Perhaps they'll say that the Pope is positively infallible as a sufficient Teacher of the Church, in all ⟨p. 264⟩things de fide at that time, or necessary to salvation; and negatively infallible in all the rest, which are not de fide or necessary: To which I answer: 1. Either such points are de fide and necessary before the Pope dedeclare them so, and he therefore declares them so because they are so: or else he declares them de fide and necessary before they are so, that by declaring them so, he may make them so. If the first, 1. then the Papists have lost their cause; for that's it which they deny, at least quoad nos, though not in se, as they use to distinguish. 2. And then its plain that no Pope hath been positively infallible in necessariis, or all points de fide: for no one hath declared all, nor are they yet all (say they) declared by them, but every Pope may still add more, and who knows when we shall have all. But if they take the later way, then 1. They suppose that Gods word how express soever doth not make a point to be de fide and necessary, till the Pope declare it so (at least quoad nos: and how it can be de fide and necessary, any other way then quoad nos, they should do well to declare: For that which is credendum, est ab aliquo credendum (that which is to be believed, must be believed by some body) and that which is necessary is necessary to some one.) So that the Gospel shall be no Gospel with them, nor the Law of God any Law, though we read it and hear it a thousand times, till the Pope tell us by parcels the meaning of its particular words and sentences. 2. They make the Popes acts to go before their objects, which is against the nature of actions: while they make him to declare a point to be de fide that it may become de fide. For to declare that it is so, supposeth that it is so, and not only that it will or shall be so de futuro. 3. And ⟨p. 265⟩so they make all the Popes infallible Declarations, Expositions, and Determinations de fide, to be Lies: for if he Declare a thing to be necessary before it is necessary, or declare this or that to be the sense of Scripture, before it is the sense of Scripture, or to be de fide before it be so, what is this but plain lying? But if they say that he declareth it to be de fide and necessary only for the future, and not to have been so before this Declaration, then the forementioned Absurdities fall upon them.
Perhaps they'l say that the Pope is positively infallible as a sufficient Teacher of the Church, in all ⟨p. 264⟩things de fide at that time, or necessary to salvation; and negatively infallible in all the rest, which are not de fide or necessary: To which I answer: 1. Either such points are de fide and necessary before the Pope dedeclare them so, and he therefore declares them so because they are so: or else he declares them de fide and necessary before they are so, that by declaring them so, he may make them so. If the first, 1. then the Papists have lost their cause; for thats it which they deny, at least quoad nos, though not in se, as they use to distinguish. 2. And then its plain that no Pope hath been positively infallible in necessariis, or all points de fide: for no one hath declared all, nor are they yet all (say they) declared by them, but every Pope may still add more, and who knows when we shall have all. But if they take the later way, then 1. They suppose that Gods word how express soever doth not make a point to be de fide and necessary, till the Pope declare it so (at least quoad nos: and how it can be de fide and necessary, any other way then quoad nos, they should do well to declare: For that which is credendum, est ab aliquo credendum (that which is to be believed, must be believed by some body) and that which is necessary is necessary to some one.) So that the Gospel shall be no Gospel with them, nor the Law of God any Law, though we read it and hear it a thousand times, till the Pope tell us by parcels the meaning of its particular words and sentences. 2. They make the Popes acts to go before their objects, which is against the nature of actions: while they make him to declare a point to be de fide that it may become de fide. For to declare that it is so, supposeth that it is so, and not onely that it will or shall be so de futuro. 3. And ⟨p. 265⟩so they make all the Popes infallible Declarations, Expositions, and Determinations de fide, to be Lyes: for if he Declare a thing to be necessary before it is necessary, or declare this or that to be the sence of Scripture, before it is the sence of Scripture, or to be de fide before it be so, what is this but plaine lying? But if they say that he declareth it to be de fide and necessary onely for the future, and not to have been so before this Declaration, then the forementioned Absurdities fall upon them.
