Page images

crees tue and consonant to the Scripture:otherwise how licile they valued che decrees of Councels, when they apprehended them repugnant to the holy Scripture may be fufficiently understood by their contempt of the Arrian Councels.

3. There is in this argument the same oma ut or error which runs through most of the arguments and testimonies of the Fathers pretended in this cause, viz, they ar. gue 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, buc noc Infallibilicy. If all chat 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 Judicacories of che Church, from which was no appeal, and in which all men were obliged peaceably to acquiefce; 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 Gud; from whence follows, that they were not subject to error(a). And this he confirmes by the testimony of Conftantine (who, now he is Orthodox is grown considerable, though when he was alledged against bim, he was a greater Prince then Doctor, as we heard even' now) Gre. 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 fo 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

(9) Patres docent esse divina do à Spirita fanéte edita decreta geo Heraldun Conciliorum, Ergo; ubi fupra,


conformable to it (fueh, as the Nicene Decrees were (that they are divine Oracles. But then their Divinity, and that, which is the consequent of Divinity, Infallibility ariserb not from the Authority decreciog them, (which being buc bumane, could not make the decrecs divine) but from the matter of the decrees which was taken out of Scripture, (as Bellarmine confeffech(a), and therefore divine. But if Bellar: thinks from this particular cafe to draw a generał conclusion, I must make bold to stop him in hls carcere, 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 Counceis divine and infallible, and consequently the AntiNicene and Arrian Councels. If he can disgest this, I will say he bath a stomach as good as his conscience is bad.

§ 10. I think it is time to take my leave of the Car. dinal, and come to the Fryar S. Clara (who being an ingenuous person, and coming last, hach doubclele selected the best weapons) and his great argument I find to be this: That the Fathers aid generally own the Infallibillty of the Catholick Churcb, and consequently the Infallibility of general Councels vbich 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, leç me premife what I have proved that if this were the opinion of the Fathers, yet seeing thac they confess rhemselves to be men subject to like pasions and mistakes with others according to that of Austin, Neither do you think, that because we are Bihops, we are not liable to irrea gular motions, but ratber let is conceive i hat we live dan

(a) Concilium Nicenum cum definivit Filium Patri elle déstor, conclufionem deduxit ex scripturis, de conciliis libe 2. cap. 12.



gerousy amongst the smarts of temptations, because we are men (a). And seeing the Papists contesse they haveerred in many things, therefore this, if it were true, will af. ford no solid and sufficient foundation for their faith bar I shall forgive them that infirmicy: The argument(how ever he glories much in ic) hath nothing found from head to foot; how can chey exped this argumeni should pre: vaile with us, when it is rejected by themselves, who de by the consequence from the infallibilicy of the Church anto that of Councels, So doth Cameracenfis (as S.Clara nores) in these words : A general Councel may erre in the faich, because if it should erre, yet it would remaine that others without the Councel , did not erre, and by consequence that the fairb of the Church did not faile (6). The like faich Panormitanus: A Councell may erre, as it hath erred; nor dock this binder it, that Christ prayed for his Church that it might not erre, because although a general Councel repr: sent the whole Churcb, yet in truth it is not the whole Churcb : -All the faithful de constitute that Church, while head and husband Christ is, and that is the Church which cannot erre (c): The very same thing, and almost in the same words saich Antonius (d), where he adds an instance, That the saying of Jerome was preferred before the decree of a Councel. Thus, you see the consequence is de.

[ocr errors]

(a) Nec arbitreris ideò nobis non pote Subrepere iniuft im commotionem, quia Epifcopi fumus, sed potiss cogitemus inter laqueos tentationum nos. periculofiffimè vivere, quia bomines fumus, Epiftola 75.

(b) Concilium generale poteft contra fidem errare ,quia ipfo fic errate adhuc staret alizups extra Concilium noz errare, & per confequens fie dem Ecclefsè non deficere. art 3 in quæstione vesperiaruni, alfere. 8.

C). Concilium non poteft errare, quia Christus oravit pro Ecclefia fua mt non deficeret; Quia dico, quòd licèt Concilium gencrale representet totam Ecclesiam universalem, non tamen eft illa Ecclesia cujus caput me Sporasus eft ipfe Christus, difta eft illa Ecclefia que errare non poteft, Super part, 1. Decret. fol. 142. (d) In summa part. 3. tit.22. C.2. de Conciliis gencralibus. S. 6.

nied by three famous Authors of their own: Nay, whac say you, if S. Clara himself deny the Consequence: I am gre a tly mistaken,if ic doch nofollow from hence, that he makes Councels infallible no further then they are afterwards received and owned by the Church, and allowes chem to be fallible where that reception doch not tollow, as we shall see hereafter ; and cherefore the Infallibilicy is fixed in the Catholick Church, not in the Councel, and consequently the Church may be infallibte, and yer the Councel remain fallible: as those Papifts that affert Councels to have their Infallibility from the Pope, (which Bellarmine and the Jesuites generally do ) contess Councels without the Popes confirmacion, and in themselves to be bac fallible: for what the Pope's confirmation is in Belarmine's opinion, that the Churches reception is in the judgment of S. Clara, and all the Auchors be cites to that purpose. What say you further, it S. Clara confess the falsehood of his own Conclusion ? let the intelligent Reader judg. His Conclusion is, Theres fore Councels are infallibie in the judgment of the Fathers; and of all the Fathers he tels us S. Austin is the greatest Asserror of the Infallibility of Counce's: now 1 afsume, S. Austin in the judgment of S.Clara held, thac Counsels are fallible. This I prove from his own words:In this serse Occham rightly delivers the mind of Anftin: whes ther they be Popes or others, whether they wrot any thing in Councel, or out of Councel, the fame judgment is to be palled spon them, that ihings are not therefore to be reputed infallibly true to certain because they wrot so,but onely because they could prove it by Scripture, or realom,or miracles, or the

ap probation of the universal Church. Thus far Occham. Now followes S. Clara's éminelos: Which doétrine of his I judg most safe, and that it is owned by almost all Catholicks: (a)

.(a) Denique in hac Senju bene dicit Oichamps de menie Angullini,


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 S. Auftin never dream'd of) and he is reduced to such Atraits, that he hath no other way to evade, but in ftead of an Answer to oppose one argument against anocher ; viz: that it is sufficient for him, chat the Fathers call those Herecicks chaç do not adbere to the definitions of Councels, Ergo they thought chem Infallible a: It is Bellarmint's argument, and I have already answer'd it. And so this block being removed; the Conclusion remains firme, That S. Austin chought, nor Councels infallible, For fartber confirmation whereof, I fhall from hence cole Jed two Arguments , plainly proving, that S. Austin was not of the judgment of the Romanists in chis point of che Infallibilicy of Councels.

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

quam ibi refért. 3. Dialog.tract. t.lib.3.C.24. Sive fuerint fummi Pontifiles, five alii, five scripserint aliquid in Concilio generali , sive extra", confimile de iis judicium eft habendum, ut in bis quæ scientia vel juris funi, non ideo aliquid putetur certitudinaliter modo prædi&to (scil.infallibili) efle verum, quia ipfi ita fcripferunt,nifi id vel per Scripturam dia zinam, vel ratiores irrefragabiles, aut operationem miraculorum, aut per approbationem universalis Ecelefie perfuadere coluerint: Sic Occham: Quam ejus fententiam tutifimam estimo; & ab omnibus ferè Catholicis ampkxam. Syfem. fidei 442 6. Num. 2.2


2 Because

« PreviousContinue »