3. Such a work of the Holy Spirit upon men's hearts, as would make them meek, and humble, and charitable, and heavenly minded, sincere lovers of truth, desirous to know the will of God, and resolved to do it, would be an expedient much more available for the healing of our divisions, and promoting of peace, than infallibility of judgment. For from whence come wars and fightings among us? Come they not hence, even from our lusts? Scarce ever was any error broached, that created disturbance to the Church, but it is manifest it took its rise from, and was fostered and maintained, either by the lust of the flesh, or the lust of the eye, or the pride of life: let but men's fleshly, worldly, and devilish lusts be once mortified, and our differences will be composed; or if any remain, they will be such as will be destructive neither of peace nor charity. Should we therefore argue at the same absurd rate that our adversaries do, might we not as fairly conclude that God hath made every man pious and humble, and a doer of his will, as that he hath made one man, or one Church, infallible?

But now, if that which is supposed by the Romanists, were all granted. If it were necessary to the peace of the Church, that all controversies should be decided; if they cannot be decided without some infallible umpire; and if it were certain that such an umpire would give a final determination to them; yet doth it hence follow, that the Church of Rome must be that umpire? Suppose the Church of England were infallible, might it not be as serviceable to these intents and purposes?

III. This pretended infallibility of the Church of Rome hath as little support from the doctrine of the ancient Christian Church, as it hath from Scripture and reason. Though the Romanists are wont (among those who will take their word) to boast much of the authority of the Fathers; yet that they are not able to produce so much as one who speaks to their purpose, may be reasonably concluded from the performances of Cardinal Bellarmine in this matter,* all whose allegations are so impertinent, that the very reading of them may be sufficient to satisfy an impartial person, that nothing can be found in antiquity that really favours this pretence. Yea, that the Fathers were of a contrary judgment, and thought that the Church of Rome had no such paramount privilege above other Churches, will afterward appear by plain and undeniable proofs.

Bell. de Rom. Pontif. 1. 4. c. 4.

If what the Romanists slily suppose, and make great advantage of in this question, were true (viz. that the Roman is the Catholic Church) it would not do their work. For though the Catholic Church is infallibly led by the Holy Ghost, into all things necessary to be believed and practised; yet we have no assurance, either from Scripture or reason, that she shall not err in other matters. But that the Roman and Catholic are the same, is an opinion not only condemned by the first Council of Nice,* and (which is more) was wholly a stranger to the first eight general Councils,† that is, unknown to the Christian world for 900 years after Christ. But it is moreover as absurd in itself, as to say that the part is equal to the whole; that the Church of London is the Church of England. And till they have proved the latter, we shall hardly be persuaded to believe the former. In the mean time, let them take it for a favour, that we grant the Church of Rome to be a part of the Catholic Church, it being a part so miserably corrupted.

I thought it needful to premise what hath been said, because when we charge the Church of Rome with errors, and for proof of that charge, produce many particular instances, her advocates think it a sufficient answer to tell us; alas, sirs, you are grossly mistaken! as for those opinions and practices which you take for errors, it is yourselves only that err in thinking them to be so; for the Church of Rome is so highly privileged, that Christ and his Apostles may as soon err as she. Having therefore removed this obstacle out of the way, I now proceed

* Can. 6. [Τὰ αρχαιᾶ ἔθη κρατείτω τὰ ἐν Αἰγυπτῳ καὶ Λιβύῃ καὶ Πενταπόλει ὥστε τὸν ̓Αλεξανδρείᾳς ἐπίσκοπον πάντων ἔχειν τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἐπείδη καὶ τῷ ἐν Ρώμῃ ἐπισκόπῳ. Ομοίως δὲ καὶ κατὰ τὴν Αντιόχειαν καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις ἑπαρχίαις τὰ πρεσβεῖα σώζεσθαι ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. Καθόλου δὲ προδηλον ἐκεῖνο ὅτι εἴ τις χωρὶς γνώμης τοῦ μετροπολίτου γένοιτο ἐπίσκοπος τὸν τοιοῦτον ἡ σύνοδος ἡ μεγάλη ὥρισε μὴ δεῖν εἶναι ἐπίσκοπον. “ Let the ancient customs prevail, which are in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis; that the Bishop of Alexandria have authority over all, since this is customary also to the Bishop of Rome. In like manner also as regards Antioch. And in all the other provinces let the churches preserve their dignity. This is altogether certain, that if any one become a bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great synod has determined that he ought not to be a bishop."]

