View of Some Exceptions Made by a Romanist, Part 2 · Subpart 25 – Subpart 28
C. 12. Anſw. to the 12. Chap.
Section 1 His Lordſhip, in queſt. after your infallible ground of faith, tooke into conſideration the Popes Infallibility, Sect. 13. the Infallibility of a Councell by him called, Sect. 14. and produced arguments, I conceive, convincing againſt each.
Section 2 To theſe your onelyonly anſwer is, that neither of theſe Infallibilities are neceſſary to be knowne diſtinctly before any reſolution of faith can be made, and you give your reaſons for it, becauſe, &c. which is in plaine tearmes to grant and prove the thing which his Lordſhip deſires, and proves; for if they were the ground of faith, they would be neceſſary to be knowne diſtinctly before any reſolution of faith, the foundation being abſolutely neceſſary to the ſuperſtruction in materiall edifices; and in intellectuall, the diſtinct knowledge of a ground of faith being as neceſſary to a diſtinct reſolution of faith, as the ground it ſelfe, which workes not upon any man's underſtanding (the ſeat of this Faith) any further then it is knowne. This conceſſion of yours being all that is demanded of you at this time, we ſhall not need inſiſt on, nor debate farther, what influence the caſe of Simony may have upon the Popes Infallibility; If he be infallible at all, He, or He and a Councell, you ſay 'tis not neceſſary to ground faith, (which is the onelyonly uſe we have of it in this preſent enquity) for it ſeemes the Catechiſmes, or common practice of the Church, are ſufficient to teach what is to be believed.
Section 3 What? Is the Popes and Councels Infallibility made unneceſſary? and is a Catechiſme and common practice of the Church ſufficient for the grounding of faith infallibly? Certainly we are growne very low, and are ſuppoſed men of very moderate deſires, if it be thought we ſhall thus be content with the Infallibility of a Catechiſme: For whatſoever is ſufficient for the grounding of faith infallibly (remember [infallibly] muſt come in, for otherwiſe 'tis not to his Lordſhip's diſcourſe) muſt it ſelfe be acknowledged infallible. Which if you ſhall pleaſe to affirme of any of your Catechiſmes, as I ſhall firſt deſire to be directed which Catechiſme it is, that of Trent, or what others, (that I may not miſtake in the choice of my Guide) ſo I ſhall make bold to demand whence this Infallibility, or authority of this prime guide of faith is to be fetcht? It will be ſure from the authority of the Pope (or Councell) of that time when 'twas compiled and confirmed, and then ſtill we fall backe to the infallibility of the Pope, or Councell, which it ſeemes in the laſt reſolve is become neceſſary againe to the grounding of Faith, and ſo againe muſt be knowne before any reſolution of Faith be built (even upon the Catechiſme) which was the thing you juſt now denied: As for the common practice of the Church, that that ſhould be a ground of Faith, or ſufficient for us to learne by it, what is to be believed (beſides that this is a weaker ground then Catechiſmes, as much as errours are more likely to get into the practice of the many, then into the Bookes of the Learned, or Authentique Writings of the Church; and accordingly 'tis obſervable in the particular of images, that the common practice of men is much more groſſe, then the Writings of the Learned) 'tis impoſſible that that ſhould ever be a guide, quâ cundum, which way we are to goe, till it be ſome other way proved, that we ought to goe that way.
Section 4 For the improbability of miſſing the See Apoſtolique, and which be the Churches that live in communion with it, we have no obligation lying on us to deny it; his Lordſhip's words gave you no occaſion to aſſert it; nor can we ſee what at this time you can get by it, when you acknowledge the Infallibility of Pope or Councell unneceſſary to be knowne before any reſolution of faith can be made.
Section 5 You adde [and as for doctrine of beliefe, &c.] This I ſhould conceive you had ſpoken of before in thoſe words [what is to be believed] and then your memory was ſhort to put it in againe within five lines, as if it had beene a new matter.
