The Nullity of the Romish Faith, Treatise · Chapter 4

The Nullity of the Romish Faith · Treatise · Chapter 4

p. 64CHAP. IV. Of the Authority and Infallibility of the Church and Councels.

Sect. 1. LEt us therefore examine in the next place, whether the Councels will stand them in better stead. Whether the splendid name and Authority of the Church be a solid and sufficient foundation of Faith. In order to which I shall lay down this proposition. That the Authority of the Church and Councels is no sufficient foundation for a Papists faith: This I shall more fully discusse, because here it is that very many of the Popish Doctors do build their hopes, and lay the foundation of their faith. And here indeed they have greatest appearance of probability. p. 65A general Councel rightly congregated cannot erre in the faith, saith Alphonsus de Castro (a)(a)Concilium generale rectè congregatum non potest errare in side. lib. 4. adversus he… reses in verbo Concilium.Councels represent the Catholick Church which cannot erre, and therefore they cannot erre saies Eccius and Tapperus (b)(b)Concilia repraesentant Ecclesiam Catholic im quae errare non potest. Ergo etiam ipsa errare non possunt. Ecchias in Enchir. c. 2. Tappor in Art. 1. Lovan. p. 5.The decrees of general Councels have as much weight as the Holy Gospels, saith Costerus (c)(c)Decreta Conciliorum generalium—idem habent pondus & momentum, quod sancta Dei Evangelia. in Enchiridio p. 46.Councels approved and confirmed by the Pope cannot erre, say Canus (d)(d)Lib. 5. loc. com. c. 4.and Bellar▪ Councels,(e)(e)P…el. de Conciliis—lib. 2, c, 2. being the highest Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories cannot erre saith …annerus (f)(f)In parte 3. Anat. De…. 10, Sect. 222.The decrees of Councels are the Oracles of the Holy Ghost, saith Stapleton:(g)(g)In Relest. Controv. q. 3. art. 4. p. 610. Surely now I may cry out foreign: Here is the ground and pillar of truth, and at least—spes altera Romae.

§. 2. 1. Then I would know whence comes this Infallibility of Councels? It must be from Gods promise (for they do not pretend it is any natural inhaerent property of any man or men single or conjunct.) And this promise must be made known to us by divine Revelation, i.e. either by Scripture or Tradition (for other revelation they do not pretend to:) Thus farre they and wee are agreed: Now I assume, That the Infallibility of Councels is not revealed to us, neither in the one nor in the other.

§. 3. 1. Not in the Traditions of the Fathers; for among all the Traditions mentioned by them you shall not find this concerning the Infallibility of Councels: Nor have our Adversaries (that I know of) alledged one considerable antient Father, asserting that such a Tradition was conveyed to them from the Apostles, though there had been such a Tradition, they who were so carefull to enumerate all the Traditions of far lesse consequence, which pretended to an Apostolicall Original, neither should nor would have omitted to acquaint the Church with so important a Tradition, as this is now supposed to be: And this p. 66might suffice for Answer, till our Adversaries give us an instance of some such Tradition.

§. 4. But because Tradition and the testimony of the Fathers is their chiefe Pillar of the Infallibility of Councels (the wiser sort of them being sensible of the impertinency of their Scripture allegations:) I shall consider this a little more largely then at first I intended, and shall indeavour to make good foure things, which if proved, will give a deadly stroke at the root of infallibility. 1. If there were such a Tradition among the Fathers as is pretended, it is no solid and sufficient foundation for our Faith. 2. If the antients did believe the infallibility of Councels, yet it doth not follow they believed it upon the account of such a Tradition. 3. It doth not appear that the Antiens did believe the Infallibility of Councels. 4. It doth appeare that the Antients did believe the fallibility of Councels.

§. 5. The first proposition is this; That if some of the Fathers did tell us they had such a Tradition among them as is pretended concerning the Infallibility of Councels, it is no solid and sufficient foundation for our Faith, because the Fathers were subject to errours and mistakes, as we have now proved, and as the Papists confesse, at least they might erre in matters of fact (for in such things they acknowledge the Pope himselfe to be fallible.) And this was purely a question of fact, whether such a Tradition were delivered to them. And that the fathers were ofttimes deceived in the point of Traditions, and in matters of fact is acknowledged by severall of the most learned Papists; and Baronius gives us diverse examples of their mistakes in sundry parts of his Annals, and that too amongst the first Fathers, who had farre greater opportunities to know the truth then their followers, and greater integrity to deliver nothing contrary to their knowledge, and much more there might p. 67mistakes be committed by those that came after them.

If it be said, That although some particular Fathers might mistake in the matters of Tradition, yet the Fathers consenting therein are infallible.

This is already answered in the former Chapter, to which I shall here adde; that it is impossible for us at this distance to understand the consent of the Fathers, e.g. of the first or second Age, there being such a small and inconsiderable remnant left of them like two or three planks after a common shipwrack. Gregory de Valentia confesseth even of the Doctours of the age we live in that it seldome happens that we can sufficiently understand the opinion of all the Doctors that live in one Age (a)(a)Fatendum est raro accidere posse, ut quae sit Doctorum omnium ejus tempore viventium de religione sententia, satis cognoscatur. Lib. 8. Analys. cap. 8. pag. 119.How much more hard, nay, impossible must it needs be to understand the minde of that Age which is gone 1500 years agoe? And Melchior Canus confesseth, That the Authority of most of the Holy (Fathers) if a few did contradict them, will not afford a Divine a solid Argument (b)(b)Plurium Sanctorum Authoritas, reliquis licet pancio…ibus reclamantibus, firma argumenta Theologo sufficere & praestare non valet Loc. theol. lib. 7. cap. 3.So that if such a tradition had been delivered by some, yea the major part of the Fathers, if some others, though fewer had contradicted it, Faith hath lost its foundation, and this might be done (and such things in all probability were oft done) though no footsteps of it are come to the memory of Posterity. As Austin speaks of Cyprian when he was pressed with his Authority, he answers Happily he did recant, though we know it not: For neither were all things done…among the Bishops at that time committed to writing, nor do we know all things that were committed to Writing p. 68(c)(c)Fortasse factum sed nescimus. Neque enim omnia…quae illo tempore inter Episcopos gesta sunt, memoriae liteuisque mandari po…uerunt, aut omnia quae mandata sunt, novimus. Lib. 2. con. Donat. cap, 4.And if this was considerable in Austins dayes, who lived within two hundred years of those times, how much more weighty must it be to us that come twelve hundred years after him? Now then to put a case (because this consideration shakes the very pillars of Popery, and overthrowes almost all their pretensions from Tradition and the Authority of the Fathers.) Suppose the Major part of the Antient Fathers had said in terminis, that the Bishop of Rome was supreme head and infallible governour of the Church (though nothing was further from their thoughts) and suppose a lesse number of the Fathers did in that age contradict it, though the contradictours happily either did not commit their opinion to Writing, or if they did, their Writings might be suppressed by the major part (as hath been the lot of most Ages) or by the injury of time are lost (which the Papists cannot say was impossible for the Writings of the Fathers, seeing they tell us that de facto some of the Books of Holy Scripture are lost:) The next age comes and understands the truth of what I have now supposed: The question is, Whether the Authority of the Major part of the Fathers of the former age be a sufficient foundation for their Faith in the Popes Supremacy and infallibility? Melchiôr Canus saith No: Now then the next age or ages having happily forgotten such contradictions (which the Age immediately next remembred.) The question is whether that foundation which was insufficient to the precedent Age, is now through their ignorance of such contradiction become sufficient to the following Age? if they affirme it, it would become the Jesuites in point of gratitude to Write a Panegyrick in praise of Ignorance which is it seems, not onelyonly the Mother of Devotion, but of assurance and certainty of knowledge; if they deny it, they confesse the weaknesse of their assertion: In short, he that will lay the foundation of his p. 69Faith upon such a quicksand, must either prove the negative that there was no such contradiction as we have supposed (which is impossible) or confesse his Faith relies upon the Sand (which is dreadfull.) And againe admit they had the consent of Fathers in this Tradition. I have given severall instances, wherein they acknowledge they have departed from the consent of Fathers, and that there were severall Doctrines which (if we believe the Papists when they tell us the Fathers owned no Doctrine, but what they had by Tradition) the Fathers receaved by Tradition, wherein they were de facto mistaken, and why might they not be mistaken in this? Wee all know how generall the Millenary opinion was among the Fathers of the second and third Centuries, though it be said all came from the mistake of Papias, an honest, but credulous Doctor. And dare these men venture their Souls upon it, that Papias was the onelyonly credulous Author? and that this was the onelyonly mistaken Tradition? or that it was impossible for those Fathers who were so many of them imposed upon by one credulous person in one point to be imposed upon by another in other points? All these and many other uncertainties must not onelyonly be allowed but are laid in the very foundation of Infallibility.

§. 6. The second particular is this: That if the Antients did believe the Infallibility of Councels, yet it doth not follow they believed it upon the account of such a Tradition, for they might believe it upon other grounds. It is evident they believed many (nay, to speak the truth all) Doctrines because they apprehended them to be contained in the Scriptures; and why might it not be so with this? Why might not the Fathers believe this (if they did believe it) upon the same misapprehensions and mistakes (which the Papists at this day runne into) concerning the sence of those Scriptures which are alledged for the Infallibility of Councels? And consequently p. 70the Fathers opinions of the Infallibility of Councels doth not argue that they received such a Tradition from the Apostles, but only that this was their opinion, wherein, no lesse then in other points, they were subject to errors as I have proved.

§. 7. The third Proposition is this: It doth not appeare that the antient Fathers did believe the Infallibility of Councels. For triall hereof I shall refer my self to those Arguments and Authorities which are alledged for the proof of the contrary position: Bel brings three Arguments, to shew that the Antient Fathers held that generall Councels could not erre and not one of them speak to the point:

His first Argument is this, They affirme that the sentence of a generall Councell in the cause of Faith is the last judgment of the Church, from which th…re lies no appeale, and which cannot be made void or retracted: Hence it evidently followes that such Counsels cannot erre, because else it were a very unjust thing to compell Christians that they should n…t appeale from that judgment which may be erronious (a)(a)Affirma…t primum Concilii generalis sententiam esse in causâ fidei ultimum Eccl…sice judicium, à quo appellari non possit, quodque nullo modo irritari vel retractari queat. Hine autem apertissimè constat ejusmodi Conc…lia non errare &c. lib. 2. de Concil. auctor. c. 3.I Answer, 1. S^t Austin did hold that the sentence of a generall Councell might be retracted, though not by private Christians, yet by a …ollowing generall Councell, former generall Councels (saith he) are corrected by the later, of which more by and by, and that is enough to shew he did not believe it infallible. 2. The Consequence is weak and denied by the Protestants, and therefore might be denied by the Fathers: If the consequence be infirme now, it could not be strong then; and for this we have the Testimony of a Papist S. Clara, who tels us; that Calvin, and Robertus Baronius, and all the Protestants, and some others who deny the Infallibility of generall Councels do neverthelesse acknowledge it to be the p. 71supreme Iudge of Controversies upon Earth, and that such a Councell hath a det…rmining and decisive power, which all are externally bound to obey to prevent Schisme (a)(a)Fatetur Baronius Concilium generale esse supremum in terris Controversiarum Iudicem—determinativam & decisivam fo…statem (agnoscunt) Adversarii cui omnes exterius obiemperare tenentur, ne schisma fiat: S. Clara. in system. fidei cap. 20. num. 14. et 15.Nor is it unjust, but necessary for the preservation of order and prevention of worse mischiefes, that there should be a Supreme though fallible Authority, beyond which there might be no appeale: And as it is no injustice that there lies no appeale beyond the Supreme Magistrate in civill affaires, though he be confessed to be Fallible: so neither can it be any injustice that there is no appeale beyond the Supreme Ecclesiasticall Judicatory in Church matters though it be fallible, provided it be granted (which the Protestants with the Fathers do assert and have proved) that such Judicatories do not bind the conscience but onelyonly regulate the outward Acts, and prevent visible Confusions.

§. 8. And the same Answer will serve for Bellarmines second Argument, which is this: The Fathers and Councels teach that they who do not acquiesse in the sentence of generall Councels are Hereticks and deserve excommunications, and therefore they thought such Councels could not erre(b)(b)Docent Patres & Concilia esse hereticos & excommunicandos omnes qui non acquiescunt conciliis plenariis. Ex quo manifestè sequitur ces putasse Concilia non posse errare. Bellar, ubi suprà.

Answer, 1. I deny the Consequence againe for the now mentioned reason: The civill cutting of such as resist the sentence of the Magistrate doth as fully prove the Magistrates Infallibility, as the Ecclesiasticall cutting of such as do not rest in the sentence of a Councell doth prove the Councels Infallibility. 2. The Fathers did not account men Hereticks meerly because they rested not in the sentence of a Councell as such (for then they p. 72should have been Hereticks for rejecting the Arrian Councels) but because the Doctrine which they opposed, and the Councels asserted was true; and so it was the verity of the Doctrine, not the Conciliarity (if you will pardon the word) of the sentence by which they judged of Hereticks. That cannot be an Argument that the Fathers believed the Infallibility of Councels, which is common to those that deny their Infallibility; but the cal…ing of those Hereticks who do not acquiesse in the sentence of Councels is common to those that deny the Infallibility of Councels; for the Protestants themselves have branded and censured and sometimes put to death as Hereticks such men as in fundamentall points of Religion have receded from their publick Confessors of Faith, and the decrees of their Synods, without ever pretending to Infallibility.

