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 [Page 2]obvious 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 [...], i. e. a thing to be discerned by its own [Page 3]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, [Page 4]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; [Page 5]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

[Page 6] 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 [Page 7]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 [Page 8]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 [Page 9]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 [Page 10]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 [Page 11]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 [Page 12]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 [Page 13]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 most insisted on, though to as little, or if possible, lesse purpose, than either of the former; is Joh. 21.15, 17. Where our Saviour repeats no lesse then three times. Peter feed my Lambes; and feed my sheepe. Bellarmines Comment upon these words, is ve­ry admirable. 1. By Feed, which in the Scripture dia­lect signifies only to Teach, and compassionatly to care for; he understands to Rule and Governe, as Prince, because the word [...] is sometimes so rendered. 2. By Lambes and Sheepe, he sayes are understood Christians of all sorts and sizes. Lambes signifying the weak in Faith; and Sheep the Apostles and Teach­ers, which are to other Christians, as Sheep are to their Lambes, i. e. the bringers of them forth in the Faith of Christ; over whom Peter is here constituted Universall Bishop, and none who belong to Christ, as one of his sheep, but must by virtue of this Commission, be obe­dient unto Peters Rule and Direction. Had Bellar­mine stopped here and streined this Scripture no farther, he might have had some commendation for his Wit, though very little for his Honesty, but when he goes on, and Infers, 3. That whatever here is granted to Peter, was entended likewise for his Successour; and 4. That the Bishop af Rome did succeed him: I cannot but observe how ill an Interpre­ter of Scripture, Prejudice and Prepossession is; for who that reads this place without looking upon it, through [Page 14]the Spectacles of the Popes Infallibility, can make any other sense of it, than this; that Peter having denyed our Saviour thrice, is here thrice minded of his Duty, to humble him under the sense of his former miscarriage, and to direct him, that he could not better demonstrate his Love to Christ, then by showing a care over his little ones; which our Saviour had before enjoyned him, when he said Thou being converted, confirme thy Brethren; which is all one with what is here commanded him, Feed my Lambs and Sheep: i. e. Teach, Instruct, Reprove, exhort them, and therein performe all the Acts of a Faithfull Mi­nister; as Paul to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus; bids them to Feed the Church of God; Act. 20.28. and Peter to the El­ders of the Believing Jewes, in that very place, where he forbids them all manner of Soveraignty and Coercive Ju­risdiction, commands them to Feed the Flock of God, which was among them. 1 Pet. 5..2 And what the word Feed signi­fies, God himself hath already explained, when he pro­mises by his Prophet, that he would give unto his People, Pastours according to his own heart, who should Feed his people, Jer. 3.13. with knowledge and with understanding. So that the word cannot be rendred to Rule and Governe with Force and Authority, and making all men submit, unto his In­fallible Dictates; for this is that which God condemnes in the Shepheards of Israel; who ruled over them with severity, Ezek. 33.4. and with Rigour, and Cruelty; but with all gentlenesse and condescension to accommodate them­selves unto the weak and infirme state of their Flockes; [...]. 40.11. as God describes himself. He shall Feed his Flocke like a Shepheard, he shall gather the Lambes with his Arme, and shall gently lead those that are with Young. Ezek. 34.15.16 And again I will Feed my Flock, and cause them to lye down; I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was broken, and will strengthen [Page 15]that which was sicke. This is the part of a good Shepheard, and this is the summe of what here is enjoyned Peter.

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

But I will no longer fight with a shadow, or pursue an Enemy, who hath a Bog for his retreat; for so I account all Arguments taken from unwritten Tradition; which is Bellarmine's last refuge: for what can be more unreasona­ble, than to alleadge old Stories, (which serve only to the advantage of the teller, and therefore may justly be suspected to be forged by him) and to use them as Mo­tives, to perswade us unto the belief of that, which in Reason is ridiculous; and in Scripture, the most authen­tick and allowed Tradition, is not so much as once menti­oned. The summe thereof of what I have to say is this; 1. It doth not appear, in any of the fore-mentioned pla­ces, that Peter had any peculiar Priviledge of Infallibility, or Authority granted to him, above the rest of the A­postles. 2. It doth much less appear that ever he was at Rome, or sate as Bishop there. 3. Upon supposition that the two first could be as clearly proved, as 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 [Page 17]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 s [...] ­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, [Page 18]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 [Page 19]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, [Page 20]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 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 [Page 21]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 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 [Page 22]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 [Page 23]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 [Page 24]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 believe they were; I must affirme, that this Doctrine, is so farre from being owned by any of them, for many Centuries, that we have upon Re­cord, many pregnant Instances, which doe evince that they did not so much as Dreame of it. To draw up which, I shall select onely two or three famous Ca­ses, which Bellarmine is pleased to take no No­tice of.

