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 of 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 and Gregory de Valentiâ 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 of 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 â—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 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 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 Pope's primacy Ergo Thus Gregory de Valentia 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 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 And Bellarmine saith the same thing almost in the same words 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 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 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 § 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by 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 aâ—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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 two 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 And Stapleton is expresse The Pope receives no new power nor authority nor infallibility from the addition of a Councel 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 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 onely 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 So 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
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 if 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 CHAP. V. Of Orall Tradition and the Testimony of the present Church § 1. BUt because I am resolved to do their cause all the right that may be and give them all the favourable allowance they can desire I shall consider the singular conceits of their private Doctors where the authors are any whit considerable and their opinion hath any thing of plausibility There is then another shift which some subtle Romanists have lately invented who perceiving how their brethren have been beaten out of the field by strength of Scripture and argument in their conceit about the infallibility of the Pope or Councel come in for their succour with an Universal Tradition and the authority of the present Church This is the way of Rushworth in his Dialogues Mr. White and Holden and Sr. Kenelm Digby and S. Clara. Their defence and discourse is this for I shall give you their opinion in their own words A man may prudently believe the present Church for her self and ought so to do A man needs not nor is not obliged to enquire further there he may safely fix saith S. Clara. Thus the L. Faulkland's Adversary That society of Christians which alone pretend to teach nothing but what they have received from their Fathers and they from theirs and so from the Apostles they must needs hold the truth which first was delivered for if they could teach falsehoods then some age must either have erred in understanding their Ancestors or have joyned to deceive their posterity neither of which is credible But the Church of Rome and they only pretend to teach nothing else c. Ergo they must needs hold the truth The acute Mr. White explains the opinion more exactly and fully and the strength of his and their notion I shall give you in his words 1. The nations did understand the doctrine taught by the Apostles and practised it and highly valued it as most necessary for them and their posterity and to be preferred before all other things 2. Those first Christians even at their death both could and would and therefore doubtlesse did most vehemently commend this doctrine to their Children and the Fathers did alwaies deliver the same doctrine which they received from their Parents and under that notion because they had received it 3. If any delivered another doctrine he could be proved a lyar by the rest of the world or if all should agree against their consciences to deliver a new doctrine under that notion scil of a doctrine delivered from their Parents that whole age would be guilty of treachery and parricide and should agree to murder themselves which is impossible 4. There was a perpetual succession of Pastors who took care of Faith and manners and it is evident that the Pastors and people had the same faith 5. And there arose heresies by which the truth might be more cleared and they that maintained the antient doctrine might be distinguished from Innovators which Innovators did not publickly reject the Apostles doctrine but pleaded it was not rightly understood and the other part kept the name of the Catholick Church 6. It is necessary that that congregation which alwaies kept the antient discipline should alone profess that she received her opinions from Christ by perpetual succession and that she neither did nor could receive any thing into the Canon of their Faith under another notion 7. As certainly therefore as one may know that the congregation of believers which at this day is called Catholick is animated with a number of learned and wise men so certainly will it be known that she is not conscious of any newness of doctrine and therefore there is no new doctrine 8. Following ages cannot be ignorant what former ages believed about those things which are explained in Sermons Catechisms Prayers and Sacraments and such are all things necessary to the Catholick Faith 9. This doctrine delivered from hand to hand was confirmed by long custome diverse laws rewards and punishments both of this and the following life monuments of writers by which all would be kept in it 10. Following Rulers could not change the doctrine of their Predecessors without schisme and notorious tumult in the Church as dayly experience proveth To the same purpose also Holden discourseth in his Treatise of the resolution of Faith This is a new Plea and deserves special consideration § 2. For Answer 1. I give Mr. White and his worthy Partners humble thanks for the great favour or rather justice done by them to the Protestant cause For whereas this is the perplexing question wherewith they think to puzzle us How we can know the Scriptures to be the word of God without the Churches infallible authority and from the supposed impossibility thereof
though it be easy in this and all other resemblances to devise several dissimilitudes and disproportions yet in the maine there is an agreement That the carelesnesse of posterity may blast the most powerful and important Traditions If it be further pretended that there is a disparity because God hath promised his Spirit to guide the Christians into truth and to preserve them from mistake I shall only say two things having fully answered this before 1. Whatever promise or priviledge of the Spirit is made to Christians surely it is a most absurd and unreasonable thing to pretend the donation of this priviledge and the performance of this promise unto such as we have now described concerning whom the Scripture expresly tels us that they are sensual not having the spirit Jud. v. 19. and they cannot receive the spirit of God Joh. 14.17 Where the Spirit of God is it brings light with it it turns men from darknesse into a marvelous light it rowseth men out of the sleep of carelesnesse and makes them give all diligence to make their calling and election sure And therefore where ignorance and profanesse are allowed and predominant as apparently they were in this age we may safely say such have not the Spirit of Christ dwelling in them for where the spirit of the Lord is there is liberty especially that which is the principal part of it a liberty from the bondage of sin and Satan by whom that age was so wofully captivated that we need not many arguments to shew that they were not influenced by God's Spirit but acted by the rulers of the darkness of this world the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience 2. This is impertinent to the present argument which is drawn not from the efficacy of a divine promise but from the nature of the thing and the common prudence of men and that natural principle of self-preservation as you will plainly see if you look back upon Mr. White 's words This argument proceeds as if it were morally impossible for men wilfully to deceive themselves and their posterity which is not from the influence of a divine promise but from an instinct of nature and so this evasion is insufficient To return therefore having removed this rub out of the way and to make good what I have said concerning the carelesnesse and wickednesse of the age that this disease had overspread the whole body Civil and Ecclesiastical the Pope himself not excepted you shall hear from the approved Authors of the Romish Church Platina cals several of those Pope's Monstra portenta hominū monsters of men Iohn the 11 th is called by Cardinal Baronius one who we may be sure would do the Popes no wrong and the Protestants no right rather a defiler then ruler of the Romane seat They were prodigious Popes saith Genebrardus Pope Sergius saith Baronius was a slave of all vices and the wickedest of men And of Iohn the 10 th he saith Then whom none was more filthy And such characters they give to diverse of the Popes of that age and these are the supreme Heads of the Church the prime subjects and fountains of Infallibility And conformable to the head were the generality of the members of that politick body the ministers and governours as well as the people of that age as you heard acknowledged by their own most approved Authors Now compare this with their argument for Tradition and you will be able to judg of the solidity of it The two Pillars upon which the infallibility of the argument from Tradition is built are these I shall give you them in the words of Rushworth in his applauded Dialogues 3. § 15.1 It was no hard matter for the Church to conserve the truth of her doctrine if she were carefull which histories plainly bear witnesse she was 2. That nature forceth men to have care of Religion and therefore it was impossible any error should creep into the Church And elsewhere saith he Nature permits not men to be sleepy in Religion § 8. To which discourse I reply three things which plainly evince the folly of this opinion 1. That the infallibility of Tradition by these arguments depends upon the faith of some few Historians whom all confesse to be fallible which is a contradiction 2. That the supposed carefulness upon which the infallibility of Tradition depends being the effect of thatnature which is equally in all men if it make any person or Councel infallible it must make every particular Church nay every Christian infallible at least such ashave common konwledge and prudence in them 3. Observe the impudence of this sort of men that dare avouch those Histories for witnesses of the Churches care which have so expresly and unanimously recorded her carelesnesse both in this and other ages See ch 4. § 19. 3. There is another thing very considerable in this matter viz. There was a great scarcity of writers which cuts the sinews of that grand objection which they urge in all their Treatises That there could be no change in doctrine without schism and a notorious tumult as White saith and they prove there was no change because we cannot shew the Authors times and places of them As if one that had got the plague might say he is free from it because he knows not how nor where nor from whom he got it Now here appears the unreasonableness of their demand and the absurdity of their argument how can it be expected that we should give an account of all the occurrences and mutations of that age when they confesse so few books were written and those that were were written by such as were either wholly or in part leavened with the corruption of the time and therefore for their own honour obliged to conceal all such changes and defections as themselves had an hand in And if any reputed Heretick durst venture to betray any of the secrets of the mystery of Iniquity which was then working his book was presently suppressed and he and it both confuted by an argument fetched out of the fire or rather thrown into it So the Papists do by us as if a man should blow out all the Lights and then blame me for not finding what I was making inquest after or as if one should burn my principal evidences and then charge me that I cannot make out my Title And yet notwithstanding all the frauds and force of the Romish Sea God hath not left his Truth without witnesse nor us without notable testimonies even from among themselves of the successive depravations and corruptions in religion by them foisted into the Church but that hath been fully proved by others and therefore I shall say nothing of it I shall adde onely this that although I have instanced but in one age yet indeed there were several other ages overspread with the same deluge of ignorance and carelesnesse and loosnesse and consequently lyable to the same mistakes such
Pope and Councel together say a third sort and the several assertors of each opinion confute and destroy the rest and all that hold any of these opinions are universally esteemed good Catholicks saith Mr. Cressy in his Append ch 4. num 7. So they are good Catholicks that dispute down the Pope's Infallibility and they good Catholicks too that dispute down the Infallibility of Councels and for the reason before mentioned they good Catholicks that reject the infallibility of both together And therefore t is a mâ—st impudent position which Mr. Cressy layes down and the Papists are obliged to owne That the doctrine of the Churches Infallibility is so evident that the Protâ—stants are inexcusable and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that do not receive it out of thy own mouth will God judge thee O thou unfaithful Servant who hast thus expressed thy self in another place To my understanding there is some inhumanity in urging Protestants to more then Catholicks will be obliged to or to thinke that to Protestants prepossessed with passion and partiality that can be made evident which is so far from being evident to some Catholicks that they renounce it Appendix to the Exomologesis ch 4. num 7. To this might be added as a farther demonstration of the inevidence of this point even to the Romanists themselves those secret checks which they meet with from their own consciences in the assertion of this supposed Infallibility discovered by their haltings and corrections and tergiversations and self-contradictions in explication of this new phaenomenon For however Mr. Cressy mounts this Infallibility so high that it must not yield to Scripture it self yet both himself elsewhere and their other Authors every where are contented with a far lower proportion Bellarmine whom Mr. Cressy rights and approves in his comparison of the Infallibility of the Church and Scripture gives the preheminence to Scripture in five several respects See Cressy sect 2. ch 21. Truth and our obligation to believe it is in an higher degree in Scripture then in the decisions of the Church Cressy Appendix chap. 5. n. 2. And this Infallibility of the Church though they will not suffer us to call it humane and moral yet they dare not assert it to be Divine but onely after a sort and in some manner Divine as the Author of Laua's labyrinth informes us And this Infallibility they farther confesse is not in way of immediate revelation or inspiration from God but in the way of argumentation and discourse And here too they are wonderful cautious for it is acknowledged by Bellarmine and Stapleton and subscrib'd by Mr Cressy That the Church is fallible in the premises but infallible in the conclusion Cressy ubi suprà and sect 2. chap. 32. and Append. chap. 5. In the decisions of the Church the simple conclusion decided is onely accounted infallibly true not so the principles upon which it depends or reasons by which it is proved Really these Romish Priests are admirable fellows in all things Admirable Builders Vitruvius himself might learn Architecture from them for they can teach him how to build a solid and durable Edifice upon a rotten foundation Admirable Logitians Aristotle might go to School to them and learn such Lessons as were above his apprehension for it is resolved he must blot out his Axiomes Conclusio sequitur partem debiliorem and Non debet esse plus in conclusâ—ne quà m in praemissis and Ex falsis nil nise falsum The Colledge of Jesuites at Rome are ready to make good the contrary against him when Plato's great year shall bring him and them together upon the Stage Admirable Divines that have outdone their Lord and Master and in spight of whatsoever is said by him Luk. 6.43 44. will it he please maintain a dispute with him upon this Thesis That a corrupt tree can bring forth good fruit and that of thornes men may gather figs and of a Brambâ—â—bush grapes and this shall be not probably defended but infallibly demonstrated For it were a silly thing to think that they that are infallible Divines should be but fallible Disputants But to return The inevidence of this notion of the Churches Infallibility may sufficiently appear from Mr. Cressy's own expressions which have been observed by others who by the evidence of the Truth was forced to this acknowledgment That Infallibility is an infortunate word that Mr. Chillingworth hath combated it with too great success so that I could wish saith he the word were forgotten or at least laid by whereas all that understand any thing know that it was not the word but the thing which he combated and his arguments were not nominal against the Title but real against the thing it self It is true since this passage was published and taken notice of Mr. â—ressy having doubtlesse been severely school'd by his Superiors for such a dangerous passage is grown more cautious and hath stretched his wit and I fear his conscience too to palliate his assertion and make an honourable retreat and he honestly acquaints us with his design i. e. being crafty to catch the Protestants with guile Sect. 2. ch 21. He that reads the Appendix to the second Edition of his Exomologesis will easily discern the trepidations of a guilty conscience whilst sometimes you shall find him tacitly denying the Churches Infallibility properly so called and contenting himself with great Probability in the room of it at other times you will meet him crying up this Infallibility in express or equivalent terms and in most places having no salvo for himself but this That his assertion and the Protestants disputation did proceed upon the mistaken notion of Infallibility which the Protestants advanced to an higher pitch then ever the Church of Rome did and so fought against an image that themselves had set up which is so notorious a falsehood that if Mr. Cressy's wit and memory and conscience had not all failed him together he could hardly have run into it since all Protestants of any note ever did and particularly Mr. Chillingworth doth dispute against the Churches Infallibility onely in that sense and degree which Mr. Cressy upon maturest advice in this second Edition hath thought fit to expresse in these words That God will preserve his Church in all truth so as to secure all believers that she can neither deceive them nor be deceived her self sect 2. chap. 21. Did ever any Protestant that understood himself or the point pretend to more Not Mr. Chillingworth I am sure They all knew and granted that abolute infallibility was Gods Prerogative and neither pretended by the Church of Rome nor was that opinion by Protestants fastned upon them The onely question was whether God did vouchsafe such infallible guidance to the Church that she could not erre in her decrees and decisions This Papists affirmed and Protestants denied and let me adde that this Infallibility is as high as was ever ascribed to the Prophets or Apostles and Penmen of the Holy
That cannot be an Argument that the Fathers believed the Infallibility of Councels which is common to those that deny their Infallibility but the calâ—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 true 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 whâ—nce follows that they were not subject to error 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 conformable 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 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 Anti-Nicene 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 amongst the snares of temptations because we are men 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 Camâ—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 The like saith Panormitanus A Councel may erre as it hath errâ—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 The very same thing and almost in the same words saith Antonius 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 by 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 onely 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which doctrine of his I judg most safe and that it is owned by almost all Catholicks 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 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 2. 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 Gregory de Valentia Tannerus and Bellarmine in several pâ—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 â—xpound Scripture as Doctors or Lawyers but the Pope and Councels as Iudges or Princes 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 as 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 Therefore saith S. Clara it is not lawful to doubt after the definitions of Councels 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 arguments 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 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
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 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 thâ— praesidency and others about the method and circumstances in the handling of questions others about the number weight or degree 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 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 and ascribe it wholly to the Pope and to Councels onely 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 onely are Concilia plenaria full and general Councels which are collected out of all the Christian World 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 And S. Clara calls it The most received Doctrine of their Church and cites severall Authors of great note to that purpose 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 onely 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 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 not that onely 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 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 Nor is this his private opinion but he there confirmes it from the words of Panormitanes Turnball Pope Leo Petrus â Soto Castillo Mirandula Gersonius and others 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 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 And Coltius hath these words As wee have seen before the common dâ—ssent of the Church hath rendred the decrees of Popes and Councels invalid 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