But (that I may improve the Cardinals Argument for him to the highest) Put case the Fathers had said that men were bound to believe all the assertions of their generall Councell, yet this doth not evince that they thought them Infallible, I prove it plainly thus. The Papists maintaine that people are bound to believe their Pastours, and to receive all their Doctrines without examination or haesitation (according to that which Stapleton so largely and frequently defends; That Pastours are simply to be heard in all things) and yet they do not hold these Pastours to be Infallible: So they tell us by vertue of that Text, Mat. 23. 2. The Jewes were bound to believe all the Doctrines publikely taught by the Scribes and Pharisees, and yet they do not hold that the particular Scribes and Pharisees (of whom that Text speaks) were infallible: And the Fathers might justly say all men were bound to believe all the decrees of their Councels which then were past, not that they thought Councels were Infallible, but because they judged all their decrees p. 73true and consonant to the Scripture: otherwise how little they valued the decrees of Councels, when they apprehended them repugnant to the holy Scripture may be sufficiently understood by their contempt of the Arrian Councels.

3. There is in this argument the same foreign or error which was through most of the arguments and testimonies of the Fathers pretended in this cause, viz. they argue from the authority of Councels to their infallibility, and how invalid the consequence is appears from this undeniable argument. Masters, Magistrates, Parents, Bishops, and Provincial Councels have Authority, but not Infallibility. If all that the Fathers say to that purpose were put upon the rack, it would prove nothing but this, that they thought (what the Protestants grant) that general Councels were the supreme judicatories of the Church, from which was no appeal, and in which all men were obliged peaceably to acquesce; but that doth not infer Infallibility, as we have seen.

§ 9. Bellarmine's third argument is this The Fathers teach, that the Decrees of general Councels are Divine, and from the Spirit of God; from wh…nce follows, that they were not subject to error (a)(a)Patres docent esse divina & à Spiritu sancto edita decreta generatium Conciliorum, Ergo: ubi suprà.. And this he confirms by the testimony of Constantine (who, now he is orthodox is grown considerable, though when he was alledged against him, he was a greater Prince then Doctor, as we heard even now) Greg. Nazianz. Cyrill, and Leo, who call the decrees of the Councel of Nice divine, and say they were ordered by the Spirit of God: and so say I too. And it is true of all the decrees of all Councels, (nay of all the Sermons of Ministers) which are collected from Scripture and p. 74conformable to it (such as the Nicene Decrees were) that they are divine Oracles. But then their Divinity, and that, which is the consequent of Divinity, Infallibility, ariseth not from the Authority decreeing them, (which being but humane, could not make the decrees divine) but from the matter of the decrees which was taken out of Scripture, (as Bellarmine confesseth (a)(a)Coacilium Nicenum cum definivit Filium Patri esse foreign, conclusionem deduxit ex Scripturis. de Conciliis lib. 2. cap. 12., and therefore divine. But if Bellar: thinks from this particular case to draw a general conclusion, I must make bold to stop him in his careere, till he hath told me whither he think this argument solid. The Fathers held the decrees of the Councel of Nice to be divine, and (say it were) infallibly true: Therefore they thought the decrees of all Councels divine and infallible, and consequently the AntiNicene and Arrian Councels. If he can disgest this, I will say he hath a stomach as good as his conscience is bad.

§ 10. I think it is time to take my leave of the Cardinal, and come to the Fryar S. Clara (who being an ingenuous person, and coming last, hath doubtlesse selected the best weapons) and his great argument I find to be this: That the Fathers did generally own the Infallibility of the Catholick Church, and consequently the Infallibility of general Councels, which are the same with the Church, and their definitions are the determinations of the Church: this he largely prosecutes cap. 20, 21, 22. For Answer, let me premise what I have proved, that if this were the opinion of the Fathers, yet seeing that they confesse themselves to be men subject to like passions and mistakes with others according to that of Austin, Neither do you think, that because we are Bishops, we are not liable to irregular motions, but rather let us conceive that we live dangerously p. 75amongst the snares of temptations, because we are men (a)(a)Nec arbitreris ideò nobis non posse subrepere injuslam commotionem, quia Episcopi sumus, sed potiùs cogitemus inter laqueos tentationum nos periculesissimè vivere, quia homines sumus. Epistola 75.. And seeing the Papists confesse they have erred in many things, therefore this, if it were true, will afford no solid and sufficient foundation for their faith; but I shall forgive them that infirmity: The argument (however he glories much in it) hath nothing sound from head to foot; how can they expect this argument should prevaile with us, when it is rejected by themselves, who deny the consequence from the Infallibility of the Church unto that of Councels. So doth Cam…racensis (as S. Clara notes) in these words: A general Councel may erre in the faith, because if it should erre, yet it would remaine that others without the Councel did not erre, and by consequence that the faith of the Church did not faile (b)(b)Concilium generale potest contra fidem errare, quia ipso sic errante adhuc staret aliquos extra Concilium non errare, & per consequens fidem Ecclesiae non deficere. art. 3. in quaestione vesperiarum. aslert. 8.. The like saith Panormitanus: A Councel may erre, as it hath err…d; nor doth this hinder it, that Christ prayed for his Church that it might not erre, because, although a general Councel represent the whole Church, yet in truth it is not the whole Church: —All the faithful do constitute that Church, whose head and husband Christ is, and that is the Church which cannot erre (c)(c)Concilium non potest errare, quia Christus oravit pro Ecclesia sua ist non deficeret: Quia dico, quòd licèt Concilium generale representet totam Ecclesiam universalem, cujus caput & sponsus est ipse Christus, & ista est illa Ecclesia quoe errare non potest. Super part. 1. Decret. sol. 142.. The very same thing, and almost in the same words saith Antonius (d)(d)in his summà part. 3. tit. 22. c. 2. de Conciliis generalibus. §. 6., where he adds an instance, That the saying of Ierome was preferred before the decree of a Councel. Thus you see the consequence is denied p. 76by three famous Authors of their own: Nay, what say you, if S. Clara himself deny the Consequence: I am greatly mistaken, if it doth not follow from hence, that he makes Gouncels infallible no further then they are afterwards received and owned by the Church, and allowes them to be fallible where that reception doth not follow, as we shall see hereafter; and therefore the Infallibility is fixed in the Catholick Church, not in the Councel, and consequently the Church may be infallible, and yet the Councel remain fallible: as those Papists that assert Councels to have their Infallibility from the Pope, (which Bellarmine and the Jesuites generally do) confess Councels without the Popes confirmation, and in themselves to be but fallible: for what the Pope's confirmation is in Bellarmine's opinion, that the Churches reception is in the judgment of S. Clara, and all the Authors he cites to that purpose. What say you further, if S. Clara confess the falsehood of his own Conclusion? let the intelligent Reader judg. His Conclusion is, Therefore Councels are infallible in the judgment of the Fathers; and of all the Fathers he tels us S. Austin is the greatest Assertor of the Infallibility of Councels: now I assume, St. Austin in the judgent of S. Clara held, that Councels are fallible. This I prove from his own words: In this sense Occham rightly delivers the mind of Austin: whether they be Popes or others, whether they wrot any thing in Councel, or out of Councel, the same judgment is to be passed▪ upon them, that things are not therefore to be reputed infallibly true & certain because they wrot so, but onelyonly because they could prove it by Scripture, or reason, or miracles, or the approbation of the universal Church. Thus far Occham. Now follows S. Clara's foreign: Which doctrine of his I judg most safe, and that it is owned by almost all Catholicks. p. 77(a)(a)Denique in boc sensu bene dicit Occhamus de mente Augustini, quam ibi resert 3. Dialog. tract. 1. lib. 3. c. 24. Sive fuerint summi Pontifices, sive alii, sive scripferint aliquid in Concilio generali, sive extra, consimile de iis judicium est habendum, ut in his quae scientiae vel juris sunt, non ideo aliquid putetur certitudinaliter modo praedicto (scil. infallibili) esse verum, quia ipsi ita scripserunt, nisi id vel per Scripturam divinam, vel rationes irrefragabiles, aut operationem miraculorum, aut per approbationem universalis Ecclesiae persuadere voluerint: Sic Occham: Quam eius senten…iam tutissimam aestimo, & ab omnibus ferè Catholicis amplexam, System. fidei c. 26. num. 2.The evidence of this place forced S. Clara to make this acknowledgment, that it seems to favour the opinion of those who asserted the Fallibility of Councels in lesser things, (though indeed this is but a figment of his own brain, and a distinction foisted into the text, which St. Austin never dream'd of) and he is reduced to such straits, that he hath no other way to evade, but in stead of an Answer to oppose one argument against another; viz. that it is sufficient for him, that the Fathers call those Hereticks that do not adhere to the definitions of Councels, Ergo they thought them Infallible(a)(a)Ibid.: It is Bellarmine's argument, and I have already answer'd it. And so this block being removed, the Conclusion remains firme, That St. Austin thought not Councels infallible. For farther confirmation whereof, I shall from hence collect two Arguments, plainly proving, that St. Austin was not of the judgment of the Romanists in this point of the Infallibility of Councels.

1. Because no more Infallibility is here granted to general Councels then to particular Synods, nay then to private Doctors. This I prove, because St. Austin, and the Papists themselves, and indeed all men allow each of them so far infallible, and their assertions to be infallibly true, as they can prove them by Scripture, or irrefragable reasons, or miracles, or the approbation of the whole Church: and not one syllable more doth Austin give to general Councels.

p. 782. Because the Papists will not, and cannot according to their principles truly speak what St. Austin there speaks; and therefore St. Austin did not think as they think (unlesse they will make him one of those, who seldome speak as they think) It is the known and avowed Doctrine of the Romish Church, (however disowned by some few of them, whom they look on as Extravagants and Schismaticks,) that we are bound to believe the Doctrine of the Pope, say some, of the Councel, say others, of the Pope and Councel together, say almost all, upon the credit of their own assertion, without any further reason. This is evident from Stapleton (a)(a)Contra whitak. in variis locis., Gregory de Valentia (b)(b)lib. 8. Anal. fid., Tannerus (c)(c)In colloquio Ratisboaensi. ses. 9., and Bellarmine in several p…aces, one I shall instance in. It is one thing (saith he) to interpret a law as a Doctor, (that requires Learning;) another thing to interpret it as Iudge, (that requires Authority:) a Doctor propounds not his opinion as necessary to to be followed, farther then reason induceth us; but a Iudg propounds his opinion with a necessity of following it. The Fathers …xpound Scripture as Doctors or Lawyers, but the Pope and Councels as Iudges or Princes (d)(d)Aliud est interpretari legem more Doctoris, aliud more Iudicis: ad explicationem more Doctoris requiritur eruditio, ad explication…m more Iudicis requiritur authoritas. Doctor enim non proponit suam sententiam ut necessarid sequendam, sed solùm quatenus ratio suadet; at Iudex proponit ut sequendam necessariò. —Augustinus, & …aeteri Patres in commeatariis sungebantur officio Doctorum, at Concilia & Pontifices funguntur officio Iudicis. De verbi Dei interpretatione. lib. 3. cap. 10, versus sinem.. And now let S. Clara himself judg, if he will deal candidly, whether St. Austin and Bellarmine were of a mind, or (which is all one) whether St. Austin did receive the Decrees of Councels as of Judges and Princes, barely upon the credit of their authority or assertion, as the Papists say he did, or only p. 79as Doctors, because they could prove what they say from Scripture or reason, as St. Austin in terminis asserts?

