crees true and confonant to the Scripture:otherwife how little they valued the 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 fame opus or error which runs through molt of the arguments and teftimo nies of the Fathers pretended in this caufe, viz. they ar gue from the authority of Councels to their infallibility, and how invalid the confequence is appears from this undeniable argument. Mafters, Magistrates, Parents, Bifhops, and Provincial Councels have Authority, but not Infallibility. If all that the Fathers fay to that purpose were put upon the rack,it would prove nothing but this, that they thought (what the Proteftants grant) that general Councels were the fupreme Judicatories of the 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 Fa thers teach,that the Decrees of general Councels are Divine, and from the Spirit of God; from whence follows, that they were not fubject to error (a). And this he confirmes by the teftimony of Conftantine (who, now he is Orthodox is grown confiderable, though when he was alledged against him, 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 fay they were ordered by the Spirit of God; and fo fay 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

(a) Patres docent effe divina & à Spirita fanito edita decreta generalium Conciliorum, Ergo; ubi fuprà,

con

conformable to it (fueh, as the Nicene Decrees were (that they are divine Oracles. But then their Divinity, and that, which is the confequent of Divinity, Infallibility arifeth not from the Authority decreeing them, (which being but bumane, could not make the decrees divine) but from the matter of the decrees which was taken out of Scripture, (as Bellarmine confeffeth (a), and therefore divine. But if Bellar: thinks from this particular cafe 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 folid. The Fathers held the decrees of the Councel of Nice to be divine, and (fay it were) infallibly true: Therefore they thought the decrees of all Councels divine and infallible, and confequently the AntiNicene and Arrian Councels. If he can difgeft this, I will fay he hath a ftomach as good as his confcience 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 perfon, and coming last, hath doubtleffe felected 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 confequently the Infallibility of general Councels which are the fame with the Church, and their definitions are the determinations of the Church: this he largely profecutes cap. 20, 21, 22. For Answer, let me premife what I have proved, that if this were the opinion of the Fathers, yet feeing that they confess rhemfelves to be men fubject to like paffions 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 dan

(a) Concilium Nicenum cum definivit Filium Patri effe opstov, conclufionem deduxit ex Scripturis, de conciliis lib. 2. cap. 12.

gerously

gerously amongst the Snares of temptations, because we are men (4). And feeing the Papifts confeffe they have erred in many things, therefore this, if it were true, will af ford no fold and fufficient foundation for their faith,bur I fhall forgive them that infirmity: The argument(how ever he glories much in it) hath nothing found from head to foot, how can they expect this argument should prevaile with us, when it is rejected by themfelves, who deny the consequence from the infallibility of the Church unto that of Councels, So doth Cameracenfis (as S.Clara notes) in these words: A general Councel may erre in the faith, becaule if it should erre, yet it would remaine that others without the Councel, did not erre, and by confequence that the faith of the Church did not faile (b). The like faith Panormitanus: A Councell may erre, as it hath erred, nor doth this binder it,that Christ prayed for his Church that it might not erre, because,although a general Councel reprefent the whole Church, yet in truth it is not the whole Church : -All the faithful do conftitute that Church, whofe head and husband Chrift is, and that is the Church which cannot . erre (c): The very fame thing, and almost in the fame words faith Antonius (d), where he adds an inftance, That the faying of Jerome was preferred before the decree of a Councel. Thus you fee the confequence is de

(a) Nec arbitreris ideò nobis non poffe fubrepere iniuftum commotionem, quia Epifcopi fumus, fed potiùs cogitemus inter laqueos tentationum nos. periculo ffimè vivere, quia bomines fumus, Epiftola 75.

(b) Concilium generale voteft contra fidem errare,quia ipfo fic errante adhuc ftaret aliqups extra Concilium non errare, & per confequens fidem Ecclefie non deficere. art 3 in quæftione vefperiarum, affert 8.

(c) Concilium non poteft errare,quia Chriftus oravit pro Ecclefia fua ut non deficeret; Quia dico, quòd licèt Concilium gencrale reprefentet totam Ecclefiam univerfalem, non tamen eft illa Ecclefia cujus caput & fponfus eft ipfe Christus,& ifta eft illa Ecclefia que errare non potest. Super part, 1. Decret. fol. 142.

(d) In fumma part. 3. tit.2 2. c.2. de Conciliis generalibus. §. 6.

nied by three famous Authors of their own: Nay, what fay you, if S. Clara himself deny the Confequence: I am greatly mistaken,if it doth nofollow from hence, that he makes Councels 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 fee hereafter; and therefore the Infallibility is fixed in the Catholick Church, not in the Councel, and confequently the Church may be infallible, and yet the Councel remain fallible: as thofe Papifts that affert Councels to have their Infallibility from the Pope, (which Bellarmine and the Jefuites generally do) contefs 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 fay you further, it S. Clara confefs the falsehood of his own Conclufion? let the intelligent Reader judg. His Conclufion is, There fore Councels are infallible in the judgment of the Fathers; and of all the Fathers he tels us S. Auftin is the greatest Affertor of the Infallibility of Counce's: now I affume, S. Austin in the judgment of S.Clara held, that Counfels are fallible. This I prove from his own words: In this fenfe Occham rightly delivers the mind of Austin: when ther they be Popes or others, whether they wrot any thing in Councel, or out of Councel, the fame judgment is to be paffed upon them,that things are not therefore to be reputed infalli bly true & certain because they wrot fo,but onely because they could prove it by Scripture, or reafon, or miracles, or the approbation of the univerfal Church. Thus far Occham.Now followes S. Clara's m'ues: Which doctrine of his I judg moft fafe, and that it is owned by almost all Catholicks: (a)

חד

(a) Denique in hoc fenfu bene dicit Orchamus de mente Augustini,

The

The evidence of this place forced S. Clara to make this acknowledgment, that it feems to favour the opinion of those who afferted the Fallibility of Councels in leffer things, (though indeed this is but a figment of his own brain, and a diftinction foifted into the text, which S. Auftin never dream'd of) and he is reduced to fuch ftraits, that he hath no other way to evade, but in stead of an Answer to oppose one argument against another, viz. that it is fufficient for him,that the Fathers call those Hereticks that do not adhere to the definitions of Coun cels, Ergo they thought them Infallible a: It is Bellar mine's argument, and I have already anfwer'd it. And fo this block being removed, the Conclufion remains firme, That S. Auftin thought not Councels infallible, For farther confirmation whereof, I fhall from hence col lect two Arguments, plainly proving, that S. Austin was not of the judgment of the Romanifts in this point of the Infallibility of Councels.

4

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

quam ibi refert. 3. Dialog.tract..lib.3.c.24. Sive fuerint Jummi Pontifices, five alii, five fcripferint aliquid in Concilio generali, five extra confimile de is judicium eft habendum, ut in bis quæ fcientiæ vel juris funt, non ideo aliquid putetur certitudinaliter modo prædico (scil.infallibili) effe verum, quia ipfi ita fcripferunt,nifi id vel per Scripturam dia zinam, vel rationes irrefragabiles, aut operationem miraculorum, aut per approbationem univerfalis Ecclefiæ perfuadere volueriat: Sic Occham: Quam ejus fententiam tutiffimam estimo; & ab omnibus ferè Catholicis amplexam. Syftem. fidei c425. num.2.

Because