and the Papists have these arrowes out of their quiver and to say truth it is but reasonable that they that have borrowed so much of their Religion and Worship from the Pagans should also borrow their Arguments for you know the accessary followes the principâ—ll the onely wonder is how those Arguments which were weak and absurd in the Pagans and so judged and rejected by the Antient Fathers are become strong in the Papists But I know a reason for that too The Pope pretends to a Divinity upon Earth and consequently he can make weake things strong and as the Authority of the Romish Church is Infallible so their Arguments are without all doubt irresistible VVho knowes not that the Arrian Heresy overspread the World That the mistery of iniquity which began to work in St Pauls dayes was not to be finished and destroyed untill Christs second comming 2 Thes. 2. That there was a time when the whole World wonder'd after the beast And for the latter branch who knowes not that the Christian Church was a true Church when it wanted those Characters or at least diverse of them when it was in its infancy and therefore could not have Duration when confined to a narrow roome Act. 1. and therefore had no amplitude and consequently these are no necessary marks nor certain discoveries of the true Church as the Popish Doctors make their simple Proselytes believe So succession of Pastors signifies nothing unlesse you presuppose the truth of the Church whereof they are Pastors which forceth their own Authors to confesse that without true doctrine there is no true succession and that a local succession alone without a profession of sound doctrine is no certain note so Stapleton And Bellarmine ingenuously acknowledgeth that this argument of Succession is brought by them chiefly to prove that there is no Church where there is no succession from whence it doth not follow saith he necessarily that the Church is there where succession is So if this argument should possibly disprove our Church yet it doth not prove theirs § 10. So for Unity it is a shoe will fit every foot and hath been urged by Pagans whose great argument against Christianity was taken from the divisions of Christians and the unity of Pagans in their Religion and the Fathers answered the Pagans as we do the Papists that as the Church of God is one so the Devil 's Babylon is one as S. Austin expresseth it and that Unity without Verity is not to be regarded It was no argument of the verity and infallibility of the Jewish Church that they were united against Christ nor was it an evidence that the Church of Corinth Galatia and others mentioned in the New Testament were not the true Churches of Christ because they were peste'rd with fearful divisions and worse opinions then those which are owned by any Divines of the Protestant confession But if this test were allowed if things be weighed they would have little benefit by it I know there is nothing more familiar with the Romanists then to possesse silly seduced creatures with an opinion of their unity and our divisions I wish the latter were not more evident then the former God open the eyes and humble and forgive those who by causing divisions and offences among us have laid this stumbling block in their way It is no wonder they that cannot examine things are deceived with words But if any discreet person look within the vaile and compare their condition and ours he will find Clodius accus at moechos and that they do as if a man infected with a leprosy should reproach one who was troubled with the itch or as if a man whose hand was cut off should quarrel with another for having a scratch on his finger As for our Churches I know it is usual for the Papists to charge us with the frantick opinions of Quakers the desperate heresies of Socinus and the like but they would take it ill if we should charge their Religion with all the Blasphemous atheistical heretical opinions of some that have liveed amongst them Their own consciences tell them that these though they are among us yet they are not of us He that would judge righteous judgment must take his aestimate from the publick confessions of the Protestant Churches whose Harmony is published and proved to all the world and such of our learned Doctors as adhere to it and there he shall find the diversities of opinion amongst us are onely in some lesser points happily about government or other circumstantiall things but it is most certain and undeniable that all of them do hold the head agree in all the fundamental points of ReligioÌ„ But on the other side what if there be cloven Tongues in Protestant Churches Is Rome a City at unity within it self How come we then to hear the noise of axes and hammers among the builders of their Temple 300 differences have been collected out of Bellarmine's words and works and several of them of greater importance then any of our divisions It is true they have a pretty knack when we tell them of their divisions they say they are not in things de fide I see Duo cùm faciunt idem non est idem It is a woful division among us between Remonstrants and Contra-remonstrants but the same difference among them between Jesuits and Dominicans that is of no moment Oh ye foolish Papists how long will you be bewitched by such silly impostures how long will you love simplicity So for that great division among them about the very foundation of their faith which is ten times more weighty then all the Protestant differences put together the Pope's Infallibility they tell you it is not de fide although indeed it be their fundamentum fundamentorum and their whole Religion hangs upon it at least in the judgment of all the Jesuits and the far greatest number of the learned Doctors and eminent writers of the Church of Rome of this age It is confessed by themselves that they are divided in this great point so Bellarmine tells you The second opinion is that the Pope as Pope may teach heresy this opinion saith he is defended by Nilus some Parisians as Gerson and Almaine and Alphonsus de Castro and Adrian the sixth a Pope in his question of Confirmation So we have the infallibility of the Pope to assure us that the Pope hath not Infallibility And this opinion saith he is not properly heretical for we see the Church doth still tolerate it yet it is erroneous and very near heresy I will tell you how near it is when the Jesuits have throughly leaven'd the world with that opinion and perfectly destroyed the liberties of the Gallican Churches and the Pope can do it without raising a commotion in his own kingdome then you shall find this Embryo perfected and it is become a compleat heresie In like manner saith Dr. Holden speaking of the Pope's Infallibility We
Duty which God hath threatned as a terrible Curse 2 Thes. 2. viz. to believe lies This is to confront the Apostle Act. 5. and to say That it is better to obey men thâ—n God when their commands are contrary this is to bring me under a necessity of that Woe denounced against such as call evill good and good evill that put darknesse for light and light for darknesse Isa. 5.20 This is to say That I am bound to follow my blind Leaders though it be into the Ditch That I am under an obligation of offending God by making him a lyar and of damning my own Soul This is to say That the Israelites were bound to obey Aaron's Idolatrous decree concerning the observation of the Feast of the Calfe nay more That the Jewes were bound to obey their Church in putting Christ to death though they had at that time known him to be the true Messias In a word such and so many are the prodigious absurdities which would inevitably follow from that wild assertion that Madnesse it self unlesse in its highest Paroxysme could not equal it and when the Authors of it come to themselves or return to the judgment of their own Church or when their Church comes over to their opinion and layes aside their bold pretences to Infallibility they may expect a farther Answer But since I wrot this I find Mr. Cressy hath saved me the labour of farther Answer for in his second edition and secundae cogitationes sunt meliores I find him sick of his former notion I suppose he hath met with sharp rebukes from his wiser Brethren what Penances or censures they have inflicted on him I know not but the effect is visible and the man is brought to a recanting strain And that he may have some colourable Palliation for it he pretends he was mis-understood and that he never meant to deny Infallibility to the Church save onely in the most rigorous sense that the Terme could import and therefore he roundly asserts That the Church can neither deceive believers that follow her nor be deceived her self Exomolog sect 2. ch 21. And Infallibility and Authority are in effect all one as applied to the Church for to say that the Church hath authority to oblige all Christians to receive her Doctrines and withall to say she is fallible is extremity of Injustice and Tyranny Appendix to Exomolog chap. 5. num 14. So this pretence is also gone after the rest and therefore from all that hath been discoursed and proved I may take the boldnesse to conclude That the Faith of a Papist if he keep to his own principles hath no Foundation or is not built upon the Rock but meerly upon the Sand or in the Prophet's language they have forsaken the Scriptures the fountain of living water to hew out unto themselves broken Cisterns that can hold no water An APPENDIX by way of reflection upon Captain Robert Everards EPISTLE and account of his Conversion and Submission to the Romish Church and M r Cressy 's EXOMOLOGESIS SInce the finishing of the foregoing Treatise I was told of an Epistolary Discourse of Captaine Everards and withall that the substance of it was fully Answered by what I had there discussed onely it was convenient to accommodate the passages relating thereto to the severall parts of his Epistle Upon this sugestion I procured the Epistle it selfe as enlarged in the second Edition and diligently read it once or twice over And I confesse I was at first dubious whether I should take any notice of it partly because I saw it was nothing but a collection out of others as he most properly calls it and a repetition of those old Sophismes that have been answered and exploded an hundred times over and partly because I discerned by the spirit of the man and the frame of his Discourse and the circumstances of his change that there was no likelihood at all of retriving and reclaiming him how cleare and irresistible soever the evidence and arguments were that should be produced He that hath but half an Eye may see a designe in the whole management of the change And although he assures us with a teste me ipso that he is not biassed by worldly interests and private ends he must allow discreet persons the liberty of their Faith in that particular and not take it amisse if seeing the feeblenesse of his Arguments and their insufficiency for the producing of such a change they suspect it was done by the power of interest which is so secret an affaire and its methods so crypticall and the waies of serving it so various that no wise man will believe it impossible and I am sure the contexture of his Discourse and the manner of his pâ—ocesse doth not render it at all incredible And these considerations inclined me to silence But on the other side when I considered that the hand of Ioab sufficiently appeares in the penning of this Epistle that it was a collection of the strength of more Learned Writers and a conjunction of abler heads then his own who were resolved in this occasion and instance to represent what could in briefe be said to perswade unsetled persons to change their Religion and whatever other mens opinions are what a reverend esteem the Author hath of it who tels us he saw reason enough to believe it could not be Answered pag. 88. and that he challengeth it as a piece of justice to shew him his errors I thought it not amisse to take some notice of it knowing that if what I should say were unsuccessefull to him yet it would not be unaccâ—ptable to God since we are a sweet savour of God in them that believe and in them that perish and that if I were not an instrument of Gods mercy to him in reducing him to the truth from which he hath revolted yet I should be an instrument of Gods Justice and a witnesse on Gods behalfe to leave him without excuse In one thing I must crave Mr Everards pardon if I do not take his Counsell in Answering him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and setting down each of his Paragraphs before the severall Answers It is a course which I confesse I do not approve of in the answering of other Authors because it runs a man into personall contests and petite animad versions and catching at little advantages and so expends the answerers paines and the readers patience and the buyers mony to no purpose and if I did like it in some others yet really he must excuse me if I do not esteem him so classicall an Author nor his Epistle so weighty a Discourse as to deserve such solemne consideration Yet this I shall promise him and I call God to witnesse it that I shall not wilfully decline any part of it wherein his strength may lie but shall indeavour to the utmost of my poor skill to single out such things as are most plausible and considerable and such as if they be solidly Answered
Scripture And although their infallibility be said to be larger or greater extensivè because in them it reached to all sentences and words and Arguments yet the Romanists themselves cannot say it is higher or greater intensivè and the Articles of Faith or conclusive decisions decreed by Councels are in their opinion as infallible as the same are when they are laid down in the Scripture This was the Notion M r Chillingworth combated against with so great successe as Cressy confesseth The second Argument to prove the inevidence of this notion of the Churches infallibility I shall take from the impertinency and feeblenesse of those crutches or reasons wherewith they indeavour to support it I observe the summe and strength of what he hath to say in this point is reducible to five heads The first and great pretence is this Take away Infallibility and you destroy all Authority all Authority that is not Infallible is meer Faction and Rebellion and Authority that reacheth onely to the outward appearance or the purse Cressy Appen ch 7. num 2. And elsewhere Infallibility and Authority are in effect all one as applied to the Church Ibid c. 5. n. 14. And the assertions of the Churches Authority which are frequent in the Fathers Mr Cressy urgeth as if they had been directly levelled at the Churches infallibility Exomolog Sect. 2. chap. 19. Nay so daring is this man in his Argument that not contented with his own pretended satisfaction in it he will needs obtrude the same opinion upon that Noble Lord Falkland which it is sufficiently known he abhorred viz. that if the Catholick Churches Authority and Infallibility were opposed all other Churches must expire The Authority of the English Church would be an airy fantasme c. Append. chap. 6. num 9. For Answer I durst appeale to the conscience of this very man but that Apostates in the Faith do at the same time make shipwrack of a good conscience let any Romanist that is not prodigall of his damnation seriously consider the grosse falshood of this bold supposition What! no Authority without Infallibility Belike there is no Authority in the King because no Infallibility He will say Civill Authority is but externall But Ecclesiasticall reacheth the conscience and commands the beliefe of the inward man Mr Cressy knew this to be a gratis dictum and justly denied by Protestants and therefore he should have proved it but crude suppositions and imperious dictates do passe among Romanists for solid demonstrations Yet againe I would aske Mr Cressy whether the Assembly of the Clergy in France have Authority over that Church or no If he deny it I refer him to his brethren there for an Answer If he grant it then Authority may be without Infallibility Againe I aske him whether the Pope without a Councell have Authority over the Church or no If he deny it 't is at his perill if he affirme it then his Argument is in great jeopardy For Protestants are allowed to disbelieve the Popes personall Infallibility And he confesseth I gave you his own words before that good Catholicks deny it and dispute against it Yet once more When generall Councels have been called to determine the pretensions of Anti-Popes or to depose usurping Popes or when they have had differences with the Popes I demand whether these Councels had any Authority or no To say they had none or that their Authority was but an airy fantasme I think Mr Cressy will not dare and if they had then either a Councell without the Pope is Infallible which most Learned Papists now deny and if Mr Cressy be of another mind let him tell us or Authority may be without Infallibility In a word that the World may see the complexion of an Apostates conscience This very man will grant that there is an Authority in the Superiour over his Convent in every Bishop over his Diocesse in ever Generall over his order and a weighty Authority too as their vassals feel by sad experience yet I hope these are not Infallible E. the more impudent is he that argues fâ—om Authority to Infallibility A second Argument is much of the same complexion taken from the stile and practise of generall Councels which was to propose their Doctrines as infallible truths and to command all Christians under the paine of Anathema and eternall damnation to believe them for such That Authority which should speak thus not being Infallible would be guilty of the greatest tyranny and cruelty and usurpation that ever was in the World Append. chap. 4. n. 9. This hath been fully answered before and therefore I shall here content my selfe with these two reflections 1. The utmost of this Argument abstracting from the invidious expressions he here clothes it with that it may have in tenour what it wants in strength would be no more then this That generall Councels in such a way of proceeding were mistaken and were liable to error A proposition which he knew very well the Protestants did universally own and I hope well may since the Jesuites so great a part and support of the Roman Church have and do acknowledge that generall Councels and their decrees are not infallible untill the Popes consent be added yet such Councels as is notoriously known have used to put their Anathema's to their decrees before the Popes assent was given And yet forsooth if you will believe a man that hath cast away his Faith this Argument is more evident then we can produce for the Scripture it selfe for so he saith ibid. 2. These Anathema's do not at all prove that such Councels either were or thought themselves Infallible It is true it is an Argument they thought one of these two things either that the Doctrine proposed by them was Infallibly true as indeed they did or that their Authority was infallibly certaine which they never pretended either of these were a sufficient ground for such Anathema's and therefore his Argument is infirme proceeding à genere ad speciem animal est E. homo They owned Infallibility E. they owned it in their Authority Particular Pastors have a power to Anathematize and do so in case of Excommunication of Hereticks Are they therefore infallible If it be said they do it onely in pursuance and execution of the decrees of Councels I Answer If such persons confessedly fallible may Anathematize them that renounce the Doctrines delivered in Councels because supposed to be Infallibly true why may not the same persons Anathematize them that renounce the Doctrines expressely delivered in Scripture which all grant to be infallibly true Againe if we look into the Records of Councels wee shall find that this practise of Anathematizing was not onely in use in generall but also in particular aud Provinciall Councells which are confessed to be fallible E. Mr Cressy look to your Arguments and conscience better once more The Popes Anathemas aâ—l the World rings of yet you have seen his Infallibility is denied by many and Learned Papists and