§ 11. But because it is of some concernment to understand Austin's mind in this point, (whose authority is so venerable both to them and us, and whom both Parties willingly admit for Umpire in this controversy, (I shall further consider what S. Clara alledgeth from him for this purpose: the passage he pleads is this; Vntill that which was wholsomely believed, was confirmed, and all doubts removed by a general Councel (a)(a)Donec plenarie totius orbis Concilio quod saluberrimè sentiebatur, etiam remotis dubitationibus firmarctur. lib. 1. con. Donatistas. c. 7.: Therefore, saith S. Clara, it is not lawful to doubt after the definitions of Councels (b)(b)Non licèt igitur dubitare post definitiones Conciliares.. Put it it into a Syllogism, and it is this. That which so confirms a truth, as to remove all doubts, is Infallible: But a general Councel so confirmes a truth, as to remove all doubts: Ergo. The Major is denied: for a private Minister may by the evidence of Scripture or reason so confirme a truth, as to remove all doubt from the hearers, and yet is not therefore infallible. There are then two wayes, whereby doubts may be removed. 1. By the infallibility of the authority: Thus when God tells me that which seems improbable to reason, this should remove all doubt. 2. By the evidence of arguments: and so their argument proceeds à genere ad speciem affirmativè, thus a general Councel removeth doubts, Ergo they do it by the Infallibility of their Authority; it followeth not, for you see they may do it by the evidence of their argument. And this Answer might very well suffice: But that I may give them full satisfaction (if possibly the interest of these men would suffer their consciences to open their eyes) I shall prove that it was so, and that St. Austin speaks of this latter way of removing doubts, i.e. by their convincing p. 80arguments, not by their infallible authority. This plainly appears by considering the contexture of the words: Lest I should seem, saith he, only to prove it by humane arguments, because the obscurity of this question did in former times, before the schisme of Donatus, make great and worthy Bishops and Provincial Councels differ among themselves, untill by a General Councel, that which was wholsomely believed was confirmed, and all doubts removed, I shall bring out of the Gospel infallible arguments (a)(a)Iam enim ne videar humanis argumentis id agere, quoniam quoestionis bujus obscuritas prioribus Ecclesiae temporibus ante schisma Donaté —patres Episcopos ita inter se compulit salvā, pace disceptare ac fluctuare, ut diu Conciliorum in suis quibusque regionibus diversa statuta nutaverint, donee plenario totius orbis Concilio, quod saluberrimè sentiebatur, etiam remotis dubitationibus firmaretur, ex Evangelio profero certa documenta. lib. 1. con. Donatum. c. 7.. Where you plainly see, that he cals the authority of Councels but a Humane argument and authority, and that he acknowledgeth none but Scripture-arguments to be certa, certain or infallible, as is evident from the Antithesis. 2. This appears most undeniably from a parallel place, where St. Austin speaks thus of Cyprian: That holie man sufficiently shewed, that he would have changed his opinion, if any had demonstrated to him that Baptisme might be so given &c.(b)(b)Satis ostendit se facillimè correcturum fuisse sententiam suam, si quis demonstraret baptismum Christi sic dari posse. Et paulò post. And a little after, he would have yielded to a general Councel, if the truth of that question had in his time been evidenced, and declared, and confirmed by a general Councel (c)(c)Si jam illo tempore questionis hujus veritas diquata & declarata per plenarium Conclium solidaretur: & postea;. And he gives the reason of his yielding, Because that holy Soul would have yielded even to one man declaring and demonstrating the truth (d)(d)quia profectò & uni verum diceati et demonstranti posset facillimè consentire tam sancta anima. lib. 2, con. Don. c. 3., —much more to p. 81a general Councel. In all which it is plain, that it was not any presumed Infallibility of the Councel, but the clearness of the truth, and the strength of their arguments which would have satisfied Cyprian in St. Austin's judgment. 3. This may be irrefragably proved from hence, that St. Austin makes this the peculiar property of the holy Scripture (by which it is distinguished from, and advanced above all the opinions, decrees, or writings of all Bishops in or out of Councels) that we may not doubt of any thing contained in it. The words are express, and brought in with a Quis nesciat: Who knowes not that the holy Scripture is so preferred before all the letters of after-Bishops, that we may not so much as doubt or debate concerning any thing contained in them, whether it be true or no. But the letters of the Bishops may be reproved by Councels, if they swerve from the truth: and Provincial Councels must yeild to General Councels, and former general Councels are oft corrected by the latter (a)(a)Quis nesciat sanctam Scripturam—omnibus posteriorum Episcoporum literis ita praeponi, ut de illa omnino dubitari aut disceptari non possit, utrum verum vel certum sit, quicquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit. Episcoporum autem literas—per Concilia licère reprebendi, si quid in iis sortē à veritate deviatum est: & Concilia— per Provincias plenariorum Conciliorum authoritati cedere, & ipsa plenaria saepe priora posterioribus emendari. lib. 2. contra Donatistas c. 3.: where there is a gradation from Bishops to Provincial, and thence to General Councels, but all of them are in this respect postposed to the Scripture, that we may lawfully doubt of any thing contained in their Decrees, and where they swerve from the truth, reject it. And nothing more evinceth the strength of this argument; then the silliness of our Adversaries evasions: He speaks of questions of Fact and Ceremony, not of Faith, saith Bellarmine and Stapleton, whereas the question there disputed was, whether persons Baptized by p. 82Hereticks should be rebaptized, which the Fathers formerly made and the Papists now make a question of Faith. But by emendantur (saith Stapleton) he means perfectiùs explicantur: If you ask in what Dictionary or Author the word emendantur is so taken, you must understand that it follows à majori ad minus: that if our Romish Masters may coyn new Articles of Faith, which diverse Papists professe they may, much more may they devise new significations of words. But I would know of these Doctors, what they would think, or at least what discreet and sober men would think of that Author that should say, Libri Mofis à Prophetis emendantur, or Scripta Prophetarum ab Apostolis emendantur: and yet if Stapletons Lexicon may be used, it were an harmlesse expression. But if these men will give St. Austin leave to be the interpreter of his own words, he hath sufficiently open'd his mind, by making emendare and reprehendere parallel expressions, and by speaking of such an Emendation as follows after, or is conjoyned with a doubting of the truth of what was delivered by the Councel. This may serve for the third Proposition.

§ 12. And here I might give my self a supersedeas, having shewed the imbecillity of their principal Proofs from the Fathers; but ex abundantis I shall adde the fourth Proposition, which is this; That it doth appear, the Antients did believe the fallibility of Councels. The former proposition shewed, that they could not prove their Assertion, and this I hope will disprove it. But because what hath been already said may serve for that end also, I shall be the briefer in this, and shall only mention three arguments to prove it.

1. They who make Scripture-proof necessary to command the belief of doctrines or matters of Religion, do not hold the Infallibility of Councels; But so did the Fathers: Ergo. The Major is evident from hence: because p. 83one infallible Authority is sufficient; and the addition of another, though it may tend ad melius esse, yet it cannot be necessary ad esse, (for then the former were not sufficient.) And the Papists who believe the Infallibility of Popes or Councels, do professe eo nomine that Scripture-proof is not necessary, and that the Churches authority without Scripture evidence is sufficient. When Whitaker urged the necessity of Scripture-proof, to shew the Church for proof of the Scriptures prerogative above the Church, Stapleton roundly answers, That such proof is not necessary to a Christian man, and a Believer (a)(a)Homini Christiano & Catholico—huiusmodi probatio necessaria non est. De Authoritate Scripturae lib. 3. cap. 1. in fine.. For the Minor, That the Fathers did judge Scripture proof necessary, hath been already shew'd, and will hereafter be made good; and to prevent tedious repetitions I shall now forbear it.

2 They who allow the people liberty of examination of all that any men, since the Apostles, say, do not believe the Infallibility of Councels: but so do the Fathers. The major is evident from the confession and practice of our Adversaries, who believing the Infallibility of the Pope or Councels, do injoyn the reception of their Decrees and Injunctions without examination. A Christian ought to receive the Churches doctrine without examination, saith Bellarmine (b)(b)Debet Christianus sine examine recipere doctrinam Ecclesiae. Bel. ubi suprà.. The Minor hath been proved from the expresse words of the Fathers.

3. They that derogate Faith from all men without exception, beside the Apostles, do not hold the Infallibility of Councels: But so do the Fathers, Ergo. The Major needs no proof: for the Councels are made up of men, and such too as are confessed to be each of them p. 84fallible. Nor do they pretend to any Enthusiasme, or immediate revelation. The Minor also hath been fully proved: to which I shall adde one out of Austin… If it be confirmed by authority of Scripture, we are to believe it without all doubting: but for other witnesses, or their testimonies, a man may believe, or not believe, as he apprehends what they say hath weight or not (a)(a)Si Divinavum Scripturarum—perspitua firmetur authoritate, sine ulla dubitatione credendum est. Aliis verò testibus vel testimoniis, quibus aliquid credendum esse suadetur, tibi credere vel non credere liceat, quantum ea momenti ad saciendam fidem habere vel non havere perpenderis. Epis. 112.It is true, S. Clara sayes, that St. Austin doth only prefer Scripture before particular authors (b)(b)Dico Augustinum hîc solùm praeferre Scripturas particularibus authoribus. System. sid. ubi suprà.: which, how false it is, sufficiently appears from the other testimony of Austins, which I have even now discussed, wherein you plainly saw in Occam's and St. Clara's own judgment, St. Austin positively took away all difference between Councels and private Doctors in this particular, and equally denied all foreign to both of them. Thus I hope I have sufficiently proved what I undertook concerning the supposed Tradition and the testimony of the Fathers, in reference to the Infallibility of Councels. This is the first Branch; The Infallibility of Councels is not made known to us by Tradition: the next Proposition must shew, That it is not revealed in Scripture.

§ 13. This therefore is the Second branch, That the Infallibility of Councels hath no foundation in Scripture…

1. I might justly insist upon what hath been already mentioned concerning the doctrine of the Romanists about the insignificancy and insufficiency by the Scripture p. 85to ground my faith without the Churches authority. And surely they that professe they are not bound to believe the Divinity of Christ, were it not for the testimony and interpretation of the Church, i.e. the Pope, or a Councel, (which is their assertion) must needs give us the same liberty to assert, that a Christian is not bound to believe what the Scripture saith concerning the Infallibility of the Pope or Councels, but for the testimony of the Pope and Councels: that is, we have no reason to believe their Infallibility, but this, that they tell us they are infallible, we have their word for it; so it seems the Disciple is better then his Master, and the Pope's word will go further then the word of God: for the Scriptures Testimony is not to be credited in its own cause saith Bellarmine (a)(a)Etiamsi Scriptura dicat libros Prophetarum & Aposlotorum esse divinos, tamen non credam esse, nisi prius id credidero, Scripturam euae boc dicit esse divinam. Nam in Alcorano Mahumetis … legimus ipsum Alcoranum de coelo a Deomissum, as the Churches Testimony is. When the Papists would presse the Scripture to the service of this notion, it may say to them as Iepthah did to the Elders of Israel, Iud. 11.7. Did not je hate me, and expell me out of my fath…r's house, and why are you come unto me now, when ye are in distress? And upon condition they will reply with the Gileadites, Therefore we turn again to thee now that thou mayest be our head. I will overlook that otherwise unpardonable fault, by (which they have rendred the Scripture unserviceable to their purpose) and once more they shall have a fair tryal, whether the Infallibility of Councels can be demonstrated from Scripture.

Sect. 14. The first and principall support of Infallibility is 1 Tim. 3. 15: where the Church is called the pillar and ground of Truth. This is their Ajacis ctypeus, which you shall find used upon all occasions, and infinitely p. 86repeated by every impertinent scribler of the Romish party.

For Answer, to passe over that notion of our acute, Chillingworth, that it is not the Church, but Timothy who is there called the ground and pillar of Truth, and so there is onelyonly an Ellipsis of the word foreign which is very frequent foreign for foreign, or of the word foreign for foreign, as the learned Gataker observes, and there are diverse instances of either of them. So the sence is that thou mightest behave thy selfe in the House of God, the Church as a Pillar or as becomes a Pillar. And he gives this notable reason for it, because it was heterogeneous to call that Church a pillar which in the same verse he had called an house. And this I am sure would puzle our masters to answer: But to wave that, I answer.

1 The Church spoken of is not the Church of Rome, but the Church in which Timothy was placed. And whether it be spoken of the Church in generall or in particular, what is this to Rome? Here wee find a notable piece of the Romane mystery of iniquity: If there be any reproofes, or censures applied to any other Churches, there every Church must bear its own burden: But if any Church be honoured in Scripture with commendations, promises, priviledges that presently belongs to Rome, and they have a commission to seize it for their own use: but how unjustly we shall here discover, for if you understand these words of the Catholick Church, or of the Church in generall, then the words only prove the indefectibility of the whole Church, which may consist with the errour and Apostacy of several which then were eminent Churches whereof we have unquestionable Instances in the glorious Churches of Asia, which notwithstanding this promise fell away: and consequently Rome, though then her faith was famous throughout the World, might fall with them or after p. 87them. And if you understand the words of a particular Church they must be understood of that Church in which Timothy was placed: And if my memory faile me not exceedingly, that was not Rome, but Ephesus, which notwithstanding this Caracter did fall away: And moreover it was not the Church ruling, but the Church ruled in, and over which Timothy, was set, which is here called the pillar and ground of truth. And so the Argument runs thus: The Church and people of Ephesus are the pillar and ground of truth. Therefore the Pope of Rome is infallible. The Consequence is thus proved, the Pope may interpret Scripture as he pleaseth, and though he may erre in the premises, as Stapleton confesseth (a)(a)In relectione principiorum fidei. controv. 4. qu. 2.yet he is alwayes infallible in the conclusion as the same Stapleton asserts: Ergo the Popes infallibility is out of the reach of all Arguments.

2 The terme of Pillar notes the solidity, but not the infallibility of the Church, it notes the difficulty of its removall, but not the impossibility. Every stout Champion of Gods Truth is a pillar of the truth, and such are frequently called by that name in the fathers, but yet they are not infallible. Athanasius was a pillar of the truth, but not infallible: The great Osires a pillar of the truth, and Nicene faith, yet fell fowly, as appears by the story. Musonius Bishop of Neocaesarea is by Basilius Caesariensis invested this very title of foreign. (b)(b)In Epis. 63.Ergo by the Romane Logick Basil ▪ thought him infallible, or if he did not then Basil did not think those words implyed infallibility, Gregory Nyssen tells us, not onelyonly Peter, and Iames, and Iohn are pillars, not only Iohn Baptist is a light, but also all that build up the Church are pillars and lights (c)(c)in vita Mosis.Therefore it seemes all Ministers are p. 88infallible: Male Children are called foreign, the pillars of their families, among the Greek Poets, and Getae, a faithfull servant in Terence, is called Columen Familiae, the pillar of the family: For ought I know, if those men would go to Rome, and upon the credit of this word sue out a Writ of priviledge, they might be as infallible as the Pope himselfe.

3. This Phrase, The Church is the Pillar of Truth, may note the Churches duty, not her practice, and what she ought to be, not what she alwaies is. They shall not say this is gratis dictum, I will make it good by parallel Instances, wherein they shall see the absurdity of their argument. Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evill. Rom. 13.3. If this argument be good, The Church is a Pillar, E. she cannot e…re, then this also is good, That Rulers cannot be a terror to good works. None but one that comes from Bedlam would assert the latter, and none but one that comes from Rome would conclude the former. Thus our Saviour saith of his Ministers, Ye are the salt of the world, ye are the light of the world, Matth. 5. Ergo by this argument, this Salt could not loose its savour, and no Minister can be in the dark, but every one must be infallible. Thus Prov. 16 10. A Divine sentence is in the lips of the King, his mouth transgresseth not in judgment: Ergo Kings are infallible. If the Pope had such a Text in the New Testament, The Pope's mouth transgresseth not in judgment, you may easily imagine what triumphs the Assertors of Infallibility would have made, who can build a towring confidence upon such pittiful foundations: and yet this doth not informe us of the practice of Kings, but acquaints them with their duty, as Interpreters agree.