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

2. My second Instance shall be from that Controversie, which for many yeares was very eagerly managed; viz. Whether such as had received Baptisme from Heretickes, upon their Returne to the Church, Cyprian. Epis. 92. Edit. Fam. should be Baptized again or not? Cyprian and all the African Bishops maintained the Necessiry of Re-baptizing; and in their Letter to Stephen the Bishop of Rome, after they had at large given the Reasons of their Opinion, they conclude, So much Dearest Brother, have we enformed you of, not doubting because of the Truth of your Religion, but such things will please you, which are both Religious and True. But yet we know, that some are very unwilling to lay down any Opinion, which they have once tooke up; but preserving that mutuall agreement which ought to be amongst Brethren, they re­tain the Customes which they have once been used to. In which matter, we neither Force nor give a Law to any; since in the ordering of the Church; Prapositus. every Governour hath absolute power of his own will, as being to give unto God a­lone a Reason of his Actings. From which passage writ­ten by Cyprian and all the Bishops of Africh (who mer together in a Councell for that purpose) it sufficiently ap­peares. 1. That they did not understand any thing of [Page 26]the Bishop of Rome's Infallibility, since they profess to re­tain their own Judgement, without subscribing to his. 2. That in the outward Regimen and Government of the Church, every Bishop hath equall Power, and ought not Authoritatively, to prescribe and impose Laws upon ano­ther. Ibid. Ep. 73. As the same Cyprian, in another Letter; These things, saith he, according to my weak Ability, have I writ, not Imposing upon or Pre-judging any; as if it was not lawfull for every Bishop to do as he thinks fit, since he hath free Power of his own Will. And afterwards, when Stephen had declared his Judgement, that he would have none baptized again, whatever Herefie they came from; but that the ancient Custome should be preserved, whereby such Converts were admitted into Church Communion, meerly by laying on of Hands. Ibid. Ep. 74. Inter catera vel superba, vel ad rem non perti­nentia, vel sibi ipsi contraria, quae improvidè 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, [Page 27]as often as Humane Tradition doth lessen and discoun­tenance Divine Precepts; as he testifies by the Prophet Isay? And our Saviour likewise, in his Gospel, rebuking and chi­ding the Pharisees, Ye reject the Commands of God, that ye may keep your own Tradition. Of which words, the Apostle Paul being mindfull, he likewise adviseth and in­structeth us, saying, If any man teach otherwise, and reste not in the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in his Doctrine; he is puffed up, knowing nothing; from such turn aside. Neither ought Custome, which hath pri­vily crept in amongst some, to hinder Truth from prevail­ing. For Custome, without Truth; Consuetudo sine veritate vetu­stas Erroris est. is nothing else but the Antiquity of Errour. And it ariseth only from Pride and Presumption, that one is apt to defend his own Practices, how False and erroneous soever, rather than consent to that, which is True and Right in another. For which reason, the Apostle Paul writing to Timothy, Docibilem Gr. [...]. adviseth a Bishop not to be Contentious, but Meek and Apt to Teach. But he is Apt to Teach, who is Gentle, and endued with Patience to Learn: for a Bishop ought not only to Teach, but to Learn; since he Teacheth best, who continually grows and profits by Learning. Which the Apostle Paul likewise declares, when he admonisheth, That if any thing be revealed to another which sits by, the First should hold his Peace. Religious and sincere Minds are alwayes prepared to lay aside Errour, and to search for Truth; for if we return unto the Head and Originall of Divine Tradition, Hamane Errour ceaseth; and when the Reason of the Heavenly Appointments, is once throughly discerned, whatever 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 [Page 28]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 [Page 29]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 [Page 30]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, [...]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 [Page 31]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 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, [Page 32]then 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.

[Page] 2. That Promise of our Saviour, I will send the Spirit, John. 14. &c. 16. which shall lead you into all Truth, was spoken Personally to the Apostles: And those words, Act. 15. It 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. there 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 onely 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 onely 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 [Page 43] Piety 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. which 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. calls 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. for 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 [...] 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, [Page 35]this 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.