13 but because St. Peters successor or the Church injoyns you to believe it but it is no Fundamental that Christ is God if the Church doth not oblige you to believe it Did I say it was not a Fundamental I do them wrong in not speaking the whole truth for so far are they from owning it for a Fundamental Article that they will not allow it to be an article or object of our Faith without such confirmation and injunction from the Church as I shewed in the beginning of the foregoing Discourse But this is so grosse a cheat and such a groundless imposture wholly destitute of all appearance of proof that it is a vanity to spend time in the confuting of it If any Papist think otherwise let him give us solid proofs That the Pope or Councel have such dominion over our Faith That Fundamentals are all at their mercy though meâ— thinks the very mention of such a conceit is abundant confutation nor can any thing be more absurd then to say That it is no Fundamental to believe that God is and that he is a rewarder of them them thaâ— diligently seek him unlesse the Churches Authority command us to believe it and that it is a Fundamental to believe that which so many of the Antients did not believe viz. the falsehood of the Millenary opinion or of the admission of departed Saints to the Beatifical Vision before the day of Judgement because these are determined by the Church And there is nothing which more essentially overthrowes the Popish conceit of Fundamentals then the consideration of the Pillar upon which they build it which is the Churches Infallible authority as the Answerer of Bishop Land Discourseth whose great argument is this whosoever refuseth to believe any thing sufficiently propounded to him for a truth revealed from God commits a damnable sin but whosoever refuseth to believe any point sufficiently prâ—pounded to him or defined by the Church as matter of faith refuseth to believe a thing sufficiently prâ—pounded to him for a truth revealed from God this is proved from hence because general Councels cannot erre Where to say nothing of the Major you see this man proves and the Church of Rome hath no better proofs incertum per incertius their notion of Fundamentals from their opinion of Councels infallibility and the infallibility of Councels having been abundantly evinced to be but a Chimaerical Imagination I must needs conclude That the foundation being fallen the superstructure needs no strength of argument to pull it down if any desire to see this wild conceit baffâ—ed he may find it done in that excellent discourse of Mr. Stingfleets part 1 chap. 2 3 4. For the 6. particular the doctrine of the Trinity it is true that is a real Fundamental but to say that is not clearly proved from the Scripture and for one that pretends he was a Protestant to say thus I confesse it is one of those many arguments which gives us too much occasion to ascribe the Captains change to any thing rather then to the convictions of his conscience or the evidence of his cause Behold the harmony between Socinianisme and Popery Rather then not assert the Churches authority these men will renounce the great principles of Christianity and put this great advantage into the Socinians hands to confesse that they cannot be confuted by Scripture But the learned Papists are of another mind in their lucid intervals and some of them as Simglecius have sufficiently overthrown the Socinian Heresy from Scripture evidence however I am sure Protestants have abundantly evinced it Let any man read but those excellent discourses of Placaeus about the Praeexistence of Christ before his birth of the Virgin and his Divinity and he will be of another mind But this shews the Captain was prepared to receive any thing that could so easily believe a proposition which he could not but know from his own experience to be horribly false unlesse he were shamefully ignorant 7 For the remaining points they split upon the same Rocks with the former for there is none of them but is sufficiently evident from Scripture as hath been fully proved by those who have treated of those matters but I must forbear digressions And besides in the sense he intends he will find it an hard matter to prove their necessity to salvation if he think otherwise let him try his strength And this may satisfy the third argument concerning the Scriptures darkness in things said to be necessary to salvation A fourth argument urged against the Scriptures supremacy is that we have not the Originals but onely Copies and Translations and these made by fallible men and therefore it cannot be a certain rule to our Faith This hath been answered in the former Discourse it will suffice therefore briefly to suggest some â—ew things 1 This argument if solid and weighty will prove that no Copies nor Translations can be a Rule to us that onely the Original Decalogue which was written by Gods own finger was a Rule to the Jews and consequently that Transcript of it which by Gods appointment the Prince had and was obliged to read was no rule to him which how false it is will appear from Deut. 17 18 19. When he sitteth upon the Throne he shall write him a Copy of this Law in a Book out of that which is before the Priests the Levites and he shall read therein that he may learn to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes to do them By which the Reader will quickly discern what weight is in this part of the Discours That a Copy cannot be a certain rule for the Princes rule is but a Copy and the Transcription of that not limited to an infallible hand When Moses of old time was read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day Act. 15.21 it is to be presumed each of them had not the Original of God's writing yet was it never rejected from being a rule upon that account What rare work would this Notion make in a Kingdom if throughly prosecuted Belike the Captaine doth not hold his Statute book a rule to him because it is not the Original And observe the horrible partiality of these men The Decrees of the Pope or Councel suppose of Trent are a Rule and a certain one too to our English Papists though they have nothing of them but a Copy and a Translation but the Scripture cannot be a Rule because it is onely a Copy and Translation The law of God or of the Church is a rule to the hearers when it is delivered onely by a Popish Priest and he confessedly fallible by word of mouth and it ceaseth to be a rule when it is delivered by writing by a fallible hand yet surely the one is but a copy as well as the other though made by diverse instruments 2. The copies and Translations of Scripture are a sure and certain rule because they do sufficiently evidence themselves to be the word
the Infallibility of the Fathers though consenting § 7 8 9. CHAP. 4. Of the Authority and Infallibility of the Church and Councels Asserted by Papists § 1. Disproved 1. There is no Foundation for it in Tradition § 3 4. For 1. If the Fathers deliver such a Tradition they are not infallible § 5. Exc. Fathers consenting are Infallible Answ. We cannot at this distance understand their consent ibid. 2. If the antients did believe the Infallibility of Councels they might do it upon the account of Scripture not Tradition § 6. 3. It doth not appear that the Fathers believed the Infallibility of Councels Proved by answering the arguments of Bellarm. and S. Clara. Sect. 7 8 9 10. Of St Austins judgment § 10 11. 4. It appears that the Fathers believed the Fallibility of Councels § 12. 2. There is no foundation for this Infallibility in Scripture Proved in generall § 13. In particular by the examination of the Texts urged for it 1 Tim 3. 15. § 14. Mat. 18. 17. Hear the Church and Luk. 10. 16. § 15. That the Church and Ministers are not to be heard in all things with an implicit Faith 1. Christ denies this to the Apostles 2. Else people cannot sin in obeying their Pastours 3. People are allowed to examine their teachers Doctrines Iob. 16. 3. He shall guide you into all truth § 16. Acts 15. 28. § 17. Mat. 28. § 18. pag. 103. 3. The Papists themselves disown the Infallibility of Councels § 20. An examination of that evasion and pretended agreement of Papists in this that the Pope and Councell together are Infallible § 21. 4. The Infallibility of their Councels destroyed by the consideration of those things which Papists themselves require in Infallible Councels as 1. That they be generall § 23 2. That they have the consent and approbation of the whole Church § 24. 3. That they be rightly constituted and ordered and guided by honesty piety and love to Truth § 25. Exc. Pope Councels Fathers Scripture conjoyned make the Church Infallible Answered § 26. CHAP. 5. Of Oâ—all Tradition and the Testimony of the present Church This new opinion represented in the words of its Authors and abettors § 1. Refuted 1. Hereby they both settle the Protestant foundation of Faith and overthrow their own § 2 3 2. This makes Orall Tradition more certain then writing against the judgment of God and all men § 4. pag. 140. 3. Errors may come in and have come in to the Church under pretence of Tradition § 5. 4. Traditionary proofs disowned 1. By the Prophets and Jewes of old § 6. Exc. The Law of Christians is written in their hearts not Tables Answered § 7. 2. By Christ and his Apostles § 8. Exc. 2 Thes. 2. 15. ibid. 5. Scripture proofe is necessary for confirmation of Doctrines in the judgment of the Fathers § 9. â— Orall Tradition hath deceived the Romanists themselves § 10. pag. 158. Exc. They are not deceived in great points de fide Answered ibid. â— Though experience sufficiently proves the deceit of this argument yet it is particularly shewed how error might creep in this way § 11. It might creep in by degrees § 12. 1. Christians might mistake the mind of their Predecessors § 13. pag. 166. 1. There was no certaine way for the third age to know the Doctrines of the second ib. 2. Instances given of mens misunderstanding the Doctrine of the precedant Age. § 14. 3. The words of our praedecessors may be remembred and the sence perverted § 15. 4. Some ages were horribly ignorant and carelesse Exemplified in the tenth Age. Sect. 16 17 18. And few Writers § 19. 2. Christians might knowingly recede from the Doctrines of their Ancestors 1. From Gods just judgment § 21. 2. Because they did believe their praedecessors erred Sect. 22. 3. Eminent persons might corrupt the Doctrine received from their Ancestors and did so Sect. 23. Exemplified in a forgery of the Popes ib. 8. This way of Tradition disproved by the practise of the Church of Rome which introduceth Doctrines not descending by Tradition but new Sect. 24. Exemplified in two Doctrines The immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin And the Canon of the Scripture ibid. CHAP. 6. Of Miracles and the motives of credibility The oâ—inion represented in their words Sect. 1. Refuted 1. Other Churches have a juster claime to these marks then Rome Sect. 3 4 5 6 7. 2. Diverse of them are not marks of the Church Sect. 8.9.10 The Character of miracles specially considered and their Argument thence confuted 1. Christs Miracles prove Romes Fallâ—bility Sect. 12. 2. Miracles are not simply and universally to be believed Proved by Arguments Sect. 13 14 15 16 17 18. 3. Miracles onely prove the verity of the Doctrine not the Infallibility of the person Sect. 19. 4. Miracles doe not alwayes prove the verity of a Doctrine for they may be and have been done by Heathens and Hereticks Which is acknowledged by the learned Papists Sect. 20. 5. Miracles are pleaded by the Romanists either impertinently or falsly Sect. 21 6. Protestants may plead Miracles as well as Papists Sect. 22. A briefe recapitulation of the severall pretensions and resolutions of Faith among the Romanists Sect. 23. Another plea from Gods providence and the supposed necessity of a living Infallible judge Sect. 25 26 27 28. CHAP. 7. Of the Solidity of the Proâ—â—stants Foundation of Faith The Protestants have a solid fouâ—â—dation of Faith in the Scriâ—â—tures the Papists themselves 〈◊〉 ing judges Sect. 〈◊〉 Their Learned men acknowleâ— 1. That the Scripture is 〈◊〉 may be known to be the 〈◊〉 of God without the Church Testimony and by its owâ— light Sect. 〈◊〉 2. That the Books of Scriptuâ—â— are not corrupted in essentiaâ— and necessary points Sect. 〈◊〉 3. That the sence of Scripture 〈◊〉 things necessary may be uâ—â—derstood Sect. 〈◊〉 Except Protestants 〈◊〉 upon an humane Translaâ—tion answered Se. 5 6 7 â— Protestants freed from the preâ—â—tended circle of proving Scripâ—â—ture by the spirit and the spiâ—rit by the Scripture Sect. 9â— 10 11 12â— A consideration of that pretenâ— ostered at by some Romanists That the Churches Authority 〈◊〉 a sufficient foundation foâ— faith without infallibility Sect. 13â— The APPENDIX THe occasion of it pag. 1 The occasion of Everards pretended conversion to Popery p. 5. The Argument which perverted him viz. that a Protestant cannot be infallibly assured of the truth of Christian Religion considered and examined pag. 8. to the 12. Of the Doctrine of Infallibility as stated by Mr Cressy p. 12. Papists and Protestants grant that such a Doctrine ought to have the greatest evidence that such things can beare p. 14. Whether the Doctrine of Infallibility be evidently proved The Negative defended 1. Because it is not evident to the Papists themselves p. 15. They are divided about it notwithstanding their pretended agreement p. 16. Their haltings in the point and Mr Cressy's shufflings discovered p. 18. 2. Because their reasons to
de-defend it are weak Mr Cressy's arguments examined Arg. 1. Take away Infallibility and you destroy all authority p. 21. 2. From the Anathema's of Councels p. 23. 3. From the promises of Infallibility made to the Church pag. 25 to pag. 30. 4. No unity without Infallibility pag. 30. Other considerations against infallibility 1. The Texts and arguments alledged either prove nothing or more then Mr Cressy would have pag. 33. 2. If a Pope and Councell together were Infallible yet now they have no Infallibility in the Church of Rome ib. A Character of the last Pope drawn by a Papist and the Popes confession that he never studied Divinity p. 34. The grounds of the Faith of Protestants stated and the pretended differences among Protestants reconciled pag. 36. to 45. Captain Everards arguments against the judgment of reason considered pag. 45. Everards arguments against Scriptures being a perfect rule and judg of Controversies examined answered 1 Which is the great argument of the Papists because it doth not answer its end nor reconcile the dissentâ—rs p. 47. 2. Some books of Scripture are lost p. 50. 3. A rule must be plain but Scripture is dark p. 52. 2 Pet. 3.16 Vindicated pag. 52. Severall particulars wherein the Scripture is said to be darke considered 1. About the number of Sacraments pag 54. 2. About the number of Canonicall books p. 55. 3. About the incorruption of Scripture p. 56. 4. About the sence of Scripture p. 57. 5. About fundamentall points p. 59. 4. Protestants have not the Originals but onely Translations p. 63. 5. There are contradictions in Scripture p. 65. 6. Scripture is liable to contrary Expositions p. 66. 7. Scripture was not judge in the Apostles dayes p. 68. 8. This makes every man judge p. 69. Another argument of Cressy's taken from hence that Scripture were written upon particular occasions p. 71. Rushworth's two great apâ—plauded aâ—guments in his Daâ—â—alogues refuted The first taken from the greaâ— uncertainâ—y and corruption of the Texts in our Bibles p. 75 to 82. The second from the Methods of Lawes and Lawgivers p. 82. Mr. White 's argument viz. That Scripture was not Written about the present Controversies considered and answered p. 88. The Scriptures authority and sufficiency argued onely from one Text. 2 Tim. 3.15 16. Vindicated from diverse exceptions of Captain Everard Mr Cressy and Mr. White p. 92. ad finem A Postscript to the Reader The designe of this Treatise being to destroy all pretensions of Infallibility in the Church Pope or Councels it were an unreasonable thing for the Reader to expect Infallibility in the Printer or to deny his pardon to the errors of the Presse occasioned by the Authors constant absence Such smaller errors as do not pervert the sence the Reader will easily discerne The grosser mistakes which he is intreated to Correct are such as these that follow For work pag. 4. of the Epistle Dedicatory line the last but one read neck Pag. 8. l n. 27. read decisâ—on p. 9. l. 7. r. Gretâ—â—â—â—â— p. 13. l. 31. r. rock p. 14. l. 21. r. least p. 33 l. 17. r. Melchior p. 35. l. 32. r. their after namely p. 39. l. 15. r. because for best p. â—0 l. 8. r. least p. â—5 l. 26. r. Grill. â—â—â— acquices p. 58. l. 25. r. acquiesces p. 60. l. 2. r. Gresserus p. 65. l. 26 and 27. r. â—â—d there for â—y p. 84. l. last r. of p. 87. l. 22. r. Osius p. 87. l. 26. r. adde with p. 112 l 4 r fricat â—b l. 26. r. breaths p. 116. l. 10. r. Celotius p. 117 l. 32. r. scrupulosiâ—â— p. 120. l. 29. r. affectione p. 125. l. 3. r. Dullardus p. 130. l. 1. r. student p. 137. l. 7. r. discevers p. 137. l. 14. r. Romish p. 137. l. 25 r recentieribus p. 138. l. 31. r. niti pag. 155. the signatures to the citâ—tions are misplaced p. 165. l. 29. r. answerer for thinks p. 171. l. 20. r. things p. 174. l. 33. r. Apotaâ—â—ici p. 201. l. antepenultima dele non p. 218. l. last r. protervire p. 218. l. 31 and 32. dele and to fetch in miracles that they may not want arguments p. 226. l. last r. undeniable In the Appendix Pag. 40. l. 3. after iuâ—â— read each particular p. 44. l. 30. r. it is p. 61. l. 31. r. effectuallâ— p. 62 l. 17. r. Stilling fleet ib. p. 31. r. Smiglecius p. 76. l. 20. for perfectly r. in part The Nullity of the Romish Faith The Introduction ALl Papists profess to resolve their Faith into and to ground it upon the Churches infallible Tâ—stimonie and supreme Authority But when they come to explicate what they mean by the Church and on what account they ground their Faith upon her then they sall into diverse opinions By the Church some understand the ancient Church whose Testimonie is expressed in the writings of the Fathers others the present Church whose living Testimonie and Authoritie they say is sufficient without any further inquirie and this present Churh too they cannot yet agree what it is Some say the Pope others a generall Councell and others the Pope and a Councell together Nor are they less at variance about the grounds on which they build the Churches Authoritie This some lay in the Testimonie of scripture others in the Authority of the Fathers others in universall or all tradition others in the motives of credibility as we shall see in the process of this discourse My purpose is to discover the rottenness of these severall foundations as they make use of them and to shew That they have no solid foundation for their Faith in any of these recited particulars and for more orderly proceeding I shall lay down six propositions I that a Papists faith hath no solid foundation in the authoritie and infallibilitie of the Pope 2 Nor in the scriptures according to their principles 3 Nor in the authority of Fathers 4 Nor in the infallibility of the Church and Councels 5 Nor in unwritten tradition and the authority of the present Church 6 Nor in the motives of credibility Of which in order CHAP. 1. Of the Popes Authority and Infallibility Sect. 1. Propos. 1. THe Popes infallibile authority is in it self of no validity and is a meere nullity further then it is established or corroborated by the rest This needs no great proofe For if I should ask any Papist why he rather relies upon the decisions of the Bishop of Rome then the Bishop of York the onely plea is that the Bishop of Rome is St Peters successor and established by God in those royalties and jurisdictions which St Peter is supposed to have been invested with But if I ask how this appears what proofs and evidences there are of this assertion upon which hangs the whole Mass and Fabrick of Popery There is no man so grosly absurd to believe himself or to affirm that I am bound to believe this barely upon the Popes assertion that
they are found to attribute this Infallibility not onely to all conjunctly but to the most of that smal remnant of surviving Writers as you saw from their expressions which because they are so monstrously bold as to assert I shall take the boldnesse to aske by what right shall five Fathers vid. Dionysius Clemens Ignatius Polycarpus and Hermes supposing that all the works extant under their names were genuine for these are all left us of those great numbers of the Fathers of the first Age I say by what right shall these five invest themselves with the name or priviledge of the whole Catholick Church of that Age for it is to her alone the supposed promise of Infallibility was made in what Scripture or Father or Lexicon do five Fathers make up the whole Church True it is the Pope hath a peculiar priviledge in this point and is by the Jesuites invested with the name of the Church The Church Virtuall And it must be acknowledged there is since colour for the Title for having swallowed up all the rights and priviledges of the Church he ought to have the Name into the bargain But setting aside that prodigious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I would know why I might not as well say that five of the Romish Doctors viz. Salmeron Canus Costerus Stapleton and Bellarmine are the Church of Rome or that five of our English Doctors are the Church of England nay all the Protestant World as that five of the Fathers made up the whole Church of their Age Yet againe forasmuch as they ascribe infallibility not onely to all but also to the major part of the Fathers of these five then two may erre by their own confession And that all the particular Fathers have their their errors is generally acknowledged by the Papists and often urged by them to defend themselves from the force of many convincing allegations from the Fathers against their opinions Well then to keep to this particular instance It is granted that Dionysius may erre and so may Ignatius then the Infallibility is preserved in Clemens and Polycarpus and Hermes But they also or any two of them may erre in other things and then the Infallibility is preserved in Dionysius and Ignatius and Hermes Thus it seems Infallibility is banded between the Fathers like a Tennis-ball from one to another and they have it by turnes Such monsters must be in the Conclusion if Infallibility be in the premises That is enough for the second Argument § 5. The third Argument is this The Fathers professe they are not infallible either they say true or false if true then they are not infallible if false then they erred in that assertion and therefore are not Infallible So the Papists are gone by their own Argument and rule too For here we have the consent of the Fathers It were infinite to recount all passages to this purpose I shall onely suggest some few which are evident and undeniable in this particular Clemens Alexandrinus hath these words The principle of our Doctrine is the Lord who hath taught us by the Prophets by the Gospell and by the Apostles and he addes If any man think this Principle needs another Principle he doth not indeed keep that Principle But the Papists say the Scripture principle needs another principle to support it viz. the Churches Authority Ergo the Papists have forsaken the principle of the Scripture and so saved us further labour of proving their Apostacy And he addes that the standard by which things are to be examined is not the testimony of men therefore not the Testimony of Fathers Councels Popes who I thinke are all men save onely that severall of the Popes are represented by their own Authors as beasts but the Word of the Lord. And lest you should understand it of Tradition he calls it just before the Scripture and word of the Lord We do not saith he believe the assertions of men they must not onely say but prove and that too from the Scriptures What can be more expresse So Basil tels us The hearers that are instructed in the Scriptures must examine the Doctrine of their teachers they must receive those things which are agreeable to Scripture and reject those things which are contrary to it Where we plainly see S t Basils direct contrariety to the principles and practise of the Romish Church 1. St Basil allowes his heares to examine their teachers Doctrine so do not the Papists The people are so bound to be subject to their Pastours that if their Pastours shoulderre the people were bound to erre with them saith Tannerus A Christian is bound to receive the Churches Doctrine without examination saith Bellarmine Pastours are simply to be heard in all things nor are we to consider what is said but who said it i. e. if he were a lawfull Pastour as Stapleton bellowes it out for it is a speech fitter for a beast then for a man And yet these are the men who will not depart a nailes bredth from the Fathers This is the Church the principall note whereof is consent with the Fathers of which you may judge by this and what we shall adde from others 2. Basil makes the Scripture alone the rule by which all other things are to be examined not Fathers not Councels not Traditions but the Papists are of another minde S t Clara. tels us of a Popish Treatise written by a friend of his solemnly approved by the Parishian Doctors of the Sorbon so you see it is no particular fancy but a received opinion where saith he that Author expresly asserts that the Church therefore receives the Scriptures because and so far as they are conformable to Tradition not contrarily i.e. She doth not receive Tradition because and so far as it agrees with Scripture And thus far doubtlesse he was in the right saith S t Clare And consequently Basil was in the wrong That saying of Cyprians is never to be forgotten That Christ alone is to be heard the Father witnesseth from Heaven We are not therefore to regard what others before us thought but what he that was before all Christ first did for we are not to follow the custome of men but the truth of God If the Papists would say as much this controversy would be at an end And it is observable that Pamelius who is very brisk and free of his Notes and animadversions whereever Cyprian casts in a word that may seem to give countenance to their opinions passeth over this place with profound silence as well seeing it was so hot it would have burned his Fingers St Chrysostome is as fully Protestant in this particular as if he had been of Councell in our cause in two points he is positive for us 1. He presseth the people to examine things delivered to them therefore he was against the Popish implicit faith Let us not carry about the opinion of the multitude but let us examine things
