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…

1. The Plea of the Romanists is that their Bishop is the successor of an Apostle who was infallible, and so the Promises belonging to him, do belong also to his successors. And the successors of the rest of the Apostles may have the same plea: For all the Apostles, after the Holy Ghost fell on them, were infallible, as well as Peter: And therefore their successors have as fair a plea as Peters successors.

Obj. But there was not the like promise made to the rest for their successors stability as was to Peter. Answ. 1. There can no greater a promise to Peters successors be showed, then was made Mat. 28.29. to them all [Lo I am with you always even to the end of the world] 2. The Papists (according to their new fundamentals) must not plead Scripture promises for their infallibility; for they say, their infallibility is in order first known, evidenced and to be proved, ⟨p. 271⟩before it be known that Scripture is Gods word.

Obj. But there was not the like promise made to the rest for their successors stability as was to Peter. Answ. 1. There can no greater a promise to Peters successors be shewed, then was made Mat. 28.29. to them all [Lo I am with you alwayes even to the end of the world] 2. The Papists (according to their new fundamentals) must not plead Scripture promises for their infallibility; for they say, their infallibility is in order first known, evidenced and to be proved, ⟨p. 271⟩before it be known that Scripture is Gods word.

2. The plea of the Romanists for their Popes infallibility is, that he is the successor of Peter. But the Bishop of Antioch might as well pretend to be the successor of Peter, and yet he pretendeth not to infallibility: Therefore, &c. That History which telleth us that Peter was Bishop of Rome, doth tell us that he was Bishop of Antioch also; yea and that he was Bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome, so that Antioch is undoubtedly the ancienter Church. What reason then can the Papists give why the Bishop of Antioch might not as well plead that he is Peters successor, as the Bishop of Rome? Unless they could prove that Peter did by his last Will and Testament bequeath the honour of succession, and the privileges of infallibility to Rome only; which they have not yet (that I can find) been so bold as to go about to prove. Otherwise, if one must needs be preferred, why should not the eldest, unless they be disinherited, and the younger hath the blessing, which must be proved. Whence is it but from the honour of their Antiquity that Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Rome should be preferred as Patriarchates before all other Churches? And if Antiquity be a good reason for that, then why should not Jerusalem and Antioch on the same account be preferred before Rome, seeing its beyond all doubt that they were both the more ancient Churches, and Antioch the more ancient seat of Peter, in the judgement of them that make him Bishop of either. So that its clear that other Churches have as much or more to say for infallibility then Rome, who yet make no pretence to it.