4. This Phrase, The pillar and ground of Truth, notes the necessity of the Churches ministry (quoad nos) but not the infallibility of her Authority: those are two distinct things, and the one no way consequent upon the other. p. 89The utmost which can be squeezed from that phrase is this, that the Church doth support the truth and Gospel of Christ in the world, and so doth every sincere, zealous defender of the truth, and especially the Ministers, and prime champions of the truth, not only when met together in a general Councel, but also in their single capacities, which I think will be undeniably proved by this argument. The Church was the pillar and ground of truth for the first three hundred years after Christ and the Apostles, never did it more deserve that name, nor did it ever more discharge that office; but all that time there was no oecumenical Councel (and that is the only Councel to whom Infallibility is ascribed by the Papists) therefore either that phrase doth not evince infallibility, or the several pastors of those ages were infallible.

5. The consequence of the argument is false and frivolous; The Church is the pillar of truth, Ergo she is infallible: for the same Church may be a pillar of truth and a seat of Error. For what is it to be a Pillar of the Truth, (if we draw aside the curtain of the Metaphor) but to be a Defender of the Faith? And who knows not that the same persons may defend the truth, and maintain errors with them, unlesse he be one that never read the Bible, nor Ecclesiastical History? Who knows not that the same persons, which defended the truth of Christianity against Jewes and Pagans, did also maintain the Doctrine of Iesabel, and the Heresy of the Nicolaitans? Rev. 2. and that those very men that owned the foundation, did build the hay and stubble of false doctrines thereupon, 1 Cor. 3. and that diverse of the stoutest defenders of the truth of the Gospel among the Fathers had their errors, as Bellarmine acknowledgeth? Else, if they will stand to the consequence, it will follow by vertue of it, Such a Minister preacheth the truth, Ergo he is infallible, and cannot preach false doctrine. Such a Judg is the Pillar of p. 90Justice in the land, Ergo it is impossible he should make an unjust Decree: Proclamations are hanged upon such a pillar, Ergo a Libell cannot be fastned there.

6. Their argument proceeds from a declaration of the Churches present state, (for that is all that place asserts, viz. that the Church then was a Church and Pillar of truth) to an assurance of its perpetual continuance in that state, (which is quite another thing:) Which kind of argumentation, if it might pass for currant, it would work brave exploits; for then it would follow, The city of Sion was an habitation of righteousnesse, a pillar of truth and justice, Ergo the Prophet Isay was mis-informed, when he said, The faithfull City is become a Harlot, it was full of judgment, righteousnesse lodged in it, but now murderers, Isa: 1.21▪ Nay then the Church of England is orthodox in the Romane sence: Probatur: It was the Pillar of truth, viz. when it was the Pope's Asse, Ergo it is so still, and the Papists slander us, when they say, we are fallen away. The Church was a Virgin in the Apostles dayes, saith Egesippus, Ergo she is not now corrupted, nor indeed can be: for I must tell you, the Pope can do more then all the Apostles either pretended or did; for they could not even while they lived wholly keep the Church from actual corruption, but the Pope keeps her from all possibility of corruption. Thus the Pope is omnipotent, and it is no marvell he is infallible.

§ 15. The Second place of principal moment alledged for the Infallibility of the Church and Councels is Mat. 18.17. where all are commanded to hear the Church, and they that hear her not, are to be accounted as Heathens and Publicans, Ergo the Church of Rome is Infallible: for this is the comfort, whatever is in the premises, Romes infallibility is in the conclusion; and the Church of Rome, that can dispence with Gods p. 91lawes (a)(a)Secundùm plenitudinem potestatis de jure supra jus possumus dispensare ait Innocent. 3. in Decret. de conces. Praebend. tit. 8. c. proposuit. & addit Glossator, Nam contra Apostolum dispensat: item contra vetus testamentum.may well dispense with Syllogistical rules, by which there ought not to be more in the conclusion then in the premises, but that Law was made for Subjects, but not for our Sovereign Lord the Pope. To this may be added another place they vehemently urge, Luk. 10.16. He that heareth you, heareth me, Ergo the Church is infallible.

Ans. 1. Whatever these texts prove, what right hath the Church of Rome to her monopoly of the priviledges here conveyed? Or why may not the Greek or English Churches and their Ministers claime the benefit of them? The words have an indifferent aspect to all of them.

2. The consequence is false, Christians must hear the Church and Ministers, Ergo they are infallible: which I thus prove. Children must obey their Parents, and if they do not, they must dye for it, Deut. 21. are parents therefore infallible? Subjects must obey their Magistrates, or dye for it, Ios. 1.18. Whosoever will not hearken unto thy words, he shall be put to death: it seems then Magistrates are infallible. For this is the argument by which the Romanists pretend to prove the Infallibility of the Highpriest of the Jewes, because they that would not hear him, were to be put to death, Deut. 17. Nay this very text Luc. 10. destroyes that sense which the Romanists would fasten upon it: for seeing it is not the Apostles, but seventy disciples, and they too not as met in a Councel, but as preaching the Gospel severally, or (at most) by pairs, whom they are under such dreadful penalties commanded to hear, if it be conclusive for infallibility, it proves the infallibility of every Minister, or at least of every pair of them.

p. 923. It is agreed between them and us, that Christ speaks of the Censures of the Church Mat. 18. and therefore surely, if it prove the Churches Infallibility, in any thing, it must be in the matter there spoken of viz. in Church-censures: But they grant the Church is Fallible in her censures, as depending upon Testimony and matters of fact: And therefore it is ridiculous to infer from thence her Infallibility in other things which are not spoken of in this place.

4. The Church and Ministers are to be heard, not simply and in all things, but onelyonly in the Lord, and what they speak, according to his word: This is denied by the Papists who positively assert, that they are to be heard in all things, and without examination, as we have seen from their own words: It is therefore necessary to say something to overthrow this lawlesse liberty and boundlesse authority ascribed by them to the Church, for this is their foreign, or one of their radicall mistakes.

1. That which Christ denies to the Apostles is not to be ascribed to the Church: but Christ denies this absolute Authority to the Apostles Matt. 23.10. Be ye not called masters, for one is your Master even Christ, where it is not the name, but thing which is prohibited, even magisterium fidei, or the usurpation of an absolute authority in teachers, and the exaction of an universall beliefe and blinde obedience in hearers, which was the errour of the Pharisees here condemned by our Saviour, for so they said: You are to believe all the sayings of our Rabbines in their Homilies no lesse then the Law of Moses: And again, All their words are the very words of God are their expressions in the Thalmud. It cannot be denied that Christ derogates that authority from the Apostles, which he ascribes to himself; but if the Popish opinion were true, the Apostles had as great authority as Christ himselfe, p. 93for the height of Christs authority is expressed in these words (nor can more be said of God himself) him shall ye hear in all things Act. 3.22. This indeed the Popish Doctors most blasphemously arrogate to themselves (as you have seen) but so did not the Apostles: they had not so learned Christ; they allwaies observed their Distance: Be followers of us as we are of Christ. I have received of the Lord that which I delivered. S^t Paul denies that he had dominion over their Faith, 2 Cor. 1.24. Not that we have dominion over your Faith. I'le warrant you Paul denied it to himselfe, because it was Peters Prerogative, for it is certaine St Peters Successors challenge it, for Dominion and Subjection are Relatives. And if the people owe an absolute subjection of their Faith to their teachers, the Teachers have an absolute dominion over the Faith of the people: In short: This sottish Doctrine of an implicit Faith must needs be Apocryphal, so long as the Epistle to the Galatians is Canonicall, and especially Gal. 1.8. Though we or an Angel from Heaven Preach any other Gospell—let him be accursed: And he is not contented with a single assertion, but addes as we said before, so say I now againe—let him be accursed: Which if the Reader compare with that abominable passage of Bellarmines, If the Pope should erre in commanding Vices and forbidding Vertues, the Church were bound to believe vices to be good, and vertues to be evill (a)(a)Si Papa erraret praecipiendo vitia & prohibendo virtutes, teneret…r Ecclesia credere vitia esse bona & virtutes malas. De Romano Po… tifice lib. 4. cap. 5. in fine.: He will be able to judge whether the Faith of the present Romish Church be the same with that of the Apostles dayes, or not: and whether they who are so liberall in dispensing their Anathema's to all that differ from their sentiments do not justly fall under the Anathema here denounced.

p. 942. If Pastours are to be heard in all things, then people cannot sin in obeying their Pastours, (else they should sin in doing their duty) but people may sin in obeying their Pastours: Methinks this should need no proofe, but I finde this to be the temper of our Adversaries, they who give the hardest measure to us, expect the highest measure from us, and they of whom we may say (as Galen did of Moses) multa dicunt, nihil probant, they say much, and prove nothing; will yield us nothing, but what we must win by dint of Argument;

Therefore I shall prove it briefly: The Jewes sinned in following Aarons Doctrine: These be thy Gods O Israel: So the Prophet Ieremy frequently condemnes them for obeying the decrees of their Priests in his time: And our Saviour hath put this out of doubt, speaking of the Jewish Teachers, Matt. 15. If the blind lead the blind both will fall into the Ditch: And S^t Peter assures us (if his Successors will please to give him credit) that the Jewes were guilty of a great sinne in Christs death, though they did it in obedience to the decrees of their Rulers, Acts 3.14.17.

3. If people are allowed to examine the Doctrines of their Teachers by the word ere they receive them, then they are not to be heard in all things; But people are allowed so to examine—All the doubt lies about the Minor; and yet who can doubt of that, who ever read these following places. Take heed that no man deceive you, for many shall come in my name, Math. 24.4, 5. Prove all things, hold fast that which is good, 1 Thes. 5.21. Prove the Spirits, 1 Joh. 4.1. It is true Bellarmine saith, These precepts belong onelyonly to Learned men (a)(a)Praedicta mandata non ad omnes, sed ad solos Doctores pertinent de verbi Dei interpretatione, lib. 3. cap. 10.: And Gretserus p. 95gives this reason for it, because the unlearned people are not able to examine (a)(a)Cum peritia probandi omnes spiritus superat vulgi ca…tum, praeceptum hoc …lebeiis minimè dictum est. Gretserus in Defens.; very good: It seemes then, none but the Learned can have their sences exercised to discerne between good and evill, Heb. 5.14. And it is the priviledge of shephards onelyonly which Christ made the Character of all his sheep; That they knew his voice, and could distinguish it from the voice of Strangers, Joh. 10.4, 5. It seems Christ spoke to the learned only, when he said, Search the Scriptures, Ioh. 5.39. It seems the learned Thessalonians only were bound to hold fast that which is good, for that goes with their proving, and proving was in order to holding fast. It seems the Bereans (whom Paul commends for examining his doctrine by the Scriptures, Act. 17.) were Masters of Arts, and Berea was an University, and foreign implies that they had Academical education; and the Apostle meant it only of the University, when he writ to the city of Corinth, I speak as to wise men, judg ye what I say, 1 Cor. 10.15. Nay, the mischief is, if this be granted, their work is not done: for if the learned may examine, that is sufficient for our purpose for such are many Lay-men, (as they are called) and diverse of the Clergy, who have no share in the Churches government, and therefore are as much bound to subjection as any of the people: and consequently the Rulers are not simply to be obeyed, nor their doctrine blindly received upon their own credit. But (saith Bellarmine) Inde d doubtful doctrines are to be examined, but the doctrine of lawful Ministers is not doubtful, but openly good (b)(b)Agitur de Doctrinâ dubiâ, nam illa sola indiget probatione: Doctrina autem legitimorum praepositorum non est dubia, sed apertè bona. ubi supra.I see the Cardinal intended to shew his wisdome, reserving the p. 96discovery of his honesty to another time: Bellarmine was resolved to take a post, which he might be sure to keep, he knew the Hereticks would be nibling about the premises, and therefore he leaves the guarding of them to others, and resolves to hold the conclusion, (which he knew was not good manners to deny.) But if such doctrine as our teachers deliver be eo nomine evidently good and true, then these commands of trying are both dangerous (seeing they suppose and allow of doubts) and frustraneous, (since I may safely receive them without tryal.)

§ 16. A third place alledged for the Infallibility of the Church and Councels is Joh. 16.13. When the Spirit of truth his come, he will guide you into all truth. Hence Bellarmine thus argues: Christ speaks not of the Apostles only, but of their successors, because he saith, the comforter shall abide with you for ever, ch. 14.16. i. e. with them and their successors for ever. But Christ doth not lead the Bishops severally considered into all truth, therefore he leads them into truth when they are gathered together; and seeing there is no greater chair in the Church, by which God teacheth us, then the Pope, when a Councel is added to him: if his chair should erre, how this promise is true, he will teach you all truth, I see not (a)(a)Alter locus est Ioh. 16. Spiritus veritatis docebit vos omnem vevitatem. Et ne putemus hoc dici solis Apostolis & non etiam successoribus, Cap. 14. perse. —Dominus testatur spiritum sanctum mansurum cum Apostolis in …, i.e. tum cis & cum successoribus perpetuò. At Episcopos seorsim existentes non docet Spiritus sanctus omnem veritatem, ergo saltem Episcopos omnes in unum congregatos docebit omnem veritatem: & sanè cùm non sit in Ecclesia maiór aliqua Cathedra, per quam Deus nos doceat, quàm summi Pontificis Cathedra, adjuncto consensu generalis Coneilii, si baec etlam Cathedra salli potest cùm universam Ecclesiam docet, nescio quomod… vera sit illa promissio, Docebit vo; omnem veritatem, De Concil, authoritate lib. 2. c. 2.John 16This may be too: Bernardus non videt omnia, and why should Robertus do it?

p. 97Ans. 1. These words, if extended beyond the Apostles, do not imply any infallibility: or if they do, a man may with as great colour deduce the infallibility nay the omnisciency of all Believers from 1 Joh. 2.20. Ye have an unction from the holy one, and ye know all things: and v. 27. The same anointing teacheth you all things. All truth in the text is only meant of all truths necessary to salvation (nothing being more familiar in Scripture-use, then for general expressions, as all men, every creature, &c. to be understood with tacit limitations) nor are all whom God leads into truth, infallibly led into it, unless they will make all sincere Christians infallible; for all such are led by the Spirit into truth, but not all in the same manner and degree, as the Apostles were. So the Popish argument proceeds à genere ad speciem affirmativé: They are led into truth, Ergo they are infallibly led.