bloud of Christ Seeing we bear many errors in the antient Fathers and extenuate and excuse them and oft times by some divised fiction we deny and put a convenient sense upon them when they are opposed against us in disputations with our adversaries we do not see why Bertram doth not deserve the same equity and diligent recognition And thus they deale with the Fathers when they displease their humor and oppose their doctrines But if the Fathers deliver any thing that seems to countenance their conceits then every passage of the Fathers is dogmatical and every word an argument then the Fathers have done playing and quibling then they have opened their minds fully and given us their most serious and last thoughts § 8. And lest you should think it was only the opinions of several Fathers which they despised I shall acquaint you with their practice in case of consent of the Fathers or the major part of them That the Angels were corporeal was the opinion of most of the Fathers saith Pererius For this opinion Sixtus Senensis reckons up Origen Lactant Athenas Methodius Hilarius Damascinus Cassianus and the secound Councel of Nice to whom Maldonat addes as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clemens Alexan Theodoret Tertullian Ambrose Augustine c. such a Constellation one shall seldome find in any controverted opinion Yet hear what Senensis saith I think the contrary opinion is the trust If a Protestant had said as much what tumults and tragedies would it have raised in the Romane Court how would all the world have rung with it So again that I may further lay open this Romish imposture I shall represent to the reader's consideration that controversy concerning the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin what is the common and current doctrine of the Church of Rome at this day is sufficiently known from the decree of the Councel of Trent concerning Original sin in which decree they expresly tell us they would not have her included and from the severe constitutions of Sixtus the fourth and Paul the fifth and Gregory the fifteenth Popes against those that should presume to teach this Doctrine that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in sin and from the practice of divers Popish Universities who have not only received the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin but bind their members by solemn oath to own it and from the writings of multitudes of the most eminent Popish writers who positively assert it as Delrio Henriquez Azâ—rius Suarez Vasquez Salmeron Acosta Abulensis Canus Navarrus and a world of others Now let us see whether in this point they made the consent of Fathers their rule or which is equivalent what was the judgment of the antient Fathers therein which I shall give you from the mouths of the Papists themselves then which they cannot desire a fairer tryal Hear Canus All the antients that make any mention of this matter have with one mouth asserted that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in sin as Ambrose Aug Chrys c. and none of them contradicted that assertion and then he addes his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Romish opinion That the argument from authority is weak and the contrary doctrine is probably and piously defended in the Church of Rome And he confesseth he knew no other way to confute this argument of Erasmus against the authority of the Fathers then by saying the opinion was not de fide or no matter of faith A remedy as bad as the disease 1. Because the opinion is most absurd that a Doctrine is not de fide till the Pope or Councell have determined it from whence would follow amongst many other grosse absurdities 1. That it was not de fide while Christ lived that Jesus was the Messias no Councell having determined it 2. That most of the Articles of the Christian Religion were not de fide before the Councell of Nice 3. That God revealing a truth in his Holy Scriptures cannot oblige our faith as much as a Councell revealing it in their Decrees But I need say no more of this because it is rejected by diverse of their own most Learned Authors It is the common opinion of Doctors that a Councell doth not make a thing to be of Faith but denies or declares that such a thing is or formerly was de fide as the Holy Fathers abundantly confirme saith White 2. Because this was de fide according to their own Doctrine For the Councell of Basil had positively defined and determined it as pious and agreeable to Faith reason and Scripture to be embraced by all Catholicks and that it should be lawfull to no man to teach the contrary This put S Clara so hard to it that he is forced to this horrible shift that they onely defined it tanquam piam consonam fidei Now the termes tanquam consonam are termes of diminution But to returne Salmeron treating of this point tels us that his Adversaries reckon 200 others 300 Fathers against his and the Romish Doctrine of the immaculate conception Well what is his Answer Really it is so full of Heresy that I fear they will chide me for translating it he tels you The Argument from Authority is weak I Answer saith he from Exod. 23.2 Thou shalt not speak in a cause to incline after many to wrest judgment as Augustine answered the Donatists it was a signe that a cause wanted truth which leaned upon Authority That the younger Doctors see further then the antients that is to say the Romish Doctors are wiser then the Antient Fathers I commend these passages to the care of my Lords the Inquisitors the next time the purging humour takes them they richly deserve a roome in the Iudex expurgatorius And yet these are the onely adorers of the Antient Fathers that tell you We do not receive part of the Doctrine of the Fathers and reject part but we embrace it all saith Duraeus We hold the whole Volumes saith Campian These are they that hold the Fathers to be uncorrupted judges of Controversies whom God would not suffer to fall into error and lead others into it saith Costerus Will you see more of this mistery of iniquity I shall onely name the rest Diverse Popish Authors of prime note acknowledge that it was the generall opinion of the Fathers That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper ought to be given to Infants So Maldonate The Opinion of S t Augustine and Innocent the first a Pope and therefore his opinion infallibly true flourished in the Church for 600 years that the Eucharist was necessary to Infants That the Lords Supper should be receaved by the people in both kinds For the Councell of Constance in that very place where it takes away one kind the Cup do acknowledge that the use of both kinds by the people was instituted by Christ and enjoyed by the people in the antient Church That the Saints departed
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 onely 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 Faith 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 onely credulous Author and that this was the onely 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 onely 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 the 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 thâ—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 nâ—t appeale from that judgment which may be erronious 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 â—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 supreme Iudge of Controversies upon Earth and that such a Councell hath a detâ—rmining and decisive power which all are externally bound to obey to prevent Schisme 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 onely 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 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 should 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
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 This may be too Bernardus non videt omnia and why should Robertus do it Ans. 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 ever 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 onely 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 onely 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 1 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 onely 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 onely 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 onely is infallible And so Bellarmine hath not onely 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 onely § 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 consequently 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 onely 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
they infer the necessity of the Churches authority these kind-hearted Gentlemen have helped us out of the bryars for now it seems and it is a truth and so far the argument from Tradition is really conclusive that we may know the Scripture to be the word of God without the Churches infallible authority viz. by tradition And the argument of Tradition would not at all lose its strength if the Church were wholly stript of the capacity of a Judg and retained only the qualification of a witnesse and consequently the Churches authority is not at all necessary And if the Church should boast of her authority against or above tradition it may be said to her according to these mens principles as the Apostle said to the Gentiles Rom. 11. If thou boast thou bearest not Tradition but Tradition thee for so say these Doctors Mr. White spends one entire chapter upon the proof of this Proposition That the succession of doctrine is the only rule of Faith and saith that whether we place this infallibility in the whole body of the Church or in Councels or in Scriptures in each of these their authority is resolved into and all depends upon Tradition And he spends several chapters to shew that neither the Pope nor Councels can give any solidity or certainty to our Faith but what they have from Tradition If it be said Tradition is conveyed to us by the Church and so there is still a necessity of her Authority I answer plainly no It followes onely that there is necessity of her Ministery but not of her Authority A Proclamation of the King and Councel could not come to my hands If I live at Yorke but by a Messenger and by the Scribe or Printer But if any from this necessity of his Ministery infer his Authority I may well deny the consequence but because it is unhansome to extenuate a courtesie I hold my self obliged further to acknowledge the great kindnesse of our Adversaries who not contented to assert the validity of the Protestants foundation of Faith have also overturned their own which that you may the better understand I shall briefly represent to you the sweet Harmony of those Cadmaean Brethren and how God hath confounded the language of Babels Builders so that they have little to do but to stand still and see the Salvation of God while these Midianites and Amalekites thrust their Swords in one anothers sides The opinion and language of most Papists in the world is this That Tradition is therefore only infallible because it is delivered to us by the Church which is infallible If you ask Bellarmine what it is by which I am assured that a tradition is right he answers because the whole Church which receives it cannot erre So the late Answerer of Bishop Laud. There is no means lest to believe any thing with a divine infallible Faith if the Authority of the Catholick Church be rejected as erronious and fallible for who can believe either Creed or Scripture or unwritten Tradition but upon her Authority Nay S Clara himself notwithstanding his Romantick strain That Tradition and the naked Testimony of the present Church is sufficient yet elsewhere confesseth the Churches infallibility must necessarily be supposed to make my Faith certain His words are these The Testimony of the Church by which Traditions come to us is infallible from a Divine Revelation because it is evident from the Scripture that the Church is infallible And presently after If the Church were not infallibile it could not produce in me an infallible Faith And this was the constant Doctrine of the Romish Masters in all former Ages Now come a new Generation who finding the Notion of infallibility hard beset and that Pillar shaken they support their cause with a quite coÌ„trary position That it is not the Churches infallibility that renders Tradition infallible as their former Masters held but the infallibility of Tradition that makes the Church infallible and therefore they say the Church her self is no further infallible then she followes Tradition Thus Mr White plainly tells us that Councils are not infallible because the speciall assistance of Gods spirit makes them infallible but because by irrefragable testimony they confirm the succession of their Doctrines and are such witnesses of tradition as cannot be refused Thus Holden having told us that the Popes infallibility is controverted on both sides by just godly and most learned Catholicks as well antient as modern and neither â—svde condemned by Authentick censure which by the way discourses the desparatenesse of the greatest part of the Romish Church at this day which ventures their Soules and rest their faith upon what themselves confesse to be a doubtfull foundation viz. the Popes infallibility All Divines saith he confesse it is not certain with a Divine and a Catholick Faith he comes to lay down this conclusion that the Infallibility of the Church is not from any Priviledge granted to the Romans sea or St Peters successeur but from the universall and Catholick tradition of the Church and Councels fare no better then Popes They are saith he not Founders but only Guardians and Witnesses of revealed truths so M r White allowes neither Pope nor Councels any infallibility but what they have from tradition as wee have seen and tels us in expresse termes that Tradition is overthrown if any other principle be added to it for here lies the solidity of Tradition that nothing is accepted by the Church but from Tradition § 3. Well what shall the poor unlearned Romanist do that finds his great masters at variance in the very foundation of his Faith Here are two contradictory assertions one of them must unavoidably be false A man may with probability at least assert the falshood of either of them having the suffrage of diverse of their own most learned Catholick Authors for him in either opinion but whether they be true or false their cause is lost 1. If they be true and 1. If that be true that Tradition be the foundation of the Churches Infallibility then 1. Whence hath Tradition this Infallibility From Scripture That they utterly disclaime From Tradition Then why may not Scripture give Testimony to it self as well as Tradition And whence hath that Tradition its Infallibility and so in infinitum Is it from the reason of the thing So M r White implies who attempts to prove it by a rationall and Logicall Discourse but himself hath prevented that while he saith To leane upon Logicall inferences is to place the foundation of our Faith and the Church in the sand And S. Clara gives a check to this It is more reasonable and wise even for the most learned and acute persons to rely upon the Authority of the Church then to adhere to our own reasonings how plausible soever And that is largely disproved in the following discourse Is it then from the Churches Infallibility This they deny
and allow the Church no infallibility independent upon Tradition 2. Seeing they grant the Church may erre if she receed from Tradition I can never be sure she doth not erre unlesse I be sure she keep to Tradition And therefore I must examine that and judge of it and so private men are made judges of controversies which they so much dread 3. Hereby the Authority of the Pope and generall Councels of Bishops is rendred unnecessary I prove it thus If these be necessary onely as witnesses to Tradition then their Authority is not necessary For it is not Authority but knowledge and fidelity which renders a witnesse competent A lay hearer of S t Paul may be as competent a witnesse of the Doctrine he heard S t Paul Preach as a Bishop supposing a parity in their knowledg fidelity and converse with the Apostle and another Bishop may be as competent a witnesse as the Bishop of Rome and consequently as Infallible and any congregation of discreet and pious Christians who heard S t Peter Preach are as infallible witnesses as the Church of Rome and if there were a generall assembly of lay men of equall knowledge and experience they are as infallible witnesses what the Faith of the next precedent age was and what the Faith of the present Church is as a Councell of Bishops Nay to speak truth they are more credible witnesses because lesse byassed by interest affection or prejudice These rocks the first branch throwes them upon 2. If they flie from his and make the Churches infallibility the foundation of Traditions as the most Papists do then they must demonstrate that Infallibility from Scripture Fathers or Councels which we have seen they cannot do So that if either of their positions be true their cause is lost But 2. If either of them be false they are gone too For if tradition be not Infallible in it selfe without the Churches Authority as the one side saith then the Papists have no certaine rule for the Church to steere iâ—s course by for the Scriptures they do not own as such and if the Church be not infallible but by vertue of this Tradition as the other side saith then they confesse the insufficiency of all their proofes from Scripture and from the Authority of Fathers and Councels and their Authority is no more then that of any faithfull or credible Historian and instead of a Divine the Papists have nothing but an Historicall faith I shall conclude this first Answer with one syllogisme from the words and assertions of M r White Tradition is overthrown if another principle of Faith be added to it But the most and Learnedest Doctours of the Romish Church do adde another principle to it viz. the Churches Authority and infallibility as I shewed from their own words Ergo either Tradition and all this new devise or the Authority of the Romish Church is overthrown 4. Answ. 2. This new conceit directly thwarts the designe of God in the Writing of the Scripture and indeed the common sence and experience of all mankind for hereby a verball Tradition is made a more sure way of conveyance to posterity then a Writing It hath been the Wisdome of God in formeâ— ages to take care that those things might be Written which he would have kept in remembrance Exod. 17. 14. Write this for a memoriall in a Book So little did God trust this now supposed infallible way of orall Tradition that he would not venture the Decalogue upon it though the words were but few and the importance of them so considerable both in truth and in the apprehensions of the Jewes that if M r Whites Argument have any strength in it it was impossible posterity should ever mistake it but write it with his own finger once and againe after the breaking of the first Tables And although whilest the Church was confined to a few families and divine revelations were frequently renewed a verball Tradition was sufficient yet when the Church came to be multiplyed and especially when it comes to be dispersed into all Nations and Revelations cease then Writing proves of absolute necessity How farre the first and wisest Christians were from M r Whites opinion appeares from hence that not daring to leane upon the broken reed of Orall Tradition they did earnely desire the Apostles to commit their Doctrines to Writing Eusibius reports that S t Peters hearers were not content with this way of Tradition from Peters mouth but for want of M r VVhites presence there to convince them of their folly They earnestly begged it of Marke that he would leave them that Doctrine in VVriting which they had received by word of mouth And Hierome tels us That S t John the Evangelist was almost forced to write by all the Bishops of Asia who it seems were raw novices that did not understand their Catechisme nor the first principle in it viz. The sufficiency and infallibility of orall Tradition And S t Luke gives it us under his hand not fearing either M r VVhites anger or his Argument that he wrote his Gospell ad majorem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Christians might have the greater certainty Luk 1 3,4 When Iob desires the perpetuall continuance of his words he wisheth O that my words were now VVritten Oh that they were Printed in a Book Job 19.23 And David in the same case would not rely upon Tradition but takes this course for assurance This shall be written for the generation to come Psal. 102.18 But because M r VVhite undoubtedly is a better Philosopher and Divine then either Luke or Iob or David were and therefore good reason they should all vaile to his more penetrating wit and deeper judgment he shall do well to remember that God himselfe was of the same judgment Go write it before them in a Table and note it in a Book that it may be for the time to come for ever Isa. 30.8 And to this agrees the common experience of mankind Vox audita perit litera scripta manet verball Traditions quickly vanish onely writings are durable Hence those famous Lawes of Lycurgus institutes of the Druides Philosophy of Pythagoras are upon the matter wholly lost and onely some few fragments reserved because not committed to writing but this will be put out of doubt by reflecting upon the History of mankind wereby the aierinesse of this phantasme will be discovered and the great difference between Tradition and writing in point of certainty demonstrated Adam and Noah the two successive heads of mankind did doubtlesse deliver the true Doctrine to their posterity with the same important circumstances which M r VVhite supposeth in the Doctrine of the Gospell as a Doctrine of everlasting consequence and they so received it and for a season transmitted it to their Children But alas how soon was all obliterated and in this sense all mankind some very few excepted did agree to murther themselves and they actually did that which M r VVhite saith