† Novem primis seculis, quibus octo universalia concilia habita sunt, nunquam auditum aut lectum, Romanam Ecclesiam aliâ notione aut significatione sumptam, quam pro singulari et particulari Ecclesia, atque primo membro Ecclesiæ universalis. Richer. I. 1. c. 13. p. 754. Colon.

to that which I mainly design, which I shall comprise under these following heads of discourse.

I.—That the Church' of Rome is not only fallible, but hath actually erred.

II. That her errors were not slight, and in matters of small moment; but so gross and enormous, when the Reformation was set on foot, that there was a necessity of reforming them.

III.-That no hope was left that the Church of Rome would either reform these errors in herself, or give consent to the reformation of them in any other Church that communicated with her.

IV. That every particular National Church had a right to reform itself without her leave.

V. That this right of the Church of England in particular was most unquestionable. And, therefore, as a necessary conclusion from these premises,

VI. That the Church of England was indispensably bound to reform herself, notwithstanding the prohibition of the Church of Rome.

I. That the Church of Rome not only may err, but hath actually erred. This cannot be denied, if those in that Church have erred, who (as they themselves assert) are the only persons that cannot err. For if these supposed infallible guides have mistaken their way; how can it otherwise be, but that those who blindly follow them, must go astray too? Now let them place their infallibility where they please, either in the Pope, or in a General Council, or in both united, it is as certain that they all have erred, as that both parts of a contradiction cannot be true.

1. For their Popes, it is a common thing with them to rescind each other's decrees, and to make definitions as opposite one to another, as yea and nay. Thus Pope Stephen VI. abrogated the decrees and nulled the acts of Formosus I.* Pope Romanus I. did the like kindness for Stephen.† Pope John X. reprobated the acts of Stephen, and restored those of Formosus. Pope Sergius III. was so great an abhorrer of

* Platina in vita Steph. [Tanto odio persecutus est. Formosi nomen ut statim ejus decreta abrogaverit. 1611. p. 145.]

† Id. in vita Romani.. [Romanus patria. Romanus ubi pontificatum iniit. Stephani Pontificis decreta et acta statim improbat abrogatque. 1613. p. 146.]

Id. in vita Johannis X. [Stephani res gestas improbavit et Formosi acta restituit. 1611. p. 14.]

Formosus and his acts, that he compelled those priests who had received orders from him to be reordained; nor would he suffer his dead body to rest; but commanding it to be taken up, set it in the Pope's seat, adorned with priestly robes, and passed sentence upon him, as if he had been alive, and then pulling off the sacred vestments, and cutting off the three fingers with which he was wont to give his blessing, commanded it to be thrown into the Tiber, as unworthy of human burial.* Pope Nic. I. decreed, that it was not fit for clergymen to bear arms. Pope Urban the II. exhorted the bishops to fight against the Amalekites (viz. the Turks), and Pope Boniface VIII. shewed himself to the people at the jubilee in an imperial habit, and had a naked sword carried before him.

Nor have they only contradicted one another, but the same Pope hath contradicted himself too. So did Pope Vigilius again and again in the controversy about the three chapters.§ So did Pope Martin V., he confirmed that decree of the Council of Constance, which set a General Council above the Pope; and he set the Pope above a Council, in publishing a bull against appeals from the Pope to a Council. So did Eugenius IV., Paul III., and many more.

Nor have they erred only in points of small importance, but even in matters of faith. Pope Liberius consented to the Arian heresy, as St. Athanasius, St. Hilary,** and St. Jerome,++ inform us. Pope Honorius defended the heresy of the Monothelites, and was condemned for a downright heretic by the

* Platina in vita Sergii. Luitprand. 1. 1. de reb. Imp. et Reg. 8. † Nam cum discreti sint milites seculi à militibus Ecclesiæ; non convenit militibus Ecclesiæ, militare seculo, per quod ad effusionem sanguinis necesse sit pervenire. Gratian. Dist. 50. c. 5. [Cologne, 1670, p. 159.] Baron. an. 1095. n. 49. [1746. Vol. 18. p. 31.]