Section 6 I told you 'twas not neceſſary, after you had confeſſed the cauſe to inſiſt on the matter of Simony, which was an argument of his Lordſhips to defend it. Yet that you may not complaine that any word of yours is neglected, or loſt upon us, I have conſidered that alſo, and aske you whether it be not true what his Lordſhip ſaith, that a Pope choſen by Simony is ipſo facto, no Pope, you (durſt not, I conceive, becauſe you) did not before deny it; and if now you will take more courage, let your minde be knowne, and we ſhall not doubt to bring as Claſſicke Authors as your ſelfe againſt you. If it be true, then is your anſwer of no validity, becauſe of no truth; for either that infallibility, or whatever other power, muſt be annex'd to him as a man (which he may be indeed, though he be not Pope) or under ſome other relation, which infallibly belongs to him, (neither of which, I conceive, you will affirme, for then ten thouſand to one, ſome other will communicate with him in that claime) or elſe he muſt be Pope, when he is, ipſo facto, no Pope; or elſe that power muſt be annext to him by ſome body, that may thinke him Pope when he is not, and then either God muſt runne the errour, or that power be given him from ſome other, for that God ſhould know him to be no Pope, and yet give that power of Infallibility (for if you ſpeake of any other power it is not pertinent) to him, as long as he is peaceably received, muſt, Firſt, conclude that a no-pope may be infallible. And Secondly, that whoſoever is ſo received by the Church, is ſo; which unleſſe there be ſome promiſe of Gods to aſſure me that he hath promiſed it to the Churches blind reception, will, for ought I yet ſee, conclude againe, that either the chaire or the peoples errour gives him that prerogative.
Section 7 To the 15, and 16, Sections, you reply no one word, but referre it to your former anſwer, whether, if I knew which part of your anſwer it were (for that immediately precedent I conceive 'tis not, for I hope the Simoniacall election hath nothing to doe with the decrees of Councels) I ſhould attend it, but the ſcent being cold, I am at a loſſe, and ſo muſt be content to give over the game.
Section 8 Yet ſeeing I am on this matter of the Popes Infallibility (becauſe you have wholly avoided that queſtion, and by a kinde of ſtratagem diverted it, and ſo not given me any occaſion to defend his Lordſhip in that matter) I ſhall a little conſider the reader, (to whom I am much obliged, if he ſhall have had patience to read thus farre, i. e. to endure the penance of ſo much Nothing) and give him a few collections of my owne, to this purpoſe of the Popes infallibility; not that I conceive they will from me finde any better entertainment then his Lordſhip's reaſonings had done, but becauſe they are for the moſt part the conceſſions of your owne men, from whence I here tranſcribe them.
Section 9 That the Pope is not onelyonly fallible, but even judicially ſubject to errour, deviation, defection, and (in Ocham's phraſe, haereticabilis) to hereſy, apoſtacy, Atheiſme, and in his practice to ſinne of any the moſt hain us kinde, and conſequently to damnation irreverſible. I ſhall aſſert no farther then theſe honourable Names will avow and authorize me. Among your owne Writers, (I meane Pontificians) Lyra in Matth. 16. Waldenſis, l. 2. doctrin. fidei antiq. Gerſon. de exam. doct. conſid. 1, 2, 3. Adrianus Sextus the Pope, in 4. ſent. de confirm. qu. ult. Driedo de libert. Chriſt. l. 2. c. 2. Cardin. de Turrecrem. l. 2. c. 16. Almainus de author. Eccleſ. c. 8. ad 6. &c. 10. & de dom. civ. nat. & Eccl. concl. 3. Archidiaconus Bononienſis, in Grat. gloſſ. in diſt. 19. contra Auxentium. Catharinus in Gal. 2. Yea and the Councels of Conſtance and Baſil, and the Fathers generally there aſſembled, which I hope tooke not up this doctrine from Luthers or Calvins dictates.