points viz. The Doctrine of Gods grace and mans will and the appurtenances as they are controverted between the French and Italian Papists In both of them it is clear as the Sun that both parties pretend Tradition Now the Trumpet of Tradition gives an uncertaine found for Tradition tels the Jesuites this is truth That the will is determined to good actions not by Gods grace but by its own inclination and agency Tradition tels the Dominicans and Jansenists that this is a grosse falsity So for the Church if you enquire in whom Supreme Authority and Infallibility resides for that is the great question Tradition tels the Jesuites it is in the Pope Tradition not long since told the Councels of Basil and Constance that it was in a Councell not in the Pope and so it tells many of the French Doctors at this day And I will tell you a thing in your eare both these are Apostolicall Traditions though you and I think they are directly contrary It is true that S t Iames saith No Fountaine can yield both Salt-water and Fresh Chap. 3. 8.12 But that is to be understood onely of the Fountaine of the Scripture but the Fountain of Tradition can yield both Salt and Fresh both bitter and sweet You may well allow Tradition to be Infallible for you see it can work wonders and reconcile contradictions If this seem strange to you you may expect the proof of it in an Appendix to the next Edition of M r VVhites Apology for Tradition demonstrating that Contradictoria possunt esse simul vera to be dedicated to the Defenders of Transubstantiation but to returne What say our masters to this difficulty why I will faithfully acquaint you where their strength lies and what their pretences are I find three things which are or may with some colour be said for them to safeguard the Infallibility of Tradition against this dreadfull shock 1. They say these are onely Doctrines ventilated in Schooles not of any great consequence to Christians Thus the controversies between the Jesuites and Dominicans about Gods free grace and mans free-will they say are but Scholasticall niceties wherein the substance of Religion is not at all concerned So for that point of Supremacy and Infallibility it is no great matter The dissenters onely seek out the decider of Points of Doctrine that is by whose mouth we are to know which be our Articles of Faith whether by the Popes or Councels or both which is not much materiall saith Rushworth's second Edition Dial. 3. § 9. to our purpose whatever the truth be supposing we acknowledge no Articles of Faith but such as have descendâ—d to us from Christ and his Apostles For Answer I would know whether a private Christian can Infallibly know what are those Articles of Faith which came from Christ and his Apostles without the decision of Pope or Councell or not If they say he can know it then it followes that private Christians may be Infallible of themselves and consequently there is no necessity of Pope or Councels for what need any more then Infallibility If they say he cannot then an Infallible guide judge and interpreter is necessary to Tradition as well as to Scripture and without this Tradition cannot make us Infallible and consequently if it be doubtfull and disputable who this Judge is it must be also doubtfull whether the Tradition be right and therefore Tradition cannot make me Infallible It is an audacity beyond parallel that they who make it so materiall as that they assert we have no certainty in our Faith for want of a decider of points of Doctrine and make no scruple of sending us to Hell for want of such a Decider should say this amongst themselves is not materiall for as to use and benefit it is all one to have no decider of controversies and not to be agreed who it is according to that known maxime of the Lawyers Idem est non apparere non esse As for the other points between the Jesuites and Dominicans how materiall they are we will take their own judgments If we may believe either one or other of them the points are of great moment If you aske the Jansenists or Dominicans their opinion of the Jesuiticall Doctrine they tell you that it is the very poison of the Pelagian Heresy yea it is worse then Pelagianisme that they are contemners of Grace such as rob God of his honour taking halfe of it to themselves that it is here disputed Whether God alone be God or whether the will of man be a kind of inferiour yet in part an Independent Deity These are M r Whites words in his Sonus Buccinae quaest Theolog. in Epis in parag 7. And for the Jesuites they are not one jot behind hand with them in their censure of the Dominican Doctrine which say the Jesuites brings back the stoicall paradox robs God of the Glory of his goodnesse makes God a lyer and the Author of sinne and yet when we tell them of these divisions the breach is presently healed these savages are grown tame their differences triviall and onely some School niceties wherein Faith is not concerned And now both Stoicks and Pelagians are grown Orthodox and the grace glory soveraignty and holinesse of God are matters but of small concernment and so it seems they are to them else they durst not so shamelesly dally with them But it is usuall with them to make the greatest points of Faith like Counters which in computation sometimes stand for pounds sometimes for pence as interest and occasion require And it is worth Observation These very points of difference when they fall out among Protestants between Calvin and Arminius they are represented by our Adversaries as very materiall and weighty differences but when they come to their share they are of no moment 2. It may be said Tradition may deceive some of the Romanists but not all Now it is the Church which is said to be Infallible not particular Doctors For Answer let it be remembred that I am not now speaking of the deception of some few private Doctors but the points alledged are controverted amongst as learned and devout men as they call Devotion as ever the Church of Rome had here is Order against Order University against University Nation against Nation all of them pretending Tradition for their contrary opinions with greatest confidence and eagernesse Premising this I Answer That Tradition which hath deceived thousands of the best and Learnedst Romanists may deceive ten thousand That which deceives the Jesuites in some points may deceive the Dominicans in others the Franciscans in others If it deceive the French Papists in some points it may deceive the Italians in others and so is not Infallible in any Or else what bounds will these men set to the Infallibility of Tradition Will they say Tradition is only Infallible in France and those of the same perswasion who plead Tradition for the Supremacy of the Councell above
as the age before the reformation of Religion was and diverse others wherein learned men were thought to be Conjurers and reading of Greek was counted as hard as the quadrating of a Circle and skill in the learned languages made a man half an heretick and this all records are full of I think I need say no more to prove the firsâ— branch viz. That it was possible for some ages or the major part of them to mistake the mind of their Predecessors in matters of Religion But I must not omit Mr. Whites animadversion upon this consideration which he cals a ridiculous cavill and a slander so palpably absurd that he can scarce perswade himself to think they that use it are not rather blinded with malice thâ—n ignorance You will easily judg his reason runs low because his passion flies so high and what is the reason of this clamor why saith he The Protestants acknowledge the doctrines of the Romanâ— Church which thâ—y call errors were already flourishing some hundreds of years before these times of Ignorance Apolog for Tradition Encounter 1. Shall I return Mr. White his own language What shall I ascribe this intolerable mistake to shall I attribute it to his ignorance I cannot tell how to do so to one of his parts and reading Dare he say that all the present doctrines of the Church of Rome were flourishing some hundreds of years before the tenth age whose ignorance I have represented and proved Or if he say and think so yet dare he say the Protestants are of this mind if he ever looked into any Protestant Author Is it not evident to the whole world that the Protestants do both universally deny and solidly disprove this audacious assertion and evidently prove even by the suffrages of learned Papists the far later novelty of many of their errors Shall I then ascribe it to his malice I am loth to do so although none more frequently guilty of that crime then they that most boldly charge it upon others One may by this such like passages imagine how vain a thing it is to expect sincerity and honesty from these men in the handling of controversies when such a one as Mr. White a person of more repute for candour and ingenuity then most of their writers shall not fear to assert in Print in the face of all the Protestant world That the Protâ—stants do boldly acknowledg the Romane â—hurch hath had universal Tradition for the whole body of its faith ever since S. Gregories dayes which is now a thousand years then which nothing can be said more notoriously false and monstrously absurd But againe suppose the age most famous for its ignorance were after S. Gregories dayes who knows not that is not a meer stranger to all Antiquity and Ecclesiastical History that there was in some ages before S. Gregory at least among the generality of Christians and many Ministers so much ignorance as might easily betray them to mistakes in several doctrines and pretended Traditions And finally if all he aims at were granted it signifies not much and cannot pretend to prove any more then this That in the first ages errors did not creep in at that door which may be granted without any considerable prejudice to the Protestant assertioÌ„ since in other ages most of their great errors might come in that way and in all ages they might come in several other wayes § 20. The second Branch is this That as some ages might mistake the doctrines of their Fathers so they might knowingly deliver to their posterity not the doctrine they received from their Ancestors but some other And of this many reasons may be given but I shall confine my self to three § 21. 1. It might be from Gods just judgment giving men up to believe what was false viz. That such doctrines did come from the Apostles by their Ancestors which indeed did not Nay what these men would needs perswade us was impossiible the H. Ghost hath assured us is certain and future 2 Thes. 2.10 11 12. Because they receivâ—d not the truth in the love of it God shall send strong delusions that they should believe a lye a place more consiâ—erable because it is particularly levelled at the Romish faction as might be evidently shewed if it were not extravagant from my present businesse That the character here described suit with the quality of divers ages forementioned viz. that they were such as did not receive the truth in the love of it that they had pleasure in unrighteousnesse he that reviews what hath been here said will find no cause to doubt and therefore that the judgment here denounced should be inflicted upon them is no more then what might be expected from the faithfulnesse of God and the usual course of his providence And if they might believe other lyes of greater importance and more dangerous consequence why might they not believe such a lye as this viz. That a doctrine came from the Apostles which indeed did not And because the generality of the forementioned ages the Clergy and Popes not excepted were apparently guilty of the sins here deciphered and consequently obnoxious to the judgment here predicted therefore it is intolerable impudence to assert that those men were infallibly gâ—ided into all truth whom that God who cannot lye hath threatned to give up to believe lyes of which this is not the least considerable and dreadful to believe such persons to be infallible § 22. 2. The greatest part of the Church in one age might knowingly recede from the doctrine of their immediate Ancestors and deliver another doctrine to their posterity because they might believe that the Chuâ—ches and Fathers of the next foregoing age might fall into some errors for that which is actually believed by Protestants now might possibly be believed by the Fathers then Ab esse ad posse valet argumâ—ntum And this is sufficient for the answer of this argument and the defence of our cause but ex abundanti I adde That de facto this was the faith of the greatest part of the Church and writers in some ages as I have already shewed out of undeniable testimonies To which I shall only adde 2 or 3 passages out of Cyprian by which the Reader may evidently discern how little weight was then laid upon that which is now said to be infallible Tradition and the testimony of the present Church Tradition indeed was the plea urged by the Bishop of Rome against Cyprian and the African Bishops now mark what the reply is Two things Cyprian answers 1. That thâ—y of Rome did not observe all antient Traditions and this saith he appears from their opinion about Easter which by the way discovers the vanity of that supposition which they lay as a basis of the present position viz. That the Church of Rome delivers nothing but what she professeth to have received from her Ancestors 2. He answers That this was but a humane Tradition and therefore not
infallible And it is considerable that he writes thus to the Pope by which we may sufficiently understand what was Cyprian's judgment and the faith of that age concerning the infallibility of Tradition as also of the Pope and Church of Rome And conformable to Cyprians was the decision of the whole Councel of Carthage When truth is manifâ—st say they let custome yield to truth and although hitherto none did baptize Hereticks in the Church now let them begin to baptize them And in another place Cyprian speaking of the custome of mixing wine and water in the Sacrament hath these words Nor should any one think that the custome of some is to be followed for we are to enquire whom they followed for onely Christ is to be followed and he addes that we are not to râ—gard what others have done before us but what Christ who is before all first did for we must not follow mens customes but Gods Truth And in another place he positively asserts that when any thing is out of order the onely way to be satisfied is to go to the fountaine to the head and originall of Divine Tradition to Evangelicall and Apostolicall Tradition From all which it undeniably followes that Cyprian and his brethren did not judge the Tradition of the next preceding Age Infallible nor the Testimony of the present Church sufficient as these Gentlemen now do and consequently thought it might introduce opinions contrary to what they received from their Ancestors when by these allegations it appeares as plainly as if it were written with a Sun beame they judged it lyable to mistakes and errours and this is the very Doctrine of the Protestants § 23. 3. There might be an agreement and designe amongst many persons and eminent members of the Church to corrupt the Doctrine received from their Ancestors for their wordly interest and carnall ends of which almost all Ages afford us wofull and innumerable instances With the Readers leave I will exemplify this Proposition in a notorious instance in a Doctrine of great concernment which is the prora puppis The foundation stone and corner stone of the Romish Religion and if you will take Bellarmines word necessary to Salvation I meane the Popes Supremacy I beg the Readers pardon if I do a little more largely insist upon it then my manner is because the story is remarkable and strikes at the root of this novel conceit concerning the impossibility of a wilfull deception Mr White tels us the Church cannot be deceived in Tradition and especially the Church and Bishop of Rome who by the consent of all the Papists have been the most faithfull conservators of Tradition The Papists generally agree that they have an authentick and universall Tradition on the behalfe of the Popes Supremacy of which the right of appeales is a principall branch and the greatest evidence And this Tradition say they came to them from the Apostles by the Fathers of all Ages successively Well then to come to the story In the year 417 There was a famous Councell at Carthagâ— owned by Bellarmine and Baronius by the name of The generall Councell of Carthage consisting of 217 Bishops among whom was Alypius and St Austin Zosimus being Pope at that time sends his Legates thither and pretends a right of appeales from the African Churches to himself at Rome and to make this good he alledgeth for it some of the Canons of the Councell of Nice for he ascends no higher the more silly wretch he for if the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome be true he might have brought that which was more evident and irresistible then 100 Canons of Nice which now all the World rings of and all their discourses are full fraught with viz. The institution of Christ the supremacy of Peter devolved upon him the universall Tradition of the whole Church But of all these here is altum silentium for you must conceive these were Arguments laid up in store like the Treasure in S t Markâ— Chest for some high future exigencies or wisely reserved for a season wherein the World should wonder after the beast and be most capable of such impressions Well The Fathers consider his Petition for as yet the Popes were not masters of their Art and had not Learned their lesson of volumus statuimus mandamus and marvell at the proposition and tell Faustus and his collegues that they find no such Canons in their Copies of the Councell of Nice as were alledged and had indeed been forged at Rome as is acknowledged even by that Popish Councel of Florence Hereupon a motion is made and agreed that they send forthwith to the Bishops of Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch for their Copies of the Acts of that Councell A sawcy trick it was not onely â—o deny the Popes Infallibility but also to question his verity when they receive them they finde that the pretended Canons were not there and so conclude there should be no appeales from Africa to the Roman Bishop A strange boldnesse in this Councell to reverse the institution of Christ and usurpe upon S t Peters jurisdiction and provoke him upon whom they wholly depended for the Confirmation of all their decrees it is great pitty they were not better advised Well you may imagine what sad tidings this was at Rome You will desire to know what their Answer is why then for your satisfaction I pray you take notice They have a Tradition at Rome it is part of that inscription upon Seth's Pillars erected before the flood which Iosephus mentions the Counterpart whereof they have in the Vatican that when ever his Holinesse is gravel'd with an hard Argument and can do no good about the premises it may be lawful for him or others pleading for him to deny the Conclusion Bellarmines words are expresse The African Fathers were deceived through ignorance What pitty was it that Bellarmine was not their Secretary to informe them better The African Fathers did rashly and departâ—d from the example and obedience of their Ancestors saith Stapleton q d. they were naughty boyes and deserved to be whipped into better manners The more inexcusable the Pope that did not thunder them into order by his Excommunications But why do I mention these Behold a greater then Bellarmine or Stapleton is here Enter Boniface the second who thus VVrites in his Epistle to Eulabius an Epistle owned for his by Pighius Lindanus Sanderus Turrianus Alanus Copus and Harding though Bellarmine being urged with it pretends it is suspected but dare not say it is forged Aurelius with his collegues whereof S t Austin was one by the instigation of the Devill began proudly to exalt themselves against the Church of Rome So it seemes these Fathers were wickedly resolved against the Supremacy of the Pope with a Flectere si nâ—queo superos Acheronta movebo and they whom so many of the Learned Papists affirme to be infallibly guided by the