§ Pet. de Marca dissert. de decret. Vigilii. [1708, col. 210, 211.] Richer. Hist. Concil. General. 1. 2. c. 3. s. 21, 23, 25.

In epistola ad solitariam vitam agentes, p. 837. Par. [Toivov å σπάδων εἰς τὴν Ρωμήν πρῶτον παρεκάλει τὸν Λιβέριον κατὰ Αθανασίου μεν ὑπογράψαι τοῖς δε Αρειανοῖς κοινωνησαι. Patav. 1777, p. 288.]

** Hæc est perfidia Ariana, Anathema tibi à me dictum, Libri, et sociis tuis; iterum tibi Anathema, et tertio, prævaricator Liberi, Hil. in Frag. col. 426. [1730. col. 678, n. 6.]

+ In Catalogo vir. Illustr. [In hoc Fortunatianus videtur detestabilis quod Liberium Romanæ urbis Episcopum pro fide ad exilium per gentem primus sollicitavit ac fregit et ad subscriptionem hæreseos compulit. 1735. col. 917. c. 97.]

sixth,* seventh,† and eighth General Councils. All which Councils were confirmed by Popes. The sixth by Leo II., the seventh by Adrian I., the eighth by Adrian II. So that if the Pope confirming a council be infallible, it is certain that the Pope hath not only erred, but hath been a heretic; that is, it is certain, that he hath damnably erred, and that it is impossible he should err.

I shall propose two or three questions to the Romanists, the answers to which (one would think) might put an end to this controversy; because whether they be in the affirmative or negative, they must of necessity grant, that either the ancient or modern Popes have erred. The questions are these. First, Whether Pope Gelasius did not err, when he forbade communicating in one kind only as a grand sacrilege?§ Secondly, Whether Pelagius II. and Gregory the Great did not err, when they condemned the title of universal bishop as profane and antichristian?|| Thirdly, Whether Pope Martin V. did not err, when he confirmed the Council of Constance, which determined that a General Council was the Pope's superior.¶

Now what arts have the Romanists to reconcile these palpable contradictions? They have a notable invention, by which statuimus and abrogamus do signify the same thing, as the gloss upon Gratian informs us they do.** For that the Pope may err, and that he cannot err, may both be true. He may

Id. 1. 1. c. 12. s. 21.

* Richer. hist. Concil. general. 1. 1. c. 10. s. 23, 24. + Id. 1. 1. c. 11. s. 10. § Comperimus autem [quod] quidam, sumptâ tantummodo corporis sacri portione, à calice sacri cruoris abstineant, qui procul dubio, quoniam nescio quâ superstitione docentur obstringi, aut integra Sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur: quia divisio unius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire. Gratian. de consecrat. dist. 2. c. 12. [Cologne, 1673, p. 1167.]

|| Pelagii epist. ad Constantinopl. Synod. Episcopos. Greg. M. lib. 6. Epist. 30.

Concil. Constant. sess. 4, et 5. [Ipsa Synodus a Spiritu Sancto congregata legitime, generale concilium faciens ecclesiam Catholicam militantem representans, potestatem a Christo immediate habet cui quilibet cujuscumque status vel dignitatis etiam si papalis existat obedire tenetur in his quæ pertinent ad fidem et extirpationem dicti schismatis et reformationem generalem ecclesiæ Dei in capite et membris. 1672, col. 19. sess. 4.] [Item declarat quod quicunque cujuscumque conditionis, status, dignitatis etiam si papalis, qui mandatis statutis seu ordinationibus aut præceptis hujus sacræ Synodi-obedire contumaciter contempserit nisi resipuerit condignæ penitentiæ subjiciatur. 1672, col. 22, sess. 5.]

** Statuimus, i. e. abrogamus. dist. 4. cap. Statuimus.