned would choose one like themselves and so prejudice the reputation of Apostolicall Authority and afterwards to leave the matter unto the uncertain casualty of a Lot whereas the choice seemed properly to belong to Peter's Jurisdiction this argues either that his Power or his care of the Church was very little of which last I hope the Papists do not doubt and therefore must needs deny the former For what is it else but to tempt God to have recourse unto casting of Lots when a way of choice more prudent and Infallible by referring the business to Peter's single Decision was opened for them But it seemes the Apostles understood nothing of Peter's Supremacy either then or afterwards when they went to choose Deacons which by all the Apostles Peter not being so much as particularly mentioned was committed to the Mulitude and after the choice Imposition of hands was performed not by Peter alone but as the Text expressely saies by all the Apostles Will they tell us that this was a thing below him Act. 6. and that it did not become Peter's Authority to interesse himself in a matter of so petty concernment This plea is taken from them because we read that the Twelve and among them sure Peter was one did not think it below them and besides it will appeare a strange kind of conceated and uselesse Authority which they ascribe to Peter which in maters neither of the greatest such as was the choice of an Apostle nor of the least moment such as was the choice of a Deacon would ever so particularly exert it self that we might once take notice of his Prerogative But what kind of Equality Peter stood in to the rest of the Apostles he shewed Act. 8. in submitting to be sent with John unto Samaria to finish that worke of the Gospell which Philip had begun there for sure our Saviours Argument is Infallible Joh 15. that He who is sent is not greater then he who sends him And it would have been a strange boldnesse I believe the Pope would call it by a worse name in his Cardinalls should the Apostles have thus presumed to send their Prince had he indeed been so constituted over them Yet further when there was a Question started about the use of Jewish Ceremonies and a Synod convened about
it Act. 15. why did not Peter then Preside as chiefe Why did he suffer the businesse to be disputed after he had declared his own Judgment Why doth James who spoke after him give him no more Honourable stile then plaine Simeon and seemes himself in saying My sentence is to give the whole solution of the Query as also the Forme of the Future Decree without taking any notice of Peter's decision Whence comes it that after a strict Debate the result was in the Councell It pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church and the superscription of the Letter runs The Apostles and Elders and Brethren and the decree It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us without any mention of Peter at all whose Supremacy and Infallibility ought not to have been thus silently passed over that the Churches afterwards might know whether to to have recourse for satisfaction of their scruples How comes it to passe that we hear no Newes of Peter after but the story is continued wholy about Paul as if the Primacy had been transferred to him sure the Holy Penman who mentions so many of Paul's travells that were of farre lesse moment would not have omitted Peter's Journey to Rome his sitting Bishop there for eighteen yeares and fixing the Succession and Infallibility to boot upon that See had he understood any thing of it Afterwards when Paul meets Peter at Antioch Gal. 2. Why did he not vaile to him but Irreverently stand upon his Termes and Openly reprove him Lastly For Instances are infinite in this kind why doth that blessed Apostle Peter himself 1 Pet. 5. disclaime any such kind of Jurisdiction stiling himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Fellow-Elder and utterly forbiding any pretentions of Lordship and Soveraignty even over the Flocks they fed much more over their Fellow Ministers Certainly none of these things can consist with that grant which Bellarmine fondly supposeth was here made to Peter and therefore we may justly conclude that the words have another Interpretation which is plainly this Our Saviour asking his Disciples what men thought of him and whom they took him to be after he had heard the various opinions of others he continues to aske them theirs whereupon Peter in the name of the rest replies thou art the Christ the Son of God which being the Article that then was oppugned our Saviour pronounces him Blessed for it not as if other Believers were not equally blessed and did not obtain this Faith by Revelation too for so the Apostle Paul saith expressely 1 Cor. 12. that none can call Jesus Lord i. e. Christ but by the Holy Spirit but those words are spoken exclusively as to any outward meanes whereby he might attain that knowledge For that no lesse power than the Imediate action of the Spirit of God can make a man to Believe on Christ is not onely evident from the nature of the thing which exceeds all created ability but likewise from those perpetuall contradictions and doubtings which Beleivers themselves have before the Spirit of God hath explained and solved them The promise therefore which our Saviour makes to Peter of giving him the Keyes c. concerned all the Apostles since they were Believers and Disciples as well as he and so our Saviour enlarges it after his Resurrection in that generall Commission Whose sins soever you retain they are retained i. e. By your Preaching whom you doe declare to be under the power of sin if they Repent not and Believe the Gospell their sins are retained i. e. Bound and tied fast to them for God will never pardon such but others that embrace the Gospell are remitted i. e. loosed and absolved So that the result of all is this From this place cannot be inferred either 1. That Peter is that Rocke upon which Christ will build his Church but rather Christ himself confessed by Peter Or 2. That Peter here had any Preeminence of Power Authority and Infallibility above the rest of the Apostles he receiving this Promise onely as a Prolocutor of the Apostles in whose names he spoke and they being afterwards joyned all equally in the same Commission Much lesse can it be deduced 3. That the Pope who is not once mentioned was Peter's Sucessour or hath the least pretension to claime any thing from him unlesse it be his Errors and Fallibility 2. The second place of Scripture which is brought for the Patronage of Peters first and then of the Popes Infallibility is that which if they had searched the whole Scripture they could not have found one that doth more directly make against it The place is Luc. 22.31 32. Simon Simon behold Satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as Wheat But I have prayed for thee that thy Faith faile not and when thou art converted strengthen thy Brethren Here though by a most miserable instance we find how fraile and fallible Peter was yet Bellarmine draws from hence two priviledges that were conferred upon Peter 1. That Peter might never fall from the Faith how much soever he was tempted of the Divell 2. That none of his Successors should ever teach any thing contrary to the truth The First of these I grant and acknowledge that it was by virtue of this Prayer of our Saviours that Peter recovered his station again after so great a shaking but withall I adde that this was no peculiar Priviledge to Peter but in common to all the rest as is more cleare in Joh. 17. v. 9. and the Reason why Peter was particularly spoken to was because our Saviour foresaw he should more foully miscarry and therefore stood in need of this Cordiall to relieve him But the second is so little to be gathered from the Text viz that the Pope as Peter's Successor should never teach false Doctrine that it would be an extream vanity in me to go about to confute it Onely one fetch of Bellarmines is not to be omitted when we object that if this place be to be understood of Peter's Successors then it must presuppose that all the Popes who will needs intrude into that Title must first deny Christ and after that be converted before they can strengthen their Brethren or be confirmed in the Faith themselves To this Bellarmine replies that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie Peters being turned from sin but his turning himself to the weak Brethren to discourse with them which is a piece of so merry Sophistry that it only serves to show the wretched boldnesse of Partiall and self-designing men when they make use of Scripture to shore up and to underprop their ill got greatnesse the plainest places then shall not escape their perverse and irregular fancies as this wherein there is a gracious Promise made of Peters Recovery and Conversion is made to signifie just nothing but the Impiety of those men who dare thus abuse it 3. The Third and last place which is urged in this Controverfie and
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. by 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 had 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 short-sightedness 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 suppress 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 see 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 onely 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 inferre 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
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 was 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 Predictions 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 Pope 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 â—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. as the Apostle Paul adviseth the Corinthians that being all met together they should proceed to censure 1 Tim. 5.20 and 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 that it is the proper meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 and 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