Spirit of God his Holinesse declares they were acted by the Divell By this time I hope the Reader that is not wholly blinde may see the vanity of this Argument from Tradition Catholick Tradition is pretended at Rome for the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility This Tradition with othâ—rs comes to them by uninterrupted succession from the Apostles wherein by the Argument I have now in consideration it was impossible for the Bishops or Governours of the Church either to misunderstand the mind of their Ancestors or wittingly to deceive their posterity That which they make impossible to be done the instance proposed discovers to be certainly done it being impossible that the Fathers should make such a decree if they had not either been ignorant of such a Tradition as Bellarmine chargeth them or wilfully and maliciously opposed it as the Pope accuseth them And forasmuch as these Fathers pleaded a Tradition directly contrary to that which the Romanists pretend viz. That there should be no appeales to Rome it irresistibly followes that Tradition hath deceived either them formerly or the Papists at this day I shall dismisse this Answer with a remarke upon the whole matter that if the Pope and Popish faction durst for their own base and ambitious designes use such palpable forgery in a time of so much light when they had so many diligent observers and potent opposers I leave to the prudent Reader to imagine what forgeries might be expected from them in after Ages in times of ignorance and carelesnesse when all the VVorld was in a deep sleep and the Pope onely vigilant to improve all occasions to his advantage and had allmost all Princes and People in the Christian VVorld at his Devotion And thus much may serve for the seventh Answer wherein I have been the more prolix because it strikes at the root of the Argument not onely proves the possibility of deceit in Traditions but also discovers the wayes and modes by which mistakes may be committed and falshoods introduced under pretence of Tradition I will adde but one thing more § 24. Answ. 8. and last If the Tradition pretended give us infallible assurance that the Doctrines of the present Church of Rome are come from the Apostles then the Romish Church holdeth no Doctrines but such as they have received from the Apostles But the Romish Church holdeth many Doctrines which she hath not received from the Apostles This I might take for granted having allready proved it in that fundamentall Tradition of the Church of Rome concerning the Popes Supremacy I might refer the Reader to what I have reported out of diverse Popish Authors of greatest note concerning their acknowledgments of their departing from the Doctrines and practises of the Fathers and having said so much there I shall content my self with mentioning two particulars The first shall be that which hath been more largeâ—y discussed Chap. 3. whither I refer the Reader about the Blessed Virgins conception in Originall sin The present Doctrine of the Romish Church or at least of the far greatest part and most eminent members of it is for her immaculate conception as I shewed before from the decrees of Popes and Universities c. and innumerable of their most approved Authors How much this opinion was favoured by the Councell of Trent sufficiently appeares from their Decree about Originall sin though cunningly and doubtfully delivered as the Devils Oracles used to be in which Decree they declare that they would not comprehend the Blessed Virgin The sence of which decree according to that favourable glosse which M r White puts upon it was this That the Councell did judge both opinions probable Now from the businesse thus stated I gather two undeniable Arguments to prove the Fallibility of Tradition 1. Tradition told the Antient Fathers that one of those opinions was positively false viz. That the Blessed Virgin was not conceived in sin Tradition told the Councell of Trent that either of these opinions was probably true which is an implicit contradiction 2. Seeing in this hot contest not yet ended between the different factions of the Romanists in this point both sides pretend Tradition for their contrary opinions and both agree in this to hold nothing but what they have by Tradition Therefore Tradition must needs have deceived one of them Ergo it is not Infallible To which I shall adde that the Doctrine which the most and learnedest of them hold viz. of immaculate conception was not received by Tradition from the Fathers as I have shewed from the ingenuous confessions of their most Learned VVriters to which I may adde those words of Melchior Canus That the Blessâ—d Virgin was wholly free from Originall sinne cannot be proved out of Scripture according to its genuine meaning But that is but a small matter to give the Scripture a goeby let us see what he saith of the Golden rule of Tradition therefore he addes presently Nor can it be said that it came into the Church by Apostolicall Tradition for those Traditions could not come to our hands by any other then those Bishops and holy Authors which succeded the Apostles But it is evident that those antient writers did not receive it from their Ancestors for then they would have faithfully delivered it to their posterity And yet if M r Whites Discourse be solid in spight of your eyes you shall believe not onely that no Doctrine is delivered by the Church of Rome which hath not been conveyed to their hands from Fathers to Children even from the Apostles dayes but that it was impossible any other Doctrine should creep in The other instance is that of the Canon of the Scripture imposed upon us by the Church of Rome which they say is another Apostolicall Tradition and yet their own prime Authors confesse the most Antient Fathers to be on our side at least as to severall of their Apocryphall Books Sixtus Senensis gives them to us in generall The Antient Fathers did hold the controverted Books to be un-canonicall Bellarmine gives us Epiphanius Hilary Ruffinus and Hierom Canus gives us Origâ—n Damascen Athanasius and Melito a famous and antient Father who flourished Anno 170 and was a man of great judgment and venâ—rable Sanctity saith Sixtus Senensis who purposely travelled to the Eastern Churches where the Apostles had their principall residence and employment to learne out the true Canon and brings a non est in ventus for the Apocryphall Books and returnes with the very same Canon which we own so that in him we have the Testimonies of all those flourishing and Apostolicall Churches to which Tertullian directs us for the discovery of the Truth Nor to this day have the Papists cited one Father or Councell within the compasse of 600 I think I may say a 1000 years who did receive their whole Canon and consequently none of them for ought appeares in their Writings knew any thing of this pretended Tradition but as it seemes by the story
arguments taken from the thing it self 2. By bringing the object nearer to the eye which was at too great a distance whereby it appears in its due proportion 3. By curing the infirmity of the eye Thus the Physitian that removes the distemper of the eye and restores it to its native strength and vigor may be said to convince him Now to apply this The Spirit of God doth not convince a man of the Divinity of the Scriptures the first way as a Philosopher but the last way as a Physitian not by an elucidation of the object by arguments but by the elevation of the faculty or by anointing the eyes with eye-salve and curing its infirmity To which the second may be added viz That the Spirit of God brings his word and the characters of its Divinity impress'd upon it nearer unto us and writes it in the heart according to Gods promise to that purpose and so we see the object better by reason of its approximation to us Or as it is with a Philosopher when he reads a book written in the defence of some Position as suppose the doctrine of the circulation of the Bloud possibly his mind may be discomposed and his braines by reason of some peccant humor much distemper'd and in this case he reads the book but is not at all satisfied by it afterwards Physical means are applyed whereby the brain is restored to its native constitution and purged from those distempers whereby it was clouded now he returns to the book again and reads it over anew and yields himselve captive to the opinion You see here is no change of the old arguments nor any addition of new ones onely the impediments which were in the faculty or the organ are removed Just so it is in the matter now in controversy The Spirit of God doth not prove the Scripture to me by arguments which I never had before but by the illumination of my mind to apprehend the arguments which I did not apprehend before It is with men as it was with Hagar Gen. 21. there was a Well of water but she saw it not till God open'd her eyes vers 19. There is a self-evidencing light in the Scriptures onely the Spirit of God cures that blindness of mind whereby the Devil hindred the world from discerning it Thus the Spirit convinced the Jews of the Truth of the Gospel by removing the vaile which was upon their hearts in the reading of Moses 2 Cor. 3.15 16. And so God convinced his elect among the Heathens not by discovering any more arguments to them then he did to the reprobates among them for the same doctrine and arguments were preached to both alike but by opening their eyes to see what others saw not Act. 26.18 and by opening their hearts to receive what others would not receive as Act. 16.14 To conclude forasmuch as the testimony of the Spirit is not the Argument for which but onely the Instrument by which they believe and on the contrary the Testimony of Scripture is the proper argument for which they believe it is most evident that they work in several capacities and so we are fully discharged from that Circle which they causlesly charge us with and notwithstanding this objection the foundation of our Faith standeth sure This is the first particular § 13. The other particular concernes the Popish foundation for some of the Romanists finding themselves so wofully intangled in the business of Infallibility are grown sick of the notion Cressy the English Apostate in his Exomologesis confesseth That Infallibility is an unfortunate word combated by Mr. Chillingworth with too too great success that he could wish the word were forgotten or at least laid by these therefore tell us that if the Infallibility of the Church be denied yet a Papist hath sufficient ground for his Faith in the Churches authority in which he is obliged to acquiesce and whom he must hear in all things and this way some others go This I thought fit to mention that the world may see the complexion of a Romish conscience and the desperate shifts which the wretchednesse of their cause forceth them to But because the absurdity of this new fancy doth suâ luce constare I shall dismiss it with two remarks upon it 1. That it is disclaimed by the Romish Church and it were a frivolous thing to concern our selves in refuting all the wild fancies of their particular Doctors It is true Cressy saith No such word as Infallibility is to be found in â—ny Councel the good man had forgot the definition of the Councel of Basil wherein they call it a pernitious error to say that a Councel can erre the passage I cited before or else he meant to be witty for it is very true that non potest errare is not the same word with Infallibility though it be the same thing Nor do the Papists onely assert the Infallibility of their Church but generally acknowledge That without this their Faith would have no solid Foundation nor their Religion any certainty I shall not multiply instances in so known a thing you have many instances in one in that forementioned passage of the Councel of Basil That if once that pernitious error were admitted that general Councels may erre the whole Catholick Faith would tâ—tter And Bellarmine in a fore-quoted passage confesseth That it is a most unreasonable thing to require Christians to be finally subject to the judgment of that Church which is liable to error And therefore I need not cast away pretious time in confuting those particular fancies of some private Doctors which are directly repugnant unto the confessed opinion of the Pope and the Decree of a general Councel 2. This is so far from mending the matter that it makes it far worse for he that saith I am bound to believe the Church in all things because she is infallible in all things speaks that which is coherent in it self and the consequence is agreeable to reason the onely fault lies in the Antecedent But he that saith I am bound to believe the Church in all things though she may erre in many things and none knows how many throws himself and me upon such desperate Rocks as none but a mad-man would run upon When Bellarmine delivers that desperate doctrine That if the Pope should command us to sin we are bound to obey him and when others have said That if the Pope should lead thousands to Hell we must not reprove him their followers mollifie the harshnesse of those assertions with this favourable construction That the Propositions are onely Hypothetical depending upon such conditions as by reason of the promise of Infallibility can never be fulfilled for say they the Pope cannot command sin and cannot lead men to Hell and this if true were a plausible evasion But to tell me that if the Pope or Church may erre yet I am bound to believe obey them in all things this is to make that my
Discourse that there are so great and many and pregnant evidences that no man can deny without forfeiture of his reason discretion and modesty and all the principles of humanity 3 If this argument be cogent and besides the certitudo objecti the infallibility of the thing there be required a certitudo subjecti the infallibility of the Person to be satisfied which here is contended for then not onely the Pope and Councel but every particular Christian must have this gift of Infallibility an ampliation of the priviledge which his great Ghostly Father will never allow for mark it that is the thing which the Catholick Gentleman urged and where with my Captain was gravelled He asked me saith he whether I was sure and certain and whether I was so certainly and infallibly assured of the truth of Christian Religion or else said he as to me Christianity was but probably true else it is possible you may be mistaken and at this rate do they use to talke to such as they desire to Proselyte By all which it appears that the infallibility must be particular in every individual person that would be satisfied himself or would convince another of the Truth of Christianity I am not ignorant of a shuffling artifice which this Catholick used in confounding two things together necessary to be distinguished as no wonder to meet with confusion of language in the builders of Babel whilst he too cunning for twenty of these Novices states the businesse thus He asked me saith my Author whether I was so certain that it was not possible for me or for those who taught me Christianity to be mistaken in this p. 5. Here lies the mystery of Iniquity and here was the blind cast before the eyes of this unequal combatant which he had neither wit enough to understand himself nor humility enough to learn from others But I shall endeavour to bring this Fox out of his hole by this Argument Either a subjective certainty or infallibility of belief of the Truth of Christianity is necessary for particular Christians or it is not if it be not necessary then in vain do Papists urge this argument and boast so much of it as unanswerable whereas now they give it up and confess probable evidence sufficient for particular Christians and Infallibility necessary onely for the Pope or Councel and so the poor Captain hath lost his Infallibility and had best think of his old military word As you were for here the cord is cut asunder by which he was drawn over to Rome for now the Protestant stands upon even ground at least with the Papist For suppose for once contradictions were reconciled and the Popish opinion of the Churches infallible authority were true in it self certitudine objecti so also is the Protestants opinion concerning the Infallible authority of the Scripture true in it self and certitudine objecti as the most desperate Papists do grant Stapleton and Bellarmine and all The Scripture say they is Divine and true and certain in it self but not quo ad nos therefore hitherto there is no difference now to proceed If it be a sufficient foundation for a Romanist that he hath such probable evidence of this doctrine of the Churches Infallibility why should it not be as sufficient a foundation for a Protestant that he hath such nay infinitely more probable evidence of the doctrine of the Scriptures Infallibility since the evidence of the latter is granted by the Papists themselves and the evidence of the former not onely denyed and disputed down by the Protestants but also questioned by their own Authors as I have shewed at large This question I challenge the whole club of Jesuites which happily contributed to this Epistle solidly to answer But now on the other side if they will retire to the other part of the Dilemma and say That a subjective Infallibility is necessary for particular Christians then every Papist in England not onely hath a Pope in his belly but hath got his Crown also upon his head and communicates with him in that great Prerogative of Infallibility and truly I must do them justice without doubt every Papist in England is as infallible as the Pope himself 4. But if nothing will satisfie but Infallibility let us a little enquire into it what it is and where it lies what infallible and irresistible demonstrations the Romanists have for this grand principle for which a man must put out the eye of his reason and forsake the conduct of the Scripture and depose the holy Spirit from his Royalty Certainly it is madnesse in the highest to put us off with conjectures and suppositions and imagined probabilities in so important an affaire upon which all the rest depends and to which all must strike saile so then the question will be this whether this pretence of Infallibility be not a gratis dictum a crude and bold assertion or rather whether it be evidenced with such strength and clearnesse as to compell the assent of all reasonable persons And here I shall do the Captain and the Popish cause this right as to consider it in its most advantageous notion If there be any Infallibility most certain it is that it is in the Pope and general Councel together which is the most plausible and received opinion of the Church of Rome And here it is that our English Apostate Mr. Cressy in the last Edition of his Book centers and here also the Captain casts anchor The Prelates of the Church saith he though as men they are fallible yet when assembled in a general Councel with their supreme Pastor they are still made infallible by the assistance of the same holy Ghost who was as well promised to them as to the Apostles Now for this notion I might refer the Captaine and the Reader to what I have said and proved in the foregoing â—reatise which when he or any of his Fathers shall solidly answer it will be time enough then to consider it But because this is the sole foundation upon which the Papists build all the rest and Mr. Cressy adjures all Protestants that omitting or deferring all particular disputes with Catholicks they would examine this point Sect. 2. Chap. 19. and because I am resolved by God's help to search and try where the strength of this Sampson lies if there be any in it I shall a little farther consider it and if I find his arguments proportionable to his confidence and that he is as solid in proving it as he is daring in asserting it surely he will do the Christian world an inexpressible favour and infinitely oblige all Protestants and he will find us far from the madnesse of fighting against God and our own soules But since all is not Gold that glisters and our Savour hath commanded us to try the Spirits and to prove all things and not to believe men saying Lo here is Christ or Lo there is Christ they must not take it amisse if after such evident
