And if this was confiderable in Auftins dayes, who lived within two hundred years of thofe times, how much more weighty muft it be to us that come twelve hundred years after him? Now then to put a cafe (because this confideration fhakes the very pillars of Popery, and overthrows almost all their pretenfions from Tradition and the Authority of the Fathers) Suppofe the Major part of the Antient Fathers had faid in terminis, that the Bishop of Rome was fupreme head and infallible governour of the Church (though nothing was further from their thoughts) and fuppofe a leffe 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 fuppreffed by the major part (as hath been the lot of most Ages) or by the injury of time are loft (which the Papists cannot fay was impoffible for the Writings of the Fathers, feeing they tell us that de facto fome of the Books of Holy Scripture are loft:) The next age comes and underftands the truth of what i have now fuppofed: The queftion is, Whether the Authority of the Major part of the Fathers of the former age be a fufficient foundation for their Faith in the Popes Supremacy and Infa.libility? Melchior Canus faith No: Now then th next age or ages having happily forgotten fuch contradictions(which. the Age immediately next remembred.) The question is whether that foundation which was infufficient to the precedent Age is now through their ignorance of fuch contradiction become fufficient to the following Age? if they affirme it, it would become the Jefuites in point of gratitude to Write a Panegyrick in praise of Ignorance which is, it seems, not onely the Mother of Devotion, but of affurance and certainty of knowledge; if they deny it, they confeffe the weakneffe of their affertion: In short, he that will lay the foundation of his

Faith upon fuch a quickfand, muft either prove the negative that there was no fuch contradiction as wee have fuppofed (which is impoffible) or confeffe his Faith'relies upon the Sand (which is dreadfull,) And againe admit they had the confent of Fathers in this Tradition. I have given feverall inftances, wherein they acknow ledge they have departed from the confent of Fathers and that there were feverall Doctrines which (if we be lieve the Papifts when they tell us the Fathers owned no Doctrine- but what they had by Tradition) the Fathers recieved by Tradition, wherein they were de facto miftag ken, and why might they not be mistaken in this? We all know how generall the Millenary opinion was among the Fathers of the fecond and third Centuries, though it be faid all came from the miftake of Papias, an honest, but credulous Doctor. And dare these men venture their Souls upon it, that Papias was the only credulous Author? and that this was the only mistaken Tradition? or that it was impoffible for those Fathers who were fo many of them impofed upon by one credulous perfon in one point to be impofed upon by another in other points? All these and many other uncertainties must not only be allowed but are laid in the very foundation of Infallibility.

§. 6. 6. The lecond particular is this: That if the Ancients did believe the Infallibility of Councels, yet it doth not follow they believed it upon the account of fuch a Tradition, for they might believe it upon other grounds. It is evident they believed many (nay, to fpeak the truth all) Doctrines because they apprehended them to be contained in the Scriptures, and why might it not be fo with this? Why might not the Fathers believe this (if they did believe it) upon the fame mifappre henfions and mistakes (which the Papift, at this day run into) concerning the fence of thofe Scriptures which are alledged for the Infallibility of Councels ? And confequently

fequently the Fathers opinion of the Infallibility of Councels doth not argue that they received fuch a Tradition from the Apostles, but onely that this was their opinion,wherein, no leffe then in other points, they were fubject to errors, as I have proved.

$ 7. The third Propofition is this: It doth not appeare, that the antient Fathers did believe the Infallibility of Councels For triall hereof 1 fhall refer my felf to thofe Arguments and Authorities which are alledged for the proof of the contrary pofitio: Bel:brings three arguments to fhew that the antient Fathers held that general Councels could not erre,& not one of them fpeak to the point,

