But though this Author is bold enough in the title and tenet, yet in his after
note he hath such subterfuges as shew his despair of making it good, and his
deceitful mockage of his unwary reader. For, 1. He deals like a sophister
that after his arguments states the question. 2. He doth so shift off this in∣fallibility
from one to another, that he knows not well where to fix it. Fain
he would fasten it on the Pope, as he doth in a manner at last; and Hart more
plainly confesseth with Rainold, ch. 7. divis. 7. though it behove the Pope to use
the advise of his brethren; and therefore I spake of Confistories, Courts and
Councils; yet whether he follow their advise or no his decrees are true. But
then the arguments from Scripture and Fathers which speak of the church, not
of the Pope, had appeared to be impertinent. Therefore he doth not in plain
words disclaim it's infallibility; but saith, When we affirm the church is infalli∣ble
in things of faith, by the word [church] we understand not only the church
diffused over all the world unanimously teaching, whose doctrines of faith we hold
to be infallible. Wherein you may perceive. 1. Egregious vanity, in making
the Roman church Catholick. 2. The Church diffused over all the world
teaching. 3. Teaching unanimously, which are all like a sick mans dreams of
a golden mountain, there having never been any such thing as this in the
world, nor ever is likely to be. 2. Egregious deceit in the terming this church
infallible, Judge of controversies, propounding and defining points of faith, having
power from God to oblige all men under pain of damnation to believe her: which
is meerly to delude silly Papists speaking of the churches power, which they
place in the Pope and so draw them into his net. For I would ask this H. T.
where or when the Catholick church diffused over the whole world distinct from
an oecumenical council did teach, much lesse teach unanimously, or how they
know it? he will certainly say, it hath been in councils or the Popes deter∣minations.
Why then doth not this Author say plainly, the infallibility
and judgement of controversies is not in the Catholick church diffused over the
world, according to the meaning of the words (which were indeed to say all
believers were infallible) but say, he means not only, which is as if he had said,
the Catholick church diffused over the world is infallible, but not it only, when
he means it not to be infallible at all: nor doth he deal better in placing it in
a council. For. 1. He supposeth such a council perfectly Oecumenical called
out of the whole world, as never was nor is likely ever to be. 2. This council
he will not have to be infallible without the Popes approbation. 3. He placeth
the words [whose definitions of faith we hold to be infallible] so as that a
reader may conceive either he means the councils or the Popes definitions.
However it is certain he makes the council without the Pope not infallible, so
that the Pope hath the negative voice. But indeed this Author or many of his
fellows at least hold, that if the Pope himself without a council define any point
of faith it must be received; yea Bellarmin saith l. 4. de Pontifice Romano. c. 5.
if the Pope should erre in commanding vices or forbidding vertues, the church
should be bound to believe vices to be good and vertues to be evil, unless she would
sin against conscience. So that however the church be pretended, it is the Pope
who is intended, who is masked under the name of the church, but sometimes
termed the Pastor of the Church, as if the same person could be relative and
correlative too, Pastor and Church both. And this one person (as if all know∣ledge
lay in his breast) must be the Judge of all controversies of faith, though