2. There is nothing in that text Joh. 16. to shew the extent of that promise to the Apostles successors, which Bellarmine sufficiently discovers, by deserting this place and fetching in another to his aid Joh 14. so his argument is cunningly patched up of two places. That God would lead them into all truth he proves from Joh. 16. That God will do this for ever he would fain prove from Joh. 14. whereas this place doth not say, that God would lead the Apostles into all truth for ever, but only that the spirit should abide with them for ever, and that as a comforter, which is quite another thing: if not, let me see that Papist that will give it under his hand, that every one with whom the Spirit abides as a comforter is infallible. And yet if I should wink at this fraudulent dealing of Bellarmines, and admit the phrase for ever into the principal Text, this would not infer a necessity of stretching this promise beyond the Apostles; partly because in Scripture use that phrase doth frequently denote the term of life, as Exod. 21.6. The servant is to be with his master for p. 98ever, and 1 Kings 12.7.—they will be thy servants for ever; and principally because in strictest propriety of speech the spirit of God did and doth for ever abide in the persons of the Apostles. As God betroths every one of his people to him for ever, Hos. 2.19. and is their portion for ever, Psal. 73.26. and the water that Christ gives to his people (which he himself expounds of the Spirit, Joh. 7.38, 39.) is in them for ever. Joh. 4.14.

3. If this promise of leading into all truth be understood of the Apostles and their Successors in the same manner, that is so as to make them both infallible, then as the Apostles severally considered were infallible, and not onelyonly when combined in Councels, so also are their Successors each of them Infallible. (which all Papists deny) It is a strange way of arguing which Bellarmine useth. The Apostles severally considered were Infallible by vertue of this promise: And their Successors are comprehended in this promise: And their Successors are not infallible in their single Capacities, (as the Apostles were:) Ergo, they are infallible when they are gathered together: This is that I told you before, and here you see it exemplified, though Fallibility be in the premises, yet you shall be sure to meet with Infallibility in the Conclusion.

4. If this promise of the Spirit did containe Infallibility, and did extend beyond the Apostles, yet certainly it is a most unreasonable thing, not onelyonly to communicate but appropriate this promise of the Spirit to such as have not the Spirit: such are all ungodly men Iude vers. 19, — sensuall, not having the Spirit. Yea, in that very place which the Papists urge for the perpetuall residence of Gods Spirit in Popes and Bishops Ioh. 14. There is a positive exclusion of all ungodly men from any share therein vers. 17. The Spirit of Truth whom the World cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him. A Character ascribed by God himselfe to all wicked men, p. 991 Io. 3.6. Whosoever sinneth (be he Christian, Minister, or Pope) hath not seen him, neither known him. Soin this Argument they runne upon a double absurdity. 1. That they deny the promised guidance of the Spirit unto those Elect, Holy and humble Christians who are the onelyonly persons that in Scripture account have the Spirit, and are led by the Spirit, and walke after the Spirit. 2. That they challenge the Infallible guidance of the Spirit to those that have not so much as the generall conduct of the Spirit which is common to all true Christians.

5. That you may see the desperatenesse of the Popish cause, you may observe that Bellarmine himselfe elsewhere denies the Conclusion which in this place he strives to obtrude upon us: For here he inferres the Infallibility of Councels, but elswhere he laies down this position, That a generall Councell may erre, and is not Infallible, except the Pope confirme them; that is to say, The Councell in it self is Fallible, the Pope onelyonly is Infallible, of which more by and by: And thus according to Bellarmines opinion, the Bishops neither severally nor concunctly are infallible, but in truth. The Pope onelyonly is infallible. And so Bellarmine hath not onelyonly shuffled the Pope into the Text, but indeed jusled out all others, and destroyed that infallibility of Councels which he pretended to assert; as became the Popes faithfull servant to do. And so this is Bellarmines Argument from these words, God hath promised Infallibility to lead all the Apostles, and all their Successors into all truth: Therefore none of the Apostles Successors are Infallible, save S^t Peters onelyonly.

§. 17. A fourth place for the Infallibility of Councels is Acts 15.28. For it seemed good unto the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden then these necessary things, whence they thus argue: This Councell had the Infallible direction of the Holy-Ghost and p. 100consequently all other Councels have it.

Answ. 1. If the Conclusion be universally true (which if it be not, it will do the Church of Rome no service) then the Arrian Councels were infallible: But if they say that onelyonly the Orthodox Councels are Infallible, that alters the question, and the Church of Rome must first prove her Orthodoxy, and then her Infallibility; and to speak truth, she may prove the one as soone as the other.

2. The utmost importance of this phrase is, that they made this decree by the direction of the Holy Ghost d.d It seemed good to us by the direction of the Holy Ghost. And for this there is no need to devise a new Phaenomenon of infallible assistance, to be afforded to all Councels (of which there is not one syllable in the whole Chapter) seeing there are other waies, mentioned in that place, in respect whereof they had the Holy Ghosts direction, and might say it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, and by which the Holy Ghost did give its Testimony to their decree directed against those that urged the necessity of Circumcision upon the Gentiles. 1. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost inasmuch as when the Gospell was preached to the Gentiles by Peter—God bare them witnesse, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us, v.8. so making no difference between the Circumcision and Uncircumcision. 2. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost who in the Scripture had foretold the conversion of the Uncircumcised Gentiles to the Faith and their reception into the Church: And for asmuch as it is exceeding plaine that the controversy was debated in that Councell principally if not solely by Scripture Arguments, and the conclusion deduced from Scripture evidence, they might very well say it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, if it was conformable to the Scripture, there being nothing more familiar then this that what is said in Scripture is ascribed to the Holy Ghost, as Act. 1.26. The Holy Ghost spake by p. 101the mouth of David. Heb. 3.7. Wherefore as the Holy Ghost saith, to day if ye will here my voice.

3. If that phrase doth imply Infallibility, yet the consequence doth not hold from Apostles to Bishops: I appeale to any Papist (whose candour is not gone with his conscience) whether this follow: A Councell wherein were severall persons, even in their single capacities Infallible, had infallible direction, when they were met together; Ergo, Those Councels wherein there is not one person, but is confessed in his single Capacity to be Fallible, are Infallible: If any or every Apostle had singly said, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to me, would this have inferred the Infallibility of every single Bishop! They say No: Then let them shew a reason why the Argument proceeds not as well from single Apostles to single Bishops as from Apostles conjoyned in Councell to Bishops conjoyned.

4. There is also another inconsequence: The Apostles and Councell had the direction of the Holy-Ghost in a conclusion regulated by Scripture and collected from it: Ergo, All following Councels have the direction of the Holy-Ghost, and cannot erre in all their conclusions whatsoever: Is not this a goodly Argument? This Councel did not erre: Ergo, No other Councel can erre: The words are onelyonly assertive of a present case, viz. of the direction of this Councell in that point, not at all promissive of any thing for the future, and therefore can give us no security at all for the Infallibility of Councels for the future: it would make fine work if every assertion were turned into a promise: I might as well argue. David was guided by the Spirit of God in the ordering of Gods house (as you read, I Chron. 28.12, 19.) Therefore all succeeding kings of Iudah were Infallible: Moses was faithfull in all Gods house. Heb 3.5. Ergo, None of Moses's Successors could be unfaithfull: p. 102Nothing can be replied, but this, That David and Moses had a speciall assistance not communicated to all their Successors: And the same may as truly be said of this Councell and the Apostles here assembled; But (saith Bellarmine) Infallibility being granted to this Councell as being necessary for the conservation of the Church against Herestes, the same reason and necessity continuing the same Infallibility must consequently be granted to following generall Councels (a)(a)De Conciliis lib. 2. cap. 2.; I Answer,

1. If this Councell by reason of the Apostles was Infallible, yet this Infallibility was purely accidentall (because persons indued with Infallibility for other ends were there present) and not conferred upon them for the decision of the present controversy: and the reason why Infallibility was bestowed upon the Apostles was not common to all but particular to that age and season viz. because they were to lay a solid foundation for, and to give a sure rule to all the Churches in after ages, and therefore Infallibility was their peculiar priviledge. It is but a lame inference, Infallibility was necessary in the first founders of Christianity for the Plantation and constitution of the Gospell Church: Ergo, It was necessary for the constant and perpetuall government of the Church in all after ages: Upon the same warrant a man may argue thus: Miracles were necessary in the first erecting and laying the Foundation of the Church: Ergo, they were necessary for the edification of the Church in all successive ages: In both cases the consequence is repugnant to common sense and reason, and confuted by experience; For

2. That such generall Councels and their Infallibility are not so necessary as the Papists would perswade us p. 103plainly appeares from hence that God (who is never defective in necessaries) left his Church for three hundred years together wholly without them, and yet the Church since the dayes of the Apostles never had more stability in the Faith, and a greater plenitude of every grace and good work then in those times.

5. That you may see how little reason there is that Protestants should be convinced by this place, take notice that diverse of the Learned Papists are unsatified with this Argument, among which are Ockam (a)(a)Par. 3. Dialog. trac. 1. lib. 3. cap. 9., Cameracensis (b)(b)Quaes…de Resumpta tit. R., Ferus (c)(c)In locum., and M^r White in his Treatise De fide & Theologia, where he thus Answers the Argument: Nor is it materiall that in that Apostolicall Councell they use those words. It seemed good to the Holy-Ghost and to us; For first, it was a Councell of Prophets in each of which Gods spirit dwelt in a speciall manner, at least in the Apostles—And he addes—If they acted with reason, doubtlesse they acted by the instinct of Gods Spirit, although not such as Divines feigne to be assistant to Councells (d)(d)Neque interest quod in Concilio Apostolico institutoe sunt eae voces Visum est Spiritui Sancto & nobis. Inprimis enim erat Concilium Prophetarum in quorum singulis habitabat Spiritus Sanctus speciali modo, saltem in Apostolis. Et Paulo post: si ex ratione agent indubiò ex instinctu Spiritus Sancti, etsi noa tali qualem singunt Theologi assistentem Conciliis. Tract. 2. parag. 21:.

A fifth place they urge is Mat. 28. vers. the last. I am with you allwaies to the end of the World.

Answ. 1. Whatsoever this promise containes, the Papists have no part in it, because it depends upon a condition which they have so grossely violated, Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and loe (in so doing) I am with you: Christ commanded his Disciples to search the Scriptures: Papists teach the p. 104Contrary; Christ commanded all his Disciples that partook of the Bread to drink also of the Cup: Papists teach otherwise, and the like may be instanced in an hundred particulars.

2. Put this Argument into forme and it is this: They whom Christ promiseth to be with are Infallible, But Christ promiseth to be with his Church: Ergo, This Church is Infallible: Here are three propositions, and every one of them faulty in one kind or other. 1. For the Major, it is most falfe: For Christ hath promised to be with every single sincere believer. Ioh. 14.23. If a man love me—wee will come to him and make our abode with him: So Ioh. 17.20, 21, 22.23. And the Holy Ghost (by which it is that Christ is present) is given to every such person: Ergo (it seems) they are Infallible▪ 2. For the Minor, it is true, but impertinent: Christ hath promised to be with his Church and with his Ministers to the worlds end, but not in the same manner and with the same degree of assistance as he was with the Apostles to give them Infallible direction: If otherwise, then as every single Apostle was, so every single Minister must be Infallible, which they themselves deny. 3. The Conclusion if granted, reacheth not to Rome: for there being severall Churches pretending to this promise, and the Text no more determining it self to one then to the other, it may as well be claimed by the Greek or English as by the Romish Church; Nay, which is more, Rome is excluded or rather hath excluded her selfe from it, as we have seen, and by her disobedience to Christs commands, hath cut off her Title to his promise.

§. 19. There is one place more they use to plead; it is Mat. 18 20. Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. This I confesse drives the Naile home: I see they are resolved to make sure work. For now it matters not what becomes p. 105of the Infallibility of the Pope or generall Councels, or the Universall Church; For whereever there are but two or three Jesuites met together, pretending Christs name, there is Infallibility: I think those Hereticks had better have held their Tongues, for then the Church of Rome would have been contented to assert the Infallibility of Pope or Councels, but now they will not abate them an Ace, but will make it good in spight of Scripture, Fathers, and Councels, and all the World, that every leash of Popish Priests is Infallible.

But I need say nothing more in Answer to this ridiculous Argument, because the Answers to the last Argument will serve for this also, and their own great Doctors confesse the impertinency of this allegation, and amongst them two great names, Stapleton (a)(a)Con. 6. qu. 3. art. 4.and Gregory de Valentiâ (b)(b)Tom. 3. Disp. 1. qu. 1. punct. 7.: And these are the Scriptures upon which they ground their Monstrous conceit of the Infallibility of Councels: what a sandy Foundation they have for it in Tradition we shewed before: And how little countenance they have from Scripture, and how absurdly they wrest that to their own destruction hath been now discovered: And therefore I may conclude this Doctrine hath no footing in Scripture, nor Tradition, which was the first branch of the Proposition to be proved.

