The safe religion, or, Three disputations for the reformed catholic religion against popery proving…The safe religion, or, Three disputations for the reformed catholike religion against popery proving…

Besides this, the General Council at Basil did shortly after depose Pope Eugenius the forth, declaring him to be [A rebel against the holy Canons, a notorious disturber and scandalizer of the peace and unity of the Church, a Simonist, and a perjured wretch, incorrigible, a schismatic and an obstinate heretic] ^*To this Bellarmine ⟨p. 256⟩hath not a word to say, but only that the Council did him wrong, and at Lansanna undid their acts. And thus he is content to grant that 1. A General Council may err (which he maintaineth) 2. And that a Pope may be a heretic and to be deposed in the judgement of a General Council? And are the Papists forced to yield us thus much? I would fain know then from Bellarmine or any Papists surviving him, whether that General Councils do err in faith, and be Heretics or not, for that their judgement? If they do so err, then where is the visibility of their Church with the rest of its privileges which they so boast of, when its Representative body, a General Council are Heretics, as thinking the Pope to be fallible? But if they erred not de fide, or were no heretics. 1. Then its seems the Popes infallibility is no fundamental. 2. Then it seems we are no heretics neither, for denying that which General Councils of Papists (pretended by them to be General) have denied. 3 Nay why should they be angry with men for erring such an error (as they account it) which their own general Councils may one after another err.

Besides this, the General Council at Basill did shortly after depose Pope Eugenius the forth, declaring him to be [A rebel against the holy Canons, a notorious disturber and scandalizer of the peace and unity of the Church, a Simonist, and a perjured wretch, incorrigible, a schismatick and an obstinate heretick] ^*To this Bellarmine ⟨p. 256⟩hath not a word to say, but onely that the Council did him wrong, and at Lansanna undid their acts. And thus he is content to grant that 1. A General Council may erre (which he maintaineth) 2. And that a Pope may be a heretick and to be deposed in the judgement of a General Council? And are the Papists forced to yield us thus much? I would fain know then from Bellarmine or any Papists surviving him, whether that General Councils do erre in faith, and be Hereticks or not, for that their judgement? If they do so err, then where is the visibility of their Church with the rest of its privileges which they so boast of, when its Representative body, a General Council are Hereticks, as thinking the Pope to be fallible? But if they erred not de fide, or were no hereticks. 1. Then its seems the Popes infallibility is no fundamental. 2. Then it seems we are no hereticks neither, for denying that which General Councils of Papists (pretended by them to be General) have denyed. 3 Nay why should they be angry with men for erring such an error (as they account it) which their own general Councils may one after another erre.