discovery of their manifold impostures we dare not take all things upon trust from them nor swallow down so great a morsell without chewing and enquiring into it It seems to be granted on both sides and the nature of the thing requires it That this being a grand principle should have the greatest evidence which things of that nature can bear and such indeed they pretend for it So Mr. Crâ—ssy tells us That as this controversy was of infinite importance Providence hath suitably furnished us with means of satisfaction infinitely more copious evident and powerful then in any other besides Exomolog â—â—ct 2. chap. 18. And again That which I undertake to make evident to J. P. is that the Church speaking by a general Councel confirmed by the Pope is an infallible guide and that with more evidence then he can produce for the Scripture it self Appendix to his Exomologesis chap. 4. num 9. It is well that Saying and Doing are two things or else the Protestant cause had been quite in the dust If Mr. Cressy make this good his worke is done if not it will concern him to remember from whence he is fallen and repent of his Apostacy So now we are come to the point whether the Churches Infallibility be so evidently proved as they pretend They affirm and I deny it and the grounds of my denial have been a principal part of the foregoing discourse I shall forbear repetitions as much as is possible and shall here only give two arguments to shew That this pretended evidence of of the doctrine of Infallibility is but one of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a piece of their usual artifice to give us confident affirmations in stead of evident proofs My first reason is taken from the inevidence of this doctrine to themselves and many of their own Brethren What a desperate assertion is it to ascribe greater evidence to the Churches Infallibility which is denied by many of their own Authors then to the Divinity of the Scripture whose evidence is so great that both Protestants and Papists universally acquiesâ—e in it I have already represented the differences and dissatisfactions of their own Authors in this supposed to be most evident point And certainly it can be nothing but want of evidence which hinders the assent of those whose interest so powerfully obligeth them to it Particularly I have shewed the vanity of that pretence of agreement between their divided Authors in the Infallibility of the Pope and a Councel together and that the several Partisans howsoever they put them both together in name and shew yet in truth they ascribe the Infallibility entirely to the one or other either to the Pope alone or to the Councel alone and to the other onely in dependance thereupon Infallibility is not partly in the Pope and partly in the Councel but wholly in the Pope say the Jesuites and from him communicated to the Councel who are infallible no farther then they have his consent and concurrence And on the other side it is wholly in the Councel and in the Pope onely by participation from them say the Gallican Papists and Anti-Jesuitical party and of this mind were those Councels that undertook the censuring and removing of Popes themselves And consequently the Infallibity of Councels not being evident to the Jesuites and their party and the Infallibility of the Pope not being evident to the French Papists and many others it follows that there is no evidence at all in either nor in both together their own Authors being Judges For if I can prove to a Jesuite That the Pope in Cathedrâ is not infallible he will and by his principles must grant That the addition of a Councel doth not make him infallible And if I can prove to a French Papist that a general Councel rightly called and constituted is not infallible he will and by his principles must acknowledge the Pope's consent cannot render them infallible so that indeed if either be disproved both are disproved Nor doth any thing render this evidence more darke and the Romish cause more contemptible then the consideration of those poor Fig. leaves wherewith Mr. Cressy seeks to cover his Mothers nakednesse in this particular For when Mr. Chillingworth urged this very argument against their infallible Judge that themselves were divided about it who it was whether Pope or Councel c. all that Mr. Cressy answers ad rem is this That these different Authors of theirs are all agreed in that decision of the Councel of Trent It belongs to the Church to be Iudg of the true sense of the holy Scripture an answer so desperate that it shews that man who could acquiesce in it to be if not a Papist by interest rather then Conscience yet at least one given up by God to those strong delusions threatned to the Followers of Antichrist 2 Thes. 2. among whom he hath now listed himself And doth this indeed end the differences doth he offer that for an Answer which his Adversary before had acknowledged and is this all the relief they have towards the ending of all differences and the satisfaction of their consciences When Alexander was asked To whom he would leave his Empire and he answered To the best since he did not at all determine who this best was I think no man in his wits will say this was a likely or effectual way to end the differences among the Graecians It is true the Captains were all agreed in genere that it should be left to the best but some thought one best others another and so the dissensions continued among them and were not at all healed by that general agreement In the very same manner although they be agreed in the general that the Church must judge so long as they continue at variance and have implacable feuds about it who this Church is they are not one whit nearer agreement Suppose in former times a question arose between the Senate and Emperor of Rome which was the chief power and supreme Judge of all Civill controversies and the Subjects of the Empire were highly divided about it some ascribing the supremacy to the Emperor others to the Senate would Mr. Cressy say the Romanes are agreed because they were all united in this That the supreme power was to end all their controversies Suppose 3 or 4 Competitors to a Kingdome and the inhabitants thereof severally divided about them will any man on this side Bedlam say they are all agreed because agreed in this generall that the King must rule or must not every man acknowledg that this agreement signifies but little so long as they differ about this which is that King And is not this the very case of the Church of Rome They are all agreed forsooth not one dissenting voice among them but how why they are agreed that the Church is the judge But Mr. Cressy the great difference is behind who is the Church the Pope say some a Councel say others a
they too such as are universally esteemed good Catholicks saith Mr Cressy Append. chap 4. num 7. Therefore how durst he say Anathema's are evidences of Infallibility The third Argument is taken from the promises of Infallibility made to this Church This Doctrine of the Churches Infallibility is the most expresse in Scriptures saith Mr Cressy Sect. 2. chap. 26. n. 5. I suppose he told us so upon the same account that the old Painter wrot under his picture This is a Lion for fear some should have mistaken it for a Bull for truely if he had not said it was most expresse there any rationall man would have sworn the contrary I confesse I thought Mr Cressy as well as Mr White and other Traditionall Doctors had been sick of those pretences and sufficiently discovered the impertinency of them to their purpose and really when I read over the Scriptures quoted by him to prove this Infallibility and consider how insignificant they are to his businesse and how plainly and fully and frequently they have been answered by Protestants which he doth not here reply to I must not dissemble that I find a great difficulty to believe his conscience could be satisfied therewith sure I am whilest he was a Protestant if he understood himselfe he would have entertained such proofs with contempt I dare confidently say that most of the Scripture-allegations produced by the Quakers in defence of their absurd and ridiculous opinions are every whit as pertinent as any that are here cited It is true they are materiall to that purpose to which they are cited by the Fathers viz. to prove the Churches perpetuity and just Authority but for Infallibility how far the Fathers were from believing that I hope hath been made sufficiently evident from the foregoing Discourse where also particular Answers have been given to their Arguments from these places which when they solidly vindicate it will deserve and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall have our consideration At present I shall content my self with this generall animadversion Those Scripturall promises pretended for the Churches Infallibility either they do of themselves without the Churches sence and exposition evidently and solidly prove the point they are brought for or they do not if they say they do then other passages of Scripture undoubtedly farre more plaine and positive for diverse doctrines rejected by the Papists do of themselves without the Churches sence and exposition prove those points they are brought for and so Scripture may decide controversies if they say not then the Churches Infallibility must be supposed before it can be proved from those Texâ—s which is I confesse agreeable to the Roman-Catholick way of Disputation and fit for them that cannot endure reason should be judge but I am sure it will never satisfie any man that hath any care of his conscience or Salvation But I can tell the Reader good newes and that which is strange too among Romanists who use to confute Protestants by the meer naming of those Texts that have been substantially vindicated an hundred times Mr Cressy hath one Chapter entitled the Validity of such Texts c. so it is called but I doubt it was the Printers mistake for invalidity as will appeare upon perusall He offers but one Argument for proofe of this Capitall Assertion upon which all the Papacy depends and it is this The Antient Fathers do usually Argue against their Hereticks and Schismaticks from those promises that Christs Church should continue for ever and that the gates of Hell should not prevaile against her Now saith he if these promises of Christ be not Infallible and absolute and that Church Visible What then then woe to the poor Fathers then the Writings of these Fathers will prove to be the most foolish impertinent jugling yea blasphemous and pâ—rnicious discourses that ever were So Cressy Sect. 2. chap 28. that is to say if we take the notion out of this odious dresse they used fallacious Arguments Very good And is this that that satisfied Mr Cressy's conscience O the modesty of the man you see a little thing satisfies him but if he will cheat himselfe let him not think to cheat us with such ridiculous Arguments 1. The utmost of what would follow is that the Antient Fathers whose Writings are extant were Fallible and liable to mistakes A Proposition which I have formerly proved and the Popish Doctors themselves agree with us therein I suppose Mr Cressy will not dissent 2. If upon every impertinent and unconcluding Argument produced by Fathers Councels or Popes against supposed Hereticks I should make this inference that they were all Juglers Blasphemers c. Mr Cressy would think it a very harsh censure When their great Lords and Masters argue at this rate as he knowes who did Arise Peter kill and eat and here are two Swords Ergo the Pope hath civill and Spirituall power over all men They that are in the flesh cannot please God E. Priests should not be married God made man after his own Image E. Images are lawfull Will Mr Cressy now say these were all Juglers Blasphemers c and their Writings the most foolish impertinent pernicious Discourses that ever were either then let Mr Cressy qualify his censure there or apply it here 3. If the Fathers were supposed infallible yet they might use impertinent and unconcluding Arguments You must remember our Masters the Romanists while they assert the infallibility of the Pope and Councell they cautiously distinguish between the conclusion and the mediums or Arguments to prove it I will onely mind you of him whom they all so highly approve and applaud i. e. Stapleton whom Mr Cressy followes and the rest of them who as you saw limits this infallibility to the Conclusion not to the premises or Argument So if the Fathers were infallible as you see and the Papists confesse they are not yet this being onely in the Conclusion it will not at all secure them from impertinency and error in their Arguments or mediums used to confirme the conclusions which is all that this Discourse of Mr Crâ—ssy pretends to prove So now judge whether the Printer was not a knave for sure the Author could not be so since he is a Benedictine to set in the front of this Argument The Validity c. But you know non omnia possumus omnes Peradventure M r Cressy is a better respondent then opponent and though he cannot at all prove his own assertion yet he will at least solidly Answer his Adversaries But alas here he is so jejune that it moves my pitty for when Mr Chillingworth pleaded that these promises were onely conditionall if Christians should make use of Gods means The Church should continue Hereto saith Cressy the answer is very ready Oh the benefit of a ready wit when attended with an easy Conscience 1. There is no warrant from any circumstance in those Texts for such a new interpretation I will not ingage in that Argument onely I will referre
these things and could bear with all this and a thousand more such infirmities in the Popes was so squeamish that he was not able to endure the scandals of Luther and Calvin And another motive he addes not at all inferior to the former viz. The bloudy commotions of the Calvinists and the sanguinary Lawes and cruel execution of them upon Catholick Priests in England And this was a great offence to him who was well acquainted with the Massacres of France of Germany and the Low countries and the English too in Popish times who knew the history of the barbarous cruelties of the Inquisition torments who himself had been an eye and earâ—witnesse of the inhumane butcheries of above one hundred thousand innocent Protestants in Ireland But all this did not move the good man at all he could swallow Camels but a Gnat hath choaked him O Divelish Hypocrisy But God will not be mocked and I hope men that have any sense will not easily be deceaved to believe the sincerity of that mans Conversion which is brought on by such ridiculous Motives But to return For a close of this great point I shall leave three things to the consideration of any discreet and conscientitious Reader and particularly of our two English Apostates with whom I am now treating if they have any sense of Eternity or Conscience left 1. That the principal Texts of Scripture and arguments urged by them and others for the infallibility of the Pope and Councel together either prove nothing to their purpose or prove more then they would have or dare assert i. e. they prove either the Pope or Councel to be infallible by themselves and without any reference to the other and are accordingly pleaded by each party for their opinion As for instance Thou art Peter upon this rock c. I will give unto thee the keyes c. And Siâ— mon I have prayed that thy Faith fail not and the like If these Texts prove any Infallibility the prove they Infallibility of the Pope or St. Peter's Successor whether with or without a Councel So on the other side the Texts of Scripture pleaded for the Infallibility of Councels from what was said to or of all the Apostles Hâ— that heareth you heareth me It seemed good to the holy Ghost and us Where two or three are gathered together I am with you to the end of the world If these Texts prove any Infallibility they prove the Infallibility of all the Governours of the Church and Successors of the Apostles at least when they are assembled together without any special reference to the Pope who is but one of them And because it is sufficiently evident that these places do not prove the infallibility of those of whom they are acknowledged primarily and formally to speak which is so evident that we have thousands of the most learned and resolved Papists consenting to us herein as is before proved it is therefore a strange presumption to pretend these places cogent proofs of the infallibility of them of whom these Texts are confessed not to speak save onely by implication and consequently the infallibility of Pope and Councel together which is the chief retreat of the most subtile and cautious Papists is destitute of solid proof and an ungrounded assertion 2â— If all that these men say were granted that a general Councel confirmed by the Pope were the infallible Judge yet since there is now no such thing nor like to be as a general Councel in the Church of Rome but the Pope stands upon his own legs therefore the Church of Rome at this day is not infallible and hath no infallible Judge and no way to end their controversies nor any advantage above Protestants therein If they say the Pope hath the assistance and concurrence of general Councels in their writings and Decrees I answer The infallible Judge which they plead for must according to their principles be a living judge and therefore requires the existence of the Councel as well as of the Pope I would aske Mr. Cressy this question Is the Pope infallible in his exposition and application of the Decrees of Councels or no if he be then the Pope alone is infallible without a Councel which himself confesseth is a proposition so harsh that Protestants should not be urged to acknowledge it if he be not then they have no infallible judge at Rome at this time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Since the present Romanists have now no Anchor-hold but the Pope's Infallibility for general Councel there is none and by Mr. Cressy's argument if there be no Infallibility there is no Authority and therefore no Unity and therefore no Faith I shall desire the Reader to reflect upon the character of that person who is so boldly asserted the Supreme Infallible Judge of all controversies in Religion I will not take it from Protestants least they should be thought partial but as it is drawn by a Papist he too one non è multis one so eminent for learning and prudence and trustiness that he was imployed by the French Bishops to manage that great affaire against the Jesuits at Rome it is St. Amour in that famous known book his Journal concerning the Transactions atâ— Rome relating to the five Propositions controverted between the Molinists and Iansenests where it is left upon Record in perpetuam rei memoriam That when he sollicited the Pope Innocent the Tenth to decide that controversy and to that end presented a paper to him desiring him to read it the Pope saith my Author would not receive and read it because he said this would engage him further and oblige him to too great toyles as he knew the discussion of this matter required even of such as had applyed themselves to that study all their time but much more pains must it cost him then others because said he they are the Popes own words it is not my profession besides that I am old I have never studyed Divinity Part. 3. chap. 12. And yet this is the ground and pillar of Truth this is the prime subject of Infallibility the great Judge of all controversies to whom Scripture Reason Spirit all must vaile whose Decisions must be taken for the Oracles of God And the same Pope Innocent the Tenth tels this story of a predecessor of his Clement the 8. who saith he after he had caused this matter viz. the question between theÌ„ Iansenists and Iesuites to be debated in his presence for a long time by the most excellent men after he had studied them himself with very great care so that as he remembred some toook occasion thereby to say that Clement the 8. began very old to study Divinity yet he could not at last decide any thing therein but was fain to impose a perpetual silence upon both sides This is the man that must infallibly decide all controversies that could not decide this and we forâ—ooth must all venture our soules upon his unerring
argument by which I am convinced of the Truth of a Doctrine for I may be deceived by a false spirit under the Title of Gods and I am commanded to trie the Spirits and not to believe every Spirit but it is the instrument as I may so speak by which I am enabled to understand the weight and force of those Arguments which are recorded suppose in the Scriptures or rather to speak most properly reason is the instrument and Gods Spirit is the great helper and assistant by which that instrument is elevated and fitted to discerne those linearnents of Truth which God hath drawn in Scripture or elsewhere whence alone the Arguments for proof of the Truth are derived So now the state of the question is reduced to a narrow compasse and I shall lay it down in these Propositions 1. Supreme and Infallible judge upon earth we know none and I hope from what hath been said and proved at large it appeares that there is none at least the Pope and Councell and Church of Rome is none 2. An externall politicall judge in the Church we willingly acknowledge and reverently esteeme The true and rightfull Governors of the Church orderly Assembled and proceeding regularly in Councels whether lesser or larger are the externall judge whose decisions are to be highly valued whose orders are not rashly to be despised or contradicted yet three Cautions wee must interpose 1. That this Judge is not infallible but subject to error 2. That this Judge being subject to an higher Authority and tied to an higher rule if its decisions or commands be manifestly repugnant to that superior Authority and rule they are not to be received and obeyed 3. That this Judge is constituted by God in the Church not for the command of mens consciences but for the regulation of their actions and for the preservation of the peace of the Church which is not violated by mens inward and unknown sentiments but by their externall demeanor and sensible effects of them And therefore this is abundantly sufficient for the preservation of order and peace in the Church 3. Every mans own reason and conscience is judge for himselfe and for the guidance of his own actions State it in this manner and I know no hurt at all in making reason a Judge Christ himselfe when he Preached in the World he propounds the Articles of Faith to the reasons of his hearers and calls upon every one of them to judge so far as concerned his own apprehensions or actions Luke 12.57 Yea and why even of your selves judge you not what is right Christ no where commands his hearers blindly to submit to the decrees of the present judge their Church the high-Priest and Councill but calls upon them to judge for themselves to beware of the Leaven i.e. the false Doctrine of their Rulers Matth. 16.12 and which is more refers his own Doctrine to their searching which is an act of reason Ioh. 5.39 Search the Scriptures But alas this reason is imperfect and corrupt and dimsighted in matters of Faith therefore something farther is necessary Therefore Prop. 4. That reason may be a competent judge of matters of Faith It is necessary that it be assisted and elevated by the spirit of God whereby of the rationall he is made a Spirituall man and eo nomine a fit judge of such affaires 1 Cor. 2.15 He that is Spirituall Iudgeth all things As that a man may exactly see those Heavenly Bodies which are at a great distance from us it is necessary to look upon them thorough a Glasse without which a man could not discerne many of them So are the aides of Gods spirit to help our purblind reason which without these could not discerne things afarre off according to 2 Pet. 1 9. Prop. 5. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Infallible rule and ground and touchstone of Faith by which both Churches and all particular persons are to be regulated in their faith and manners from which all controversies of Faith are to be decided and judged to which all are perfectly subordinate by which all the opinions of men and decisions of Councels are to be examined and they that swerve from and are opposite to this rule are ipso facto null and void and so to be esteemed by all Christians I rather call it a rule then a judge because there is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the word the appellation of judge by common use being appropriated to persons but it is the voice and writing of our Soveraigne Lord and judg by which all inferior judges are to be guided in their decrees Propos. 6. Uniuersall Tradition rightly understood viz. the concurring testimony of all Churches and ages and persons in their Writing◠left us is of great use and force and is the Vehiculum or Channel by which that Scripture which alone is our rule is conveyed to us But here I must adde these two Cautions 1. Tradition though necessary to convey the rule to us yet is no part of the rule I must here distinguish between res tradita the thing delivered and traditio the Tradition or delivery of it If Tradition be understood in the former sence as the Papists understand it for certaine unscripturall Doctrines delivered by Tradition we know no such thing and by comparing the boldnesse of their pretensions to such Traditions with the weaknesse of their proofes and evidences we plainly discerne they can make out no such thing But if Tradition be taken for the conveyance or delivery it selfe or for the Testimony of the Church successively given to the Truths and Books of the Scripture we confesse it is of great use and in some sort necessary to bring the rule to us yet as I say it is no part of the rule As that bread which nourisheth me it is necessary that it be brought to me in some Basket or other Vehiculum yet it is the Bread alone not the Basket which nourisheth me The VVater of such a remote but excellent Spring which quencheth my thirst could not come to me if there were not a channel to convey it yet it is the VVater alone which refresheth me not the channel The decrees or Acts of King and Parliament are the onely rule by which our forreigne plantations are governed and to which such as are judges there are tyed yea so farre tyed that if those Judges should impose contrary commands as for example If they should command the people to rebell against the King they are bound not onely to examine their commands but to disobey them But it is altogether necessary that there should be a ship wherein such Acts or decrees should be conveyed to them yet it were a very absurd thing to say the Ship is a part of the rule though the Papists whilest from the necessity of Tradition they infer that it is a part of the rule do apparently runne into the same solecisme In a word Tradition was not