His firft Argument is this: They affirme that the fentence of a general Councel in the cause of Faith is the laft judgment of the Church, from which there lies no appeale, and which cannot be made void or retracted: Hence it evidently follemes that fuch Councels cannot erre, because elfe it were a very unjust thing to compell Chriftians that they should not appeale from that judgment which may be erroneous (a). Janfwer, 1. St Austin did hold that the fentence of a general Councel might be retracted, though not by private Chriftians, yet by a following general Councel, former general Councels (faith he) are corrected by the latter, of which more by and by,and that is enough to fhew he did not believe it infallible. 2. The Confequence is weak and denied by the Proteftants, and therefore might be denied by the Fathers: If the coufequence be infirme now, it could not be ftrong then, and for this we have the Teftimony of a Papift, S. Clara, who tels us that Calvin, and Robertus Baronius, and all the Prot ftants, and fome others, who deny the Infallibility ef a general Councel,do neverthelesse acknowledge it to be the

a Affirmant primum Concilii generalis fententiam effe in caufa fidei u'timum Ecclefia judicium, à quo appellari non poffit, quodque nullo modo irritari vel retractari queat. Hinc autem apertiffimè conftat ejus• mali Concilianon ervare etc. lib. 2.de Concil.auctor.c.3.

-Ju

Supreme Fudge of Controversies upon Earth, and that fuch a Councel bath a determining and decifive power, which all are externally bound bound to obey to prevent Schifme (a). Nor is it un juft, but neceffary for the preservation of order and prevention of worfe mifchiefes, that there should be a Supreme though fallible Authority, beyond which there might be no appeale: And as it is no injuftice that there lies no appeale beyond the Supreme Magiftrate in civil affaires, though he be confelfed to be fallible; fo neither can it be any injustice that there is no appeale beyond the Supreme Ecclefiaftical Judicatory in Church matters though it be fallible. provided it be granted (which the Proteftants with the Fathers do affert and have proved) that fuch Judicatories do not bind the confcience but onely regulate the outward Acts, and prevent vifible confufions.

§. 8. And the fame anfwer will ferve for Bellarmine's fecond Argument, which is this: The Fathers and Councels teach,that they which do not acquiefce in the fentence of general Councels are hereticks,& deferve excommunication, and therefore they thought fuch Councels could not erre. (b)

Anfwer, 1. I deny the Confequence againe for the now mentioned reafon The civil cutting of fuch as refilt the fentence of the Magiftrate doth as fully prove the Magiftrates Infallibility, as the Ecclefiaftical cutting of fuch as do not reft in the fentence of a Councel 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 fuch (for then they

a Fatetur Baronius Concilium generale effe fupremum in terris Controverfiarum Judicem determinativam & decifivam poteftatem agnofcunt Adverfarii, cui omnes exterius obtemperare tenentur, ne fobifma fiat. S.Clara in fyftem.fidei cap. 20.num. 14.0 15.

b

Docent Patres & Concilia effe hæreticos & excommunicandos omnes qui non acquiefcunt Conciliis plenariis. Ex que manifeftè fequitur eos putaffe Concilia non errare. Bellar, ubi fuprà.

should

fhould have been Hereticks for rejecting the Arrian Councels) but because the Doctrine which they oppofed, and the Councels afferted was true; and fo it was the verity of the Doctrine, not the Conciliarity (if you will pardon the word) of the fentence by which they judged of Hereticks. That cannot be an Argument that the Fathers believed the Infallibility of Councels, which is common to thofe that deny their Infallibility; but the calling of thofe Hereticks who do not acquiefce in the fentence of Councels is common to those that deny the Infallibility of Councels, for the Proteftants themfelves have branded and cenfured and fometimes put to death as Hereticks fuch men as in fundamentall points of Religion have receded from their publick Confeffions 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 cafe the Fathers had faid that men were bound to believe all the affertions of their general Councel, yet this doth not evince that they thought them Infallible; I prove it plainly thus. The Papifts maintaine that people are bound to believe their Paftours, and to receive all their Doctrines without examination or hæfitation (according to that which Stapleton fo largely and frequently defends; That Paftours are fimply to be heard in all things) and yet they do not hold thefe Paftours to be Infallible: So they tell us by vertue of that Text, Matth. 23.2, The Jewes were bound to believe all the Doctrines publikely taught by the Scribes and Pharifees, and yet they do not hold that the particular Scribes and Pharifees (of whom that Text fpeaks) were infallible; And the Fathers might juftly fay all men were bound to believe all the decrees of their Councels which then were paft, not that they thought Counfels were Infallible, but because they judged all their de

crees