§. 20. And here I might set up my rest: For having pulled down the two Pillars upon which the building of Infallibility stands, I know no remedy but it must fall to the ground: But for the more abundant demonstration of the foreign of the Romish Doctors, and vanity of their Religion, I shall adde a second consideration and shew, that however when they discourse with Protestants, they make a great noise about the Infallibility p. 106of councels, yet when they debate the point among themselves, none deny it with greater seriousness, nor dispute against it with more earnestnesse then diverse of themselves. I speak not now of the private opinions of some obscure Doctors among them, but of the publick doctrines of their Church, the opinion of the Popes, Cardinals, and all the …esuites and stoutest champions of the Romish Church, and the generality of Italian, Spanish, and Germane Papists, and almost all (some of the French faction excepted) do expresly deny the infallibility of Councels, and, which is more, they dispute against it: particularly Cajetan, and Bellarmine, and Gregory de Valentia, some of whose Arguments are these. Infallibility is not in the headlesse body, therefore a councell in it self is not infallible That from which there is appeal, is not infallible, but there lyes an appeal from a councell to the Pope, Ergo. The Church is committed to Peter, not to a councell, Ergo. Thus Cajetan (a)(a)De Authoritate Papae & Concilii tract. 1. cap. 6. & 8. & 11. et 12.. The Pope can either approve or reject the decrees of a Councel, Ergo the Councel is not infallible. The Councel hath its infallibility from its conjunction with her head the Pope, Ergo. Many Councels have erred in decrees of faith, Ergo. Thus Bellarmine (b)(b)De authoritate Concilii cap. 11.. By the way remember, this is the Gentleman that even now urged Ioh. 16. to prove, that Councels could not erre, and now he proves they have erred: it were well if the Romanists had either better consciences, or better memories. God doth nothing in vain, but the gift of infallibility would be given to Councels in vain seeing the Pope hath it, Ergo. That which is repugnant to our most assured faith concerning the Pope's primacy is not to be admitted, But the supreme and infallible authority of Councels is repugnant to the p. 107Pope's primacy, Ergo: Thus Gregory de Valentia (a)(a)Anal fidei. lib. 8. cap. 7.. So you see, by their own argument, either the Pope's primacy or the Councels infallibility is lost: & as the Jesuites on the one side thus strenuously dispute down the infallibility and supremacy of Councels, so their Adversaries on the other side do as stoutly overthrow the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope, wherein besides the positive testimonies of diverse of the most learned & antient Papists, they have the suffrage of two late famous Popish Councels Constance and Basil, such a spirit of giddiness and division hath God put amongst these Builders of Babel: And yet this is the Jerusalem, a city united in it self. These are the men that reproach the Protestant Churches with their divisions in some petite controversies, whilst they themselves are so irreconcileably divided in that, upon which the decision of all other controversies depends, viz. in the rule and judge of controversies. I think I need not say much more: For the more antient Papists, he that shall look into that excellent discourse of Robert Baronius against Turnbull, called Apologia pro disputatione de formali objecto fidei, will find the infallibility of Councels expresly denied by Ockam, Cameracensis, Waldensis, Panormitanus, Antoninus, Cusanus, (all venerable names in the Romish Church) whose words are there recited (b)(b)Tract. 5. Cap. 19.. And for the modern Papists it may suffice to name three authors of principle account, whom the rest of the Herd do follow. Melchior Canus laies down their doctrine in two Propositions. 1. A general Councel, which is not called and confirmed by the Pope, may erre in the faith. 2. Provincial Councels, which are confirmed by the Pope, cannot erre; the rest may erre (c)(c)1. Concilium generale, quod non congregatum & confirmatum est autboritate Pontificis, potest in fide errare. 2. Consilia Provincialia, quae ā Papa consirmantur, errare non posunt, reliqua autem possunt. loc. com lib. 5. c. 4.And Bellarmine saith the same p. 108thing almost in the same words (a)(a)De Conciliis. lib. 2. c. 11., and when he was gravel'd with the authority of that famous Councel of Chalcedon, (a Councel that Pope Gregory the great said he reverenced as one of the four Gospels) and a Decree of theirs against the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, he answers roundly, that that Decree is of no force, because it was made in the absence of the Pope's Legates, who afterwards did protest against it (b)(b)Decretum illud magni quidem est Concilii, sed non legitimè factum, proinde nullius est rolioris, vel authoritatis, quia, factum est absentibus legatis Apostolicae sedis & postea reclamantibus. De Pontif. lib. 2. c. 17. §. Quart.. Where by the way we may take notice, what opinion that oecumenical Councel had of the Pope's Supremacy and Infallibility, who first passed and afterwards ratified that decree, notwithstanding all the solicitations and protestations of the Romane Legate in the Pope's name to the contrary. In like manner saith Andradius, That Councell erred, in as much as it did rashly and without cause prefer the Church of Constantinople before that of Alexandria and Antioch (c)(c)Erravit in co, quòd temere & nullâ ratione Constantinopolitanam Ecclesiam Alexandrinae & Antiochenae duxerint praeferendam. In defens. fidei. lib. 1.. And Gregory de Valentia being assaulted with a Canon of the Synodus Trullaena, defends himself with this answer: That Synod is of no authority, because its Canons were not confirmed by the Pope (d)(d)Trullana Synodus nullius est authoritatis, quia non erant ejus Canones approbati à Pontifice Romano. In libro de Coelibatu, p. 861..

§ 21. It is true, the Papists perceiving the danger of their cause from this difference between the Pope and Councels, have at last found out this foreign (and p. 109by that means they pretend they are all agreed) the Pope and Councell joyning together are infallible: And in this sense their doctrine is true, that general councels are infallible, viz. if they are called and confirmed by the Pope. For answer whereunto I commend four things to the Readers observation.

1. Observe the non-sense of this opinion. The question is, whether general councels lawfully called have an infallible assistance and guidance of the Spirit in the forming of their decrees? The Papists affirm, we deny: now comes in a condition in their affirmation, which overthrowes the affirmation it self. They are infallible (say they) if the Pope confirms them: well then, the Councel meets, considers, decrees; here is their work done, hitherto (say our Masters) they are fallible: they send them to the Pope for confirmation, for ubi desinit Concilium, incipit Papa: if the Pope confirms them, they are infallible; if he disapprove them, they are fallible. And so, it seems, the councell receives infallible direction from God for their work, after their work is done; and it ceaseth to be, before it be infallible, in spight of the old maxime of the Logicians, Ab est tertii a…jecti, ad est secundi adjecti valet consecutio. Really the councels have an hard bargain of it, that cannot get Infallibility, till they have lost their existency.

2. Observe the hypocrisy and self conviction of this opinion. The infallibility of councels is the great foreign cast before the eyes of those who cannot penetrate into the depth of things. Several Scriptures are pretended, which are said evidently to prove this infallibility: now we see they themselves deny the thing, they pretend to prove; and councels are infallible no further then the Pope pleaseth. And with this key you must open all the alledged Scriptures: you must hear the Church, i. e. unlesse the Pope shut up your eares Christ is present where p. 110two or three are met together in his name, viz if they have the Pope's approbation. The Spirit will lead you into all rruth, viz. if you follow the instructions of his Holinesse. And if a councel may say, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us, it signifies nothing, if it be not added, and to our Lord the Pope. Thus Councels are meer cyphers, except the Pope adde his figure: and Councels are joyned with Popes, only as Bibulus was with Caesar, to fill up a vacancy, and make a noise in vulgar eares. Nor is the wound of the Popish cause healed by this device, but only skinned over: for as the assertors of the infallibility of councels deny infalliblity to the Pope, further then he adheres to such councels; so the assertors of Papal infallibility allow to councels no infallibility, but what they have in dependence upon, and by influence from the Pope. So Bellarmine in terms saith, Infallibility doth not come partly from the Pope, and partly from the Councel, but wholly from the Pope (a)(a)Tota firmitas Conciliorum legitimorum est à Pontifice, non partim à Pontifice, partim à Concilio. De Pontif. lib. 4. c. 3.. And Stapleton is expresse: The Pope receives no new power, nor authority, nor infallibility from the addition of a Councel (b)(b)Papa adjuncto Concilio nullam potestatem, vel authoritatem, vel etiam certitudinem in indicando novam acquirit: In relect. con. 6. qu. 3. art. 5.. What need I say more, such contemptuous thoughts hath Bellarmine of the infallibility of councels, that he spends one entire chapter upon the proof of this Proposition, That general Councels may erre, if they do not follow the Pope's instruction, if they have not the Legates consent; nay more, if it be in a point wherein the Legates have no certain instructions from the Pope: and he gives us amongst many instances of erring Councels this remarkable one: The Councel of Basil by common consent, and with the Legates concurrence concluded, that a Councel is above the Pope, which certainly is now judged erroneous p. 111(a)(a)Concilium Basiliense una cum legato Pontificis communi consensu statuit Concilium esse supra Papam, quod rectè nunc judicatur euroneum: De Romano Pontifice lib. 2. cap. 11.. You see how hard it is for Councels to carry their dish eaven. By what hath been said it appeares what a sorry foundation the Infallibility of Councels is, when from their principles it unavoidably followes, That a colledge of Jesuites is as infallible as a generall Councel: for they confesse a provinciall Councell (which in it selfe hath no more Authority to oblige the whole Church then such a Colledge) is Infallible with the Popes concurrence, and without it generall Councels are Fallible.

3. Observe the insufficiency of this evasion: For if Infallibility were granted to such a combination of Pope and Councell, this gives them no reliefe, save onelyonly during the Session of the Councell, for when the Councell is dissolved, their Writings must indure the same fate with the writings of the Apostles of being unable to Judg or decide controversies: For all the Papists most vehemently plead for the necessity of a living Judge that can heare both parties and determine all emergent controversies: Thus Infallibility is not so much as res unius aetatis: Nay ofttimes it is but res unius anni, like Ionah's gourd, it comes up in a night and withers in a night. And the Church for three hundred years after Christ had no Infallibility, and since the Councell of Trent the Papists have not had an Infallible judge, and at this day their Church hath no Infallibility and consequently no solid Foundation for their Faith.

4. Observe the preposterousnesse of this opinion: If Councels come to the Pope for Confirmation, he may say to them as Iohn the Baptist said to Christ, Mat. 3, 14. I have need to be baptized of thee and comest thou to me? p. 112So may the Pope say, I have need to be confirmed by your Authority, and without you am but magni nominis umbra, and do you come to me? But I confesse wanus manum feriat. If the Pope have any Infallibility, he had it from Councels, for Scripture ownes it not (as we have seen) and the particular Fathers could not give what they never had, and now it is good manners to requite them, and so he comunicates to them that Infallibility he receives from them.

To conclude this consideration: It is sufficient for my purpose which is acknowledged by the greatest and most considerable part of the Romish Church at this day, That generall Councels in themselves are not Infallible, and consequently are no solid Foundation for a Papists Faith, which is all this Proposition pretended to make good, though you see I have given them an foreign.

§. 22. A third consideration is this: If the Infallibility of general Councels rightly called constituted and ordered, were granted, yet this would give no Advantage to the Romish cause nor security to their Faith, and that for such reasons as diverse of the most Learned Papists themselves do stamp with their approbation. And here I might insist upon sundry particulars, but I shall confine my selfe to a few, and for the rest refer you only to one of their own Authours; White in the oft mentioned Treatise who thus breaks out his doubts concerning this Doctrine of the Infallibility of Councels: —If you assert an unknown and invisible influence of Gods Spirit it is so uncertaine and doubtfull, that it is fruitlesse to contend about it: Seeing it is matter of strife, rather then evidence to what Councels; and when this assistance is given: whilest some quarrell with the calling, others the absence of nations, or Patriarchs, and others dispute about th… praesidency, and others about the method and circumstances in the handling of questions: others about the number, weight, or p. 113degree of suffrages: others about Confirmation: and others require the Churches consent, ere it can be known whether this Assistance belong to the Councell, or no (a)(a)Sed si ad ignotum & invisibilem afflatum Spiritus Sancti religetur, evadit adeo incerta & dubia, ut sine fructu aliquo de câ certētur Cum quibus Conciliis & quando haec assistentia debeatur, altercationis, non evidentiae plenum sit. His convocationem, illis Patriarcharum, aliis nationum absentiam calumniantibus; aliis de praesidentiâ disputantibus, aliis de Methodo & circumstantiis agitandarum questionum; Aliis de suffragiorum numero, pondere gradu; Aliis tandem de confirmatione decertantibus; Imo & consensum feu acceptationem Ecclesiae per quietum usum & praxim efflagitantibus, ut fieri possit, utrum hec assistentia Spiritus Sancti sit concilio debita neene. De fide & Theologiâ. tract. 2. parag. 21.. Where you may observe no lesse then ten severall causes of doubting, and yet all these uncertainties they will rather run upon, then acknowledge the Authority and sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures which are called a more sure word (2 Pet. 1.19.) then that which had another kind and far higher degree of certainty then the decrees of Councels can ever arrive at, but I must not rest in generals. I shall particularly acquaint you with some of the Intrigues of the Romish Church and their own requisites to the legitimation of Councels: I shall pick out three. 1. They confesse the Councell which is Infallible must be oecumenicall. 2. And its decrees must be ratified by the consent and approbation of the whole Church. 3. They must proceed sincerely, and faithfully, and piously in it: Now in all these things there are notorious defects in the Church and Councels of Rome.