the quality of the Hebrew and Greek Tongues He computes how many erroâ—s probably might be in the Copies of the Bible we may well allow saith he 336 errors in one Copy which admitted you will find the number of errors in all the Copies made since the Apostles time fifteen or sixteen times as many as there are words in the Bible and so by this account it would be 15 or 16 to one of any particular place that it were not the true Text These are his words Dialog 2. Sect. 5. VVhen I read these and other things of the same tendency I began to reason with my selfe Are these the Discourses of William Rushworth a Romish Priest Are these the Arguments which must make men Christians or which in their sence is all one Roman Catholicks Is this the man that affected the rigour of Mathematicall discourse even in his Controversies as we may perceive by this worke for so M r White is pleased to tell us Is this the Book that so learned so ingenious a man as M r White must commend to the VVorld as that which was very satisfactory to diverse judicious persons Surely it is a mistake these are not Rushworths but Vaninus his Dialogues or it is a newfound remnant of Iulian the Apostate which some unlucky Heretick hath set out under the name of a Romish Priest May I be so bold as to aske our Holy Mother the Church of Rome Num haec est tunica filii Is this thy sonnes voice No sure It is some Priest of Apollo bidding defiance to the Christian cause and striving to render the Holy Scriptures contemptible and ridiculous But you see what desperate men will do in a desperate cause rather then not maintaine the Papall Authority they will subvert the very foundations of Christianity The Jesuites tell us that in order to the comming of Antichrist Rome shall turne Pagan I am perfectly of their mind and I think the turne is halfe wrought allready Ecce signum for none short of a Pagan could talke at this rate The insolency of the Discourse and confidence of the Disputer and the applauss of his party makes it necessary that I should say something farther by way of Answer The first Answer which alone may silence this impudent Objection is this Either this Argument proves nothing against us or it proves more then the Papists at best such of them as are not quite out of their wits and consciences too would have it let us reflect a little upon the premises and then forecast the Conclusion Take all his discourse for granted that by reason of the many mistakes corruptions doubts difficulties there is nothing but incertitude that it is fifteen to one of any particular place that it is not the true Text that it is as ridiculâ—â—s to seek the decision of Controversies out of the Bible as to â—ut with a Beetle or to knâ—ck with a straw These are the Authors words Dialog 2. Sect. 2. Go say these are faint-hearted fellowes if you can Give me those honest soules that tell us plainly what they think of the Scriptures and how little they value them It were an hard case if all the the Churches Adversariâ—s were crafty companions Now say I if these things be true then certainly it was not without cause that the Papist forementioned said that without the Churches Authority the Scriptures were of no more value then AEsops Fables Their Father Costerus had good reason to say it was a Sheath that would admit any Sword and Pamelius did rightly call it a Nose of Wax If this were true we might throw all our Bibles into the Fire for Controversies cannot be decided thence nor errors detected nor truth evinced there 's nothing there but uncertainty and darknesse and consequently our sins cannot be reproved nor duties pressed from the Scripture for the same reason unlesse these men will say who we see will not stick at small matters that the Copists or Translators errors did happily hit onely upon such places as concercerned Controversies that the Church alone might rule there not at all on such as concerne duties and sinnes But if this be true whence come those high Characters and ample Testimonies which the most learned Papists and their Councels have given to the Scripture that they acknowledge the Scriptures or Bible and they spake of that which we have to be the word of God as much to be reverenced as Tradition it selfe How came Bellarmine to say of those Books of the Prophets and Apostles which we have Nibil notius nihil certius c. i. e. nothing is more evident nothing more certain then that they are the Word of God and none but a fool can denie them credit de verbo Dei lib. 1. c. 2. Whence is it that the Papists accuse the Protestants of slander for saying they exauctorate the Scripture How is it that they all pretend the Church may not contradict those very Scriptures which we have In my opinion the Church of Rome was wofully overseen in disputing with the Protestants out of the Scripture or troubling themselves to answer the Scriptures which Protestants brought for Mr Rushworth hath furnished them with one Answer which will serve for an universall Plaister therefore I would advise them thus to Answer once for all when a Protestant argues against merit from that Text When you have done all that you can say you are unprofitable servants Luk. 17.10 Let them say it was the error of the Copist should have been profitable servants So when it is made a Character of the Apostacy of the latter times forbidding to marry 1 Tim. 4.3 It is but saying it was an error of the Copist that put forbidding instead of commanding a familiar mistake at Rome and then I think the Hereticks are paid home And so when Christ bids the people Search the Scriptures say the Copist left out the word not it should have been Search not for so Tradition assures us And so in a thousand other cases I need no more then give the hint A word is enough to the wise as doubtlesse they at Rome are in their generation In short what do these men and such Arguments tend to but debauch the consciences of men and depreciate the Scriptures that if men have not so much grace as to abhorre such heathenish discourses it is enough to make the Scripture as insignificant a VVriting as the most contemptible Pamphlet that ever the VVorld was pester'd with I easily apprehend there is one subterfuge that the Adversaries of the Holy Scriptures will think to make an escape at They will say all this is true there neither is nor would be any thing at all certaine or credible or clear in the Scripture and the Sacred VVritings we now have but for the Infallibility of the Church which from Infallible Tradition receives them and delivers them to us But I Answer 1. Woe to us Christians if all the validity of the Scripture depended
upon the Infallibility of the Pope or a Councell Is not this a rare piece of intelligence for Heathens and Atheists and scoffers at the Scripture Are not these men worthy pillars of the Christian cause 2. Tradition is not at all concerned in the present dispute nor Infallibility neither For suppose the utmost of what can be or is said by the Romanists in this matter viz. that by Tradition we are Infallibly assured that the Scriptures are the VVord of God and that the severall Books reputed Canonicall by them are indeed Canonicall suppose I say we should take all this for granted what is this to our businesse Tradition I hope doth not Infallibly assure them that the Copists committed no errors in Transcribing nor the Translators in Translating Tradition did not infallibly assure Sixtus 5th that his Translation was right for it assured his Successor Clement 8 that it was corrupt in above a thousand places And when those Popes put forth their Translations it sufficiently appeares and they confesse it they were not guided by inspiration but proceeded in all things more humano by collation of Copies advice of learned men as I mentioned before out of the Popes own words And consequently if all Copies be so corrupt that we can have no certainty from them no more could the Pope and his consultors have from those Copies they used and therefore are lyable to the same uncertainties 2. However M r Rushworth pleaseth himselfe in this Argument as if it were unanswerable and Protestants were mad that did not yield to it there is one plaine evidence able to assure any rationall man that there is no weight and force in it because although these things have been formerly and frequently objected against the Scripture for M r Rushworth was not the first Antiscripturist yet diverse of the most learned and discreet and resolved Doctors of the Romish Church who doubtlesse were too wise to let slip any reall advantage and knew very well how much their cause needed it do utterly reject and deny it and together with us do assert the uncorruptednesse of the Books of Scripture now extant among us as I before proved out of their own words 3. Here is not any one convincing reason to perswade us of the corruption of the Scripture in substantiall things All that M r Rushworth offers in liew of those solid Arguments to disprove the Authority and purity of our Bible is a collection of probabilities which witty men can easily multiply upon all occasions to shew that errours have been frequently committed in Copies and Translations which no man denies But alas how farre short do they fall in proofe if they come to be scanned by any indifferent person That which seemes to threaten most is the corruption of Hereticks and we are told of the Jewes at Tiberias who pointed the Bible when enemies to Christ and thereby had opportunity to change the whole Text as also of the Greek Hereticks I am very willing the cause should be decided by this one point For as it is well argued by the Assertors of the Integrity of the Hebrew Text to whom I refer the Reader such as Buxtorf and Glassius and many others if those Jewes have corrupted the Hebrew Bible malitiously to weaken the Christian cause certainly they have done it in those places which are of greatest importance to evince Christianity But this it is notoriously known they have not done since most of the convincing proofs of Christs being the true Messiah are taken out of that very Bible which came out of their hands And for the Greek and other Hereticks it is very true that some of them did attempt the corruption of some few Texts of Scripture but the very attempt made such a noise in the Christian World and the whole Church took such an alarme at it that it was presently discover'd and abhorr'd and they severely censured for it and even Papists confesse the Doctours of the Church were so vigilant that there could not be any wilfull and materiall depravation of the Greek Testament and the like may be said for the neglects or oversights of Copists The Christians of former Ages had such an high opinion of the Scriptures necessity and transcendent excellency that they kept it with all possible care such exact acquaintance and familiar knowledge of the Scripture that they could not but discover the least considerable error such conscientious strictnesse that they abhorred the least depravation and such jealousy and watchfulnesse to observe and secure that inestimable treasure that it cannot with any probabiâ—ity be imagined that substantiall corruptions should come into the Texts and much lesse can the contrary position be taken for a demonstration 4. As there is no cogent reason to argue the Bibles corruption so there are sufficient evidences of its incorruption Some I have now mentioned to which may be added the generall inconsiderablenesse of those various lections which Popish Writers triumph so much in the samenesse for substance in all the citations of Scripture in Authors of diverse Ages and distant places and severall languages the acknowledged uncorruptednesse of severall other Authors as to materiall points notwithstanding all the different readings which yet were not read with that diligence and observation nor received with that veneration noâ— kept with that Religion nor watched with that jealousy nor were the corruptours of them terrified with such threatnings nor mens own interests so deeply concerned in the conservation of their purity and consequently were farre more liable to errors or violations then the Scripture To all which may be added that which alone is sufficient even the providence and goodnesse of God which as it mercifully gave these excellent Writings for mans conduct to eternall blisse so it gives us just ground for a comfortable and confident expectation that it would preserve them to our use and not suffer these Holy VVritings to see corruption This is so materiall a consideration even in the judgment of our Adversaries that it is their principall Argument and urged by them with greatest vehemency and pâ—ausibility for the Churches Authority and Infallibility because as they pretend it doth not consist with the providence and goodnesse of God to leave his Church without an Infallible guide so that both Papists and Protestants own the solidity of the principle and differ onely in the application of it whilest they urge it for the Infallibility of the Pope and Councell which as you have seen their own Authors are not satisfied in and we urge it for the infallibility and incorruptibility of the Scriptures which all Protestants and diverse Papists assert Thus I hope I have fully satisfied that first Argument The other Argument which M r Rushworth suggests is taken from the nature of the Books of Scripture If a law were to be given in Writing it must be thus First the common things must be commanded then by degrees they must descend to particulars still observing that
severall matters should be under severall Chapters or divisions and not one piece here another there and things must be plaine and distinct From which it is evident enough that the Scripture was never intended for a Law or Iudge of Controversies because the Book is so large and so many things mingled unappertaining to the substance of our beliefe as Historicall Epistolar Mysticall and so many repetitions and lastly it is left to a meer conjecture what may be the meaning of it Thus Rushworth Dialog 2. Sect. 2. Is this the Mathematicall man Is this the rigour of Mathematicks This is enough to make a man forsweare the study of the Mathematicks if it produce no better demonstrations We poor Protestants may well be content to submit to the Lawes of these men for you see they give Lawes to God himselfe and it is allready enacted in the conclave of Rome that if God do not speak in Mood and Figure he shall not be heard and that if he put forth any Law-book wherein he doth not rigorously observe the orders and methods of a Systeme it shall not be received Believe me it was a good turne that Mr Cowell Writ his Institutiones Iuris Anglicani wherein he reduced the English Lawes to a Method for else woe had been to the poor Statute-Books and all Records of our Lawes for as sure as a club they had been voted to be no Lawes nor Judges of Controversies between men and men for so saith our Theologicall Euclide that scornes to speak under a Demonstration for we know how much more large a book they make then the Bible and how many things are mingled unappertaining to the substance of our estates and lives c. The summe of the Argument is this The Scripture was not intended for the Law because it is so large so miscellaneous so full of repetitions c. Shall I need to say any more for the answer of such an Argument wherein there is nothing evident but the disputers confidence and the Papists credulity and the desperatenesse of their cause Answ. 1. If this Argument hold the Old Testament or the Pentateuch was no Law to the Jewes But this is false and it was a Law to the Jewes Ergo the principle is false from which such a conclusion is deduced The Major I prove from his own words and besides he particularly disputes against the Old Testaments being a Law The Minor I hope I shall easily prove Where to prevent equivocation or mistakes take notice I meddle not with the ambiguous terme of JUDGE wee are now disputing whether it were a Law nor do I meddle with that question whether it be a Law to us But to the Jewes This then I assert that the Old Testament notwithstanding this objection was a Law to the Jewes and a man would think the very mention of the proposition should cut off all necessity of proof It is so absurd and portentous a thing to Christian eares to hear so evident and received an Assertion questioned I prove it onely by this Argument That Book by which both people and Priests and Princes of the Jewes were to be guided and ruled and commanded in their decisions was certainly a Law to them But such was the Old Testament 1. For the people it is plaine They are commanded to observe to do all the Words of this Law that are Written in this Book Deut. 28.58 And Moses makes bold to call it a Law-book notwithstanding all the mixtures repetitions c. and a curse is pronounced to every one that continued not in all things written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3.10 and for the guidance of the people those Books were to be read by or to the people Deut. 31.9 Ios. 8.35 Neh. 8. and diverse other places 2. For the Princes it is no lesse evident that it was a Law and rule to them Ios. 1.8 This Book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth but thou shalt meditate therein day and night that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is Written therein And Deut. 17.18 19. When he sitteth upon the Throne he shall Write him a Copy of this Law in a Book out of that which is before the Priests the Levites and he shall read therein all the dayes of his life that he may learn to fear the Lord to keep all the words of this law and these statutes to do them Thus it is undeniable it was a Law both to Prince and People and that is sufficient to overthrow the whole argument But I adde 3. It was a law to the Priests too I do not now dispute whether the people were absolutely tyed to follow the Priests decisions I think the contrary hath been sufficiently evidenced but my present assertion is onely this The books of Scripture were a law to the Priests by which they were to be ordered and regulated in their proceedings The sentence which the Priests were to pronounce it must be the sentence of the Law Deut 17.11 and the Priests are oft censured and condemned for neglecting or transgressing the Law which plainly shews it was the law and rule of their proceedings Ans. 2. But what shall we say if the Papists themselves deny their own Conclusion which here they indeavour tanto molimine to prove You will say we have little reason to believe those that do not believe themselves or to assent to that Conclusion which they deny To make good this you must remember the question is not about the Judge properly so called but about the Rule or Law to which we suppose the Judge to be tyed for if the Scriptures had been compiled in the form of a law with the greatest exquisitenesse this would not have satisfied our Masters the Jesuites but there must have been another and that a living Judge of controversies This premised I thus proceed Either they of the Church of Rome have a Law by which they regulate all their Decrees and decisions or they have none if they say they have none then they act lawlessly and arbitrarily and we have found Antichrist by his character 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Lawlesse 2 Thes. 2. but if they say as they all pretend and professe they are guided by a law then I enquire what that law is Here it is true they are divided while some make the judgment of the antient Church and Fathers their law others the Popes Decrees others the Acts of Councels but all of them pretend some law or other and which opinion soever of their Church they take for they have good choice either their argument hath no force against the Scriptures being our Law or it equally militates against their own Laws As for instance if they make the judgment of the Fathers their Law are not they lyable to the same exceptions with the Scripture of largenesse aliene mixtures repetitions c And the like may be said of Popes Decretals and the Acts of Councels which
others have here taken away the Authority of the Fathers And in the next Chapter you shall see they take away the Authority of Councels Ergo There is nothing certaine in the Romish Church Thus I have shewed that the Faith of the Papists hath no sure ground or foundation in the Authority of the Pope Scriptures or Fathers Now I come to the fourth particular the Authority and Infallibility of the Church and Councels which is the sacra anchora the principall refuge of a languishing cause CHAP. 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 A general Councel rightly congregated cannot erre in the faith saith Alphonsus de Castro Councels represent the Catholick Church which cannot erre and therefore they cannot erre saies Eccius and Tapperus The decrees of general Councels have as much weight as the Holy Gospels saith Costerus Councels approved and confirmed by the Pope cannot erre say Canus and Bellar Councels being the highest Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories cannot erre saith â—annerus The decrees of Councels are the Oracles of the Holy Ghost saith Stapleton Surely now I may cry out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 might 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 mistakes 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 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 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 doneâ—among the Bishops at that time committed to writing nor do we know all things that were committed to Writing 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