Section 10 To this purpoſe is it that we reade of Childebert King of France, that he ſent Ruffinus his Legate to Rome, to enquire of Pelagius the Pope, whether he had violated the Faith, as (a)Ad a…n. 556. n. 25.Baronius teſtifies; the ſame was ſuſpected of him by the Biſhop of Tuſcia, and other Biſhops of Italy, to whom he ſent his Apologie, ſaith the ſame (b)Ib. n. 30.Baronius. So Gregory the firſt, being under the like ſuſpicion, wrote his (c)Greg. l. 2. …p. 4.Apologie to Theodolinda Queene of the Long…bards. So the Popes generally laboured to approve themſelves to the Emperours, and purged themſelves before them; Sixtus before Valentinian concerning the crime laid to his charge by Baeſſus Symmachus upon an accuſation of forgery, ſaith an (d)Anonym: de aerat. eccleſ c. 7. ap. Gol…aſtum in monarch. 1.1. p. 29.Author in Goldaſtus; all which are arguments that the Popes infallibility was in thoſe daies unknowne to the world, and the Popes themſelves were not very perfect in it; if they had, they would have beene more confident then to have made Apologies.
Section 11 Farther yet, the Biſhops of Germany met at Brixia, the Biſhops of France at Mentz, condemned the Pope for a diſciple of Berengarius. Or if the condemnations of ſuch will not be of value againſt the Pope, you gave reaſon even now leave to be the Judge, and that, and common ſenſe may be ſo in this matter, if you will but read the (e)Inter Epiſiclas Hyber. p. 49.Epiſtle of Pope Zachary to Boniface, è Cathedra, a Papall and definitive reſcript, wherein he condemnes one Vergilius for an Hereticke, for affirming that there were Antipodes; which whether it were an errour in him, I leave you to judge, and profeſſe my ſelf to be of opinion, that though it were, 'twas yet more tolerably diſcreet and pious, then that of Gregory the ſeventh, that there is but one name under Heaven, that of the Pope, to whoſe Seate whoſoever paid not obedience, became preſently an Idolater and a Pagan; and if you will undertake to defend this, I will reward you by adventuring to juſtifie the other. That ſpeech of Gilbert, Biſhop of Rhemes, that after was Pope, ſhall with me be ſufficient to expiate for either; Audaciter dicam, &c. I ſhall boldly ſay, In Epiſt. ad Scquiti Senonenſem.that the Biſhop of Rome himſelfe, if he have offended any Brother, and will not heare the admonitions of the Church, ought to paſſe for an Heathen and a Publican.
Section 12 But all theſe are but trifles, if they be compared with other knowne paſſages of ſtory, how Stephanus was reprehended by Cyprian, Liberius by Athanaſius, Honorius almoſt by all Chriſtians, of no leſſe crimes then Hereſy it ſelfe. Or becauſe that is but one piece of carnality, and there be many others beſide that, as probable, and conſiderable errours, and carnalities, I beſeech you review either in your memory, or in Onufrius, and Platina, the lifes and manners of the Popes, the inceſts, and ſorceries, and cruelties of Alexander the 6. the Idolatrous ſacrifices of Marcellinus, Caleſtin's uſing the helpe of Magitians and Devils to come to the Papacy, and then tell me your opinion, whether Popes may not erre; and when you have replyed, by way of diſtinction of manners from Doctrines, be then pleaſed to anſwer †De Papat….Nilus (by ſome more ſatisfactory way then by calling him pratling Greeke) this queſtion, foreign, how it fals out that the Pope can deny God in his workes, but cannot by any meanes in his words; (what charme or amulet kept his tongue inerrable, when his whole body was ſubject to thoſe darts of Satan) and when you have done that, I beſeech you to phanſy to your ſelfe what kinde of crimes you conceive thoſe Popes would have committed, if they had beene fallible.
Section 13 I ſhall not enlarge this ſupernumerary trouble any farther, or expect your anſwer to every of theſe paſſages in Bookes; if I have wronged any by miſciting, I ſhall be glad to heare of it; and if they make not all together one probable argument or proofe of the fallibility of the Pope, I beſeech you pardon me for this unneedfull importunity.