§. 23. 1. Most Papists grant that, that Councell, to which Infallibility is promised, must be generall or oecumenicall: and they that pretend to assert the Infallibility of Provinciall Councels when confirmed by the Pope, do indeed utterly reject the Infallibility of all Councels, p. 114and ascribe it wholly to the Pope, and to Councels onelyonly by participation from him and in dependence upon him: If then any Councels be Infallible, they must be generall: to which purpose they alledge the saying of St Austin, That those onelyonly are Concilia plenaria, full and general Councels which are collected out of all the Christian World (a)(a)Illa sola sunt Concilia plenaria quoe fiunt ex universo orbe Christiano lib. 2. de Bapt. cap. 3.Hence the seaventh Synod disowned the Constantinopolitan Councell and their decrees against Images, because they were not a generall Councell and had not all the Patriarchs there (b)(b)Quia sonus indictionis non exiit in omnem terram, & etiam quia non habebat omnes Patriarchas, nec eorum Delegatos.. And S. Clara calls it The most received Doctrine of their Church, and cites severall Authors of great note to that purpose (c)(c)In systemate fidei cap. 27. receptissimam hanc Doctri… nam num. 1.. Now to assume: The Councels pretended by the Romanists were no generall councels. To say nothing of former Councels (which in their greatest plenitude were onelyonly conventions of the Churches in the Romane Empire.) The later Councels (on whom the weight of the Popish cause principally depends) were not oecumenicall Councels. There is one acknowledged defect in them all, to wit, the absence of the Greek Church. Cardinal Cusanus complaines, At present (Alas!) the Catholick Church, and the Parochial Church of Rome have but one Councell, seeing the whole Church is now reduced to one Patriarchate (d)(d)Hodie (prob dolor!) Catholicae Ecclesiae & Parochialis Romanae sedis unum est Concilium cum tota Ecclesia redacta sit ad illum tantum Patriarchatum; lib. de Concordiâ. 2. c. 15.. And as the Objection is really unanswerable, so that which is offered in stead of an Answer is very considerable which S. Clara. represents out of Cusanus and Barlaam: That it matters p. 115not that onelyonly the Romane Patriarch and those united to him are there, and that the Schismaticall Patriarcks are absent, for generall Councels are not to be collected out of Hereticks and Schismaticks, but out of the Orthodox, and such as are united to the Church (a)(a)Generalia enim Concilia non ex haereticis & schismaticis, sed ex Orthodoxis & Ecclesid colligi debent: System: fidei cap. 27. pag. 301.. From whence I gather two things. 1. That if the Church of Rome cannot assoile her self from the imputation of Heresy (which by the leanenesse of their replies to the inditements of Protestant Authors sufficiently appeares they are not able to do) their Councels are constituted ex Indebitâ materiâ, of undue materials, and therefore cannot pretend to Infallibility, if there were any such thing in rerum natur â. 2. That we are not to believe the Orthodoxy and much lesse the Infallibility of Councels upon the credit of their naked assertion and absolute Authority, as the Papists affirme (seeing the most Hereticall and Schismaticall Councels have ever asserted themselves to be Orthodox) but it is the right and priviledge of Subjects to examine and judge of the legitimatenesse of Councels, and consequently of the validity of their decrees.

§. 24. The second particular is this: That Councels are not infallible nor their decrees unquestionable, unlesse they have the tacit consent and approbation of the whole Church. This position is laid down by S. Clara (in the forementioned Treatise) There is required a tacit or interpretative ratification of the whole Church to compleat the definition of a Councell (b)(b)Ratihabitio igitur nempe tacita vel interpretativa universalis Ecclesiae requiritur ad complendam Concilii definitionem. In system, fidei. cap. 22.: Nor is this his private opinion, but he there confirmes it from the words of Panormitanes, Turnball, Pope Leo, Petrus â Soto, Castillo, Mirandula, p. 116Gersonius and others (a)(a)Idem in cap. 23. per totum.: And afterwards he quotes these words out of Petrus D' Aliaco, That generall Councells may erre, unlesse when they are accepted by the Vniversall Church and then they are Infallible (b)(b)Probabiliter respondent aliqui, quòd Concilium generale potest errare, & tamen quando & in quantum Concilia universalia acceptantur ab Ecclesia universali, insallibilitatem eis tribuit. Id. c. 26.. And in another place himselfe expressely tels us We are not presently to pronounce a thing de fide by reason of some expressions of Councels or their Canons, but we must diligently inquire the constant judgment of the Church, else we shall finde many Canons of Faith which doe not agree with the truth according to the opinion of many (c)(c)Non statim pronuntiandum quid vis osse de fide ex quibuslibet Canonum vel etiam Conciliorum loquendi formulis subinde apparentibus, sed constans Ecclesiae judicium tam ibi quam alibi diligenter expendendum est, alioquin multos fidei Canones numerabimus, qui veram doctrinam haud sapiunt, in multorum opinionibus. Id. cap. 22.. And Coltius hath these words, As wee have seen before the common d…ssent of the Church hath rendred the decrees of Popes and Councels invalid (d)(d)Quemadmodum supra vidimus, publicam reclamantis Ecclesiae vocem Pontificum & Conciliorum decretis robur detraxisse. De Hierarchiâ lib. 4. cap. 12.. I mention this the more fully, because it is a pretty devise. It must be confessed the Religion of Rome cannot easily be mistaken for a piece of Piety but he that shall denie it to be an Art of Policy will quickly be confuted and here is an instance will put him to silence.

There is a double discovery of the Romish subtilty in this businesse.

1. You see how handsomely they make a vertue of necessity: now they manage it as a Principle taken up p. 117on choice, whereas S. Clara himself sufficiently insinuates, that they were forced to it se def…ndendo and took it up at a forced put: for speaking of the former rules of discerning a generall Councell he confesseth, That their businesse is very intricate and liable to many troublesome objections against the lawfulnesse of their Councels, but here is a short way to obviate those difficulties by arguing from the reception of the Church, for if the Church receive it for a generall Councell, we need not trouble our selves about little matters, since this reception is sufficient evidence (a)(a)Cum negotium sio valde perplexum, multi etiam multa objectare soleant —quibus ea illegitima esse contendunt, in quibus non parum sacessunt nobis molestiae: In his vero omnibus, hoc saltem modo multum diminuetur difficultas, arguendo à posteriori scilicet ex ipsâ receptione Ecclesiae utique si Ecclesia pro universali receperit, non erit opus serulpsius indagare minutiora, adeo ut haec receptio nobis manifestet, quodnam concilium aestimari debeat tale: ubi supra cap. 26..

2. Here is an excellent Antidote against the saucy decrees of severall Councels repugnant to the Popes Supreme Authority: If the sixth Councell of Carthage be pleaded that there should be no appeales to Rome from beyond the Seas, if that of the Councell of Chalcedon be urged, wherein they give foreign the same honours and priviledges to the Bishop of Constantinople as to the Bishop of Rome. If the later Councels of Constance and Basil be alledged wherein the Popes subjection to Councels is positively determined: Now here is an Answer ready to this, and to all that former Councels said and to all that any Councell shall ever say to the Worlds end viz. The Canons of these Councels were not received by the whole Church, but opposed and rejected by the Church and Bishop of Rome, a great and eminent part of it: Thus, I think, they have brought off their master the Pope with honour, and as he was Infallible, so now they have made p. 118him invulnerable. Scripture cannot hurt him, for he hath the key of Interpretation. Fathers cannot reach him, for they are his Children (saith Bellarmine.) As it is no newes for the Pope to be well stored with Children: And now Councels cannot touch him, for he will hinder their universall reception: And if the Romish Doctors be beaten out of this conceit, it is but studying some new device which is easily done by men that want no wit and have no conscience: for it is resolved to hold the Conclusion, though the poore premises may be put to hard shifts. Well then, to allow them their supposition, and all the benefits of it they must remember the rule of the Lawyers: Qui sentit commodum debet sentire & onus: Benefit and inconvenience must goe together. And this is the inconvenience and mischiefe which they are still forced into notwithstanding all their tricks and stratagems, even to eat their own words and to pull down with one hand that Infallibility which they build up with another; For how can the Councell or the Pope either be said to have that infallible guidance (which is pretended) in the making of their decrees if the Churches non-reception may prove their Fallibility? But here is the wonder-working power of the Church of Rome: do not think strange when you read that passage in the Councell of Lateran delivered in an Oration before the Pope and Councell, That the Pope-hath a power above all power in heaven or earth (a)(a)In Papa omnem esse potestatem supra omnes potestates, tam caeli, guam terrae dixit Stephanus Archiepiscopus Patracensis in oratione in Concilio Lateran…nsi corum Leone 10.For he can do that which the Schoolmen unanimously put out of the reach of every power in Heaven or Earth, viz. factum infectum reddere, recall things that are past, and by this Argument prove, that, that Councell which was Infallible p. 119while it sat, after its dissolution is become Fallible. But to returne: This is to precipitate themselves into those absurdities which they charge upon us. This is to make the Church judge of her Judges: This is to take away all the security of their Faith if we may believe their own famous Councell of Basil, whose words are these: Nor let any man presume to say that a generall Councell may erre, for if once this pernicious errour were admitted, the whole Catholick Faith would stagger, and we should have nothing certaine in the Church, for by the same reason that one may erre, the rest may erre also (a)(a)Nec quisquam illud dicere praesumat. Quod aliquod generale Concilium legitime congregatum invalidum sit, aut errare possit, quia si bie perniciosus error admitteretur, tota Catholica fides vacillaret, nec aliquid certi in Ecclesiâ haberemus quia, quâ ratione potest errare unum, possūnt errare & reliqua. in Respons. Synodali.. Besides hereby they run into a new Circle (as if all their former Circles were not sufficient) If you aske what it is which makes the Faith of the Romish Church and people sure and Infallible? It is the Infallibility of the Pope and Councell: If you aske againe what it is which makes the decrees of Pope and Councell Infallible? It is the Churches reception of them; and yet all this if granted will not relieve them, for that the decrees of their Popes and Councels have no such reception of the universall Church, appeares sufficiently from the publick dissent of so many famous and flourishing Churches in the World, I meane the Greek and Protestant Churches which do not therefore cease to be members of the Catholick Church, because the Papists disowne them no more then the Popish Churches become true members by their pretending to that Title.

§. 25. 3. There is another assertion of the Papists: That Councels are not Infallible unlesse they be rightly constituted p. 120and ordered: for this I shall deale with them, as the Apostles did with their Kinsmen the Cretians, I shall implead them with an foreign. Nay, not one but many foreign in their opinion. Councels (say they) may erre if they do not proceed Conciliariter, i.e. in a regular manner saith S. Clara, his words are these: The most Learned Corduba in Quaestionario lib. 4. qu. 1. (quoting Roffensis in his Prologue against Luther and Horantius in his places lib. 2. cap. 17.) saith, that God hath promised his assistance to a Councell, wh…n they do what in them lies — If they be Bishops, and Learned and prudent men selected out of the whole Church, if they proceed without Carnall affections, and with a love to the Truth, then, and not otherwise it is gathered lawfully, and in Christ name (a)(a)Doctissimus Corduba in Quaestionario citans Roffensem in Prologo contra Lutherum veritate octavā & Horantium in locis l. 2. c. 17. dicit Christum promisisse assistentiam Spiritus Sancti, quando Concilium facit quod in se est — si Episcopi & viri Docti & prudentes ex totâ Ecclesiâ, si sine assertione humanâ — sed affectu veritatis — tunc & non aliter est legitimè & in nomine Christi congregatum. In system. cap. 20.. Thus Bellarmine pressed with the Authority of the Councell of Chalcedon against the Popes Supremacy saith, A lawfull Councell may erre in those things wherein it acts not lawfully (b)(b)Concilium legitimum potest errare in iis quae non legitimè agit de …onciliis lib. 2. c. 7.. And Petrus à Soto (a man of great account amongst them) tels us this is the sence of their assertion, That Councels cannot erre: They understand it (saith he) of Councels lawfully congregated and acting without fraud and deceit (c)(c)Cum dicunt Concilia non posse errare, intelligunt legitimè congregata et absque fraude et dolo agentia; In defensione c. 74.. And Pope Leo speaking of the causes of the errours of the Councell of Ephesus assignes this, because they did not proceed with a p. 121pure conscience and right judgment (a)(a)Eo quod non purà conscientià et recto judicio secundum consuetudinem, hi qui collecti sunt, de fide et erratibus protulerunt. In Epis. 24.. So Malderus in his Treatise against the Synod of Dort saith: In vaine do Synods assemble, and men go to them, when they do not remove all sinister affection and onelyonly seek that which is Christs; and he addes, Then indeed they are gathered together in Christs name, then Christ is in the midst of them (b)(b)Frustra Synodi cocunt, frustra ad eas itur, quando non omni affectu sequiori remote, solum id quaeritur quod Christi est— Tum demum in nomine Christi— congregantur, tum demum in medio oerum est Christus in Antisynodico.. The summe is this: Infallible assistance is not a gift dispensed promiscuously to Pope or Bishops howsoever they demeane themselves; but only upon their good behaviour, being the priviledge of those alone who act with diligence, fidelity, sincere love to the Truth and good conscience; that is to say, to such persons as few Popes and Popish Bishops have been: so that if any Popes or Bishops violate the conditions on their parts required, they may lose the priviledge on Gods part promised: If they be unsincere in their intentions, and biassed with humane affection, if ambition or covetousnesse be in their hearts and sway their actions, actum est de Infallibilitate their infallibility is laid in the dust: It is true S. Clara saith We are to suppose that a Pope and Councell do thus proceed unlesse the contrary be evident (c)(c)Supponendum quod semper sic procedat, nisi conste… de opposito. System, cap. 20.. But I Answer,

1. Thus the Doctrine of Infallibility and the whole weight of the Romish Church and cause depends upon a meer supposition, and (which is far worse) upon such an one as can never be proved: for who can know the sincerity of another mans intentions but himselfe? What man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of a man that is in him? 1 Cor. 2.

p. 1222. I note that these men craftily shift off the proofe to us when it belongs to them for Asserenti incumbit probatio. He that saith a Pope or Councell proceeding sincerely and piously is infallible is bound to prove two things. 1. That such an one is a lawfull Pope or Councell. 2. That such a lawfull Pope or Councell proceed lawfully (as Bellarmine himselfe requires) and piously. And as it were an absurd conceit, if I require a proof that such a man is lawfull Pope, to say Supponendum est &c. We must suppose him to be the lawfull Pope, unlesse the contrary be evident, so is it also when I expect a proofe of the sincerity of his intentions, instead of a Probandum, to tell me supponendum est, which is to tell me that I must venture my Salvation upon a prooflesse assertion: And it is a new straine of Popish Logick that suppositions must passe for Arguments. 3. I observe the desperate issue of Popish principles, the foundation of their Faith and Hope is the Infallibility of Pope or Councell: This Infallibility they can have no assurance of, which I thus prove. No man can have assurance of the performance of a conditionall promise unlesse he have assurance of the performance of the condition; but the promise of Infallibility is a conditionall promise depending upon the honesty and sincerity of mans intentions which another man can never be assured of. Here we have a remarkable evidence of the perverse Spirit of our Adversaries and the indefensiblenesse of their cause: Those very men that are so curious and criticall that they will not allow a man to be sure of his own sincerity now will needs have us to rest assured of the sincerity of another man: But how are we assured? Why, with a non constat de opposito: An Ingenious device which will serve for many excellent purposes: Thus I may be assured that the present great Mogul is turned Christian, because the contrary is not evident: Thus I may be assured p. 123of the vertue, wisdome, and piety of every person that now lives at Rome, because the contrary is not evident to me. In a word, according to their Doctrines and Answers, A Papist hath no greater assurance of the Popes or Councels Infallibility, then I have That there is a World in the Moon: That the day of Iudgment shall be next year: Or that I shall die to morrow: Or that a thousand soules shall be converted by the next Sermon I preach, because in all these I may say non constat de opposito, the contrary is not evident. Really the Protestants ought not to be envious at the assurance of the Papists, for they are contented with very moderate termes for it. If they would be satisfied with the same kind of assurance in conveyance of worldly estates as they are in the Salvation of their Soules, I believe they would get away all good bargaines from their neighbours; but you will finde them wiser there.

4. But alas for them I fear I shall be cruell to them, for I cannot allow their non constat de opposito; They tell us we must suppose that Popes and Councels have allwaies acted sincerely and honestly, because we do not know the contrary: an assertion which whosoever will undertake to make good must combat the Faith of all History: I shall say nothing of the censures of Protestants upon them (whose interest and opinion may render them suspected of partiality:) But I hope they will not take it amisse if I represent some few of those innumerable Testimonies which their own most learned and approved Authors have given concerning the hypocrisy, impiety, fraud, ambition, avarice of their infallible Gentlemen, the Popes, and Popish Bishops. And were it not that the Pope hath a power of turning vice into vertue at his pleasure (according to that saying of Bellarmines, In a good since Christ hath given to Peter a power of making p. 124sinne to be no sin (a)(a)In bono sensu dedit Christus Petro potestatem faciendi de peccato nos peccatum con. Barcla. ca. 31. Vide quae supra allegavimus.) it were impossible to mistake the Pope for a Saint let us here some few of the expressions of such as lived and died in their communion: For the Popes he that reads their own Historians, would think the name of Holinesse were given to them by Antiphrasis, and that in meer pity they were allowed the name who did not pretend to the thing. The Papall chaire is called by themselves Cathedra pestilentiae a pestilentiall chaire. Genebrard himselfe though a sworn vassall of the Popes confesseth, as I observed before, that for 150 years together the Popes were Apostatici, Apostates not Apostolicks; as if they succeeded Peter onelyonly in the denying of his master: and yet these are our infallible masters: who doubts but they can worke miracles at Rome, that can make Apostacy and Infallibility dwell together in the same person: and however our Saviour said No man can serve two masters, and St Paul, What communion can there be between Christ and Belial, yet the Papists are infallibly sure of the contrary, for (if their most approved Authours may be credited) diverse of the Popes have had infallible guidance of Gods spirit and undoubted communion with the Devill at the same time; for so faith Platina (sometimes the Popes library keeper) All the Popes from Sylvester the second even to Gregory the seventh inclusively (which were about 18 Popes) were Magitians (b)(b)Omnes Papae à Sylvestio secundo ad Gregorium septimum inclusive fuerunt Magi. Platina.. But I confesse all the Popes were not conjurers for some of them were such silly wretches that they did not understand Grammer according to the report p. 125of their own Authors (a)(a)Cum constet plures Papas ad…o illiteratos esse ut Grammatican… penitus ignorent; qūî fit ut Sacras literas interpretari possent Alphonsus de Castro …on, Haereses cap. 4. in editione An: 1543.: And yet these too were infallible Doctors. And Ludovicus Vives dealt too hardly with poore Bullardus for saying The better Grammarian, the worse Divine for here it seemes, The worst Grammarians were the best; nay, the infallible Divines. All Histories are full of the ambition, frauds, forgeries even of those who were accounted some of the best of their Popes, to say nothing of more abhominable vices: Nor did this corruption rest in the head but from thence dispers it selfe into all the members, the Cardinals, Bishops. Governours of the Romish Church: It was acknowledged by the Pope (and therefore infallibly true.) Adrianus the sixth by the name of the Popes and prelates, We have all turned after our own wayes, there is none that doth good, no not one (b)(b)Omnes nos declinavimus unusquisque in vias suas, nee fuit jamdiu qui feceret bo…um, non fuit usque ad unum. I… instructionibus ad legatos Norinbirga Anno 1525.. The famous Chancellor of Paris Gerson complaines that Learned and godly Bishops were chosen no where, but carnall men and ignorant of Spirituall things (c)(c)Nullibi Episcopos bonos & opere ac. Doctrinâ probatos eligi sed homines carnales & Spiritualium ignaros — praelatos adeo superbos esse ut homines se nesciant. In declaratione defectuum Eccl. siast.. And so proud (saith he) that they do not know themselves to be men. Duarenus speaks home to this purpose: Most of the Bishops of our time are greater strangers to Religion and Holy things then any of the secular Nobles, and they mind nothing but how to defend their possessions by right or wrong (d)(d)Plerique Episcopi nostro tempore a religione & sacris, quam quosvis satrap as et principes profanos longe alieniores, nec aliud eis curae esse quam ut ditiones et possessiones suas quo jure, quâve iniuri… …antur De Sacro Ministerio lib. 1. cap. 4.. Ferus cries out: Who doth not see the insatiable p. 126avarice and impostures of the Popes and religious men? with these all things are vendible (a)(a)Quis Sacerdotum ac Religiosorum & Pontisicum inexplebilem avaritiam & imposturas non videt? apud hos omnia venalia sunt. In Joh. 2.John 2. And Stella informs us, There were few possessors of Benefices who had them otherwise then either by begging, or paying for them (b)(b)Pauci sunt Beneficiarii nisi aut prece aut pretio. In Luc. 21.Luke 21. And yet these were the good men of the Church of Rome, these are they who acted in Councels sincerely from love to God and his truth, not seeking their own things but the things of Christ, and therefore without doubt infallible. And for the state of Councels, take one testimony for all of one that was an eminent part and member of them, Cardinal Iulian, who in his Epistle to Eugenius the fourth in the councel of Basil in plain terms tels him, that all Councels, since that of Chalcedon, (which was above a thousand years ago) were instituted, not for the discovery of truth, but for the defence and increase of the power of the Romane Church, and the liberty of Churchmen (c)(c)Omnia Coacilia post Chalcedonense potissimum instituta fuerunt, non ut erueretur veritas, sed ut roboraretur, defenderetur, atque augeretur sember Ecclesiae Romanae potestas, & Ecclesiasticorum libertas. AEneas Sylvius lib. 2. de geftis Concil. Basil..

Should I descend to particulars, and open the several impostures and palpable frauds, which the Popes and their Partisans have successively used in the packing of councels, and making voices, and forging decrees, and ingaging the Bishops by hopes, and fears, and interests, to give up their votes and consciences to the advancement of the Romish power and magnificence, I should engage my self to transcribe whole volumes, and cut out work for the whole terme of my life; The transactions of the councel of Trent are fresh in memory. And he that shall peruse the words of their own Historians, the Protestations p. 127of Princes, the Censures of Universities relating to it &c. will easily be satisfied, whether Clara's non constat de opposito be true or no. And therefore notwithstanding this frivolous excuse it remaines a truth, that according to the principles of Papists themselves, and because of those evident defects in them acknowledged by their own Authors, whatever Councels regularly called and ordered may pretend to, their councels must lay down their claime to Infallibility; and so their faith hath no solid foundation, as not in the Pope's authority, so not in Scripture, nor in the testimony of the Fathers, nor yet in the infallibility of general councels. And therefore I may safely conclude, they have no solid foundation for their Faith.

26. There is only one thing which may seem to retard the passing of the sentence: that is this. That although each of these taken asunder may not be sufficient, yet all put together make a cord which is not easily broken, Quoe non prosunt fingula, juncta juvant: and therefore, forasmuch as the Church stands upon four Pillars, Authority of Scriptures, Tradition of Fathers, Infallibility of Councels, and the Pope, their Faith is like Mount Sion that cannot be removed. And if it be deemed an absurd and unreasonable thing (as we poor fallible creatures have thought) to prove the Scriptures from the authority of the Church, Councels, or Pope, and circularly to prove the authority of the Church, Councels, or Pope from the Scripture. The Jesuits have found out the Quadrature of the Circle, and they tell you, that it is no more absurd that Scripture should lean upon the Churches authority, and the Church on the authority of Scripture, then that St. John the Baptist should give testimony to Christ, and Christ to him again; or that the Old Testament should be confirmed by the New, and the New Testament by the Old. This is one of their last pleas: we find them now p. 128retired to their Fort-royal, beat them out of this, and upon the matter all is lost: and truly that will be no hard matter to do, if the Reader please to consider 1. The great disparity of the alledged Instances. Iohn and Christ might give testimony one to another, but neither of them did simply depend upon each other's testimonies: supposing that Christ had given no express testimony concerning Iohn, yet I say the mission of Iohn was not only true in it self, but sufficiently evident to the Jews, as plainly appears from hence: That the Pharisees, when asked by Christ, whether the Baptisme of Iohn was from Heaven or of men, were afraid to deny its Heavenly original, as being against the common sentiment of the Jewes: and Christ chargeth the Pharisees with rejecting the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of Iohn, Luk. 7. 30. And much more true is it of Christ, that he did not depend upon the testimony of John, but had other and better testimony, Ioh. 5.36. But I have greater testimony then that of Iohn. And it is enough for my purpose, if either Christ or John had an authority independent upon the others evidence, though the other had not. And the like may be said of the Old and New Testament: well may they give testimony one to another, for neither of them doth totally depend upon the other. The Old Testament did sufficiently evidence its authority, before ever the New Testament was written; and the New Testament too did carry other convincing evidences of its divine original and authority, besides the testimony of the Old Testament: such as the voice from Heaven, This is my well beloved Son, 2 Pet. 1.17. and the glorious miracles he did, Ioh. 5.36. The works that I do bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me: the holiness of his life, power of his doctrine, patience of his death. But now (to apply this to our present purpose) it is here far otherwise; for the Scripture (say they) doth not evidence it p. 129self any other way to us but by the Churches testimony, (as we have heard from their own words:) and Councels, Fathers, and the Pope (we say, and have proved) cannot evidence their Authority and Infallibility any other way but by the Scripture, (which according to their principles is impossible) or by their own Testimony, which is ridiculous.

2. Let it be considered, that the Romanists do not make these four, Scripture, Fathers, Councels, and Popes coordinate and collateral foundations of their Faith, as if each of them did contribute a distinct and independent support unto the Romish Faith; but indeed they make one of them totally to depend upon another, and at last reduce them all to one, and (to speak properly) to none. For the Fathers, and Councels, and the splendid name of the Church, however they are pretended to put a fair glosse upon a foul cause, yet indeed the authority of them all is as vigorously disputed against by the most and learned'st Romanists, as by any Protestants in the world. You remember, what their great master Bellarmine told you, That Infallibility and Supreme Authority is not partly in the Pope, partly in the Councel, but wholly in the Pope: what need we trouble our selves further? Those four are now reduc'd to two, Scripture and the Pope; and those two must mutually prove one another. There is no solid and sufficient ground for me to believe the Scriptures, but the testimony of the Pope, say the Papists; and there is no solid and sufficient ground for me to believe the Authority and Infallibility of the Pope, but the testimony of the Scriptures: For the Fathers and Councels receiving all their authority and infallibility from the Pope, cannot give him the infallibility and authority they received from him: Now how senslesse a resolution of Faith this is (though most of the Papists have no better and no other) you may perceive by some few instances. It is as p. 130if a Sudent should say thus: I should not believe such a book to be an excellent book, but for my Tutor's testimony, who tels me so. And again: I should not believe my Tutor's testimony to be of any validity, but for the testimony of that book concerning him. Who would not laugh at such an assertion? Or as if a man should say: I should not believe the honesty of Richard, were it not for the testimony of Thomas. And I should not believe the honesty of Thomas, were it not for the testimony of Richard. Where is there a man that will accept of such security in a trivial worldly bargain? And yet the Papists are content to venture their souls upon it. From all that hath been said, I conclude, that the pretended authorities we have discoursed of, do neither severally nor yet jointly afford a solid foundation for a Papist's Faith, nor prove that Infallibility which they pretend to; and consequently, there is no solid foundation for a Papists faith. And here I might discharge my self from further trouble, having discovered the nullity of all the pretences which have been hitherto owned by the Church of Rome.