To the 17, & 18, Sections, Chap. 11.
I noted before, that the knowledge of all theſe particulars recited by the Enquirer, are no way neceſſary to the Believer, and therefore both this Author and Baron the Scotch Miniſter ſtruggle in vaine, when as with ſuch care and vehemency they preſſe them againſt us. I conclude then, that in the Church of God Councels doe not multiply doubts, but diminiſh them.
C. 11. Anſw. to Chap. 11.
Section 1 To the 17, & 18, Sections, the anſwer is a reference againe to a note dropt from you before, which truly I ſhould not have been likely to apply to this buſineſſe in hand, if you had not given me that ſeaſonable admonition. Your note, I conceive, referres to your diſcourſe in the precedent Chapter, how Catechiſmes, and the common practice of the Church teach all, what is to be believed. And (as then the Popes infallibility, ſo now) that of Councels is unneceſſary to be knowne, and by that meanes all theſe particulars alſo; for if the infallibility of Councels were neceſſary to be knowne (as it muſt be if they were deciders of queſtions) then all theſe particulars mentioned by his Lordſhip, would be neceſſary to be knowne alſo, becauſe they are incident to every Councell, and the knowledge of its infallibility (becauſe of its deciſions, and even being it ſelfe) depends on theſe.
Section 2 And the fitneſſe of Councels to decide Controverſies being the thing his Lordſhip had now in hand, and which Baron treats on, when he uſes the like arguments, ſure neither of them ſtruggle in vaine; but you rather (who 'twas thought in reaſon would have beene no wiſer then your fellowes, and ſo would have aſſerted that fitneſſe of Councels) have become a very ſlippery Wreſtler, gliding out of their hands, when their arguments began to lay hold on you; and after ſuch an eſcape as this, I confeſſe 'tis matter of wonder to me, how you could thinke fit to end with a foreign, triumph preſuppoſing victory, and victory reſiſtance, and none of theſe here are to be heard of, but onelyonly a concluſion, that what his Lordſhip had ſaid and proved, he had ſaid falſely (a petitio principii againe) that Councels doe not diminiſh doubts, but multiply them. Which propoſition and proofe of his Lordſhips, having no need of defending any farther, I ſhall onelyonly interpoſe one caution, which I deſire may be obſerved in his Lordſhips diſcourſe, that it being ſuppoſed, that Councels are dot deciders of controverſies, (meaning thereby infallible ones) they be yet of good authority and uſe in the Church, to helpe to decide them, and (notwithſtanding all the doubts that his Lordſhip ſaith they doe multiply) be onelyonly denied by us the priviledge of infallibility, not that other of being very uſefull and venerable in a lower degree, and (ſuch the Councell may be) even next to the Word of God it ſelfe.
To the 19. Section, Chap. 13.
He maintaines here a ſtrange paradox, and one very improbable, namely, that to define any thing of new, is to beſtow upon the Devill one path more for us to walke in towards him. If you aske why, he tells you, becauſe, before the definition made, it was lawfull to hold either ſide, but after, it is damnable. Belike then with this Author the manifeſtation of divine truths is the high way to damnation; but I ſuppoſe few men are of his minde. Certainly moſt are of opinion, that every ſuch verity we learne, had rather beene a new ſteppe towards Heaven, becauſe knowledge of things divine doe enable men for the attaining of ſalvation; and therefore the Apoſtles by their inſtructing our underſtandings in them, ſhewed the world ſo many more paths to Heaven. It may be indeed that by accident minds blowne up with ſelfe-conceit, may by their reſiſting ſuch revealed truths, take an occaſion to tranſgreſſe, but that is their owne faults, not the fault of them that teach, or of the verities that are declared, and therefore this cavill of the Enquirers againſt the definitions of Councels was very frivolous. It ſhould ſeems he had a great minde to be quarrelling with Councels, that was content to take ſuch a frivolous exception as this againſt them.